When did the hate start?

[Hugabear]

I've seen several Hillary supporters claiming that it was Obama and his supporters who created this atmosphere of hate that exists now.

Funny, that's not quite exactly how I remember it. I seem to remember Obama's campaign being primarily about vision, hope, change, and YES WE CAN. Obama was focusing on bringing change to the White House. Hillary and her supporters began attacking him for not having specific plans - which was a false claim anyways, if anybody had even bothered checking out his website.

Then you had several Hillary supporters here on DU saying that not supporting Hillary was sexist. They then started labeling Obama supporters as a cult, calling them Obamites etc.

But IMHO, the straw that broke the camel's back was when Hillary began openly MOCKING Obama for giving lofty speeches, and then saying that even McCain was better qualified to be president.

You push, push, and push hard enough, and you don't expect people to fight back?

[leftofcool]

1. Why are you worried about it?

Your candidate is going to win the nomination. Florida and Michigan will not count. Hillary supporters, who you really need to win the GE have been alienated from many forums. You should be happy. I suggest you start worrying about how you are going to win the GE.

[Ken Burch]

2. You're basically saying we HAVE to let HRC steal the nomination to avoid alienating her supporters.

Obama's campaign was solely positive until HRC's campaign got ugly. There was no excuse for her to question Obama's qualifications when she KNEW there was a good chance he'd be the nominee. At that point, she should only have been attacking McCain.

Your conservative candidate scorched the earth.

And the DLC encouraged it, because they hate Obama's candidacy for reintroducing actual enthusiasm and passion into the contest.

[leftofcool]

3. You won, get over it!

Now start supporting your candidate for the GE.

[rucky]

5. Why's Obama still fighting on two fronts?

yeah, we're obnoxious, but can we all move on without trying to strike a death blow?

[leftofcool]

10. ask the people who got threatening email from Obama supporters

[Ken Burch]

11. You're assuming those emails were sent from ACTUAL Obama supporters.

Remember, Rove is still out there.

[leftofcool]

12. Well, 178,000 people can't be all wrong

[TahitiNut]

41. Why not? 52 MILLION people were wrong in 2004!

:shrug:

[Ken Burch]

70. You can be wrong about who sent those emails.

There's no way Obama or Obama supporters would be THAT stupid or reckless.

It's obviously a GOP trick, and I'm astonished that you can't see it.

[Window]

32. I don't believe they were from Obama's camp. If they were, Hillary certainly would have called him

on it.

[Window]

30. Exactly.

[dchill]

55. You are right on the money.

On all counts. I do not understand Democrats who can't see this. It's mind-boggling how they don't even seem to care that ALL their talking points come straight out of FreeRepublic.

[Life Long Dem]

58. It's a game for Hillary sore losers

Saying go fight your win in the GE while they cry like babies! You Gotta Luv It!! Woo hoo!
:rofl:

[daa]

14. Agree, and also figure out how to get back

all the white voters he is hemorrhaging (see the other post)(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5206489).

[leftofcool]

16. He won't get back the Hillary supporters

Women are the largest voting block in the country. And he damn sure won't ever get back the thousands and thousands who have received threatening emails from his supporters.

[texastoast]

18. If a voter wants more Bush

then by all means, don't vote for the Democratic candidate. That'll show 'em.

:eyes:

[leftofcool]

20. remains to be seen doesn't it?

[Two Americas]

39. I hate this

This is abominable - the taunting about how a person is going to vote in November.

No good can ever come from that. The end does not justify the means - loyalty tests, taunts and ridicule, fear tactics - those means are contradictory to and destructive of the supposed end we are seeking together.

When all avenues of dissent are blocked EXCEPT threatening to not vote in the general, then OF COURSE people are driven in desperation to threaten doing that in order to have their ideas heard.

Almost everyone here will come around and vote for the party nominee come November, and that is a lot more likely to happen of we sue persuasion rather than bullying and abuse. Even if the two approaches were equally effective, why sour and discourage everyone with mean-spirited taunting?

