I am taking a break.I am disgusted with DU.Whatever happened to the rule of not bashing Dems?

[saracat]

Why are some handing ammunition to the GOP? I was sickend to read the non stop bashing of Pelosi and the newly elected Congress and the high praise of people like Hagel who don't represent Democratic ideals.The viciousness concerning John Edwards just went over the edge. I want us to win and while contructive criticism may be good eating our own is a sure way to defeat.It makes me sad and angry to see such division and pettiness.I am taking a vacation from DU .See you later.

[hlthe2b]

1. I'm with you, Saracat...

But, I've simply ignored the "House" threads and stayed with the Anti-war protest, Libby trial (and any pet-related threads, LOL)

This too shall pass...

[barb162]

2. I hope so!

and I agree with you too

[JohnnyLib2]

3. Today's march coverage may wake some up.

Please check back soon, I watch for your posts.:hi:

[More Than A Feeling]

4. DU looks very different with judicious use of "ignore"

I was in one Edwards thread, and it was pointless. I won't make that mistake again. I'm sticking to my original policy of ignoring all candidate threads.

[Eurobabe]

68. X ignore on fart threads = SANITY

[sandnsea]

5. But bashing on abortion is a-ok

I seem to recall you getting pretty upset over some Democrats' statements about abortion in the past. I guess it's all in what people find most important to them personally.

[saracat]

6. Bashing a "position" isn't the same as personal bashing.

And we did NOT have a recently elected Dem congress that needed time to act and support!

[The Count]

33. So, bashing a candidate's position is OK then? Or not?

I just want to know - because when someone informs me that Edwards is anti-war and I just read he wants to attack Iran, am I allowed to discuss that fact, or is this deemed 'attacking a democrat"?


Homage to Herzliya
The Lobby wants war with Iran
."

Romney may have won the hyperbole contest, but the big surprise was Edwards, who came in second with his declaration that preventing Iran from getting nukes is "is the greatest challenge of our generation." On the same day he ran an ad in Roll Call calling on Congress to oppose the "surge" in Iraq, he was telling the Herzliya conference that "All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon."

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10399

[Zhade]

41. Yes, but only if the OP agrees.

It's called a double-standard.

[saracat]

54. Nonsense. Recycling a Drudge based article and applauding it is "bashing".

And no loyal Democrat should approve of that. But whatever.

[Clark2008]

67. The link provided in The Count's post was not from Drudge.

In fact, The Count wasn't even talking about, dare I say it, THE HOUSE.

He was talking about a candidate's position.

Is that fair game, or not?

[pwb]

7. a rove diversion... talk politics two years away.

avoid iraq war and talking about the new congress and senate.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. What defeat?

[depakid]

9. Who's praising Hagel?

From all I've seen- he's been savaged here today.

As to Edwards, calling attention to his record- and the seeming inconsistency between his actions and his record- on the one hand, and his "two America's" rhetoric on the other seems to me like legitimate criticism.

[Trajan]

10. Im with you about the bashing ....

We rarely agree, but you are dead on RIGHT about the ugliness here ....

I have no problem with differences of opinion, but the ugly meanness is unfortunately typical of humanity .... Something you would expect outside of the liberal community : but apparently not ....

I love ALL the candidates, but I will vote for one ..... I have no axe to grind or wield ... ALL I want is for the GOP to step down from the seat of power, and sanity to return ... I frankly dont care WHO does it, as long as it is done ....

[AdHocSolver]

85. The important thing is to elect a Democratic President in 2008 AND keep control of Congress.

The nitpicking that tries to pass for discussion here is more divisive than anything the Republicans could try to stir up. The important thing to accomplish is to select candidates for president and vice-president who can win by a large enough margin so that Republican dirty tricks like happened in Florida and Ohio won't succeed. What policies the candidates will push or not push once elected won't matter if they don't get elected. So "picking" winners is what should be discussed, not the "purity" of a candidate's position.

[Trajan]

96. Excellent commentary ....

A short, sweet, absolute fact: Ideological purity means SQUAT if we do not win the office ...

Well said, and welcome to DU ...

[natrat]

11. the problem is you have a lot of these "dems" who are scum

look at the last 6 years and how little resistance was offered on such crucial issues ;so if people insult hillary because a flag amendment was more important than killing our young people in iraq and enriching the military industrial complex i think its ok.

