Skip to main content

What the fuck is going on around here. This is a site I used to be proud of. It's a site that I told every Democrat I knew about. It was a site where extremely bright people could come and work towar getting rid of the GOP and develop great ideas to make our country better.

No more. I don't tell people to check out the site because I am embarrassed by the people here. It has become Freerepublic, Redstate and Instapundit rolled into one. People will say the most vile things about candidates they oppose and then a bunch of their like minded haters will jump right in.

Even people who have been here forever, who have shown that they are rational and willing to fight the GOP any way they can have been taken over.

I have dedicated myself to electing democrats. I have dedicated myself to destroyng the GOP message machine. I left a high paying job to go back to school in hopes of working in radio to counter the lies heard every day on talk radio.

And yet those same lies are being spread here.

Obama isn't the enemy. Hillary isn't the enemy. Neither are Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd... Is Hillary the best choice for President? Not by a long shot IMO. Obama? More than Hillary but maybe not the best.

But one thing is for damn sure. Each and every one of our candidates is miles and miles better than the best GOP candidate, whoever that may be.

The enemy is the GOP and their well oiled message machine. That is who we should fight. Not use their lies to further our chosen candidates chances.

Then we truely are no better than our enemy. We are our enemy.

Originally posted to Mike S on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:10 PM PST.

Poll

Is there any integrity eft at dKos?

53%63 votes
24%29 votes
9%11 votes
11%14 votes

| 117 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't know how many people (20+ / 0-)

    here are trolls like our old friend popcorn....tree but I'm not sure he would matter. Plenty of the original Kossacks have done exactly what he did.

    It's enough to make me sick.

    I don't have a candidate yet but if forced to choose today it would go Dodd, Richardson, Obama, Biden or Edwards, Clinton, then a write in for Mike S.

    by Mike S on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:12:08 PM PST

  •  You've been behaving badly (5+ / 0-)

    and rudely. You are your own worst enemy, Mike and that's a sad fact.

    "...the Edwards folks do not endorse Brittany's crotch."

    by Pager on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:12:41 PM PST

    •  This is something I fiund funny. (5+ / 0-)

      It's my behaviour that has you upset. But when it comes to the vile attacks too many sirt silently by.

      I don't have a candidate yet but if forced to choose today it would go Dodd, Richardson, Obama, Biden or Edwards, Clinton, then a write in for Mike S.

      by Mike S on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:14:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  When are you going to apologize for this?: (11+ / 0-)

        You sad fuckimng piece of shit.  . . .

        You have ZERO integrity and quite frankly make me fucking sick.

        You help the GOP more than Novak ever could.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:15:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  When people like you appologise (5+ / 0-)

          for helping these slime merchants spew their filth.

          I don't have a candidate yet but if forced to choose today it would go Dodd, Richardson, Obama, Biden or Edwards, Clinton, then a write in for Mike S.

          by Mike S on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:20:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, I suggest you take a break from (5+ / 0-)

            this site if you can't behave yourself and maintain a shred of decency.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:21:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  heh (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RonK Seattle, cpresley

              Even people who have been here forever, who have shown that they are rational and willing to fight the GOP any way they can have been taken over

              You were one of the people I had in mind here.

              I don't have a candidate yet but if forced to choose today it would go Dodd, Richardson, Obama, Biden or Edwards, Clinton, then a write in for Mike S.

              by Mike S on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:25:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You've been taken over (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Salo, Pager, Tempus Figits, wmacdona66

                by your own personal demon of hate and anger.

                It's only going to get worse during primary season.

                The Intertubes is a vast area--you can find somewhere to play where you don't feel compelled to go Don Imus on people.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:27:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Provide an example then. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Geekesque, wmacdona66

                Show us what you think he has posted that is in any shape or form similar to a GOP attack meme.

                A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                by Tempus Figits on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:42:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Obama's drug problem. (0+ / 0-)

                  Bill saying that Hillary's opponents are "swiftboating" her.

                  Novaks article.

                  Obama had an affair.

                  I can go on and on.

                  I don't have a candidate yet but if forced to choose today it would go Dodd, Richardson, Obama, Biden or Edwards, Clinton, then a write in for Mike S.

                  by Mike S on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:49:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ok.... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mistersite

                    Those are subjects that have been brought up.  Some more than others, but they in themselves are not examples of anything except subjects you don't like being discussed.

