Give Me A Break! Stop The Party Infighting, Today...Right Now!

After 6 years of Bush and his authoritarian republican partisan practices, I thought it would be a no-brainer that Dems would come together for the good of the country and work together to take back the White House and this government.

Evidently some Dem candidates and their supporters, many on this site, did not get the message.

There is not a single announced Dem candidate for President that I cannot support if they get the Democratic nomination, and every one of them is preferable to any Republican candidate. Period.

However, I am old enough to remember past campaigns in which party infighting leading up to the selection of a Democrat nominee did a great deal of damage which Republicans used in the General Election to win.

Do we want another 4 years of Republican rule after Bush leaves office? If your answer is yes, then go ahead and attack one another. Candidates and their supporters.

Candidates, we all know the value of campaign dollars in the coming presidential election, but we must put the needs of the people and the Dem Party first in our common goal of winning in 2008. Stop the sniping and start putting out your ideas for our consideration. Nothing is more important in this time of great peril. And BTW, winning the Dem nomination at all costs is not the same thing as winning in 2008 --remember that.

Candidate supporters, we know you are committed to supporting your particular preference for the Democratic nominee. However, if you cannot commit to supporting in the general election any one of the presidential candidates who gets the Dem nomination, then there is something terribly wrong.

I prefer John Edwards as my choice for the Democratic nominee for President. That does not mean I will not support Clark, Clinton, Obama, Kucinich, etc. if they get the nomination. And I do not need to tear down any one of them to make my choice more likely to win.

Recently I have noticed a concerted effort to spread attacks against one or more Dem nominees on this supposedly progressive site. Some posters here have wrongly alleged Edwards is another Bush who wants to be 'another f****** dictator', and that he is promoting an attack on Iran. Hillary Clinton has been referred to as a republican in Democratic Party clothing. Obama has been alleged to be a liar, about his family, name, religious upbringing, etc.

You can have an opinion, and expressing it is protected under the Constitution we all prize. But if you want more of what Bush has given us for the last 6 years, then go ahead and make erroneous and unsupported allegations like these against the Dem candidates who do not happen to be your first choice. Hear that?.... THose are Republicans and their supporters applauding your efforts! And the MSM is ready to repeat it over and over again.

We need to stop this right now. We need to present the American people with a united Democratic Party, and we need to rally around ideas for fixing the mess Bush has given us. Yes, we need to actively debate ideas and solutions --that is a far cry from attacking one another because their ideas are not the same as our ideas, or the ideas of our preferred candidate.

A full and hardy debate within the Democratic Party over the best ideas to include in our platform is good, and the public will reward us at the polls with their votes. If we keep up these attacks WITHIN the Democratic Party, the American public will wonder if there is any difference between the 'real' Democratic Party and the picture that Republicans paint of it.

So stop it, and stop it right now. Before you post your next uninformed unsupported opinionated attack against another Democratic candidate for President, stop and think. Did the candidate being attacked really say or do that which I am accusing them? Am I relying on someone else's unsupported opinion? Will it help Democrats take back the government of the people in 2008?

If not, then don't do it. Let's all commit to changing things for the better through positive action, and quit the practice of handing our opponents the most damaging ammunition they could never acquire on their own --a record of Democrats attacking Democrats.

It is not 'what can the Democratic Party do for a candidate and their supporters?' but rather 'What can the Democratic Party do for our country?' The people deserve nothing less, and we will never stand taller in their view if we keep this in mind during the upcoming primary season.

People have opinions. People agree/disagree on issues, candidates and which way toilet paper should come out of the holder. Political debate is healthy and what the Founders not only expected but encouraged.

...are healthy political debate in your view?

NGU.

:evilfrown:

sometimes. So what? Most of us learn to skim over those types of responses and move on to more substantial stuff, i.e., "healthy political debate."

:toast:

Never Give Up.

during the primaries, and just heave a heavy sigh.

Thanks for posting this, though. Let's hope it will do some good.

You can not DEMAND squat *right now* and you know it. If we become compliant and non-threatening, then we will get another pro-corporate free trade Democratic President. That is unacceptable. I've been bullied to shut up and vote for the centrist Democrat since Carter and I'm sick of submitting to Corporate Controlled Centrists. It's wrong and not in keeping with the party that is supposed to be "for the people" before the "political elite." :(

If a corporatist centrist is nominated, I'll take a vacation from DU, but right now, it's all about the Primaries. Play ball! :-) :hi:

candidates and would-be candidates stack up as far as being corporate controlled centrists? This would be an interesting examination.

is their votes on Bankruptcy Legislation. This is a multifaceted issue and also has to consider "the common good" of paring down our killing machine corporate profits to promote mentally healthy families through community support. But looking at their voting record is an excellent beginning. :shrug:

Enron Democrats by William Greider
*Published in the April 8, 2002 issue of The Nation

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0322-05.htm

When George W. Bush took office, a bankruptcy bill was the first major legislation passed by the new Congress. Bill Clinton had vetoed a milder version, but in the new circumstances many former opponents scrambled aboard. Only sixteen Democratic senators voted against the bill, led by Paul Wellstone (the measure would have become law long ago, if not for Wellstone's guerrilla resistance).

