Things change, people change, and John Edwards changed. Many many months ago, I defended him as

[Ninga]

his detractors zeroed in like circling birds of prey, picking at the bones of his past, and pointing out his mistakes.

It was unseemly that such vitriol could be flung at a person who clearly had left his past, dusted himself off and moved on to higher ground.

It is uncanny that his forum has hunkered down and become very un-John Edwards like.

If you do not wish to vote, then don't. If that is the case, then why be here?

If this forum continues to be a haven co-opted by those who would see Democrats fail, then it may not survive.


Barack Obama is not the Democratic Party; he is the new standard bearer of it. He has gone through the process successfully and earned the right to carry the flag of the Party.

And if he is wise and strong and honorable then his words and accomplishments, along with the many standard bearers before him, may end up someday being printed on the flag, to be carried by a other standard bearer's in the future,

[Two Americas]

1. hi Ninga

Do you want to talk about this, or is your mind made up?

[Ninga]

2. Hello back TA. Warmest regards to you. I tried once long ago, not being a Democrat and it

didn't wear well and my skin didn't feel right.

I will remain a Democrat and vote in November, as I always do.

It took women 72 years to get the right to vote. The women who started the movement never saw the realization. Can you imagine the infighting and the second guessing and the fight after fight after fight. The protests and marches and organizations, the sit ins, the flyers and newspapers and divorces and disappointment after disappointment.

How did they not give up? How did they manage to fight for 72 years? I can not give up on my Party, it is not in me, I am a fighter.

So in that vein I am choosing to stay loyal to the Party I have, in hopes that it will move more toward the Party I want.


I will stay a Democrat, and vote Obama in November, unless you have another "this" in mind to talk about, I have cast my lot.

Long answer to your short question. But you know me, I am verbose.

[Two Americas]

4. thanks

Don't you think that there is more than one approach to be considered?

Some are saying that loyalty to the politicians leading the party above all will work best.

Others of us are saying that loyalty to the traditional ideals and principles of the party comes first, and that requires being a dissenter to what the politicians leading the party are doing.

If we give loyalty to the party first, and then merely hope that it becomes what we want it to after we have helped them get into power, do we not give up any power or voice we have? If they can get into power by taking centrist positions - if that succeeds for them - why would they ever change?

The things that were accomplished by the party in the four decades from the 30's through 60's are now just a distant memory. Since then we have had four decades of no major achievements. Why do we give our loyalty to the modern version because of the accomplishments of the previous version of the party? Just because the party still has the same name? Just because they still are "better than the Republicans?" Is not the four decades of stagnation and compromise a direct result of putting party loyalty first and coasting on past achievements?

If we are going to be loyal to the party because of what long dead politicians accomplished under the party banner 40-80 years ago, why not vote Republican because at one time they abolished slavery? Why does one make sense and the other not?

One other point - what evidence is there that true blue loyalty produces any objective real world results, other than perhaps polarizing and alienating people who are not and never will be true believers in any politician or political party and hate the sales efforts and attempts at preaching and converting they get from liberals?

[kelligesq]

55. As Two Americas Said

If we give loyalty to the party first, and then merely hope that it becomes what we want it to after we have helped them get into power, do we not give up any power or voice we have? If they can get into power by taking centrist positions - if that succeeds for them - why would they ever change?

The things that were accomplished by the party in the four decades from the 30's through 60's are now just a distant memory. Since then we have had four decades of no major achievements. Why do we give our loyalty to the modern version because of the accomplishments of the previous version of the party? Just because the party still has the same name? Just because they still are "better than the Republicans?" Is not the four decades of stagnation and compromise a direct result of putting party loyalty first and coasting on past achievements?

AMEN.

[saracat]

3. John Edwards advised all his supporters to make up mtheir own mind and make their own decision whom

to support. It is very strange that you should find that people exercising that right are "un John Edwards like".
And how dare you call this forum a "haven for those who would see Democrats fail" when many of us are dedicating our lives to ensure its success.

Many of us have diverse opinions and some do not feel that Obama leads to success for Democrats.It is a fact that in some states the best thing the candidate the local can do is distance himself as far as possible from the national ticket.

And as for not wishing to "vote" , I am sure that you have never considered the fact that many of those folks value their vote "more" not less than those who cast their vote casually and blindly. Their are many in this forum who are in a lot of pain because they feel that they cannot , for the first time in their lives , exercise their right to vote for president as they cannot vote against their conscience. To those folks that vote is sacred.

You have a very narrow definition of the Democratic Party.You seem to feel it singularly involves support of the so called "standard bearer no matter who he may be and no matter how he was selected without question of who (he) is or how he was "selected".

The Democratic party is comprised of Principles and those Principles are more important and extend beyond any candidate and they include all those folks struggling in local races and include the right of all Democrats to question everything, including their nominee.

True Democrats are not sheeple.They do not walk in "lockstep". Our questioning and exchange of ideas is what made the Democratic Party great and you would like to kill the last vestige of that spirit that survives in this forum.That is really sad.

I have repeatedly said I will respect the rules of this Board. I will not be posting anything about the nominee after this week. I will be totally engaged in other politics but no one anywhere has the right to dictate to me how to "think" or to infer that I am contributing to the destruction of an institution that I hold dear because I differ in how to preserve its soul.

