Are the Clark supporters evoking distaste for a Clark candidate?

I am developing a negative reaction response to certain posts for supporting Clark. I don't believe it is the intention of the Clark supporters but it is indeed the subliminal message recieved.

A Pavlov's Dog day as I see it......:puke: Is my reaction.


This is my first actual impression of Clark....Now, every time I hear his name, see his face I am revisited by the distasteful posts I have read at DU by the bully posters. It is an unpleasent transfer association but it has been imprinted by the Clark supported here.

Anyone else having similiar experiences? I find it a struggle to be fair and open to anything Clark says....I know it is not fair but the PTS has been laid.

phenomenon, except that it is sparked by Dean supporters. Go figure.

For example; there is a recently locked thread by the same Clark supporter...who repeatedly evokes negative, mean and bully tactics.... I don't think Clark would really embrace such behavior. If I'm wrong, then maybe there is justification into being repulsed by the potiential Clark candidate.

VoteClark, he's been bounced:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=129049

To be quite honest, I'm relieved....I feel safer now. Not that anyone was in any danger, just a comparative feeling.

I really want to get to know Clark. I was extremely impressed with him on Scar-boy's show....He is very effective against their predictable interview tactics! I did experiece second thoughts after the show when seeing the voteclark crap.....the association was there... I hope I can get past the trauma.


Whoo, I had to do some editing...need my AM coffee....:)

:shrug:

DTH

when Dean's momentum began to pick up, the board was flooded with new people. Many of them have stayed around and became positive influences. Why denigrate those who support someone other than Dean.

Do you not remember all the Deanie threads ... Dean is like JFK, Dean is like Clinton but cooler, Dean walks on water (?!?). Many of those here who did not support Dean felt the same way that you expressed in your thread originating post so I understand how you feel.

But, like the rest of us did, I suspect that you will heal.

guy. That's not 'supporters,' as in plural. And he has also been baited by Dean supporters who show up on every Clark thread and attack Clark. I'm not going to defend that person's actions, because he does tend to go overboard, but in general, I find Dean's fans, as a group, to be far more persistently obnoxious than Clark supporters. I like a lot about Dean, but if I was to judge by his supporters on this message board, I would sooner vote for Nadir.

in the "Should Truman Have Dropped the Bomb" thread.


I supported the bombing. I thought it was painful, cruel, horrific, etcetera but it was necessary to end the war as expeditiously as possible.

Vote Clark was baited in that thread and called a fascist, a freeper, and a person who made others dyspeptic.

One poster said " I thought only right wingers supported the bombing."

Another poster said America "provoked" Japan

Another poster compared the prostitutes in Nam and the Phillipines who catered to American G I s to the comfort women in Japan. The comfort women were Korean women kidnapped from their homes and forced to provide sexual comfort to the Imperial Army; i.e. systematic rape.

At least in that thread Vote Clark's actions were mostly justified.


I didn't read his other stuff so I can't comment on what I didn't read.

shrug.

I'm a newly "out-of-the-closet" Clark supporter, and I'd hope you would examine the candidate himself rather than judging him by one or two supporters of his you dislike.

I'm also a fan of Howard Dean, and if I made my electoral choices based on the quality of discourse of his supporters on DU... well... I'd probably vote for Gus Hall's replacement.

If it's a particular member you're discussing, I think I know who it is. And I share your distaste. But please keep an open mind and remember that a candidate is NOT his supporters.

Again, I'm sorry if some individuals have turned you off to Clark. Just make your choice on what YOU know,rather than the attitude of others.

Good luck!

So far, all I know is that he's a retired General from Little Rock. Even here in AR, the only other thing I've heard is that his supporters are meeting around the state to launch a Draft Clark initiative. But nowhere have I seen his positions on:

1. How to manage health care.
2. Whether or not to work towards a balanced budget
3. What he would do to stop the hemorraging of jobs overseas
4. His take on foreign policy.

