Use of Cheap Nicknames - Doesn't Strengthen One's Argument

[CGP]

I read in another thread some disagreement about the acceptability of using nicknames to refer to Obama and Clinton. It is absolutely the case that a million and one derogatory nicknames have been directed at Clinton and you will find them on just about every single website, both news sites and personal blogs. It is also true that in response to the constant abuse thrown at Clinton by Obama supporters that some Hillary supporters have tried to fight back or attempt to balance the situation by coming up with some less than flattering names for Obama. Admittedly, none of these seem anywhere near as bad as those that are thrown at Hillary Clinton but the same principles apply. In both cases, I don't think using this kind of language is an effective or powerful way to critique either candidate.

Resorting to cheap language and tacky nicknames weakens one's argument because the reader tends to focus more on the language and less on the content of the argument. When I see posts referring to Obama with a cheap nickname I am bothered because I see that as resorting to the same low standards as the supporter's of Obama. It is so much more effective, classy and convincing to put forward an argument/case without resorting to cheap/tacky nicknames. And far more honorable.

My call to everyone in this forum is this - rise above the exceptionally low standards of many of Obama's supporters and resist the temptation to use cheap/tacky language to fight back. The classy and powerful way to fight back is through presenting strong arguments which sell themselves based on the CONTENT and which don't need to fall back on cheap language in order to be heard.

Let's be classy and convincing. Cheapness is not attractive. I encourage, suggest and request that from this day forth people in this forum refer to BO by his name only - Obama, Barack Obama, Barack Hussein Obama - any of these is acceptable as these are his formal names. The other cheap nicknames that occasionally get thrown about do not serve our purpose in any fashion & I discourage their usage in this forum.

[memphis]

Thanks Murray!

[BooskerD]

Thanks for posting this!

[joeysky18]

Agree. Will follow.

[CGP]

I know there are plenty of people who share my view, and nice to see some comments in agreement with this!

[Area504]

I absolutely agree. Thanks for posting!

[PuppyDogMom]

Once again, Murray, you have proven yourself to be a class act! I applaud you, and this forum, for rising above the fray and focusing on what's important. YOu're cool, man!:cool:

[movingtous]

Thanks, Murray!

It always bothers me when I read vulgarity and cheap shots. Everything is fair game, just keep it clean!

[YesSheCan]

You are probably right, Murray. But it relieves frustration in a quick way. And I'm not offended at all on this list, and even find some of them very clever and humorous. I also think people here do it to tarnish the sort of image of divinity that the press and Oprah et al. have bestowed on Obama. In the end, I think it is harmless.

[Teri B.]

Thank you! You read my mind. Coming from a website that was so over the top, out of control, pro-Obama, and how sickened I was with the lies, gender bashing, and outright viciousness, I would hate to see the same thing happen here. I find myself extremely turned off when I see people post false or scurrilous information or use terms like Oblahama (or however they spell it). I mean what if the guy were a Muslim? That would be okay right? We are still democrats right? We haven't gone all Dick Cheney or something have we?

Anyway, I'd just like to see Hillary supporters behave with a little more dignity and decency than the Obamaniacs, and I think it would reflect well on Sen. Clinton and us.

I'd rather support a movement that takes the high road. I refuse to join a cult of personality on either side. This is/should be about issues and the best person to lead the country, not some kind of mania. I'm extremely worried that this is the kind of divisiveness may doom our party to failure in the general election.

Murry, I can't tell you how thrilled I am that you feel the same way I do on this.:)

[Charlie Brown]

I guess I missed where someone is out of line. I did call him a dumbhead once. But I was upset when he picked up more delegates here in Iowa. Do you not want us to call him BO either?

[freethinker]

Thank you for the reminder to remain graceful under fire!

I have always had a much harder time reining in my outrage with the MEDIA and some of the venom-spewing supporters. For many, it is precisely that behavior that has undermined Obama's credibility. Thanks for reminding us not to be guilty of doing the same thing. We must remember this for the sake of our own dignity and our very fine candidate's reputation.


Was it Aristotle who said, "Anger is only useful when directed against the right person"

[SD]

i agree that sinking to name calling is bad.

but i type "bo" and "hrc" simply because they are their initials and laziness on my part. i don't see how using their initials is bad though.

