In some ways I think DU should change its name

[WI_DEM]

It seems that since the president was elected that we are constantly at war on DU. It's split between progressives who feel that Obama, and the democratic party in general, aren't progressive enough and responsive to very real concerns and should be criticized (and very warranted at times)and Democratic partisans (especially of a president they worked hard to elect and still believe in) who feel that he gets (at times) unfair critcism on DU which is "supposed to be a democratic web site."

I've had friends ask me in the last few months of a good political site and I've directed them to DU and they lurk around and decide not to join because, "All I see is Obama bashing." (there words not mine). So I think lots of Dems might come here to see what this site is all about and end up not staying.

I think a fairer name of this site would be PROGRESSIVE UNDERGROUND because certainly we have a very large active member force which is progressives politically but not Democrats. I think it would cut down on the constant refrain when Obama is criticized of, "I thought this was supposed to be a Democratic website" or "Geez, this place is getting worse than FP." It would also alert many democrats who come here thinking that this is a pro-Democratic party/Obama website that it is actually an open, free-discussing progressive, but not necessarily pro-democratic, website.

Just my 2 cents.

[bananas]

1. No, it should be called Centrist Underground or Moderate Underground. nt

[WI_DEM]

5. really? I think it's pretty progressive overall. If you go by most of the posts

and especially those on greatest page.

[Tektonik]

77. Obama is a centrist, and we are supposed to support Obama

Thus this is Centrist Democrat Underground.

[earth mom]

78. ....

:thumbsup:

[Contrary1]

2. The jokes would be endless...

PU

[WI_DEM]

6. Good point.

[marmar]

3. Butter on top and in the middle, and a large Mountain Dew for me.....

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[blogslut]

4. Save some for me

I gotta go out and will miss the flaming, blaming and eventual locking.

[WI_DEM]

7. see that is one of the problems around here. The lack of discussing things in a respectful way

and those who get there fun out of watching the evolving flame wars while eating there popcorn.

[Pab Sungenis]

19. My ignore list has grown ever longer in less than 24 hours

and I've finally started "alerting" on all the anti-gay mockery that seems to thrive here.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

38. Please direct me to some of the "anti-gay mockery" that you speak of

I have seen none of it and it is against policy to do so in the first place. I have seen some that champion LGBT issues (in which I would call myself one) claim that there is out and out gay bashing going on here alot more than the actual gay bashing. I have been accused of being anti gay because I listed some of the policy differences I have with the Obama administration and I didn't list his policies on LGBT issues. Really? Is that what this is coming to? If you don't list LGBT issues at the top of your list then you must be a gay bashing bigot? That is really getting tired and it isn't accurate. I am being serious with my original question, please show me the anti-gay mockery you speak of I am open to seeing it, if you prove me wrong I will say so and get on board.

[Pab Sungenis]

71. I would, but

I've put the people who've posted them on ignore. I don't need to put up with that kind of thing.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

73. I just checked under my bed for some of them

will let you know if you need to ignore any more as needed.

[RoyGBiv]

52. That is *the* problem ...

Lack of respectful discussion is the problem with every online discussion forum I've ever encountered. More than that, it's a problem with human interaction in general. Regardless of the fact that moderators and administrators exist to try to prevent the fray from bringing down the site's virtual walls, the truth is that no system of post facto moderation is adequately equipped to handle the broad range of interests, intellects, and temperaments that have congregated here.

Sites like this are only one, small step removed from the Wild West of Usenet. They look prettier, but socially, they work the same. People will be people, which means that in one moment they will display the kindest of expressions and help a complete stranger with no expectation of benefit, and the next they will be calling your mother a whore for wearing white after labor day.

People are funny animals, and they get funnier the larger the group becomes.

Eating popcorn and watching the flames is more of a reaction to what is simply fact. You can't control this. You can kick a few people off or freeze their account for a week, and you hope that others take note that consequences do exist, but some people don't care about the consequences. It's not life or death here. It's just words. If you shut up my ability to express words here, I can go to a billion other places and express my words there. That will not change. So, certain subjects come up, and you *know* what's going to happen nine times out of ten, and some days it's just too much even to attempt to try to rise above it. Popcorn, for that, is the answer.