I only get to visit these boards a couple of times a day, and don't usually have time to go to back posts, so maybe these points were discussed. But I haven't seen them, and would like to, so I could make up my mind about Clark.

what Wes Clark would say about NAFTA, GATT, ans WTO but I'll give it a shot.


Free trade and full employment are not mutually exclusive.

We had both under Clinton.


I agree with Ricardo. Nations should produce what they produce best.

Logic tells me what to do and what is right....I need to get thicker skin...processing is healthy. We are all democrats who are against *bush.... thats the real problem. Keeping that goal in mind can facilitate me to become centered once again.

VoteClark has finally been laid to rest

but there are enough annoying supporters of other candidates to go around, too.

Actually, I find the complaining about the boors even more annoying.

Someone says something stupid or crass, maybe point it out, but let it go. With 30,000 members, someone is going to say something stupid every five minutes or so. It's just a matter of the numbers, and we'll all go nuts if we let it get to us.

No need for everyone to get their shorts knotted, flounce out, or start a shitstorm. Life is too short and we've all got a big job ahead of us for next November.

btw, I find Clark to be VERY impressive. You should catch him when he's interviewed and check out the draft Clark websites.

Truth is, there's a pretty good group of candidates, and almost-candidates this go'round. And it will probably get better. Fortunately, it all doesn't depend on the shitstirring going on in here.

but I would have problems with any military candidate who has been trained to seek military solutions from a disproportionately funded Pentagon. That is not the policy that would be on the best interests for the future.

I would recommend doing a google search on "Wesley Clark". You'll find his impressive biography (first in his class at West Point, Rhodes Scholar with Masters in Economics, Philosophy and Politics from Oxford, decorated veteran and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe for NATO)as well as his more recent work as an investment banker and leader in the development of alternative fuels.

You can also find his statements on issues of importance to Democrats, including being Pro-choice, supporting gays in the military, rolling back the Bush tax cuts, opposition to the war in Iraq, a strong desire to make the US once again a PARTNER with the rest of the world instead of a ruler, and a strong commitment to environmentalism.

The info is out there and easy to find. I hope you'll be as impressed as I am.

It's late in the game and he hasn't even been sure of his party affiliation.

Personally, I prefer a doctor to tend to what ails this country. Better a wise practical healer than a war general with a coat full of badges who can't make up his mind.

Wes Clark earned those medals the same way Howard Dean earned his medical degree.


Wes Clark has made up his mind but like any strategist he is waiting for the most opportune time to make his move.

I agree whole heartedly with the earned those medals part.


Could you please explain the oportune moment part? the general sentiment I see here over and over is " yea sounds great but is he ever going to actually run? " Could you please tell me what conditions you could possibly see him holding out for?

but he's not stupid.

Summer is not a good time to launch a new product.(Rove meant Iraq War2) People are at the beach and thinking about their vacation*.



After Labor Day is the best time for Clark To announce.









*That's a little hyperbole.

Its an interesting position to take. Considering that 9 of the candidates have been out there putting together thier base for months now. And the fact that an anouncement seems to get about a day and a half worht of coverage. Add to that the fact that half of the 9 are thinking the same thing. And it doesnt seem so smart to me.

and posted some thoughts about the General's coyness that you might want to consider:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=117809&mesg_id=117809#118175

In any case, Clark is expected to announce his decision around Labor Day, which isn't too far off -- we'll know what we need to know inside of two weeks.

and I think lays out what should be the mindset for any candidate for the most part.

I am personally to the point with clark where I am asking when is the damn deadline to file as a Dem for the primaries.

Wesley Clark earned his purple heart by being shot four times.

Yes, medical school is tough. But I'd choose that over four bullets in my body.

then why post in this thread?

If you think an MD has better knowledge of international affairs and national security than the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO...


well... then... I just don't know what to say.

I have a physician. I like him. He's good. I would never in a million years want him to be president based solely on his medical degree.


Clark is a lot more than a general. He's a Rhodes scholar, a brilliant speaker, a decisive leader, an excellent student of economics, philosophy and politics, a decorated warrior and a real progressive.