[paulk]

16. but, you see, your post is part of the problem

HRC never supported a "flag amendment". You bash out of ignorence. You don't even know what candidates stand or don't stand for.

And this site is full of posters like you.

[saracat]

26. "Scum"? In whose opinion? Sorry but that is exactly the kind of sentiment that causes my disgust.

This kind of sentiment from people who haven't contributed any kind of public service comparable to ANY of our candidates and only run their mouths on the internet or march in a protest are loathsome. Most are recent additions to the cause and aren't even Democrats. Some do nothing to support the Democratic Party which is the ONLY party that can institute change.JMHO.

[enough already]

73. How do you know what 'public service' has been contributed by anyone here?

Political candidates are hardly the only people doing 'public service'. In fact, many are merely self-centered assholes and can't hold a candle to the grass-roots.

[saracat]

81. Most mouth runners aren't doers.It takes a lot to run for office.

Several members of many family have and the grass roots didn't help much at all.Just sayin'

[roguevalley]

78. Lieberman isn't scum? Sure looked like scum to me.

[JVS]

99. The voter judges the candidate, not the other way around

[Gman]

12. The people bashing Dems like Pelosi, Hillary, Edwards, etc

are NOT Democrats. They're the usual motley bunch of far left wingers that are never happy. They have only one issue, the war. They don't care about other things like a living wage or health care for all. They see everyone that disagrees with them as a DLC stooge corporatist. They make their appearance around election time. I think they're coming out early for the '08 election. They have no loyalties and few principles or values beyond the war.

Just tune 'em out.

[saracat]

23. That is absolutely true! I will try after my "break!

[Amused Musings]

55. To be fair,

the war pretty much overrides all other topics so it is understandable that people care about it to the detriment of all other issues.

[DaveinMD]

69. it does not

economic inequality is just as important an issue. Reproductive freedoms are just as important. Its this attitude that leads to the hero worship for Hagel, who just voted to eliminate the minimum wage.

[Psephos]

66. Well said n/t

[Codeblue]

76. Really

People that far left actually only care about a living wage and universal health care. Beacuse those are socialist ideas, and people on the far left are pretty socialist in their regard for...well social issues. The war really is an afterthought for most of them. I think the war is actually a more moderate issue.

At least that's what I can tell you about the far left. Considering, I'm part of that group "far left" group you so harshly criticize for no good reason because you know absolutely nothing about them.

Cheers.

[Clark2008]

92. I vote Democratic and I bash Edwards on his war support -

both Iraq and his current mouthing-off about Iran.

And, up until Bushie, I was a solid Independent; therefore, I hardly qualify as some far-left winger. LOL!

I do care about other issues, as well, but, in Edwards' case, I can't find any legislation he proposed during his six years as senator that would have helped the disadvantaged with anything - not health care OR a living wage.

Just saying...

[Gman]

95. Your candidate is Clark and that's good

What I refer to is the blind knee-jerk unfounded and unfair attacks on especially Pelosi, much less Hillary, Kerry, et al as being pro-war DLC corporatists and that is the only issue.

I personally don't see anything in Edwards' one-term record such as support of a living wage or universal health care that make me want to support him. On the other hand, I think Edwards is a great champion of those that have been wronged in some way and his new house is a testament to how good he is at defending someone that cannot take up for his/herself.

But the issue is people that are not Democrats and will work for the defeat of any Democrat for president and for a Ralph Nader type in the general election. That makes them the enemy.

[chimpymustgo]

13. There's some behavior bordering on mental illness around here.

It's hateful, it's obsessive, it's almost sad.

And it's surely NOT helpful to DU or the Democratic Party.

[hashibabba]

14. Don't you think you should stay here with your positive input

and help drown out some of those problems? Just ignore threads like the *House* threads. Keep putting in good commentary and ignore some of the Pelosi bashing, etc. Some people are never happy and some of them will always be here.

[noamnety]

15. ALL politicians need to be held accountable for their actions

The democrats are not above criticism just because they have a (D) after their names, sorry.