I don't agree that the issues with DU revolve around whether the site as a whole is progressive or not progressive or whether it is named correctly. The problems with the site are wholly about people's expectations. What, really, do you *expect* here? It's a discussion forum, not a political action committee, not an actual political party, and it's not "Real Life." This is a world where I'm right, and you're wrong, and you're a fuckinggoddamnedpissantshitholemotherfuckerdickheadeddouchebag if you don't admit it.

I do agree with and echo the observations you've made about some people you've suggested come here. I have many political friends who have long counseled me to stay away from this place. One of the most progressive among these refers to DU as "poison." Another, more moderate one refers to it as "the loony bin." They all pretty much refuse even to attempt to participate, and I've stopped bothering because I've realized I don't participate all that much myself, compared some of the most prolific posters. But, I am a little obsessive, and once I do start "hanging out" in a discussion forum, I tend to stay there, for good or ill.

Thank god for the Groups.

[Mythsaje]

68. I tend to believe the "not real life" meme

is part of the problem. It leads some of us to forget we ARE dealing with other human beings with feelings and thoughts of their own. I don't mind debate--that's one of the reasons I come here, to debate with people with whom I already have some common ground. Admittedly, I can be a bit sarcastic and snarky on occasion, but I've never found it constructive to belittle people with whom I'm having a discussion. Part of it is a deliberate attempt to keep emotional reactions to a minimum. Reason wins the day, emotion simply clouds the issues.

[RoyGBiv]

89. So what's your suggestion?

I believe I understand your meaning, and I agree that we do forget that we are dealing with other human beings, and at least some of us forget that. Others know quite well they are dealing with human beings and use the quasi-anonymity of the Internet (or at least the extreme distance between fist and nose) to justify their poor behavior.

However, I also believe in what amounts to a practical reality, if not an objective one. These forums do not function like "real life," in part because of that distance, because of the pseudo-anonymity, but also because online communities are their own communities with their own social norms and methods of interaction.

One of the biggest differences between "real life" and an online forum is that social groups interact much more frequently outside their norms. People react strangely when this happens, as they attempt to fit into one social group while interacting with another that is then joined by another and another and another.

In "real life" we have our personal space and our personal mechanisms for maintaining social comfort, some of which are enforced by the laws of physics. Where in real life can you put 10,000 people in the same room and provide each and every one of them with the opportunity of talking to 10,000 other people in a manner that even has the hope of allowing any individual voice to be heard? I don't know about you, but if someone were to speak to me the way some people speak to me here, I'd get up and walk away. Here, I ask them what the hell they're thinking. The point there is that we tend to gravitate away from those things that we find obnoxious and toward our comfort group.

On DU, this is the reason people tend to find a niche in some smaller Group somewhere, as I do with the Comp forum, and I become very irritated when someone wanders in there trying to stir up shit.

I suppose, in the end, it's the use of the word "real" that is troublesome. The fact that social groups exist and interact on online forums is in fact a reality, and there's also the reality that there are a lot of real human beings behind those words on the screen. But, it's also real that without the face, the body language, other social cues, and the reality of 3D space, we tend to be different sorts of people in this virtual world than we are in so-called real life.

It's been that way for a long time.

[Mythsaje]

96. I'm not sure I have a suggestion

and you make some good points about the social contract being different out here in the wild wild cyber-west. A lot of it about the anonymity, something I don't even usually think about because I'm anything BUT anonymous. I am led to wonder whether this allows people to reveal more of their personality than they would ordinarily, or if it becomes twisted somehow. As a means of group communication, this medium is still relatively new, and we really don't understand the dynamic very well.

[hfojvt]

87. lack of respectful discussion does not seem to be the problem

The problem seems to be a result of the belief system of some people. An attitude that you summed up thusly.