But NOOOOOOO.... he doesn't have an MD.

stfu

Dicks. Some Generals Are Real Dicks.

Let's look past the title before we give them a halo or a crown of thorns.

it should be pointed out (as it has in the past), that Clark was the SAC for NATO in Europe, that is a much more political job than military one. Like Ike's job in WWII - not a bad training ground for national leadership. I'm not a current Clarke supporter, but I think he would make a strong candidate, and from what I've read, a good president.

I don't like, and never liked reasons NOT to vote for someone.

I don't have a problem with Clark the Candidate though it does evoke Babylon 5 imagery. :)

how can you possibly post this thread?
Honestly.

One can't grow without taking risks and sharing. Thats how I can post this......I don't support any bashing, period...some posts have been abusive...gone beyond the permeability of discussion.

Your post was non-agressive and heartfelt. We all should take a lesson from your post on how to broach a topic in a gentle, forthright manner. Don't worry, you have alot of support here.

. . .it seems like there is a double standard when it comes to Clark. I think it will calm down for a few days, but as we draw closer to a Clark announcement it will get out of hand.

Bitter, no?

Your focus is reflective of the motivation of my post. Where is the party unity?

Sure it jumpstarted his candidacy, got him lots of media attention, but the attacks on Kerry, Edwards, and the others have not, and will not be forgotten.

Party unity? As a Dean supporter, surely you jest?

Bash-master.

I have just as much right as anyone to state my opinions on this board. How dare you?

Oh chimpy....;-)

I thought the GOP were the masters of tunnel vision. I do not jest.

I forgive posters who dish out bitter rants and snip's. I hope they soon become grounded and really do join the democratic team to evict the regime.


I'll leave the porch light on......

We've been calling for unity since the early days of Dean's attacks.

By yelling at dean supporters about it Dean will somehow change his behavior?

Though I'm not yelling. Maybe you supporters could tell your guy that you find his tactics distasteful.

I dont.

Democrats WANT A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ATTACK when the situation calls for it- even if it means calling out the dismal representation in our own party. It has been a disgrace! The Country is living in denial--not only about the illegitimate attack on Iraq but on a host of issues that need to be addressed with clear and outspoken intent. Sound off!

I've apparently not be on board when the plan came out. Please enlighten me. I would appreciate the help.

Selectively, a bit of the discussion has a flair not reflective of such a mission as I read a few whinning Dean attack accusations....

Most replies are proactive and encouraging, a real DU Honor to be recieved by such supportive feedback. I thank you all who are sensitive and embracing of the issue.

WHAAAAH?

I read it twice. I simply can't parse it. What are you trying to say?

attempts for party unity, but quickly suggest Dean posters are resistant and the cause..... No evidence was shared, just a cranky snip and judgemental dig.... It has no power other than being negatively charged....passive aggressive.

In other words.....if the replier speaks of party unity then why cut and divert into another candidate without sharing something positve.

Id like to see the negative snips stop too. It can defocus from our party mission.

I originally spoke up because the Clark folks were a bit more rough.....causing me to be turned off from Clark based on the memorable, mean spirited Clark posts.....

eom

Once Clark decides to run Dean and the other 8 stooges should drop out for the good of the party. I am not the only one that says this as far as I know the DLC says the same. With the other ones it is obvious Dean and the others are not electable. Someone else could be better then Clark that could come in later perhaps.

But the only way to unify the party is to support only one that can win.

Clark is going to be our next great president.

the Chimpy assminstration, with a little note that says to send back what ever remains of the funds that they feel where not needed. ;-)

I got a mailing from the Dean Campaign
the other day (I am on a lot of Democratic
mailing lists because I am a Nation and
The Progressive subscriber) and it spent
as much time bashing other Democratic
Candidates as it did Bush.

Anyone else get that letter?

Personally, I like Dean trying to fire us
up and call Bush on his evil BS.
But we gotta stick together and not become
morally bankrupt like those we despise.

Clark has always been positive and to date
I don't think he has uttered one negative
word about any of the current Democratic hopefuls.

