Like a lot of people here on Kos, I'm dismayed by the ugliness that has emerged in this primary season. Round after round of recommended candidate diaries with comments that quickly devolve into "your candidate sucks" and "well, your candidate sucks more" hijacked threads where its obvious that a comment against a candidate has been taken faaaaaar too personally.
When a question on candidate policy gets someone labeled a troll, it hurts all of us. This IS the place to voice concerns, isn't it? This community is one of the most informed I know of, so when did it become a waste of time to share knowledge/insight/perspective with respect and kindness? So what if you're repeating something that's been written about numerous times--post a link to that diary or comment--not everyone hanging around these days has been here for four years or longer.
Just as often, I see anti-candidate diaries (and some do seem expressly designed to tick supporters off) where everyone rushes in to troll rate and spew venom. While these don't make it to the rec list as often, the ones that do are full of vitriol and anger. If this is the first diary a newcomer hits, what must they think of us? I try to read as much as I can from every viewpoint, but I can't help but feel we're becoming what we hate.
Some people like to pick a fight, they thrive on it (our current pResident, for example), and without a doubt, the need to be right is a defining human trait. Still--isn't it possible that at least once in a while, every single one of us is wrong? There are no perfect people, so it follows there can be no perfect candidates.
My brother lives in the West Village in Manhattan. He and his partner have been together for 14 years. He abandoned the "red states" and moved into a "blue state" a long time ago. Every Friday morning, we get on iChat and have a cup of coffee together and discuss the weeks events. We've talked about all the republican candidates, all the democratic candidates, the financial market, the environment, the Iraq war, and a myriad of other subjects. We disagree as often as we agree and Friday mornings are often filled with lively debate. However, he's never called me a troll, never denigrated my point of view, never insisted I was stupid for thinking the way I do. I've never done those things to him, either. As a result, I've learned a lot--and so has he.
Clinton has been his senator for many years now and he's not all that thrilled with her. While he can easily see her winning in his territory, he realizes that places like NC (where he and I grew up and I still live) would be a different tale. Here in NC, many people actually spit when they say her name. Do I think it would prevent her from winning? Don't know. That's one of the things we discuss. In some areas of the country, she's a very divisive personality, people love her or they hate her. Where I live, they mostly hate her. Where he lives, they mostly love her. Bill is both a help and a hinderance to her candidacy and will be even more so in a general election. So we talk about that, about the whys, the long-term ramifications of her as nominee, and what that means depending on who she might be running against. He thinks she can beat the Republican nominee, I'm not so sure. Neither one of us knows if the other is right about that--and we don't try to brow beat each other into agreeing. It's just information to be shared.
Obama is new to the senate and the national scene. My brother isn't too happy with him thanks to that debacle in South Carolina, but he also likes that someone from OUR generation is in the mix. I like Obama, but I've got concerns about some of his votes, and his willingness to negotiate with what I consider to be "bad" elements. I freely admit to wanting a fight, as I'm sick of being browbeaten and watching those who should be standing up for me cave again and again. Doesn't mean Obama's approach is wrong, it means I'm not entirely comfortable with it. All of that aside, both of us are amazed, and proud, to see our party supporting a minority nominee without--until recently--that becoming an issue. He's a smart man and obviously understands the importance of the constitution (something not to be taken for granted these days). He's personable and inspiring on the stump (although we both agree, not so much in the debates). Can he win a general election? Maybe. My brother feels he may not be seasoned enough to deal with the Republican war machine. I'm not sure anyone is ever seasoned enough for that, and its just a matter of taking it as it comes. Again, who's right and who's wrong doesn't enter into the conversation.
Edwards was NC's senator for a while, and I'm not real thrilled with him (he gave up his seat and stuck me with Dole--I'm still not quite over that). My brother isn't sure he's the best lead on the ticket because of 2004 and, of course, those pesky votes for the war and the Patriot Act. My take on that is that when he did those votes, the state he represented wanted that very thing, and those were the only constituents he heard from--doesn't make it right, but he did admit it was a mistake. My brother thinks his anti gay marriage stance for religious reasons is crap, but I think his voice has driven the debate on poverty and healthcare. Some of these subjects might not have had the air time they've gotten without his beating the drum. We both agree we don't want to see him drop out of the race. The more voices involved now, the better the debate, the more likely the national platform will embrace most of what we want to see. Can he win a general? Again, don't know, but certainly we're both willing to consider all the pros and cons without insulting each other's intelligence, insight or judgement.
We've discussed Kucinich, too, but it seems he's dropped off the radar and there hasn't been a lot of information about him to reflect on recently. He should have been in the Nevada debate, and SC too. That everyone pretends he doesn't exist is a sad commentary on how well the national media has herded this primary season exactly where they wanted it to go.
But while we debate these issues at length--sometimes in terms of media framing and how that affects what the majority of the nation thinks--we never put each other down, condescend to each other or resort to name calling. The worst insult that ever gets hurled is that what concerns me or him isn't as big an issue to the other. Hardly blood on the sand.
None of these candidates is the second coming. None of these candidates is the anti-christ. We don't love or hate everything about any of them. Clinton and Edwards both voted for the war. Obama and Clinton have continued to fund it. None of these candidates has supported Kucinich's effort to bring about impeachment
proceedings (something my brother and I DO agree on 100%). I read the Q&A from the Boston Globe on Executive Privilege, and found each of them to be slightly lacking. These are the primaries after all, where you cast a vote for who speaks best for you, and hope that your vote then helps to sculpt the national dialogue and future of this country. I see no purpose in creating such huge divides that no one can find common ground anymore.
The financial crisis (spoken of so eloquently here) worries me quite a bit more, as does the potential for war with Iran while that dipshit is still in office, and I'm wondering about how we'll eat if groceries get much more expensive.
So, thanks to all of you, regardless of your candidate, for being involved. Thanks for paying attention. Thanks for being part of this community. Thanks for being passionate about what this election means for all of us. While all of us will never agree on everything, we can agree that being informed is the best weapon we have. This is the place to share what you know, but could we not make it a place where debate means character assassination?