Please just stop! Cut it out! Quit it!

I realize there are DUers who feel an affinity for particular candidates. This is natural, as not all Democratic candidates have the exactly the same good qualities as others, and if they do, they're not in equal proportions. Some candidates will be more or less good at some things, while others are more or less good at other things. Choice is a wonderful thing, and this variety among candidates is a given.

I also realize that some people don't feel quite alive unless they're mixing it up with opposing camps -- arguing their candidates' good points, slanging the opponents -- generally being loud and aggressive and frankly pigheaded about how much better their person is and how someone else getting the nomination would be the end of life on earth as we know it. This kind of group-think partisanship is also a given.

That said, when you bring up the "shameful" voting record of Candidate X, or the past "substance abuse" of Candidate Y, or the "treason" of Candidate Z, and so on, all the while slavering in high dudgeon over each minute detail, what you're doing is giving the Reptilicans ammunition to blast X, Y, or Z, or whoever wins the nomination, during the general. Now, this may indeed be a method of vetting the candidates in order to get negative stuff out in the open and talked to death before the Reptilicans can use it. But they will use it -- all of it -- along with whatever other ammo they've been able to dig up. The one consolation is that they're doing the same thing on the GOP side as well.

Still, is it necessary to hobble your eventual nominee with unnecessary baggage even before the convention? Do you really need to do the Reptilicans' work for them? It would be great if you'd stop slanging the Democratic candidates you don't happen to support. The prize is the White House, not the nomination. Keep your eyes on the prize.

but I wouldn't expect results.

A large number of people here can't promote their own candidate without tearing down another.

I agree, it's stupid and counterproductive, but I don't think it's going to change. People treat this like a sports rivalry instead of the important issue it is.

A united front is required now, unless of course the party is trying to lull Reptilicans into complacency -- which might be the strategy, I dunno.

But, sadly, it will get worse-and the consequences are tragic.

Pining for some kind of primary utopia is pointless.

...if this is something you think worth changing, of course.

...in its present configuration of adversarial candidacies to determine winners, this is what will always happen.

It cannot be stopped.

K & R!

Only one: Dennis Kucinich. No matter how you pretty it up, no matter how desperately you try to excuse them, all of the other candidates are firmly and publicly on the record as opposing my rights to equal marriage. As far as I'm concerned, the matter of which candidate deserves my vote is thereby decided.

Too bad if that does not meet your approval, but I refuse to be silent merely because you don't like what I have to say. That is YOUR problem, not mine.

That goddamn stupid, hotheaded, defensive way of putting things: "Too bad if that does not meet your approval," which sounds exactly like, "Meh MEH meh meh meh meh meh meh mehMEHmeh"; and "That is YOUR problem, not mine" (translation: "Meh meh MEH mehmeh, meh meh!" And all the while, you are completely missing my point.

If you've read any of my other posts either about Kucinich or gay marriage, you'd know I'm a huge supporter of both, and also that I'm a gay Canadian. So it's not a question of "you don't like what I have to say" (i.e., "meh meh meh meh meh meh meh meh"), it's a question of saying things about other candidates that the Reptilicans can use to rally their voters. The Swamp-Things are not going to treat the homophobe who was McLurkin' around Obama as a negative, should BO be the Democratic nominee. But they are going to use the cocaine thing. See the difference? When Democrats dwell on Biden's past acquaintanceship with plagiarism, that doesn't bode well for his election prospects if he's nominated. And when Democrats discount Kucinich as being unelectable, they're projecting that image forward to the general election... "Oooh, gee, even a lot of Democrats thought he couldn't be elected. Why would I vote for HIM?"

The election isn't going to be the cakewalk some people think it will be. It's time to realize who the enemy is. It's time to be selective about which mud to sling. It's also time to grow a thicker skin.

I have made all the concessions I am willing to make. I refuse to let myself get thrown under the bus yet again for the sake of "political expediency."

would prefer Rudy Guliani or Tom Trancedo to Hillary Clinton as president. The Hillary haters here are indistinguishable from those on freak republic in their blind animosity to everything Clinton. I can support any of the dem candidates except Mike Gravel over any of the repukes.

I was thinking along the same lines today and was ready to post something, though I know there are those who will keep on with their snarky behavior.

I think it is healthy to openly debate the issues and the candidates, but there are some here who are obsessed with their candidates. We all need to push away now and then, and clear our heads. Politics certainly are important, especially now, but it shouldn't be an all consuming endeavor.

Mostly I want to say, if you have a candidate, then support him/her. You can do this best by posting positives about that candidate. You don't serve him/her by cutting down another Democratic candidate. If you have a desire to lash out, there are plenty of republicans you could tear apart.

But refrain from deriding the others because your's is an empty suit with no redeeming qualities and you're insecure with your choice. If you have nothing but attacks on the opposition to justify your chosen candidate, you have nothing.

The dialog has become far too negative and it reflects badly on YOUR candidate when you have no positive message about your candidate. Negative campaigning is a Rethuglickin tactic and abhorrent to many here.

I'm saying "you" as it applies to the people who spend all their time making others on DU - with more delicate constitutions - miserable.

from my choice(s), but it disrupts meaningful discourse and puts the provocateur's candidate in a rather poor light.

that think it is their mission in life to put down certain candidates. They spout the same old stuff on just about any thread that is started. Not only does it get boring, it gets downright acrimonious. But, these same people won't stop. I'm guessing there are about 20-25 of them, that post probably about 100 times a day, every day. I guess they don't have much of a life. We could name them, but then that would give them more power. I suggest we all just put them on ignore until a nomination is made, that is what I have decided to do. Heck, I might just leave them on ignore since they don't seem to be adding anything to the conversation.

zalinda

but I've used the ignore button in my head, the one I developed years ago in the school yard. These are infantile tactics that are used only to start fights and create disharmony. This election is far too important to waste our energies on pointless squabbles.

Also I notice that some of the baiters just seem to like the attention.

Very well said, and most excellent post! :thumbsup:

K&R

:kick:

all need to go through some fire so that we know who is the toughest.

It needed to be said.