Pressuring people to avoid constructive criticism is dangerous, imho, and that same view from within freeperville is part of the reason why the world is in the mess it's in - the republicans felt they had to support bush policies no matter what, in an effort not to "eat their own." It's a short hop from "party discipline" to fascism, and it's the same mindset that lets Americans be swayed by that crap like "If you aren't with us, you're against us" or "If you don't support the war you're a terrorist." Things aren't black and white, despite our history textbook industry doing its very best to portray them as if they were. On some issues, all of our candidates are good. On other issues, they each in their own ways, need improvement. They don't need a chorus of sycophants telling them they can do no wrong, and I'm sure the Edwards family, being through all its been through, has the strength to deal with criticism and to do some self-reflecting. I would expect that of them.

As for the public needing to STFU when it comes to criticising politicians, demands should come from the bottom up, not the top down. Elizabeth's reply to the outrage over the house is at least a sign that she's hearing that people in the other america are outraged at the excessive consumption of the rich. All democrats need to hear that message.

Criticism based on looks, race, gender, fashion is petty trolling, imo. Criticism based on issues - the war, the environment, etc. is important. It sends a message to all politicians that we're not going to give them a blank check to do whatever they want, and we expect their actions to back up their rhetoric (see my sig).

[saracat]

25. Democrats are NOT above criticism but "bashing' is different and RW talking points

are NOT acceptable nor are the "lefty freeper" jabs which seem to indirectly support them.It is not acceptable to provide the GOP with ammunition.Sorry.They will be referencing DU and pointing out the outrage about Edwards "house" and Pelosi's not doing exactly what they want when they want it.They will make us look like idiots. I know this as one of my posts was used by the WSJ in 2004 to show lack of support for Kerry.That wasn't the intent of my post but they "use " this stuff!

[John Q. Citizen]

31. It it OK when elected Dems provide the GOP with ammunition? Is it OK to criticise

elected Dems who provide ammunition to the GOP? Or is that just providing more support to the GOP?

[noamnety]

35. Yes, the house situation will make the democrats look like idiots.

The RW will use it as ammunition. And if we all said "rich people should own more, consume more without limits" that would make the whole lot of us look like idiots, and give them yet more ammunition. And they would be justified in using it, because it's contrary to what we've stated as goals toward social justice and environmentalism.

They are absolutely right to criticize us for a gap between rhetoric and actions, when we claim people need to make personal sacrifices to combat global warming, and then our leaders don't. It's just like when their homophobic leaders are outed for being gay, or their televangelist leaders are outed for living lavish lifestyles while preaching the opposite.

If the WSJ wants to quote me as saying I don't support obscenely lavish lifestyles - even IF the person living that lifestyle is a democrat, I welcome them to do so. My own home improvements were halted after I spent time on the gulf coast. It's not that easy to think about putting in a nicer floor when you've just come back from houses that have no floors at all, people that have no houses.

If I'd spent as much time in the gulf coast as Edwards has, I would be throwing up at the thought of living in what they're building. The WSJ is free to print that as well.

[saracat]

45. So, using that reasoning FDR and Kennedy made us look like idiots as well!

Frankly, I don't really want a "poor"president who doesn't understand how to manage large amounts of money.Edwards has been both poor and rich and understands both sides of the equation.Clearly he knows how to both make and keep money which is more that the current occupant of the WH.Or perhaps you LIKE the deficit? Clinton wasn't exactly poor either , especially since he left the WH(I know Hillary's $300,000)) a year from the Rose Law Firm doesn't count)

[noamnety]

75. Sorry, I'm not into hero worship

Roosevelt made himself look like an idiot by writing colonialist bullshit like "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one," and by being a racist pig. "When a mob in New Orleans lynched a number of Italian immigrants, Roosevelt thought the United States should offer the Italian government some remuneration, but privately he wrote his sister that he thought the lynching was "rather a good thing" and told her he had said as much at a dinner with "various dago diplomats . . . all wrought up by the Iynching." - Howard Zinn

JFK made himself look like an idiot by funding right-wing dictatorships in Latin America, by buying into the nuclear arms race, and calling the Freedom Riders unpatriotic.

Edwards is making himself look like an idiot by being the self-proclaimed face of the fight against Two Americas while gobbling up resources in a way that only His America can afford to do, knowing full well that there isn't enough land and resources for all of us to join His America. (In addition to the IWR vote and his current stance on Iran, and the death penalty - which, whether he acknowledges it or not, is applied in a blatantly racist way, and to continue to support that is a racist position - throwing that in just in case they are reading the board here, as food for thought.)

