Reply #12: I considered this. There are degrees of infighting. I have followed a lot

[McCamy Taylor]

of elections. Think back to 2004. Did Edwards, Kerry and Co. call each other war mongers and as bad as Bush? Think back to 2000? Gore and Bradley were civil. The nastiness came from the press calling "Gore a Liar" and then from Nader with his "Gore is the same as Bush". When Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have run as the left wing conscience candidates, they have always been careful not to give the Republicans ammunition to use in the general election. You have to go all the way back to 1976 to see another campaign where a fractured party hurt a candidate. That was when Reagan refused to get fully behind Gerald Ford, who wasn't in tune with the right wing's vision for America. That was a nasty primary, especially for the GOP which usually runs respectful campaigns. The Democrats, on the other hand, fought a hard battle, but they were all congenial. They had learned their lesson in 1968.

I do not believe that all the posts at DU which fan the flames are internally generated. For one thing, the kind of people who would be actively involved in Democratic presidential campaigns this early should all have the minimum 1000 posts, because they should all be yellow dog Democrats, seasoned veterans of many elections. And yet, many of the people posting the most inflammatory remarks have a very low number of posts, as if they have only just come to this message board. Are these new Democrats who have suddenly embraced politics with a passion? That isn't how political campaigns usually work. Most people get their toes wet slowly. Few enter with a full fund of knowledge and a passion that drives them to spend hours posting about a candidate.

This has lead me to conclude that there is an unusually high level of Freeper activity on the boards of DU right now. This is not surprising. Altering the outcome of the Democratic primary has been one of the tried and true Republican strategies for many years. And as I wrote in the main body of my post, Divide and Conquer is the GOP's favorite game when they come here. Sometimes you can spot the Freeper posts that are designed to get DUers engaged in circular firing squads. Those are the not so clever ones. I am sure that there are plenty of masters who know how to blend in.

Finally, the mainstream media has been actively involved in helping to select the Democratic nominee. The press made Obama the superstar he is. They groomed him and gave him a persona and highlighted his positive aspects and ignored the negatives, just like he was an up and coming star. The press also anointed Hillary as the front runner, not because the corporate media loves her. No, the Republicans valued her for her high negative rating which convinced them that she would be easier to beat than a white man. At the same time, they shot down Edwards, denying him press coverage (except for his house and hair) when he needed it. That shows that there is an coordinated effort on the part of someone to manipulate the Democrats to affect the outcome of the nomination process.

In 1968, the FBI and the right wing used overt violence--assassinations, riots, police brutality---as their tools. This time around, they are using the press and provocateurs. The result of their meddling is to create a climate of fear, distrust. It is so clear that the corporate media is biased towards Hillary that people begin to think that she must favor the corporate media. They do not realize that the MSM has no intention of seeing her win. They just want her nominated. They see the press bias against Edwards and they see a conspiracy that must involve Hillary, because she is the one who benefits, right? The press and the pretend Democrats sow seeds of discord and then sit back and watch us shoot each other.

Keep in mind that Karl Rove is calling the shots from wherever the hell he went, and Karl Rove never had an original idea in his life. He learned everything he knows from Nixon, Atawater and Buchanan. Copying 1968 would be the natural strategy for him when faced with an unpopular war and an election that the Democrats seemed assured of winning.