Do You Pledge To Support "Your Candidate" In 2008, Without Smearing On Other Dems?

[Dinger]

Poll question: Do You Pledge To Support "Your Candidate" In 2008, Without Smearing On Other Dems?

I do, and if I have done so recently, it STOPS today, for me anyway. God, I don't want a repeat of 2004.:scared:

[Dinger]

1. Some Sad Results Here

Really, most of you don't give a shit?

[Dinger]

11. Glad To See The Tide Is Turning, A Little Anyway : ) (nt)

[Kerry fan]

2. IMO, if you have to "smear" another candidate

In trying to make your candidate look good, You don't have a very good candidate.

[Dinger]

4. That's For Sure!

From a Clarkie who's a Kerry fan, BIG time!:patriot:

[blm]

27. Debating facts is to everyone's benefit in the long run. Smearing mars everyone.

.

[PresidentObama]

3. I voted yes.

I will not smear ANY candidate, because I may have to put my foot in my mouth to support them.

There are plenty of candidates who I like, but I see with flaws. And I will give them constructive criticism, but no I won't smear them.

I'll support my candidate, and defend him to the best of my ability.

[Dinger]

7. Yet Another Classy Kerry Supporter: )

:patriot:

[xultar]

5. I will!

[BOSSHOG]

6. I will

proudly and positively support my candidate (General Clark) without disparaging any other dem candidate. If General Clark does not get the nomination I will proudly and positively support (time, effort, money) the partys nominee. I would also proudly and positively do whatever I can to influence the partys nominee to make General Clark part of his/her administration (State, Defense). My negative energy will be directed where it belongs; at the party of lies and crime and corruption, at the party with fake patriots and religious zealots as its base.

[Dinger]

10. Wow, You Sure Have A Way With Words BOSS : )

:patriot:

[crispini]

50. Right on!

I will endorse that wholeheartedly.

[Kerrytravelers]

8. I will, in the end, support whoever the nominee is. I will not smear anyone.

I can disagree, but to start the stupid name calling and swift-boating tactics is not appropriate.

Honestly, I question the mentality of people who do participate in that nonsense and think we'll have to keep a pretty watchful eye for purposeful disruptors.

[Horse with no Name]

9. Depends on what you call "smear"

Is it a "smear" if you back up your dislikes with facts?
Or is "smear" speaking against any candidate you don't like in any way?
I think it is a fine line between supporting candidates and encouraging echo chambers.
I encourage healthy debate.
However...I won't "DU" a poll for a candidate that I don't believe in.

[Dinger]

12. I Think Most Here Know What A Smear Is

We'rea smart group:)

[AtomicKitten]

15. ah, there's the rub

It is the squishy definition of "smear" here at DU that is the crux of this particular question. To oneself, it is perfectly reasonable debate; to others, vile smearing. And I don't expect the disparity of that POV to change.

[blm]

25. Smears are usually RW spin, something we all recognize or should by now.

.

[peace13]

29. Smears are usually a difference of opinion.

I am sure that you would call me a RW'er for saying this but that could not be farther from the truth. I am all about free speech. I believe that brainstorming can produce wonderful things and that limiting the thoughts of others does not belong in America. Peace, Kim

[blm]

34. The recent manufactured outrage against Boxer was RW smear against her and

any Democrat who accepted that smear against her as fact (as some senate staffers did) are not acting decently.

Boxer did not insult single women. To spread the RW lie that she did is a smear.

Democrats using the Morris article that claims Obama did something he did NOT do is a smear.

[Mojambo]

13. The dispute will arrive on the definition of "smear"

I support the intent behind this pledge, but there will be argument over what constitutes smearing.

[BattyDem]

16. I was just going to post the same thing

Like you, I agree with the intent of the pledge, but what does "smear" mean?

[peace13]

14. Do you pledge to let others share their views without locking them

out of your thread? Smearing is in the eye of the beholder! Peace, KIm

[Dinger]

22. What Are You Talking About?

I have no idea.

[peace13]

23. I am referring to the new feature that Skinner implemented

recently that gives the OP the ability to limit discussion in the forum. I am not sure what it is called as I never plan to use it. It is an enhanced 'ignore button' that locks people out of a thread. Really, I am not kidding you. Does this sound familiar? If not I will look for a link to the discussion for you. Peace, Kim


Edited to add link. Happy reading, 550 posts!
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Skinner/157

[laugle]

56. Some people are not interested in a dialogue they

just want to attack people who don't share their POV.

In those cases it could be useful to use the "ignore" button. Fortunately, I haven't needed it yet!

