What constitutes sore winning--and sore losing--here at dKos? I'm prompted to ask by an exchange in last night's open thread:
YAY! Excellent news! This sounds pretty reliable to me, and call me crazy, but I think it would be tough for Dean to lose the nomination with the SEIU endorsement. This could be the stage where he puts it in the bag. The establishment has not been quick enough behind Clark, and Clark was never a potential leader of the party anyway.
-----
So if Dean really does get the SEIU endorsement-- what can stop him? He's got $$, significant labor support, psyched-up activists, early state strength and press coverage.
Only real weakness is the South which is not the main thrust of Dem electoral strategy (or needn't be). Sharpton flap looks like a wash, with black leaders who dislike Al standing up for Dean.
Am I missing something?
-----
No, I don't think you're missing anything. It looks more and more like Dean will win the nomination.
-----
Hmm.. Guess we should all go home. Howard has been chosen.
"Clark was never a potential leader of the party anyway."
Typical Dean supporter bullshit.
-----
Typical, but hardly bullshit.
****
IMHO, the line most resembling sore winning is the dismissive one about Clark "never [being] a potential leader of the party anyway." And the response, "Typical Dean supporter bullshit," sounds like sore losing: prompted by the unfair (or at least incomplete) criticism of one supporter, but smearing all Dean supporters. I'm a big Dean supporter, however, so I may have a tin ear for what others perceive as continual (and continually offensive) Deaniac triumphalism.
I'd be interested to hear whether others were offended by the wide-eyed glee of the first post (excluding its criticism of Clark), with its YAY! How can Dean lose now?! tone.
Or is it offensive for a Dean supporter to respond to the latest Zogby poll out of New Hampshire by writing "OMIGOD! Dean is lapping the field!"?
And is a candidate's relative position in the race a factor in determining sore winning? Would it be offensive for a Gephardt supporter to write "Wow! Gephardt is pulling away from Dean in Iowa, and once his ground team kicks into gear, he's going to leave Dean in the dust."?
Or should we all learn to be less thin-skinned?
I'm reminded of Ben Franklin's suggestion that it's easier to win friends if one replaces assertions of fact with tempered, occasionally dissembling suggestions and questions: Instead of "Dean's got this one in the bag!", Ben might say: "This endorsement, were it actually to materialize, would not be unwelcome news for Dr. Dean and his worthy supporters. I wonder, sir, if you would consider it a fatal blow to his competitors in several early primary states that boast men of the blue cravat in superabundance? I would be most grateful for the gift of your opinion!"
I for one don't mind a little triumphalism, regardless of the candidate being trumpeted. We most of us engage in it when Bush's news turns blue, and even when we're just talking about the Democratic candidates, I see nothing wrong with good-natured trash-talking. Perhaps the problem is that the trash-talking is not often enough good-natured.