That's one of many, many reasons why I like Clark.
Clark is my man.

In the past I stated Dean is unelectable, I am sorry for
that one sided view. I have stuck away from being negative
about others and just stay positive about Clark. I hope
that is ok. I want peace and unity but also we need insightful
discourse. We all have a responsibility to be honest
with ourselves and each other.

Stay United, Defeat Bush !!!!

We do need to have unity, and defeat Bush.

It's just ironic (hypocritical?), when supporters of the guy who built his candidacy attacking the other candidates - and continues to do it - start calling for peace and unity.

Ready when you are.

Cause honestly I will vote for anything over bush. You aparently will vote for anything but Dean.


Let it go man

We dont wish you any I'll will. Suport your guy !!! Convince all of us of why we should suport him, not why we shouldnt support someone else.

But this thread is a perfect example of Deanie behavior. And you guys can't even see it. The Clark is God threads making you sick? Physician, heal thyself.

I like clark actually. The few times I have seen him speak hes been awsome! I love dean too when he speaks. I will take either one .... I think.... I really just dont know enough about clark to say for sure yet. But I do like what I have seen so far.

I wish he would just shit or get off the pot. Other than that he sounds great! I am out here I am listening... start squaking!

But what exactly kind of crap are you refering to?

I see this over and over. " Yea I agree. But you know those damn Dean supporters really suck! Look at all the crap they started!"

Obviously I support Dean. I may look through rose collored glasses, but I just dont see it.

I certanly dont intend to offend as a Dean suporter, other than when I am defending obvious tripe posted against Dean. After so many "ya buts" I tend to go on offense. Baring obvious flamebait I try to have an open mind.

Having said that I dont see the offensive posts from Dean supporters. Unless you call cheering for your candidate crap I just dont see it.

At the same time. I certainly dont want to offend others as a dean supporter posting as I see the negative influence it has on me.

So if you have the time. Could you please point out afew Dean supporter crap posts so I can get an idea of what you are talking about and try to avoid it.

for the nature of his supporters.

if that's your criterion for supporting a candidate, good luck.

I like Howard Dean. His supporters here, however (and I'll stress it's a small minority) have turned me off to him. Yes, I support Clark. If Dean were the nominee, I would support him wholeheartedly despite the obnoxious attitude of some of his supporters.

Do you REALLY make your political decisions based on how much you like the people who post on a message board?

"Do you REALLY make your political decisions based on how much you like the people who post on a message board?"

"I like Howard Dean. His supporters here, however (and I'll stress it's a small minority) have turned me off to him"


Yes

that I will SUPPORT HIM if he's the nominee.

Cripes, these dishonest tactics by a certain governor's supporters really bug me.

Dishonest how?

You clearly said ... if you let some supporters word influence your decision you are doing yourself a disfavor at the same time you said dean suporters have influenced your decision.

Unless you were implying that decision meant to vote for that candidate or bush, In which case my apologies For missreading your intent.

A small minority of Dean supporters, many of whom were mercifully banned after attack upon attack on other DU posters who said anything they considered "bashing", turned me off Dean big-time.

Actually, they got me looking closely at the man himself, since I used to pretty much avoid the posts about him that would appear about every third post. Chimpymustgo is correct about something else:it is somewhat humourous to hear a call for unity now, after I and others witnessed relentless abuse some certain Dean supporters. It does seem to have died down somewhat.

After witnessing egregious flaming posts (name calling, cursing, etc.) from the hardcore Deanies, over months and months, it seems that newer DU members are not afraid to ask questions about Dean's (and other candidates') stances on issues that are important to them.

That is not bashing. That is debate.

Not only turned off by him, but repulsed by his supporters.

including Dean

When I stated that I can envision Dean winning the nomination but I have a difficult time envision him beating B--h* I was told

"to vote for Bush"

"I am a Demnot" (LOL) given my screen name and I have never voted other than Dem since I could vote in 76

"I just don't get it"

"Comparing him to other failed Dems is a non starter"

"I am stupid"


* I am not hooting my own horn. I may not be Robert Dahl, Samuel Huntington, Norman Ornstein, or Seymour Martin Lipset but I have a M.A. in Political Science and have completed completed twenty four hours of course work towards a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Government at Florida State University as well as working in several campaigns so I do know a little bit about what goes into electability.