                    I haven't seen any post on "Obama's drug problem", I saw Berkeley Vox, a one of the worst Hillary trolls, post about a statement where Obama talked about using drugs when he was a kid.  It got TR'd and no one really tried to defend it.  The system worked.

                    Bill Clinton did imply that Hillary's was getting swiftboated by the other Democratic Candidates.  Discussion about it is not wrong.  Some people went to far, but that is the nature of blogs and political discussions in general.

                    Novak's article needed to be addressed by Obama.  To have done otherwise would have rightfully opened him up to criticism of not being able to handle other true swiftboat attacks (as opposed to what Bill alluded to.)  It was also incumbent upon Hillary to respond both to it and to Obama's call.  I disagree vehemently with how she did so, but again it was hardly done in a way that opened anyone up to a "Republican Attack."  

                    Again, such comments are usually TR'ed by all sides.  I do believe that the Hillary people are less genuine and more inclined to throw out similar attacks but it is so far from the norm that I have not heard or seen that one.

                    Yet again, you didn't post examples of diaries or posts over the pale, just subjects you personally feel are.  Many will disagree with you that they are or that they are done with any frequency except by trolls and quickly quashed when thrown up.

                    A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                    by Tempus Figits on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:07:23 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Obama's drug problem (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      cpresley, o really

                      Where todays kerfuffle started..

                      As far as the Novak article, I don't have a problem with Obama's response. I do have a problem with the way people here jumped on it as if it was gospel truth.

                      Digby has been making the point all week about how things get put in the narrative and then become CW. One of the wyas that happens is because we don't fight it right off the bat. Instead too many use it for their own purposes. Hence, "Gore said he invented the internet."

                      I don't have a candidate yet but if forced to choose today it would go Dodd, Richardson, Obama, Biden or Edwards, Clinton, then a write in for Mike S.

                      by Mike S on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:15:37 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Then Geekesque is right. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        wmacdona66

                        You need to take a break.  

                        The diary you linked to was a troll diary, they happen every day.  Most are ignored, a few get people responding, usually to follow a thread and a few find some people that actually agree with them.  It is the price to pay for having a community with open rules about entry.

                        Yes, someone posted a diary and ran away.  Leaving a few that read it posting various light insults towards their backside.  I have done similar as well, to vent some steam or because it truly did offend me in a way that I wanted to personally speak out.  However, I don't think that is what set you off.

                        It is what happened further down where you had a problem with icebergslim venting off some steam.  Quite honestly, desperation has been infecting the Hillary campaign and her supporters.  Sometimes our baser selves enjoy taunting a bit and sometimes, as is icebergslim's case I suspect, the desperation can create some anger in others which begets, in your case, more anger.  

                        As far as trespasses go, it was an extremely minor transgression.  Simply calling out someone's naked attack as a sign of desperation is hardly major, even in the manner she did.  For some reason, I suspect already primed from that diary itself, you were not in the mood for any of it and unleashed yourself.  

                        In doing so, you trespassed against others far more than anyone but the diarist did in the entire diary.  For that, you were TR'ed.  Yet that made you more angry and you got worse.  Which got you TR'ed even more.  All of which beget this diary.  Fairly ill conceived, I'm sorry to say, in its creation and support.

                        There have been attacks upon candidates that have gone to far.  Usually those aren't very common and are from isolated individuals, some of whom do it much more frequently than is good.  There are some that are tolerated by the other supporters of the candidate than they should be.  For me personally, I think Hillary supporters are the worst offenders of this.  But in all, decorum is mostly maintained.

                        I realize that you feel we should get along better, but that is rarely the case in a group this large.  Personalities clash and sometimes those personalities have no interest in limiting the damage.  All it takes is one of the two to decide that is the case.

                        Icebergslim is an in your face poster.  That is obviously not the style you work well with if you disagree with her.  If she offends you so much, ignore her.  However, don't expect others to disavow themselves of her simply because she offended you.  For most of us, we don't have a problem with what she posted.  For many, it is what we think is happening on the Hillary camp as well.  And as far as ways of stating it, her post was quite mild.