And as for your last statement, even its metaphor is insulting as to imagine "anything" written on a flag at all is debasement.

[Ninga]

7. Obama is the standard bearer of the Democratic Party. Independents do not afiliate with a politica

Party.

This is a Democratic Forum. From your description, you sound like you no longer agree with the national Democratic Party.

So sit on the sideline and watch and wait for someone you can support.

I don't know what to tell you or how to make you feel better. But the definition of the democratic party, is to support the candidates.

[saracat]

8. So you support William Jefferson of LA because he is a Democrat?

What about Mayor Nagin? What about the indited AG of Oregon? Do you support Zell Miller? Do you support ALL Democrats blindly? Sorry, that is NOT the definition of the Democratic Party.

You do not seem to know very much about the Party you claim to support. As I stated, you have a very narrow view of what it means to be a Democrat.

And if you had been reading DU for years it is not often many Democrats agree with the National Party.

You aren't talking about the Democratic party . You are talking about a cult of personality revolving around a Presidential candidate. The "Democrastic Party" is comprised of many more elemnts than the Presidential race. it is a shame you can't see that.And many of those elements are far more important than the presidential race.They effect our daily lives. They effect US . And that is what I am fighting for.

I am in philosophy and EDR democrat. I don't think you know what a real Democrat is.I am going to work my district.For the "real Dems".

[Ninga]

13. Democrats have to clean house just like everyone else. Here in Ohio, we have a huge problem with

the AG who just resigned. I am on the central committee that has to deal with that mess. Ohio has had terrible news about scandals and local Democrats. By the way, in your lecture to me you forgot Joe Lieberman, and what about all of the Dem's involved in the checkbook scandal, and former Sen. John Glenn who was involved with McCain in the Keating scandal.



I work very hard on the local level for down ticket candidates, and am a second term elected Trustee in my Township, which is 90% Republican. I have slaved over sewer issues, land use issues, zoning issues and preservation issues. I don't need a lecture from you about being involved on the local level.

See, that is exactly what I mean. Next thing you know, you will be laughing at my kool aid mustache.

I supported Dean, didn't like Kerry, voted for him and would again if given the chance. I was furious at the 527 Democratic organizations that slammed Dean in the 04 primary. The dirty tricks and nasty ads with Dean and Osama Bin Laden were beyond reproach.

Issues of women's reproductive choice and judicial appointments are critical to the quality of life, and would never consider not voting for the Democratic presidential candidate.

[cornermouse]

11. Using your definition, one should only vote a straight ticket

for every election. Do you?

If you see a group of your friends about to jump off a cliff do you join them and jump with them to prove your loyalty or do you try to tell them this is not the best idea they've ever had?

I don't think many people are so fanatical that they automatically vote straight ticket for their party for every election but I would have looked to the republican party for that behavior, not the democratic party. One of the most frightening things about this whole primary has been the whispers of lurking McCarthyism that I have heard whenever Obama's supporters start one of those "check in and kick this to prove you're loyal" threads. That along with the attacks on women, not just Hillary, that I have seen simply should not exist on a democratic board.

I guess this post makes me either not a loyal democrat or not enough of a democrat in your eyes. I can live with that. I just don't know why you can't.

[Ninga]

15. Do not put words into my mouth little mouse. I suggest that you sit on the sidelines and

wait until you can support a candidate.

Straight ticket voting has never been discussed by me.

Until you have lived under real McCarthyism, I suggest that you temper yourself when you suggest and twist people's passion into that characterization.

If you don't like it, or fear it, or don't understand it or can not over look it, then you give it a label like McCarthysism. Why? Ignor the ignorant bastards if they anoy you, but don't try to squeltch their freedom to post by being the McCarthy you accuse them of.

Gee, this is hard work.

[cornermouse]

20. I simply pointed out to you what you are attempting to do.

to others in this thread.

As far as the rest of it, you got me. I'm smack dab in the middle of everything that Obama doesn't respect and his supporters have aggressively alienated. I'm an older female living in the middle of the gun carrying, bible thumping, racist country. By the way, that characterization did not go over well around here and Obama will pay for it when people vote. I don't have $10,000 to waste on a year's worth of music lessons for kids and never will (and no, I'm not jealous). I don't have a master's or a doctorate degree. I just live a normal everyday life like everyone else I know without all the frills that comes from being wealthy, Yale or Harvard educated, and big city sophistication.

[Andrea]

23. Why didn't you tell us the truth about yourself before?

:sarcasm: I should have been very condescending to you long before now. At least now we all know that YOUR vote is not needed! :sarcasm:



:rofl:

[cornermouse]

27. Yep.

They've already told me that without knowing it. Over and over and over. :)

[Andrea]

5. I take offense at what you have posted here.

Particularly these three statements:

"It is uncanny that his forum has hunkered down and become very un-John Edwards like.

If you do not wish to vote, then don't. If that is the case, then why be here?

If this forum continues to be a haven co-opted by those who would see Democrats fail, then it may not survive."

I'm not sure how much you have read here, but it is clear to me that everything you may have read that was written by me you have utterly distorted.

This forum is a haven for those that think and attempt to achieve Democratic (and democratic)ideals through critical thought, reasoning and planning.

You owe us a huge apology.