People would rather have reasons to vote FOR than have reasons to Vote AGAINST.

Any thread intended for the sole purpose of persuading people not to vote for a candidate is, well, silly.

Every candidate of every party has baggage that could formulate reasoning to not vote for them. Realistically, the reasons to support a candidate are the persuasive arguments.

:think: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

it certainly shapes my opinion of a few posters.

Btw, there was a brief - but huge - Dean spam period as well. And while somewhat toned down, the Dean supporters can be just as persistent. The difference I see, is last night/this morning there was a little nya,nya,nya,nya... type tone to a few of the posts - but in reality - I think that is due to a delayed reaction to an aversion to a few of the Dean posters - similar to what you express towards Clark.

But the biggest reality is it is individual posters, not a candidate. And just like the Dean spamming died down, I hope the Clark spamming does as well. But that is due to my distate for a particular DU form of spamming - particularly around flaming topics:

Thread is going.

post 28 DUa posts what s/he thinks is particularly clever.

decides to start a new thread - though it is completely about the same topic... But - people might not see this single post otherwise...

then at post 29 DUb posts a completely different view that s/he thinks is particularly compelling.

decides to start a new thread - though it is completely about the same topic... But - people might not see this single post otherwise.

salin duer at the 6th new thread spawned in GD........ ARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But I hear you - it was a bit frustrating last night for the reasons you state. But it won't make me hold it against the candidate, and it isn't that unique to Clark (I think it is a momentum thing).

Am I missing something here? Someone makes a post being upset about Democrats insulting Democrats and bashes another Democrat doing it. It just doesn't seem right to me. I am confused. Should we not be for all the candidates? I am for them all. But I have not made up my mind yet which one I will actually vote for.

Mike

Where not everything makes sense.

Better keep drinking my coffee.

Mike

And why he hates Dean.

And why he hates California & Davis.

And why a couple of his supporters here don't take some fucking medication.

Why do you say this? Did he say that?

Mike

The Deanies have their panties quite twisted because of the emergence of Wesley Clark.

No matter who you support, you will see that the tenor can get tough around here. Some fans are on the rabid side.

I just don't like many of the new Clark supporters, k'?

Intentionally obtuse or simply Obnoxious, it doesn't matter, toxic waste is the result.

Fact is I like Clark. Saw him on MTP a few weeks ago and was truly impressed by his insightful defence of the Progressive Income Tax.

See what a few over zealous supporters can do?

Find me a post in this thread that even hints at being concerned about clarks emergence from a Dean suporter. You seem to have some huge chip on your shoulder. Why I have no idea.

Clark will do just fine! Like him a lot! Wish he would actually run!

If we're discussing medication.... you might wanna check your own 'scrip

Nah, couldn't possibly be!

You know what I'm refering to, no?

If not you must have wisely avoided GD last night:-)

I haven't followed every Clark thread, but I've participated in several. I haven't seen many discussions that would warrant that reaction, but I'm sure it's possible that there have been. I do think it's unfair, however, after Dean supporters have dominated the board for the past several months, that after only a few weeks of Clark supporters attempting to do the same they would be criticized for driving away support. At least from what I've seen, the amount of overbearing Clark supporters is not comparable to the amount of overbearing Dean supporters, or at least, if it is comparable, it certainly doesn't exceed it.