                        After you step away for a while, take a day or so to calm down.  You will return and look at the post and see that it wasn't nearly as bad as you thought and definitely didn't deserve the response you gave and in doing so provoked her.  Not the other way around.

                        A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                        by Tempus Figits on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:53:28 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

          •  bollocks. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tempus Figits

            We are in a near vacuum.

            I have only one eye, I have a right to be blind sometimes... I really do not see the signal!

            by Salo on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:30:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I'm glad you are amused. (6+ / 0-)

        I've been digging plenty of folks out of vile attacks. Maybe you were just too busy being an asshole to notice.

        "...the Edwards folks do not endorse Brittany's crotch."

        by Pager on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:19:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Speaking of vile things, when are (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tempus Figits, Rex Manning

    you going to apologize for your (justifiably) hidden comments?

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:13:17 PM PST

  •  primaries (10+ / 0-)

    every primary, people attack candidates.

    some people have fun debating.

    some people think it's all too heated.

    some people don't really care one way or the other.

    some people have very nuanced positions.

    Then, after the primary, life goes on.

    In my opinion, we're all better off when we don't stifle debate with arbitrary calls for calm. It's politics! Let there be heated argument! And then let us all work for the nominee after the primary is over!

    The end.

  •  we aren't supposed to add "purity troll" tags (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque, Tempus Figits, Rex Manning

    Too bad, that.

    (Or is it a "concern troll"?)

    The way to win is not to move to the right wing; the way to win is to move to the right policy. -- Nameless Soldier

    by N in Seattle on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:16:26 PM PST

    •  Excuse me? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RonK Seattle, cpresley

      I have been consistant since pre-scoop. But you illustrate my point perfectly here.

      I don't have a candidate yet but if forced to choose today it would go Dodd, Richardson, Obama, Biden or Edwards, Clinton, then a write in for Mike S.

      by Mike S on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:19:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  uh huh (4+ / 0-)

        This "diary" is textbook purity/concern trollery.

        That you suggest that calling you on it as somehow tantamount to a "my candidate's great and yours is shit" comment demonstrates how flawed your holier-than-thou perceptions are.

        Sheesh, it was like this in the run-up to 2002, 2004, even 2006.

        The way to win is not to move to the right wing; the way to win is to move to the right policy. -- Nameless Soldier

        by N in Seattle on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:25:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That you would call my (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TracieLynn, cpresley

          call to stop helping the GOP spread lies so someone's chosen candidate gets an advantage being a "concern troll" says way way more about you than me.

          I don't have a candidate yet but if forced to choose today it would go Dodd, Richardson, Obama, Biden or Edwards, Clinton, then a write in for Mike S.

          by Mike S on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:28:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What GOP lies? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            N in Seattle, wmacdona66

            You make that claim but provide no examples to even guide readers of what it is that you are complaining about.  It, in essence, becomes a Rosarch Test.  People hang sins that they believe others have committed.  

            Until recently, I would have and have disagreed nearly completely about complaints of "Republican Talking Points."  Sure there were a couple of people that would troll about, but the vast majority were not any statements I would expect to ever come from a Republican.  Then Hillary started saying that the top 6% of wage earners are the middle class.  That is the closest I have seen to a common RTP.

            A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

            by Tempus Figits on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:39:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  In Icebergs diary (0+ / 0-)

              about the Clinton plant she said that Hillary claimed that they all do it. Even whn she was shown that Hillary never said it, a blogger for the LA Times did, she continued to say she did.

              Just one in a long line.

              But it doesn't matter, right?

              I don't have a candidate yet but if forced to choose today it would go Dodd, Richardson, Obama, Biden or Edwards, Clinton, then a write in for Mike S.

              by Mike S on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 08:16:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  I Tend See Something Different Then You Do (8+ / 0-)

    I actively stay away from posts that are clearly "either you like who I like" or you a "troll and/or rightwing gas bag." I stay away from them, and there are more then a few of them around, like the plague.

    But I do hear what you are saying. I keep thinking to myself, as we get closer to Iowa it can't get any worse ... but of course it does. I often just want to say "can't we all get along."