Gung ho true-believer loyalty to a candidate or to the party does not necessarily help a candidate or the party. Considered and thoughtful criticism of a candidate or the party does not necessarily harm the candidate or the party. The opposite may very well be true, and we can discuss that and I have some real world examples I have seen.

Again and again Democrats trade away effective successful political action to indulge in their feelings - self-righteous feelings of "being right" and the pathetic pleasure of beating on and humiliating people and the hell with being effective or succeeding. What "works" here against fellow Democrats - such as that is - is pure poison and will destroy us all in the general.

These loyalty tests have absolutely nothing to do with how people are going to vote in November. They are a covert attempt to silence or intimidate people and an opportunity to engage in bashing and smearing of fellow Democrats.

[texastoast]

71. I don't recall asking ANYBODY to take a loyalty test

But bloody, that was a pretty good rant you have going there. I hope you are feeling better.

My posts will show it has little to do with me or fellow yellow-dog Dems whose first choices are no longer viable candidates. I'm just so sick of the whining and of the people who say they won't vote for the Democratic candidate unless it is THEIR candidate. It's very nonproductive and I would venture childish (personally, I would find it laughable were the stakes not so high).

Perhaps we all might consider using all that energy to fight against, hmm, Republican efforts to undermine OUR candidates.

[dchill]

57. "Women are the largest voting block in the country."

Yeah, but they're not all Hillary supporters. You have no point, here.

[Enrique]

4. I don't know

all I know is whenever it started, it's Obama's fault. :sarcasm:

[Mezzo]

6. That'd be wrong (again)

It started with this "innocent" little meme: I know LOTS of Republicans who would vote for Barack Obama, but none of them will vote for Hillary". Then the Nevada, "become a democrat for a day to stop Hillary", along with "senator from Punjab".

Then came, "we don't want to act like Democrats from the 1990's" and then the camp turned around, sending out Harry & Louise fliers in Ohio (went well for ya, didn't it) clearly showing that they act like REPUBLICANS from the 1990's. I could go on and on, but this shows enough.

I was originally an Edwards supporter, but after seeing people here and other places treat her the way they did, all under the guise of unity, is straight up bullshit.

Campaigns can get ugly. Now it's gonna get ugly for him. If he can't take it in the primary, there's no way he can take it in the general.

[Melinda]

48. Umm, you've been posting here all of 6 weeks and you know this how?

Sorry, but new posters in this season just make me suspicious. :shrug:

Oh, and not questioning your reading abilities, just your lack of history.

[LakeSamish706]

7. One thing that needs to be said here, this is no longer a Hillary vs Obama fight (and probably never

should have been) it should be about taking back our country. I seriously hope that this party can unite and put 100 % effort into taking back the WH, increasing our numbers in both the Senate and House and restoring this country to what it was prior to the Bush screw ups. We are going to need all energy we have to restore this nation.

[ClericJohnPreston]

8. Its called cult behavior

that thing you now like to parlay into a joke, but is as REAL as can be.

Part of cult behavior is isolating "THE MESSAGE" and the members. That is why the "ignore" function is on Obama overload and why your peers compel you to STAY THE COURSE.

Need proof?

Please read the following on cults, and then read reply #3 of this thread.

5 traits of a cult:

1.People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;
2.Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;
3.They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from the leader;
4.They get a new identity based on the group;
5.They are subject to entrapment and their access to information is severely controlled.

A "cult" is a group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members.

Response #3 to this thread:

" You won, get over it!
Now start supporting your candidate for the GE."

You got your marching orders from GROUPTHINK CENTRAL, Paintitblack. Now, are you going to conform to the group, or be a rational adult with a critical mind that QUESTIONS, as you have begun to do? Hmmmm?