[AndyA]

17. Let's face it: there is no such thing as the "perfect" candidate.

They will all have baggage. They will all occasionally put their foot in their mouth. A joke will flop. Delivery will suffer. They will flip flop on issues.

The important thing to me is: WE MUST WIN THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2008, AND WE MUST KEEP THE HOUSE AND SENATE, AND EXPAND OUR MAJORITY IN BOTH.

We have a lot of damage to undo, and we must be in a position to undo it. It is going to take a tremendous amount of effort to turn this country around, and put it back on track after 8 years of heading the wrong direction.

I will support the Dem candidate I feel is most suited for the position, and if he/she makes it to the end, that's great. If they lose along the way, I will support whoever wins. And I hope that person is the right one for the job. That is all I can really hope for.

The worst thing we can do is bicker about our candidates. We should be spending our time pointing out the hypocrisy and cronyism among the candidates on the other side of the aisle. That is where the enemy lies.

[northernsoul]

18. Define "smear"

I have some legitimate critiques of some of the candidates. I don't intend to harp them to death, but I reserve the right to respectfully voice my opinion. I do agree it will be best if everybody concentrates on positive advocacy for their favored candidate.

[MasterDarkNinja]

19. Mostly yes, depends on your definition of 'smear'

The only bad talk I've ever done about dem presidential candidates was saying that we shouldn't nominate them because I don't think they could win the general election. I'd rather we nominate a moderate democrat who will generally side with us on the issues and get him/her elected then nominate someone that most of America (other then democrats) doesn't like only to have a moderate or extreme republican run the whitehouse for another 4 to 8 years because we picked a bad candidate. I don't consider that a 'smear'.

[Catchawave]

47. That's fine....but where I draw the smear line....

If you (generic) don't like my candidate tell my why, I value all opinions if they're well thought out and heartfelt. With hopes that gives me the opportunity to tell you why I like him or her!

What I call a smear is just "hit and run" personal slams like "he or she is just too goofy". :shrug:

I sometimes wonder why some threads stay up far too long, and others are shut down as flamebait? That's when it really gets ickky on DU.

No offense to mods, I truly respect and appreciate your thankless positions, as I was one on a much smaller political website in '04, and I would slit my wrists before I ever did that again :silly:

[crispini]

51. I would agree with your definition of "Smear" nt

[Catchawave]

54. Hey Crispi !

Glad you didn't agree with my slitting my wrists :toast: :loveya: :toast:

[CrazyOrangeCat]

20. yes.

we've got the class to do this important work . . . without getting nasty.

Taking shots serves no purpose, and is what the Roves and Cheneys of this world would like for us to do.

[demnan]

21. Yes

I made that pledge around December. I won't bash. I think that it is ok to ask searching questions, however.

[blm]

24. I believe strongly in debating facts, statements and record, not smear campaigns.

where someone attacks other Dems using false info, attacks candidate's family, and most especially attacks using RW talking points.

[Dinger]

40. I Believe Strongly In That Too- I Agree 100%

I like links too.:)

[blm]

46. Heh...repeatedly for some of us. ;)) And, oh yeah, stalking threads isn't cool, either

just to bother someone you do disagree with in other threads.

[AtomicKitten]

26. this smear job on Obama was beyond the pale

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3057163

[peace13]

30. Ouch! n/t

That is one ugly scene!

[blm]

32. Lieberman gets attacked for not wanting investigations, and so should any other Dem

who says the same even if it is Obama or anyone else. And that is not a smear to say so.

It would be a smear if he was ACCUSED of it when he never said it. But he did.

[Tellurian]

44. Lieberman IS NOT A DEM...

Call out the Republicans who agree with Lieberman.

[blm]

45. I call out Dems who say there is no need for investigations - they are wrong, no

matter WHO they are. And I have been saying this long BEFORE Obama was even in the Senate. Any Dem who wants the books closed on ANY serious matter of Republican corruption is going to get gruff from me.

Those who have posted with me for the last five years know I am being consistent whether they support it or not.

[Tellurian]

53. Lieberman IS NOT a DEM...nm

[blm]

58. Obama said there is no need for investigations into Bush's decision to invade Iraq

and it is NOT a smear to say that position is the wrong one for ANY Dem to take, especially since most of the country WANTS Bush's WH investigated for how and why he went to Iraq, and 95% of DU wants it, too.

Why you set yourself up as an apologist for that position and insist on attacking me on every thread you can is questionable behavior.

[AtomicKitten]

36. this DU'er called out that smear on Obama pretty good

And this is proof-positive what some people consider perfectly fine is in fact a "stinky load."