I swear, I don't know why DUers think criticism of politicians is unpatriotic. My Country, Right or Wrong. My Party Right or Wrong. My Candidate Right or Wrong.

Critical thought isn't a four letter word. We are allowed to discuss how republican SUVs hurt the environment, but if a democrat has an SUV, that somehow doesn't use as much gas or something, or we have to pretend it isn't happening, or our anointed ones are exempt from environmental rules ... I don't get it.

We should be holding our people to ethical standards, not giving them a free pass just because we agree with them on other issues.

[Morereason]

87. Right ON! Excellent post :)

[high density]

103. Well I guess when certain Democrats stop acting like Republics...

...they'll stop getting "lefty freeped" on here. It's the hypocrisy.

[checks-n-balances]

57. You mean Mrs. Edwards posted on DU re the bruhaha about her house?

Please post a link, somebody, and thanks in advance to that person.

In the meantime, I agree with you, Saracat, but if you leave that makes one less of you and still leaves the other combative DUers to do their damage.

I don't have a lot of time anymore to post very often here myself, but try to read the Greatest Threads every few days to keep up with what's going on. So maybe you could do the same. Please don't leave us!

[noamnety]

77. She didn't post on DU (that I know of)

She posted on her blog, defending the mansion by saying it's at least 30% more efficient than it could have been - as if their choices were a gigantomansion with energy efficieny, and a gigantomansion without energy efficiency.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x51019

[checks-n-balances]

84. Thanks for the post!

I just now had a chance to see it.

[LoZoccolo]

17. It's the strategy of impotence at work.

People who've retreated all the way to the Internet rather than taking responsibility for the world they live in feel there is nothing they can do about anything, and thus are resigned to whining as the only remaining way to affect change.

[spooky3]

18. Saracat, come back, and just ignore the silliness. We need

sensible people to post here!

[chimpymustgo]

19. And the TERRORISTS win! (And there are some terrorists on this board).

Hateful, obsessive and destructive.

Don't go. Stay and fight. But the mods should crack down on some of this bullshit.

[Adelante]

22. "terrorists on this board"

Huh? What do you mean?

[Morereason]

88. Talk about a silly statement that could be used against us LOL

Can you see the freepers having huge fun with that statement on their site? LOL

[saracat]

24. I will be back.Just taking a break! I need to calm down, the Dem bashing infuriates me!

And the ignorance is getting to me!

[salin]

20. I just hid all the edwards/house threads on the 1st page of GD

21 of them. No lie - 21 - bashing/some mocking all taking up space from nearly anyother discussion. never hid a single thread before (would just skip em) - but when nearly every other thread is about 'the house' - geez. We should talk about The House (of reps and the running start they are off to under Speaker Pelosi); We should talk aobut The White House as in how we get bushco vacated and take it back over in less than two years. But 'the house' - sheeez.

[pecwae]

36. I keep forgetting the 'hide thread'

option. Thanks for the reminder.

[salin]

42. first time I have used it

and it has made my GD experience more interesting (as in - I can find/read more interesting threads than all of 'the house' threads.)

[LittleClarkie]

21. It's the primary season already it seems. I will stay and defend them all

regardless of my personal preference.

[ripple]

27. One of the best qualities we have as democrats

is the ability to think independently, rather than marching in lock-step.

Unfortunately, that often becomes one of our biggest hinderances, as well.

I feel your pain, saracat. I hope you stick around- we need all of the positive vibes we can get. It's going to be a long, long primary season.

[mzmolly]

28. I don't blame you Sara. Desperation on the part of some is causing them to

behave like children - again.

I'll be glad when you return. :hug:

[saracat]

29. Thank you MzMolly! I will return.I am just cranky about stupidity!

Frankly, It makes me want to run out and volunteer for Edwards! But I haven't made a primary decision yet.I would like to listen a bit more!

[mzmolly]

32. I hear ya!

I really can't understand the mentality at work here?

:hi:

See ya soon, I hope.

[lostnotforgotten]

30. Is Pointing Out A Candidates Hypocrisy Not Allowed?

eom

[mzmolly]

34. How is it hypocritical for Democrats to remain concerned about the poor

regardless of personal wealth?

