I really don't get this, guys. I made some comments in another diary suggesting that Dennis Kucinich is not as worthy of our limited resources as other Democrats like Tom Perriello or even other members of the Ohio delegation that voted for the Affordable Care Act that are in great electoral danger 2 days from now.
Look, his protestations aside, Dennis Kucinich is not going to lose Tuesday. Not. So why is he fundraising for himself and not stumping for his fellow members of the Ohio delegation? Why is he not tranferring what he has in his campaign account to the state party, a la Lee Fisher?
I can tell you why: because he simply doesn't care about Dems in danger as much as he does about himself and his "candidacy" for his safe seat.
Also, when you hold up the process of holding a vote on health care when you know darn well that voting on the Senate bill was the only option for reform for the next however many years, you're screwing the President and, by extension, the Democratic party. He had many opportunities to improve the bill earlier in the process, and he took advantage of NONE of them. NONE.
With that in mind, no matter how you feel about the bill at hand, how could you not conclude that he's trying to merely burnish his "progressive" creds? I certainly can't, and I am a HUGE supporter of single-payer.
Having said all that, I want to get to the bigger point. Much of DKos is now totally intolerant of dissent. Totally.
For example, do any of you folks remember Maryscott O'Connor? She didn't give a shit how you felt about her opinion, she just machine-gunned it at you. In my previous dKos incarnation, I never hiderated her for being uncivil, because I knew she meant well and that's how she rolled. Back then, people didn't become crybabies when someone disagreed with them or even questioned the motives of people they liked. I certainly don't take it THAT personally.
Today, when I strolled into DK's diary, could I have not said he was whiny? Yeah, probably. But I really don't think that my comments were attacked because of that.
One of the great lessons I learned in Psych 101 is that a lot of people constantly make decisions and ascribe their motives for making those decisions after the fact. So for all of you that hiderated me for reasonably questioning the motives of a well known progressive (which is well within my rights here), I ask you to question your own as well.
If many dKossers aren't intolerant of dissent, they certainly cloak it in a surprisingly huffy disdain for a straightforward and unapologetic opinion.
Maryscott would be rather displeased with your lack of balls indeed.