[Hugabear]

13. None of our candidates is perfect

But I prefer to go with a candidate that I think can inspire hope and enthusiasm in our country. Sorry if you think that's an outdated concept that went out with the likes of Martin Luther King Jr and JFK.

Fellow Obama supporters, help me out here. I seem to have missed my last email from GROUPTHINK CENTRAL, maybe one of you can forward it on to me?

[ClericJohnPreston]

24. Hope and enthusiasm

can be real, or manufactured. Obama's Hope carries all the tinge of hate you started this thread about. That kind of "hope", is with a small "h", and is just a word, while with JFK or MLK, it was Real. There is nothing remotely JFK or MLK about Obama. I'll take the real thing, you can have the "SPLENDA" hope.

[baldguy]

9. When Hillary Rodham Limbaugh started with the Rovian attacks.

[zalinda]

15. When did it start?

As an Edwards supporter, I pretty much stayed out of the fray until Edwards' supporters started getting attacked by, guess who.........Obama supporters. So, I would have to say that for the most part it has been Obama supporters, and a much bigger percentage of them. Even when there was all the candidates in Iowa, Obama supporters were attacking. At that time I remember that Clinton was being called just about everything in the book and so were her supporters. Obama supporters were still Obama supporters until after Iowa, then they too got nicknames. They became very obnoxious to Edwards supporters, while Clinton supporters were civil to us. There is a reason Obama supporters are being called cult members, it's because they act like it. When asked what he stood for, we were given a link to his website, no one could give an elevator speech about him. No one could condense what he was going to do except bring hope and change. If that isn't cultish, I don't know what is.

Neither of these candidates are to my liking. Neither will do anything for the majority of Americans. Both think they are owed this job, he because of his race and her because of her marriage. Neither are doing this because they think they can do the best job of running this country. If this primary had been run on the issues, which left the arena when Edwards did, this would be a different primary season. This is an ego campaign, and THAT'S why there is so much hate.

zalinda

[ClericJohnPreston]

31. Pure perfection Zalinda

Does the OP really want to know the TRUTH? They have to look no further than the company they share. You and I could both name all the names without even trying.

[Two Americas]

35. great post

Great post, zalinda, and I agree with your analysis and opinions on this.

I don't have a preference between the two remaining candidates. Senator Clinton was the last on my list when this thing started, but I have found myself defending Clinton supporters here because of the behavior of many Obama supporters. I don't blame Senator Obama, by the way. A Black candidate always carries a higher burden when seeking any office or position, and I think the man is brilliant and has been masterful at times. But I always judge a candidate - a candidacy - to some extent by what the candidate brings out in his or her supporters.

As an Edwards supporter, and as a person who like you does not have a preference between the two remaining candidates, I agree completely with your perception that there is a dramatic difference between the way Clinton supporters have treated the Edwards people and the Obama supporters have treated the Edwards people. The mean-spirited attacks are running about 10-1 in my view. I don't think I have had a Clinton supporter attack me, but I have never seen people treated in 40 years by any Democrats in any setting the way I have seen some being treated by Obama supporters.

Some regulars and long time posters whom I admire and respect here are on the Clinton side, some on the Obama side. The most visible Clinton supporters are people with whom I disagree on a variety of issues and are probably the people I am most likely to get into heated arguments with about issues and positions. They are not among those I think of as allies or kindred spirits here - just being honest about that. I can't believe that I have gone into the Clinton supporters forum and expressed support for them, because I have so many disagreements with them about politics, but they have been so mistreated that I couldn't stand watching it. I will argue with them again in the future about issues and the future of the party, but for right now I am standing with them as fellow Democrats who are under severe attack.

Those Clinton supporters have not changed by virtue of their support for Clinton. But some of the regulars who support Obama, many of whom I did consider kindred spirits at one time, I believe have changed as a result of their support for Obama. I have tried to understand this - they say I don't "get it" and I have thought that perhaps some fall in love with this candidate and some just don't. That is true with all candidates - there were always a few supporters of Edwards and of Kucinich who were head over heels over the person for example - but supporting Kucinich or Edwards did not require one to be in love with the person. That was not the main feature of their following. But it seems that with Obama, one must fall in love with him to "get it."