Secondly, and most importantly- Why would you let a random person on an Internet discussion forum dictate how you feel about a candidate? As if Wesley Clark has anything to do with these people? It seems to me that that's the worst standard you could employ when choosing your candidate. For every candidate you find, there will be crazies among them. This is especially true of Dean and Clark supporters, simply because their stories are the most dramatic and sensational, and therefore attract a wide variety of people. I believe, and I think I speak for most Clark supporters, that the point of our discussions is not to decide whether you like him or not based on our own personal posts, but to allow our posts to encourage you to take a look at him, read what he has to say, watch his television appearances, and then make a decision about him as a candidate. You really should focus on the man, not the random person talking about him, when deciding how you feel about Clark.

eom

but it seems too.

do a number like nails on a chalkboard. They give the good doctor a bad name with their obnoxious, low attacks. It's uncanny, but whenever I see a rude personal attack in a thread about candidates, nine times out of ten it's a Deanie.

some chose to taunt - both ways - and like to feed the fire.

As an undecided - I can vouch that it comes from multiple directions.

Folks need to seperate obnoxious posters from politicians, and to do a little reflection - are they, themselves, doing some taunting in either direction? Does the taunting then result in reactions that lead to the behavior that leads to the desire to do somemore taunting?

Looks like an ugly little cycle has developed. It is NOT owned by a single camp of participants. Seems to be gaining ground as a desirable form of discourse. It is a shame. But when all feel self-righteously positioned to play the game - few take the high road to stop playing their individual role in the dynamic. Hence the cycle perpetuates and even accelerates.

Deanies the ones who have committed the most offenses. Sure, there is going to be a reaction to that, it is human nature.

Take this thread for example, what if I started a thread titled "Are Dean supporters turning people off their candidate?" What kind of responses do you think I would get?

because when others taunt them.. one goes.. "ya, good one" and the taunt/bash doesn't register. Actually there have been those threads (I hate dean because of his supporters).

I see ugly statements made about Lieberman - including a nazi reference.

I see ugly statements from a DK supporter (which I think HE would be appalled by) that somehow throw the nazi analogy into higher gear - but the problem not being supporting a candidate - but in delving the problem is not agreeing that said candidates are intrinsically evil.

I have seen Kerry get bashed from all directions over some absurd thing.

And I have watched the Dean dynamics (with equal part basher and bashee) going on for months. TO an observer - those resisiting the Dean fans give as good as they get.

And while I have raised it with individual posters before - NO ONE wants to look at their own behavior. By now the dynamics are so set, that the response is always as you state here... its not my fault, its not people bashing in a similar direction's fault = We are justified.

The whole thing leads no where. No converts. NO converts of undecided. Instead spurs a gazillion subthreads from both camps. So counterproductive.

But few want to own up to it - and until some do from either side - it is not going to stop anytime soon.

Well it might change. It might escalate driving those who til now were striving to stay out of that fray and still discuss issues off the boards - because no issues stay up to be discussed because the WWF contingents of the campaign camps are just having too much "fun".

as soon as the primaries get underway. I don't see that as a bad thing, though. It is natural. Sometimes it can get a little out of hand, and I posted a thread calling for peace becuase I thought it did last night.

But talking about politics and especially candidates can lead to these kind of combative posts. And you are right, some might even find the conflict exhilirating. This is a political message board, wouldn't it be boring if everyone politely agree with everyone else.

but no offense, in the clark/dean vote threads - you engaged in a little taunting - so your particular call for peace at that particular time - wasn't going to be as effective as those posters (two from Clark, one from Dean) who were NOT engaging in those tactics to call for positive threads rather than bashing threads.

I read your posts, if I may, to be reflecting your built up irritation with some Dean supporters. I get that. But I also read them as taunting (and you were in no way alone). Then the taunting started up - in reaction - in the other direction.

Anyone engaging in the taunts and bashes - at least at that point in time - UNLESS owning up to their own part in the dynamics - was not going to lead to a change in dynamics.

I appologize for being so blunt - it was just my read on a very ugly night.

the entire DU board. The supporters are converting DU into an Internet equivalent of commercial TV, where you have to endure worthless vacuous PR for long intervals, in order to get to the "good stuff."

Here is a typical Clark post:

Subject line: "Clark-Mania!"
Message: "CLARK RULES! Wesley will kick Shrubby's Ass!"

