Ugliness and hypocrisy

[Evergreen Emerald]

The double standard and hypocrisy on DU is stunning.

Obama: a story is written about him by a neo-con and he goes after the wrong person and attacks Clinton instead. The Obama supporters defend his actions: and he is given all sorts of characteristics for his response: strong, powerful, standing up to criticism.

Clinton responds to Obama’s baseless attack and DU, instead of treating her the same way they treated Obama, give her all sorts of negative characteristics: liar, cheater, neo-con.

When Clinton speaks about anything the world dissects every nuance, every word, every enunciation to find inconsistencies to attack her honesty.

Obama says she is a liar, and he is deemed strong and honest.

Obama outright lies on an ad (healthcare)and that is ok. No dissecting. Not attempt to find inconsistencies.

Clinton responds: and she is called shrill (really), a liar, whiner, and attacked for questioning the truth of the ad that is proven to be a LIE.

When the press is negative towards Clinton--they are supported and cited and we have a dozen threads of the same story. When the press is negative towards another candidate, the press is lying--the same press that was honored when they lied about Clinton.

What the hell is wrong with this “progressive” site?

You are a bunch of hypocrites who have, for some reason, a hatred for Clinton that is unnatural. Your double standard and sometimes misogynistic responses are dumfounding.

And when a fellow democrat is being attacked by a crazy man with a bomb: you continue to ridicule Clinton. Clinton who has spent her life in public service helping women and children. Clinton who is a progressive democrat as shown by her record.

It is ok to support someone else in the campaign--but the extent of your ugliness is disgusting. She is not the devil. I am stunned by the hatred and double standard here on DU.

And today, when a fellow democrat is in the midst of crisis--you continue to attack her. Where is your shame?

[1corona4u]

1. I know...it disturbs me too...

and I'm not even a Hillary supporter....

[Cameron27]

2. Thank you!

Some of them have no shame, and yes the hypocrisy is stunning. I'm glad to see more Clinton supporters fighting back hard.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. You are a tad bit overgeneralizing

I, for one, have consistently stated that I don't like Mrs. Clinton, but have never lauded any candidate who spoke against her, as you say above. Today, when the hostage situation came up, I applauded the way Mrs. Clinton handled things and hoped and prayed that the hostages would be all safe. BTW, I call her "Mrs. Clinton" because all the other candidates are labeled by their last names; to my mind, to call one candidate by a first name and the others by their last names is demeaning to the candidate labeled by first name only; I call her Mrs. Clinton to differentiate her from her husband.

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. It is time for the DU reasonable to post. We must end this ugly crap that has taken over DU

The ugliness is rampant and has taken over this board. The fact that many of the posts on the thread that told us about the hostage taker had to be deleted, tells us something. And look, just look at the threads on GDP right now.

They are inflammatory, ugly, distortions and outright lies. And they do not represent anything that defines progressive.

Last names: you will notice that I too, call her Clinton. You are right, every other candidate is called by HIS last name, except her. And when, I swear to god, when the poster said she was "shrill" when she responded to an attack, I yelled at the monitor.

Thank you for speaking out.

[blm]

9. Every other campaign has their last name on their bumper stickers and signs EXCEPT

Hillary.

[Kucinich4America]

23. "every other candidate is called by HIS last name, except her."

Well, there are a couple of very good reasons for that....

1) Hillary does that herself. It's on all her signs, stickers, buttons, etc.

2) "Clinton" still means "Bill" to most people. I'm sure that Robert F. Kennedy Sr. was referred to simply as "Bobby" quite often on the 1968 campaign. Chimpy was referred to as George Junior or any number of other nicknames indicating that he wasn't that other guy named Bush. None of it has a damn thing to do with gender, or hatred of the candidate.

[madeline_con]

6. And then there was DUH-bya's endearment of Dr. Rice...

Edited to add


EDWARDS '08! :woohoo:


calling her "Condi". Not that I'm a fan of Rice, but no woman who works in government should allow that. It's disrespectful!

Senator Clinton is the proper title.

[evilkumquat]

25. I'm Not Certain He Can Pronounce "Condoleezza"

That is pretty much why he gives nicknames... He either cannot be bothered to either remember someone's name or how to pronounce any with more than two syllables.

Evil Kumquat

[hedgehog]

29. Off-topic, but I think he uses nick names to belittle and control people

Classic bullying tactics

[Fresh_Start]

45. I think so too

putting people in their place in his world

[madeline_con]

38. Surely he can say "Dr. Rice".

He's just being a sexist ass. At least when he says "Dick" he adds "Cheney"

[spag68]

54. IMHO

People who are sexist asses are really pissed at you for this comparison. He is much worse then that.

[galileo3000]

4. Consistency, thy name is "No one."

Hypocrisy, thy name is "Everyone." If I were ever to form a church, I think my first rule would be "Thou shalt be a Hypocrit."

Peace

[Evergreen Emerald]

8. You have your head in the sand if you believe that

to the determent of our democracy. And that is what this is about: democracy.

Democracy does not entail repeating every lie and distortion until the source is forgotten and the truth is assumed. That is what got us into this mess.

[galileo3000]

12. I have never met anyone who is 100% consistent

while they may be out there, I have never met them. I'm sure not. If you have, great, but I'm very skeptical and consider blind faith in such ridiculous absolutes to be very sandy head gear indeed.

Even Gandhi (my hero) was known to have occasionally lost his temper in violent ways to his wife. However he knew it was wrong. Nobodys perfect. And such idolization seems to be the path to cults of personality (in my humble opinion).

As I am incredibly flawed, I could be wrong.

Peace.

[Evergreen Emerald]

16. at least you admit it: and yes, you are wrong.

