We're finally devolving into the joy that was 2004.

[Renew Deal]

Look around today.

Fact Check: Obama's scummy campaign tactics
Edwards the caped phony performs hero imitation
John Edwards makes me feel yet again that he is for one thing and one thing only

And this is just subject titles. Some of the posts are even more vile. We are finally devolving into the joy that was 2004. We've got sniping threads popping up all over. One big difference is that the mods didn't allow over the top attacks against Democratic candidates back then. The people that are posting this stuff know who they are, and should be ashamed of themselves. They do share 1 outstanding characteristic. Most support one specific candidate.

[incapsulated]

1. Good Times...

Except without personal involvement, it doesn't give me heart palpitations. :D

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

2. I wanted to ask...in 2004, after Kerry became the candidate, did the worst of them leave?

I joined DU in June '04, so only saw remnants of the primary battle.

There are several posters here who are rabid supporters (paid operatives?) of one or the other of the Dem candidates and they attack, attack, attack those whom see as their candidates' adversaries relentlessly.

However, can we expect they'll just stay on here if their candidate is not nominated and continue the tirades or will they calm down the negative rhetoric and put their energies behind the nominee?

How did that shake out in 2004?

MKJ

[Renew Deal]

4. Some did, some didn't

I wasn't innocent in 2004. The one positive is that almost everyone came together by the summer before the election. These fissures only pop up with a few issues (primaries, Israel, abortion, and sometimes guns).

[incapsulated]

5. It wasn't really allowed

To attack the nominee like that. People could criticize but nothing like before the nomination. The mods will be a lot less patient with that kind of crap after the voting is over.

[mmonk]

3. Yep.

Getting closer.

[Warpy]

6. No candidate is above criticism

and we Democrats do not march in lockstep.

My advice is to avoid these threads if they pain you so much.

The rest of us have a sense of proportion. Criticizing a candidate's verbal misstep, bad hair day, or any other surface problem is one thing. Criticizing a candidates stand on a particular issue is another. There's a big difference there, and that guides most of us on this board.

Face it, some people have settled on a particular candidate they want to be the superhero to swoop down and save us all. They are the most likely to nitpick all the other candidates. Recognize this stuff by the thread title and ignore it.

It's not going to stop. However, you are in control of how you react to it.

[CyberPieHole]

7. Relying on RW sources to back up attacks is inexcusable in my opinion.

Doesn't bode well for the one who resorts to it.

[William769]

8. And I bet you don't see the hypocrisy in your post do you?

[incapsulated]

9. I'm not going to throw any stones

I do plenty of flaming myself. I rarely start it though. And I pretty much save it for one candidate.

I was actually a lot more disciplined when I felt I had to "represent" my candidate, I tried not to get too bad, lest it reflect badly on him. My aggressiveness was mostly defensive.

Gloves are off this time. I don't make a hobby of bashing someone I don't like or even do it most of the time. But if I feel like it, I will.

:P

[William769]

10. In the beginning, I only posted positive threads about Hillary.

But if someone wants to throw down with me, I'm ready to rumble.

[Renew Deal]

11. And I bet you don't see the hypocrisy in your post do you?

But if someone wants to throw down with me, I'm ready to rumble.