[Ninga]

9. The prognostications are disingenuous, and only serve to undermine what is yet to be known.

We hire a president on a promise that somewhere beyond his/her resume is the backbone and resolution needed to move this country forward.


That is how it is done. Period.


However, woven into the superior dialog here of late, is a disdain for those who choose based on their belief of that hope.

Democrats do it to Democrats far nastier than any Republican could ever do.

Over and over the sneering and the superior winking and nodding and the musing over those poor shlubs who drink kool aid.


It will all be over next week on Wednesday, thankfully.

[saracat]

10. And exactly how is that much different for the distain and hostility dumped on

those that find it impossible to embrace that particular definition of "hope"? Does it ever even occur to you that perhaps one persons definatiton of hope is anothers definition total devastation? That these definitions may be mirror opposites?

[Ninga]

14. It is not impossible and I understand. I just do not agree that it is OK to suggest that your view

is superior to others, and that you have in the past exposed that by accusing people of being disillusioned, cultist, and other denigrating labels.


It is that, I struggle with, not the difference of opinion or your view of hope.

Reasoned debate has not been welcomed here in the recent past weeks.

[Two Americas]

18. nonsense

What people are saying may make you uncomfortable, the things they are saying may be things that you do not want to hear or wish that no one would say, but that does not make your characterizations of them accurate. Is the irony completely lost on you that you are doing the very thing you are accusing others of doing? I will say it - many in the Obama movement act like cultists, and the movement is a cult of personality. Those are not "accusations" nor are they "denigrating labels" and calling them that is a disingenuous attempt to force people to stop making observations such as that.

I don't believe you that it is the style of communicating rather than the content that you object to. It doesn't matter how any of us express this, your response is the same. You don't like the content of what people are saying, you don't care how they say it. Once again I took you at your word, and replied to you with consideration and respect. That makes no difference. You are here to bash us, and then excuse that by claiming that we are somehow bashing you. What is it about my thoughtful response to your opening post that you see as "not welcoming reasoned debate?" Is it only "reasoned debate" so long as people agree with you? You didn't respond to any of the points I made, but launched into attacks on people here.

[Andrea]

12. What matters will not be over until November 5th

I'm sorry that your feelings have been hurt. Nonetheless, there is real, serious concern. I have nothing against hope. What I have a problem with is basing hope on a personality, rather than on principles, plans and actions. I also feel that the distinction between hope and blind faith is an important one. I haven't heard any direction from the Democratic party that I need to turn off my critical thinking. If I were to hear that, I would leave the party. Instead, I put in hours on the ground here in my city working for Democratic candidates. That gives me the right to hold my party accountable and to engage in constructive discussions. My right to voice my opinions is a pretty well-established Democratic principle.

[Ninga]

17. My feelings are fine, but my disappointment in the lack of elevated discourse is real.

Your broad brush assessment of how people are basing their "hope" is the problem.

I haven't heard the result of your critical thinking only that you engage in it and thus base a statement on the fact that you are a critical thinker.

Without data, how is the critical thinking compiled??? In an Excel spreadsheet?? Or in a report???

Is it possible that your critical thinking jumps to a conclusion that was formulated to serve your predisposed opinion?


If you and your cohorts here just engaged in your mutual critical thinking, I would revel and congratulate you.

It is when you turn on your fellow man, and denigrate and condense their passion into vitriol, that I take umbrage of you using this forum in which to conduct such behavior.


It is very un-John Edwards like behavior.

[Andrea]

19. Have you ever seen me enter the Obama forum

and attempt to tell them how to think, what to say, or whether they were "real Democrats"? Have I ever done that in Gd: P, or GD? Have I ever criticized anyone even in here for not thinking like I do, or have I merely expressed concern over their apparent failure to think? It's been happening to us a lot lately.

You can't hear what I am saying because you are inside a bubble.

[Two Americas]

22. why?

Why is Andrea's assessment about what people are basing their hope upon "the problem?" What sort of problem is it? To whom? What problems does it create for you? If someone disagrees with you, why is that a problem? Why is their expression of opinions you don't want to hear called "behavior" that is unacceptable and to be suppressed?

If you have not read the result of Andrea's or others critical thinking, you aren't reading at all. Many here have gone to great pains to explain {b]exactly what they are thinking and have made many compelling and insightful arguments.

No one here is "turning on their fellow man" and it is just disgusting to me the way that you continue to grasp at straws for anything that will out people here in an unfavorable light. If that is not "turning on your fellow man" - turning on all of us here, in a deceptive and malicious way, I don't know what is.

Where is this alleged "vitriol," the "denigration" and the rest of the things you are accusing us of doing? Why are your remarks not better characterized as vitriol and denigration?

Just because people feel some sort of discomfort when they read certain opinions, that does not mean that the person expressing those opinions is doing anything wrong. I think the reason that people feel emotional pain, and then imagine that this must mean they are being attacked, is because they can not tolerate certain opinions since they threaten their own delicately balanced and carefully illusion. If you, for example, were confident in your opinion of this the opinions of others would not be causing you such discomfort.

In any case, calling for the suspension of freedom of speech for the sake of your emotional comfort is not justifiable. By that logic, anyone could be silenced at any time. It is authoritarian and suppressive.

