Thanks.  I've been trying to do my part.

Of course you are trying to diminish Obama's Coulter manuever into nothing.

Mr."Let's change politics" resorts to Ann Coulter style tactics. What a fake.

Should not the common opponent be the GOP?  This meme that Clinton is the anti-Christ is what many here should really stop hawking.  If she wins the nomination I'll be watching for hypocritical praise from the same yokels who now bash incessantly.  Of course, it would be faux-plausibly explained as "she has come around to our viewpoint" and "she has made an amazing transformation."    

Just to witness that shameful spectacle on here (and the kos) I hope she wins.  

and JUST Edwards, I like him just fine. This seems to be a common thing as far as I can tell...a lot of Obama supporters don't have any real problem with Edwards, but are very irritated by the actions of Edwards supporters. The Edwards supporters have been the most venomous, with open contempt for Obama AND his supporters. Either way, its bad and shouldn't be happening. It will continue to be so as long as people continue to invent ways to paint their actions as justified.

Personally, I think its one thing to tell us about your candidate and what they are all about, rather than finding any reason whatsoever to attack the other candidate. That very method is part of what drove me far far away from supporting Christine Cegelis in last year's primary for IL-6.

I'll agree with this easy enough:

One of the fascinating things at MyDD (as well as at Daily Kos) is how virulent a particular group of supporters of Barack Obama and John Edwards can't help themselves when the other candidate is brought up. Even the mere mention of the other candidate seems to devolve into a pathetic little flame war that is probably indicative of what will happen in the future.

The flame war was ridiculous. The personal attacks were ridiculous. And alot of people acted like jerks.

Unfortunately, I can't help but think that although your own diary may be well intended it is itself just another escalation of that flame war and another invitation to bash each other. Why? Telling people to shut up has a very poor record of good results. Especially when they've just been flaming each other. But you are welcome to try I suppose.

Frankly I'm embarassed to be associated with the whole thing at this point and will only post this one comment here to say so.

thanks.  I do try to support the Edwards supporters and try to sympathize if something is wrong, like his not getting air time.  As an Obama supporter I have long thought we need to join forces in the fight against a hillary nomination.  Besides, aren't the Edwards and the Obama campaigns about fighting for justice and helping others.

I have to say, I'm really enjoying not being a partisan this time around. I have a slight Obama lean, but really not enough to get all bothered by it. I like Edwards just fine, feel like he's Opie all grown up before our eyes (sheesh, I hope no one jumps on me for that ... ). I'm even OK with Richardson. After 2003 ... whew. This is much better.

I'd recommend it to anyone.

Just remember the common enemy ... The Judean People's Front!

Splitters!

Hillary is not the "common enemy", that would be the eventual Republican nominee.

I for one would vote for Hillary over the walking Ken Doll, if those were my two choices.

is an essential part of our democracy. Why exactly should any of us shut up?

Personal attacks on supporters are certianly out of bounds, but discussions about something a candidate says regarding another candidate is certainly in bounds.

We really need a debate here this time, to choose and bring out the best candidate. We should all be putting our candidates' feet to the fire, challenging them to be better, and challenging all Democrats to be better. Last time, we chose too quick, the debate was cut short, and we lost.

Its not the debate that hurts us, its when people forget that even debates have rules and forget simple civility.

I agree. I have been doing my part elsewhere to take down Hillary. I don't do it here because I'm not allowed to be "mean".

;p

LOUD NOISES!!!!!

I just want to say you all are ridiculous.

I typically prefer this site to others because this type of lame back and forth doesn't exist.

Oh well -- pres primary time is back.  Guess the rest of us who are focused on 2007 and fights that aren't months away will just have to suck it up.

Obama and Edwards supporters need to realize, we are each other's best assets.

I prefer Edwards because of his actions, beliefs, and character...but that does not automatically imply that I believe Obama has poor qualities. I just believe Edwards is the best of two good options. I'm sure most Obama supporters believe the same in regard to their candidate.

It is a likely possibility that at some point during the nominating process, Edwards or Obama will drop out before the other. If the supporters of one move quickly to the other, it could very likely create enough momentum to secure the nomination, even if Hillary remains the front runner.

I say this not because I absolutely could not stomach Hillary Clinton as the nominee, but I would vastly prefer either Edwards or Obama over her, as the vast majority of the netroots would.