And you misjudge me. I have not suggested that I have blind faith. You are setting up a straw man and then knocking it down. I know that no one is perfect. Everyone has their flaws. Even you. Ridiculous Absolutes? I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

But you must admit that the amount of vitriol and hatred on this site is disgusting. Every day I am amazed. But today, when the thread was posted that gave information about a hostage taker at a Clinton headquarters people continued to spew ugly, distorted, lies and hatred while Clinton's worker's lives were at risk. That is too much. That is beyond the pale. That has nothing to do with "ridiculous absolutes" And everything to do with plain decency towards another human being.

She is not the devil--that is an absolute.

[galileo3000]

33. Easy now. This is a blog not a Johnnybrook.

You seem very ready for a fight, but I won't give it to you. I don't hate Hillary. I'm not her fan, but I do think it would be cool to have a women president. Hilary strikes me as a saavy politician. I will happily be the second to affirm that she is not the devil.

Socrates once asked if it was better to commit an act of evil or to suffer one. He concluded that while it is more difficult, it is better to suffer "the slings and arrows" than to "take up arms and by opposing end them."

I think that is why I liked Gandhi so much. His willingness to take a blow from his enemies without striking back or running required strength that I have never known. It garnered him tremendous power from his supporters as well as those with whom he was in opposition.

I'm convinced that being progressive requires a great sensitivity which can make such slights seem larger and more provoking. Don't take the bait. Your courage will garner you more respect, especially from those who actually might listen to your reasoning rather than join in another blog pile-on. Those are the ones you want to reach.

Courage is cool, calm, quiet, and compelling. We need it even on this blogosphere.

Best of luck to you and yours.

Peace.

[blm]

7. I oppose her because I am an anti-corruption, open government Democrat and she is NOT

and I expect her to continue protecting the secrecy and privilege of the powerful just as Bill did throughout the 90s.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html


And I dare say that there is a Karma Factor:

Many of us are still not happy with what we have learned from Gore's people and the undermining of his 2000 campaign.

Or from historian Douglas Brinkley, April 2004:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Or Bill's defense of Bush's Iraq decisions in June2004:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Or Woodward's observations at the WH of the Carvilles on election night:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


And Hillary's own words piling on against another Dem being attacked by BushInc:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

I do not oppose her for any reason than my commitment to open government that is accountable to the American people - Kerry would have opened the books on BushInc - I believe Clintons did not want him in office. And I believe there is a preponderance of evidence to allow for that charge.

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. who is to your satisfaction besides Kucinich? And if it is anyone else

you are fooling yourself.

"karma?" Yeah. Blame the victim.

I read all but the first of your sites. And they do not say what you suggest they do. They are bold bald assertions by some of questionable integrity.

You don't like her. That's fine. Vote for someone else.

[blm]

18. Yeah right - Brinkley doesn't mean they backstabbed Kerry the whole time even though he

said so clearly.

Woodward DIDN"T witness Carville's phonecall to Matalin about the provisional ballots in Ohio. Though it is in his book that was vetted by publishers and attorneys.

Clinton didn't defend Bush's decisions on Iraq. Though we watched him do it on Larry King Live.

And, in fact, that was not Hillary joining the RW attack on Kerry in her effort to prove she supports the troops just like Bush does - by attacking Kerry. I guess she was misled and didn't have all the facts, but she didn't do it anyway.

[Evergreen Emerald]

22. Who is Brinkley? What does he know and how does he know it?

What does Carville talking to his WIFE have anything to do with Clinton? Really? You are spewing right-wing distortions and lies as if fact. Whta does it have to do with Clinton?

I read what Bill Clinton said: and you are WRONG. He said that Bush needs to go through the UN and let the inspectors in. THAT IS WHAT CLINTON SAID. You are distorting the story, reading in what you want to hear, and then making your judgement. That's fine.

And what does Bill talking on TV have to do with Hillary Clinton?

The only story about HER was when she said Kerry's joke was stupid. And for god's sake, IT WAS. Let's not pretend. That is what got Kerry in trouble in the first place--his stupid remarks at the worst times.

And why, are you not judging Kerry's words by the same standard as you judge Clinton: cause if she had made that stupid joke, you would have called her a troop hater.

[blm]

34. Baloney - Clinton said he supported the DECISION to go in - he wished he'd waited -

but he still supported Bush's decision to go in. And he was doing it as Kerry was criticizing Bush's DECISION to attack Iraq while weapon inspections were PROVING that force was not needed. Clinton was siding with and defending Bush (in his own words he says he defends Bush from the left on Iraq) in June and July of 2004 just months before the election.

And Hillary did not say Kerry's joke was stupid - she never acknowledged it was a joke at all - she said what Kerry said was inappropriate.

She KNEW he only dropped a pronoun from a joke - but she didn't say that - she piled on with NO DEFENSE for Kerry as a leader on troop issues.

She attacked Kerry for dropping a pronoun when millions of us defended Bill for YEARS for dropping his pants.

She shows BAD CHARACTER.

And Douglas Brinkley is a highly reputable HISTORIAN. I am surprised you wouldn't know that if you paid any attention at all to the last twenty years of politics and the 2004 campaign.

[Evergreen Emerald]

41. see?

You and I can disagree. That is democracy. But lies, distortions, ugly hateful posts--that is not democracy.

I disagree with you on some of your conclusions. I think they are a stretch. And that is what DU is about. And on another thread, I would love to discuss with you our differences in opinion and the basis for them.

[hedgehog]

36. For those of you just joining us:

Carville is widely thought to be a Clinton supporter.

His wife was high up in the Bush campaign.

The implication is that he called Mary Matilin from Kerry headquarters with info on the Democrat's plans thereby assisting the Republicans to seize the 2004 election.

If Kerry had won, it is possible that the Democratic candidates for the following elections would have been:

2008 Kerry/Edwards

2012 Edwards/?

2016 Edwards/?

I will leave it to the class to work out the implications of that possibility.

[Evergreen Emerald]

43. You are jumping to conclusions

without proof.