    I mean at some level what are these people thinking. If I plan to vote for X, but you think Y is better do they really think attacking me and who I support is going to move me over to their thinking? Of course it won't. IMHO many people here are actually HURTING those they support and don't even realize it.

    Let us not forget New Orleans. Visit Project Katrina.

    by webranding on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:17:55 PM PST

  •  Thanks, Barack, for going negative... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emsprater, cpresley

    ...thanks a lot.

    And, much as I thank Obama here:

    Thanks, Barack

    ...I also want to thank his supporters on Kos for being so civil, above-board and intellectually honest.

  •  Agree. It's becoming very boring. (7+ / 0-)

    I'm a Clintonite supporter and I understand other people support other candidates. There are often some good, well reasoned pieces in support of a candidate and when I do diaries I try to provide some logical underpinning for any conclusions. And it's downhill from there. I don't mind folks throwing in debunking jokes about my candidate I do it myself. What invalidates the whole process is the mindless hip shooting. Claims without any foundation. The broadcasting of Repug meme's with a totally reckless disregard for the truth. Bizarre. I no longer mention this site to others because unfortunately it all to often bears more than a passing resemblance to the way it's described by right wing nut cases like Limbaugh.

  •  Like we'll ever beat the GOP... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, Tempus Figits, wmacdona66

    ...by being whiney little mama's boys.  "Oh!  Gasp!  You're sooooooo mean!  Boo hoo!"  Give me a break!

    •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

      with you but, you gotta admit that it's worked for Republicans for many years.

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - 9th Amendment

      by TracieLynn on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:30:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  All of you, report to detention! (4+ / 0-)

    This thread feels just like middle school  

  •  You are an idiot! (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Tempus Figits
    Hidden by:
    RonK Seattle

    And you should leave whatever it is you are doing and go back to whatever worthless job you left.

    If we don't argue, how do we decide which candidate to choose?  

    Oh, I know, the one with the most money!  Or the one with the most name recognition!  Or the one that the party eldars annoint!

    Sorry, Bud, but that ain't the way it works any more!  

    If we don't put our own candidates through this trial by fire, then we can NEVER win again.  We had two reasonable candidates and got beat by the dumbest dude to ever be Prez.  Because we didn't vet them ourselves.

    Never again!

    If you can't stand the fight, then go wait in the corner until we are done and then we will tell you who to vote for.

    Have a nice day!

    God, sometimes you just don't come through... --T. Amos

    by Kaos237 on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:43:12 PM PST

    •  You kiss your dog with that mouth? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tabbycat in tenn, davybaby

      what kind of fucking way is that to talk to anybody!!??

      "They want to shut me up."

      by PhillyGal on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:47:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How very uncivil of you. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emsprater, cpresley, o really

      Expect the troll ratings to commence.

      I don't have a candidate yet but if forced to choose today it would go Dodd, Richardson, Obama, Biden or Edwards, Clinton, then a write in for Mike S.

      by Mike S on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:48:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  For what? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wmacdona66

        Calling you an idiot after you called him one?  For having the opinion that lively and sometimes heated discussions are not necessarily a bad thing?  As I mentioned above, your diary is a Rosarch Test.

        A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

        by Tempus Figits on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:22:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I called him one? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Partially Impartial, cpresley

          Calling you an idiot after you called him one

          Show me please.

          People complained about my civility. Of all of them only mistersite had the consistancy to call it out.

          You actually recced it.

          I don't have a candidate yet but if forced to choose today it would go Dodd, Richardson, Obama, Biden or Edwards, Clinton, then a write in for Mike S.

          by Mike S on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:28:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Did he use vulgarity? (0+ / 0-)
            Yes, he called you an idiot.  He also supported his thought process, again without using vulgarity.  

            And yes, you did.  Not directly but in how you framed your argument above.

            I recced it because I agree with the basic premise of his post.  Holding back how you feel because someone else might use it against both of you is a poor reason.  It is an argument that I reject thoroughly.

            I honestly believe that Hillary is the best chance that Republicans have of winning the election outside of nominating Kucinich

            A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

            by Tempus Figits on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:11:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  That's not appropriate. (6+ / 0-)

      I'd recommend being a little more civil.  While our friend Mike S (the pot) here does seem to have a nasty habit of calling the kettle black, there is a point in all this.  Things are getting rather heated, and we all need to be a bit nicer and let our adult brains prevail.

