I'm pretty sure plenty of other people have commented on
Atrios' post about the intra-party fighting over candidates. This is an issue, of course, that will be very familiar with those on this site, so I'd just like to make a plea.
I don't mind criticism of candidates. In fact, I think we need criticism of candidates. This isn't the Republican Party. We don't need any 11th Commandments here. However, some of the comments are going over the line. For instance, I've seen comments insinuating that Dean is a Klansman and a racist, as well as the regurgitation of RNC spin directed towards Clark. I myself am somewhat mystified by the whole thing. I confess to being a Dean supporter, but I also respect Clark and would gladly support him if he wins the nomination. Hell, I'll support anyone for the nomination, even Lieberman. Let's not forget that it's pretty likely that a candidate you don't support will be running against Bush. Before you say something about a candidate, ask yourself: Would I be phrasing this argument in this manner if he were running against Bush? I'm all for respectful criticism, but wouldn't it be nice if people phrased their arguments in terms of what they like about their candidates then what they hate about the other candidates?
For instance, I am supporting Dean, because as a nominal Green (flame away, folks), I am encouraged by a positive remark he made about IRV, a reform that I believe needs to be implemented, because right now, and I hate to say this, a vote for a Green is truly a vote for the Republican and as much as I like to vote my conscience, I also don't want to elect people like Bush.
I also am encouraged by the grassroots financing that he has gotten thus far. Whereas candidates have traditionally funded their campaigns through large donors, Dean has managed to out fundraise his opponents by depending on small donations. It goes without saying that politicians listen to their funders and that someone funded this way will be more likely to be responsive to the needs of everyday people (unlike say George Bush).
Finally, I think that Dean has been the most forthright in standing up to Bush and considering that there's a pretty good possibility that an incoming Democratic President may have to face a hostile Congress, someone who is willing to stand up to the GOP would be much preferred, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, any responses would be appreciated. And if you want to, go ahead and post about what attracts you to your chosen candidate, whoever he or she may be.
Brilliantine