Oh, boy, it's ramping up, isn't it? Primary season. I want all y'all to look around at your fellow users and size them up for tastiness and nutritional value. 'Cause we're gonna be eating our own 'round here.
Let's take a little look back at some of the major primary situations here, see what's coming next, and maybe try to have a few guidelines to keep things ... well, not exactly civil, but something short of "pie" every single day ...
OK, that's probably a pipe dream, but ... can't hurt to ask
Pre-scoop Daily Kos can be divided into three main eras. First, you had the 2002 mid-term era, with the Iraq debate as the backdrop. It was a cozy little spot then, an Orange cafe in which to hang out with a few cyber friends (including some conservatives) and kick around some politics. Then, you had the Iraq War era, when traffic and participation exploded, 100 comments became more regular, and emotions got a little high between the conservatives who gloated over the huge success of their invasion and those of us who still thought it was a ridiculously bad idea.
But that venom was nothing compared to the internecine fights of the next era: the Dean/Clark wars. Well, first, I guess, there was the straight Dean era, when Dean was fairly close to the consensus choice, with some Gephardt and Kerry supporters mixed in. But then ... yowza, yowza the fight settled down to Clark/Dean (kinda ironic considering the results). And, for all y'all who proclaim "Daily Kos is broken" over whatever meta-brouhaha is current, this was the only time the comment system really, truly was broken. I've never been a really intense user/commenter (secret to longevity), but this was the time when I just swore off the whole thing ... even writing, in the days of no diaries, a GBCW comment. That was the immediate impetus to turn to Scoop, according to Kos at the time. The community moderation features toned down the rhetoric just a bit, although it was still freakin' ridiculous at times.
It was, in a word, vicious. People just hurling insults and most arguments devolving into base name-calling and fact-free arguments. Which leads me to my first suggestion/request:
Keep things in the realm of facts
See, most of the fights over Dean basically consisted of: "he's not electable, so we need to find someone else"... "he is so electable. I like him!" ... "No, he's not because he's not. People hate him, and you're naive and stupid." ... "You're a poopy-head." ... "Am not! I'm rubber, you're glue ..." ... "I hate you" ... "I hate you more and because you're so lame, I hate your candidate and so will everyone else!" Blah, blah, blah.
In fact, avoid all discussion of "electability". It's lame and essentially unknowable. For example, remember the nice little trial run of primary madness we had around here: Hackett/Brown in OH-SEN. Some of the discussion centered around "electability" (with a very healthy dose of DSCC bashing). A lot of Hackett supporters claimed their guy was the more electable one, that a liberal/progressive like Brown could never get elected state-wide (others, in an ironic twist, complained that Brown was DLC insider and we needed to go with the progressive Hackett). Now, I was completely agnostic about that race; I actually couldn't care less. Hackett had a good, strong voice on Iraq and nationally security matters; Brown had a nice populist-progressive record on economic issues. But, my point is: Brown was eminently electable, obviously. We just never know who's electable and who isn't.
And discussing electability makes us look craven. Our ideas are right, our positions for America are popular, and our candidates are experienced. Pick the best person based on facts and positions, and then defend and promote him or her based on those things. Which leads me to my next request:
Don't spend time running down the slate of Democratic candidates
A common rhetorical device is, "All of these candidates suck except for mine! Only my candidate has the key to Democratic success." Look, the other side has this for their slate: a seriously unpopular Governor who presided over a major infrastructure project that is literally falling apart as soon as it's being completed, a Senator who has little support among the base and is so unserious about foreign affairs he is advocating troop decisions that even he says would destroy the military, a former mayor who has more skeletons in his closet than a med school, and a few minor Senators and Governors that are either Torquemada reborn or have some serious ethical lapses. Now that's a lame slate of candidates. We've got a collection of serious, experienced candidates, some with very important platforms of renewal for America. Practice with me, "I like the Democratic candidates, but I think Senator/Governor/General XXXX is the best of them all." Internalize the idea. Live it, love it. Not only is it good for the prospects of all of them, but it'll avoid the name-calling if you think of the candidates like that. Which leads to ...
Treat all of the candidates and their supporters with respect
Now, OK, I'm starting to sound like a mom here, but ... really. I know it's a great way to get attention, saying some strongly worded stuff about the other candidates. And yeah, in the heat of the campaign, you can start to personalize things and feel like an opposing candidate or group of supporters really is lame/dishonest/dangerous/ridiculous/whatever, but ya know what? You could be wrong.
Like last week ... frankly, I share some of the skepticism about Obama. And I share some of the enthusiasm for him. He could be a great candidate and a great man. Or, he could be a rhetorical flash who doesn't have the ideas or experience to be a good choice for President at this critical time. And, yeah, I sort of agree with Sirota that the enthusiasm for him isn't the best thing for the Democrats, but ... it isn't the worst thing, either. Obama is a genuinely exciting guy, and there've been other Presidents who had little experience (as someone pointed out, Lincoln didn't have much more than Obama ... although the times were very different then so the comparison doesn't really fit). But as soon as you call something ridiculous and dangerous ... well, rational thought and discussion just go out the window. So ...
Just chill the fuck out
This is important stuff, deciding who should be President. It's worth strong emotions, but ... when it comes to Democrat against Democrat, just chill out on the rhetoric. It's not good vs evil. You could be wrong in what you think. I don't have a preference, yet, although I'm leaning toward 2-3 folks. But, after I decide, while I'll be confident I made the right choice, I won't spend my time denigrating others for the choices they make. I'll put some serious thought into who I choose, and I'll believe that person is the best choice for America. But I won't run down others for their choices. I think all of the candidates have a shot (except Biden), and I think all of them are worthy. Unless someone runs around criticizing Democrats (hello, Joementum), they're cool with me. As long as they are giving a clear, compelling case for their path to a better world, go for it.
Politics are fun. I love the give-n-take of debate and differing views. And a lot of folks around here like to believe that on-line discussion is a better way of politics, an alternative to the fact-free pablum we get on the cable news, the endless discussions of process and personality to the exclusion of more weighty topics.
But we need to actually discuss things relatively free of personality and process to fulfill the view. We can't act like a community of 100,000 cable tv pundits, yelling at each other and talking about nothing but who has the best chance in swing states, or whose speech "hits the right notes." If we want this to be a better way, we need to live it. We need to debate whose policy for health care is the best, who can do the best for education, who can repair our position in the world, and if the politicians don't give us enough information to make those choices, we need to demand that they do. Don't follow meekly the lead cable news gives us; we can do better. We must do better.
update: One thing I didn't say explicitly enough ... disagreement is good and healthy. Criticizing other candidates for their stances on things is a BIG part of the democratic process. But, it's only helpful if discussion centers on the facts of things and the effects of policy in the real world. Making it personal about the candidate (or supporters), and, especially, concentrating on policy positions only for their "electability" is a recipe for screaming and screeching.