"This is a world where I'm right, and you're wrong, and you're a fuckinggoddamnedpissantshitholemotherfuckerdickheadeddouchebag if you don't admit it."

Not everybody has that attitude, but it is kinda endemic to humanity. If we eliminated all of the arrogant and intolerant, then there might be thirty or forty of us, I mean you, who could have an intelligent and respectful discussion. But it would be awfully hard to get 1000 donation every quarter.

[RoyGBiv]

90. And it feeds itself ...

Some individuals seem to enjoy ranting and raving in this manner. Those who do not, tend to avoid it until something snaps, and they get drawn in as well. I know it's happened to me on occasion.

The important part of this, though, is what the place looks like to an outside observer or to those who mostly lurk and/or attempt to maintain their distance from the snark wars. Someone in another part of this thread made the comment that another person must have been reading a different DU than they were. Well, in a way, they are. People get wrapped up in their own business so well and become such a part of things that matter to them that others who are simultaneously wrapped up in their own business and things that matter to them see something entirely different.

Personally, I think we're all idiots for not paying more attention to patent law debates, and I tend to notice everything even potentially related. I read a different DU than people who hang out in the Lounge all the time.

But, yeah ... you hit an important point. You can have your smaller groups, but they tend not to be self-sustaining and are poorly equipped to deal with change. In a roundabout way, this is part of what happened to Usenet.

[hfojvt]

101. it's not so much that they enjoy it

but they often get encouraged in those expressions by their compatriots. It is an hourly event for somebody to post an OP about somebody we are all encouraged to hate - a sick, sad story of human depravity followed by "what the hell is wrong with people?" Sometimes the depraved person has its defenders, who think a woman having sex with a fifteen year old boy is not that big a deal, and then DU gets to divide into camps that are disgusted by the other side of DU. But often the vast majority of DU gets to point to some idiotic FReeper-type or RW gasbag and say "what a moran" or "what a racist POS" and be part of a crowd of 20-50 (and in their minds much larger) who are in full agreement. And hatred of those insidious Sharks (perceived members of the other tribe/gang) and their nefarious statements is one of the main things that makes a Jet such an awesome human being.

It's all too common, but like you said it's not the only thing going on. Often when you read a post with 10-50 recommends, it's a very good read.

[Skink]

8. IT would stop me from clicking on Ducks Unlimited.

[Mari333]

9. I take it you have never heard of Progressive Democrats

http://www.pdamerica.org/

read, learn, learn, read.

[WI_DEM]

12. Yes, and good site. You go there under no illusions that criticizing democrats is off limits.

[Mari333]

13. right. and they are DEMOCRATS on that site.

and there are progressive and moderate DEMOCRATS on this site. all of them, DEMOCRATS.

[Fire1]

97. For real???? Think I'll take a gander.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

10. I vote for latenitespankparty.com

The site would only be available between the hours of midnight and 6 AM, and all registered users must come prepared to give a good spanking or receive one. If I were running DU, that's what I'd do. Today, if not sooner.

:rofl:

[WI_DEM]

15. Well that is how the lounge has been referred to for years now

:rofl:

unofficially of course.

[Strong Atheist]

11. And have to change the

stationery!?!?!?

[flvegan]

14. Good Democrats don't march in lockstep.

At least not last I checked.

And honestly, anyone that didn't see that DU would be a hotbed of discussion and complaint about our elected Dem president obviously missed the primaries where the little-known nor cared about (in the mainstream) candidate, Dennis Kucinich was the site favorite time and again.

I actually like DU that much more considering that when Obama (or any Dem) steps in shit, folks here are quick to point that it is indeed shit.

[WI_DEM]

16. True. I remember it well. Which is why people who say this is a moderate site

just don't seem to be looking at the same site I do. Any site where Dennis Kucinich in both 2004 and 2008 was the top or one of the top candidates must realize that this is a very progressive site. Yes, I agree too that good democrats should understand that criticism should be allowed of the president, but I also think lots of people think it goes overboard on a daily basis too for a supposidly democratic site.