The "yea" votes included a couple of new faces much celebrated as "people" politicians and presidential possibles--Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Two other potential candidates--Russ Feingold and John Kerry--voted against it.

/snip

snip

During the 2000 election, other New Dems organized a direct assault on SEC chairman Arthur Levitt, who was challenging the big five auditing firms on their conflicted interests--consulting with companies on business strategy, then auditing the books with supposed independence. Dozens of politicians piled on Democrats Torricelli, Schumer and Bayh in the Senate; and Jim Moran, Cal Dooley, Ellen Tauscher and other New Dem regulars in the House. The New Democrat Network harvested more than $1 million that year for deserving politicians. Some have now recanted. "We were wrong, you were right," Torricelli told Levitt, though he neglected to mention the money. The luster of Silicon Valley fundraising has not been dimmed by the scandals and bankruptcies. The "economic stimulus" bill passed in March was described as a Democratic victory because it includes a minor dollop for the unemployed. But most of the $43 billion went to business--including a gorgeous tax bonus sought by the needy entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley.

Senator Chris Dodd harvested nearly half a million dollars from the accounting industry alone, and he earned it. Dodd led the charge for the Public Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), an item in Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" that was supposed to liberate the New Economy from frivolous investor lawsuits. SEC chairman Levitt lent his prestigious endorsement, but later recanted as the legislation became laden with elaborate legal protections for auditors, corporate executives, financiers and insurance companies. The idea was to make it much more difficult for misled investors to recover losses, but the principal target was a single West Coast law firm, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, and its lead partner, William Lerach, who were bombarding high-tech firms and their investment bankers and accountants with multimillion-dollar lawsuits. The firm was accused of recruiting dummy shareholders as "plaintiffs," while creaming the settlements for itself, so various provisions in Dodd's bill were designed to punish it. Lerach called it "the Corporate License to Steal Act."

Like the debate of any idea, I am making the argument for a policy and practice that could produce positive results if enough people agree with me and implement it. If they do not agree, it will fall by the wayside and many other ideas do in the 'marketplace of ideas.'

You are free to advocate for anyone you desire, and oppose any 'corporate controlled centrists' you find within the Democratic Party.

But would you advocate voting for the Republican candidate over a Democratic candidate in 2008? That is where the rubber meets the road, and the practical result of Democratic Party infighting up to that point.

very heated political debate.

The problem arises, however, when we alienate each other to the point where it's hard to unite behind the eventual nominee.

As an organizer and activist, I've seen that happen all too often. We end up forming circular firing squads that leave everyone wounded or out of the game entirely. Not a winning strategy, in my opinion.

Regarding your final point, let's hope the Democratic candidate in 2008 makes herself or himself clearly distinguishable from the Republican candidate.

I've held my nose and voted for all your centrist nominees for President. However, now that our beloved Country is moving in dire financial straights (remember this is not the blessed 1990s for American People's wages), I know that a corporatist Democrat will ALSO gut our Middle Class in America.

I've been a loyal democrat and voted for "The Party Nominee" but now that it's just one big train wreck heading for recession, yes, I'll have to sign-off of DU if a corporatist Democrat is Nominated because, this time, I WILL NOT submit.

My point: I know that our beloved country is heading for a Recession (or worse). In that regard, nothing but a populist Democratic President can pull us out of the imminent morass.

On Edit: I do this with great regret BUT at least I can look myself in the mirror and know that I did not help financially destroy our middle class. Yes, <shriek> when the tragedy occurs, it just may be better that a Republican President be in office, i.e., take the FULL blame.

You would leave DU because thousands of people who don't even know DU exists decide to vote for someone whose policies you disagree with, whereby that person becomes the nominee?

Or you would not vote at all? I don't understand. That isn't the way to "not help financially destroy our middle class." It's a form of taking action by not acting at all, sort of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or, in psychobabble, it's called passive aggressiveness.

I think I recall from past posts that you're in Oklahoma, so maybe you have the luxury of abstaining, but every vote counts, if only to prove the strength of a candidate against the GOP, the wannabe rulers and empire-builders.

I hope I'm interpreting your post incorrectly. You're a valuable voice on this forum. There needs to be strong opinion from all perspectives.

We can't seem to distinquish between a rough and even bloody game of political hockey from gladitorial combat, imo. In other words, we shouldn't be so gung ho for our candidate to win that we kill off adversaries whose vote we'll need in November 2008.

:shrug:

And, by the way, I am all in favor of rough-and-tumble political debate, and even bloodying (metaphorically speaking) a few noses.

However, even though I voted for Kerry, I was so pissed off at how some of his followers behaved (including those on his staff) that I ended up voting against Bush, not for Kerry.

That's my yardstick. If it's a race against a Republican, I will STFU most gladly. That's my other yardstick. I am getting a kick out of these threads, though, where the idea seems to be for complacency throughout the primaries. Like that's ever happened or should ever happen. We have a duty to vet our Democratic candidates for the nomination. I fully intend to do just that until the nomination is won by somebody or other. Meanwhile, I will defend my own candidate against somebody else's -- it is what we have primaries for.

are good for Our Party.

