Why all the party disunity this year?

I've been rather dismayed at the intensity and ferocity of the disunity wracking our party this year and I'm not sure that I can remember such disunity around a party candidate in the entire time that I've been following politics (since Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992). While I realize that the primary battle ended up being drawn out longer than in recent elections and the campaign between Hilary and Obama ended up being particularly divisive (helped along by GOP efforts like "Operation Chaos" I'm sure) I am very concerned about the continued vitriol between Hilary and Obama supporters here at DU (and elsewhere) and, more importantly, the prospect that some Hilary voters might even be so angry about the primary results that they would actually vote to elect McCain as POTUS despite the fact that he and everything he represents for should be anathema to everything that Hilary supporters and Democrats in general purportedly stand for. While I was an Obama supporter towards the end of the primary, I do respect Hilary's efforts and those of her supporters and would even be open to Obama choosing her for the VP slot, I sincerely hope that once the convention is over (and whether or not Hilary gets offered the VP slot) all Democrats, including former Hilary supporters, will finally gel together and become the fighting force that we need to defeat our REAL enemy: McSame!

Every Clinton supporter I know is working hard for Obama.

NGU.

Of course they took a little time to adjust, but now they are working side by side with me in the Obama campaign. I'm beginning to think you're right - the continued divisiveness is coming from trolls.

The only real nasties I've ran into are the PUMA boards, and a small vocal clot of people at another political community that seem to be trying to drive away and make things miserable for the Obama supporters. (This is despite the fact that the person sponsoring the community has ENDORSED Obama.)

Isn't that what we do? Isn't that what we've always done?

So we're not Republican robots. That isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The vital thing is that we show unity between the Convention and the
election.

Well, a little unity AFTER the election would be a nice change, too......

The disunity among Democrats just seems more pronounced this year, although, admittedly, my perception may be somewhat colored by the MSM and its attention to this schism not to mention the GOP's efforts to keep the primary conflict stoked. I just don't remember an election where the supporters of one or more of the primary candidates threatened to vote GOP just because their preferred candidate didn't win but then again some of them may just be GOP "plants" attempting to foment more division among us. It just really makes me nervous to think about Obama having to work hard to win over a traditionally strong Democratic constituency and possibly risking losing part of it to McSame (of all people). I guess the good thing is that the GOP isn't in great shape in terms of unity and most are not anywhere near as enthusiastic about McSame as most Democrats (and people in general) are about Obama.

But I'd have a better chance suggesting the official language of the USA be Swedish

But I'm too much of a free thinker to ever manage to accept the GOP cult-like "Lemmings" mode of intellectual functioning and I don't think it would do our party (or anybody for that matter) any credit to be even more like Republicans.

the media says we have disunity.

!

DLC - corporate democrats.

friggin DINOS

I'm fine with having them help us get majorities, but they're the tail, not the dog. We can't have them doing the wag. We decide when to wag, not them.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I give her credit for occasionally trying to patch up the divide, but it's not 'lying' to acknowledge that she ran a campaign strategy aimed at increasing that divide.

But it does provide plausible deniability to her fanboys to pick and choose whatever it takes (in their mind) to defend her disaster of a campaign which, according to her recent video still referring to Obama as "my opponent," is still ongoing.

Hillary on purpose got some of her supporters so riled up about sexism or with racism that it may be impossible to fully cool them down.

:crazy:

It seems many members want to keep bringing up the primaries.

They want to attack the Clintons constantly.

They are not on-board...

I'm so frickin' sick of that asshat. I hope he fades away NOW.

Georgian/ Russian war.. they squeezed in the disUnity meme.. pushing for Clinton to have her name on roll call.. blah, blah. I wouldn't be surprised if the PTB wanted a little switchero on us peons.

Lots of friction/mistrust between the Dems and the Obama volunteers, who were mostly not active in party politics until this election. It is that disunity that will cause not only local Democratic candidates to lose but also make it impossible for Obama to win here...when otherwise he could possibly pull off a surprise win in this Red state. It is sad but true.

the historical significance of the first viable black candidate competing against the first viable woman candidate and passions ran high. There were charges of racism and sexism tossed around between the campaigns with supporters of each candidate blaming the supporters of the other candidate for starting the smears. Accusations flew back and forth. Republican disrupters saw a chance to sow a little dissension, so they acted accordingly. The media gets a lot of coverage out of a close contest, so they hyped up the division to spark interest and boost their ratings. It became a three ring circus.