My fear is that this movement, while it is compelling and exciting now, will miserably fail in the general. Notice that I am not saying that Obama will miserably fail or is unelectable. I am not criticizing Obama at all. I am worried about the Obama supporters and what they are doing to the party. When so many Obama supporters savaged Reverend Wright on the one hand - I agree with Wright and thought that we should all have had Obama's back on that issue regardless of whether or not we support his candidacy - yet on the other hand claimed that Wright's remarks were irrelevant in the general, I knew we were in trouble.

I think that what we are seeing is a emotionalized movement and that it is driven by two things. First, the hope that Obama is another RFK, and secondly tokenism. People are placing all of their emotions on a political roulette wheel, hoping that if a candidate creates a lot if enthusiasm that therefore since powerful leaders from the past, such as RFK, generated enthusiasm, that we are supporting someone similar to those great leaders form the past. The hope is also that by supporting a Black man, and fantasizing about the election of a Black man, all of the race sins from the past are erased.

The dynamic of tokenism is one we should all be familiar with, after watching the two Bush administrations cynically promote a few individuals to positions of high visibility, such as Clarence Thomas. "I am not a racist. I have a couple of Black friends (or neighbors or co-workers.)" I think that many whites are over the top in their support for the Obama candidacy because it enables them to tell themselves that they are not racists, and it enables them to project their own feelings out onto others as scapegoats - "look! Over there! There are the racists! I am not at all like them! I support Obama! They are criticizing Obama!" That is hurting the Obama candidacy, hurting the party, and setting race relations back, in my view.

[Medusa]

17. When Hillary began to lose

the Hillbots went into full meltdown. Then the Clintons, desperate themselves, began to throw the mud. It all stemmed from that. Add to it the continued, infuriating claims that it was Obama who went negative first (complete and utter bullshit on that one) and there you have it. Bitterness, hatred, etc.

[EFerrari]

21. Bingo. n/t

[Danger Mouse]

19. Can we not play the blame game?

[Imagevision]

22. Hate started when Billary's desperation kicked in, they can't beat or equal Obama so

they are pulling out the stops and doing whatever it takes to maneuver Obama into what they hope will be some sort of downfall but Barack keeps coming back and doing it polished! Happiness is no longer hearing Hillary and Bill!

[Hepburn]

23. In another thread, the one by Patsy Stone, there was an interesting statement.

That things got really nasty after John Edwards dropped out. IMO, this is when Hillary supporters realized she was NOT the inevitable nominee. And she began to lose to Obama. It was like the Queen must NOT be denied. Everything that was not 100% pro-Hillary was immediately jumped on by so many Hillary supporters are being anti-female, sexist, etc. It was like one HAD TO BE FOR Hillary or one HATED all women.

Now that clearly she is losing to Obama...I can actually smell the desperation when I click on some threads and they open. For some reason, some of the Hillary supporters cannot accept that she is NOT going to be crowned as the nominee. And...the people who post garbage from sickening people like Hannity and other RW sources...I have no clue why they would think this is a correct thing to do on the DU. And the hatred they have for general recognized and respected progressives like Keith Olbermann...this is just unreal.

It is like some are acting like a small child throwing a tantrum because someone took away a chocolate bar. Unbelievable....and sad.

JMHO

[Window]

33. ..

:thumbsup:

[Two Americas]

36. there we go

Do you really think that will increase understanding and communication?

Condescending, patronizing and insulting.

How do you reconcile your support for the hope and unity campaign with the rhetorical tactics you are using in this post? Is hope only to be granted to those who agree with you? Does unity exclude those who disagree with you?