Are we to become Reaganesque and copy the Republican's 11th Commandment? No thank you. When I see a politician behaving badly, I will not hesitate in speaking out FOR the Democratic Party.

IMO, our self-proclaimed Dear Leaders in the DLC and Third Way would love us to just vote for Their Chosen Corporate Democrats, shut up, and go back to watching Anna Nicole. :shrug:

I submit that it's better for The AMERICAN PEOPLE and The Democratic Party to shed light on the Corporate and Special Interest Control ($$$) some of our Candidates flourish upon. Those beholden to the major corporations in bed with the Military Industrial Complex would do Our Democratic Party a service by being defeated by their next Democratic Populist Challenger in the next Primary.

...do a comparison between Zell's record and those of the current Dem candidates, and report back to us here?

Unless you just want to attack without facts...

:shrug:

NGU.

IMO, the difference between a corporatist Democratic Presidential Nominee and a Republican is that - The Corporate Democrat will kiss you on the cheek and give you a warm hug before they FINANCIALLY SCREW all AMERICANS but the Investor Classes (having over $300,000 of chump change in The Stock Market) with free trade agreements. :shrug:

Yes, continuing to lose our jobs to overseas labor is going to make The Average American wage slave happy with The Democratic Party ... not. We need to slowly vote in POPULIST Democrats and those who are not in the back pockets of special interest serving the Military Industrial Complex.

NGU.

...how does this vindicate using hateful language and personal ad hominem attacks?

NGU.

civil debate up until the nomination and after that either get on board or STFU!

but the level of vitriol over the last few days is just unreal. Second-graders have disputes that are less childish. And a number of posts have been made seemingly solely for the purpose of getting a nasty argument started.

and what is most surprising is that some of DU more prominent posters are participating.

:shrug:

how is making personal attacks on Democratic Candidates helping the Democratic Party?

IMHO it only helps the Republican Party in their efforts.

Do you believe exercising your 'right' to engage in party infighting is more important than the Democratic Party winning in 2008?

I am not advocating for any particular Democratic Party candidate who has already declared their attention to seek the nomination in posting this. I do think the use of our 'rights' has consequences, and electing a Republican in 2008 would be bad for the country.

If you do not agree, then so be it.

"how is making personal attacks on Democratic Candidates helping the Democratic Party?"

By the way? Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

Isn't democracy grand?

Opinions are opinions, people - including democrats do this all the time!

This is nothing new.

Political fights are common in a democracy! Get used to it!

:thumbsup:

I still haven't decided. Yesterday, I posted that I was leaning toward one of the candidates and tried to make it clear it was a 'starting to lean' type of thing. Several were very helpful and provided information that I wasn't aware of. It would have taken me a couple of days at least. And I asked for and got the good and the bad with that.

Part of the problem is, we're not able have an open discussion behind closed doors when the room we're in is a public board. It's also easy to finger-blurt *wink* and forget the :sarcasm:.

It is still nearly 11 months till the first primaries. It is not going to hurt the Democratic party to hash it out now and decide who is or isn't a good potential candidate so we can nominate the best possible candidate available. Then, once the nominee is decided upon, support that candidate in unison and show the Repubs no mercy. It's the only way.

I kid you not, if I honestly thought that HRC would support people before corporations, I'd help campaign for her. I can fully support "a liberal or progressive" that the M$M always mis-labels her.

If any of her workers are out there, are you listening?

go to "vote smart", as another poster suggested, and find out what her actual voting record is.

I know that takes some work and is harder than throwing slogans around, but you might be surprised.

The basic tenets of civility and common courtesy is a foreign concept to many. We are so used to this smackdown type of interaction that people don't know any other way to communicate.

Thank you very much for this post.

It's possible to debate and disagree without the vitriol. People just don't seem to care anymore. We complain about Fox, the freepers and other conservatives who are so vile in their attacks but there is some hypocrisy because it's being done on our side also.

We have to have one debate, the election is over a year away yet people have retreated to their respective corners and won't move.


It appears that many don't really understand this primary process. ALL ideas are supposed to be considered many of these ideas, from the various candidates, are suppose to make up the platform that the nominee runs on.

I don't want to silence any voices.

Some people have the idea that engaging in a civil debate of the ideas put forth by the various Democratic candidates somehow infringes on their rights, and is an attempt to shut them up.

Great leaders inside and outside government know that good ideas do not originate just from their own brains, but from others.

IF we debate the issues and the proposed solutions, we have a better chance of crafting the best solution --and is it really most important that the idea originated from our particular preferred candidate for the Democratic Nomination?

That is why we need to take the best ideas from everyone to construct a Democratic Party Platform for our candidate to run on.

and thank you for this post.

There is nothing wrong with disagreements but I think we just need to reminded that this is not king of the hill.

One reason that the passion has been so strong is because we are in the midst of some very serious issues.

Hopefully we will learn how to properly direct that energy for our advantage.

along with their opinions. The facts don't always, but often provide some support the logic of the opinions expressed here at DU. :shrug:

The fact is that many of us have candidates that we do NOT want nominated.

It's the primaries and IMO "overall" we are basically respectful and tame of each others thoughts and feelings.

We have not basically been respectful and tame of others thoughts and feelings.