[Two Americas]

16. not true

Electing a president is not analogous to hiring a CEO for a corporation - nothing like it at all. This is a representative democracy. Since we elect representatives, we do not hire executives to move anything forward, the personal qualities of the personality of a candidate are of secondary concern. You have no right to try to enforce your view of the democratic process, and your notion as to how to assess candidacies, on the rest of us, especially when your view is so contrary to the spirit of democracy.

Your characterizations of the people here are inaccurate and malicious, also.

[Ninga]

21. Metaphorically speaking we do indeed hire a president by voting him/her into the job. It is a job

isn't it?

It isn't a seat, or a crown or a token?

Actually, we turn our votes over to a board of directors (electors) who then vote to install the new "executive" . The President as an Executive.

I enforce nothing.

But I can not sit by and watch as those who would debate here, are sneered upon and accused of being turn coats, and kool aid drinkers and etc, etc, etc.


What has happened here dear TA, is that woven in between the egregious behavior of some, is the genuine effort of others to debate, and they have been intertwined by the likes of you and your tiny superior band of brothers.

You have taken your brush and broadly painted everyone who differs, as kooks.

It is not your philosophy that disturbs, nor your concern, nor your opinion, nor your view, nor your version of hope, nor your belief system......it is the underlying dismissal of opinions other than those here, that is peppered through out over and over.

Some very neat and wise posters have been literally ripped apart and called out to their face, for no good reason.

And the posters who can not hold a candle to your articulate command of language, if they struggle or misfire...then woe is them.....rained upon by the superior language gods.

Have you stopped it? NO. Your silence has enabled the behavior.

At one time in the not so recent past, the Edwardians were well known to be gracious, tough, and passionate defenders.

???

It is my view of the behavior here that you and others have tried to justify with your version of debate. I have told the truth as I see it, and as I have personally experienced it. It is my version of accuracy as you have yours.

Malicious to call out the debasing of others views, then so be it.

[Two Americas]

24. you are lying

My posts do not have an "underlying dismissal of opinions other than those here." I agree with those I agree with, and disagree with those whom I disagree with, just as you do and as everyone else does.

I have every right to express my opinion. I have not personally attacked anyone, nor have I done any of the nefarious things you are accusing me of doing.

You complain about my command of the language - as though that were cheating somehow - you complain about the fact that I win arguments - as though that were somehow abusive to the person losing the argument - you complain about the fact that some people agree with me. This is all unfair and hypocritical on your part. I have the right to win arguments. I have a right to persuade people to my views. I have a right to phrase my thoughts with as much skill as I can bring to the process. An absolute right.

What you are saying, in essence, that bringing superior logic and reasoning to the discussion and therefore carrying the debate is unfair or cheating on my part. Shame on you for doing that.

[Andrea]

28. Speaking as someone who has had more than her share of disagreements with you, TA,

I can say that I have never felt that you "dismissed" me. You disagree in a straightforward manner and bring your skills to bear as someone should when defending a principle they believe in. Sometimes I disagree with you strongly and sometimes we have trouble seeing each other's perspective, but I never feel as though you are trying to put me in my place, or denigrate, or dismiss me.

[bobbolink]

6. "If that is the case, then why be here?" Thank you for the invitation to leave.

So, you've become one of those "my way or leave" DUers?

You're going to have to get used to the idea that traditional, leftist Dems are going to speak out, rather than slink into the night.

You might just find that We end up being the ones to revive a dying party.

What I find "unseemly" is former supporters become ones who try to haul up the drawbridges and expel those who they don't understand.

[Ninga]

25. I have run out of steam. But do not fear! I shall return, better than ever! All of you

little chicks behave now, this mother hen is tired from chasing you around the pen, but by damn, I will catch you.

Hugs to you all!!

[bobbolink]

30. Ah, the parental side comes to the fore.

Have you considered it's that looking-down-your-nose, shaking your finger "mother hen" that gets people so riled up?

You might want to take a look at that.

[Andrea]

43. What a disconnect.

I don't know what to make of this.

[balantz]

26. I fail to see why we would not be considered good Democrats.

Why are our Democratic, or our Edwardian values being questioned?

Does anyone on this forum not advocate for the needs of the poor?

The needs of the homeless?

The veterans?

Universal health-care?

Stopping the war?

Ridding the world of nuclear weapons?

And this one, which would make all of those other noble causes feasible:
Turning Washington upside down and shaking out the corruption.

These are all things that Edwards promised if he were nominated. And these are the things that are important to us in this forum. They are not Republican Party ideals, but they are the needs of every common citizen, Republican or Democrat. Perhaps not the ideals and needs of the very well off, but of the everyday Joes and Janes. Working and voting to address these needs of the common citizen is why we call ourselves Democrats.

I for one have a problem with business as usual, it is getting tiresome, and dangerous. That is why I have to question any candidate who does not talk of revolutionizing business in Washington. Until then it will be more of the same.

And so, yes, I will not vote Republican, please don't make me shudder! But I WILL question every motive and aspect of the elected representatives of our Party that say they will work for the will of the common citizen and I will expect them to do so, especially with the corpautocracy still running the show.

[maryf]

34. Great list plus

The restoration of the Constitution and Civil Rights, the abolishment of the misnomered Patriot Act, and (maybe this is me) bringing the perpetrators of the heinous acts of the past 8 years, at least, to justice.