[CGP]

I guess I missed where someone is out of line. I did call him a dumbhead once. But I was upset when he picked up more delegates here in Iowa. Do you not want us to call him BO either?

BO is factually correct. No problems there. I use it all the time as that's what his initials are. BHO is also correct.

[CGP]

but i type "bo" and "hrc" simply because they are their initials and laziness on my part. i don't see how using their initials is bad though.

I think initials are perfectly ok - see post above.

[CGP]

You are probably right, Murray. But it relieves frustration in a quick way. And I'm not offended at all on this list, and even find some of them very clever and humorous. I also think people here do it to tarnish the sort of image of divinity that the press and Oprah et al. have bestowed on Obama. In the end, I think it is harmless.

I take your point. I am not personally offended either as I have a fairly well-developed sense of humor and can often see the funnier side of serious matters. But that's not the point. The point is that some undecided voters WOULD be offended and wont't hear the message, they will only hear the words. And subsciribing to the "if you can't beat em, join em" mentality has never been a winning strategy - using cheap language to try and counteract the false/phony image of BO portrayed by the media is not a powerful way to critique that false image. Going back to what I said earlier - a harsh and critical argument against a candidate based on soild principles/accusations is far more convincing than a weak argument bolstered by a few cheap words.

[CGP]

I have always had a much harder time reining in my outrage with the MEDIA and some of the venom-spewing supporters. For many, it is precisely that behavior that has undermined Obama's credibility. Thanks for reminding us not to be guilty of doing the same thing. We must remember this for the sake of our own dignity and our very fine candidate's reputation.

Exactly. Rising above the scumming behavior of others shows class and dignity.

[lucky-ann]

thank you! :) but i still don't like "barack hussein obama" ...i know it's his formal name, but mostly when people use his full name they want to attack him...they think more about the analogy to "Saddam Hussein" than about just using his name...i mean we're not Ann Coulter, right?;) but anyway thanks

[tcbwriter]

However, I think there might be some misunderstanding about the use of "Oblahma". I can't say for certain since I didn't come up with or use the nickname, but the way I took it was that the person inserted the word "blah" into his name because he's all talk; you know, blah, blah, blah.

Is that right or am I just naiive? :o

[AdrienneJ]

I think a distinction needs to be made here.

I for one enjoy a good laugh and the nicknames: 'obamination' and 'odrama' and calling the followers of his 'obots' makes me laugh. I applaud the inventiveness of our fellow Hillary supporters and bloggers. As one person pointed out, it relieves some of our frustrations. Anger and frustration can lead to gridlock and inaction. I don't want our workers to feel powerless. If they need to blow off some steam to vent their frustration and anger and feelings of outrage at what they have seen in this campaign and in the ridiculous media coverage, then we have a responsibility to give them a place where they can do it. Then they feel better and get back to work. I haven't seen any inappropriate listings on this forum anywhere at any time.

I, and probably anyone else on this planet, could write a blog using the appropriate grammar and rules of etiquette and come up with something that would offend you down to your very socks. Just think of William Buckley, Jr.
Those would be inappropriate blogs to me.

Laughter is healing and empowering. No one on this website has made any remark (that I have read) that made me feel that they had cheapened our candidate or themselves.

I have read the blogs on other sites. Some of them are truly toxic. They are filled with hate-- not frustration. They are purposeful and calculated to denigrate the other person and they are done in a methodical manner. They use swear word after swear word, loaded term after loaded term. There is nothing like that on this site. I whomped on Daschle on this site once. I didn't do it with swear words but with uncomplimentary adjectives. It helped me to relieve the anger and frustration I was feeling- both that he would make sexist remarks directed at Hillary and that the press continually gives this crud a platform. I needed this forum to have that outlet. I would not take that outlet away. No, no, no.

I think most people can agree on language that is really over the line. If that has been put on posts that came to this forum, then the moderators have effectively weeded it out. I would not censor anything that I have read on this forum!!!!!!

NO NO NO


Let's not make this a stiff place to visit where people feel they have to dress for court before they write and share their views and strategies and travails in working for our candidate. Let's make this a joyous site where we exchange ideas and exchange the dialogue that gives us hope and makes us laugh and supports one another in the work we do.

