DU should practices what it preaches: We need full disclosure on 08

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

Full disclosure: I support Barack Obama

I have had it up to here with hit pieces on the DU. Edwards, Obama, and Clinton have all taken a ruthless bashing the last couple of weeks. I think hit pieces display a black and white Republican attitude which refuses to see shades of gray. As an Obama supporter I would like to establish that while I support Obama, I do not think John Edwards, who has done excellent work with the Southern Poverty Law Center, is a racist. I am obviously sick and tired of Obama smears. Calling someone who started as a community organizer and has a solid progressive position on every issue a DLC sellout is silly to say the least. And quite frankly I'm tired of posts that say Hillary Clinton has "too much baggage."

This is a progressive political forum. I would like to see us support our candidates by arguing for their progressive positions and values. I have had it with hit pieces. I recognize, however, that I am naive if I think they will stop. Therefore, I am proposing full disclosure. One of the things that I hate about political attack ads, like the swiftboat ads, are that they do not have full disclosure. They say at the end who payed for them, and it often is a group that you have never heard of. You should know who the group is affiliated with and you should know up front. A candidate should have to look into the camera and say "I support this message" before they stab the knife into their opponent, not after. I think you would be hard pressed to find a sizable contingency on the DU that disagrees with this. To the same degree, I shouldn't have to look 50 posts down to find out who the original poster supports. So, this is what I am proposing.

At the beginning of any post on the 2008 presidential elections, DU forum rules should require full disclosure up front. This would require anyone posting or replying to any post on 08 to say who they supported upfront. So, for instance, at the top of this post I wrote "Full disclosure: I support Barack Obama." I know there are undecideds out there, they could write undecided leaning x and x or something of the sort. However, it is generally not the undecideds who are putting out hit pieces. While I do not think this will put an end to hit pieces on the DU, I do think it would help us to know where the pieces are coming from. This encourages supporters of the same candidate as the person who puts out the hit piece to call them on it. So, who supports full disclosure?

[patrice]

1. K&R

Although I expect people will lie about who they are supporting, but at least with your approach, we will have them on record.

[SteppingRazor]

2. One problem with this...

I've always been a little perturbed by damning the source without considering whether the content is valid. In other words, just because The Nation has a story that works against Bush, should it be dismissed simply because it came from the Nation?

Similarly if, for example, a pro-Clinton person produces an anti-Obama piece on DU, should it be brushed aside simply because of that person's pro-Clinton tendencies, or should the story be weighed on its merits?


For the sake of this argument, full disclosure: I am undecided, but generally leaning Obama. :hi:

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

7. The few who will lie like this are easy to pin down, and there is an answer on sources

The answer on sources is that if that it is important to know the source, that is full disclosure. However, if someone writes a well thought out anti-Obama piece, I don't consider that a hit piece. I would rather they write a positive progressive piece about their own candidate, but I don't consider it a hit piece. That is a debate I am willing to have. I am, however, sick of propaganda the likes of Faux News on the DU. The point of full disclosure is to have as much information as possible to make an informed decision.

[Raven]

3. Absolutely! It's going to be a long political season and we are

all on the same side.

When my brothers and I fought with eachother as kids, my parents would say "stop fighting...you're all you've got in this world." Good advice.

[Faux pas]

4. Maybe all the slamming and smearing would stop if everyone

would stop trying to cram their candidates down each other's throats.

[Sapere aude]

5. At this point I don't have a favorite. I'm trying to find out about them and I'll tell you, DU

posters are no help. This is like a kindergarten food fight at recess!

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

9. "kindergarten food fight at recess" is too nice of a description n/t

[Dhalgren]

6. K&R!

FD - I am a Kucinich supporter.

[some guy]

8. I'll support your idea.

Full disclosure, I am supporting Dennis Kucinich, as I also did in 2004. :)

I'm still in the process of reading candidate positions on issues, so if DK doesn't win the nomination, I will have a better idea of whether and how much I am willing to support another candidate if they win the nom.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. In the interest of full disclosure: I do not (yet) support anyone for 08

I have yet to see any candidate that will support any of my issues, although (in the interest of full disclosure) Kucinich comes closer than any other declared candidate.

Talk to me after a single candidate has been picked by the national convention.

[welshTerrier2]

11. i'm supporting certain ISSUES and no candidate at this time

if I had to vote today, I would probably vote for Kucinich.

I have never made a post on DU critical of any candidate for the purpose of gaining ground for a different candidate. I have made many posts highly critical of candidates when I disagree with them on the issues I care about.

