Why is it ok to talk about 2008 when it's YOUR candidate being pushed?

[election_2004]

Just curious.

Because it seems like a lot of people love to bitch about how there's too much discussion regarding 2008 when we haven't even gotten past the '05 elections and '06 midterms yet.

While I agree that, ultimately, 2006 should be the top priority, I can't help but think that power players in the establishment WANT us to stop talking about 2008, so they can make backroom deals and handicap the field behind the scenes, in order to make the grassroots as irrelevant as they can by the time December 2006 rolls around.

But aside from that, whenever someone at DU posts a new thread dedicated to talking up how *THEIR* candidate supposedly is the best and strongest for 2008.....and how Candidate X is the "only one" who can win.....and how Candidate Y and Candidate Z and "all of the others" completely suck as presidential material for such-and-such reasons.....

That thread will receive a chorus of yespeople shouting, "Yeah!...Go Candidate X!...Candidate X in 2008!".....just because they happen to like that person.

And then, once a thread about Candidate X turns into an extensive discussion, the bungee-posters appear, pop in, and tell everyone to shut up and focus on Election Fraud and 2006 (of course, then whenever someone actually bothers to make a thread about Election Fraud and/or 2006, hardly anyone responds to it - - or at least, not as frequently as the Election 2008 threads receive attention, and it ends up getting buried.....)

So let's just be honest about what's really going on here.....the problem is NOT that there's "too much discussion" about 2008.....the problem is that certain people (and they know who they are!) start completely new threads in order to explicitly or not-so-explicitly push their agendas.....and the DUers who agree with those agendas simply provide a chorus of enthusiastic support.....

.....until another person starts a thread subversively or not-so-subversively pushing an agenda that many of THOSE people now disagree with, and consequently, those people will proceed to tell THAT person to stop talking about whatever subject that person started a thread on, and invoke the mantra of how DUers should focus on "other issues" instead (so they can suppress discussion of that agenda that they disagree with, even though they are conveniently fine with simultaneous threads being posted that support whatever agenda THEY happen to agree with).

What's my point? People in glass houses shouldn't encourage self-censorship. And people in glass houses shouldn't tell other DUers to do what they themselves aren't willing to adhere to.

[LittleClarkie]

1. No, I'm not okay with Kerry in 2008 threads either

I'm okay with any threads that tell us what Clark, or Kucinich, or Hillary, or Bayh, or Warner, or Edwards et al, are doing in the way of events and speeches.

But the gratuitous, rah rah, "My guy in 08" threads, even for Kerry, are annoying as hell at this point in the process.

But the problem is, when someone who likes Clark, or Edwards, or etc, posts what they are doing in the way of events NOW, they are accused of pushing their guy for 2008. That's not right.

It's just the free standing threads that push whoever for 2008 that get on my nerves. Everyone should post what their guy is doing NOW.

And I will continue to do so. And I will defend every other supporters right to do so. And I will continue to rail against the "Whoever in 2008" threads until we are past 2005 and 2006.

But that's just me.

[election_2004]

3. That's what I meant

I was referring to those "free standing" threads in my OP.
Not the threads that focus on informative material (speeches, legislation, etc.)

[wli]

2. my guess is that Bushler doesn't want to have a 2006 or 2008 election

He'd much rather have martial law.

[rooboy]

4. I knew it wouldn't be long until this type of thread started to appear.

Face it. It's Lieberman or Bust in '08.

[firefox]

5. Discussion is discussion

I am a little tired of the 2008 threads. It is my option to pass over them and probably will for a long time.

There is not much informational nutrition in the topic, but then everyone needs some fiber in the diet. There are a lot of people on DU and whatever they want to read and message on is their choice. At least they are not being programmed by television and have joined two-way communication.

If you can sift all the 2008 threads, you might get a few flakes of gold. But if you are in search of reality, there are too many nuggets out there to be looking for flakes.

[election_2004]

6. Now I find it really funny....

Within 12 hours of me posting this OT, we see another surge of the 2008 threads.

I'm not saying that 2008 threads should be banned...I just wonder how long before we hear the same people whining about them again...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. As of yesterday, I have repented of my posting on candidate threads

and am not even clicking on them now.

My guess is that the field will contain people who aren't even on the radar today. Who had heard of Howard Dean or Wesley Clark in 2001 except for the most hardcore political junkies?

:-)

[election_2004]

8. Good point

Even after Howard Dean had declared his presidential candidacy, the Talking Heads blatantly wrote him off as a "long-shot"....

.....instead, they preferred to focus almost exclusively on Gore, "Joementum," and Hillary (despite the fact that she repeatedly told reproters she was running for reelection in NY in '06).

[election_2004]

9. BUMP

<nt>