[enough already]

74. You don't see any problem with people sitting on millions while others starve? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

38. Allowed? Who cares! Let's talk about what's /smart/.

Let's not use the primaries to hamstring any candidate in the general. If Kucinich was ahead in the primary I would not be mentioning the reference to chemtrails he put in a bill he introduced once, because I know the Republicans would just seize on that later. I'd rather talk about how another candidate has a better plan than staining the one who's ahead.

[saracat]

43. So FDR was a hypocite during the Depression because he didn't sell Hyde Park and give it to the

poor? Give me a friggin break!

[mnhtnbb]

44. Hypocrisy is to say one thing and do another. Edwards is not a monk

who took a vow of poverty.

See these links for his work on behalf of poverty issues:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3081050&mesg_id=3081573

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3081050&mesg_id=3081587

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3081050&mesg_id=3081595

[lostnotforgotten]

50. He Will Be Perceived As A Hypocrite For Building Such A Big Excessive Home

eom

[JVS]

101. You know there is such a thing as moderation. There are a lot of...

other ways that Edwards could consume less lavishly other than becoming a monk. The idea that any criticism of disgustingly excessive consumption is a demand for monastic parsimony is completely false.

[BlueJac]

37. It makes one wonder what DU is all about........

the back biting is unreal.

[mnhtnbb]

39. Please. We need people to stay and provide factual information

for those who are visiting the bashing threads so they will not get a distorted view.

I have just listed Edwards' activities and organizations (he's personally involved in that are dedicated to fighting poverty) on a thread where the OP asked for info re Edwards interest in poverty.

It took 39 posts before someone put up the link to the UNC Poverty Center--and that wasn't identified in the subject line. Most of the rest of posts were bashing or generalized comments about his work.

the thread in question:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3081050&mesg_id=3081050

[Zhade]

40. Edwards is bolstering a lie about the Iranian "threat". It's GOOD that he got called on it.

Maybe you only like free speech when it agrees with you.

If so, bye. No loss.

[Bobbie Jo]

46. Thank you...

...and I agree. I was so relieved to find this site before the election, as I suffered through the last 6 years. I know I'm still a noob, but I've learned during my short stay there are just some threads I "need" to avoid. Seems to work for me. The rest, well, reinforces my sanity...and I remain grateful to DU for the lifeline.


:kick:



PS...How about a rec. :hi:

[mayflower]

47. They are exercising their first amendment right of Freedom of Speech, so Get Over IT!!!

[saracat]

53. I think not.If you want to bash Dems you should go to another site.

We used to have rules about this.I am not against position criticism, just bashing.I am a proud Democrat and I want to win in 2008, not just spout ideology!

[JudyM]

65. Maybe we could be more vigilant about alerting the mods...

sorry to see you go, saracat, come back soon!

[Madspirit]

63. Not either...

What goes on here has not one fucking thing to do with free speech anymore than what you say in my living room has to do with free speech. You piss me off in my house, I will make you leave. This is a private group for Democrats and progressives. It has rules and if you don't follow them, you can be tossed off.
Madspirit

[Madspirit]

48. Not a brain-dead clone

We have to be able to criticize our candidates and discuss the pros and cons of each one. Otherwise we are nothing but brain-dead clones. The problem is, some people don't know how to do that constructively. They only know how to bash. There are ways to discuss an issue and provide information and constructive criticism without resorting to character assassination. I wish everyone would learn that. I am not even saying it's easy. Emotions run high. I am glad Lieberman is no longer a Democrat because I hate him with such a fiery passion, I would have a hard time being reasonable in any discussion about him. So I understand where both sides are coming from. I just think it is imperative we learn this skill. Otherwise we will get nowhere fast.
Madspirit

[zulchzulu]

49. Please stay, Saracat

Politics is a lot like mud-wrestling in a circus. It's easy to get distracted by some of the sideshows here as well as some that go on like a broken record.

If I see a thread that has been spawned out of ignorance, I try to avoid it. There is plenty of other good stuff here to make up for it.

Use your talents at convincing someone you might disagree with on an issue, but if they come respond back like a spoiled brat, just move on. You'll see the same antics at other places where politics is involved.

Anyway, stay...unless you've really made up your mind.