Now that the race has been decided you would think that everything would settle down, but there are still some on both sides who are not ready to let go and work together to defeat John McCain in the GE. Some of them seem to have a need to be vindicated for some actions that occurred in the past or for scenarios that they imagine might happen in the future. I believe that there are others who stand to gain from disunity among the Democrats that are fomenting a lot of the discord.

candidates and 2) a recognition that, with large-scale dissatisfaction with the pukes and the disasterous path they have our nation on, this election was a great chance for major, progressive advancement.

Instead, we get a center-right corporatist. So, the long-time, hard-working party veterans (non-pols) are very disappointed in the lost opportunity. Add in the non-stop calls for Obama-worship from the newbies (enthusiastic as they are) and you have a perfect storm of typical Democratic behavior.

Other causes, including the media, contribute but are not as crucial.

why did the only pure progressive candidate in the race fail to pull more than the token few percent he always pulls?

Please tell me you realize this board does not represent mainstream Democrats.

You were asking the same question I was. I used to be a purist also - age took care of that.

:eyes:

Which campaign was more progressive than Obama and that could have derailed Hillary?

Also, there are some signs that Obama may govern more progressive than he campaigns. He did start his professional career as a community activist, spurning higher-paying corporate work.

I disagree with you big time. I believe the disunity is not between veterans and newbies, but between progressives and the DLC. The DLC and Gingrich Republicans rather famously espouse the never-ending campaign. We are simply seeing that here. The second the DLC lost this election, they began campaigning for the next one. Because as far as they are concerned, a non-DLC victory for the Democrats is still a loss for the DLC.

An even worse loss actually than a general election loss. For if they lost the GE, they could still have been in charge of the opposition party. As it is now they will have to work hard to re-establish their power within the party.

Which is going to be triply difficult now. So far this millenia they lost the first two presidential elections, lost the election for chair of the DNC, saw their electoral strategy for the last mid-term election out-performed by their Democratic rivals, lost this year's presidential primary and suffered a complete blow-out in fund-raising by non-DLCers. That last has been the cornerstone of their argument for ascendancy in the party since day one of the DLC.

Do they have ANYTHING left to argue in their favor?

I got over it very quickly. In fact, I think most people did. But for whatever reasons this year, people can't seem to accept the fact that Barack Obama won. The truth is we dodged multiple bullets with Barack and the naysayers need to GET OVER IT.

Clinton supporters than they needed to be to get their point across. It never bothered me personally, but it did bother some people. In turn some Clinton supporters were nastier to Obama supporters than they should have been... and these things stick with you.

Obama himself was a wonderful candidate who kept it all out of the gutter... but on message boards like this, the gutter was full of trash. It wasn't everyone, it was a select few posters, some who are still with us now. THEY are the ones who will have cost us this election if we lose. Not the Clintons and not Obama.

That being said, I advise everyone to get on board, Obama is a great candidate and we can't afford to lose this one.

a handful of Obama supporters on the internet said mean things about Hillary Clinton. Who knew DU had such power?

but the people on DU did participate. You may not want to admit it, but it is the truth.

We'll say Obama supporters were big meanies, without any cause whatsoever, all over the internet. Now, two questions:

1. What would cause such an unprecedented display of mass hostility? Is there something about the Obama message of hope that brings out the worst in people? Do the cheering rallies of people applauding his positive message lead, logically, to those same people attacking without provocation?

2. Suppose the netroots have some degree of influence. You seem to believe they do, since you're claiming that messsage-board behavior is the root of a major party split. If that is the case, then why did Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul--both of whom were beloved by the internet--each fail to hit five percent (that is to say, each fail to do better than similar fringe candidates have in years before the internet played such a role?)

If you had read my posts clearly with out getting defensive (I wonder why) then you would have noticed.

The messages board were a symptom of what was happening all over the field. There were reports of nastiness at the caucuses, and I saw nastiness while waiting for a rally to start... in person.


There was booing whenever her name would be mentioned. Out right BOOING at democratic rallies of other democrats.

And then, yes, there were the messageboards and the blogs.


It was more hateful, and the roots do set a tone, and are responsible for what division is here. They are responsible for the PUMAS.

That being said, the division is not nearly as big as the media would have you believe in the first place. The vast majority of Clinton supporters are on board... but your posts above just make it look like you are a person who wants to believe that they can do or say anything while the game is going on and not have to face consequences afterwards.

I hope everybody remembers this for future primaries, and remembers, on both sides, to keep their words sweet or they may have to eat them.