I also have candidates that I don't want nominated, that is not the point. Some don't stand a chance at being nominated but their voices can be heard in this process through the debates and campaigning. There might be one idea that this candidate has that it good. That one idea could be included in the platform.

corporate elite and their crones is just a non-starter for me.

Call me picky? :shrug:

I would agree with you but I can still do it in a respectful manner.

is often labeled "disrespectful." :wow: When you're in a political race, it seems that all issues are on the table. We know our whorish M$M will focus on hype so we best be prepared to stave off those long knives of the republicans by CIVILLY hashing it out between us Democrats who should run against the Republicans for the highest office in our Country. :shrug:

I guess we have to make sure we are speaking the same language. I think that might be the biggest problem.

Not supporting a preferred candidate is not disrespectful. If one feels that way it reveals other issues that the person may be dealing with.

No, all issues are not on the table because, sadley, we like to shoot the messenger. I don't care what the M$M is focusing on, right now they're focusing on Anna Nicole and Brittany.

It seems that being civil is seen as a weakness. That's unfortunate.

Do you have a link to Dem convention rules that supports this? My understanding of the political process is that ideas, party platforms, candidates, is about acquiring power and then exercising that power. It's not the other way around.

It's interesting. What you are saying is along the lines of what Joe Lieberman has said for years, about the need to respect all view points, to be civil, to end the divisive rhetoric, to work together for the common good.

However, Joe Lieberman understands what politics is really about. It's about power; acquiring it and exercising it. When Joe saw he was in danger of losing his power, suddenly, his "political" notions about civility, fairness etc. gave way to the basic fact of politics. It's really about who gets the power.

So while I was raised to be civil (as I'm sure was Joe L) I am also aware that one very good reason to be civil is it often enhances ones power. However, sometimes being uncivil is a way to power also. So it's much more a question of strategy and tactics than it is about some unwritten rule about ideas, civility, etc.

There are pluses and minuses to being civil and there are pluses and minuses to being uncivil. A smart politician learns to balance those out, in order to acquire and use power. I would hope the voters would also learn to do that, instead of cling to romantic notions designed to limit their own power.

Otherwise the founders would not have created a House and a Senate, each populated using a different standard. The concept of 'acquiring power and then exercising that power' is remarkable close to Bush saying 'I got political capital(by alleging he was elected) and I am going to spend it.' Granted this about party politics and not government itself. Even so, there is an important parallel since we all believe in democratic government.

If the only ideas that the Democratic Party will include in its Platform come from the nominee alone, there is no need for our party representatives to debate anything. Vote and elect the nominee and go home. The ideas the elected delegates bring to that convention can be shelved.

Giving all members of the Democratic Party the opportunity to be heard is not adopting all viewpoints. However, without this important aspect of party politics, you end up with dictatorial power similar to what we have with Bush and the Republican Party today.

is based on specified separate powers, which then, ideally, provides checks and balances on the power of any one branch or any one individual, group, club, political party, interest. This is because the authors of the constitution knew that politics was about acquiring and exercising power, and they made every attempt to inhibit concentration of power into one entity.

That is a separate discussion from the point of my post which you replied to.

The point of politics is to acquire power and to exercise power. Those who aspire to acquire political power, from those running for dog catcher right up to those running for POTUS, do so for various reasons, and for various combinations of various reasons,

If you believe that Al Gore, should he decide to run, would do so in order that Exxon could better share their ideas or better exert their considerable economic power into the global warming issue, then I believe you might want to rethink that.

Since having political power by no means implies having total and unbridled power, compromise often ensues.

Yet compromise is impossible unless one holds and has the capacity to utilities power. (For instance, a jailer doesn't compromise with the convicts usually, unless the convicts get a court order, are threatening to riot, bribe the jailer (economic power,) etc.)

Hence, politics, at it's most basic element, is about obtaining and utilizing power. Civility, ideas, and fairness are second tier candidates as regards politics, including our Democratic Primary.

edited to add- We have protections built into several parts of our system to protect the minority, who by definition, have no power. These built in protections afford no power to the minority, but rather limit the power of the majority. Or to put it yet another way, the built in protection limit the powerful as to the extent of their power over the powerless.

An example: The President is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, but the Congress is given the power to declare war and fund war. THese are not separate powers, but rather as the framers intended shared powers.

The essence of politics is compromise, like it or not.

We do not elect dictatorial leaders and Kings who exercise power without consequence and check and balance.

ANd compromise is definitely possible without holding ultimate power. The filibuster in the Senate is evidence of that, requiring 60 votes rather than the bare majority.

Successful politicians that 'get things done' are masters at reading the political will and power of the parties, and crafting a 'compromise' that builds a majority coalition. As messy as that sounds and is in practice, that is democracy in action.

I disagree.

I'm not sure where you learned your political science, but I know it wasn't from the same teachers/professors I learned mine from.

Here, compare your novel notions with wikipedia:



It sounds as if your contention is that the US constitution is a "mingler" document.

Do you have a link to anything that would back up or corraborate your assertion?

My link is to the US Constitution itself. I gave you an example of shared powers.