      •  Can you point ourt (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cpresley

        where I used a GOP frame to hurt a Democratic candidate?

        I don't have a candidate yet but if forced to choose today it would go Dodd, Richardson, Obama, Biden or Edwards, Clinton, then a write in for Mike S.

        by Mike S on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:20:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  GOP frame? Broadly, no. (0+ / 0-)

          But given your list of "GOP frames" above (in your conversation with Tempus Figits), I think you're confusing "GOP frames" with (a) civil discussion about real points of contention in the political arena as it stands today, and (b) some garden-variety trolling.

          Bill Clinton really did use the term "swift-boating" in relation to Obama's and Edwards's discussions of the differences between them and Hillary.  That this is discussed is not adoption of a right-wing frame; it's a discussion of what happened.

          Novak really did publish that column, and whether or not the response was appropriate or adequate, Obama had to respond to it, and Hillary had to respond to Obama.  Because it is being discussed by the campaigns, it isn't adoption of a GOP frame to talk about (or argue about!) how that panned out; when the campaigns got involved in it, it became a legitimate bone of contention.

          The Obama on drugs thing?  Yeah, that's just garden-variety trolling, and the diarist there was told that in no uncertain terms - by his tip-jar and other comments of his being hidden, for one thing, and by the near-unanimous chorus of denunciation even from his fellow Hillary supporters, for another.

          The fact, though, is that there are legitimate differences between the two front-runners, and some of those facts are about the way they speak, the answers they give, the way their support and supporters work, etc.  We can and should discuss these things.  There are differences, and we can and should discuss those.  And if there is a pattern of candidates using tactics we find troubling or distasteful, we can and should be honest about that.  Anything less would be unbecoming of a truly democratic primary process.

          I can understand your frustration, though - things are getting heated around here.  But I think your your hateful diatribes (the one I noticed in particular was against icebergslim) have been an inappropriate response to that frustration.

          •  When someone calls CNN (5+ / 0-)

            The Clinton News Network they are using a GOP frame.

            Bill talked about the way the GOP uses lies to swiftboat. He specifically said it in reference to Hillary's support, at least temporary, of the drivers licenses. When he said that he saw "silly season" again he was talking about the "raise your hand" moment of that debate.

            Legitimate differences should be discussed. They should be discussed honestly.

            Icerberg and I have a history. Maybe I went off the rails but she has accused me of lying too many times. She knows I don't back Hillary, see my sig, but when I defend her that's what she says.

            The net in general and dKos in particular are our best shot at shooting down the GOP spin and the media's continuation of them. But every time somebody here and elsewhere uses them they become more entrenched.

            Ask someone who isn't politically aware if Gore said he "invented the internet." Most will say yes just like Tweety did the other night.

            That is what happens when we don't all make a conserted effort to stop all GOP spin in it's tracks.

            I don't have a candidate yet but if forced to choose today it would go Dodd, Richardson, Obama, Biden or Edwards, Clinton, then a write in for Mike S.

            by Mike S on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:47:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I disagree with you there. (0+ / 0-)

              That phrase was used in a discussion of the way in which CNN's coverage of the debate, and the way they structured the debate itself, was slanted to Clinton.  It was used in exactly the opposite way that the right-wing used it back in the day (and I remember that well, I was a teenager and my dad was, and still is, a Limbaugh listener) - where the right-wing uses it as an argument that CNN is liberal and has a liberal slant, those who use it to criticize CNN's debate coverage (a valid site of criticism, given the control they wielded over the debate) are implying that CNN is run by corporate/hegemonic interests that want Hillary Clinton to be our nominee (or, perhaps, want the narrative of her "comeback" to get ratings).  The words might be the same, but the argument is different.  I don't think that the words make it an automatic right-wing frame.

              I don't know anything about your history with icebergslim.  To be honest, I don't really want to know.  But what you posted against her earlier today was, in my opinion, completely over any line.  Perhaps you two could iron out your differences privately over email; peace is always better than war.  But to lash out at her, with very little apparent provocation in the thread as I saw it, was inappropriate.  Perhaps she was wrong to accuse you of being a Clinton supporter, but that certainly doesn't justify the hate you displayed in response.

