and I suspect I am not the only one experiencing it or perceiving it.
Yesterday there were a number of diaries touting how well Sanders is doing closing the gap on Clinton. One of those was about an Emerson poll for NY State, which showed the margin from their previous poll on that contest having been halved.
So I post a diary looking at the splits — the various cross-tabs. For point of comparison I include the demographic breakout from the ‘08 primary.
I note that the splits present a picture where Sanders, with less than two weeks to go, has some serious problems if he is going to have any hope to catch Clinton.
One commenter bashes the reliability of the poll. Several of us asked whether that person had raised the same challenge to the poll in the diary bragging on how well it showed Sanders doing? The response — crickets.
But what really took the cake was one comment, of which I reproduce the relevant part here:
I find it interesting, in a sad way, that you find more time to demoralize than you do to uplift. Is there not enough positive information for you to write a pro-Clinton diary? Or are you doomed to be Hillary’s version of Tokyo Rose here at dkos?
So let me use my reaction to this to explain what I think the problem is.
We have forgotten that one of the missions of this site was to be a reality-based community.
First, when I have written pro-Hillary diaries, some of which have similarly been based on interpretation of data, I have been bashed as a sellout, people have tried to delegitimize me by pointing at a diary I wrote during the 2008 campaign in which because Clinton refused to chastise or disavow some totally out of bounds comments by official surrogate Robert Johnson, co-founder with ex-wife Sheila, of BET, comments that were directed towards Obama and were frankly disgusting, I said I would not support her should she get the nomination.
It is legitimate to bring that up and I have responded. I noted in the past that living as I did in Virginia I had a greater freedom of action because were Virginia actually in play for a Democratic presidential candidate s/he would have already won in the electoral college. Second, in part because of my wife’s dealing with cancer I have become far less judgmental than I was 8 years ago.
Second, a lot of people seem to be too impatient, too willing to take offense, to read accurately. When yesterday I wrote a piece about three important voices critical towards Sanders and his campaign as a result of his interview with the Daily News and what flowed from that, I said that I expected that Sanders supporters would be upset — not with Sanders, but with those voices. There are more than a thousand comments. I am probably the only person who has read them all, as I do with all my postings. Let me note that many of the people who insisted that Sanders supporters would be positively energized by reading the three pieces and.or my words apparently did not read the hundreds of comments that clearly demonstrated that I was correct. There seemed to be a great necessity to dismiss the voices of a major liberal editorial board, that of the Washington Post, and of Pulitzer Prize winner Eugene Robinson of that paper and of Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in Economics who writes for the NY Times. Rather than address the substance of what any of the three wrote, some dismissed anything in the Post because it is now owned by Jeff Bezos, and attacked the Times because of Judith Miller. I refrained in the latter cases from asking if that meant they rejected that paper’s endorsement of Obama, because I did not want to get down to that level.
What was far more concerning was the necessity some felt to demonize anyone who they viewed as critical of the person they supported.
Please go back and read carefully what I just wrote.
That applies on both sides of the current political pie fight in the Democratic primary.
I saw far too many ad hominem attacks — on the writers of the pieces I quoted, on me, but also on those who disagreed.
I wrote about those pieces, as I did about the Emerson poll, because I felt they were important things of which people should be aware.
Those who have to resort to less than rational expression and extreme rhetoric because they do not like what someone else writes or says have, I am sorry, already demonstrated that they are unwilling to remain rooted in reality.
On a personal level, I have certainly be subjected to ad hominem attacks. That’s nothing new. I have been here since December 2003, and there are always people who disagree with me. Some do so in respectful ways, others are dismissive and sarcastic. That is their right.
But some of the expressions seems more intended to demonstrate what the writer thinks will prove his or her intellectual superiority or perhaps come from a real sense of insecurity.
Calling me a “Tokyo Rose” is in my opinion out of bounds. I have chosen not to respond directly to that comment, although it is what finally provoked me to write this piece.
I have no problem with Senator Sanders continuing his campaign as long as he wants. I have said so numerous times. I said something similar as an Obama supporter in 2008 after it was clear to me that he had locked down the nomination.
I have no problem with people advocating fiercely for a candidate or a cause, even when reality shows the possibility of winning is either impossible or totally improbable. I have done so myself on occasion. Hell, in the 2004 cycle I supported Fritz Hollings, volunteering many, many hours for him.
But it is totally wrong to tell someone who thinks differently than you do that they have abandoned logic.
It is totally wrong in your frustration or anger to presume you know my intent which you will portray in the most demeaning way possible, just because you don’t like what I write.
I find it very illuminating that some people say they have no respect for me, yet repeatedly come into my diaries and post multiple comments — does what I write threaten them that much?
I also find it unsettling that there are those who are Clinton supporters who are dismissive of anyone who supports Sanders.
Is the term “Bernie Bros” unacceptable when used by a major columnist to describe the phenomenon he is seeing? Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but it is also reality based when writing about such a column to note that he has used such words.
When I first announced my support for Clinton, and my reasons why, I was challenged, including with reference to my apparently well-remembered 2008 piece. I responded to that criticism then, and have several times since.
When I have live-tweeted debates, I have praised Sanders on some of his remarks, and criticized Clinton for some of hers.
I might point out that the energy and vehemence directed against me for being pro-Clinton and for writing about what I perceive and my analysis of what the data means actually gives more attention to what I have written.