(takes a couple seconds to load)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3057163#3060723

[hughee99]

28. As many hear have already said...

One person's "constructive criticism" is another person's smear. I promise that I will refrain from doing anything I would consider a smear, for what it's worth, but I would not pledge to hold myself to someone else's standard without knowing what that standard was.

[karynnj]

37. Where things get vague is on writing opinions on

subjective matters. Those things can be negative and they can be repeating echo chamber - but they are not smears - I don't thing most comments on:
- appearance
- speaking abilities
- charisma

are smears - even if negative. Others will look, listen and decide. It's an opinion - I reserve the right to disagree.

Any comment on a vote deemed bad - should be researched to insure it is accurate. It is a wrong, but not a smear to say "he voted for Dr Rice" when he (who ever he is)didn't . This is easily countered using the Thomas rol call of votes. (while not a smear - this diminishes credibility.) Repeating it - after repeatedly being corrected is a smear.

If you disagree with a comment an opponent made - that is not a smear if the quote in context is provided. It is true.

If you cite a negative action and it is well sourced and not questionable - that is not a smear even if it is very negative. (To pick an obvious example - you can say Bill Clinton had an inappropriate relationship with Monica - it's true - so not a smear.

Repeating lies - smear
Repeating rumours(if negative) - smear
implying things that you don't know - smear

Based on this concept of what smearing is, I will try never to smear anyone.

[hughee99]

38. Sounds pretty good.

Personally, I wouldn't base my opposition argument to any candidate on their appearance, speaking ability, or charisma since in most cases, that's a matter of personal taste. While I might not like one of those particular attributes of a candidate, I wouldn't base my argument as to why I don't like them on it. If I felt that way, and had no other reason for opposing a candidate, I'd just keep my mouth shut. Certainly, lying about a candidate is clearly a smear, as is engaging in rumor mongering. While I personally don't, I think some people consider citing negative actions, even if they are unquestionably true, to be "smearing". I can certainly live with the definition you've set out, but I even in following it, I can't say that I won't be accused of "smearing" at some point.

[karynnj]

52. Thanks

I personally have a problem with people calling the citing of true verifiable things - smearing. First because it weakens the word smearing. Second, I think negative things done need to be mentioned. Maybe there are extenuating circumstances, maybe it was a fluke - but it happened.

I agree that most of that early list is trivial and I would never vote based on it. I would be every bit as impressed by my favorite canddiate (Kerry) if he was 5 foot 3 , 190 pounds and bald. He would not look as "presidential" but all the characteristics that I admire him for would still be there.

[Mass]

31. Well, there was a good smear job this morning concerning Obama

Somebody reproducing a Dick Morris's article about a vote last week.

Even worse was that Dick Morris was wrong (no surprise), and that the poster was smearing Obama for something he did not do!

So, I would really like less smear jobs, but this does not mean that you cannot have legitimate differences of opinion about somebody.

[blm]

33. Now THAT was a smear job because Obama didn't do what was stated.

Big difference from debating his actual words and record.

[fuzzyball]

35. Is ours a democracy or dictatorship?

As far as I know, in a democracy you are free to criticize
ANYONE. So long as it is factual.

[More Than A Feeling]

39. Define smearing.

I always point out legitimate concerns in a fair way. I never smear. Ask anyone!:evilgrin:

[Dinger]

41. See blm's Post # 24 (nt)

[AtomicKitten]

42. keep in mind

defining "smear" and actually living one's definition are two different things .... see upthread the vile smear of Obama perpetrated by and considered perfectly fine by the very person you are directed to to define "smear."

In the final analysis, this kind of call for civility just doesn't work when people have zero insight into their own behavior.

[Lord Byron]

43. No to DLC-approved candidates

until the Convention. But we need to struggle to make sure we're heard. Fuck the media.

[Catchawave]

48. The DLC doesn't bother me.....

http://www.ndol.org/

Then again, I'm married to a Rethug :toast:

[Adelante]

49. I voted No

I don't smear, but if smears start up against Wes, I'll come right back. That's my right. So I can't swear I won't smear, Ding.

[Clarkie1]

55. Yes. I will only fire in self-defense...I don't believe in preemptive war. nt

[LWolf]

57. As long as "smear"

is not synonymous with "criticize" or "point out facts," or giving my personal reasons for disagreement or non-support.

If "smear" means baseless personal attacks, or personal opinion presented as fact, or blatant lies, misrepresentation, or incomplete information used to "spin" for the opposition, then yes, I can certainly agree to forgo those tactics.

We'll see all those tactics disappear from DU and from the nation's campaigns, right?