All I wish to say is I think some folks are drowning in a vat of sour grapes.

[saltpoint]

Some candidates aren't in the race and perhaps a candidate they don't like IS in the race, and is doing pretty well in the race.

I don't like it that supporters of unannounced candidacies are permitted to slam announced ones. On the basis of one vote? What about General Clark's lifelong Republicanism? His vote for Ronald Reagan? I cite the example of Clark since he doesn't appear to be in the race.

He's not in the race because there is no call for his candidacy. He has a very tenuous national constituency, despite his virulent supporters on DU. He is definitely not on a trajectory to be our next president.

John Edwards is. Edwards is one of perhaps a dozen people who will be our next president. I would narrow that list to maybe 4 or 5, tops.

From the DU Rules page:

"...Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. ..."

When DU posters are permitted to slam announced Democratic candidates -- or ANY Democrats campaigning for office -- that is a rules violation, as I am reading those rules on DU. If those rules matter and I follow them, I expect others to as well. If I am reading those rules incorrectly, mods, PM me and straighten me out.

Whether it's regarding John Edwards or Hillary Clinton or Gary Hart -- or any other Democrat.

I post this in knowledge that all these boards are monitored and I ask the moderators to enforce the rules as they stand. If I want negative slams on Democratic candidates, I'll join the Republican Party.

[waiting for hope]

1. Amen OC -

While I don't care for Hillary or Obama for President, I have taken the time "not" to participate in those types of threads - and I have just recently discovered the IGNORE button - works pretty well!

:applause:

[saltpoint]

2. Hi, waiting for hope. Yep. I tried hard as I could for a long time to

not reach for the Ignore button, but I'm using it left and right now.

And how ODD that nearly every single person on my Ignore list is from one particular DU group.

I'm not naming any names. But I be many Edwards voters across the country would be able to easily guess which group.

[iamjoy]

3. I Wish For More Prudence

I mean, if you are going to criticize a Democratic candidate, try not to say anything that could be used against them in a general election. I'm not saying I don't slip now and then, but I try to limit my criticism of Hillary Clinton (for example) to "she's too divisive, I don't think she could win."

I am sure we could find hard hitting criticism about every candidate, including the "perfect" Obama.

I am not happy with Edwards's initial IWR support, but I've made my peace with it. He seems so right on so much else, I don't want to that against him. After all, how many of us voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 after he had failed to act on the genocide in Rwanda? Why didn't we question his judgment, moral courage and leadership?

Yeah, but as far as the monitors, I think it's a tough call wanting to balance free expression with desire to stop slamming other candidates. I'm not familiar with the Ignore feature, but if you see something you feel is inappropriate, hit the Alert button.

[saltpoint]

4. The notion some of us have about DU is that it is a site for

progressive and Democrats.

We don't expect to see progressives and Democrats slammed and slimed on this stie.

Yet repeatedly that is the case.

The mods can't be on these boards every second. They can't be on all threads during the time they are there. I appreciate what they do but the larger problem remains:

If Democrats are undermined here, why should anyone who is a Democrat show up?

I resent an environmnt where my party affiliation is subverted in the interest of another "Democrat's" manipulative posts which undermine that affiliation.

It's not my site, so it's out of my reach.

[citizen snips]

5. You would think some people will get a life

and post better things but in fact their arguments mirror RW and Fox News talking points.

[saltpoint]

6. Yes. RW and FOX News & Limbaugh-like talking points -- and you are

not exaggerating.

And yet day after day those threads recur.

Interesting political stratgegy by the admins of this site.

[blue neen]

7. Amen, Old Crusoe.

Amen. Their behavior is immature and does nothing to enhance my opinion of "their candidate."

[saltpoint]

8. Hi, blue neen. There's so much for all of us to do together as Democrats.

I would hope that the issues could be discussed without the vitriole, but I'm not willing to work together with anyone who doesn't want Democrats to win.

Those folks need to realign themselves with the other side if the Democratic Party isn't good enough for them.

[carolinayellowdog]

9. Personal attacks are way out of hand lately

Hey,

My understanding of the way Skinner et al interpret the principle about undermining candidates is that this applies *after the nomination*-- hence Liebermanites could no longer attack Lamont after the primary in CT. Unless something has changed since 2003, we're in for a very nasty time ahead and I'm strongly considering giving up on DU after five years.