You're avoiding the point: why? The appropriate response to "why were Obama supporters, without apparent cause, more hostile than ever before" is not, "well, Clinton guys were too." Here, let's add Clinton supporters into the mix, too: why were they unprecedentedly hostile? But wait--it isn't just that. You're not just talking about message boards; you're talking about well...kinda everyone. Your argument is nothing more than "Democrats acted divisive." That doesn't actually say anything. Obviously divisions between groups of people involve people acting as if there is a division.

So, what is the cause of the divisiveness? What made this election so special? Did the planets align themselves in the wrong way? You're not actually positing a real cause. People do not, without cause or provocation, change their behaviors drastically.

(And, again--if the internet "sets the tone," why did its favorite candidates do no better than in the previous few go-arounds?)

But as long as the meme is that it is because of Hillary and Barack (the media pushing the lowest common denominator) most people will not see it.

NT!

Fervent dislike of the IWR vote and a hero-worshiping borne of a personality who claimed to be more "real" and "outside" than the evil party hacks in competition fueled the sanctimony. One of the reasons many of us took issue with Dean early on was that he was standing there, one of the most conservative choices on the stage, saying that he represented the "democratic wing of the Democratic Party". A statement like that isn't just "I'm good", it's also "they're bad and they've hurt you before".

That same kind of dynamic was in the Obama crowd, and still is, and the fact that he isn't the progressive that many thought causes them to react even more vehemently to still the irritating doubts.

Their virtue was so very unquestionable that it allowed the worst of the partisans the right to loosen themselves of any shackles of decency and attack the very souls of their opponents.

Of the partisan groups of the last 7 years on this board, the three most rancorous have been, in descending order: Obama's, Clark's and Dean's. Much as the dynamic between the former and latter groups felt similar, Clark's supporters had a different and more conservative feel to it: whereas the O and D extremists were amped up with sanctimonious outrage that ANYONE would question the moral superiority of their candidate, the C extremists simply barked down those who didn't realize the greatness of their champion without such sanctimony.

Funny how the group with true justification for smug morality (the Kucinich supporters) generally comported themselves rather decently.

Gimme a break.

If I had a nickel for every time I was called a 'cult member' or an 'Obama fan' or 'Obamababy' or 'Obamabot' or 'brainwashed' by a Clinton supporter in this forum, I could buy myself a shiny new car.

I'm not a fan of revisionist history. You're soaking in it.

- as

:thumbsup:

assuage his conscience by arguing that nothing they did really mattered at all ;)

Ignore what is said, and posit reasons for it being said.

Yes there's a lot of hostility. This hostility has not just developed out of thin air. Yet there seems to be absolutely no acknowledgment of where the hostility came from and we're supposed to conclude that the current disunity is just primary overage? It seems to me to put it that way is a bit more than disingenuous.

Regards

attempt to cop himself out of any blame. The other is from another poster in this thread who discusses the relationship between Dean, Obama, and Clark.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6624281&mesg_id=6625643

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6624281&mesg_id=6625134

which I think is what the poster was looking for.

Unless, we're going to ignore the kitchen sink campaign that Clinton ran in which case this whole discussion is rather moot.

Regards

double post

Since I provided two answers but you want to ignore that since neither answer's theory was one bashing Clinton. Niether Obama OR Clinton are responsible for the immature behavior of certain supporters..

She campaigned against Obama. That is what happens in the primaries. Her campaign was not as well organized as his, and did not have a message that appealed to as many people as his, but hers was not particularly nasty.

The post that I linked to regarding self righteousness DOES answer your question because THAT is what lead to the nastiness on these boards.

I just now figured out what it was that the two of you were looking for. Not an answer to any question, but instead trying to claim that it was all the Clinton's fault for your behaviors because you wish to lie and claim that she ran a campaign that was dirty than anyone else would have run under the same circumstances.

Lies such as the claim that she meant ill with her "as far as I know" comment
Lies such as the claim that she was hoping for assassination
Lies such as the claim that the "fairy tale" comment was about racism

those things do not make a dirty campaign, because those things were merely lies from a small but overly vocal and self-righteous sect of the party which sadly lead to an immature mob mentality.


The only horrible things she did in her campaign was that she lied about the bosnia trip (which said something bad about her but was not dirty towards Obama) and her misplaced comment about Obama only having a speech to back up his claims to the white house. That one comment was awful, but did NOT merit the immaturity on DU or seen in other supporters.