And that is ok. You have the right to make your choices. But here on progressive DU, I hope we can discuss without smarmy snarky posts that are filled with vitrolic hatred.

Nor smart ass posts too.

[hedgehog]

48. Here's one version of the story, judge for yourself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/did-carville-and-mccurry-_b_31333.html


I think there is a difference between between vitrolic hatred and noting that something quacks like a duck.







Although, noting that somethng quacks like a duck IS being a smart ass.

[Evergreen Emerald]

55. That is not what I am talking about on this thread.

And I believe you know it. I am talking about the ugly threads that post lies and distortions and hatred. You have seen them. You know them.


And: I read your link. It is a gossip column. You want to choose a president based on a gossip column run by a known Clinton opposer, than that is your call.

Oh and: being a smart ass is being a smart ass.

[blm]

94. It was in Woodward's book - a book vetted by publisher and lawyers and

undoubtedly by the Carvilles' lawyer, too.

And Carville has never denied it happened. And the number of provisional ballots DID drop substantially within hours of that phonecall.

So - how does it make you feel? Gore and Kerry were done dirt from within by Dems who had a vested interest in keeping Bush in office. And one of them was protecting his war criminal wife who was in the WH. You think Carville wanted an open government Democrat in the WH opening books that were closed and protecting his wife along with the rest of BushInc?

[JTFrog]

77. The victim?

The victim?


???
???
???


That response explains so much.

[Evergreen Emerald]

85. the victim of the hostage situation

[JTFrog]

86. Your reference to karma and "the victim" in that response was a reference to the hostage

situation?

I clearly misunderstood.

[durrrty libby]

10. Well Done Bravo

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[mtnsnake]

11. Hear hear!!

You hit the nail on the head.

Fantastic post, Evergreen Emerald!

:toast:

[Fresh_Start]

14. DU attracts the Freepers of the left

as well as dems.

[livvy]

15. R-E-S-P-E-C-T ... Find out what it means to me.....

I have to agree with much of what you've said. Although she is not my choice, I don't like to see others bash her, or any of the other Dem candidates. It's neither productive, nor respectful, and adds nothing to civilized discourse.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I believe most of the people here have made their choices based on who they believe would make the best President.

Sing it 'Retha....

Oh (sock it to me, sock it to me,
sock it to me, sock it to me)
A little respect (sock it to me, sock it to me,
sock it to me, sock it to me)
Whoa, babe (just a little bit)
A little respect (just a little bit)
I get tired (just a little bit)
Keep on tryin' (just a little bit)
You're runnin' out of foolin' (just a little bit)
And I ain't lyin' (just a little bit)
(re, re, re, re) 'spect

[galileo3000]

17. just a little bit BayBEEE!

owwwwww! when you come home.
SING IT GIRL!

[frogmarch]

20. I don't attack her or any other Dem candidate

and that's because I don't dislike her or any of the others, and also because I don't want to give repug lurkers material to use against our candidates.

I refer to HC as Hillary because to me, the name Clinton means Bill. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. No disrespect toward her intended.

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. I think HC is fine.

[BeyondGeography]

19. Ugliness and hypocrisy

Hmmmmmmmmm, the Clintons and Iraq much?

[Evergreen Emerald]

27. I don't know what that means?

[BeyondGeography]

30. Anyone else wanna help Evergreen on this?

Revisiting IWR, "no date certain," "that's why I supported the Iraq thing," and "better to be strong and wrong" is getting depressing for me.

[Evergreen Emerald]

35. fine you disagree with her politics--don't support her

But don't contribute to the vitriolic lies and distortions about her either.

And: you are wrong. You look for any nuance and mispronounced or misused word, any statement that you can pounce on to ridicule and distort, and use as fuel for your hatred of her. And then ridicule her when she does not want to speak--for fear of the very thing you are waiting to do.

Iraq: she trusted Bush to use the authority she gave him as he said he would. HE LIED TO HER AND TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. And then, he turns around and uses her trust against her--saying that she approved him going to war. That is not what she did. That is not what the vote was. That is RIGHT WING SPIN that you choose to continue to ALLOW THE NEO-CONS to define.

And then, she said: if she new then, what she knows now, she would not have done it. And I believe her. But, that is not enough for you. For some reason, and I don't know why, you want her on her knees groveling. She won't do that. She can't. Because you and the guy who makes fun of her laugh and her hair and her "shrill" voice, will say that she is a weak woman. She is damned by you either way.

And it would be nice if you could think about this. Think instead of immediately dismiss. And if this is not you, then it is some on this board.

[BeyondGeography]

49. Well, this is where some of us good Democrats have a problem with your candidate

How can you be "ready to lead" and rub "experience" in anyone's face and say you trusted George W. Bush re. IWR? Even if you indulge her with the bogus concession that IWR was only about inspections, what exactly was it in Bush's background, make-up and rhetoric that led her to believe he would patiently wait for the inspections regime to be carried out? I actually have a healthy amount of respect for the intelligence of your candidate, one which leads me to conclude that she (like most Americans at the time...http://www.pollster.com/blogs/unspinning_howard_wolfson.php) knew Bush was on a course to war and she was either fine with it and/or thought it best to be perceived as a hawk on the matter.

You can choose to believe her, I can choose not to believe her. That's called a disagreement. The ugly part for many of us is Iraq.

[Evergreen Emerald]

52. To say that is to ignore every other candidate.

Iraq is ugly...IT'S NOT CLINTON'S FAULT anymore than its Obama's fault. Or Edwards' fault or every other democrat who did not stand from the rooftops and shout. Including Biden and Dodd and Richardson.

every one.

[Adelante]

21. I will weigh in

First, Hillary Clinton and her supporters received a tremendous amount of good will from fellow DUers today and genuine concern for the safety of the campaign workers who were held hostage. I was here. I saw precisely one unacceptable comment and the poster was immediately called on it by a whole list of people and the post was deleted.

