you say "But we're all adults here" as if being an adult were some guarantee of mature behavior. Let's face it, the combination of the election and anonymity is going to make comments sections all over the net ugly.

I'd say start by getting rid of anonymous postings as it is the premier venue for mindless attacks.

Let me close by saying that Mr. Koppelman is a poopy-head.

*cracks Mr. Koppelman on the ass with a rat-tail*

And guess what? Those Japanese torturers were tried, convicted and executed by the U.S. for torturing.

"It seems that there was a time (though not during my tender 35 years) when there was such a thing as civilized discourse among adults. But now, society is pretty much nakedly high school"

I blame our school system. Before kids were required to go to school, they learned how to socialize by watching adults socialize with other adults. Now we stick em all into 1st grade when they're 6, and they learn to socialize by socializing with other 6 year olds who are themselves learning to socialize. Is it any wonder I'm willing to publicly call people 'poopy-head'?

Madness.

"We both used "poopy head" in our posts... OK, you hyphenated yours... smarty-pants"

I will now 'flame' you.

You didn't spell poopy-head with a hyphen? I mock your level of education! I deride you, and [Candidate you support] and [your local sport team]

Let me close with [ad hominem attack on your closest living relative].

P.S. Your physical appearance is comical to me.

Take that!

I agree the internet has exacerbated the damage to public discourse. But the internet just made us lazier communicators, and the anonymity brought out the worst in us. The damage was done long ago when generations of children were deprived the opportunity of learning to socialize from adults. And then those children grew up and had their own generation of kids and it just gets worse as the memory of dignified public discourse becomes fainter and fainter, and mudslinging, name-calling become the norm.

We're not saying Anon is the only problem, its just the only thing that something can be done about.

Also trolls are not just people who disagree. A troll is someone who comments to rile things up for the fun of it. Someone who posts something that adds nothing to the conversation. This is a classic troll post: [Candidate] is stupid.

With that being the entirety of the letter. See? that letter would be a troll post.

"This article is nonsense. Mark Penn isn't a candidate, so the fact that he used to work for a consulting company that had Exelon as a client is a nonissue.

I would posit that in this forum, most of us have made up our minds, and that we're engaged more in the intellectual joy of dissecting the campaign, the way chess aficionados will pour over a move with delicious detail, rather than trying to determine who to vote for.

That being said, the actions of Mr. Penn, or any member of any campaign are appropriate fodder for us to discuss under the rubric of: How has/will the MSM cover it; how will the electorate respond to it; and what overall impact it may have on the election. Thus, there is no 'real issue' other than what each individual takes away from it.

I've never really understood endorsements. Are there really people who are undecided that this decides it for them? Will supporters of a given candidate going to switch because of some endorsement?

Well the MSM seems to think it's good news so grats to Obama.

From the beginning, HRC's apparent 'do-anything' lust for power was what turned me off to her. Being honest however, I'm forced to admit that Obama is probably JUST as hungry and ambitious for power as HRC is, and probably just as willing to do anything to win. So I didn't hold it against her too much. But...

The difference is HRC give me examples to support my beliefs.

Posts a letter attacking people in the comments section. Doesn't address the article the comments section is in reference to at all.

Nice try. Clinton campaign float the idea of subverting the will of the people and somehow its Obama supporters who are at fault.

Granted the reality is that I expect all the mainstream candidates to do all they can to get elected. Far more important than that reality in an election is perception. And for an HRC staffer to suggest going after so-called 'pledged' delegates is a big blunder in that it strengthens the perception of her 'do anything' to win attitude, and though Obama would probably being doing the same thing were he in her position (losing) he's smart to make this an issue.

Re: destroying the dem party.

I think Slackie's point is that were ANY candidate to win the nomination despite losing the primaries by specifically getting 'pledged' delegates (not superdelegate) to switch their vote away from their assumed position based on their states' vote COULD cause serious damage to the dem party and cause countless to sit home or vote repub because of anger that their vote didn't count.

And being the current dem 'energy' is higher than it's ever been, its reasonable that its fall would also be catastrophic.

Personally I find it odd that there are people who think their vote counts, but thats a different issue.

"If No One Gets 2025

It's a free for all. That's the rules. What's not sinking in here?

Despite the rules, the dem electorate might be upset if they perceive the nominee does not reflect the majority vote. Does that not seem obvious to you?

The dem electorate may 'backlash' against a candidate that they perceive as having enabled or gained from a strategy that attempted to negate their vote. Does that sink in for you?

Hmm, this is a tuff one, but I'm going to go with... B?