Your problem is that you are assuming that the anger had to come from Clinton. I sent you TWO links pointing to the need for ratings and sensationalization, as well as self righteousness as reasons for the overt anger shown. YOU are the one who is choosing to ignore information. The reason those links did not satisfy you is NOT because you were looking for an answer... but because you were only looking for Clinton bashing.


there... you fail.

you're more interested in redeeming Clinton's reputation which frankly isn't your job, than in the why. You deliberately disregard the reasons why people who were supporting Obama in the primaries and even some who weren't supporting Obama became angry at Clinton. It looks as though you want to say that the anger against Clinton is some irrational feeling that just materialized out of thin air.

I have no issue with anyone claiming that the self-righteousness of some posters had contributed to the nastiness God only knows your self-righteous bullshit is probably pissing plenty of people off. I know I'm not terribly thrilled with it. But don't, in your need to bash Obama supporters, think that you can pretend that the anger some people feel have absolutely nothing to do with Clinton's behavior in the first place. That is disingenuous to say the least.

And I noticed that you conveniently forgot to mention the race baiting which I can assure you pissed a lot of people off. (And I am NOT talking about the "fairy tale" comment either) But then since YOU don't see it I guess it doesn't exist huh? YOU are not interested in the why, you're only interested in bashing one set of supporters without considering why the hell that group is angry AND you deliberately downplay the grievances of the group with whom you don't agree.

I should have known better to expect an actual answer to the question posited. YOU have no answers because YOU aren't interested in them. You won't even accept the truth of what the hell happened. You merely have an agenda to pursue.

More revisionist fuckery!

Regards

if you think I have an agenda to bash Obama supporters.

I have long been a supporter of both Obama and Clinton as well as a donor to both.

I am, however, very rational and realistic in all of my approaches, even when it comes to unfair comments swung at McCain. I do not think there is a single thing wrong with Obama. I think he is a great candidate, and since he won the primary I think that points out that he was the better candidate.

However, spreading lies that the vast majority or American's outside of DU and the far left do not believe and claiming they are true WILL NOT MAKE THEM TRUE.

As a far left liberal myself I have no reason to defend Clinton other than that the things said about her are not true. It has been like a bacterial infection on this site and several others. That is how mob mentality works. Each person starts trying to top the other and then bam, RW talking points seem normal.

If I was interested only in clearing Clinton's record then why have I bashed her for lying about Bosnia, and for making her "Obama only had a speech" quote? I have called her on what is true.

I have, however, not called her on what is a lie. It is a lie that she race baited and while I believe that you do not think it is a lie and are not trying to be facetious, it doesn't make it any less or more true. Any rational person can watch the "as far as I know" speech and tell that there was nothing malicious in that. Any rational person can listen to the Martin Luther/Lyndon Johnson speech and tell that it was not meant as a slam on Dr. King. These stories were created in the primaries because there really wasn't much of a policy difference between the two candidates... so supporters had to find something to fight about.

As a person who first supported and donated to Edwards and was very disappointed when he dropped out... and a person who admires both Clinton and Obama and had to think very hard about which way to cast their vote... I think I am pretty objective.

I have pointed out bad things that Clinton did as well as dispel the lies that were slung at her. You have done nothing but insist that she was the reason that Obama supporters got mad and that it was all deserved. While I have made concessions and points that clearly show I am not that biased after all... you have made none. You are only interested in finding the answer you are looking for and not the truth.

That is a particularly dangerous mind set.

You choose the wrong person on these forums to claim as a radical die hard Clinton fanatic. I have a posting history of criticizing her for Bosnia, and saying that while I would love her as VP I would also love a very long list of others for VP as well. People such as Biden, Kerry, Edwards (well maybe not now), Gore... and even be fine with people like Clark, Dodd, Sebileus. As long as it is not Bayh or Kaine. Though I'd still vote enthusiastic for any ticket with Obama on top.

I am also the person who started a rather popular thread defending and praising Edwards for his decision to endorse Barack Obama back when the endorsement was first made.

So to claim that I am a diehard revisionist only interested in bashing a certain sect of supporters (a sect that apparently contains me) simply goes to show that YOU are the one who is not interested in looking at reality.

What the hell? Am I supposed to study the history of every poster on this site? That's ridiculous! Not to mention unreasonable. I'm asking questions and answering posts based on this thread and based on what I read and it didn't come across as neutral to me.

