I think the best we can do is to continue what we've been doing with the democrats in the last few years.  We have made progress, though certainly not as quickly as we would like.  My view is that this election is the last chance we have to begin turning things around economically and environmentally, so not voting for the democrat is not an option.  Back in 2000 I could understand the perspective of the Nadar voters because many thought that there was little real difference between democrats and republicans (not that I voted for Nadar).  Clinton had moved to the right on economic policy as well as a number of social policies, and it was difficult to imagine the sort of extremism the republicans later came to embody.  Things are no longer that way.  I wish I had a better answer, but I think the best we can do is to continue to build coalitions and work to have our voices heard.

Philoguy, this is an excellent, convincing response. Quite simply, putting it in these terms takes it out of the realm of the personal and into the practical.

The biggest problem with some is that they don't just want your vote, they want you to hero-worship the man the same way they do. Sorry, I just don't. Then again, I didn't hero-worship HRC either, just respected her tremendously.

He's good on some issues, so-so on others, and I disagree with him on some things (Coal? Are you kidding me?). Will I vote for him? More than likely, unless there are some other unpleasant surprises down the road, along the lines of FISA. Do I think Democrats are the far superior choice? Yes. That doesn't mean I think they should get a free pass. Does being a good democrat mean giving blind loyalty?

 of faux victimhood, not to mention gross ratings abuse.  Very instructive.

I call bullshit on your rating.  Philoguy is not attacking any specific user, nor are they lying (fingergate was an example of what many Clinton supporters did, both here and at DKos).

No, you did not have to troll-rate it.

No where in the post was the specificity of calling out a poster or a group of poster that would merit a troll-rate by the rule you cite.

Apparently you didn't spend any time at Hillaryis44, NoQuarter, or even here from April on either.  I can't say I ever witnessed the level of vitriol at Dailykos that I witnessed at these three places.  I would certainly agree that Clinton was not a popular candidate at Dailykos-- no surprise given their antipathy to the DLC and Clinton's tone deafness to this starting with her appearance at Yearlykos --but the vitriol I witnessed came from among her supporters there.  People responded in kind.

It is difficult to have a clear and level headed perspective on what took place in the primaries, and I include myself in this.  Personally I seldom saw many posts at dailykos that I would describe as attacking Clinton personally or in a sexist manner.  When I did see such posts (attacking her appearance, her voice, calling her a "bitch", etc) I troll rated these posts as did others.  The mystery then becomes what constituted an attack or vitriol?  That's where things become extremely difficult.  I thought it was perfectly appropriate to talk about her relationship to the DLC and her corporate donations, but others seemed to think this was an egregious and slanderous personal attack.  I also thought it was perfectly legitimate to have grave concerns about her history in relation to questions of electability, yet others thought this was an egregious attack.  I personally do not think those who cried "racism" over certain comments or who were outraged by the RFK remarks or who were furious over the "white working class" remarks were doing so in a cynical way for the sake of manipulative political ends, but it seems that many Clinton supporters thought there was a cynical political aim behind these things.  They did not believe people were sincere in their outrage.  Likewise, perhaps many Clinton supporters were genuine in their constant harping over Ayer, Wright, Rhezko, the "present" abortion votes in the ISL, though I find this very difficult to believe as Obama supporters kept providing legitimate evidence to the contrary from credible news sources.  I do think there's a bit of a false equivalency being drawn here between the actions of certain Clinton supporters and Obama supporters.  I really don't think there's any viable or legitimate comparison between what took place at Taylor Marsh, No Quarter, Hillaryis44, now Alegrescorner, and often here and what took place at DailyKos.  I think we have confirmation of this now as we have seen subsequently how this group of Clinton supporters have behaved, demonstrating that their ire over at Dailykos was never about an intolerable amount of vitriol, but always about a cult-like worship of a particular candidate that could brook no disagreement whatsoever.  This point is only magnified by the fact that Clinton herself has come to endorse Obama and campaign on his behalf, while these particular supporters continue to hold out for either pushing Obama out or some miracle at the convention, all the while campaigning in a way that ostensibly is at odds with Clinton's own platform (and therefore a violation of their support for Clinton).  The personal attacks I heard came primarily from the Clinton camp (references to cults, youthful naivete, messiah, etc) not the Obama camp, though I fully admit that this Edwards supporter turned Obama supporter might have been keyed in to only hear attacks directed our way and not Clintons way due to personal bias...  Something that these Clinton supporters need to consider as well.

I'm glad we agree, Bob, you're living on a different planet.

bob bob bob, I freely admit that Clinton never had much support at Daily Kos, having from the very beginning performed poorly in the site's straw polls. It stands to reason, to a degree, since Markos established the site as a counter to the DLC and insider influence with which the Clintons were commonly associated (whether you agree or not). The reasons for Clinton's lack of popularity at DKos can be traced to the days of Howard Dean, "Crashing the Gate" and progressive disillusion with the swiftness of the country's conservative realignment following President Clinton. She was always going to have an uphill battle there.

I never specifically mentioned Alegre, although she's a good example of a pro-Clinton writer who morphed into a purely anti-Obama ranter, and one who would never defend her claims. Her behavior became trollish in many eyes, for those reasons.

Actually, when and if a truly "pro-Clinton" diary appeared that wasn't merely a vehicle to attack another candidate, it was often greeted with appreciation. Peter Daou's diaries certainly attracted a lot of partisan fury, but from the reasonable posters, his contributions were generally respected, even when they were understood to be spin.

Again, the problem was that the Clinton bloggers at Daily Kos were unable to communicate effectively to a hostile audience, admittedly not an easy task. Many of them just decided to leave. What remained was sub-par at best, trollish at worst, and it became the visible norm.

That's not revisionism. That's just my perspective. You have yours.

I know that you, from your perspective, consider me to be some kind of troll. Is it because I don't agree with you?

Bob, how could there possibly be an issue of "fairness" here?  What could you possibly be talking about?  It was a primary race.  People either supported a particular candidate or didn't.  There was not widespread support for Clinton.  It was the job of Clinton supporters to persuade the rest, but they failed in that respect.  Rather than addressing the concerns that many had there, they either a) tried to silence criticism ("she's going to be the nominee so you better not do the work of republicans for them!"), b) grumbled and cried foul, or c) just left.  What was needed was not a rationalization of the AUMF vote or the corporate donations ("you had to understand the times and she was from New York!" and "lobbyists are people too!"), but a real response that would demonstrate that she would not make the same mistake in the future and that she wouldn't tie herself to corporate interests over the interests of average Joe and Joette American.  That response never materialized and ergo many didn't support her.  In many respects she put her supporters in an impossible position.  Given that she never made moves to distance herself from her former hawkishness, lobbiests, and alienation of a netroots fed up with failed DLC electoral strategies, she left her supporters with no ammunition to defend her and persuade others save complaints about media bias (bunk given how the news was all Clinton all the time up until the October debate and Obama's first win) and victimhood...  Not exactly a winning strategy.  So here we are.