Separation of powers was the framers' solution to the unbridled absolute power of the King of England. Having three separate branches of government does provide checks and balances between the three branches. However the overlap in function is there, as is acknowledged in the source you quoted: "No democratic system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers."

We have a constitution which can be reduced in legible print to just a few pages, and it has been hailed as a living document because it does not attempt to address every possible fact scenario. (A quick review of many Latin American constitutions will reveal unwieldy constitutions, many a half inch thick or more.)

I will give you another example of shared power: The Constitution gives the Legislative Branch the power to enact laws that are constitutional, and it gives the Judicial Branch the power to review those laws and determine which laws are unconstitutional. There is a shared power among the two branches to eliminate unconstitutional laws, but exercised in different ways.

powers, so I can only assume that you are unclear as to the definitions of seperation of powers and shared powers.

Do you think the three branches of government and their officials live in their own hermetically sealed environments performing their exclusive separate functions assigned to them by the Constitution?

"Sharing' simply means that they each have a role to play in the performance of a government function.

One last example: To get rid of a criminal president, it requires shared action --impeachment in the House, Trial in the Senate for removal, and the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS presides over the trial.

Call it 'seperation(sic) of powers' all you want, but it is sharing of power to get rid of the criminal president. And without the participation in this process by all three branches, the criminal president remains in office.

...especially concerning Senator Clinton.

The title of the threads seems to be constructed to fan the flames. There's too damned much of that going on here. It has to stop.

We've got to stop feeding the trolls. Just alert them, quietly.

That's what I'm going to do.

There are some very mean things said on this board. We can disagree and still be considerate.

However, I'm not happy about this kind of thread either.

People need to calm down. We've got a year before we have to decide this matter. There's no damned hurry. Let the media play their rock star status games.

We've got some very important issues to bring forward, like formal investigations of Bush/Cheney law breaking.

Right now, the 2008 election is not even important. We're being played like a harp by a news media who think Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears are important news and Bush/Cheney running away with power is not.

I'm sick of this shit. Let the 2008 election rest for a few months. It's totally unimportant right now.

I don't like Edwards. Don't like what he stands for. Not even a little. He's a creep and I don't trust him. His former profession disgusts me. His house makes me want to vomit.

Hilary is a little abrasive, but she's otherwise okay. She'd probably make a passable president. I really like Obama. He's my real choice, but I think that he'll have to run as VP first. Gore, if he ran, would be okay, but he'd have to be the Al Gore with personality, not the Al Gore who basically made himself thoroughly unlikable and lost the election (by not winning it conclusively enough). As far as the others go, they should drop out now. Unelectable, the lot of them.

For us to get along between elections? LOL!

not only that but he is a man who is fighting for the good of our planet Earth!

Yet people come on here and diss him. Like :wtf:

As far as I can tell, none of the announced candidates for the Dem Nomination has escaped these attacks.

I believe that good potential Democratic candidates do not enter these races because of the personal attacks they and their families will undoubtedly suffer in BOTH the primary season and the general election.

We need to change that.

And the threat of another Republican occupying the White House in 2008 is real.

Yep the Democratic Party is the 'big tent' party, and we all are not going to agree on everything. But there should be no disagreement on the threat posed by continued Republican control of the White House.

the expense of us "little people."

We truly need to drive this point home with our beloved candidates. :hi:

People are sometimes confused by the difference between 'ideas' and 'candidates.'

This should be fully debated within the Democratic Party, and if it is deemed essential it needs to be put in our Platform. In fact it will likely get more indepth consideration as an idea, than if it is 'tied to a particular candidate.'

Debate away on the ideas and let's see where we end up at ...

:applause:

But these debates do get heated. However, I get your gist that unfounded *personal attacks* vice behavior, political positions and voting record debates ---> are not productive.

You've won me over and I will try to site reputable references to support my future arguments. :-)

I know that when I am presented with the truth about someone or something that I erroneously believed, I may be disappointed but I still want that information. It allows me to alter my support for that person or idea to comport with reality.

None of us should ever reject our fellow Dems for bring 'proof' of their allegation to the table for consideration. All of us should be suspicious of 'bare allegations' which are not supported by evidence to back them up.

My reference to 'linking' to sites as 'proof' is simply pointing out that a link is not evidence or proof any more so than saying 'everybody knows.' If the link contains the 'proof' of the allegation put forward, then take the time to identify the quote or statement in the link that you think supports your allegation.

And just because you link to an 'opinion' statement does not qualify as factual proof of your allegation. Rush Limbaugh has made a career out of that practice.

Also, when opinion columns present facts to promote a view, it should not necessarily be discouraged. If you have a voting record, for example, that's evidence - FACTS.

IMHO I always raise the red flag when reading anything written by the Washington Times and Fox News, based not just on opinion but a well documented history of 'disreputable' reporting and the knowledge of who owns those publications.

Interest, Bias, and Prejudice are always the watchwords of determining the validity and truth of any news organization.

Factual reporting of the news has a place at the debate table, and so does opinion if it is properly identified as being opinion. However there should be no provision given to opinion which is alleged to be fact.

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

I simply refuse to hang my head and hold my opinions to myself. I have the right to say as i please and shall continue to do so. Debate and exchange of ideas is a positive, not a negative.