Five minutes after the crisis was over Clinton supporters were swarming Obama threads and dripping venom. Not one person, not two people, not three or four, but a mob.

I do not disrespect Senator Clinton ever. I do not call her names or post lies about her ever. I do not make personal attacks on her supporters ever. Yet I cannot seem to find a thread in which I can have a rational discussion about my candidate ever.

I was tempted this evening to go through every single thread and use Ignore on every rude sonofabitch I came across. Unfortunately, a good third of any thread I read already is composed of file folders and I'm beginning to wonder why I even waste my time coming here.

This is to say it is very much a two way street. Clinton supporters are not the only ones being battered and bruised, but are doing their fair share of battering and bruising. I don't appreciate your one-sided version of the sick behavior that's being indulged in or the one-sided interpretation of which candidate is being disrespected.

[Evergreen Emerald]

26. good. We need to bring DU back to a progressive board

It is not currently. I also read the posts during the Clinton Hostage situation--and you are wrong. There were numerous ugly posts.

Rude sonofabitchs: I admit. I am so fed up with the lies and distortions and DOUBLE STANDARD here on DU that I am getting rude, and annoyed and confrontational. But when I see an unreasonable story in the Press about Obama and his muslim background, I denounce it--I don't repeat it and reinforce it and cheer that it is in a newspaper.

You are wrong, by the way. The ugliness and hatred is vitriolic and reserved for Clinton. That hatred is unmatched on DU. I have theories about the source of the hatred and it has to do with the destruction of democracy.

[BeyondGeography]

32. Look, WesDem is right

Obama gets pounded here every day by your tribe, especially now that he's making headway in Iowa. You make some valid points in the OP but your inability to acknowledge the excesses of your own side is hypocritical (and, if you keep at it, it might even get ugly).

[Evergreen Emerald]

37. Thank You

I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge some of my points as valid.

[Cameron27]

39. I won't deny that at all BG,

Obama's getting hit pretty good too, but it still doesn't match the vitriol that Clinton gets IMO. Did you see some of the comments about the hostage crisis? It was so RW nasty that whole sub-threads had to be deleted. I've seen Democrats like RFK, Wes Clark, George McGovern get trashed and smeared simply for endorsing her. I'm fed up with this nonsense myself. We've got to get back to arguing the issues.

[Bongo Prophet]

53. Tribal warfare indeed, we are at that level now.

This is to the point of gangs and flash mobs, and I saw it today. One jerk, one match and a whole neighborhood in flames.

And it has people scarred and sensitive and just ITCHING to fight, just ready to be triggered.
In the "RFK jr. endorsement thread, people were VERY respsctful overall, but the Hillary pep squad was predicting "an explosion on the DU" with glee.
Like there was joy in the idea that DU would hate on RFK because of the endorsement. SPlitting the party and antagonizing people doesn't seem to be a good strategy to me.
It was creepy, and overall it was waay overhyped. All crips and bloods, jets and sharks.
There could have been a GREAT discussion of RFK and what HRC's environmental policies might be, why he trusts her, and so on.
That is the DU that I like - and that ecosystem is under attack by an overabundance of predators and parasites at the moment.
But the mood was so creepy, I just bit my tongue and left - and I had some positive things to say regarding that subject.

I think that is happening a lot here, so if ANY of us want a bit of respectful disagreements without descending into petty junior high cafeteria politics, well I guess we have to start changing the dialog a bit.

[Evergreen Emerald]

56. you are not looking historically (nor rationally ) at the response today.

"but the Hillary pep squad was predicting "an explosion on the DU" with glee.
Like there was joy in the idea that DU would hate on RFK because of the endorsement"

Wes Clark has received unquestioned support on DU--until he announced his support for Clinton. And the DU response was ugly: they accused him of lying about his belief in Clinton. Accused Clinton of bribing him with VP status. Instead of considering the endorsement, many on DU became enraged with Clark. We got the same response with every other endorsement Clinton received.

More of the double standard. When Obama or Edwards or Biden received an endorsement by even an obscure name, there were cheers for the candidate. Ugly.

And here you are suggesting that when Clinton supporters brace for the same you couch the response and distort the response as if "with glee." There is nothing gleeful about it.


You are right--there could be great discussions about why all of these powerful wonderful democrats support Clinton. But instead we get distortions and grief.

[Bongo Prophet]

65. Thank you for saying that I am "not rational" nor "historical"

That is a really good start at diplomacy you got going.
Take that as exhibit one please.

I saw when Wes endorsed Hillary, and posted positively about it.
there were some detractors, but not so much as to distract from the overall picture.

That is of course subjective, and I understand your feeling defensive, as you were on the defense that day.
It could have been better handled by remaining focused on the positive, rather than lashing out at the losers and such.
takes two to fight, and in this case it was gang fight.

The RFK thread today was much different than the former one a month or so ago.
I also posted that it was a positive that RFK trusts HRCs environmental and social justice agenda enough to endorse.
There were a couple of jerks, and I remember the "senile" remark too. Stupid. So stupid, I just laughed.


but in todays thread, there were no major attacks, and there were many early "nervous giggles" posted about how "DUers are going to say X or Y" and yesm it seemed the gleeful anticipation of battle, not a discussion going on at all. I stopped checking in on that thread at about 100 posts, and anti-Hillary people were being quite respectful.

For examples of gleeful anticipation:
--------
5. Poor guy is about to get disemboweled at The DU

Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 07:44 AM by durrrty libby
Let's keep this kicked to watch the evisceration
:popcorn:
---------
28. Let the beashing of Robert F. Kennedy Jr begin.
---------
29. You bet...if Gore comes out and supports Hillary...lather, rinse and repeat..

The Left will not be happy until they think they have destroyed the Front Runner.

<sniff> Just because it isn't their inferior pick.
---------------

mtnsnake (1000+ posts) Thu Nov-29-07 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #29
45. lol, if Al Gore ever did that, this place would ERUPT

-----------------LOL indeed. TEE HEE HEE!

