Sorry. I'm not a hater.

--and yet --I see so many posts here at DU that tell me that since I support Hillary, I hate Obama, or I hate Rev Wright, or I hate black people, or I hate men, or I hate the Democratic Party, or I hate this country.

So --to all those who believe supporting Hillary Clinton = Hate:

I don't hate --so spare me the assumptions.

I simply support a candidate that you don't support.

In the event that the nomination goes to Obama, I will vote for him.

This will not likely change my perception that Hillary would be a better choice for President than Obama, any more than my thinking still that Wes Clark would have made a better Presidential candidate than John Kerry.

But.

I voted for John Kerry when he was our nominee, and I'll do the same if it's Obama.
I might even grow to like Obama as much as I eventually came to like John Kerry.

:shrug:

I still believe Hillary to be a stronger and better choice for this country.

There are lots more folk, just like me. You'll need us if you want him to win.


I'd encourage Obama supporters not to just sneeze us away with insults, but day after day I am greeted with some of the most vile insults I've seen against my candidate and her supporters. Stuff I wouldn't find, unless I went and looked at a freeper site. Truthfully --it disgusts me.

Hating is a waste of time.

I could've written that - but not as well.

:kick:

I have long ago adopted a practice where I do my best not to insult Hillary supporters, but I will call Hillary the candidate out on her sad and slimy tactics.

Ultimately, we need you and millions of Hillary supporters to win this fall. Without you, Obama has no chance.

I think the nastiness will fade as folks have time to forgive, heal, and refocus on McCain down the road. Most here are suffering from political battle fatigue - it has made for many frayed nerves.

Really, this craziness brings out the worse in people - I hope you don't take too much of it personally. Anger does that. I can't fathom how I reached this point of being so damn angry at Hillary and Bill when I worked so hard to elect the man.

Yet I'll stand by my view that Bill was a damn good president, sadly he and Hillary's lust for more power has morphed them into people I don't recognize anymore.

But I don't hate you - in fact, I admire you and your tenacity to hang in here on DU. We need exactly that kind of tenacity to win this fall.

peace~:)

I definitely support Obama by a wide margin over Hillary, but any negative comments I make are either towards the candidate herself or to specific supporters saying specific things. I have no problem with those who prefer Hillary but will vote for the Dem nominee.

They've even talked about assassinating Obama, in an earnest tone, so as to give Hillary the nomination...and then they go bake cookies in the shape of their Goddess of Peace w/ a donation on the side...I kid you not! Go check the site!

For example, this comment was posted at a pro-Obama website:

"Just slit her throat, lock her in a car boot, and drive the car into river in West Virginia.

Ain't gonna let no whore screw with the man "

Though truthfully, one could just as easily make a case for most of DU currently being Anti-Hillary.

The ratio of Probama to AntiHill here is very skewed.

On the rare occasions where I muster the strength to post a ProHill thread, it either sinks like a stone, or gets invaded by AntiHill sentiment.

--and while even I may be guilty of the occasional AntiBama snark, I've never lowered myself to the vitriol I've seen directed at Hillary's candidacy or her supporters.

I've certainly never started an AntiBama thread. Not once. And I never would.

But --hey -- I get accused of being Anti-Obama just by supporting Hillary, so I'm sure the perception is that I hate Obama.

not now in the primaries, and not in the general election as well.

My vote - - the vote of a person that worked so hard in 2004 for John Kerry and John Edwards, all the while working a full time job, and caring for a very sick husband with stage 4 cancer.

My vote - - the vote of a person that was part of a team that went door to door in low income neighborhoods that successfully registered over 10,000 new democrats.

My vote - - the vote of a contributor to the DNC and Kerry multiple times all the while out-of-pocket medical expenses were ravenously eating up our budget.

My vote - - and the votes of 1.7 million other Democrats, many perhaps with equally telling circumstances, all because one Democrat laughed while presenting an update to a bill?

Obama followers have symbolically told all 1.7 million voters in Florida they don't want our votes.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it's your future to help this country, and get this, to help yourself, as a democrat...so i dont get this whole thing of needing to be courted by a fellow democrat for your vote when the presumptive democratic nominee's name and the voting house date & time is all that is important. You do realize that Obama's and Hillary's plans are 95% a like while McCains is 0%...so why throw away a vote and cast this country into the dark ages...seems silly to me and i am living in Canada and dont understand this logic.