If Clinton supporters cannot be included in the unity, and if those who are not in love with Obama are to be permitted no hope - if we are going to use these tactics on each other - how on earth do we expect to enroll the general public in this unity and hope campaign? Does that not matter? Is the only goal to be "right" in a narrow and self-righteous way?

Being "right" is the consolation prize in politics.

[suston96]

25. Doesn't matter "who started the hate". It's here and deeply embedded in the Democratic party....

...and it will play big time in the general election no matter who is nominated.

[totodeinhere]

38. Yes it matters who started the hate for a lot of people who are...

trying to decide whom to support. They might want to take that into consideration when making their decision.

[moobu2]

26. Barack played the race card in South Carolina so

I’d say he started it.

[Ravy]

51. That is when he dropped from number 2 behind Edwards for me.

Clinton was way down on the list, now they stay pretty even with each other and I find it hard to be enthusiastic about either.

I will support whichever wins, however.

[goldcanyonaz]

27. I guess you forgot New Hampshire and how she was labelled a cry baby here.

Then she won and the shit hit the fan.

[NashVegas]

59. Even Before That - January 3, 2008

For me, Obama *really* lost his charm when he started saying how he wanted to be like Reagan and bring various coalitions together. But if you go back and look at the historic record, the 1980 convention, moderate Republicans were hogtied in favor of the RW hardliners and were basically intimidated into going along with the wave.

These posts, together, tell quite a tale about campaign strategy, as practiced online:

It warms my heart to see this handsome strong, proud black man

We must come together and support our nominee - Barack Obama


Finally, the night of the NH debate, the forum was jam-packed with threads about how Hil got aaaaannngry and out of control, couldn't keep a lid on her emotions, blah blah blah, after months of criticism for not showing emotion at all. Two days later, she was attacked for the "tears." Sexist attacks, both, while race was used to make Obama untouchable. Well, he ain't.

[Window]

28. Precisely, when Hillary went really negative.

Prior to that I supported her. Actually, in the proper order it was Edwards, Hillary and then Senator Obama. Now, I have no respect for neither Hillary nor Bill, and I fully support Senator Obama.

[anonymous171]

29. It started when Hillary began triangulating within the party.

It became latte liberals vs Dunkin' Donut Democrats, black vs brown, and black vs white.

[LWolf]

34. I remember it somewhat differently.

I remember HRC and Obama getting a small percentage of support on DU. I remember the HRC people's "hillary haters" meme, and the obvious hatred between the two camps even when they were in the minority, not first or second choice, at DU. I remember that, even though they were a small number of DUers, GDP was already filled with HRC/Obama hate fests, crowding the rest who had more support off the front page.

I don't remember hate between the supporters of the rest. Some fiery debate, yes. Some negative campaigning, yes. Not hate, though. In fact, as a DK supporter, I remember getting along well, and finding common ground, with supporters of every candidate, including a very few from both of the "hate" camps.

It was a sad day for the nation and the party when they were the only survivors left on the island. The hate was already established well before then, and has grown exponentially as democrats have been forced to choose between the two.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3649440

As for me, I don't hate. I've lost all respect for both candidates and campaigns at this point, though.

[TahitiNut]

40. There's a big difference between being negative toward the candidate and attacking supporters.

Senator Clinton has attracted negatives for quite some time, due to her votes on key legislation that over 90% of DU has opposed. It appeared to me that her supporters "went negative" against the supporters of other candidates earlier than anyone else ... including (especially) the supporters of Kucinich.

I don't really have a horse in the Clinton/Obama feud ... but I've seen far more personally-directed vitriol from the Clinton camp and regard that as particularly noteworthy given their minority status on DU - comprising about 1/5th of the membership.

[LWolf]

43. I don't see it that much differently.

I believe it started with the hillary camp, and the "hillary haters" thrown against us.

I just don't see the Obama camp innocent of hating, either. I believe those two groups were had a well-entrenched pattern of mutual hatred long before everyone else dropped out and narrowed the choices down to two bad candidates to settle for.

