Miller people almost never give any reasons why they support their candidate.  Mostly, what they do is bash Jim Webb.  In contrast, Webb supporters give TONS of reasons to support Jim Webb. Now why is that?

They are perfectly willing to say "I don't agree with Jim on this issue" and say why, but still support him.

I think most of the people on RK are intellectually honest.  They realize that Jim isn't perfect, isn't infallible, and accept him for who he is.  I think you can do that with someone like Jim - because of his character and strong values.

If you look strictly at policy issues that Miller has put forth, I agree with many of his policy issues - maybe even more than Jim.  Miller's character is just too disturbing.  I could never support someone who I think is personally reprehensible.  Measuring the man is just as important as looking at position statements - in fact more important.

I can accept someone who I don't agree with all of the time as long as I know that they follow their conscience - and do what they think is best for America.  I believe that Harris Miller will be a corporate shill.  He'll pull in votes on wedge issues and vote in favor of big business - using wedge issues to conceal his actions.

Jim Webb will do what he thinks is right and follow core values he learned in the service.

all issues.  But hell, I don't even agree with myself on all issues.  So what?  I think Webb is man of integrity and courage who can make the Democratic Party the great party it should be once again!

I read Vivian's blog periodically--and she seems to be even-handed. 

On the Miller issue though, I'm really struggling to see her point of view.  I guess this really boils down to a matter of trust and also to a person's "political identity"--i.e. core values.  Especially for purists these aren't areas that are readily open to discussion and debate.

Personally, I'm a solidly centrist Democrat--I'm not an ideological purist by any stretch.  I believe that Democrats are just as likely as a group to fall into self-serving, narrow-minded patterns of behavior as Republicans--and that, at the end of the day we should scrutinize each candidate's resume on its merits, and not use party labels as if these were some kind of absolute "good housekeeping" seal of approval.  Using this measure, there's absolutely no comparison between the two candidates.

I've been trying to get someone, anyone to gove me a positive reason to like Miller, or convince me that he'd be stronger against Allen.  They can never seem to come up with anything.

I wonder what it's like when your only case for your candidate is "he's not the other guy."

The 1000 pound gorrilla with Miller is his outsourcing and lobbyist positions.  Vivian didn't care to defend those positions or condemn them.  I haven't heard any Miller supporter make judgement on them.  Will they try to pass those positions off as legitimate?  Or will they simply sweep them under the rug?

I have news, we won't allow Miller to sweep those positions under the rug.  Ever.

They have nothing positive to say, so they just bash the other guy.  In Kilgore's case, it was a GREAT man named Tim Kaine.  In Miller's case, it is a GREAT man named Jim Webb.  Even creepier, Kilgore used Adolph Hitler and Miller used trumped-up charges of "anti-Semitism."  Is this bizarre or what?

...I got an unpleasant deja vu feeling when I saw that Miller was trying to trump up some silly charge of "anti-semitism," and against a fellow Democrat no less.  Much as I hat yo say it, Miller's campaign does rather remind me of Kilgore's, at least insofar as he focuses much more on bashing his opponent than giving you a reason to like him.