              I do agree that we need to combat lies where we see them, and set the record straight where we can.  But we can do this with cool heads, with sound reasoning, and without personal insults.  If we Democrats aren't up to that challenge, then who is?  I'll make an effort to be more civil; I ask that you do too.

              •  The diary. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                The Other Steve, o really

                When you own the media, call in favors, plant questions, what else can you conclude?

                icebergslim's diary :: ::
                CNN was looked at as the real fair and balanced network.

                After this debate, not so, any longer.

                For Wolf Blizter to not give Obama and Edwards a chance for follow up questions, and give Clinton all the time in the world, what would you call it?

                Then planted questions.  Again?

                And of course, first hand account of what really happened in Las Vegas, what do you come away with?

                Questions of how that debate was handled.  How CNN and moderator let those boos go, like business as usual.  And the boos were only directed to Edwards and Obama.

                And the post debate debacle.

                CNN have lowered their credentials to those of Fox News.

                Meaning?  Fake, unfactual, bogus, lousy, critique, at the expense of six candidates to protect and keep Hillary Clinton, the "front runner".

                Now as far as how the words are used and whether they make a difference? You only need to read LTE's in major papers to see exactly how the words get used and become CW. Trust me, it's something I have spent a great deal of time fighting.

                Otherwise I wouldn't get so furious when people use them.

                I don't have a candidate yet but if forced to choose today it would go Dodd, Richardson, Obama, Biden or Edwards, Clinton, then a write in for Mike S.

                by Mike S on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:08:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Agree on all counts, and more. (5+ / 0-)

              Mike S has always been a champion of integrity - something I suspect is not in most posters conceptual vocabularies.

              icebergslim has always (in a much shorter career) been a deliberate liar, from the first post forward. She's probably proud of that. There are posters who consider this a virtue: "All's fair in love and war, and this is war".

              I hear several posters spouting excuses and rationalizations that lead me to believe you really believe the stuff you spout -- and defend.

              Well, of course most of you do -- just as "of course" goldberry's 11-year-old daughter doesn't realize what a good mother she has. It's not natural to do otherwise.

              It's not natural to maintain perspective on speculative assertions pro or con once you've become attached to a candidate. But if integrity means anything to you, you already know this ... you struggle against this moral death-wish,  and you take pains to test the alternatives before you jump to any conclusion that plays to neatly for the side you're on.

              The one area where I would temper my agreement is in comparison to past cycles. It was bad here last time around. (Mike knows more than he can tell about how bad it really was.)

              But it's worse now, and for less at stake, and for no good reason, and there's never been less discussion of things that are really in play, and I can't blame him for being pissed off.

              Should anyone with a residual sense of standards just leave? Is that a "solution"?

              We must defeat them over there, or they'll follow us home ... hide under our beds ... and grab us by the ankles when we get up to pee.

              by RonK Seattle on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:44:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  This wouldn't be happening if Vilsack (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mike S, Geekesque

    had stayed in the race! .... ;)

    err, but seriously, can't say I detect any appreciable difference from the '03/'04 primary flame wars, but that's me!

    "They want to shut me up."

    by PhillyGal on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:46:01 PM PST

    •  03/04 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhillyGal

      I remember most of the site being big into Dean, while Kerry (seen as the main establishment candidate) got a lot of what Clinton is getting now. I seem to recall some heat emanating from the Edwards supporters, maybe partly out of frustration at the size of the Dean team.

      There may have been less flat-out contention, though, as the site (to my then-unaffiliated eyes) did have a favored candidate, if only by a bit. Things are more even between the three front runners this time, and though Clinton lags in support here, it still seems she has more than Kerry did.

      Memories can be elusive things, but that's how I recall it.

  •  Why all the bad feelings. I can't believe that (0+ / 0-)

    anyone thinks their swaying public opinion by attacking someone else.  That's what's so bad about primary coverage, too much fluff and so little substance.

    "I agree Sir, but only up to a point"

    by lordcopper on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:57:07 PM PST

  •  I made my choice it's for change--OBAMA (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wmacdona66, Unseen majority

    "I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change." -- Texas Gov. George W. Bush, 5/22/98

    by army193 on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:58:37 PM PST

  •  Just don't care... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moiv, vcmvo2, cpresley, o really

    ...about the Primary Race Soap Opera.  Just don't care.  Just don't.  