[balantz]

38. I knew I forgot some things. Thanks! n/t

[LiveLiberally]

29. Hi Ninga

Good to hear from you. I've been traveling (mostly out of the country) for the past few months, which hasn't allowed me to do more than glance at this board from time to time.

I think I understand what you're saying -- and I sympathize with your sentiments. At the same time, I also understand why your words are ringing false to many posters here who have serious reservations about this primary process and yes, our new presumptive nominee and standard bearer.

I worked hard for Edwards and still believe his candidacy and platform best represent my personal values and aspirations for this country. Edwards has made his choice and I have made mine. I too now support (and have for sometime) our nominee. This was a decision that was not made lightly or easily. While my support is sincere, it is not blind or unconditional. I personally believe all progressive democrats have a responsibility to hold our leaders accountable, to continue to push the political envelope, to demand that political expediency and personal ambition don't take precedence over fundamental principles.

For these reasons I believe skepticism can be healthy and constructive. But only if it is grounded in a sincere effort to improve our Party, and not to question its legitimacy or to undermine those who have earned the right to lead it.

I can't possibly judge from anonymous postings where any "skeptic" here falls on the "constructive criticism" v. "destructive attacks" spectrum. But I certainly have no reason to question anyone's sincere commitment to the core values of the Democratic Party. What I sense instead from some here is a deep ambivalence that is as strongly held (and genuine) as that of the most zealous "hope-monger."

It is up to each of us to decide how we can best move forward. For some here, the platform of this particular website (as established at least by Skinner & Co.) may no longer reflect their convictions. But I hope that many will stay and that we can move forward as loyal democrats who nonetheless -- as Edwards himself did so adroitly with the front-runners last summer and fall -- continually raise the progressive bar higher and insist that our Party and our new nominee meet it. It is not disloyal to expect the best from those who seek to lead us.

[MissDeeds]

31. Sorry that I am late to the debate

but I live in "Tornado Alley" and the general consensus today is "put your head between your knees and kiss your butt goodbye". Word is this could be an historic day for severe weather, therefore I have been glued to local tv.

That said, the Democratic Party is made up of people who are Democrats. It is not an entity unto itself, but is the sum of its parts. Obama cannot be the standard bearer for the party when so many of its members do not support him, his message, and the manner by which his candidacy came about. When we have life long members who vow never to support him - he, and the party he represents - have monumental problems.

The Democratic candidate must be one who embodies the core values of the party and speaks to its members. Obama does not fulfill this function. He is in fact divisive.

NO ONE can be the "standard bearer" of this party if s/he does not speak for the core membership of the party. No one candidate is above the people. If that should ever occur, we are no longer the DEMOCRATIC Party.

[bobbolink]

32. Very well said. I guess part of the problem is who is seen as "core membership"?

It seems that the affluent Dems now claim that title, and we of the riff-raff can go peddle our onions elsewhere.

I hope you have "weathered" the tornadoes!

[maryf]

35. of, by, and for the people

If the Democratic Party becomes a party of affluence it is defunct.

[Yael]

33. The Democratic party is characterized as a "Big Tent"

There will never be a consensus.

Snippet (and while I, like Ninja) support our nominee -- it wasn't with my preferred methodology.

HRC: United, we sneak off to a back room to bargain

BO: United, we sit at a table to bargain

JRE: United, we reach out our 300 million pound fist and take our democracy back

Ps -- Are you in Kansas? Scary weather in the midwest right now. Thoughts and prayers are with you. Be safe!

[MissDeeds]

36. Yes, we're in Kansas

The weather alert just went off. We are to expect 70 mph winds and hail in the next few minutes. I just hope I don't have to click my ruby slippers together and say, "There's no place like home". :-)

[Yael]

44. You all ok over there today?

[ClericJohnPreston]

37. Tsk, tsk

ME AND MY TINY SUPERIOR BAND OF BROTHERS

:)

[ClericJohnPreston]

39. Tis a sad day indeed

When the irony of a member of a site called the Democratic Underground, orders conformity against those LOYAL members, who don't share the favorable opinion of their candidate.

While we are members of this site, we MAY be forced to standards which may, or may not, be impossible to maintain; OUTSIDE the bounds of DU, we are still free to exercise all the opinions and viewpoints we have, unfettered by ARTIFICIAL and arbitrary standards.

As Two Americas has so eloquently framed, we have been overrun by zealots whose very appearance here is not governed by thought or rational process, but by knee jerk opposition to ANY opinion which is not shared by them. They are unable to handle any critique, fair or well-considered. It is a shared myopia, of CULTISTS, that they seek at any cost, to silence an opposing viewpoint, as it creates COGNITIVE DISSONANCE in their hard-wiring.

You get to see these bubble-insulated folk run alternatively between cajoling and threats, unable to even understand themselves well enough to effectively refute logical argument of any sort. They are truly a marvel of psychological study.

The last time I saw such denial and manic need to silence voices, were the Fundies of the Repuke regime in 2004. These Southern Baptists, already voting against their interests, could not handle reality, so they adopted the unreality of the Rovian mythology. Liberals were threatening to God. They voted against their interests. This could never happen to liberals we thought.