Instead of writing "obamination" do you really want that person to write something along the lines of: "and that other candidate, the Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, whose policies I disagree with; whose supporters I often disagree with; who seems to be leading the American people on a goose chase..."

How many words would it take to equal the poetry and the humor and the cleverness of "Obamination."

Please don't discourage clever, creative and witty people from blogging here.

If someone accidentally steps over the line, then edit out what you find so very offensive. But the comments I have seen have never been offensive to me.

I reiterate: Do not send our people the message that they need to strip themselves of spontaneity to come to this site!!!! We need that life energy to do our work. I already have to look words up in the dictionary to make sure I spell things right, don't make me have to consult Emily Post as well.

[tcbwriter]

I already have to look words up in the dictionary to make sure I spell things right, don't make me have to consult Emily Post as well.
I concur.

[CGP]

However, I think there might be some misunderstanding about the use of "Oblahma". I can't say for certain since I didn't come up with or use the nickname, but the way I took it was that the person inserted the word "blah" into his name because he's all talk; you know, blah, blah, blah.

Is that right or am I just naiive? :o

Yes, that's how I took it. As in someone rambling on about nothing.

[lucky-ann]

thank you! :) but i still don't like "barack hussein obama" ...i know it's his formal name, but mostly when people use his full name they want to attack him...they think more about the analogy to "Saddam Hussein" than about just using his name...i mean we're not Ann Coulter, right?;) but anyway thanks

i stay with that ^^ but i agree that names like "oblahma" or "obamination" are okay...but that's just my opinion and i can live with it, if this names aren't allowed here ;)

I already have to look words up in the dictionary to make sure I spell things right, don't make me have to consult Emily Post as well.

lol :D

[Teri B.]

Yes, that's how I took it. As in someone rambling on about nothing.

See I didn't get that, and I've seen others react to it as if it implied he was Muslim. I think the Oba-jokes are Oba-fun too. My concern is when the line of common decency and truthfulness are crossed, such as the attacks on Clinton's gender, her physique, and worst of all, her child. I haven't seen anyone here go that far of course, but I think it's good to keep in mind that we don't want any part of that kind of thing. That's no way to win anything.

[CGP]

I reiterate: Do not send our people the message that they need to strip themselves of spontaneity to come to this site!!!! We need that life energy to do our work. I already have to look words up in the dictionary to make sure I spell things right, don't make me have to consult Emily Post as well.

I take your points.

Sometimes, though, I think you need to set the bar high to ensure a minimum standard is met. It's a goal, not a demand. I am not immune myself. I have frequently used the word "Obamamaniacs" to describe some Obama supporters. But I still think that's not a very effective way to critique their behavior by using that term. Sure, it might be light-hearded and stress-relieving, but does it actually achieve anything constructive in terms of really drawing attention to the issues at stake? I am not so sure it does.

And the reason that you haven't found anything that needed to be censored is because of:
1) the rules were made clear from the outset
2) the average Hillary supporter is a kind soul
3) we have already deleted any offending content!

So it's only through having some basic guidelines and structure that a certain standard of conduct can be maintained or achieved. It's important to have goals to work towards. The alternative would be to throw away with all guidelines, and end like Democratic Underground and others were there is no standard of conduct and hate/venom is the order of the day!

[CGP]

See I didn't get that, and I've seen others react to it as if it implied he was Muslim. I think the Oba-jokes are Oba-fun too. My concern is when the line of common decency and truthfulness are crossed, such as the attacks on Clinton's gender, her physique, and worst of all, her child. I haven't seen anyone here go that far of course, but I think it's good to keep in mind that we don't want any part of that kind of thing. That's no way to win anything.

No, I never interpreted in that way. Soley about rambling. But people interpret things in different ways and that's the danger of using nicknames and jokes.

[SD]

I take your point. I am not personally offended either as I have a fairly well-developed sense of humor and can often see the funnier side of serious matters. But that's not the point. The point is that some undecided voters WOULD be offended and wont't hear the message, they will only hear the words. And subsciribing to the "if you can't beat em, join em" mentality has never been a winning strategy - using cheap language to try and counteract the false/phony image of BO portrayed by the media is not a powerful way to critique that false image. Going back to what I said earlier - a harsh and critical argument against a candidate based on soild principles/accusations is far more convincing than a weak argument bolstered by a few cheap words.

yes. i dislike the nasty things the obama supporters say and i hope i never sink to that level. it makes hillary look so much better that her supporters don't rant and rave as these obama people do. i find it almost sad to hear the hate, wondering if obama himself condones the things his supporters say. but then, he is good at claiming he never heard anything bad.