Sounds pretty much like a game to some.
It goes on that way quite a bit.
Many other parody posts of what the lefties would say, except they didn't. Kind of insulting to prejudge the response and never acknowledge how WRONG that prediction was. Go back and look at the whole thread and tell me who was being childish and who was not. Really, just in a passive and objective way, scan that thread and see it was not too contentious at all, even while it was predicted to be and even I would say provoked a bit by a couple of people there. Throwing taunts of delusion (it started with a single detractor, then became a round robin) and accusations of irrationality really don't help the level that you and I would wish for.



----------
Now YOU Evergreen, were quite gracious:
30. Nice endorsement
Like Clark, I highly respect him.

To which I would have replied, "Me too, EE". and then gone on too long about the strategic implications of that in the general...;)
----------


As for the evil Others:
WesDem says "Great endorsement. congratulations

Katzenkavalier says "He's a nice guy"

A bunch of accusations of delusion are thrown back and forth.

More on the lines of "I respect but disagree" follow.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3770364


I hope you and I can be a part of a trend to higher levels of discourse in the future.
We will be allies in the general for sure, and can get an early start now, just by being more civil. :thumbsup:

[jefferson_dem]

66. The tone of this thread is distressing.

It seems some here who have generally good intentions are being lumped in with whatever "ne're-do-wells" triggered the vitriol. That's a shame.

[Bongo Prophet]

70. Ne'er do wells are just sticky, Jdem. We need to work to get past that.

This is my main concern, beyond my personal taste for some lofty high discourse, is that the irritation spreads, and the scars become more difficult to heal. this dissipates our energy in the general.
especially if thereis talk of splitting or sitting it out.

We don't need to just win the election, we need to win with every damn bit of popular vote to REPUDIATE the Bush doctrine and all that goes with it. Evangelical apocalyptica, Norquist Bathtub, World War 4ever, and so on.

If progressives play it smart, we can have more say in the governing process. There are some great opportunities in the executive and Congressional areas.
If progressives are smart, we will focus on getting the best and most good solid votes in Congress, and pick up a few Senate seats.
If progressives are smart, we will move that damn dialectic back from the abyss of right wing hell.

If centrists are smart, they will see how "pressure from the left" can allow them greater leeway against the GOP and therefore less political capital is needed to get policies in place.
It changes the framing and dynamic, and the "compromise" is further than we have been able to get for decades.

More mutual respect, even in disagreement, can help BOTH wings of the party.
And the same here on DU. Without communicating tactics and strategy, we are just a mob.

That is the goal of some of the infiltrators here, to be sure.
I would rather make friends with my allies. Good policy.

[Adelante]

42. I used to think so, but I don't anymore

Clinton supporters show every day that ugliness, hatred and vitriol is not reserved for Clinton in just about every single Obama thread posted. As I said, it is very much a two way street. I have both Obama and Clinton supporters on Ignore, by the way, as well as the incessantly negative from other groups. No candidate support group on DU is innocent of sonsofbitches, not even yours. If you can't recognize that double standard, we get nowhere fast.

I don't expect there won't be criticism of candidates. I think there should be criticism. I think it can be done in a manner respectful and rational and based on truth. I do think personal attacks on DUers and smears of supporter groups are unacceptable, but it's become an epidemic. I can barely tolerate it anymore.

[Evergreen Emerald]

44. me too.

I think today caused me to go over the edge. I notice you don't have me on ignore (yet).

I also have a number of people on ignore. And I thought that I never would. But every day when I come to the site and there are numerous ugly posts, I can't stand it. DU does not realize how many progressives are thinking of leaving because of the ugliness.

[Kucinich4America]

76. "The ugliness and hatred is vitriolic and reserved for Clinton."

You gotta be fucking kidding me.

How many Kucinich bashing threads have appeared on this board in the last three days, all entirely based on one comment taken completely out of context in a blog connected to a right wing paper, which has been anti-Kucinich since he was mayor of Cleveland.

Until the Hillbots started all of this astroturf "outrage" over the unfortunate New Hampshire incident, that was the number one thread topic in GD and GDP.

Maybe we should actually thank you guys for getting that shit off the front page :evilgrin:

[Nedsdag]

62. Excellent points WesDem!

:applause:

[democratsin08]

24. obama is the attack dog

i cant stand his dirty tactics

[hedgehog]

40. OK - give me a list of his dirty tactics.

[robbedvoter]

31. I am not a supporter - but I agree that some of the personal attacks are disturbing

and unwarranted.

[waiting for hope]

46. This kind of double standard?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x68694

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x68698

This first one you asked if they booed, I saw it before you edited. Really, those responses to an honest citizen Vblogger (http://www.dailykos.com/user/uid:121486) is ugly, someone who is using her time to support her candidate by traveling to South Carolina and New Orleans to see Edwards and video supporters. I admire what she's doing, and not because it's for Edwards, but because she's doing something positive in her support of her candidate of choice. And you mocked her. I find your OP to be a bit disingenuous, if it was coming from someone who hasn't thrown ugliness at another candidate and their supporters themselves, then it would be worthy of note. This from you, however, is not. Where is your shame? If you feel outrage, then post positive, uplifting posts about Senator Clinton, post her statements, her policies and how they will benefit this country. Post videos of her speaking at an event or what kind of campaign she's running. Those types of posts of Clinton are sorely lacking here and I would really like to see what kind of effort her supporters here will put forth to garner support for her. Did you ever think that there may be some here that are disgusted and frustrated themselves because of how some Clinton supporters dump on their threads? Think about it.

[Cameron27]

50. You call that a double standard?

Edwards had a 200+ rah-rah thread going in GD-P with very little negativity. How far do you think a Clinton or Obama thread like that would have lasted?