Now, as TA has pointed out, we have so-called "liberals", acting as AUTHORITARIAN as any right-wing fanatic from Free Republic. The best part?

THEY CAN'T EVEN SEE IT.

Like blinkered horses, one after the other they slink in here to point accusing fingers and proclaim the day of judgment is near. Sound more Fundie than FUNDIES.

THEY CAN'T EVEN HEAR THEMSELVES.

Lies, distortions mean nothing. Threats are made, then denied, when all you have to do is read the thread EVIDENCE, WHICH IS DAMNING. Yet still they come, offering proof after proof, that all our worst fears are TRUE and accurate. People who call themselves Dems and liberals, are ANYTHING BUT!

The obliviousness to the Authoritarianism is staggering. The consequences of their tone and tenor escapes them. They are blind lemmings in this melodrama. They speak in terms of near life and death itself, as if the whole world hinges on MUTING any and all discontent. Why?

Because any cultist is threatened by any view outside the community which is contrary and which can EXPOSE their internal inconsistencies.

This is no longer about who the better candidate is. This is about how under the GUISE of unity, a groupthink mentality will seek to purge the ranks of all those voices which they find so disquieting. You and me for starters. Soon, they will inevitably feast on their own, those whose support is too tepid, not in line with groupthink standards.

I am, admittedly, a rebel. I think for MYSELF, always a threat to groupthinkers. There is a problem here, far greater than a difference of opinion. We have been hijacked and corrupted. We have libs looking to silence members who are LOYAL BLUE DEMS, NOT REPUKES, based on failure to accept unhesitatingly, a groupthink mentality.

I am sickened to the core of my TRUE BLUE LEFT-WING sentiments.

[balantz]

40. Bravo CJP.

This must be said for the benefit of those who haven't yet given up their capacity and duty to think for themselves and protect Democracy for themselves and their fellows.

[maryf]

41. Group think vs community free thought

Thank you great post. It is the discussions between free thinkers that have produced the movements of the world, as they allow for growth, creativity, and evolution.

[ClericJohnPreston]

42. Yes

always threatening to those who seek to mute voices and control the dialogue. It is a classic struggle.

Soon, we will all be muted here, and the voices of groupthink "win" by operation of law, rather than rationality or argument.

[Yael]

45. That, or the admins set up a site to promote the Democratic nominees and challengers

Perhaps you didn't notice (as it was before your time), but references promoting Cindy Sheehan's Indy run against Nancy Pelosi are also not welcome here.

Shirley Galoub posts are as Ms. Galoub is running as a democratic challenger, not an independent.

The clue is in the name. DemocraticUnderground.com. Note "Democratic" as in this site supports the party and those the party as recognized as their standard bearers.

You are free to disagree with their choice, and free to vocalize that -- but only until 6/11 at noon.

You have 15 more threads you can open in General Population. After that, no one gives a shit about your "holier than thou" position as we have a new focus -- defeating the Republicans in November.

[saracat]

46. I was here and I did not promote the Sheehan candidacy but many Obama supporters did and lectured me

my opposition! How things change. I could name all the names that harassed me over my position.
We will however still be allowed to critique the Democratic Party and its officials as we always have done.It just amazes me how so many who pilloried Pelosi and Reid now have fallen in love with them for supporting Obama.The same is true for the Kerry detractors.This is another reason I feel "issues " do not matter to many of the nominees supporters. It is all about the candidate.

[Yael]

47. Saracat, that one is for Skinner

I don't envy him as this is a fine line to walk.

As this site maintains independence from the party, it also has standards set by the site owners/admins.

It is up to them to determine what will and will not fly here.

You preceed me by many years here, so know more than I about what happens next week.

Please to let your fellow Dems know what to expect about the expectations here, sis.

On a side note -- have a good weekend. I don't know about the West, but it looks like PA will be hot but bearable. :hi:

[ClericJohnPreston]

48. Save the wave....

No one here cares, least of all saracat who you ripped into above. But then again, that labile personality shift is so textbook.

"Holier than thou" attitude you screeched?

No.......just a heck of a lot smarter than you ;)

[Two Americas]

49. what the hell

What do you care? Hiding behind policy and speaking without authority for the management and trying to intimidate people - how do you justify that to yourself?

[cornermouse]

50. My new hobby. Learning a new word everyday.

Spiteful

Filled with, prompted by, or showing spite; malicious.

Adj. 1. spiteful - showing malicious ill will and a desire to hurt; motivated by spite; "a despiteful fiend"; "a truly spiteful child"; "a vindictive man will look for occasions for resentment"
despiteful, vindictive
malicious - having the nature of or resulting from malice; "malicious gossip"; "took malicious pleasure in...watching me wince"- Rudyard Kipling

[balantz]

51. Shit Damn!

I was just eating popcorn and reading these posts here :popcorn:

And when my jaw dropped open it all fell out of my mouth! :wow:

You take the cake today.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbolink]

53. deleted

gone bye-bye

May I :hi: ?

[spooky3]

54. So, do ya like Simon better than Paula?

It truly is the American Idolization of politics.

Worse, it's as if Simon is no longer content to sit in judgment only of contestants and has demanded to judge and control the audience and non-audience as well.

