Support your nominee -- but at what cost?

I am tossing this out here not as a discussion, but something I want folks to think about.

I am an east-coaster, so I will not be around long to address comments.

Where is the limit to your partisanship?

A widely-discussed and highly inflamatory diary hit DKos this weekend.

It has since been deleted. That the content was ugly and disgusting is an almost universally accepted fact. There are a few folks in the "suck it up" camp, who seem to think that anything is fair game as a rhetorical tool, but most don't agree.

Anyway, I want to look at this from a different angle: The Recommenders.

Again, the diary has been quashed, but how partisan must one be to recommend something so disgusting? Yes, the guy who wrote it supports your candidate. La-di-damn-da.

Does this community contain pockets of "ditto-heads" travelling by another name? Exactly what must be contained in a diary before a sense of decency and basic shame keep you from recommending it, assuming it is either (a) written by an acquaintance/friend, (b) written by a "popular" poster or (c) supports your candidate.

To those who rec'd that ugly diary and supported the most vile of comments I say...

Shame on you.

•  Tips for honest questions

  And time to do some mirror-gazing.

  by malharden on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:06:13 PM PDT

  •  thank you mal----you said things that

    badly needed to be said.  

    by dotster on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:40:59 PM PDT

•  John Edwards wouldn't have Rec'd that diary

  Hillary definitely would have.

  Obama might have, but he probably would've disagreed with it.

  by Trix on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:14:56 PM PDT

  •  Nonsense.

    What a ridiculous comment.  Clinton has been coalition building for decades.  I doubt you even believe your ridiculous comment -- or am I missing an invisible snark tag?

    by LarryInNYC on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:23:10 PM PDT

    •  </invisible snark>

      by Trix on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:24:11 PM PDT

      •  < visible apology >

        by LarryInNYC on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:26:01 PM PDT

        •  next time...

          I'll post my comment in blackface so you know I'm joking.

          ;-)

          by Trix on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:26:44 PM PDT

          •  Now you've gone and done it! n/t

            by LarryInNYC on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:29:26 PM PDT

            •  I meant black typeface

              what was your racist mind thinking?

              by Trix on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:31:10 PM PDT

          •  (shudder) n/t

            by malharden on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:30:11 PM PDT

          •  Exhibit #1 for the defense

            the "Should I Use Blackface On My Blog" flowchart

            by Trix on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:30:43 PM PDT

  •  Obviously your girlfriend is not around.

    by Lying eyes on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:49:10 PM PDT

    •  LOL

      No... she's out of town until Tuesday.

      I'll be trying out some new material tonight and tomorrow.

      ;-)

      by Trix on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:50:45 PM PDT

•  Diaries about diaries is one thing

  But now it's diaries about people who Rec diaries???

  by dannyinla on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:43:20 PM PDT

  •  Some people have

    too much time on their hands.

    by John Poet on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:36:57 PM PDT

    •  Feel free...

      ...to skip this diary if you do not find it valuable.

      Yeah, gee I think discussing the perpetuation of racist imagery warrants multiple discussions. Wow, what a wrongheaded fool I must be.

      Perhaps we should just sweep such discussions under the rug, so we can maintain our wonderfully harmonious society, where racism is but a thing of the past....

      </sn>

      by malharden on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 09:00:08 AM PDT

•  Did you ever ride the bus with that guy? <g>

  by ExStr8 on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:56:34 PM PDT

•  OK. What are we talking about here?

  by davybaby on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:00:58 PM PDT

•  According to the FAQ

  reccing 9/11 conspiracy diaries will get you banned.  Reccing racist diaries has no consequences.  Apparently this site cares more about banning tinfoil hat wearing kooks than white hood wearing racists.  I found the diary in question to be the definition of offensive.  The fact that the diarist and his supporters can still post here is unforgivable.    

  by clonecone on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:34:22 PM PDT

  •  Just for the record, I think

    much of the FAQ is FULL OF SHIT, and worthy of being ignored.

    by John Poet on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:38:00 PM PDT

    •  Just for the record,

      you may have a point, but ignoring it will get you a quick ride to the front door.  What you think, or I think, or Sandy the Amazing Contortionist Stripper thinks, is really irrelevant.  Kos has the big stone tablets.

      by Grannus on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:59:58 PM PDT

•  You're only asking half of what needs to be asked

  That diary was posted because waaaaaaaaaaaay too many Obama supporters refused to acknowledge how offensive a lot of gay people find Obama's tour with McCurkle (or whatever his name is). As an Obama supporter, one may not agree with their assessment, but in a community like this, one needs to respect what it is they're hearing. And I didn't see that happening.

  So the rest of the question is - will you support your candidate if he engages in what a minority group genuinely and passionately feels is exploitive and discriminating behavior? At what point do you draw the line?