[waiting for hope]

60. Hey - it's not my fault

that the majority of responses to Edwards threads are positive - did you ever think there is more support for him here than you would like to admit? Did you ever think that the Edwards supporters post positive stories about Edwards 99.9% of the time and they are well received? The one at the top of the Greatest Page is usually not the norm but the one right below is as well as the fourth one in line. I hardly ever see anything positive about Senator Clinton other than a poll showing her ahead.

While I agree with the OP there were some ugly replies today to what happened, I found it disingenuous coming from her. And yes:

You are a bunch of hypocrites who have, for some reason, a hatred for Clinton that is unnatural. Your double standard and sometimes misogynistic responses are dumfounding.

That is a double standard. If you bothered to look at the two links I provided, there was quite a bit of ugliness toward the OP and I found it offensive since I'm familiar with the poster's work and the effort she's put into her videos.

[Cameron27]

63. I know there's tons of support for him here

I've never denied that. However, that thread was purposely left pretty positive; lots of posts by the same posters were left unchallenged by plenty of people who normally would have disagreed with them.

Some of those same positive Edwards supporters however, jump head first into anything that resembles a rah-rah Obama or Clinton thread. Even the OP of that very postive thread, has deliberately posted in a Clinton thread with side by side pics of Clinton and Bush with a nasty little caption next to it. I'm not directing this at you or all of the Edwards supporters, but some of them aren't shy about expressing their "loathing" for Hillary Clinton and offering very little else but that distastful opinion--and then they go ballistic when someone challenges Edwards on the issues.

Those two examples don't match what Obama and even more, what Clinton supporters have to face 24/7 around here.

[waiting for hope]

71. You are entitled to your opinion -

but if this had come from let's say, DeepModem Mom, kpete, or babylonsister (whom, by the way, is getting accused anytime she posts something that isn't favorable to Clinton as toting RW garbage) I would have agreed and moved on. But the OP in question in the past has taken a swipe on a ton of Edwards threads - I'd love to find them all for you, and maybe tomorrow I will, but the two I posted I found particularly offensive since as I stated earlier, I am familiar with the Vblogger's work and the sincerity of her posts. And the Edwards post you are referencing...there's a caricature of Edwards that a Clinton supporter is throwing out there and it's not very flattering either so let's let that one go.

As for what Clinton/Obama supporters go through here 24/7, let me pull up a chair, :popcorn: because the majority of posters of the original threads and/or replies are Clinton/Obama supporters. If these two groups want to duke it out, whatever, but there will be a nomination regardless of who the media is telling me it's going to be and I will support whomever wins.

[Bongo Prophet]

58. I went to those links, just tiny snark patrol there. A small scouting raid. Like college. In the 50s

Sorry, but that was a pathetic twofer of the pointless "gotta hit that thread and do a one liner"
the same themes spammed over several threads too.
all the classic moves of threadjacking and mini flamewars that pull away from the gist of the OP.

that is not policy disagreement, it is just childish trash talk.
And what is with that one liner crap any way? this is a discussion board, not a chat room.


I guess I am ranting, huh?
So sorry. Thanks for the links - I back out of more threads than I can read because of this, and it gets frustrating.

[Evergreen Emerald]

61. you know what Bongo Prophet

I do too. You would not believe how I have learned to walk away. I was so angry after being first astounded at the hatred and ugliness on DU. And I attempted to retaliate. But of course, that does not work. But today was beyond the pale.

Today we saw the underbelly of DU--and it was ugly.

[Bongo Prophet]

68. I did not see the hostage related stuff until late today. That one Dkos letter was just stupid as...

If ANYBODY expressed joy or snark at that situation, I would dive in to attack myself.

The only mitigating factor is that if anyone is stupid enough to go that low, it exposes them as ignoble and ignorable.
Perhaps tombstonable, but that is not my call.

I really think we share similar goals of higher discourse, and I DO relate to the defensive posture as you wait for a wall of stupid posts to come crashing at you.
I was and am a staunch Kerry defender, and that was a hard series of battles that still has echoes and aftershocks today.
that is why I don't want our candidate to be scarred and tarred with BS attacks, and bitterness that will hurt our MAJOR battles in the general.

My eyes are on that prize, and what lies beyond. the Bush regime has been painful and damaging in the extreme, and restoration is needed. To get there against the wiles of the GOP is a difficult task even though they are weak now. We need to be able to communicate so we can set the best strategies for the candidate and, hopefully, the next Dem admin.

So much to repair, and we need each other on the same side of those barricades RFK mentioned at Live Earth.

:grouphug:

[JTFrog]

78. IOKIY4HRC n/t

[Fresh_Start]

47. Can't tell the dems from the trolls lots of days on DU

what we ought to have learned from 2000 and 2004 is that mischaracterizations repeated over and over again become 'the truth' in the publics eyes.

If you belittle any dem candidate, you are helping the republican cause.

[Evergreen Emerald]

51. that is exactly right. And it is not democracy it is the downfall

of democracy.

[avrdream]

73. Actually, you CAN figure out the trolls....

They usually only last about a week around here.

[jefferson_dem]

57. Sorry for your frustration but I find your rant unconvincing if not outright offensive.

You manage to label fellow DUers hypocritical misogynists, deem posts you disagree with as unworthy of this "progressive" site, call Obama a liar...and much more which I won't go into.

My recommendation: take a deep breath and smile.

Remember, we are all on the same team...even if that's not always apparent. This is just a quadrennial right of passage. This is *democracy*.

[Evergreen Emerald]

59. I am sure you do and I am sure you are.

I am offended by your demeaning response. I am not calling everyone on DU a hypocritical misogynist. You hypocritical misogynists know who you are. Perhaps it is easier to generalize, distort, and twist my post then to STOP and THINK for two seconds about what I am saying.

Jefferson_dem: Posting non-stop negative, distorted, propaganda stories dug up from right-wing-rags is not progressive. Double standards are not progressive. Repeating known lies and sleeping with the enemy is not progressive even if it helps your candidate short term.