[kelligesq]

56. to me what is scary

is that so many Americans are judging who they want sitting in the WH by who they want to have a beer with, or who is charismatic and has a great smile.

Rhetoric: change - hope - this is our time.

whose time is being referred to? generation X and Y ? as a generation X/Y gloated to me.

Is that what THEIR leader meant?

Is he dividing the country by generation (seems to me he is and his cultist followers are rude and denigrating to any they think might not be one of them)?

So let's see.

At the end of this nomination process, we now have a country divided by sex, divided by age,divided by white and blue collar, and divided by race.

Yep - another uniter.

but that is not what I came here to say after many months of being absent -

Although I am a member of the Democratic Executive Committee of my county, and a co=precinct captain of the Democratic Party - I have learned through this campaign, for the first time, of " SUPER DELEGATES" whose sole purpose is to overturn the will amd votes of the general members of the Democratic party - very undemocratically - what an oxymoron - ANd who exercised that will last week.

I am of the opinion that the Democratic Party never fails to shoot itself in the foot. And never missing an oportunity to miss an opportunity to do so, they have just done so again,

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, therefore the delegates should be hers. But the party bosses and I do believe Pelosi is and was behind it - has Super Delegates so the vote of the people doesn't count.

This is not the Democratic Party I have worked for all these years. This is not the Democratic Party I will work for nor support financially, physically, or energetically until they get rid of these elite Super Delegates who can overturn the vote of the people in case the people are making a mistake in their view.

I will wait to see if Hillary Clinton is going to be named VP. That is the only way the empty rhetoric of "hope, change, this is our time" will get my vote.

If she is not on the ticket, I am re-registering as an Independent and will likely write in Clinton for President, which in essence is just as good as not voting.

We desperately need a viable third party, and 18 million old codgers, blue collar workers, and the poor, and old ladies as they so lovingly refer to Hillary's constituency would be a wonderful start for a viable third party. Too bad she, nor any of the potentially good and experienced ones, would never leave the party of losers. At least she has ideas and speaks in details of her plans instead of generalities.

These people are fools. College students and 10 to 13% of black population is not enough to elect Mr,. Yes we Can ( I always wonder what the hell he's talking about - can what??? ) HRC won the big states, formerly red states and soon to be the same again, which are necessary to win the election - but the cultists - experienced and wise that they are - NOT - want no part of her.

Unfortunately because of the games the Democratic party bosses have chosen to play, it looks like the unthinkable is going to happen.....again.

[balantz]

57. Perhaps the superdelegate maneuver was not just a shoot your foot move

maybe that was the plan all along.

As long as we let the superdelegates do the voting for us then we will never nominate and elect our president.

When we allowed them to bamboozle us with the superdelegate plan so long ago we let them take away our votes because it is such a tool now for the corrupt politicians to decide the thing for us.

Did the founding fathers say "Let's make sure that congress has the ultimate say. To hell with the will of the people." ???

"Who's winning the popular vote this year?"

"Oh, it doesn't matter, the superdelegates will decide for us."

Sounds like what the supreme court did in 2000. Doesn't it?

[spooky3]

58. good post - glad you're back

I'm not sure the Dems are doomed to lose this year. As much as I have disliked some aspects of Obama's campaign, I do think there is evidence that they will know how to take on the Republicans in the general.

I don't share the widely held view of the charisma of Obama (and certainly believe that, based on their experience and their own development of positions vs. borrowing of others', Edwards and H. Clinton would have been superior Presidents - but I would be happy to see him be elected and prove to be one of the best Presidents ever). However, I do think it is a radical departure for the Dems. to nominate a candidate that a lot of people "like", and that this outcome may work to their advantage. I was very concerned when the Dems. chose Kerry last time (though his choice of VP helped make it easier to vote for him) even though he had a good record for the most part, was far superior to Bush, and was outstanding in the debates. But I thought he was misguided in some ways and is a sexist to some extent, like far too many Dems. - as has become abundantly clear during this campaign - e.g., so many of them seem to want to "help out" the women as long as they stay professionally in the background, but can't yet view them as equals and are uncomfortable or even hateful when women are professionally powerful and therefore threatening.

But, my point is, as Obama might say, Kerry perhaps wasn't "likable enough" in this American Idol era, and too many people don't care about anything except likability. So maybe the nomination of someone far shorter on record but longer on emotional appeal, at least to some people, will be helpful.

[saracat]

59. Well spooky3, Even Kerry didn't have the disadvantage of thousands

of Democrats volunteering to wrk "against" him in protest of an election highjacking and I know of NO Republican that will vote for Obama and we certainly aren't going to win without the GOP vote. We aren't. Many in the GOP are unhappy with Mccain and yet will vote lockstep. The angry women and blue collar groups will NOT.And I do not even what to think about the damage the top of the ticket will do to those Dems on the down line.It is hard enough to get GOP votes but to get them to vote the downline when they are protest voting aginst Obama in the GE makes the downline candidate's job even harder. I despise Dean and the DNC for hurting their own people like that. And they have the nerve to talk about Obama having "coattails"! And as for "likable" what the heck makes you think the GOP "likes " him? And really, anyone but the media created Democratic cult?

[kelligesq]

60. Maybe Nancy Pelosi and her lockstep minions

will learn a lesson when the people refuse to fall in lockstep with the party bosses as they fully expect them to.

