Seems some people here...

[catnhatnh]

...believe that the rules that apply to the Hillary Clinton Group should be applied across the entirety of the Democratic Underground. This has not occurred and likely won't. Further, even should Ms Clinton become the candidate of the Democratic party-whether by primary or proclamation-fair criticism is STILL going to be allowed. All posters may at this point promote any democrat they desire and in this election even a socialist independent can be supported.

If this is intolerable to you you have a group to suit your needs.

[NaturalHigh]

1. I'm a big fan of Secretary Clinton...

but I certainly don't think she's exempt from questioning or criticism.

[el_bryanto]

2. I agree

While I don't begrudge them their right to argue that we should all pay less attention to Clinton's flaws, I don't think they can insist on it. And that seems to be what they are doing, and I would anticipate that they will continue to do that more and more as we approach the election.

Bryant

[ileus]

3. She's got this locked up...it's time to band together behind her now.

[catnhatnh]

5. Is this a fresh post...

or was this written in 2007?

[Ramses]

11. It's her turn

[catnhatnh]

4. At this point she is only my third choice.

But that does not mean she cannot win my support. That will be decided when she declares and campaigns.

[dissentient]

6. I agree, and I for one, feel favorable towards her. But I would never want to muzzle anyone

who feels negatively about Hillary. To be honest, some of the more hard core Hillary supporters can be obnoxious at times in their pushing of Hillary and trying to silence dissent. That is not my way.

[OKNancy]

7. I don't think you will find any Clinton supporter who doesn't believe criticism is fine

however, some of it is so over-the-top, ridiculous and unfair. And truthfully some of it is straight from the Republican machine.
That is not to say the people posting it are Republicans or trolls, but that they are repeating what the Republicans would like to put out in the conversation.

[shenmue]

9. Exactly

"Clinton-haters are the scum of the Earth."
- Mike Malloy.

[catnhatnh]

13. Have you ever BEEN to the Hillary Clinton Group???

It is made up ENTIRELY of people who do not want to hear any criticism of Ms Clinton. Go read it-OP: I LOVE Hillary...21 Replies: Me Too!...Me Too!!!...Me Too!...rinse and repeat.

"Statement of Purpose

Discuss the life, career, and accomplishments of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Supporters only.

There is no wiggle room here, none whatsoever. Passive aggressive will also be dealt with swiftly.

The Statement Of Purpose is pretty clear and violaters (sic) will not be warned before being blocked. "

Wanna reconsider your post opening?

[OKNancy]

24. I'm a host there. You don't get it do you?

that is what groups are for. The feminists, the gun group, the Warren group, the Obama group... they are all for fans and supporters.

There is nothing wrong with a set-aside for postive comments. Lord knows there is enough bullshit posted in GD... and I don't just mean about Hillary.

[SheilaT]

38. Thank you. I have been banned

there not because I said anything over the top, but because I pointed out some of her flaws. I have often posted comments quite critical of whatever topic is at hand (you should see me on guns) and the Hillary group is the only place I'm no longer welcome.

The real danger of not allowing even the slightest criticism of Ms. Clinton is that the forum is simply an echo chamber, and those who hang out there do not understand there is genuine criticism to be made of her.

Besides, I thought she had the nomination sewn up at the end of 2007. Why isn't she in her second term right now?

[Enthusiast]

39. Me too. I was too critical of Hillary.

[SheilaT]

40. Amazing, isn't it?

The Hillary group cannot begin to tolerate any criticism whatsoever. And when I post my impassioned opposition to guns in the gun group, they may strongly object to what I say, but they don't ban me. Hmmm. I wonder what the real difference is.

[Enthusiast]

41. Get ready....

for Hillary!

She is as inevitable as the sunrise.

[SheilaT]

43. Wasn't she inevitable in 2008?

So what happened?

And DON'T say that Barack Obama ran a better campaign. The truth is that Hillary was never really ready for prime time. I find it genuinely scary that all these years later her supporters are insisting that NOW really is her time, and no one should question that.

She wasn't right eight years ago. She's not right now. I'm sure she is a lovely human being, but what we need next year and into the future is someone who actually gets it that the little people need support. And that's NOT Hillary.

[Enthusiast]

44. Leading up to the 2008 election

I ran into some friction. My 90 year old mother loved Hillary. I was an Obama supporter. My mother never stopped loving Hillary. We had some knock down, drag outs.

