I really, really really do not like it when people use analogies to make a point, even more so when the analogy is something such as Fatal Attraction.
But I am not sure that all or even the majority of people that use Fatal Attraction as analogy are sexist - I think it is more an indicator of lazy and imprecise thinking.
I reckon many of these people are just generally hostile to people who do not fall in line with what they want, they would probably be just as hostile to a male that refused to toe their line, except in that case they would come up with idiot analogies such as Count Dracula.
You were NOT kicked to the curb. You threw yourself under the bus with your previous comments such as:
Sorry, a real Democrat will not allow an empty suit to occupy the most important position in this country and continue our downward spiral. If you were a REAL DEMOCRAT, you would be voting and supporting the best person for the job. And that is clearly Hillary Clinton > http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/19/9
If this guy supports BO, he doesn't deserve.... any support - IMHO. He obviously is clueless and has been drinking way to much Kool-Aid!
(or to put it another way, regardless of how much you blow your own trumpet about what you have done to support the party in the past, I am not going on some sort of guilt trip that you are going to leave it, I do not even believe that you were a real Democrat in the first place)
"Do not troll rate (rating as 0) another user's comment unless it is a comment that is an attack on another user. Abusing this privilege will result in all your ratings being erased and/or getting a warning, or being banned"
As an aside I think the wording of this guideline needs to be tweaked. According to my interface a troll rate is NOT rating as 0, it is rating as 1
"'Trusted users' are those users that have 'mojo' and are able to 'review hidden comments' and can rate any of those posts hidden by a '0' ranking. If a trusted user deems the post should not be hidden, they can 'rescue' the post with a '1' rating."
Giving a '1' rating - that is a troll rating - to rescue a post seems slightly perverse - on the other hand giving a '2' rating - that is a mojo rating - to rescue a hidden post may be swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction.
"The GOP, should I be the nominee, I think can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record. If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful...
Obama's ill-advised and empty threat actually displays several of his numerous inadequacies"
From what we already know about McCain's wife that 'threat' is not empty. So perhaps the inadequacy is in your analysis rather than in Senator Obama.
"She's earned the right to be heard without being trashed".
So, what is the calculation here, if she says something absurd you are not allowed to trash her because that would be dishonouring those who died in 9/11, it would mean the terrorists win or something?
One of reasons she gave for the superdelegates to reject Senator Obama was that "No Democrat has won the WH since 1916 without winning West Virginia".
Well, no Democrat has won the WH since forever without being a white male - but it would be absurd to say because of that the superdelegates should pick Senator Edwards.
Yes, I do respect Kristen Breitweiser for the way that she "hounded Congress" - but hounding Congress is not a virtue exclusive to Senator Clinton's supporters, nor is it some sort of extra qualification for determining who is electable in the next general election.
But I bet more than a few of Senator's Clinton's supporters who have hounded Congress in the past are right now preparing to find ways to ensure that Obama can win the general election.
For some time now I have thought that Senator Clinton would find far greater satisfaction in choosing Senator Obama's VP pick than being on the ticket herself - I take previous reports that Clinton in her own mind does not think Obama can not win the general election to be accurate.
I also reckon that as part of the negotiated 'peace settlement' she could make it clear that she expects to replace Harry Reid.
(but a week is a long time in politics, anything can happen in the next half hour)
"Interesting article today about how a lot of old guard Democrats felt upstaged by Bill Clinton's rise to power in the 90s and now they are trying (and succeeding) to derail Hillary's Presidential bid"
As things stand now the Clinton's are the latest iteration of the old guard, feeling upstaged by Barack Obama's rise to power in the 00s.
(not that there is anything wrong with being part of the old guard, but when it comes to the nomination it is the delegate count, stupid)
"Well, let's see how long that charm of Obama and 'the youngsters' lasts. Their solutions for things don't get to the bottom of problems, and their tolerance for suffering and ability to deal with failure is not great".
Just because you do not like Obama is not the best of reasons to go trashing the decision of an individual youngster or youngsters as a whole.
At best your characterization of youngsters is a reflection of your character and the youngsters you know, it is not an accurate general rule.
"And the people I usually love to agree or disagree with seem to be having their voices muted"
Muted? That could mean a lot of things but if that particular remark and the rest of the diary is a partial response to MyDD Admin deleting part of a recent alegre diary on paid bloggers, my suggestion is that you suck the Admin decision up and move on.
I note that the MyDD Admin 'private' message to alegre has been screencaptured and posted elsewhere leading to people attacking MyDD.
"If you stick with what you like about Barack and never say anything nasty or personal or dismissive about Hillary, we'll all like you fine, even me."
Some recent diaries started by Alegre include:
Tell NARAL They're Wrong
"I Wasn't A Decision Maker"
Is This What We've Been Reduced To?
Just A Punch Line - How Sad
Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!!
They Can't Wait to Run Against Him
From Messiah to Mere Mortal
Leaders Don't Hide From Debates
All those diaries have large chunks of 'attacks' on Senator Obama and/or his 'supporters' and/or seem to have have guilt by association themes.
Now, I can fully accept that in your own mind those diaries were sticking with what you like about Senator Clinton.
However, if you think that every Obama supporter on MyDD should ignore such diaries perhaps you have misunderstood the nature of a forum in which people can add comments.
Or perhaps you are just not used to somebody saying no to you.
"There are no rules or standards here that people be villified because they oppose your candidate"
Alegre recently cut and pasted the following and endorsed what it said "It was as if The Big Giant Head at Obama Central texted new marching orders to the cell phones (or perhaps directly into the brain-chip implants) of all Obamaniacs simultaneously, and that message went something like this: "OMFG REDID DA MATH: WE FD UP. 86 OPERATION HRC BASH IMMED PROCEED W/OPERATION MAKE NICEY NICE ASAYGT. ACK."
That was a bit that was left after Admin deleted other bits in the same diary by Alegre,
If you read those words you may think that is the same as merely "opposing your candidate" but I do not.
I even sometimes wonder if some people actually recommend a diary by Alegre without actually reading it.
And once you put a diary front and center regardless of the quality of the content it should come as no surprise if the writer receives more adverse comments than a writer of a diary that hits the recommended list on true individually assessed merit.