This is hardball.

I finally understand what Nancy Pelosi has done to the American people and the country . She refused to allow impeachment hearings of Bush and Cheney when THE PEOPLE by the millions were crying out, marching, calling, emailing for the most deserved impeachments since the country was founded.

WHY?

well since she allowed hearings on baseball, certainly more important than an administration that has raped and violated the rule of law and the Constitution - it occurs to me she thought "let the American people suffer and see just how bad things can be under the republicans - then we'll be a shoo-in come November 2008."

Think again Nancy. You should be tried in the docket along with Bush and Cheney,.

[balantz]

61. Ooh! Be careful! Don't talk like that here!

Your voice may be removed and others will not have to hear such treasonous talk.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

63. Done. But they don't care.

[kelligesq]

64. Thanks - there are some very good posts over there besides

the snarkiness - thinking people seem ready for a third party - after what ours has done...shoot themselves in the foot it is..

Still the snarkers dont get the need to be nice to the HRC'ers or other candidates supporters. Is this generation X and Y downright mean normal behavior ? or just supporters of O ? If it's the latter, like attracts like - so what does that tell us about him ?

funny, but the K & R count never went up over two ...?????

[spooky3]

68. very true

I don't know whether anyone who considers him/herself GOP "likes" Obama.

I definitely agree many people are angry about everything you said and I think Dean - who I generally admire - has bungled much of his work. I have found it appalling for months that people like Kerry, Kennedy (although with his recent health problems of course his situation is different), Dean, Reid, Pelosi, and other party leaders have said nothing or next to nothing about the sexism present in this campaign. I also think it is incredibly stupid for the Dems. to continue (as they did in other recent elections) to act as if all women of voting age are married. Many, if not most, of them AREN'T, but many don't vote because the Dems. AND Repubs. treat single, divorced, and widowed women (AND men) as if they didn't exist - there is almost never a mention of their concerns, let alone a plan to address them. If Dems. had treated this group with the same level of respect they treat other groups of similar sizes, they would have won those elections easily. Many of the concerns are similar to those of gays - for example, if a single person without young children dies at age 66, there is no survivor who can be designated to collect Social Security. Same with many state pension plans. All those years of contributing - nothing. There are many tax and rights inequities that would be natural fits for Dem. platform - but this group seems invisible.

I think some people (in GD: P especially) also need to remember that the average voter isn't just making a choice between voting Dem. or voting Republican. For many, it's a matter of whether they are motivated to go out to vote at all. So when some of them argue that it's ridiculous to say that a Clinton or Edwards voter will vote for McCain over Obama, so why put any effort into outreach, what they are forgetting is that many of those voters will just stay home if they feel alienated or worse.

wa-a-a-ah...

[kelligesq]

65. I'm not staying. Trying to talk to obamanuts to get them to stop bashing HRC supporters is

a lost cause.

The most vicious foul mouthed stupid asses all gathered in one place I've ever come across in my life. It's worse than trying to reason with a republican

[kelligesq]

66. MSNBC reporting 22% of Dems voting for McCain - Gallup poll ?? so

they attacked me.

We need a place to chat outside of DU.

and away from them.

PM me please

[kelligesq]

67. Correction, 22% of HRC dems voting McCain + another 17% regular dems - like I want to say

39% of dems voting for Mc Cain ?

congratulations DNC and Super Delegates. You've done a terriffic job.

[kelligesq]

69. Correction: 22% wont vote,will stay home, 17% voting for McCain

of Hillary dems.

[kelligesq]

70. Omigawd-Tony Perkins Evangelist Family Research Council "endorsing" Obama

on Tweety-Hardball ! Speaking highly of O and saying he has the right words for the evangelcals -that O is using code words such as in his speech " "and the waters shall recede" ...........

should we laugh or cry ? Surprise surprise for the charisma followers. Guess the name here will eventually be changed to Evangelical Underground ha ha ha

Omigawd again. We have been saying that they act like he's their messiah ...........wonder how the Family Research Family council families are going to like their 4 letter praises.... :rofl:

BRAK

[MH1]

71. Just in case someone doesn't know better - above post is a LIE

you either weren't paying very close attention, or you are deliberately lying.

Enjoy your short remaining stay.

Hopefully the mods will soon be along to delete both our posts.

[cornermouse]

72. Are you the official Edwards Support Group monitor?

just asking.

[kelligesq]

73. MH1 What is the matter with you? Bit quick on the draw arent you? right now Tweety show

being replayed on msnbc - Tony Perkins of the Family Research Center about to come on...go listen...before you rudely start calling people liars, How Rude of you.

Your problem is you dont like fundamentalists or is it that you do.
Who cares. plick

[kelligesq]

74. "Obama understands the dynamics of religion. Obama sounds like religion. "

"There's no question Barack Obama is sounding the right notes"

quotes from Tony Perkins on Tweety show June 9, 2008

[spooky3]

75. Sadly, it appears ClericJohnPreston has left us.

I will miss his posts.

[Andrea]

76. You can still see them, as can anyone that wishes

At various other places, including:

http://www.winetourfeasts.com/edwards/

[spooky3]

77. thanks, Andrea.

[Two Americas]

78. kick

Kicked and saved.