And that they didn't care about democrats in Florida for the GE, didn't need them, didn't care.

Wherever you dreamed up the wined and dined schtick is truly beyond me. Please get a grip.

Anyone who posts the stuff that you are currently replying to is so affectively dysfunctional that any attempt to reason with them is pointless.

I think you may want to consider you're violating the spirit of the thread. It's not helpful. My 2 cents

and it's a huge mistake on their part.

Your state Democratic party chose to break party rules by moving their primary forward; they were sanctioned by the DNC, as they were warned would happen. If you have a problem, I would really suggest that you take it up with the idiots in the Florida Democratic party who brought this on themselves through their defiance. Your candidate agreed to the DNC sanctions until it became clear that she wasn't going to have the nomination in the bag by Super Tuesday; had that happened you'd not be hearing a word from her about the illegitimate primaries in Florida and Michigan.

And whatever your personal circumstances may be, it isn't about you. You don't get to change the rules in the middle of the game.

"get out of the way"?

Remember that little gem from Team Obama a few weeks ago?

I think you speak for many people. You also lead by example with your classy posts and retorts. Don't go away.

think that Hillary is the best candidate. I have tried to stay out of the flame wars on this board because I don't find them to be productive.

I will vote for Obama in the GE if he is our candidate.

As I've said before - if Mrs Clinton is the nominee, I'll pull that lever - But I'm an Obama supporter and think that he's the better candidate.

good on you!

It's when our support descends into stuff far uglier than either of our candidates that we begin to lose our way.

But, I'm just following a lead Hillary has set herself, when she has said plain as day --that when all this is over, we will need to gather behind the Democratic nominee and take back the White House.

:thumbsup:

oftentimes --it is.

People you would recognize if they passed you on the street? People who have any significance in your life?

You shouldn't think of yourself as yourself on the internet. It is too easy to get carried away in the virtual battles if you do.

These people posting aren't the way they are in real life--if they were they would spend all their time in hospitals, mental and otherwise.

Sometimes it sucks to see the ugly, private side of other people, but rest assured the vast majority of them will keep it private most of the time. In the real world, that's all we can hope for. Unless you are a psychoanalyst who will be spending years with them on the couch, you have no chance whatsoever of changing their private ugliness.

So why let it get to you when they vent it here as anonymous, unreal, powerless avatars of themselves? Powerless is the key word--they only have the power you give them when you take their ugliness to heart.

And I'm sure you yourself are not blameless from the perspective of others.

on the internet, as I am off of it.

And I treat people on message boards in the same fashion I would in life.


A better question would be -- Don't you? And if not --why not?

You assume that any of this somehow "is getting to me".

It's not.

If you get into as many fights in your life as you get in here, you are a very troubled person.

That's all I have to say.

None that I can see.

I'll grant that I've been in discussions though.

But, I see that you have already begun personal attacks on me.

Please enjoy doing it --but it pretty much just rolls off my back.

The OP sounded like you are being hurt by stuff people say. Perhaps, like all people, you are an imperfect communicator.

I don't think you would use the style of "discussion" you use here with strangers you meet on the street. But then again, I have no idea who or what you are and I don't ever intend to take any kind of steps to find out.

My original point was that, on the internet, many if not most people are not as they portray themselves. We have men pretending to be women, whites pretending to be black, Republicans pretending to be Democrats, children pretending to be adults, and people who are gentle in their real lives taking out their hidden aggressions. If you think of personal attacks in this environment the same way you think of personal attacks in reality, you are on the road to psychological trouble.

What about talking to another person on the phone, or writing them a letter? Is the ethic here that those can be traced, and one cannot be guaranteed anonymity, so therefore one must be themselves - honest, sincere, responsible, accountable? Is it a matter of situational ethics - that if no one is watching or that if you can get away with it, or there are no immediate consequences to you, then all moral standards for behavior can be discarded?