[Captain Hilts]

20. Correct.

And I do think that a lot of folks that saw Obama as a true progressive are now seeing that he is centrist who said a lot of things during the campaign.

It's weird how the so-called progressives that backed Obama and called Clinton supporters DINOs are now defending or ignoring his non-progressive actions. Where's the criticism of making a lawyer who fought the establishment of dolphin-friendly tuna and worked for GE on pollution of the Hudson as the Dept. of Justice's environmental enforcement? Ignored. A mountaintop clearing advocate in charge of mining regulation? Ignored.

He's a dramatic improvement over GWB and seems to be a good president, but I think he's a different president than a lot of folks thought he would be.

[mod mom]

48. and our own President told us if we want change, it's up to us to push for it:

“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”

Barack Obama


If we want the party to move to fight for the people (instead of the powerful as some DLC types would like:

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

then we have to make sure our voices are loud enough to be heard!

The corporations have enough paid lobbyists & access voicing their opinions, we the people should scream louder to make sure the people's are also heard.

[Mythsaje]

17. Not Progressive enough?

How about Not Progressive at All?

Watching what's happening we can only come to a set number of conclusions.

1. Totally cowed, unable to take a firm stance for or against anything for fear of upsetting the Republicans and their radio/television lackeys.

2. Complicit--accepting corporate bribes (campaign contributions) in exchange for political infuence.

3. Incapable of doing their jobs. Even IF compromise is the language of politics, we have apparently elected the only humans on the planet who have no clue about conducting negotiations. Their "haggle" switch is in the "off" position.

Obama's not really our problem. Many of us rather figured he'd go this route. He campaigned on "Hope" and "Change" and we got "Hope for Change." But it's not so much his fault as, in my opinion, the fault of Congress. And it's always another excuse to explain why they can't get anything remotely progressive through. Hell, not even through. They can't even get anything progressive STARTED.

And we're not supposed to take issue with that?

Guess again.

It's not even about "ideological purity" or anything like that. It's about acknowledging the people as more than just a part of the peanut gallery. Locking the single-payer advocates out of the health care debate was a flagrant act of arrogance. And, seriously, did ANYONE in Congress object anywhere anyone could hear them?

Unless they're planning on lulling the Republicans into complacency, then springing a massive surprise on them, I don't see Congress accomplishing anything of true and lasting value for the foreseeable future. It's all band-aids slapped on arterial wounds and tentative forays in the general direction of progressive values.

As one author whose rants (generally negative) land on the Greatest Page a lot, I felt I should answer this personally. If we don't hold them accountable to our values and the reasons we elected them in the first place, we're only PRETENDING to give a fuck about politics and the direction our country is headed.

[peace13]

27. Well put! n/t

[Individualist]

39. +1

[annabanana]

42. (looking for a "rec this post" button). . . . .n/t

[meegbear]

18. Thats. Nice.

[peace13]

21. 'Progressives politically but not Democrats'

Excuse me? I worked my *ss off for Obama. I am hoping that you did too. You are completely off base on this one. If one questions the President then they are no longer Dem? You are sounding more like a rethug than a Dem to me. I will always speak my mind about this administration or any other. Maybe another site would be more appropriate for your friends. The White House has a nice one, but even they let you write an email questioning policy. Good luck!

[elocs]

22. Now, now. Any criticism here of Democrats is always under the umbrella of "constructive" criticism.

How could it be otherwise? At least that's what is claimed. Sometimes I wonder what some of these people are like with their SOs, spouses, children, and friends with their "constructive criticism. Must be a joy to be around.

[Cant trust em]

26. I can just imagine a scenario with children

"Johnny, I think you're making a mistake here."

vs.

"Johnny, you're a fucking idiot! You're no son of mine!"

[kentuck]

23. Historically..

there was a reason for the name. We were fighting the Republican coup that took over our government in 2000.