She is absolutely the wrong choice. She is an arrogant power hungry compromising politician. She will take us down a path that could have us looking back on the Bush years fondly. Just my opinion but I am entitled to it.

BTW, you may want to tell HER to stop the infighting. Seems she has done as much smearing as anyone on this board.

We take our votes seriously here. They are a reflection of who we are as citizens. That means that identities are on the line when supporters of different candidates clash. At the same time, we only get one chance to do this, so it is vital that we do it right. This dynamic inspires maximum and continous effort to convince others.

If you want things to change, those two variables must change. Lectures, even in the most even, convincing tones, won't be enough, and let's face it, your tone was far from even. In fact, it bordered on arrogance. In that sense, it was no different than the most self-righteous tirade about why candidate X is the only one who can save us now.

You posted "Lectures, even in the most even, convincing tones, won't be enough, and let's face it, your tone was far from even. In fact, it bordered on arrogance."

I merely shared my experiences regarding the consequences of party infighting during Presidential election campaigns, which has been shaped by my observations since Kennedy was elected.

I am unsure what 'tone' you are referring to, and where 'arrogance' enters into this I have no idea. My comments were not intended to be 'a lecture' even if you took it that way. My approach is to persuade and convince people by argument, supported by facts.

It is ok to oppose a candidate. Just bring the evidence with you if you want your argument to persuade and convince voters to adopt your position. And let's not get down in the weeds of making it personal. But if your candidate does not prevail in getting the Democratic nomination, I would hope that you would support the Democratic candidate who does get the nomination. And I would hope that candidate has not been attacked within the party to such an extent that it interferes with their ability to win the General Election.

were all at each others' throats in 2003 and early 2004. Many of us made posts we weren't proud of (including moi), but we all came together in the end and Kerry had all the support he could ask for from DU. I expect the same result this time around (unless Hillary wins). :evilgrin: JUST KIDDING!

and unaffiliated voters, and third party voters.

We may be able to bridge the differences for party purposes, but the things we say and do will be replayed in the MSM ad nauseum and in Republican attack ads.

THere is always a consequence to making personal attacks which are not supported by the facts or proof.

As an exonerated defendant in a salacious criminal trial once said "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

A candidate unjustly attacked is in any case attacked in the public's opinion, and in many cases the 'perception' cannot be overcome in a short period of time before the general election is held.

It's not us promoting this...it's what the candidates themselves are doing.

I agree with some of what you say...but DU is not influential amongst the voters you are talking about. It's right wing sites that pick up what the candidates do and say and turn it around on them and other Liberal Sites with more visibility in the Media than DU who report on the candidates (and some may have preferences for one candidate over the other).

Still, the Hillary/Obama incident was worse for them than anything we could have done here.

DU'ers shouldn't be attacking each other over their preferences, though. That's when it gets nasty and non-productive ...where people join campaign "teams" and then go attack others. And, making statements without some fact doesn't help discussion either (which is good point you made). We could all do better in trying to substantiate what we say here when we get into arguments...myself included.

top campaign advisors will insist that their candidates not get into these types of spats.

Right now I think that the candidates are vying for many of the same funding sources, trying to look 'tough enough' to carry the Party banner.

Eventually this race will come down to three or four candidates with the majority of support, and at that point they will begin to reorient their vision toward the effects their actions will have on their general election campaign.

You might want to go back and read Jan 2004, particularly articles in the Iowa papers. Every candidate did their share of beating up other candidates. Someone even tried to tarnish Kerry with legislation sponsored by Bob Kerrey. If you don't want the money machine to roll right into office, this is the way it has to be done.

See my sig line.

"Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus

All parties with different ideas must conform those ideas to what is in their best interests.

In the past there had to be multiple votes at the Democratic Convention to arrive at a nominee. In order to agree on that nominee each voting delegate had to conform their vote to a candidate that 'best' matched their position on the ideas most important to them.

In that context you get a type of 'groupthink' since no individual delegate's full list of preferred positions was likely to be adopted. It was in that context that I addressed the concept of 'groupthink.' On some occasions, the top two candidates each had more support than all the other candidates, but since they could not bridge the gap and third candidate ended up being the nominee.

"Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

"My anger has meant pain to me but it has also meant survival, and before I give it up I'm going to be sure that there is something at least as powerful to replace it on the road to clarity."

There are people here being told to be quit acting angry when discussing a candidate who doesn't support human rights for them. It's disrespectful to tell them their anger is out of line, and once the nominee is chosen they'd best offer up their support.

There are people here who have lost families members because of the votes of some of our candidates. They are angry also, and it's disrespectful to tell them to play nice. Playing nice is something people say when their own lives aren't on the line.

As both parties slide further to the right, the "most damaging ammunition" isn't outrage, it's silence.

So instead, I propose this. If somebody is angry, listen to their words, but also listen to their anger, because you will learn as much from that as you will from any links they provide.

Being angry, frustated and passionate are very understandable emotions to have, especially with this current administration.

They are also understandable emotions for many to have about the democratic candidates.

no more persuasive than spitting in the wind.

No one here has advocated 'silence' that I have read.