As for disclosure, while it might be interesting or even helpful to know, I'm against any form of mandatory disclosure. I'm for free speech; not coerced speech. As a recommendation or a guideline rather than a RULE, it's not a bad idea.

[mitchtv]

12. Make your words soft and sweet

Someday you may have to eat them

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

14. haha, now that's funny n/t

[Adelante]

13. And what if you're lying? I'm not saying so

But this is a message board. Anybody can say they are supporting anybody. What would it prove? Most posters who are entirely committed to one candidate usually wear it in an avatar or a sig line or otherwise let their preference be known. But there are a few recognizable "supporters" who claim to support somebody else for whatever reasons they might have. Eh, so who cares? The majority of DUers are uncommitted at this point and post as they please about one candidate or another whenever something interests them, anyway, and are often accused of being somebody's supporter even when they are not. "Full Disclosure" would change none of it.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tellurian]

17. I think it's against DU Rules to single out one poster by name

and flog him/her publicly because you disagree with the content of his posts. It's pretty much as "bad" as what you're against..if not worse.

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

20. As I said at the end of the post I apologize to the moderators, but...

"I apologize to the moderators if this comes off as a personal attack, but I have argued the ideas in this post and given everybody links so they can read for themselves. I don't know how else to say enough is enough." That is a direct quote from my conclusion in the thread I linked to. I consider a personal attack something along the lines of "you're an idiot." I do not, however, subscribe to the theory that pointing out when someone acts inappropriately is impugning them. I have seen some almost comic floor debates in which Republicans claim they are being impugned by Democrats who say that gay rights and civil rights are similar issues and movements. Republicans on the floor considered that they were being impugned because there was an implicit comparison between gay bashing and racism. To an argument like this I can only say "you impugn yourself." The person I cited as an example put up multiple hit pieces all in one day. If I am impugning them it is because they impugn themselves.

[Tellurian]

24. Perhaps you are well intentioned..

but unaware, as Wesdem has said: we've been through this before, it isn't pretty, but still, it's all part of the process.
At the same time, we could question your motivation for hanging dmc out to dry, as your chosen example in lieu of so many others.

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

26. Your point is well taken, here is another one I came accross today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3328585&mesg_id=3328900

I am equal opportunity stop posting the hit pieces. It is part of the process, but it could work better.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. Why haven't you said a word about this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3329669

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

34. Because I hadn't seen it, I just posted in it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3329669&mesg_id=3329813

[draft_mario_cuomo]

37. I have only pointed out BO's hypocrisy when I reference that

I have consistently said I believe in examining the candidates' actual positions on the issues. That requires asking hard questions.

You are silent on the daily stream of anti-HRC smears. It is also interesting to see a new poster with about 100 posts coming out of the blue to carry the BO camp's water in trying to chill dissent of him...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. You should retract your smear (you say you oppose smears...) in light of your failure to...

...understand what the post that set you off (on a smear against me) meant...

Instead of telling DU to practice what it preaches you should be practicing what you preach...

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

35. ??? You have been smearing Obama, I shouldn't say so? n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. No surprise there

You smear a fellow DU'er yet call on others to stop questioning presidential candidates. This isn't China or Egypt. People have a right to know where candidates actually stand.

[Adelante]

18. I don't support it

Voluntary, fine. Mandatory, not fine. What I like about DU is we're not subject to much in the way of net nannyism. We're expected to take care of ourselves and our candidates and we do. Obama supporters, if they're being beaten up, should fight back or alert. What's important is the truth, period. If somebody's posting lies we should all kick their asses.

Sorry, I know you mean well with this, but the fewer the rules, the more open the discussion, the better DU. The next thing you know we'll be having troll ratings, God forbid, and we'll be fighting over those like at dkos.

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

23. My understanding is that they proposed ratings at some point and everyone shot it down

I am opposed to ratings, for the record. I don't think it is the same thing at all. Nonetheless, I agree with you that the DU works in many ways because it has few rules.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. You still haven't figured it out so I'll spell it out for you: sarcasm and subtletly

==You are here to wave a flag and it ain't got any stars, stripes, or donkey on it. You have made a call to unity, "We are all Democrats, We are all Americans," while simultaneously bashing Obama in the same post today.==

==We also need to avoid being divided, white from black, male from female. We are all Democrats; we are all Americans; we are all human. We cannot argue that a certain skin color or a certain gender provides an electoral advantage. And we should apply this equally, not argue a case based on gender or skin color for our candidate when convenient and call others bigots for making similar arguments that show your candidate in a bad light (how many times have you seen HRC's gender or Obama's color touted as an electoral advantage by their partisans?) As someone once said: "E pluribus unum: 'Out of many, one.'...there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of 'anything goes.' Well, I say to them tonight...There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America."==

That was a subtle and sarcastic jab at BO supporters who like to preach unity and then play the race card to argue BO is the most electable, attack Edwards because he is a white male. It ended with a quote from BO himself in his famous DNC speech that presented the irony of BO saying that and then making a negative attack ("spin masters, "negative ad peddlers"), particularly one based on race-baiting (there is no...Asian America.." etc.).