[Liberal Gramma]

24. DU used to be a lone ray of hope

in the early Bush days. I'd come here to find one good reason to hang on and work for a better day. Many of the posts were negative, because (I thought,innocently) there was so much to be negative about. The country was slowly edging toward fascism, undermining the constitution, curtailing freedom, and here at DU we recognized the shift and fought against it.


Then came the primaries, and the bloodletting began. Partisan in-fighting was predominant, and bashing the other guy's candidate was one of the most common ways to support your own choice. When Obama won the nomination, and the election, I thought that was all behind us. I realize that some of his supporters think he can do no wrong, and that some of his critics think he can do no right, but the ink here at DU is so often laced with venom that I find it difficult to read.
I'm unmoved by the "this is a democracy and a democratic forum, I am only exercising my right to speak" as I am by the "this is a democratic forum, if you don't agree with Democrats, find another venue." I find either argument a poor excuse for incivility.

So, here's the question: Can we get back to bashing Republicans and stop the Civil War?

[kentuck]

28. And now, we are in the majority!

Can you believe it?

[Sukie]

32. This is one reason I tend to only lurk here as well.

I don't expect everyone to agree with everything that Obama is doing, just because they are a democrat or progressive. But what I do expect is that it doesn't begin to sound like the stuff that I read on repub sites. Constructive criticism is one thing. The civil war discourse that has begun to permeate DU is not what I want from a democratic/progressive site. Some people are way to quick to judge him and his decisions, instead of giving him time to actually be president and prove himself. If he is still making decisions that don't mesh with democratic thinking in the middle of his first term, then I can understand the negativity. Good grief. The man has inherited a mess and I challenge anyone to have been able to do better. There wasn't one person running for the job who could have done better, and I sure as heck know no one on this site could have either.

[Bucky]

37. Democracy is like that. You can have harmony or democracy, not both.

Democracy is inherently an adversarial system of government. A democratic people will fuss and bicker over all sorts of issues, even within a select party of faction. It's annoying, sure, but it's worth it in the long run.

[Sukie]

43. Oh, I love fussing and bickering over issues.

But that hasn't been as pervasive here as the name calling and insults to those that express themselves differently from others, and all from people who are basically on the same side of the fence politically.......just some are farther left of that fence than others. I love it when we call a repub a "f#*@ing idiot". LOL It is counter productive when we say those things to each other though. I have read a few posts where someone brought a completely legitimate issue, or at least one that concerned them, and then they were insulted by their "peers" on the board. It is so hard to see us do this to each other, when we already have to deal with the repubs and their idiocy. And this of course, is just my humble opinion.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

45. I am an Obama supporter since he was a state senator in my state of Illinois

I supported him wholeheartedly in the campaign. I donated to his campaign when I was unemployed and didn't have a lot of extra money lying about. But I am disappointed in some of his policy decisions, are you saying that my voice should be silenced because you think we should be "bashing republicans and stop the civil war" in your words. To me being a Liberal is about principal not personality (like they say in AA), and this goes for all the Obama worship that goes on here, while ignoring his policy decisions which are opposed to my principals as a Liberal and as a Democrat. I don't want to silence dissent and if there is a "civil war" going on then so be it. I actually don't see it as being that dire, but if you do then you are entitled to your opinion. I really don't see this as a problem, I see it as being healthy for the most part. I agree with you that what isn't healthy is the "Obama is Jesus and is always right and screw who thinks differently, you are probably a Freeper anyway" threads, or the "Obama is a war-monger, he is worse than Bush, Obama should be impeached" threads. Those are hyperbolic bullshit and shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place. It is healthy to have debate and not take what Obama does as the Word Of God and it is healthy not to hate everything he does either. Balance is the order of the Universe, it might be nice to have some here. But if we don't it will work out anyway.