I think that we see people uncensored here, and I think that in this way the board interactions are more real, more accurate a reflection of what people are thinking, that they should be taken more seriously, not less. I also think we have a moral obligation - here more than anywhere - to be responsible and accountable to one another.

"You shouldn't think of yourself as yourself on the Internet?" Do you mean to say that we should not think of you as yourself on the Internet, and therefore we should not challenge you or hold you responsible for the things you say? If we are not going to "be ourselves" and are not going to see others as real human beings, then what is the point of discussing anything here? There certainly could be no socially worthwhile or constructive purpose for being here under your rules.

Are you saying that since there is no enforcement of decent behavior, that since we are not forced to act decently, since there are no immediate personal consequences for misbehavior, that therefore none of us should bother behaving decently? Does that not put those who are committed to doing the right thing regardless of whether or not anyone is watching at a distinct disadvantage? Is that not exactly what we see happening here every day? Should we not take a stand against that?

The interaction here is among personae, not people.

Some people create a persona that speaks honestly to their character. Some exaggerate. Some lie. With anonymity this will always be the case. You should not take it seriously, but instead use the experience to work on constructing a persona that works for whatever purpose you are pursuing here.

Sometimes it is useful to have a place where we can say what we think without consequences. I could not say what I think about police, judges, lawyers, corporations, politicians, and other government officials in public without inspiring their wrath and inviting severe repercussions. Do you think it is wrong for there to be a forum where I can speak without suffering those consequences? A time will come to do it in public. I see this place as practice for that day, and I feel that interacting on DU has made me more effective in speaking on political issues in real life. Without the safety zone of anonymity I never would have gotten that practice.

The "re-inventing" of oneself, this "you are what you believe yourself to be," is uniquely American, from the beginning of the tent revival movement and the concept of being "born again" to the modern self-actualization movement and New Age doctrines.

If we cannot speak freely about "police, judges, lawyers, corporations, politicians, and other government officials in public" - that tells us something, doesn't it? Justifying and defending, therefore, speaking anonymously and seeing it as clever - rather than as disgusting and alarming - would seem to me to be a form of denial, a denial of reality, a form of denial that is pervasive in the activist community. We see ourselves as living under tyranny when that is convenient for our arguments, then as not being the truth when that might require us to make any personal sacrifices or draw any frightening conclusions about that.

This business of practicing here before we go on stage in real life - that is an admission that we are play acting, that we are putting together sales pitches rather than being genuine and honest. That, too, is very American and also is a chronic failing of modern liberalism and a key reason as to why we are unable to put together an effective coalition in opposition to the right wing.

Then the assumption that "everyone is doing it" ties in with the "human nature" arguments that are used to defend uniquely modern American selfishness and other negative social qualities. "Everyone is doing it" also illustrates the paradox of modern liberalism - despite our espoused dedication to self-expression at all costs, our insistence upon seeing politics as driven by personal choices, and personal stances, there is an underlying social conformity and propensity for looking for a herd to run with. There is also a "reality" theme here - "this is the way life is, this is how things work in the real world, this is how you win the game, and anything else is unrealistic or impractical, or perhaps stupid or naive." This has destroyed all idealism and commitment to principles in modern liberalism.

You have to practice the art for years before you can express anything effectively--whether it is your "real" self or something you have deliberately constructed. There is nothing "New Age" about it. If you think that your writing is somehow more authentic than mine, you are deluded.

So have you been out there in the real world loudly and fearlessly speaking truth to power lately? If so, tell me how it went. I am working on small advances on local issues that are important to me and I have been somewhat successful, all the while earning a living and staying out of jail. I'm sure you're a better person than me--after all, your writing style is so much more angry and self-righteous. But what has it gotten you? What has it achieved for all of us?

I didn't challenge your writing style, and didn't talk about what people are or are not doing in the way of activism.

I have given hundreds and hundreds of talks, saying exactly what I am saying here, in small churches in eastern Kentucky and poor Catholic parishes in Chicago, and AA churches in Cleveland and evangelical churches in Mississippi, and everywhere in between for decades. I have always gotten a good reception, talking far left socialist politics and have never been accused of being angry or self-righteous. The only place that people have a problem with what I am saying is among upscale suburban liberal activists and in the affluent college towns among the progressives, where they say I am "too far left" or "not practical." But that is a very small and very conservative demographic.