This part particularly was aimed at BO supporters, as well as a few HRC supporters (in light of the Edwards white male smear thread--which the OP was conspicuously silent on...)

==We cannot argue that a certain skin color or a certain gender provides an electoral advantage. And we should apply this equally, not argue a case based on gender or skin color for our candidate when convenient and call others bigots for making similar arguments that show your candidate in a bad light (how many times have you seen HRC's gender or Obama's color touted as an electoral advantage by their partisans?) ==

[LWolf]

16. Full disclosure:

Please read sig line. It's been up since before the first candidate declared. I've deleted some possibilities that did not enter the race, but the rest remains the same.

It's not like my primary vote will count. All but 5 other primaries and caucuses will have already been held; and one of those 5 is Puerto Rico.

Ya think the party leaders and MSM won't have already declared a "winner" by then?

The only place my vote can really count is in the general election, and I remain determined to cast it for a candidate who EARNS it, based on issues and record. I'll write a candidate in if I have to.

[Crunchy Frog]

19. As a veteran of the '04 primary wars

I can tell you that primary season here is absolutely brutal. I am very glad to NOT be involved in it this time around, though I would support either Gore or Clark should either one get in. It's likely that it will get FAR worse before it's over. Last time around, Skinner had to institute more and more draconian rules, and scores of posters got tombstoned.

My advice to you would be to make very liberal use of the "ignore" feature.

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

21. See, I've always hated that feature

It is too easy. You just don't listen to the people you don't want to hear. That isn't being open minded.

[Tellurian]

25. The ignore feature is wonderful...

I can attest to that...best of all, it works.

Easy solution to your (above stated) manifesto.

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

27. It is still there, even if you choose not to see it n/t

[Tellurian]

31. The only thing you see..

Is the word "ignored"..you cannot see their posts in the thread.

I have one person on ignore.. you can do the same or put as many as you wish on ignore, if someone bothers you.

Problem solved!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. You are seeking to do essentially the same thing by chilling dissent nt

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

36. I think you should have to say upfront who you support, after that do what you want

Say who you support upfront, after that you do what you like and I'll post what I like. I am still looking for a response to all of these by the way: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3329543&mesg_id=3329744 Or have I chilled your dissent?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. No one died and made you the DU regulator

It is odd to see a poster with about 100 posts come out the blue and tell people how the forum should be run...

[Crunchy Frog]

41. So I guess that means that my refusal to listen to

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Micheal Savage (among others) is an indication of my close mindedness.

There's far more opinions around than you can possibly ever listen to, and there are thousands of posters on DU. Being somewhat selective and filtering out people who only infuriate me makes alot of sense to me. If you really do feel the need to read every opinion no matter how obnoxious, then you may want to grow a thicker skin instead of complaining about it.

[LSK]

22. Full disclosure: I havn't decided

I am leaning towards Edwards, waiting on Gore, wouldnt mind Obama.

Will punch D in Nov 2008.

Hows that?

I dont understand how you guys have committed to candidates already.

[More Than A Feeling]

30. I think people know where I stand. I support John Edwards.

I haven't given a thought to Al Gore because I don't think he's getting in. If he gets in, I'll think about him.

I agree that this should be voluntary, not mandatory.

[Superman Returns]

40. I agree

There are posters out there that only create threads to hurt and bash a certain candidate. They use outlandish, yellow journalism style titles, and recycle stories over and over again, despite being either disproven or outdated. Sure candidates should be criticized. This is a primary after all. Candidates put their records out there and it's up to us to hold them responsible. But there comes a point when certain DU members create attack thread after attack thread with the purpose of destroying a candidate. It needs to stop.

[Capn Sunshine]

42. Cool idea

but it'll never fly. Call me cynical. Disclosure : I worked for Howard Dean since 2003, consider Jim Dean a personal friend, I work for Obama, I'm progressive ( the new mainstream) and I despise the inside the DC beltway groupthink backing certain candidates that brought us the failed candidacies of the past and fought Howard Dean's reforms in the party tooth and nail.