[Liberal Gramma]

47. I didn't call for silence, I called for civility

We can disagree among ourselves about the right direction for the country, and Obama, to take without name-calling, hyperbole, and political soliphism.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

53. Okay I stand corrected, and I totally agree with you then n/t

[Sukie]

56. Well, you kind of proved my point.

You seem to be saying what I am saying, yet you phrase it in disagreement, because you misread my comment. I just said I have no problem with fussing and bickering over issues. No where did I say that your voice should be silenced. What you call Obama worship, I call support. I do disagree with some of his decisions but I can still support him overall, and I should be able to do so without fearing being called an Obama worshiper by a fellow democrat. I get enough of that by the freepers. I would argue that I am just as principled as you. No one is calling for a silence of dissent, but we do wish for more civility, more debate without the name calling, and less "war".

[Mythsaje]

69. You're right to dislike being called an "Obama worshipper."

At best it's disrespectful. Of course, being told we're "far left" or "troublemakers" or that we're looking for a ride in a "waaambulance" doesn't help either. I already dealt with the pony thing, so it no longer bothers me. Yeah, I wanted a pony. So what? All I expected them to do is ask for a team of clydesdales rather than a My Little Pony toy and maybe, just maybe, I would've had a chance to actually GET a pony.

[Cant trust em]

25. I'm not sure I disagree with the progressives values, more communication style

There's only so much talk about rule by corporatocracy, shitting on the constitution, and not repealing every act of George Bush on day 1, minute 1 that I can listen to before I start to feel like its a broken record.

Not that those ideas don't have merit, but when the language seems to be more based in emotion than policy it turns me off.

We need ideas, not punchy cliches.

[redqueen]

84. +1

[BlooInBloo]

29. DUers don't know how to do anything but protest...

Which isn't shocking, since that's the entire raison d'etre for the site.

[LSdemocrat]

30. As a long-time member, I think this site has become more and more left-wing over time

I started visiting DU in 2002, joined in 2003, and what strikes me the most is how much more left-wing the site has become.

Back in 2002/3 we actually had a wide ideological mix from those to the left of the Democratic party to progressive Dems, centrist (in terms of the Democratic party) Dems, and even a good number of conservative and/or DLC Democrats.

Slowly over time, DU has lost that ideological diversity almost to the point where I'd classify much if not most of the discussion is led by people who do not seem to identify themselves as Democrats.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

36. You can't be reading the same DU as me?

It went from having a bunch of people more left than me to a bunch of people way more right to me.

My views haven't changed.

[LSdemocrat]

49. Maybe you just have different issues you notice than I do

I'm generally more concerned with economic issues than social issues. On economic issues especially, I think people here are more left-wing than I remember.

If there has been a right-ward drift on social issues, I probably wouldn't have noticed it.

[LostinVA]

57. You must read Bizarro Du

[Uzybone]

65. You are correct

I joined the first week and this site has been gradually moving to the left. Gay Marriage was actually something people debated on this site without being flamed as homophobes. People actually considered voting for Arnold for CA governor(some of those people are still on DU). People who happened to be religious could post so and not be flamed. Try that now.


I am pretty left wing myself, but its pretty clear that moderates are hard to find on this board.

[ContinentalOp]

76. I don't think those are very good examples.

The tone of the gay marriage debate may have shifted because hopefully more people have woken up on the issue of gay rights over the past 8 years. That's not a shift to the left.

And I still see people defending Arnold on nearly every CA related thread in GD. I would give a slight pass for temporary insanity or general stupidity for anyone who voted for Arnold in 2003, but the fact that people here still defend him today? If that's not evidence of the rightward shift of DU, I don't know what is.

[Evoman]

72. I've been lurking since 2002 or 2003. I've found the complete opposite.

This board is wayyyyyyy more centrist/moderate than it used to be.

I remember being suprised that Americans could be so left wing, since my general impression was that most of them were way to the right of myself (I'm Canadian). I found that, at that time, DU was about where I was on the spectrum. Now....no way. I can't believe how centrist this place has gotten. In fact, a lot of the arguments I hear are the sorts of arguments I have had with Americans I know who have visited Canada

Basically, I know see DU as a lot more "American" than I used to, especially on the subjects of gay rights, religion, and law and order.