[saracat]

80. I will be back soon.Just taking a short break.

[McCamy Taylor]

51. There is some Freeper "Divide & Conquer" going on. Also a little

early Democratic presidential primary campaigning is going on, as well. We should be able to spot the "Divide & Conquer" stuff. Threads like "Mexican Mafia Conducting Genocide Against African-Americans in LA" are obviously designed to tear the Democratic Party apart from within. Slightly more subtle is the recent rash of article that are variations of "Israel is forcing the US to go to war against Iran" or "Jewish-Americans are forcing the US to go to war against Iran." This is utter bs. The oil industry, which is NOT owned by Israel or Jewish-Americans is the one calling the shots in the Bush Administration, and it is the one directing our foreign policy.

Things would be a lot quieter if there were less Black and White thinking going on. No one is innocent. The isolationists who want the US to hustle back home and stick out heads in the sand have some ethical problems to deal with, too, like who is going to clean up our mess.

[jarab]

52. Sure is a downer, isn't it.

With all the really important and positive things to talk about, we've been relegated to participating/reading recycled garbage.
Exaggerated crowds, exaggerated houses.
A week like this happens every now and then on DU, but the knowledge that it's going to happen does not relieve the pain when it rears its head.
This too shall pass.
...O...

[rodeodance]

56. msnbc just reported 7 more DEAD troops---most blown to bits.

[ElizabethDC]

58. I agree with you 100%

the bashing of fellow Dems is very disheartening. I've been thinking about taking a break myself, though I've found that it's hard to stay away . . .

[agincourt]

59. Conservatives are paid to fuck-up progressive boards.

All they have to do is make a little donation, get a dozen people in on the same screen name so they build up post count quick. Then they post shit that is just under what mods will allow but enough to dilute a good message of the board. It's hard to control, but I know all this Dem bashing is not done by people who vote Democratic, or progressive independent. There's unlimited money to be made in corporate RW propaganda and keeping it totally off this board is tough. I sure there is some Dem voters who bash Dem candidates but the quanity of Kerry, Edwards and Hillary bashing I see here is not done by all real democrats, I'm sure.

[NastyRiffraff]

60. I too have been tempted to leave, or just take a break

For the same reasons as the OP.

There are some people on these boards who expect complete "purity," and "purity" is defined as completely agreeing with them, on every single issue,. Unfortunately, their numbers are growing of late. And I've noticed that this phenomenon has gotten worse a few after the election, when we should have been elated.

It's either "agree with me" or "you're sheep." Or "you're trying to take away my FREE SPEECH!" And the very same defenders of their free speech will come down hard on anyone who disagrees with them, however mildly.

However, here's what I'm going to do:

Ignore all candidate threads
Ignore all threads AND posts by certain posters

Remember, don't feed the trolls.

[Tellurian]

62. Why? It's the same posters over and over again that have nothing to say..

or add as far as constructive criticism....

[Major Hogwash]

61. I'm not going to recommend this thread and I'll tell you why.

If everyone who ever got upset started a thread like this, there wouldn't be room for any other type of thread since there are over 100,000 registered members at DU.

I sympathize with your position, but I don't agree with saying "so long" to garner sympathy for your position.

Of course, many members leave for extended periods of time and people sometimes wonder where they went, but I just can't bring myself to recommend this thread.

I'll post in this thread, but I won't recommend this thread.
I hope that bumping this thread by posting in this thread will bring it to the attention of others, but I still won't recommend it.

I hope that you come back refreshed after your short leave of absence, saracat.

You're a very nice poster and I enjoy reading your posts although I read more than post.
I agree that there is too much bashing of Democrats going on here, but alas, that seems to be the nature of the beast, as we are all totally frustrated that Bush hasn't been impeached yet.

I am going to watch the Libby trial closer and hope that when Cheney is called to the stand, he has the gall to tell Fitzgerald that his question is "out of line" like he did Wolf Blitzer this week.

Take care, and don't stay away for very long.

[AbbyR]

64. For the first time ever, I'm using the ignore feature

and I'm using it a lot. I, too, am disgusted. We are supposed to be the smart party and we ought to know how to disagree without being nasty and rude. Guess not.

[AZBlue]

70. I feel your pain. I took a several month "vacation" last year and there are days

when I wonder if it was stupid to come back. But, there's a lot of value here and it does outweigh the nastiness - so I hope we'll see you back here when you feel refreshed and rested, so to speak. Remember, we need your logic and reasonable voice, now more than ever as we head to the primaries!!!