I can understand doubts about Obama or a primary voter thinking of him as "empty suit". It's fair game. He doesn't have a lot of experience, he has road a media sensation, quite adeptly, but that only speaks for his charm and political skill. I understand the worries about how Obama has a tendency to triangulate (at least in his talking points).

Others ought to understand why a lot of Dems think Edwards would sell his soul for the nomination. That he is a smooth talking suit from the South who changes his political principles depending on the election cycle. Ken Doll might be too generous, because it does not accurately portray the cunning, pure political animal he is. But, when I try to imagine which candidate "fits" in the White House, I can't think of the puffy-haired everchild in the Office without giggling.

Disagree...

The common opponent is the neo-con republican assholes and all that they have done to this country and our media (consolidation).

By the way.. I am a Clarkie.   :)

Sorry.  I see no difference between Hillary and Edwards.  They are both lying warmongers that put us in this hell hole.

And they are responsible for thousands of dead and should shut their lying mouths.

I will not.

Bringing an End to the Iraq War

Before the war in Iraq began, Senator Obama had the courage to stand up to the politics and propaganda and speak out against a war he knew to be ill-conceived.

Over the last four years, Senator Obama's position has been clear and consistent: the decision to go to war was a mistake. And we should be as careful pulling our troops out as we were careless going in.

In January, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. It moves to reverse the President's dangerous escalation and set a new policy for the United States in Iraq that will bring a responsible end to the war and make the prospect of a long-term peace possible.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/i raq/

I disagree.  I'm an edwards supporter who much prefers Hillary to Obama.  Obama is a self serving narcisist who speaks in platitudes.

I disagree.  Personally I think that it is useful now for someone to attack Obama as much as possible and see if something sticks.  Then people will be much more confident about him weathering attacks from the republican candidate.

Because so far nothing has stuck.  I can't even really remember what people were criticizing him for last week or month or whatever.

The Title of your article tipifies and highlights the arrogance and highmindedness of Hillery.

John Edwards will be the next President of the United States.

#1 reason ABC - MSM and Hearst Media giving Hillary celebrity status: they want her to give them the INTERNET

{ Under the Clinton's } [ I would say FOCUS on making sure she isn't nominated ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommuni cations_Act_of_1996

The Act led to historic industry consolidation, reducing the number of major media companies from around 80 in 1986, to 6 in 2005

I like the back and forth of the hardcore supporters, it's low level entertainment.

I agree that it's ridiculous that some people get so vicious in attacking this or that candidate. But why make your calls for quiet about defeating Hillary?

Personally I pray every day to a god I don't believe in that Gore will enter the race because I genuinely believe that he's the best for the job. From there I like Wesley Clark. Edwards and Obama I like as well.

But the more anti-Hillary or let's-get-Hillary or we-have-to-defeat-Hillary I read, the more I take a second and third and fourth look at her. And the more I think that's she's actually a decent candidate and the more I think that I wouldn't mind at all if she were my president.

Like the above post and others, at last many among the bloggers are beginning to realize just how pathetic and reactionary have become particularly those advocating Senator Obama.

This is not an affront to the candidate himself, who remains highly literate and well-spoken. Yet surely by permitting the virulent, almost maniacal diatribes persistently fired at all things Clinton, he does no service to his own campaign.

It is a slash-and-burn mentality, and it reveals the level of their immaturity.  One cannot eviscerate Senator Clinton, the former First Lady of the United States, and thus by implication the only successfully reelected Democratic President since FDR, and then hope to bring those eviscerated back to the fold for a general election campaign.

It is precisely why, for all his many qualities, Senator Obama is simply not ready for prime-time.  

His campaign has much growing up to do.  Treated with kid gloves as the ultimate media darling, even pointing out his inexperience sends his netroot supporters into conniption fits.  They have hurled so many tirades at Senator Clinton, they are beginning to resemble the worst days of the anti-Clinton forces buttressed by Ken Starr's flaming Inquisition.

Of course the Clintons are professionals, down to the core.  A ridiculous ad caricaturing her appears within the blogosphere, and suddenly her opposition salivates that there has been a turning point in the campaign.  Instead, the result is that its effect backfires disastrously.  

She herself emerges nonplussed, humorously poking fun at that ad, and noting that if nothing else, it brings more citizens into the political discourse.