This sample demonstrates the apparent upper limit of intelligence for Clark supporters.

The US already has far too great a reliance on militarism, in its culture, its foreign policy, & its economy. The enthusiasm for recruiting a general as a candidate just because he's a military celebrity demonstrates, more than anything else, the unprincipled mindless desperation of many Democrats. These people would be just as happy to run a movie star or football coach for president, if they could find one.

And that this same is true about some Dean supporters in no way shows that Clark supporters should or can afford to be more annoying than we have to be. We have lots of energy, but we can't afford to turn people off, if we can accomplish the same thing without bothering. Maybe Dean can (maybe), but we certainly can't.

Yeah, there's going to be closed-minded people who just randomly don't like us or have an pre-existing and probably fixed animus against General Clark (refraining from Freudian speculation now). We can't help that.

And we can't let those people bait us--just use the ignore function and instead concentrate on talking to the reasonable people in a friendly and upbeat manner. They outnumber the closed-minded people by a huge amount. We've got a great candidate, and we can totally channel our energy in a positive direction.

LiberalNurse, I apologize if some of the Clarkies have gone over the line, and I hope that you will still read the posts of the vast majority of those who haven't. I also notice that you've been a Clark skeptic from the beginning, which is completely reasonable, but I'd humbly suggest that if you don't want to be annoyed by Clarkies, then you may want to try to make sure that you don't bait them--yeah, we're at fault if we take it, but if it annoys you, then it's better for you to avoid it, right? Win-win situations are always better!

Peace. :hippie:

working to set a different tone and dynamic. I was pleased to see your work on this as well as a Dean supporter attempt the same thing. Thing is - consistency - as both you and this other have done.

Sadly the dynamics (from many directions) leads to some chiming in on the civility thread while turning around and either bashing or taunting on another thread.

This dynamic benefits NO candidate.

Inspired, I am re-inaugurating my Ignore list, adding three people who are consistently irrational and vicious toward Clark.

Thanks for your post, I agree completely.

DTH

but while I see irrational Clark bashing - I see an equal amount of Dean fan taunting. We can't tone down one without addressing the other.

Although I don't engage in Dean-taunting -- he is right up there with Kerry in my second-tier -- it certainly doesn't bother me as much as the Clark-baiting, for obvious reasons. :-)

DTH

a refreshingly honest reaction. I do think that people declared in one camp or another are much more aware of the taunting going towards their camp - and may not be as aware of the other - even if it is there :D

I bet that if more took this approach - we could get a more honest assessment of the dynamics and more folks willing to work on them :D

Peace!

I'm trying to keep the Dean-bashing down, too--I totally welcome your efforts, salin.

It also helps that I have very positive feelings toward Dean! We are of course going to need to encourage unity, whomever wins the nom, if we want to win, so I'm completely with you.

However, I should point out that there are some Clark and Dean supporters who have been so inspired by their candidate that they can't see themselves making another choice. There's nothing wrong with that, but they understandably get really upset when they see another poster irrationally bashing their candidate. These are the Clarkies and Deanies who are better off using the ignore function, for everyone's sake.

Heck, I feel that I'm pretty open-minded and fluid in my opinions, and I thought I was philosophically opposed to the ignore button, but I've come to realize that I have my limits, as does rational discourse. Some people just can't be reached. And I'm much saner for this realization!

believe me.

My take on the primaries is the more good candidates with very valid issues the better. MORE issues get aired (as each candidate brings a unique set of views, priorities, and style) - that are NOT getting aired by the media. Their participation forces some media coverage -and that means the mainstream has to, from time to time, at least hear a counter view to the yea rah bush/gop. It also means that some very important issues don't drop to the way side during the primary. And best of all - those issues that sell well - even for a candidate who eventually "washes out" often get incorporated in some form by the person who takes the nomination.

That is an exceptionally important process.