[Two Americas]

47. good insight and perspective

Thanks for that LWolf - "...well-entrenched pattern of mutual hatred long before everyone else dropped out..."

What made the Clinton and Obama candidacies so oppositional, I wonder? Many seem to see the two candidacies as mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed in some absolute and complete way. It feels like a set up, doesn't it?

Their is a reciprocal hatred going on that has little to do with politics. Why did Obama attract people who hate Clinton supporters and vice versa?

[LWolf]

56. All good questions.

I don't have the answers, but I'm sure that they are connected to some of the reasons I haven't joined up with either group.

[Swamp Rat]

72. yep

This Kucinich supporter agrees. :D

[Recursion]

37. I noticed it with the "cult" campaign

It was disrespectful, belittling, and disconnected from reality. So by my perceptions, that's when and how it started.

[Tatiana]

42. If I had to nail it down to one moment, I'd say it was when Clinton talked about being "honored"

adding she and Barack would be "fine" on one evening and then the next day shouted "SHAME ON YOU, BARACK OBAMA! MEET ME IN OHIO!"

[Two Americas]

61. why do we "have to?"

Who cares who hit whom first?

[Tatiana]

64. We don't. n/t

[cooolandrew]

44. I think Obama supporters were congenial for the longest time took time to listen but then it came...

time to answer back. You can push a person so far before they push back.

[Two Americas]

50. both sides say that

And who cares? If Edwards, Kucinich and Biden supporters don't care who wins this food fight, of what possible relevance does any of it have to the general election? Many Edwards and Kucinich and Biden supporters are resigned to supporting one of the two candidates, and making the best of the situation. If you cannot persuade them that there is anything in this feud worth taking sides over, what could any of it possibly mean to the general public?

Doesn't it matter to you that neutral observers think that both sides are nuts and being destructive, and do not care who hit whom first, or who called whom what names, and think that this nonsense is hurting the party? Not the candidates, they are what they are, it is their followers who are willing to burn down the meeting hall rather than risk losing an argument.

If there were real and substantive political differences between the two candidates, there would not be this feuding since there would be actual positions we could debate.

Both candidates suck, both will be a challenge to support in the general, and we have our work cut out for us in either case. If there were any evidence that either candidate represented a serious contribution to the enormous task ahead of us, that would be one thing. But it seems to me that all of this feuding is animated by denial - people WANT to believe that their candidate is the only hope, WANT to believe that electing their candidate represents some sort of revolution. They are denying the serious crisis we are in, minimizing it and trivializing it, and denying the magnitude of the work we have ahead of us.

I cannot understand the desperate and frantic need to smash, humiliate, and destroy each other over very petty and superficial things. We cannot afford this. All for the sake of "being right" and "winning" this pissing match, and at the expense of winning when and where it really matters.

[hulklogan]

45. For me, it started with the Obama supporters who proclaimed that

anyone who was offended by the McClurkin fiasco was a whiny uppity gay who needed to get a life.

It's only gone downhill from there.

[lapfog_1]

46. Nevada, culinary workers, lawsuit by Clintonistas to

stop the unions from voting.

I never would expect to see a Democrat resort to such Rovian tactics to prevent UNION WORKERS from voting.

Never.

And then the lies about the caucus rules and the "10 to 1" bullshit.

Repeated endlessly here on DU.

[HughMoran]

49. This post is it's own explanation

There is a bizzare hypocrisy here somewhere - can you spot it?

[Mike03]

52. As an Obama supporter, I say that it was not Obama who started this, but his supporters.

I respect both Obama and Clinton, and would be proud to have either as POTUS. But I definitely prefer Obama now that Edwards, Biden and Gore are out.

But to be perfectly blunt, there are many Obama supporters who are unbelievable assholes. They are arrogant, hypersensitive, defensive, cocky and narcissistic.

They are very, exceedingly poor representatives for our candidate, an act as classy as Obama.

