1. 5 is not a large enough representative sample to mean anything.

2. I clearly was not one of the 5. For the record, I was quite vocal in my criticism of Bill Clinton for cheating, and for NAFTA; of Pelosi for not allowing impeachment on the table; of Ted Kennedy and Miller for NCLB; of most Democrats for their support of the Patriot Act...and more.

Try "DLC".

I can also conclude that I was NOT one of the 5 you surveyed.
There were many, MANY threads criticizing those Democrats who voted FOR the Invasion of Iraq,
and criticism of the Party as a whole for Ignoring the Anti-WAR Movement (among other things).

In the very earliest days of DU there was criticism (angry attacks) on the Democratic Party for NOT contesting the Supreme Court Appointment of BUSH in 2000,
and Restrained FURY when not a single Senator would stand with the Congressional Black Caucus when they contested the election.

These criticisms increased exponentially when the Democrats regained the MAJORITY in the House and Senate in 2006, and then sat on their hands while the War Criminals ran riot.

It looks to me like you "found" exactly what you wanted to "find".

Third Way was previously named DLC. Try adding DOMA and DADT to your Straights Only searches.
I'm a third generation Democrat. Never have I voted for a Republican. That's a loyal Democrat. I also strenuously oppose McCarthyite crapola like this. People who want to make insinuations and allegations against other Democratic voters are to me, not in the least loyal no matter how much rhetorical sucking up to power they do. Those who are willing to smear other Democratic voters for sport I see as Republicans.

everyone here is a Democratic voter?

Just a question ... why should I add DOMA and/or DADT to a query on a primary, though not all inclusive DU fight?

I didn't know that the DLC/3rd-Way/Corporatist/Authoritarian arguments were orientation specific? Or, DOMA or DADT, for that matter?

Why include DOMA in searches of people being critical of Clinton? Seriously you ask this? Bill Clinton got plenty of criticism for DADT and for DOMA, that backstabbing triangulating centrist. One of the largest early financial supporters of Obama were gay business people who had given it all for Bill only to be DOMA'd and then subjected to his nasty signing statement. Bill and Hill were DLC deluxe now 3d Way. 3d Way not too long ago, like much of the world, saw that opposing LGBT rights was no longer seen as 'moderate' but as mean right wing politics. So they now 'support'. Hillary did not support equality until last year. What the fuck is that about?
On DU, the folks who nattered about civil unions being the only possible solution were 'moderates' presenting their conservative views as 'pragmatic'. 'It's impossible' they'd say. 'You need to accept less and stop wanting a pony'. Then one day Obama 'evolved' and they all 'evolved' too. On cue. Suddenly they love us? I don't think so.
So that's how I see the loyalist thing. Folks who would be against equality to be loyal to a politician are being disloyal to far greater principles and masses of people. When the same folks are now for equality because they were told to be, that's good, but it is also definitive of that brand of talking point moderate. On command they oppose the rights of others, on cue they then support those rights? How can that be trusted? It can't.

And yes, by the way, I do suppose our regular posters are Democratic voters. Why don't you?

My bad. I was thinking economic 3rd-way stuff. You are right. That was unthinking of me.

But those critical of economic 3rd-Way Bill, weren't exactly beating the end DOMA/DADT drum; they were/are silent on all civil rights issues ... other than their individual privacy rights.

But if i say it again, the people who are the guiltiest will rush to word ninja me into silence.

The boards is full of o--, --i--, --n.

You got me. you must be a game show expert. I coming to visit you one day, can i bring my mother?

COME OOOONNNN DOOWWWNN!!

There were a lot more self-described socialists and leftist anarchists. That number may have remained relatively static as moderates grew in proportion (which would make sense), but the overall composition and ideological tenor of the forum has definitely shifted over the past 14 years.

It seems that along with a rise in moderates (or, corporatist, 3rd-Way, lackeys to authoritarianism, in DU-speak), there has been a rise in (civil) libertarians, that confuse(?) their pursuit/protection of individual freedoms and economic interests, with the totality of liberal/Democratic platform.

I was not here then, but seams reasonable when allied against a common foe.

I've also read similar theories from long timers

was far from statistically sound (I've taken and passed several graduate-level research methods courses and currently do policy analysis work that requires unwinding research methods).

And to be honest, I really wasn't trying to generalize to DU; but rather, survey the loudest administration/Democratic critics in the room and see if this criticism of this administration/Democrats was present, prior to President Obama ... It largely wasn't.

Bush just happened to represent that

and some people did it on their own over the years, started over, so it would be impossible to be sure that you know what anyone posted over time.

Having been here during that time there was plenty of criticism against Dems as well as praise.

The persons I selected I have seen over the years ... I know what they posted (or, at a minimum, the tenor of their posts) over time.

I realize there was some criticism of Democrats during that time; but not by the surveyed posters ... I, also, realized there was praise of Democrats, then and now; but again, not by these posters, particularly, now.

At one point "pom-poms" and "tutus" become grounds for getting your post hidden. The battles were over collaboration with the republican party. What is now known as "the BOG" were (at least some of them) back then doing the same "my party right or wrong" bullshit they do today. There was of course common agreement that Bush was a fuckwitted douche-nozzle, but we most certainly did have our battles over intra-party issues.

You couldn't honestly oppose the Iraq war and NOT criticize the Democratic Party, they fucking voted for it.