[Taverner]

31. How about Skinner's Fight Club?

:evilgrin:

[Bucky]

35. great minds

And ours too, apparently

[closeupready]

33. Two things: one, this question was asked recently, here and Skinner indicated the name is perfect.

Second, it should be a surprise to no one who is politically astute that in light of the Democratic majority in both the Senate and House, the fact that we now have the White House, that in light of all that, we are going to spend more time fighting about how to sort of spend the spoils of that victory rather than bash the minority party. Perhaps that's not the most constructive use of our time, but that is how it is.

[Bucky]

34. New Name: "ER"

- Electronic Rrrrumblefish!

[Recursion]

40. I'm not a progressive

We have liberals and progressives (and people who are neither) on this site.

[Romulox]

41. I think there are a handful of aggressive and vitriolic "centrists" that derail many conversations

and cause threads to devolve into name-calling. Criticism of the Obama administration isn't the problem; criticism of elected officials is a patriotic duty. It's those that have made it their mission to shout down such dissent that make this board so hostile, imo. :hi:

[annabanana]

44. yup. And some are genuine Dem Centrists. . . and some

aren't.

[QC]

46. Some are just fans. They react the same way that the folks at britneyspears.com would react

if someone showed up there and disparaged Britney.

[Overseas]

66. I agree.

I have come to believe that some disruptors are here pretending to be staunch Obama supporters, stomping on all dissent, to alienate other Democrats. Some of them just fit too neatly into the right wing meme that Obama supporters are fanatics who "worship" their leader. I understand that there are many sincere defenders on this board, but I've seen quite a few whose intentions don't ring true.

I think they reveal their roots when they jump on every opportunity to slander progressive commentators the moment they raise any objections to the president's policies. Or jump into threads of those who are genuinely angry about a particular comment by a liberal host just to slam the host and encourage others to stop watching them. We could even have some guerrilla marketing going on, aimed at reducing the audiences for those damn liberal shows.

President Obama himself has always asked the American people to let him and their legislators know what they want. He welcomes dissent.

But I realize that there are also many people who are inspired by what President Obama has done and wants to achieve, and believe they need to defend him against criticism from the left because he is getting so much from the right already.

Others of us watched Democrats do that during the Clinton Administration, and may ourselves have followed that pattern then, encouraged by Democratic legislators who were also aiming to protect our president, to hold back on criticizing from the left. He was being hounded from the right, so we didn't want to add to that burden. And during that administration we lost the battle to win national healthcare for all, defeat NAFTA, regulate the financial sector, and prosecute more of the Iran-Contra crimes, among other concessions.

[Echo In Light]

50. Bingo! Oh, they're out there, to be sure. Preference masquerading as logic

[LostinVA]

59. +1

[Skittles]

51. LOL

if your friends want a place where everyone goose-steps to Obama, this ain't the place - period

[MilesColtrane]

54. I vote for: DemocraticClusterfuck

[jgraz]

80. Redundant.

[Bluebear]

55. Progressive!

:spray:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

58. I know

:rofl:

[QC]

60. Damn far left radical! You are worse than Pol Pot!

:sarcasm:

[Cleita]

61. There is another website with a similar name that was formed by

ex-DUers who felt DU wasn't progressive enough. Frankly you can find all points of view from the left here. I do dislike the bashing threads of all stripes because I keep feeling these are fueled by disruptors with the purpose of making DU unpalatable to newcomers, which you have just confirmed.

[Mythsaje]

67. I think we can disagree without being caustic or condescending...

Or, at least, keep that to a minimum. We can also criticize Obama and Congress without resorting to hyperbolic attacks. They're rarely productive and I find I can say many of the same things without unleashing a flame war.

[Cleita]

75. Very true, but what I'm referring to is the "let's

bash XXXXX today" threads that pop up regularly with the express purpose of bashing some politician or left wing media host. If those threads were bashing republicans or media speakers for the RW then I wouldn't be suspicious.