[Blue_Tires]

71. i see what you are saying

but this is still pretty tame compared to the 04 primaries

[AtomicKitten]

72. I feel your pain.

:(

[HuffleClaw]

79. *yawn*

[PresidentObama]

83. Tired or bored?

;)

[PresidentObama]

82. saracat, your little vacation is understandable.

The line between constructive criticism and bashing gets crossed a lot here, and while I'm guilty of it from time to time--I know how annoying and frustrating it can be. Please enjoy your break, and come back and see us again :hi:

We'll be here when you get back :hug:

[dweller]

86. come back saracat

[springhill]

98. Man...........

If there is one more post pleading with her not to go, I swear I think I will throw up! If you want a break, take it, but I'm betting the attention you are getting with it is what you were really after.

[mtnsnake]

89. zzzzzzzzzz.....Posters announcing their decision to leave make me go hmmm.

Why not just post your dissatisfaction with DU and leave it at that. If you feel like leaving, temporarily or permanently, I don't see the need for announcing it, unless you're looking for those "Oh please don't leave" posts or something.

*yawn*

[AtomicKitten]

97. maybe it's a call for change

One that speaks to the precipice DU is on now that the JK thugs have modified their obsession, this time to annihilate candidates rather than deify just one. It is insidious, it is bullying, it is disgraceful.

Rather than belittling Saracat, I think it would behoove DU'ers to understand why.

[mtnsnake]

102. Nothing wrong with calling for a change

Announcing that you're going to leave is another story. I think if someone wants to leave, whether it's for a month or whether it's for good, just leave and skip the drama.

Besides, it's not like everyone here doesn't experience "viciousness" towards someone they like at one point or another. In saracat's case, she's upset with people getting on Edwards and Pelosi, and also at those praising Hagel. Well, as so commonly seen on DU, it's selective criticism at its best. Why is she not also upset with the people who bash Hillary, or even with the bashing Kerry has taken, for that matter? Hillary has taken 50 times the abuse that Edwards, Pelosi, and Hagel have taken, and Kerry has taken 10 times the abuse.

If I ever leave, it'll be because of something else...like getting tired of the local rumor mill that runs rampant sometimes...or just plain getting sick of it, but there will be no sympathy announcement.

Shit, the abuse hurled left and right is what keeps me here. :evilgrin:

[kdpeters]

90. Chat forum newbie?

That's just the nature of these discussion threads. Doesn't matter which one or what format, if you become an active regular, at some point, you WILL need to take a break from it and the same people and the same converstations. That's just how it goes.

I remember the first time I announced how disgusted I was and dramatically left in a huff. Ahhh, so long ago. You have to see someone else do it once or twice before you realize how silly it looks. :) We all have our first. Find peace and respite.

[beaconess]

91. You are SO right!

[tsuki]

93. It happened after November. I think we have been invaded by trolls

and/or paid Republican operatives.

[ChiciB1]

94. I Commented About This Last Night... In Fact Stating That I Had

always felt the Repukes had the upper hand in bashing Democratic candidates, but of late felt that Democrats were doing a FINE job of it themselves!

I have taken respites in the past myself, and I blog more on some days than others, but for the most part don't feel I'm here to "piss" on our own. To disagree is normal, but when you find 40 plus threads about the same topic... AND ALL OF THEM NEGATIVE, it's a problem for me.

I used to think it was trolls or actual Repukes, but I've seen some of the same names come up over and over saying the exact same thing and they have been here at DU for a very long time. I'm not going to mention any, but I have also seen some who simply take issue with ANY thread just to start an argument. I find this to be very disruptive.

I'm sure those people know who they are. I do blog at GD, but mostly prefer GDP, even though I see it at Politics more and more now.

And yes, I am an Edwards supporter and feel the criticism has been over the top, but I'm also a VERY BIG supporter of Al Gore too! There is only one Democratic candidate that I will have trouble voting for, but in the end may have to hold my nose, but I'm not going to search for every tidbit of negative information just so I can run it here. Disagreeing with an issue is one thing, but banging drums and slinging crap over and over just turns me off.... I either post something positive or just don't comment at all. I truly believe some here just get a kick out of the stuff. If you watch closely, you will soon be able to pick up on who they are, even though some do slip by!

I'm with you Saracat... I find I need to leave from time to time! Just ignoring doesn't always work because they just post the stuff at another thread.

[IA_Seth]

100. Peace out girlscout! n/t