And no one has told people being angry is wrong. Righteous indignation has led to many positive consequences, but it still has to be supported by the facts to persuade or convince others.

THis is not about supporting particular candidates. It is about debating ideas and differences in a way that does not lend itself to promoting Republican victory in 2008.

1. That unsupported inaccurate attacks are inappropriate. We can all agree on that.

2. That something is wrong with YOU (the reader) if you won't eventually shut up and support a candidate who doesn't respect your basic human rights, if that's what the party decides is best for you. However, if you cannot commit to supporting in the general election any one of the presidential candidates who gets the Dem nomination, then there is something terribly wrong.

I am not on board with "presenting the American people with a united Democratic Party" - IF that means uniting with people who are continuing to support the war, either through rhetoric or funding, nor am I intending to "unite" with anyone toying with the idea of taking away my reproductive rights, nor am I uniting with anyone who opposes equal marriage rights.

The shut-up-and-unite meme is saying that as a whole, we need to quietly accept the slow slide to the right because it's better than a catastrophic fall to the right. At the end of the day, though, it's the same destination no matter what speed we're traveling at.

That frog just refuses to get out of the simmering water.

It is up to the reader to decide whether having a Republican President is better than a Democratic President. Those of us active in the Democratic Party believe that any of the announced candidates for the Democratic nomination for president would be better than any of the Republican candidates for president.

You will make that decision based upon what you decide is in your best interests.

A united Democratic Party behind its nominee does not mean all members of the Democratic Party are in agreement on all issues. It just means on the issues most important to it, they are united and will vote together.

By all means, continue to raise issues that should be important to all Democrats, but don't expect all Democrats to agree on all positions you have taken. If you need that kind of agreement to remain a member of the Democratic Party you are sure to be disappointed.

Every nasty attack thread just sours my stomach to the whole thing. I don't even click on them anymore, choosing instead to read the positive threads on different candidates.

If you really want to help your chosen candidate, write positive thoughts on why you like them instead of writing something trashing a different candidate.

"I'm not a member of an organized political party, I'm a Democrat."

It's both a blessing and a curse for our party. We're not a party of one-issue voters, or a party of followers.

I don't think anyone would advocate giving up our independance.

Because this is primary season and this is how it works.

Primary season does not have to conform to the conduct exhibited in past primary seasons. It can be changed for the better.

When Republicans began sending out their representatives to panel discussions where they 'talked over' their counterparts, used up all the air time getting out their message, and basically 'used' the opportunity to thwart any kind of useful discussion --the conduct and tenor of debate changed.

It was not always that way in the past. THis is in fact a relatively new phenomenon. Go back and look at the primary debates in the past.

We can elevate the primary season conduct about personal attacks and name calling, but it will take effort. If we succeed, we will all be the better for it.

BTW it is easier to attack an opponent personally than to answer questions on the issues. As long as the personal attacks are elevated above debate on the issues, we are not likely to get the best candidates to represent our interests.

Would that make it more fun? Just a thought.

Especially if they looked at some of us naked(like me:blush: ):silly:

Expecting politicians running for office to behave like civilized adults in is in the same category as expecting them to be totally honest.

I can't do that for too long. Makes my head hurt:crazy:

People form into sections for their preferred candidate.

Then someone from each candidate's section presents what they feel about their candidate and why others should support that candidate.

After that presentation, people ask about issues they are concerned about and discussion ensues.

Then other candidates' represented spokesperson makes their case, followed by questions and answers.

Then people shuffle to their appointed support section. A vote is tallied. Those with less than 20% have to join another candidate or leave. More discussion can begin again.

Another vote is tallied. A winner is defined and points are calculated depending on the size of a caucus.

It's a very democratic form of politics, which by nature, is based on discussion and strategy. Some might call it "infighting", but it's a necessary and sometimes ugly part of politics.

If someone walked into the caucus and said there should be no "infighting", the caucus by its very nature would not be allowed to begin.

In discussions here at DU, some threads are pure ad hominem attacks without sources, proof or content to back their commentary. Those discussions generally get locked pretty quickly.

If there is to be no "infighting" on DU, I would suggest we get rid of the Politics forum and shoot the crap about sports in the Lounge.

"If there is to be no "infighting" on DU, I would suggest we get rid
of the Politics forum and shoot the crap about sports in the Lounge."
:rofl:

Might as well! ;)

IN the original OP I was trying to highlight what I consider to be attacks on Dem candidates by other Dems and their supporters, which were unsupported by facts or evidence, and which would likely be used against the eventual Democratic Party nominee when we get to the general election.

There is nothing wrong with 'preference' and choosing in a caucus who you prefer as the nominee.

The beating up on one another has happened before among Dem candidates, and Republicans used it against them in the general election.

I think the concept of debating ideas, and where the candidates stand on these ideas, is much more preferable to just stating "I don't trust him/her" or quoting some opinion piece as factual evidence of an allegation that a candidate "supports Bush's War in Iraq"(which it is not).

Undecided voters, independents, third party voters, etc are all watching to see what is said by the candidates by members of their own party. This is where the real damage can be done by what I called party 'infighting.'

He cited Lee Atwater and how he popularized a form of politics known as Smash Mouth Politics. This is also known as the politics of personal destruction.