My recommendation: (deleted so I won't get tombstoned).

[jefferson_dem]

64. Awwww... I said I understand your frustration.

You want people to stop and think about how you believe Obama is a liar? You want people to stop and think about how you believe certain unidentified posts are not worthy of this "progressive" site, as Evergreen defines it? No thanks.

As for your baseless PA against me...we'll just let it sit there unchallenged...for now.

Cheers!

[PurityOfEssence]

67. Poppycock. Absolute twaddle.

Clinton supporters aren't the least bit aggressive, vituperative, deceptive, self-aggrandizing, holier-that-the-very-firmament, or tireless in their badgering, are they?

You don't even know what you're talking about if you are trying to describe Novak as a neocon; he HATES the neocons. Yeah, he's an absolute skunk, but he's a paleocon, much more akin to Buchanan. Even being the selfish dick that he is he was pretty much ALWAYS against the Iraq resolution AND the war, and said so; that's more than Senator Clinton can say.

The most assertive of the Clinton supporters have railed against Edwards' $400 haircuts while she spends $1200, attacked him for having the gall of having a nice house, accused him of using his terminally ill wife for sympathy, distorted his Senate career when it's better on most of the issues lefties hold dear, and on and on. They've slagged Kucinich to no end for being smug, for early opposition to abortion when she's supported legislation that would release police officers from their duty to protect women's health clinics and pharmacists from their duty to sell legal medications when their religion is ruffled, they've ridiculed him for the UFOs and just ridiculed him in general. Obama has been taken to task on any number of things, and I've joined them on a few, especially the unforgivable bigotry in South Carolina. They've harangued him on having the gall to want to talk with hostile foreign leaders, playing the religion card when she's doing it too, not having an adequate healthcare plan when she sat on the fence with an upraised and moistened finger for seven months until she essentially copied Edwards' plan.

Worse than anything, they've held the other candidates strictly accountable for their actions and demanded specific answers to loaded questions while demanding the unquestioned privilege of the morally superior to skate on past bad acts, claim leadership that's never been, and resolutely not answer questions while simultaneously being on both sides of important issues.

There's been plenty of bad-mannered behavior from all sides, but the Clinton camp has been especially nauseating. The very idea that they're the only ones suffering is the kind of sanctimonious solipsism that befits the most conservative bunch in the race.

Once one lashes out after being "wronged", one can no longer claim being "pure", yet this is exactly what this thread-starter suggests.

[Evergreen Emerald]

69. lovely. Thanks for your example.

I think twaddle is a dirty word that could get you banned.

Your post if full of generalizations that are based on lies, and distortions. I at first attempted to dissect it so that we could discuss each issue you raised. But, what I discovered was a continuous use of "us versus them." With "us" as innocent victims and "them" attacking relentlessly, erratically, irrationally. And I realized that there may be no discussing rationally with you. You have created this dichotomy in which you are good and Clinton supporters are bad. And those Clinton supporters are the ones doing all the bad things.


This is what I am talking about. Thanks for the example.

[PurityOfEssence]

72. That's the best example of selective reading since the Reader's Digest

You rage with a fusillade of accusations, yet somehow I've created the dichotomy you depict. Although I specifically point out that all sides are doing it, somehow you have proof that I claim that only the Clinton supporters are. Proof, mind you; it's not just a mere feeling.

Your very post is precisely what you accuse me of, while you absolutely deny any guilt at all. One can only believe that you consider your thread-starter as a gentle, calm and analytical olive branch.

You "think" a word is bad, but you don't know; you don't know because you don't know what it means, and since you're above the reproach of mere peasants, needn't bother with the nuisance of looking it up. Presumably your readers owe it to life itself to pore over your every nuance and flourish, yet, ennobled with the privilege of the terminally wronged, you may do as you please and depict the words of others however you see fit and with resounding finality.

The very idea of attacking with reagent-strength vitriol and then accusing others of being the aggressors for responding is just plain silly.

[JTFrog]

79. I enjoyed your reply enough

to go look up the word twaddle!

twad·dle

1. trivial, feeble, silly, or tedious talk or writing.

2. to talk in a trivial, feeble, silly, or tedious manner; prate.


What a dirty dirty bird! tsk tsk

[Evergreen Emerald]

84. actually--you did no such thing

All you did was continue the twaddle (and I was kidding about it being a dirty word--jeez). You say that you were suggesting that 'all sides were doing it.' No that is not what your poppycock post was (I said cock). That too is a joke, by the way, in case you want to get your panties in a bunch later.

Your post was more hatred. More spewing of vitrol. More blaming Clinton and her supporters of every misdead. You suggest that Novak is not a neo-con (missing the point by the way) and yet you attribute to Clinton supporters all sorts of characterizations and words--that are simply not true.

It is a shame really, that there cannot be discussion, but rather such ugliness.

[Andromeda]

74. Hey, hey.....

Great post!

:toast:

[Solon]

75. To be a politician you must be an asshole and a hypocrite, that's the standard...

some politicians are lesser assholes and hypocrites than others, but the differences are minimal. There are extremely rare exceptions, usually limited to some local political positions, but that's it. At this point in time, I'm just trying to figure out which pile of shit stinks the least.

[Perry Logan]

80. It's the jealousy of losers. Hillary's record gives the lie to all the "corporate shill" bullshit.

[H2O Man]

81. The Obama story

was authored by Robert Novak; he is not a neoconservative. He is a flaming asshole, though.

I am undecided as to who I will vote for in the primary. However, I thought that Senator Clinton handled yesterday's crisis very well.