  And don't even think for a second of accusing me of supporting the diary. I didn't. But that doesn't mean that the Obama supporters didn't participate in a really ugly discussion, and dismiss a lot of genuine concerns. That's how that diary happened.

  by lorelynn on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:57:58 PM PDT

  •  Far too simplistic

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Take a look at the response my comment engendered.

    I don't know a single Obama supporter who isn't absolutely sick that this thing caused pain in the LBGT community.  Nobody argues that fact and none of us is happy about it. But anything short of all out condemnation of a very good man seems to enrage some here.

    Time to stop beating a dead horse.  There are more productive things to worry about.

    by snout on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:31:05 PM PDT

    •  Thank you for making my point so beautifully.

      According to you, it's better to support a candidate who exploits the homophobic tendencies of a group of supporters whose vote he'd like, than to elect a woman who votes with the progressive wing of the Democratic party over 90% of the time.

      If you're wondering why the responses you received were hateful, that's why.

      by lorelynn on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:44:30 PM PDT

      •  I don't think Obama exploited anything

        I think he made a vetting mistake.

        by snout on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:01:12 PM PDT

        •  The guy performed for Bush in 2004 and 2000.

          He was credited with upping Bush's vote tally among African American evangelicals and no one seriously believes that every professional on Obama's campaign didn't know exactly who McClurkin was. Besides, Obama has given conflicting explanations  himself.

          This is the tone deafness that provoked the outrage and the diary in question. If it was a matter of vetting, the appearance should have been canceled. It wasn't canceled. The only conclusion is that it's dog whistle politics and Obama wants the anti-gay vote.

          What Obama did was shameful and sleazy. How his supporters responded made the situation a lot worse than it was. Hence, my question.

          by lorelynn on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:13:48 PM PDT

          •  The guy also performed for Clinton in 1992

            Who knows what the Obama people knew?  It is possible they didn't think it would be an issue.  Were it not for Avarosis getting hysterical on the issue, nobody would have ever given it any thought.

            Most folks simply think of the guy as a gospel singer.

            I don't think you ought to go around accusing anyone else of issue expolitation.  You are clearly trying to exploait this one fo ryour candidate.  Shamelessly so.

            by snout on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:19:59 AM PDT

            •  I agree. Lorelynn come on....

              That Obama supporters were or were not "mean" to either Edwards supporters or the LGBT community is irrelevant to whether one individual with recommend (officially placing his/her stamp of approval) on a diary full of ugly racist images and writing style.

              If your son picks on my son, do I get to ridicule and offend your entire family? I know the analogy is not perfect but I just think you're trying too hard to excuse 'recommending' a racist diary because the diarist was offended by a specific candidate's action or lack of pro-action.

              by malharden on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 08:55:57 AM PDT

•  Where do I begin?

  As a 43 yr old white male who's mother recieved death threats for sending her children to public schools. After my brother and I were the only white children in those schools for two yrs.

  Having a sister who is a lesbian, a stepmother who is african-american, a sister-in-law who was my brother-in-law when I got married.

  Being a supporter of a presidential candidate who is a minority in the race because he is a white southern male.

  I am pretty much familiar with the whole mess that has been going on of late. I have specifically stayed out of it, on purpose. It is a disgusting fight from all sides, and I have no way of defending any of the arguments being made. Yet there is one thing that I do know, and something that will not change. It is not up to me to make decisions about others access, and I am glad for that as it would be something I would have problems with, and it is entirely up to Kos to make this decision. But I do remember one of the things we profess on this site, that becomes a serious point to consider.

  Amendment I

  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

  by LaEscapee on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:08:21 PM PDT

  •  The relevant part of that

    is "Congress shall make no law." The federal government, and by extension the states and local governments, don't get to interfere with those freedoms. But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility for the social consequences of your speech - we're free to say hateful and inappropriate things if we like, and we're also free to express our disapproval of hateful and inappropriate things said by others.

    by kyril on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:41:01 AM PDT

    •  There is the letter of the law

      and the spirit of the law.

      The spririt of the law says to me that you have
      every right to say whatever you want.

      But you also agree to take the repurcussions of it.

      That if you use hateful speech, you will be shunned, and ignored, and marginalized as not being relevant to the discussion.  But I think we are big people and can see the hateful speech, and it can be hidden appropriately if it is obscene.

      by rick on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:20:26 AM PDT

•  Several of the recommenders were single-issue gay

  DKos members, rather than Obama-detractors from other camps.

  On every divisive issue we have some DKos members who let a fixation of single-issue intensity cloud what should be their better judgment.

  As a gay DKos member who was disgusted by that diary, I recognized by name some of Harvey Milk's supporters.

  So it was not a case of "support your nominee" that prompted some of the Recommends.

  by Torta on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:04:01 AM PDT