I have since lost my mother. I feel bad about those arguments. She would be amazed that I have turned against both Hill and Obama.

[SheilaT]

45. I'm sorry about your mother.

But you're still leaving unanswered the question: Wasn't Hillary inevitable it 2008?

What truly scares me is that so many of the Hillary supporters are saying "Now is the time! THIS is the Hillary inevitability!"

I was around eight years ago. I remember all too clearly the Inevitability of Hillary back then. Here's the essential problem. It's not whether or not Hillary is inevitable, but whether she truly is the right candidate now. I don't think she is I didn't think she was eight years ago. She's a perfectly nice lady. I've met her, however briefly. But I can tell you that her support of the oligarchs makes her extremely unsuited to be the Democratic candidate for the Presidency in 2016.

I keep on running into relatively low information voters (even though they would not think of themselves as such) who are wildly happy with the prospect of Hillary in 2016. I honestly don't know how to reach those people. I don't want to tell them, or even imply, that they haven't a real clue about what's going on. But that's how I feel. The unthinking Hillary supporters aren't thinking it through. All they know is "This time it's Hillary's time" and "We are more than ready for a woman as President, and of course that woman is Hillary Clinton!"

With all due respect, it's a lot more subtle than that, as it was in 2008. Back then it was not just a choice between a black man and a white women, even though there were those who tried to present it as such. It was, even then a choice between the future (Barack Obama) and the past (Hillary Clinton). That's the choice that is not acknowledged, even all these years later. Hillary Clinton represents the corporatist past, not the future, and the insinuation that Hillary is Inevitable, that she will of course be our nominee and she will of course defeat whomever the Republicans nominate is a holdover from eight years ago, not the present reality. I contend that her negatives among the population at large are so great that she can't possibly win the general election are not part of this particular discussion.

Are the Hillary supporters living under a large rock? Do they not understand that every flaw she has ever had in the past will be brought up again? Do they think that Benghazi will go away? Do her supporters live in some sort of alternate universe in which these things don't exist? I've heard the argument that all possible stones have already been thrown in her way, and so she can blithely sail above anything. I'm sorry, but that's naive. Every single thing leveled against her eight or nine years ago will be leveled against her again. And then some.

Hillary Clinton is a perfectly nice lady. But her time really is past. We, the Democratic Party, need to move beyond her. And beyond Joe Biden. We need to be looking at the new generation of potential candidates: Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Julian Castro, Martin O'Malley, and probably others I'm unaware of. We really do need fresh blood, fresh ideas, and I'm beyond bothered that all most people can think about is Hillary, Hillary, Hillary.

[Enthusiast]

46. I am with you, 100%.

I remember when Hillary was considered inevitable in 2008.

In my earlier post, when I said Hillary was inevitable, I was only kidding. I was mocking the true believers. I should have deployed the sarcasm thingie.

[SheilaT]

47. No problem.

I almost never use the sarcasm thing. If people here don't get sarcasm, then, too bad.

[winter is coming]

42. HRC group has half the subscribers and five times as many banned as the EW group.

[aquart]

51. Well, that kind of snide remark is not what I'd call criticism.

You know what? Hillary lost the nomination as you pointed out. Instead of indulging in petty spite, she became Secretary of State to the man who defeated her. THAT's why Americans give her that stunning favorable rating.

[jeff47]

54. I got banned by suggesting the Democratic candidate

needed a more "populist" approach in order to win. Made no claim Clinton could not do so. Still got banned.

[Scuba]

27. If you think the criticism is "repeating what the Republicans would like to put out" then ...

... you haven't been reading the criticisms. The Republicans are trying to paint her as a far-left extremist.

Criticism here has almost exclusively been from the left, pointing out that she's too far to the right. Republicans are clearly NOT trying to point that out!!!

[OKNancy]

34. Actually there have been many article and opinion pieces from right-wing sources

posted on DU.

Yes, Republicans would like for people to think she doesn't care about the poor or middle class.
That is totally untrue and her voting record and actions prove it.

I don't give a hot damn if she made money talking to bankers or Wall Street jerks. I took money from Republicans when I owned my CORPORATION and I loved doing it.

[Scuba]

48. OK, then ...

1. Please provide a few (not "many) DU posts from "articles and opinion pieces from right-wing sources" bashing Hillary to support your claim.

2. Please provide some shred of evidence that Republicans are promoting the idea that Hillary "doesn't care about the poor or middle class".