...

I have said things that HAVE "lost me a gig" quite a few times.

Or are you posting from a public library before heading back to your camp under the nearest bridge?

First off, your alternatives represent a false dichotomy. Secondly, you are playing games and taking advantage of the fact that I am being sincere and open with you. Thirdly, you are communicating dishonestly - you are not saying forthrightly what you are thinking. I suspect that it goes something like this - "if you are eating and have a roof over your head you are compromising, so who are you to dare criticize anything that I do, therefore anything you say is discredited?" This is akin to the "how can Edwards be for the little guy when he lives in a mansion" BS. In both cases, it is a cleverly disguised form of ad hominem attack. You are acting out the problem I was pointing out when this conversation started.

If you want to know more about me, take the time to build some trust. If you are not interested in considering the points I made, so be it. Move along and start a feud and play "gotcha" with someone else.

I guess we just have different views of internet discussion.

One thing I do know is that the speaking out that you've done hasn't fixed the world's problems.

"The speaking out that you've done hasn't fixed the world's problems."

:rofl:

Well, ya got me there. That is the funniest put down I have ever seen online.

Gee, I have been talking and talking and utopia hasn't emerged yet and there are still problems in the world.

:shrug:

Yes, indeed, you and I must have very "different views of internet discussion."

Good night, whoever you are.

I've been here a long time although I don't post often, and it hurts to be reviled by your peers. And this does bleed into real life - just as I'm active off-line as well as reading political sites, I assume the rest of DU is like that. And after the hatred I've seen, there's no way I want to join with the Obama supporters if he gets the nomination. Of course he'll get my vote, but right now, not much else.

Are you sure they are really Obama supporters?

If you're not one of those irrational folks that takes any criticism of their candidates personally, you should really examine what you think you know about the people whom you saw as hurtful.

I've trolled right wing sites before, I'm basically straight-up here but I understand that even to protect my basic anonymity I have to conceal some things about myself.

I'm just saying, don't assume that everyone is giving you the whole picture. And a lot of them are a lot more or a lot less than your peers.

The replies in this thread provide an excellent example of the difference between the two.

Please enlighten us to whom that might be?

Only one of them is really acting out in this particular thread, however. And no, it isn't you. :)

I also haven't seen anything I'd call "Bot-like" from any Hillary supporters in this thread.

If only the mods had been as quick with the weed-eater in some other threads (i.e. the tabloid crap)

Keep strong.

:thumbsup:

We don't need haters, and shouldn't have to invent them.

Hillary is pushing Wright to the superdelegates. The rationale is "the Rethugs will use it in the GE, so it effects "electabilitiy". If that is a legitimate strategy, using Rethug tactics, Hillary supporters have nothing to complain about. If the Clinton campaign itself has sunk to screaming "scary black preacher", simple karma would dictate some of that coming back their way. It's a two-way street. There is a whole host of things we both can easily name that we know the Rethugs would use on Hillary in the GE and effect her "electability", but you don't see Obama using those, do you?

I support Hillary Clinton.

see -- look at mt sig!

But you see that plenty of Hill supporters are crossing that line into hatred.

I'm no exception. I'm totally fed up with Hillary. I don't hate her, but I am really tired of the way she attempts to insult my intelligence, and I don't appreciate the fact that she okayed a war simply because she knew she was going to run for President. I think she's as right wing as many republicans. I'd probably vote Nader over her at this point, not that it matters since the District is going to go Dem no matter what.

There are a lot of hate pointed at BOTH candidates. The best way to end it is to not respond to those spreading hate. Many of the haters are trolls, and are loving your reaction. Ignore the haters.

And it would do so much to help heal the party if posters would stop tell supporters on the other side what to do. Both sides need to get their own houses in order.

period.

I do, however, find it ironic that you are telling me not to tell other's what to do --while you, yourself, are telling me what to do.

One to grow on!

my post so as to make it crystal clear that I am not telling others what to do. How's this.

"There are a lot of hate pointed at BOTH candidates (do u agree or not???). The best way to end it is (for all of us) to not respond to those spreading hate. Many of the haters are trolls, and are loving your reaction. (I think it best if we) Ignore the haters. (Do u agree?)