This irrational bashing (and I agree with your take on the dynamics - and one has to appreciate the passion invoked by these candidates, if not how tht passion sometimes manifests itself) - HARMS the dynamics. It harms this valuable message board where WE as individuals could become agents of pushing some of these issues/policies even if they come from a candidate who is not our top choice (and for me, right now, I have no choice so that is easy). If instead of bashing - we hashed out and researched some of the policies - we could inform others - push positive discussions of those issues - and in a small way help shape local discourse.

But all of this dynamic is getting to a point where that value of the whole early primary process is washing out.

Deep Heavy Sigh.

Yes I agree with your theory if we live in a true democracy and genuine democracy. These are revolutionary times and thus requires a different formula to win. Gandhi and MLK provide the blueprints we need to win in 2004 by means of a non-violent change to the system.

The people will never have the power if we have no voice and only one voice as of now has the voice of electability and that is General Wesley Clark.

So all the others should drop out as soon as Clark gets in. Did the people of India have 8 Gandhi’s to kick the British out? Or 3 JFK's? We need to focus as a party on one personality, not 8 or even 2.

Much of the current animus on the board started when Dean supporters started flooding DU with statements just like yours: that the other candidates should drop out and just support Dean, because he's the only one who can win! Honestly, it was amazing. People's patriotism and sanity have been questioned for not supporting Dean.

Now we're getting Clark fervor. Can we just let the process play out?

this means that all others would have to agree with your assessment. Therein lays the problem. Others feel for as strong as reasons as yours the same could be said for other candidates.

and many supporters are caught up in the excitement that this generates, by the same token the excitement for another candidate other than their own makes some people defensive. I agree with the posts here that encourages all to support there candidate in a positive manner rather than bash candidates that they don't support, also flamboyant headings can be tempered by being more informative as is "Clark Rocks in interview with CNN" or Dean is the man in Time article " This will let others know that the thread is about an actual event so readers know what they are clicking into. Opinions are like assholes everyone has one, but let us try to give our opinions on our own candidates without negating the value of other candidates.

Please stop it. You make Clark look bad when you don't allow others their own opinions. This looks to me like a deliberate attempt to start trouble, to make my candidate look bad. Frankly, I'm suspicious of your post.

I left the Democratic Party after the 2000 election exactly because of this formula that we are supposed to blindly do what the party wants or whom they want to run no matter what.

The day after the Supreme Court gave the election to Bush not one democrat got up to oppose a stealing of an election. Not one! All in the name of this magic unity for some greater purpose.

The fact of the matter is that Dean is not electable. It is a fact, no matter how many well written campaign slogans are written and no matter how many people work on his campaign from now until the 2004 he will not win.

As a liberal I have been more then aware of the un-American course our country has been going for the last 30 or 40 years.

If the party cannot wake up to the reality of the world that it is in and face the problems in the party and the world nothing will change.

I will not vote for another Republican Democrat like Clinton like I did in the past. And Dean is just another Republican Democrat like Clinton.

These are just the opinons of someone that has an open mind and that will not be blind for some unity B####S###.

And it has nothing to do with my support of Clark his name could be Joe nobody for all I care, and I will still have the same opinion. And in fact if you look at the polls when Bush is up against and unnamed democrat Bush's poll numbers drop to the low 40s.

Unfortunately, some of us would be wrong.

I think the problem is that there are a handful of troublemakers who set the rest of us off. I don't often read the Dean threads, and when I do I almost never comment, and never negatively. I consider myself a guest in those threads. And just as if I were a guest in your house, I would not want to do anything to make myself unwelcome. I'm sure most of the Dean and Kucinch people feel the same when reading a Clark thread. But, there persist that handful of troublemakers that go into threads of candidates they do not support solely to stir up some shit. I could name names.

I propose the following: We police our own. If you notice one of these troublemakers being an ass, and know him or her to be a supporter of your candidate, call that person on it. I have already begun to do this for my candidate. And let's not forget that unwarranted attacks reflect negatively on the candidate of the person doing the attacking. I owe it to my candidate to keep his supporters on the right path.

I hope this sounds reasonable to you all, and that you will help implement this policy.

United, we stand - divided, we lose to bushco.