[Evergreen Emerald]

82. I thought that was the definition of neo-con!

[Vickers]

83. Tee hee! I was expecting a picture of Fred Thompson.

:P

[LWolf]

87. What a load of stinking cow patties.

There is no "double standard." There are people on DU who come forward to bash, trash, and attack every single candidate. I would suggest that the attention HRC gets on DU stems from the fact that,

While TPTB have crowned she and Obama as the "ones to watch," neither are in the "top tier" of preferred candidates at DU. Yet the first page of this forum is dominated by Clinton/Obama threads, day in, and day out. Most of them from the minority of Clobama supporters lobbing stink bombs at each other. It drives those of us who would like to discuss better candidats away, or relegates us to the back pages. That, or we wearily step in to remind people that Clobama has not been annointed, has not received any votes, and is not the best the party has to offer.

It has nothing to do with "hate." If there is any "hate," it's not for the candidates, but for their supporters; the minority on the board, but the loudest, most offensive voices.

Personally, as I've repeated ad nauseum when the multiple daily "hillary haters" threads appear, I don't hate Hillary. I don't believe that hate is a productive emotion, and I don't allow myself to wallow in it.

I don't hate her, but I don't agree with her or support her, either.

IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY TIMES SOMEBODY POSTS A POLL, CROWNS HER EMPRESS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, OR COMPLAINS THAT DISSENT IS "HATING."

MY OPINION OF HER DOESN'T CHANGE. MY OPINION OF HER SUPPORTERS GETS WORSE EVERY TIME, THOUGH, MAKING IT EVEN LESS LIKELY THAT SHE COULD EVER, IN THIS LIFETIME, GET MY VOTE.

Obama, who I also disagree profoundly with, and will not be voting for, gets plenty of heat here at DU. It's not "hypocrisy."

In case you weren't sure, "hypocrisy" is not "you are too mean to my candidate and not mean enough to my enemy." That's not hypocrisy, it's infantile, petty bullshit.

There are plenty of examples of hypocrisy on DU, but this sure as hell isn't one of them.

Edited to add the flame-proof disclaimer: I have not posted a single comment or observation about the incident at HRCs campaign office.

[Evergreen Emerald]

88. Then, you are not one of those that the post references

Those people do know who they are.

And I disagree with your assesment. I remember when this all first started, there was a mutual respect for all candidates until this ugly vitorlic hatred of Clinton started showing up. Those who supported her became outraged and responded in kind (and I, regret, am one of those). I disagree with your assessment, and thank you for not being one of those who went too far during the hostage situation.

But, really? Cow poop? Stinking? See, it makes me want to respond in kind.

[LWolf]

90. I think I understand the source

of the adamant opposition to HRC. We've lived through the first Bush selection. We all swallowed our doubts and disappointments and got behind Kerry in '04, and we got to live through the second Bush term for that effort. We are starved for change.

We are starved for someone who will hold the Bush admin accountable and work aggressively to undo the atrocities of the last 7 years. Faced with a pro-corporate and media selected triangulator who we don't believe will do any of the above, and watching her get shoved down our throats and crowned the "winner" before a vote is ever cast, PISSES PEOPLE OFF. It also causes people to lose hope that '08 will usher in MEANINGFUL change. Loss of hope and rage fuel the flames of opposition. The harder tptb push her as inevitable, the higher that wall of flames rises.

Still, I've seen nasty attacks on EVERY SINGLE candidate here at DU. HRC is not singled out; she and Obama get more attacks because there is more tension between their camps, and because there are simply more threads started about them to fuel the flames.

[Evergreen Emerald]

91. I think that may be part of it, but I think it is deeper, and it is a symptom of the crisis

of our time. The republicans wanted power at all costs. And when they lost the presidency to Clinton in the 90's their goal was not to do their jobs, their goal was to block Clinton from achieving anything ANYTHING. They lied and twisted and distorted and attempted to redefine he and Ms. Clinton at every turn. They spent billions to attempt to bring them down. And some of the smut/lies/distortion stuck. Part of that is because of that vast right-wing conspiracy that turned the media into a propaganda machine for the neo-cons. Part of that is because we trusted those in power to do the right thing.

And despite all of that pummeling by the right--the Clintons survived, indeed flourished. Ms. Clinton became Senator and has done great things for NY and for America.

But the battle scars remain. And the re-definition stuck to some extent: divisive (she is NOT divisive, the republicans are)/ cold / calculating...etc. etc.

And of course we cannot over look misogyny. Look for the posts who call her "shrill" and make fun of her cackle and her clothes in an attempt to reduce her to an object.

Our democracy is suffering at the hands of the republicans. I had hoped that we learned from the 90's. But watching DU implode, I see that we have learned nothing. And whenever anyone posts an ugly distorted twisted lie perpetrated by the propaganda machine, I get so angry and so disappointed in the "progressives."

[Karmadillo]

89. Excellent post.

nt

[noamnety]

92. I have to disagree with this part of your post.

"Clinton who has spent her life in public service helping women and children."

The reason I disagree with it is that I think it depends on your demographics, and who you identify with. Which women and children are we talking about? The ones in Iraq? The ones in Iran? The ones on welfare? The ones with privilege or the ones without?

If she's counting her experience as first lady as part of her professional background, if she's claiming she helped shape policy in some way as a surrogate secretary of state, did she stand up for the women and children in Iraq when we were committing genocide through sanctions? Or did she support the sanctions against them?

When she was earning her experience during 8 years in the Clinton White House, how was she fighting for the rights of women and children when the Welfare Reform Act was put into place?

What about when Clinton was pushing to have youth tried as adults, was she fighting against that? What about when they were pushing to send nonviolent youth offenders to boot camp *excepting the VP's kid*?

Was she fighting for the rights of women immigrants and their children when, under Clinton, laws were switched to allow the INS to deport immigrants without due process?

I understand her employees went through a traumatic day and I'm not downplaying that. But that doesn't mean other people get a free pass to make questionable statements about her political career that go unchallenged.

[Skip Intro]

93. Thanks. Wow. Great post. Cut right through the bs. Really, thanks.

:kick: