GO F**K YOURSELF!! Just kidding.

I'm beginning to appreciate the discordant discourse around here.

I can tell who is a Clinton supporter, who is a Republican, who is on the fence, and who is for Obama, after only reading two or three of their posts or comments.

I tend to talk more with the folks who agree with me, but I do indeed read the posts of people whom I don't agree with. That's why I like the realclearpolitics.com website, and politico.com as well.

Here at TPM, I have found the most courteous and intelligent posters so far. Huffpo used to be like this, I think, but now it's become sensationalized and has lost its flavor.

TPM is trying, valiantly in my opinion, to maintain a place that welcomes all thoughts, all sides. When people pile up on a rightist post, it kinda hurts a little (when I'm not joining in on the pile-up). When people post specifically to bash rightists or leftists, I try to bash them right back, or ignore their posts if I can't come up with something clever to say.

As long as we don't let Lanny Davis and Geraldine Ferraro in here, I'll be fine.

The trolls, I'm learning to deal with. They aren't that numerous, even with all of their multiple user names, and they are easy to spot, and they are easy to either ignore or respond to, with intelligence.

I like this place. I don't want it to change all that much. Granted, I'm new, and barely remember what it was like before the New Big Change (other than that the coffee mug logo is either different or missing altogether, and the pages are actually more cohesive).

After visiting many other comment sections of other political websites, I'd say this is the most civilized and sane I've seen.

I like this place. The fact that Billy Glad does too really doesn't bother me. Sometimes, he's civil and makes sense. And sometimes, I'm not and don't.

We can't all be you, DF. Nor, alas, can I be your girlfriend. But I can still love your avatar (wink).

Hi DF. Glad you're posting again. Your core point that there is a shared assumption of progressivism is correct, and even important. It is the axis around which all this spins.

There's a separate subtheme of civility rules, and respect for others. On the first theme, Edmund Crankypants speaks for me on TPM civility rules. What he said. People understood that post, without it naming the several persons whose statements I recognized in it. And it for me is deeply true.

As to Glad, your post in response to Glad this afternoon in the Andrew Golis thread. What you said. I prefer your statements there to this post on that subject.

Peace.

Unity...hmmm...I don't know. My first question, unite behind what? I have a series of goals in mind that would make a better America but Hillary and her staunch supporters do not share them, eg. a more nuanced foreign policy, no more sabre-rattling, no pre-emptive wars, NO nuclear threats of "obliteration" of other nations!! Another goal, NO more lobbyist influencing government, or failing that, curtails on what lobbies can do. Hillary is backed by larges lobbies, how does that change Washington? How about getting rid of old-style politicking that lets the elite set the agenda and the great unwashed to heed?? Not with the Clintons. And MONEY? What about curtailing the rampant corruption in Washington???

I'd unite with those who share my concerns, but obviously a large segment of fellow Democrats do not share them. Many of these "Democrats" have declared they will vote for McCain over Obama this November, presumably because McCain represents their interests *more* than Obama, and Hillary represents MOST of them.

Maybe for the sake of understanding UNITY, we need to draw up some Venn diagrams, Bush, McCain, Libertarians, Hillary, Obama, and get to know what divides us first and foremost.

Is it enough to unite sharing *some* goals, eg. Healthcare, but not others, eg. NeoCon Wars? NO.

At this juncture, I'd say that I have MORE in common with Republicans like Ron Paul and their anti-war, anti-Alan Greenspan's Fed, pro-Constitution base than with the Clintons and their supporters, who voted with and share too many traits and backers (in media and finance) with the current WH idiot-Machiavellian for my comfort.

I have one time or another found that most politicians will say something I agree with. Even GWB has gotten a few key things correct (if sometimes for the wrong reasons). I'm willing to bet I'm one of the few (only?) people who have claimed that on TPM.

What I have found surprising at TPM is the desire to label. We even see it on this thread! Personally, I think that it's a reaction to the right (FNC for example, made labeling an artform), but it's usually more surprising coming from people who want to label themselves as "progressive".

If you are truly progressive, why are you trying to reduce someone to a box?

One of my favorite stories is when John Lennon pointed out that a very hip (at the time) restaurant in NYC, Max's Kansas City, was changing their decor. And (his words) "you had all these artists, and poets, and revolutionaries very upset that the decor was changing!"

So much for "progressives" being progressive. People are people, and we do like our comfort zones.

