For those who were DUers on 12/31/03: Was that primary season like this one, on DU?

How was the discourse in our last presidential primary here?

(I joined after it was pretty much a done deal.)

As I recall, it actually got worse after the Iowa caucus, as the Dean followers and the Kerry folks tore each other to pieces.

In 2004, we all rallied around Kerry, and would have rallied around whomever the dem nominee was, with all our might.
Then the Democratic Party leadership decided to give the republicans a pass (by not counting the votes in Ohio, new Mexico, etc.)
In 2006 we again rallied. We won. Again the dlc decided to give the republicans another pass (14 congressional elections were stolen by republicans, suits for recounts and investigations launched by those candidates, and the Dems in power decided against investigating!)
Then Pelosi declared impeachment off of her table, we got the august FISA law from "Democrats".

Now we know how high the stakes are.
being a Democrat is not enough to mean anything anymore.


We need Democrats with spine; Democrats who will fight for what is right, and not ignore human, legal, and economic rights washing down the drain. It is worth fighting about. The consequences are huge.

I think everybody was much better informed then and there were many more arguments over the issues. This time it's pure flaming and very sad. I don't know why.

and Bashing wasn't described a noun, verb and an adjective through tears.

To me, that period was not nearly as combattive as this, but having said that, even though it did bother me a bit, it doesn't bother me anymore because there is so much at stake here, and many people seem to feel so burnt out, paralyzed, frustrated and fatigued with the whole process.

Also, my recollection is that many of us, me included, thought there was no chance we could lose, because Bush had been such a lying disgrace and was so weak. He also was awful in the debates.

People might Monday-morning quarterback the Kerry/Edwards duo, but I thought they were very strong--and that Edwards kicked Cheney's sad ass all over the studio during their debate. I'm not ashamed to say I supported them 100%.

there were many heated exchanges four years ago, but they were often well thought out and worth reading. This time, there are a group of people who believe that an increased quantity covers the absolute lack of quality.

the faces have changed slightly, but it's still the same shit flying around

I had been a member for 24 hours by then. My main interest was the Plame scandal.

but this time seems worse, because we're in the moment. :shrug:

it was pretty bad. did you know that Wes Clark is a genocidal war criminal? yup, i learned that here on DU.

But I was a Dean supporter and this go around I'm not committed to a candidate - makes it easier to read all the posts and not just jump up and down at threads by the Kerry/Edwards/Gephardt/Kucinich folks.

:hi:

Kucinich was Kucinich.

And then there was Wes Clark, who was like the Ron Paul of DU minus the insanity.

And Edwards could never have the years of service to the public that Obama has. But Edwards is Joe Trippi's new Dean, I agree with that.

However I don't recall the personal vitriole; I think the difference this time is that there is an obvious influx of campaign infiltrators who are posting inflammatory crap as opposed to those who have been DU members for years and beyond.

This forum was created to separate the campaign season infighting amongst DU'ers from those wishing peaceful discourse in GD, so there was obviously strong feelings and words posted, I just don't recall the hatefulness directed by member against member.

One only need look at profiles (or not, as the case may be) to discern who is whom and what their particular agenda is. And I'm fairly certain these particular posters will be gone after the primaries.

Yes, it's the vitriole that I find so disturbing.

You know, I loved Dean and was for him, but I was so desperate for anyone but Bush that it didn't matter to me much who won the nomination. And my big mistake was thinking that no matter who it was, we couldn't lose.

I still can't believe Bush beat Kerry. It's a state of denial I can't shake--lol--after all these years.

I don't think * defeated Kerry/Edwards at all -- Blackwell did em in. my biggest fear for 2008? How will we cast, and who will count our votes?

Thanks for the kudos. :smiles:

I completely agree with that, and a few of the worst from 2003 have since disappeared too. Hmmm.

because we have such weak candidates this time compared to 2004.

Makes GDP 2003-2004 look really good.

there was some weird shit flyin around the last time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=430558

But I found it possible to have conversations with a lot more people than now. Nobody talks back and forth here anymore. It's just hit, hit, hit.

don't have our fav in the race to be all giddy about. It feels colder. :cry:

However, once Kerry had the nomination, that all changed. DU is interesting that way.

I was a Clarkie.

There was strong support for HD at DU, and the wars between the deaniacs and just about everyone else were pretty bitter, as I recall.

It was a lot less divisive, though. While people still strongly and passionately advocated for their candidate, and attacked the opposition, there is more division now than then.

I don't remember that ANY of '04s candidates were so divisive that people could not, or would not, commit to voting for them in the GE.

For the record, in '04 I was a DK supporter; one of the few. More people support him at DU this time around. I also really liked Sharpton and Moseley Braun. I was ok with Edwards, suspicious of Clark, neutral on Kerry, and displeased in the extreme with Lieberman.

I liked Dean's energy, and the passion he inspired, but REALLY DESPISED the constant "the only candidate who...." "Of course I meant the only "electable/major/top candidate" bullshit. I respected him enough to welcome him into, and support him in, his present position.

were the Dean and Kucinich supporters. Not only here on DU but on other similar board sites as well.

Dean people were energized and passionate. That's not "trouble."

DK people were very few and far between; way too few to cause trouble, if they HADN'T been as polite as they were.

Maybe I've put all of the nastiness of 4 years ago out of my mind. I don't remember this much rancor - granted there was plenty before - but it just seems worse to me now.

perhaps it was because I didn't feel as strongly about a particular candidate then. But the Clinton-Obama rowe seem particularly vitriolic to me. But it's hard to be sure as it was 4 years ago.