[Mythsaje]

79. I generally ignore those...

Terribly unproductive. We should be talking about policy, not personalities, anyway. It's a bit like how I drive--I don't allow myself to be distracted by the other drivers, I pay attention to what the cars are doing. Individuals in this case, I believe, are only of real interest in how they affect the pattern.

[robertpaulsen]

62. Democratic Overground? n/t

[mnhtnbb]

63. How about the Bitch and Moan Underground?

There are lots of us progressives who have changed our voter registrations to independent or
unaffiliated because we got fed up with the centrist/right Dems and their unwillingness
to hold the Bushies accountable.

[elocs]

64. Bitching & moaning is pretty par for the course for whatever faction is not getting their own way.

Now if Democrats would only do everything as I think they should, then we would know perfection. Unfortunately nearly everyone else thinks the same about their beliefs.

[mnhtnbb]

70. Equal opportunity bitching and moaning!

[elocs]

93. Well, that is the Democratic way. n/t

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[TheWraith]

81. You're wrong. This has long since been covered, and DU is a DEMOCRATIC website.

Skinner has been very clear: if you're not a Democrat, this site isn't for you. Period. Constructive criticism is welcome, but Dem bashing for its own sake--which is a lot of the content around here lately--is not.

[Forkboy]

82. "if you're not a Democrat, this site isn't for you"

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.

You're right, Skinner has been very clear.

[TheWraith]

91. They've also been clear in banning people who promote third parties. nt

[Forkboy]

92. True, but not all the non-Democrats here promote third parties.

There were a ton of Independents that voted for Obama, many right here.

[polmaven]

83. And will you be

changing your name to WI_PRO?

[Robb]

85. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

86. I kind of like Democratic Underground Underground. :)

[Greyhound]

88. Hardly. We are seeing the backlash and ongoing (distracting) war between

the authoritarians (or NewBlueThirdwayDLCDogs, whatever) and the Liberals (FringeExtremeWackoHippies, whatever).

It is the result of the coup by literally moderate Republicans and corporatists of the Democratic Party in the 80s. During the reign of Raygun, the corporations gained the means to buy both teams in the game of American Politics and they have been quite successful at using it to keep control of the agenda.

Liberals in the common (inaccurate) vernacular, will see lots of "right-wing" talking points promoted here, just as you say the opposite about your friends and apparently yourself.

If you're looking for a Democratic (Yay Team!) only site, they're out there too, but his isn't one.

That's why I, and I'm sure many others, do hang out here.

[NMMNG]

94. So Obama is the only politician in the Democratic Party?

And supporting him unconditionally is the prerequisite for being a "good Democrat"? Is that what people are thinking?


Funny. When I came to DU some years ago the general refrain was "Dissent is Patriotic" and the notion that we should all march in lockstep (like the Freepers) was unthinkable. I guess that's not the case now that Obama is in office.

[TexasObserver]

95. No, we just need a topic forum called "OH MY GOD, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!"

Fatalism should be used sparingly, or it loses its impact.

By any measure, we're better off now than any time in the preceding eight years. Obama has not been as progressive or aggressive as we'd like, but that was predictable.

[old mark]

98. From some of the juvenile bullshit here, it should be "DOH!!!". nt

[rucky]

99. The "Underground" part is still intact.

And we are democrats.

What's the problem? Without the "underground" element, we'd be DemocraticMainstream.com

[quickesst]

100. It's obvious...

..what Democratic Underground needs. If anyone remembers DU before the primaries dominated, who could deny that what is needed to return to it's united, and proud prominence, is another rethuglican in the White House. I've visited DU since around 2001, and became a member in 2004, and my choice for the app. date DU started heading for the edge of the cliff was just before the first person announced his/her candidacy for the Democratic nomination. If McShame/Failin had won the election, DU would have already been on it's way to returning to united, and admired respectability. Democrats, for some reason, cannot abide a winner. Ask the only other Democrat to win in the last few decades. Oh well, there's always 2012.:sarcasm: Thanks.
quickesst