And it would do so much to help heal the party if posters (on both sides) would stop telling supporters on the other side what to do. (This a recommendation). Both sides need to get their own houses in order."



I would appreciate your ideas re. the points I was trying to make:

There is a lot of hate from both sides. Blaming one side or other is counter productive.

Some of the hate is initiated by trolls and should not be assumed to reflect on the supporters of either candidate.

We should ignore the hate posts as they are intended to inflame us.

:hug:

Sorry. I'm not a hater.

--and yet --I see so many posts here at DU that tell me that since I support Obama, I hate Hillary Clinton, or I hate Bill Clinton, or I hate women, or I hate working class Americans, or I hate the Democratic Party, or I hate this country.

So --to all those who believe supporting Obama = Hate:

I don't hate --so spare me the assumptions.

I simply support a candidate that you don't support.

In the event that the nomination goes to Clinton, I will vote for her.

This will not likely change my perception that Obama would be a better choice for President than Clinton, any more than my thinking still that Dennis K. would have made a better Presidential candidate than John Kerry.

But.

I voted for John Kerry when he was our nominee, and I'll do the same if it's Clinton.
I might even grow to like Clinton as much as I eventually came to like John Kerry.

:shrug:

I still believe Obama to be a stronger and better choice for this country.

There are lots more folk, just like me. You'll need us if you want her to win.


I'd encourage Clinton supporters not to just sneeze us away with insults, but day after day I am greeted with some of the most vile insults I've seen against my candidate and his supporters. Stuff I wouldn't find, unless I went and looked at a freeper site. Truthfully --it disgusts me.


*on edit - I butchered a pronoun*

--it's equally valid!

:toast:

I hate myself for what I have become. A useless tool of the right wing. It's what we have all become. Everything you posted could be said by many Obama supporters as well. We have gone from being the people who dig up the dirt to the people who spread it out. A few trolls come in and start some shit and we just jump right on the old bandwagon. Yea for Democracy :eyes:

I've been mostly staying away from GDP so as not to completely sour on politics and maybe salvage a few DU friendships.

I dropped in to say thanks for posting what I feel.

I don't hate Obama, I just think Hillary is better.

But I hate Hillary Rodham Clinton. I'm sorry. I hate her because I love the causes of the Democratic Party (note not the DLC), and I think she's been working counter to the interests of the party and hence the people of this country. So I hate her. I'd vote for her to keep the veto pen and the war drum from a pukes hands... but I wouldn't like it.

TUZLA.

so I hope for your sake you didn't mean it.

don't tell the truth. That is simply a factual statement.

Many of the things that Clinton supporters say about Obama, OTOH, are more along the lines of questionable truths, out and out falsehoods, or personal attacks.

It CAN be a personal attack to say someone is a liar. But when it has been shown to be true, to simply state that fact can also be just a statement of truth more than a personal attack.

It is true that the Clintons have been known for not telling the truth, that they will do anything to win (not a bad thing in politics), that they believe they are entitled to have the White House (I've heard this many times on TV by people who know them personally...plus I had gleaned that myself from observing the Clintons on TV).

She was not shot at by snipers so that they could not hold their welcoming ceremony. He DID have sex with Lewinsky. She DID know that Bush couldn't be trusted, when she voted for the Iraq War. She DID know that voting for the Iraq Resolution was a vote allowing Bush to wage war against Iraq. She had no plans at all to rework NAFTA until it became an issue this past month. She agreed and concurred with the DNC's reaction to the Michigan and Florida rules violations in moving up their primaries. She agreed with Nevada's decision to add those caucus locations in Las Vegas for convenience of voting for the gambling unions (but later the Clintons said they would sue if Nevada went forward with it...when they realized that Obama was giving them competition there).

All those things she has given different statements about. She does tell the truth....just not always. So how do you know which things she statements are true, and which are not? It's hard to tell.

Let's just say that I have deep, personal reasons from my past to really, REALLY hate liars.

okay.

He lies as much as any politician.

It is the racist that accuses others of racism for having different choice


I don't hate their candidate nor them, but I pray this country is never turned over to these people