    It makes a travesty out of the election process and a tragedy out of the democratic process if it's all about snotty insults towards those who don't adore your primary candidate of choice.  

    Is this American Idol at the Polls or is it democracy at work?  

    Clue me in here.  I want elected officials who I can trust to do what they say they will do.  All I need is an honest 200-300 word position statement.  I will study them all and make up my mind.  Who needs all this interminable gossip, slander and drama? Who needs it?

    Even KO has succumbed.  The writer's strike has eclipsed Jon and Stephen.

    Film classics, anyone?

  •  Doesn't this start with the candidates? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zed, emsprater, o really

    Why aren't they spending all their time telling how they can beat the Republicans, instead of constantly zinging each other?  I want to know why Obama/Clinton/Edwards/etc thinks he/she is better equipped to beat whoever the Republicans nominate.

    •  Actually that is almost all they are talking abou (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mike S

      t.  When you're in Iowa catching the actual speeches and q and a you wouldn't know the battle is about zingers much at all.  In a one hour speech with lots of interesting stuff and good turns of phrase you might even miss the one line all the media outlets will focus on to show how someone zinged someone and gosh what's his response gonna be.  It's crap and the candidates are doing far less of it during the actual retail politics than anyone in the rest of the country could realize.

      Every possible universe exists

      by Sun dog on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:18:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's still about beating the GOP (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mike S

    If we get the right candidate and win the White House, it can change a lot of battles right there.  Half the crap we've all spent our time fighting against for the past seven years could have been avoided if we'd sent Bush back to Crawford in 2000.  There will always be battles, but getting someone halfway decent into the Executive goes a long way to winning a few of them.  

    It's the primaries.  It will be over in a few months.  We have an obligation to fight it out now.  

    Not to say that dumb arguments aren't dumb.  But we can't let slack-jawed dupes talking about how Hillary is a shedevil distract us from simply questioning whether or not she should be our nominee.  Or anyone else.  Let's not get too sensitive about it.  It's fairly insular here on dk and a nomination should be a hard fought family squabble.  

    Every possible universe exists

    by Sun dog on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:14:21 PM PST

  •  Too True, (5+ / 0-)

    I find myself in the awkward position of defending Hillary Clinton even though I'm not sure I could vote for her (not that NY matters, our primary is sometime in 2009) because so many people here are acting like GOP thugs. When Rudy gets in, and life takes a turn for the worse (you didn't know it COULD get worse!) you'll all be begging for someone, anyone slightly less insane and fascistic than him...the lesser of two evils is LESS EVIL...duh, it's a no brainer...but then again, so am I you know who you are.

    --------
    Why can't we all get along? Because some of us are idiots (nudge, nudge).

    by PBJ Diddy on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:28:36 PM PST

  •  This place just isn't the same, man. (6+ / 0-)

    Kos once referred to this place as being like a bar or a saloon, and that stuck in my mind because I own a nightclub.  

    You know those little hidden bars or clubs that people only know about by word of mouth, because they are clued into those types of places?  You know - those places with the really cool vibes and the people who will be friendly, even though they don't know you. There aren't any yahoos hanging out at those places.  No frat dudes grabbing girls asses, no socialites showing off thier new threads, just people hanging.

    The regulars are real proud of their little secret spot, and one day some reporter notices the place and puts a little blurb in the paper about it.  The regulars are excited at first - "wow look at us we're in the paper!".  And after that a few new people come in - and the regulars welcome them.  

    Then the place "catches on".  More things are written about how cool it is, and more people come.  Well, it doesn't take long before the regulars start to notice things are changing.  Now their favorite table is always full of douchebags and there are line for the bathroom all the time.  The new people don't follow the norms and they don't treat the staff all that nicely.

    After a short time, the regulars move on to someplace else.  And the new people remake that cool little underground spot into a different kind of bar.  The owner is happy because he is raking it in, but you know the place just isn't the same.

    It happens with most of the cool little hip spots once they get discovered, and usually there is nothing you can do to stop it.  So you either learn to get along with the new people - even the ones who are douchebags or you find yourself a new place to hang out.