But you know what, you're wrong about my mindset. What I'm looking for is evidence that you GET it. The problem is that you don't or won't and I'm not inclined to consistently discuss it with the clueless. I can't make you see it from my point of view. But as I said in a different thread, just once, ONCE I would like to see a complaint about race LISTENED to without the usual poo-pooing from people who are never on the receiving end of a racist incident.

Regards

and have had two boyfriends were African American. I simply believe that the racism charge was trumped up. I don't think either Obama or Hillary have tried to use race to win. I think people who claim Obama is playing the race card are full of it as well.

Maybe that is just my opinion. I am sorry if I come across has not having seen your point of view. I am not trying to belittle what happens to you on a daily basis. As an openly gay male in a very conservative town, I am aware that the world is full of hate for those who are different.

In a song I wrote called "It's All San Andres Fault" I expressed that I believe that the police are inherently racist in most of their decisions. Not everyone agrees with me, but it is what I honestly beleive. So I also know what it is like to have people who do not agree with your strong held beliefs.

I am not trying to brush aside how you feel, but please do know that I am being sincere that I think Hillary was made out to be a monster she was not, just as much as I feel that Obama was wrongly smeared for playing a race card he never played.

I should be more clear in how I express my opinions. But you please look at it from my side as well, because I truly do believe that Hillary was wrongly demonized in the process of group hysteria amongst a faction of Obama's supporters. As we have seen from the PUMAs and others... Obama was also wrongly demonized among a faction of Hillary's supporters.

The healing will never work until both sides can admit that they are wrong and that their demonization of Barack and Hillary are not justified.

But I appreciate that you made the effort to show me that you not only read but understood what I am trying to say. It is more than I usually get in such conversations.

:thumbsup:

Regards

would surely give Obama's poll numbers a needed boost.

it would surely give Obama's poll numbers a needed boosts. Obviously the division hurts the party, from both sides.

It has gone way beyond obvious trolling.

Some here would rather have Obama lose just so that they could blame Hillary Clinton.

and when you provide obivious evidence as I did above, the ignore it and then claim YOU are the one ignoring their posts :shrug:

I really feel as though there is no winning with these people

We have developed to a state, thanks to the medias need for ratings, where the world is so divided and ready for conflict that it is sickening. They build moutains out of mole hills. Both Obama and Hillary are such wonderful people I don't see why anyone should bash either of those two.

Instead people just keep pointing and saying 'well the other side does it too' which is very much true, both sides are to blame, but it is not an excuse.

I hope that we are able to come together and figure all of this out so that we can help Obama win and be the amazing president we know he can be.

The thing is, the elections will keep getting dirty every time around if we don't some how stand up to the dividing blogs, dividing messageboard posters, dividing media... all of it is done because in the new information age everyone is desperate for the little attention there is to go around and they get that attention by trying to be the loudest and most obnoxious.

Get over it.

if only your pals could have gotten over it then, as well

And my "pals" and I now support Obama.

Why do you keep attempting to rip off the scab?

and gets threads locked. Most of us are over it. I never cared that much if Clinton lost because I knew Obama was a great candidate, had donated money to him as well, and declared as much.

But looking at individual posters, your posts have been particularly nasty since the primaries.

Right?

Jealousy,Entitlement and Racism...

if you bothered to spell her name right. I'm just sayin'. You spelled it wrong at least four times in one post.

Any time I read a Clinton-bashing post, like some on this thread, I assume they are RNC here to disrupt. That's been their strategy since 2000, at least. I can't think of a single reason for Clinton-bashing other than trying to help McCain.

Simple.

:rofl:

The chickens came home to roost for them.

A number of Liberal egotists .... They amount to very few in the big picture ...

I wouldn't ignore them, but I would keep your perspective: kick away at the yapping chihuahuas at your heels, and perhaps try to find ways of developing a universal message that persuades citizens to vote Democratic ....

I am frustrated that the party doesn't itself do this ... Where are they ?

and we all hate to win

A few dozen people who refuse to accept that he became the nominee through a fair and square campaign?

Fuck them. Seriously. FUCK THEM.

Often the three overlap.

useless old people who are a drain on society.

Many segments of the GOP are dissatisfied with McCain. But in the end they'll support him, as most yellow dog Dems will support Obama.

The MSM just doesn't want to give any attention to the intra-party squabbles among Republicans (gee, I wonder why?), which is why we never hear about it in the news or from pundits.

See my journals. Karl Rove was a member of CREEP

Two camps with a few too many children involved.