[Mike03]

53. P.S. A number of us who are ashamed Obama supporters did start threads on this topic over the

past month or so.

The ONLY negative for Obama, IMHO, are his rabid supporters who fail to understand that you don't have to despise the opposition to favor our candidate.

It's embarrassing and humiliating. I know Obama would be disgusted by the way some of us are "defending" him.

[kwenu]

54. They have to create reasons to explain why Hillary has been rejected.

The funny thing is that some of them actually believe their own lies.

[sudopod]

60. It's my fault

I went to the store to get more Gatorade for the DU cooler, but accidentally got Haterade instead.

I'm really sorry guise. But look on the bright side, it was 10 cents cheaper per pack!

[depakid]

62. There's a difference between a campaign and its suppporters on GD-P

Name calling, back biting and juvenile behavior runs both ways- but Obama's focus on "hope and unity," makes it seem more glaring when it's coming from that camp.

[WinkyDink]

63. Suggesting that a candidate is not specific enough does NOT constitute "attacking", FGS. Get a grip.

[elleng]

65. Media related,

not candidate related.

[2rth2pwr]

66. Where did our love go?

[VotesForWomen]

67. give it up; O people are fanatically, irrationally in love with O, and their hatred of Hillary is si

similarly irrational and completely unhinged. just count the # of anti-hill attack threads vs. the # of anti-O attack threads on any given day and you'll have your answer.

[McCamy Taylor]

68. A pox on both your houses! Karl Rove started it! Brokered Dem Convention is his game.

He has been playing both sides against each other with his buddies in the corporate media the same way that he did when he worked for Dick Nixon in 1972.

At this point it looks like Hillary and Obama supporters are in a race to see who will be named "Dupes of the Year"

[NobodyInParticular]

69. Is the Hatred Real?

Real hatred seeks the humiliation/destruction of one's opponent. A heated battle may look like an exercise in hatred, but it may not necessarily be so. What is going on here?

It could be nothing more than a verbal schoolyard fight. If that's the case, good. In duking it out with one another, H and B supporters may be doing the right thing in their spring training for the real fight. If you don't belong to either camp it can be great to see how the fighting parties are developing their muscles, and you might have fun saying "OK guys, go to it and see how good you can get at it!" The two sides may be developing the kind of strengths needed to take on Rove's Elephants.

When does a schoolyard or a boxing prizefight go too far? Is it when it draws blood or results in traumatic injury or death? I am not sure about the level of this fight. Might it be that the parties have or are beginning to cross the line? Or is it possible that the elephantine opposition has planted "agent provocateurs" to transform a demonstration of wills on the part of both parties into a field of bloodshed? I am thinking of a peace demonstration in Canada where the government used agent provocateurs to transmute a peaceful demonstration into a violent one. More often than suspected an operation uses moles placed among any opposing party. The moles' function is to foment hatred leading to a loss of control.

Are there any moles in this fight? Generally speaking moles are not easily recognized. They camouflage themselves as some of the most outspoken supporters of their cause--in this case Hillary or Obama. I suspect that some of the loudest parties on each side may be agents of Rove and his elephants.

Is there an answer to all this? The antidote to violent expressions of sentiments might be calm sober thought and discussion. Would anyone want to make this happen and how could we do it?

[mikelewis]

73. Why can't we all just get along? Honestly... we should all have sex.

[drmom]

74. You start out by saying 'Obama and his supporters' then switch

to just talking about Obama in the text of your message. For me, it really is the Obama supporters that have been so instrumental in turning me off of Obama. I agree that Obama was talking about vision, hope and change...nothing wrong with that. At the same time, I heard many Obama supporters on the internet and in real life calling Clinton a b*tch. It appeared that THEY were doing the dirty work of the campaign so that Obama didn't have to muddy his feet.

I don't really want to debate, but I will let you know that I control 9 votes, and all of them will be for McCain if he is running against Obama.