As the time until votes are actually cast for the Democratic presidential nomination decreases (given news today that the Iowa caucuses may be moved up to January 3rd), it's no surprise that the debate about the various candidates has become even more focused - and mean-spirited - than ever. I would first like to state that I agree with the sentiment expressed by DHinMI; personal attacks on people who support different candidates has gone far beyond what is acceptable. In addition, one can see from Markos' earlier post on Hillary Clinton that emotions are bound to be stirred up.
But that doesn't mean that we should stop examining, much less criticizing, any of our prospective nominees. Far from it, this is the time when we should step up such examinations. None of the candidates are perfect, but it's important to try and hash out who we think is best.
This doesn't mean that you have to personally take offense anytime someone says something about your preferred candidate that you don't like (or agree with). While such offhand comments (John Edwards can't possibly be an advocate for poverty because he gets $400 haircuts, for example) deserve scorn and dismissal, there are legitimate questions about all of the candidates that can be thoughtfully debated. Does Clinton's support of Kyl-Lieberman mean she hasn't learned the lessons of her vote for AUMF almost 5 years ago? Does Barack Obama's health care actually cover everyone? How can Edwards reconcile his marked shift in foreign policy with what he stated 4 years ago during his first presidential run?
These are all relevant questions that can be debated (and probably answered) without the vitriol that seems to have become a prerequisite to taking on anyone who dares to suggest that a particular candidate has some shortcoming. All that happens when people choose to insult each other back and forth is a lot of hardened feelings, nothing gained, nothing learned. And given that we are all on the same team, there is no reason why we can't reasonably argue the merits of a candidate or a policy position without acting like the other side is a troll straight from LGF.
That being said, I feel like it is required of the blogosphere to closely highlight what the various candidates believe in. If you want a nominee that you can be loud of and proud of, argue for them in an honest fashion for them here. Similarly, argue against particular candidates if you can do it in an honest fashion, backed up by evidence. For example, don't claim that Obama is a bad general election nominee because America won't vote for a black man as president. Make valid criticisms of the candidates now - it can only help the candidate who will become the nominee in several months. It's been the blogosphere that has acted as the watchdog of the Democratic Party over the past few years; there's no reason we should abdicate that responsibility now. It made the grassroots more relevant in the political process, and it made Democrats start acting like Democrats more often. Again, they haven't been perfect, but a Democratic Party dominated by progressive policies and beliefs won't occur overnight.
So please do calm down on the personal rhetoric - but keep the heat on the candidates and the platforms that they are running on. Those of you that do it in a sincere manner are doing a service for all of us.