[CGP]

i find it almost sad to hear the hate, wondering if obama himself condones the things his supporters say. but then, he is good at claiming he never heard anything bad.

That last sentence made me smile - it's so true...

[YesSheCan]

Adrienne, this is what I meant by my post. And your words I quote here:
"How many words would it take to equal the poetry and the humor and the cleverness of "Obamination."
Please don't discourage clever, creative and witty people from blogging here."

your words express also what I meant. The spontaneity I think is great and non-toxic, at least I haven't come across anything.

[Tea toaD]

I too will abide by this rule from now on:D

[smharley for Hillary]

I have never read anything on this site I thought was offensive and I thought "Obamanation" meant he or his campaign wa an abomination. I have used Balamobama on other sites before in frustration...I don't think I have used it here and I meant it is blah, blah Obama...I will admit some of the threads I read here crack me up and in an otherwise stressful campaign I have welcomed them. To your point Murray, if someone on the fence defects to BO's camp just because they read 'Oblahma" on this site, then I submit all the intellectual and truthful comparison of the two candidates would probably not swayed them to our side anyway. You are all doing a great job in my opinion and I respectfully ask that you keep me smiling.

[Suzan]

Also keep in mind that we may well be going public after this election, if we haven't already. We're going to want to look strong, dedicated and professional. Those names don't convey that image. I agree they've given me a chuckle or two, but I'm not sure they're in our--or Hillary's best's interest.

This is a good standard. Thanks, Murray.

[Suzan]

Also keep in mind that we may well be going public after this election, if we haven't already. We're going to want to look strong, dedicated and professional. Those names don't convey that image. I agree they've given me a chuckle or two, but I'm not sure they're in our--or Hillary's best's interest.

This is a good standard. Thanks, Murray.
Sorry! I meant going public after the protest tomorrow.

[eyedoc333]

Keep in mind that when Hillary wins the nomination, we will want/need the votes of former Obama supporters. Not all of them are disillusioned with Hillary and could certainly help in November.

Whenever I write a post, I think about how it might sound to an Obama supporter. Think of how you feel when you read ridicule of Hillary. I firmly believe in civil discourse. Let's not close the door on those who might be working with us later....

[CGP]

Keep in mind that when Hillary wins the nomination, we will want/need the votes of former Obama supporters. Not all of them are disillusioned with Hillary and could certainly help in November.

Whenever I write a post, I think about how it might sound to an Obama supporter. Think of how you feel when you read ridicule of Hillary. I firmly believe in civil discourse. Let's not close the door on those who might be working with us later....

Good points. Your moderate views are an asset to the forum! And your point definitely need to be considered by members.

I will also note, however, that compared with pro-obama forums and pro-obama websites, the behavior of the members of our forum here is almost "saint-like" in comparison. Vile hatred, abuse, slander and worse is allowed on those other sites I refer to - it is not allowed on this forum. As much as possible, moderators try and keep things here clean and fair - especially taking into consideration the gross media bias which favors Obama and grossly disadvantages Hillary Clinton.

If ever you notice content which you think should be removed, moderated or addressed in some way, please do let the moderation team know and we will attend to. Given the thousands of posts and threads, it's not possible to always catch everything and we will miss stuff. In this regard, we rely on members to a large extent to police content and to inform us accordingly of any questionable material/language/views.

[Patricia GA]

When ever I blog on articles or send e-mails I try to make strong points and I stay away from name calling, etc.

[CGP]

When ever I blog on articles or send e-mails I try to make strong points and I stay away from name calling, etc.

That is more poweful and more effective.

[Cooney]

I disagree, I have probably used a rare inappropriate O...suffix. But when I find myself laughing out loud at the computer because someone has coined a word I find humorous and relevant to Obama, it keeps me coming back and interested in participating in the dialog. To me, this is what we should want, I would hope that political correctness will not be the rule of law on this site, but instead, I would hope when someone crosses the line, including myself, a stern personal warning is what would be in order.