With the increase in GOP concern trolls as well as the increased anger that Clinton supporters have regarding the status of the race (partially egged on by Obama supporters), I have come to notice that many folks have decided to post their opinion regarding the other candidate's supporters. Some typical sentiments that I as well as many of you undoubtedly have come across recently: "your post reflects so poorly on your candidate that I am so glad that I'm not part of your camp," "no wonder I won't vote for your candidate - look how nasty you are," etc.
This really does not make sense to me in the least, as I will explain.

First off, few of us that post on blogs actually know the other posters. We only know handles, public profiles (which typically include a one sentence blurb or a quote), and partial bits of personal information from certain postings. Sure, some of us have real life friends that post on our favorite blogs and some of us attend meetup events, but besides this, many of us know no one who posts on a blog. Thus, we only get a glimpse into another person and his or her "camp" based on 3 line posts, which may be intended as snark or less offensive than they are taken. Yet, many times we see someone take serious offense to a certain posting and reply "I can't belive you! You're a horrible person!" Perhaps we should consider cutting down the hyperbole? We just don't know our fellow posters enough to level such a personal condemnation.

Secondly, I do not know how a candidate's supporters, especially on the grassroots, activist level, reflect on the candidate himself or herself. So what if some a-hole decides to annoymously post an attack against either candidate or decides to display some form of insensitivity to a certain posting? Do you really think that that person has had personal contact with the candidate to determine how to react in a certain situation? Obviously, he or she does not. Furthermore, do Americans apply to be supporters of a campaign? Do campaigns have the ability to check into every one of their MILLIONS of supporters to ensure that they are completely sensitive, nice, and level no false, over the top attack? The answer to these questions is a definite "no." Thus, how can we make broad generalizations regarding a candidate based on his or her actions in a an annoymous blog? Obviously we are unable to. Candidates can't stop anyone from voting for them or helping them, nor are they able to tell their activist legions how to behave in internet communities. Exercise some common sense. Candidates have no control over what annoymous posters on the internet do.

And finally, does it really matter if you don't personally like the supporters of the other Democratic candidate? Is it that important to you that you vote for the candidate who supports indefinite war in Iraq, no expanded health care, even for children, a turn of the cheek on economic matters, and an end to reproductive rights in the United States of America? Are you willing to endure four more years of George Bush policies because you don't like internet posters or those in real life who do not support your chosen candidate? I certainly hope that you put greater weight on the real issues in this campaign and not some battle of personalities.

So, let's not be petty, and come together to understand that too much is at stake to reduce ourselves to being little kids in a sandbox.