Life is about choices and priorities determine choices. It's the difference in priorities that will determine your political bent. However, there are sometimes paradoxs; things that defy classification. For example, which do you feel worse about:

a) a polar bear losing it's habitat

or

b) a freezing single mother of 2 children?

Very soon, you won't be able to have both. It has nothing to do with "evil" oil companies, or OPEC, or anything else. It has to do with finite realities.

This is just a simple example. You can't wriggle out of it by saying "less DoD spending". Some serious choices will have to be made. So are you green about the environment? Or are you empathetic to a human?

Similarly: Would you rather have Lincoln Chaffee in the Senate still? He's a dreaded Republican, after all!

Or maybe you prefer the Joe Lieberman. After all, he caucuses with the Dems.

I find dogma generally distasteful. At TPM if you apply that statement to religion, there are enough non-believers here that there won't be much of an argument. But try applying it to political discussions. There will be screaming aplenty.

Now let's consider how people categorize themselves. For example, there are green candidates in the presidential primaries. So why aren't those people who call themselves green trying to convince the rest of us to vote for a green party candidate? It's all about Hillary/Obama/McCain. Why?

Or another example: it's considered poor form here to sling mud on the Dem candidate, but the GOP candidate is fair game. Why?

Many people are generally most comfortable hearing their own views surround them. It's reassuring not to have to justify each step of an argument; it allows the thought process to be easy, full of received wisdom. But what it best about the Internet is that you can find people of many stripes and colors who can present well-thought out arguments. Yet, they may not be a member of your party, or your clique, or simply on the same side as you.

I have worked closely with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. By and large, you will find that the people in Congress are more similar than different -- they are self-selected to being able to get elected! (There are certainly exceptions, but the general rule is that most people in powerful positions in Congress tend to be the same.)

Something to think about when we talk about "unity".

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Democrats, Greens and Independents coming together to defeat a common enemy.

That enemy is the GOP.

I have no doubt that as individuals, some GOP Congress critters are fine, upstanding people.

Unfortunately, they all become jackbooted, slobbering, brainless Borg of the Bush collective when it comes to proposing and voting on legislation. If they didn't do that, we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in. They had their opportunity to show their "quality." They have none. They're mindless thugs.

As far as the GOP is concerned there's been far too much "unity."

What a bunch of smarmy, poorly though out B.S.

Sympathy for the GOP? I have sympathy for everyone serving in Iraq and Forgotistan. I have sympathy for the victim of Katrina. I have sympathy for the victims of torture (one of Bush's 'good' ideas.) I have sympathy for people who were bamboozeled into bad loans that are losing their homes. I have sympathy for inner city school kids being robbed of an education. I have sympathy for anyone victimized by the Medical insurance system, or the banking system, or the justice system.

THAT's the unity MOST people in the country are talking about, including many former Republicans.

The GOP made their bed. They have a severe comeuppance coming. Maybe I'll spare them a little sympathy in a few years after the Dems fix some of the crap they've allowed the Country to suffer from.

This is another timely and most excellent post by DF. I think many of us are guilty, myself included, of sometimes confusing the concept of unity with the notion of decency. The Democratic coalition has never been and will never be unified; there will always be issues that divide us as much as we are all divided with Republicans. Some of us fancy ourselves to be classic bread and butter type liberals, and others more international and eco-friendly progressives, etc.

It really is a beautiful thing, but of course it is cumbersome. My only concern with respect to the notion of unity is that, right now, by some measures, we are heading for the kind of schism that could lead to a Democratic defeat in November. I don't pay that much attention to most (not all) posters who come on here and pledge not to support Senator Obama if he is the nominee. But such folks are few and far between. Most of us are not going to help John McCain become president, and I think we need to debate or even fight with each other with that in mind.

I guess I feel it imperative that decency be the prevailing medium of communication, regardless of one's views at TPM Cafe. DF, you are absolutely correct that this website traditionally has had few equals in the blogosphere with respect to the diversity of opinions expressed by posters. Decency (with or without snark), not unity, is the medium to sustain this forum as such.

DF is right in that the "small differences" cannot be allowed to obscure the "larger agreements." However, this is much easier said than done. How exactly is it done? Compromise. You have to be able to not have your own way all the time.

Constrast that with this story I read about Rove (I think it was Rove), when he met with a moderate Republican senator about some bill. The colloquy went something like this:

Rove: This bill is now certain to pass.
Moderate: Sure, but if we made some very minor changes, it will get 80 votes.
Rove: Who cares? We have the votes already.

There is no one more decent than you, Bruce.

*sniff*