    •  sums it up quite nicely (6+ / 0-)

      when I see Kossacks quoting Freeper lingo like "Clinton News Network" and citing Drudge, Fox and Politico, I know the old days are gone for good.

      Quite honestly, I'm only hanging around to see if it changes after the Edwards third-party zealots drop off after he inevitably flames out.

      •  Do you like (0+ / 0-)

        The Clinton News Network

        Better than Murdoch's Fox

        Tell the truth Jim

        Anybody but Hillary the Hawk
        Senator DoubleTalk and the Lying Monkey Squadron

        by wmacdona66 on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:20:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes... I was told that after the Primaries (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        o really

        all bloggers come together and support the one candidate who gets the nom

        I hope it will be so but somehow I doubt that it will happen and plan to hang around to find out if that is really the case

        I mean, how can the Clinton haters who spew all that nastiness carry on the way they do and then support her should she be the one to win this?

        Where is the integrity in all of this? Now. Then?

    •  I'm one of those people who arrived lately... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RonK Seattle, TracieLynn, FelisRufus

      and I apologize for crowding your 'cool little hip spot' as you put it.  New people bring new shit and sometimes it's literally, shit.  

      I think what you describe eventually happens to anything cool.  Sites, forums, coffee shops, clubs.  I don't know.  Maybe there is still a cool spot here for those that have been here awhile.      

      Maybe these people don't know they are pissing in your backyard.  

      Felt like replying to this because you wrote about as close to a truth as you can get regarding group dynamics.  Was going to say, everybody comes here with the best intentions but that's not true.  Or something  like 'they mean well'.  

      In the end, you or I can only account for ourselves and what we do, here, is on our power.  Let the ne'er do wells be damned.  

      Bah! Clintobaward will devour all other candidates!

      by o really on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:23:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Part of it is the marketing model (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FelisRufus

      You want ad revenue? You need traffic. You want traffic? A Hot Talk format will get you traffic. You want Hot Talk? You let the gangs rip and run.

      We must defeat them over there, or they'll follow us home ... hide under our beds ... and grab us by the ankles when we get up to pee.

      by RonK Seattle on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:53:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. There is a lot of truth to that (0+ / 0-)

        I used to be a member of a sports site that started v. small in the late 90s and grew to be the most popular and largest of its kind w. thousands of posters within two  years (when I left).

        It started out to be a lot of fun, a friendly small "free" community site w. v. original posters who loved the sport and had a great sense of humor and more or less people respected each other. But the webmaster def. encouraged the Hot Talk format and the traffic grew v. fast. Soon sports officials and "under cover" sports celebs were joining the mix.

        Today ads galore and people must pay if they want to join that site.

        But that was sports, this is serious business IMO - since "politics" affects all our lives

        but turns out it is exactly the same thing on the net

        •  P.S. I forgot to point out that once the (0+ / 0-)

          sports community was torn apart the place turned into a zoo. The supporters of various athletes fought each other just like the posters do here at dkos.

          You should have been there during the World Championships or the Olympic Games. Posters went completely overboard defending fav. athlete's loss and  victory and trashing the rivals just for the heck of it. And lots of net friendships were destroyed. Reminds me v. much of what is going on here with the upcoming pres. election.

          •  That is the natural ecological climax ... (0+ / 0-)

            ... of most internet forums, regardless of size or subject.

            The exceptions are probably worth looking for and examining closely, to see what we might learn.

            We must defeat them over there, or they'll follow us home ... hide under our beds ... and grab us by the ankles when we get up to pee.

            by RonK Seattle on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 10:28:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If the biology metaphor holds (0+ / 0-)

              the initial user base will move on as the pioneer species never survive the succesion process. They make the conditions favorable for newcomers but in doing so seal their own fate.

              Climax community will not be pretty, a site controlled by established and establishment individuals with very strong links to each other. Very stable next to impossible to dislodge.

              Climax communities are ultra stable by definition.

               

              The end game is the presidency not the nomination

              by stevej on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:08:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  when everything is said and done (0+ / 0-)

              there is only one person who rules the show: the webmistress/webmaster of the site

              who decides at the beginning and over time what kind of a net community she/he wants - it is as simple as that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site