Of course Atwater died relatively young, but Karl took over for him.

Put the two together and you have a virtual history of 'dirty tricks' over the last 25 years.

They said that Atwater apologized on his deathbed for all the things he did.

You can trace the desent of political discourse by the emergence of Atwater and Rove.

...for discussing what would be a fairly complicated set of points, links, proof and wonkish talking points.

If someone says they "don't trust him/her", it's hopefully backed with some other information. That is preferable.

But people will be people and you can separate the wheat from the chaff in due time.

And some of us remember. You can't ask to wipe out the memory of HR Clinton voting for the whole Bush package. Tough.

on HRC "voting for the whole Bush package".

If you're going to make that kind of a claim, it would help to post the actual votes you are talking about, otherwise people might get the idea that you are completely full of shit.

Gee, thanks, Mom.

:rofl:

:)

That's like Fox taking something out of context and using it against someone.

If I had a dollar for every time someone marched in here and started issuing edicts to everyone else here on how to do things, I could buy a lot of those lattes and brie we liberal elitists supposedly love. I just think it's a little presumptuous.

but there are consequences to actions that we take.

You want to help the Repubs take down the Dem nominee in the general election in 2008, then Dems attacking Dems will help promote that.

How is pointing that out presumptuous?

Jeez, dude. That sounds an awful lot like an edict to ME.

If you want to deliver finger-wagging lectures about the "consequences" of our "actions", find someone else- I'm not a 15 year old girl forced to sit through a Jesus-based abstinence only class.

I guess some people did not understand that this was an attempt to persuade others to adopt my position.

BTW edicts are usually issued by governing authorities. In fact the definition according to Merriam-Webster is "a proclamation having the force of law." I do not hold such a position with such authority.

But, whatever. Actually, on the basics, I agree with you. I think we have a great field- they've all got some strong points. I like Edwards, I like Obama. I like Kucinich. I like Richardson. I even like Hillary, although I think her inability to string together a coherent answer on Iraq combined with other factors make her the WORST choice for the nomination IMHO. But I will support the nominee. That's what we DO here- I don't know if you were around for the bruising 2004 nomination fights, but trust me, they got ugly. We fight, but then when the time comes we DO pull together, more or less.

But the time to come together behind the nominee is AFTER the process plays out. This is DU; it's not a club med where we all sing in unison before breakfast and clap each other on the backs. People here are going to fight, and it's only going to get worse.... but, really- people fighting on DU isn't going to lose ANY democrat ANY election. It's good, it's healthy, it's normal. That's not to say some attacks on candidates aren't stupid or unwarranted- I thought the crap about Edwards' house a few weeks ago was beyond absurd. But those kinds of threads usually end up devouring themselves. Any candidate or campaign who really wants to go up against the GOP slime machine should be able to stand the slings and arrows of DU.

Arguing that we should all "pull together" and play "go team" is not just futile, it disregards not just the fact that there are always a number of issues most people here agree on (and are working together for) but also that these primary battles and ideological turf contests DO serve a function here, and now, as we head into primary season. Yeah, should we cut the other candidates a little slack? In my experience, most of us DO.

But there are big issues on the horizon- issues on which some of our candidates vastly differ- and papering them over, ignoring their importance, or even trying to tone down the well-deserved passions they arouse will only serve to help us get a candidate who is NOT ready to win. Because shit like Iraq is not ancillary to this election. People are mad, and rightly so. It's worth remembering, that the last time our party nominated someone out of step with where the majority was on an unpopular war, we ended up with tanks rolling down Michigan Avenue.

So maybe it's better we hash this shit out now, instead of at the convention, eh?

I do not know how old you are, and what you have experienced. I have watched presidential campaigns play out since 1964, been involved, and most importantly observed them in the context of history.

IMHO we have not faced a more dangerous time in the history of our nation since WWII, and we should realize that in times of danger every decision we make as a country is likely to produce a result which will magnify its impact on all us for years to come.

I have no problem with 'slugging it out' between candidates, and I agree it will come to that. It is just that so much is hanging in the balance, we need to cut through the personal attacks and get down to the issues that matter. Most here are interested enough to post, and that is a good place to convert those posters into some kind of action leading up to the general election. I hope they realize the importance that their contribution could have on the future of our country.

Sometimes we assume we have the luxury of just going through the motions like we always have. We can no longer afford to do that. If you were around during the Vietnam War(which I was) you will recall that 'urgency' led to public protests and public pressure on the government to end the war. It would not have happened without the public pressure.

We are in the same situation in Iraq today, only more dangerous since we are headed straight for regional war in the Middle East and at the same time elites and corporations at home have a stanglehold on our government and economy.

I hope that people will realize the stakes, and push for the right decisions to be made more than hitch their wagons to a particular candidate. Nothing else will save us.

and.. um.. we won. Sure I'd like to see a more civil discourse but you aren't going to get it here in GD no matter how much you try. And to be honest, with the looming attack on Iraq, the investigations, and the pathetic slate of Republican candidates, by the time elections roll around even the resurrection of Reagan won't be able to save the GOP. That's of course if Bush doesn't manage to get us all killed in WWIII.