I am one member of this community. I am a long-term member of this community. I have written things I have later regretted, and I have apologized when I realized I was wrong.
For better or worse, far more people in this community are willing to at least read and consider what I write without attacking me either as a messenger or as a person than even the worst of what I have experienced myself and seen directed at others recently.
Also note this — yes I may on occasion respond with some sarcasm, but that is far from my regular response. I do point out inconsistencies and patterns, and for some people that makes them uncomfortable. If they don’t like what I have to say, I might suggest they do not have to read what i write.
I realize that passions are high. There are lots of reasons for that, and I will not in this post revisit them. Anyone paying attention is more than aware of what has been happening. Some well-respected members of this community have at times gone too far, as someone I greatly admire did when he posted a comment in response to a title of a diary about our cats which he chose to interpret as an attack on Bernie even though the first sentence of that diary made clear it was not about politics. To his credit, he was very apologetic for having done so.
We have a problem.
I said “we” which includes me, and includes Clinton supporters.
We all need to stop reacting so defensively and lashing out.
Are there people in this community for whom the notion of a Clinton nomination is simply unacceptable? Yes. But might I suggest that in explaining their opposition they neither have to paint the former First Lady/Senator/Secretary as evil incarnate or portray her supporters as not progressive or liberal and especially not resort to what we have seen far too much of — the intemperate, over-the-top, personal attacks that do NOT actually make an argument for the candidate or cause you support.
Are there some who find Senator Sanders too prickly and too narrow yet unspecific in how he has run his campaign? Of course. And they have every right to feel that way. But that does not justify them describing him as a hypocrite or describing those who support him passionately as deluded.
There are advocates of both candidates who are over the top. To my mind I can find things to criticize as said by Sanders’ campaign manager and Clinton’s spouse. Similarly I can challenge some statements by both candidates, and have done so in the past and will do so again if I deem it appropriate.
If you find it necessary to accuse me of being corrupt, or a poor influence upon young people or a horrible teacher because I advocate for Clinton and I share pieces that raise questions about some of what Sanders has said, please ask yourself how that helps your candidate and his candidacy? It will not affect my willingness to support him should the highly unlikely happen and he gain the nomination. But others are watching, and that kind of rhetoric is damaging to the prospects of a Democratic victory in November.
If you feel that you must defend me against such attacks and are going to respond in kind, please allow me to assure you that I am not so fragile as to shatter because someone here has let loose a string of invective, and I am more than capable of defending myself should I deem it necessary.
Further, whether or not I am a long-time member, or have been highly respected,or have received thousands of recommendations for what I have written does NOT make me immune from criticism or challenge. That I should not be subject to ad hominem attacks is independent of how long I have been here, or how highly you may think of me or of my writing: NO ONE HERE SHOULD EVER BE SUBJECT TO SUCH ATTACKS.
And that is the problem — there is far too much of that happening.
Who is qualified to be President? The vast majority of people here are — we are over 35, natural born citizens and residents for years. We are also eligible to be elected, because we, unlike Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and George W. Bush, have not been elected to the office twice.
On what basis will people choose? Each of us will have our own rationale, and that yours is different than mine is because you are not me. You do not have to agree with my thinking, because you may have a very different value set than I do. You can certainly challenge my thinking. But if you demean me because you disagree then you begin to lose any chance of persuading — either me or someone else who may be observing.
I expect candidates and campaigns to compare and contrast, to challenge their opponents. Unless one is doing so merely for self-aggrandizement and ego, anyone seeking an office probably believes s/he would be better than the opponent(s), otherwise why subject yourself to the process?
We have a problem.
It is not yet beyond remediation.
I would hope we — including me — be mindful of the damage we could be doing going forward.
But please remember — this is supposed to be a reality-based community.
We are dedicated to electing Democrats, and secondary to that better Democrats (although we must remember that we will not always agree on what makes a better Democrat).
We are different, and yet in being here we should be granted the benefit of the doubt.
Sometimes when we encounter something, rather than attack it perhaps we could inquire, or play back how the words come across, rather than immediately attacking the person.
IF we forget how to be kind to one another, we will wake up soon enough, perhaps in horror, when we realize what we have done to the future of this country.
Advocate for the best you can.
Remember that no one, not even one’s favorite and most inspiring candidate, is perfect.
Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
When many moons ago I was involved in civil rights work, one of the first things we learned was we need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. I will try to remember that.
That means I will bite my tongue with its quickness to sarcasm a bit more than I have recently.
It means I will try not to impugn the motives of others.
I will continue to “speak the truth” as I see it.
I will continue to share pieces I think worthy of consideration, sometimes even when I disagree in part or in whole with them.
If you do not like what I write and how I think, you do not have to read what i write.
And I will strive to live up to my mantra, the words of George Fox, that I should walk gladly across the earth answering that of God in each person I encounter.
One last word.
I will read as I always do any comments that may be posted in response to this, but I am probably not going to respond all that much. Reading all of the comments yesterday consumed several hours that I simply do not have because of other responsibilities. That I do not respond to you does not mean that I am ignoring you.
And final comment — I often tweet or post to Facebook or email or do other things to make people aware of what I post here. This post is directed to this community. For this post all I will do is press publish. What happens after that? It will be whatever the community decides.
peace.