Not so much because of the attacks on candidates, but the personal attacks among supporters of said candidates. Yesterday one DUer launched DOZENS of personal attacks on various members in quite a few different threads and alerting on him produced no results I can see. It's as if "no personal attacks" has been completely abandoned as a principle. There's no "ask the administrators" forum anymore, is there?

CYD

[saltpoint]

10. That's right -- the Ask the Admins page is gone. They took it

away from us so they didn't have to answer our questions.

Democrats are Democrats before and after the nomination. Many of the left blogs do not provide a link to DU.

It's fairly clearly why not.

[carolinayellowdog]

11. Belated thanks to the mods

Eventually a subthread got deleted that included some of the wyldest personal attacks.

[saltpoint]

12. The mods have been very good. I've had some PM exchanges with

a couple of them and they seem to me to be right on target, and well aware of what's going on.

I'd favor paying them, even if it meant a registration fee. I'd pay it for the kind of work I'm seeing from the mods. In a few cases, as with any other group any place else on earth, the threads are allowed to stand too long.

And when the pattern emerges and one group in particular is consistently in violation, I think it's the Administrators' role to step in.

I just don't see that on DU.

[bobbolink]

14. I'm with you on that! We can't "criticise" the running of the site,

so when things are unjust or just ridiculous, it's their way or the highway.

So.......

You're another really good person who would be missed because of all this nonsense...

:hug:

[carolinayellowdog]

16. Thanks-- I needed that! Is Skinner right about this....

In his post telling us "get used to it" (which strikes me as dismissive and patronizing about a serious issue), Skinner wrote: "I would suggest that if you honestly believe supporters of other candidates are out-of-control, while supporters of your favored candidate are generally well behaved and fair, then you have a huge blind spot."

Well, I honestly believe that so far I've not seen any identifiable supporters of ANY candidates other than Clinton and Clark behaving like rampaging bullies trolling threads to stir up antagonism. But then I don't go out of my way looking for such threads, quite the contrary. One reason I feel inclined to take a long break is that if I see months and months of abusive bullying by Hillary supporters I will reach the point where the sight of her face or the sound of her voice will make me want to hurl. Whereas now I like her and can support her as the nominee or president, just with a lot less enthusiasm than some other options. I know it's not fair to blame the candidate for the abusiveness of his/her supporters, but bullying on behalf of the richest and most powerful is what we've been getting for six years from the Bushies and I just can't stand getting it from fellow Dems.

[bobbolink]

13. You're asking us to be nice? You want *nice*??!

:hi: :hug: :hi:

[saltpoint]

15. bobbolink! Howdy. Thanks for the reply and the kind words.

You know what?

We need the woman in your avatar to be a spirit leader for DU. I bet she wouldn't have put up with hate threads, if she were with us today.

[Sapphire Blue]

17. I'm tired of the candidate bashing, too, as well as disappointed in the 'lowered expectations'...

... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=812912&mesg_id=812912


This is how I plan to deal w/it... when these bashers/attackers/pests post in reply to me, I will simply thank them for kicking the thread & post a link to this: My support for John Edwards: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Sapphire%20Blue/282 (once it's been archived; I don't want that thread to turn into a bashing flamefest, as it's been fairly civil so far.) Any subsequent replies from them will receive the same response from me.

[Catchawave]

18. "Fire in the belly" ?

Love our DU Dems, but I listen to that "inner" fire, which I've had for JE since'03! I don't see that in other candidate supporters in this forum/community, I just see fear.

Good grief, there was an Edwards thread with "boneheaded" allowed today. It was not A WORD used in the MSM piece, it was the DUer's opinion. So far my comments are standing :eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3251525

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[chimpymustgo]

20. Why are you posting in the John Edwards Supporters Group?

Geez Louise.

[chimpymustgo]

21. I'm alerting. Please go away. nt

nt

[Catchawave]

22. Miss you OC ....

:hi:

Just posted a :grouphug: thread on GD-P, I hope you can stop by and enjoy the VIDEO!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3273068