Why does it matter how we treat Clinton supporters on this site?

Because Obama said,

Be Nice to Clinton Supporters

But, Ben, what about the Hillary supporters who want and actively seek out and try to provoke verbal abuse?

I hadn't really thought about it this way before, but a week or so ago a Hillary supporter commented that he/she often got tired of the pro-Hillary sites, and came over here just to see how much abuse he could get the Obama supporters to dish out.

I've followed links to some of the pro-Hillary sites, and probably haven't spent more than five minutes total reading comments there. It's not hard to predict the sort of response I'd get to posting anything pro-Obama there. And so I haven't. And I'm sure that many Hillary supporters have had the same reaction to this and other sites. They stop by, they see what sort of response they'd get, they move on.

But clearly there are Hillary supporters who want to be insulted. They come here for the purpose of being insulted. They post things designed to elicit insults.

In some cases the reasons behind this behavior may be so psychologically twisted that it would take years of therapy to discover them. But my impression is that in many cases it's because it helps them maintain their pro-Hillary stance. They've seen how she's mismanaged the campaign, they cringed about Tuzla, most probably had at least a few qualms about their candidate endorsing the GOP opponent, and in general they've had to watch while seemingly insurmountable advantages were squandered.

They've posted (over and over and over again) arguments that they hoped actually made sense, only to see the superdelegates, who have heard all those same arguments, flocking to Obama instead. So what do they have left?

Anger toward Obama is what keeps them on Team Hillary. If they can't work up enough anger with Obama, then they can put themselves into situations where they are insulted by Obama supporters, and pretend that being insulted by a random anonymous commenter on some political web site is such an atrocity that they can't possibly support the same candidate as the person who typed those nasty words (and just to be sure, they come back over and over to have that experience validated).

It reminds me of something Groucho Marx said. Someone said to Groucho, "I didn't come here to be insulted!", to which Groucho replied, "Oh? Where do you usually go?".

They came here to be insulted, Ben. You're trying to deny them something for which they clearly have a powerful jones. Find some kindness in your heart toward these pathetic wretches. Don't make them go cold turkey.

And, hey, to any Hillary fans reading this? You're stupid! (And, you're welcome!)

Rec'd.

I do think there is a clear distinction between civility with our interlocutors here and the discussion about the actual candidates. Without civility among ourselves, there really is no quality debate. However, neither is there any debate if criticism of my candidate is always deemed as incivility towards me.

Likewise, bullshit must be called in order to maintain the quality of the debate, as done here by whom I consider a pretty decent poster in this site.

I am loath to deny the consequences of our comments at this site. As a proponent of chaos theory, I do believe in the butterfly flutter causing typhoons across the globe and therefore that our comments here matter very much. That said, our raison d'être here is political discussion, not getting candidate X and Y elected. Leave unto BarackObama.com that which belongs at BarackObama.com. Leave onto TPM that which belongs at TPM.

Look - the First Amendment is alive and well on comments boards - for now.

Y'all keep doing this and the First is going to take another hit.

Now just stop this - bitching about the comments is the fastest way I know to fuck things up.

Grow the fuck up - we're grown ups I thought and we ought to be able to handle a little conflict on the threads, for the love of god.

I've found that Clinton supporters just don't like being proven wrong. Whenever somebody shows a fallacy by Clinton, they go nuts and offer ad hominem attacks without factual basis. An Obama supporter then points out the factual inaccuracies, and the Clinton supporter goes batshit.

They then argue that pointing out fallacies is villainizing Clinton's supporters, which makes about as much sense as if Republicans argued that Muckraker villainizes them.

This is truly laughable. Just look at the comments in this thread. Smug, self-serving like you just won the prom king or something. Guess what, you didnt.

We have a good candidate whoever wins. My problem with the Obama supporters is the hateful threads over the months, threads that make me think most are closet Freepers. You know, the "Open Letters to Senator Clinton" or the "I would rather die than vote for Senator Clinton" threads here. Hundreds.

And of course what you consider slams at Obama are nothing in comparison to the slurs and ridiculous lies about Senator Clinton. Just ridiculous. I have seen time and time again the supporters of Senator Obama just echoing the right wing talking points and of course we have the now famous threads about the doctored video. That was shameful. And you expect to have credibility after that? Come on.

Look, I dont need or want you to be civil or kind or whatever. I have been a poster and reader of TPM since day 1 nearly 8 years ago. I expect that the Bionic Soys, Girl from Brooklyn and others will soon lose interest and head back to their Facebook pages soon. So please, none of your condescending crap, okay? I dont need it and I dont want it. I am for Senator Clinton because I think she is a better candidate. GET OVER IT!

Yes, productive is good. But I dont consider this to be productive:

"Breaking News: Hillary's FIRST Term" - Read it and tell me that is productive.

"She Can't Manage a Campaign, But You Want Her to Be President? Please Explain Why."

"Let's assume the Clinton voters do switch...."
psst!...I got news for you. You tend to project one or two peoples views onto to everyone.

So my question is this; Why are you people still fighting the last war? What would be productive is talking about McCain or maybe fleshing out some of Senator Obama's policies for all of us who are so out of it that we dont see all of His Wonderfulness. Now that would be much more productive instead of repeating the Freeper talking points.