Whereas consider the strange stream of daily insults hurled at her from her opposition.  They behave as petulent children, hurling invective, and oblivious of the far-reaching consequences.

Then again, when one has the long series of battle-scars from political wars spanning decades that does both Clintons, dealing with petulent netrooters pales in comparison to surviving impeachment and all manner of flaming reactionaries.

It is why, I am ever more confident, Senator Clinton will emerge as the candidate of the more measured and mature voter.

These wildly acerbic netrooters, ceaselessly castigating all things Clinton, do their respective rival candidates no good service.

A FISH ROTS FROM THE HEAD FIRST

To quote the immortal words of poor Michael Dukakis, Obama is in many ways a reflection of his vitriolic supporters. I suspect he is not all that nice underneath that relaxed smile. Obama seems to me a combination of petulance and pique. A little too thin skinned and apt to think he should not be challenged. Doesn't this remind you of George Bush? Granted a much more intelligent version. Judging by the blogs I find Hillary's supporters much more open to debate and confident that reason will prevail. Obama's supporters, are altogether more into tearing down other candidates in order to support him, and are much more intolerant of debate. I think it says a lot about  their respective candidates. Unlike the happy warrior of Howard Deans support, Obama's posse is rapidly morphing from enthusiastic support to a rabid verbal vigilantism and intolerance (ironic for Obama), which is a turn off. It may well help to sink him if he cannot control his supporters or set the right tone for them to follow. Afterall isn't this THE man who is running on hope?

I personally share your basic sentiment about Obama and Edwards needing to focus everything on Hillary. However, I don't see how you can ask people to shut up if they criticize someone on a legitimate basis.

If someone from the Edwards camp attacks Obama or vice versa, the best thing would be for the other camp to refute the remarks with fact based arguments.

I see, they just bring the infighting to a blog about shutting up and to stop the infighting. What a joke.

To focus our comments and posts on policy issues so we could hash those out, rather than psychoanalyzing candidates or "close readings" of one phrase or another.

Right on. I tried to make the same point with regard to the recent issue of Obama noticing that Edwards was, in fact, kind of cute, and a handful of Edwards supporters erupted with anger! I don't hold this in any way against Edwards, nor do I think that any Obama supporter who attacks Edwards (which they shouldn't) should be held against Barack himself.

There are, simply put, a handful of rabid, resentful bloggers (that NCDemAmy seems to be an obvious example) who seem more interested in forming circular firing squads than in beating the real enemy of progressivism (the GOP). I don't think they're the norm around here, nor do I think that the campaigns of Edwards or Obama would consider them representative of their supporters. I join you in hoping that they'll just shut up!

Based on Curt's diary, I would disagree most people agree... In fact, I would say it was a small vocal minority that agreed... I saw a lot more comments from different individuals saying that it wasn't malicious than I saw from ones who did.  

Since he's reapeated it I believe it's calculated. Who repeats the same statement over and over again without realizing what they're saying? It's calculated, just like he said Hillary was.......pause....interesting. I also read a statement by OBama why he believes he is the best candidate for President. He actually recited his book sales....I was kind of stunned at his ego. I think he should focus more on his past record in the state legislature and the Senate (which he has done some good things) and his work as a community organizer.

It's important to be able to discuss candidate issues in a forum like this. I wouldn't the Edwards' followers having a million discussions in the diaries. I just don't like seeing so many of these kinds of diaries on the recommended list. JMO. Carry on.

First off, to be fair, if the dog-fight were between, say, Feingold and either of these two, I'm sure I'd be all frothy at the mouth and behaving in exactly the same way that's being criticized here.

That said, nothing that's been said around here has convinced me that the choice between Obama and Edwards is at all inspiring or important.  Feel free to laissez les bons 1's rouler -- but that's my honest opinion.

Between these two, I don't care, and I care less every time I read a candidate A guy attack candidate B or a candidate B guy.

I understand that you've gotta do what you've gotta do, but I do think it needs to be said that it makes MyDD a much less interesting place for a segment of the readership.

Fact is Obama is a big boy and he is also a front runner.  So is Edwards.  They are gonna have to duke it out.   So will Hillary.  It is totally unrealistic to think they can play nice nice and then at the last minute settle the race with a flip of a coin or something.

I am so sick of this diary...........