Ben, You're going uphill against the many functions of a internet post-thread. You might think that people show up to agree or disagree, but the internets are also a faceless community for therapy and community.

In a faceless way, we assume identities, share our fears, rage at whatever, sneer at whatever, flirt, find conversations – serious and snarky. And sometimes, the anger flows out too fast and we get a bit shrill, jeery and over the top. All facilitated by the faceless nature and distance.

As Rabbit pointed out, some come here to be insulted.

Similarly, some come to mediate, find common ground and some to insist on their rightness/correctness/truthyness/sharpness and many others come to assert themselves, period. And many others come to just be in a group that some might negatively be characterize as a mob, and I believe some of the same rules apply. Hard to smooth out such a place, given that we all assume those roles at different times. Too unwieldy. But kudos for trying. ;)

A large point is being missed: Hillary keeps claiming that the campaign is going on.

It's one thing to have faith in your candidate, it's quite another to warp reality to fit a world view. At present, the Clintons are acting as if she has a shot at the nomination (currently now trying to peel off Obama's SuperDelegates).

I'm always for insightful discourse. At present this includes having to point out that the Clintons are delusional and that many of their talking points are out and out lies (e.g. "popular vote counts").

Hillary couldn't win this election on issues. She couldn't win it on being a name brand (remember 35 years of experience?). Now she simply wants to win it by bullying and bluster.

Do not waste time trying to convince each Democrat to vote for Obama. Only talk to people who will listen. You wouldn't waste your time trying to convince a supporter of LaRouche, right? Convincing indies and cross-over GOPers will be easier.

Hillary's campaign (and her most vehement supporters) insists on a scorched earth policy. Therefore, you take the battle to them. Because unless you thoroughly squash this issue now, it will keep coming back. The only issue with Hillary is to convince her and her supporters that she lost. No sugar coating. Not that she ran a good campaign, etc. But she lost.

Once they acknowledge that, then we can take off the gloves.

I am tired of the private psycho-dramas that the Clintons inflict on the entire public. Just another similarity between Hillary and Nixon.

Yeah, but they are idiots. Embittered, loserish, entitled idiots. I know we need their votes, but they need to shut the fuck up and go through their precious stages of grief and then emerge from their little chrysalis of healing and be adults. Then I will be happy to lie and say that Hillary was a fine candidate and not a destructive, lying lunatic.

Anyway, Thanks for the Post Ben, You lost another round though to your Obamaista breathern.

I'm committed to the Obama campaign and have been as infuriated by the Clinton campaign as anyone. But with the prospect of her bowing out, and Bill's statement that it might be his last day of campaigning, I'm experiencing a bit of grief myself. Not enough, mind you, that if she pulls any tricks and doesn't get right behind Obama I won't change my mind...

Why is there no "report abuse" button here? Why is it OK to hide behind the computer and spew out vitriol? "Ultracool" above is a good example. HusseinTenaX is another--she, if she is a she, seems to think swearing a lot makes her one of the boys (one of her recent comments was "That's chickenshit, you chickenshit") I notice now she's throwing in a lot of y'alls too. Anyway, thanks Ben for the effort anyway.

I had a "You had me at hello" moment with Barack Obama. It's the line from The Audacity of Hope where he says that Americans are suffering from an empathy deficit.

Many, many people are is entrenched in their own experiences and they categorically refuse to even listen to (let alone consider) another opinion before striking it down as not valid.

I have been on the giving and the receiving end of this phenomenon. I want a leader who is better than me, which is one of the many reasons I voted for Obama.

I also want a leader who makes me want to be better than I am right now. Thanks for reminding me of that, Ben.

Thanks for spurring this discussion, Ben.

I look at personal attacks and basic incivility as substitutes for reasoned and founded arguments. If you have a valid rebuttal to an assertion, it can be made without attaching rancor or rudeness. For me, once I see something written without civility—especially if it's made personal—I assume that the argument's no good.

I know that many of the posts at TPM fire up the emotions, and the Democratic primaries have done this more than anything else. But there's a level of rancor in them that makes me wonder what it is each "side" supports in its candidate.

I would hope that we all want someone who will work for the good of all Americans rather than individuals and corporations to become our next president. It would be a refreshing change of pace.

But the emotional attachment to the candidates makes me feel as if it's the game and the players that matter more than the good of the country. Even today I heard another person claim that she'd rather vote for John McCain than for Barack Obama, out of principle for what has been done to Hillary Clinton. I can't understand how this "principle" could override the need to take the country in a better direction. Real principle for someone who supports either of the Democratic candidates in the primaries would require voting for either Democratic candidate in the general election.

I know that we are mostly anonymous people here at TPM, and maybe that creates a feeling of license to insult and bully. I worry, though, that the anonymity of the (even virtual) voting both might allow voters to believe that personal preference in a candidate is more important than the greater good of electing the person who, of the two major candidates in the general election, will act for the American people, looking at both the short term and the long term.

You know, I've just thought of something: is it any wonder that a site based upon uncovering dishonesty has members who are hostile to a woman not known for her honesty? It's like wondering why we hate republicans so much!