3. When your corporation took money from Republicans, it was almost certainly in exchange for some product or service. Please describe what you think Goldman Sachs expects from Hillary in exchange for their financial support?

[OKNancy]

52. I wasn't even going to bother responding since nothing I can say

would soothe you... but I just got through seeing this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026229884

Written by a right-wing Cato Institute drone. He's telling Democrats how bad Hillary is.

It's sickening.

[Scuba]

53. So you have one post (not many, not even a few) that *might* be from a right winger ...

... bashing Hillary.

But you've got no evidence that Republicans are promoting the idea that Hillary "doesn't care about the poor or middle class", nor do you have anything regarding the quid pro quo Hillary will be expected to give CitiBank, Goldman Sachs, et al.


In other words, you got nothing.

[Agschmid]

59. Yup.

I'm not even sure I support her but many of these attacks are right from Brietbart.

[merrily]

8. Agree, subject to the DU rule that, once the nominees become obvious, criticism needs to

"simma down" some. (Please consult TOS for exact words.) And DU is about voting for Democrats, as opposed to for so-called third party candidates or staying home is also inconsistent with the TOS.

Those who are critical of Hillary tend to be the left of DU and, IMO, we've already lost too many of them to bannings and self deportation. I really would love to see a better retention rate. If someone wants to risk a banning intentionally, that's up to him or herl. Vaya con Dios. I would never ask anyone to censor themselves.

I just fear that someone will get banned simply for lack of knowledge of DU's Terms of Service.

[winter is coming]

12. It's a long time yet until the election rule will kick in. n/t

[merrily]

16. Sure. My post said when the election rule kicks in.

Even now, though, I've seen people ask critics of Hillary if said critics will vote for her if she is the nominee. And some of said critics have said "no." Some critics don't even wait to be asked.

Even right now, saying you will not vote for the Democratic nominee is grounds for anything from a hide to a banning. Again, if someone feels that strongly about it, that's on him or her, but I don't want anyone to trip themselves up unknowingly.

[Skittles]

10. so you're saying that group is turning into the BOG?

[boston bean]

14. Can someone please post some original

Clinton supporter bashing?

[merrily]

17. Only if you promise that Hillary supporters will be original when they bash her critics.

[catnhatnh]

18. Again...

if you don't like it there is a group where you won't hear it. And NO-I am not bashing Clinton supporters, I am saying Clinton supporters have no right to attempt to censor discussion on OUR board.

[boston bean]

21. Uh huh you seem to want to control the board yourself

Hillary hasn't even declared yet. People are unoriginal in their bashing of her supporters. It's a big yawn.

[winter is coming]

22. There's no need to come up with "original" criticisms when the "unoriginal" ones apply. n/t

[boston bean]

23. It's a big yawn and boring.

But hell continue on.

[jimlup]

15. Thank you!

Yes indeed... I will likely hold my nose and vote for Hillary if she is the nominee but it will be a lesser evil vote and I don't want to hide that I feel that way here.

[madokie]

19. We can do a hell of a lot worse than Hillary

I'm just sayin

[el_bryanto]

20. I don't know that anybody would argue with that.

We just have to look at who our friends on the right are throwing up.

But this is primary season; it's the time to push for the strongest candidate we can, one who will both win the election and represent the positions we care the most about. For some people that will be Clinton; for others it won't be.

Bryant

[Scuba]

29. And a whole hell of a lot better, too!!

[Rex]

31. Plus, even those of us that don't want her as the candidate will vote for her

like everyone else when it comes time to pony up. Much of this is just general forum fight club imo and it of course will get worse and worse as we get closer and closer.

I think groups are great for people that have too thin a skin for open forums. A place to go where you know people won't piss you off...not a bad idea really.

[Autumn]

55. We can do better

I'm just sayin

[madokie]

56. Of course we can

and I'm hoping for a Warren with Sanders or Sherrod Brown as a running mate. I really do want to see a woman President next. I'll vote for whoever the Democratic Party puts forth no matter if its a yellow dog or a bare ass baboon. I'm a 100 plus percent Democratic party voter though.

[MohRokTah]

25. Link please.

Please provide a link to such a post.

Thanks you.

[catnhatnh]

28. OK

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11071384

[MohRokTah]

32. Odd.

Your link doesn't say anything about trying to make all of DU like the Hillary group.

I can only surmise your OP is complete hyperbolic bullshit after this being the only link you can provide.

[Liberalynn]

26. I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee in the general election

but she is not in my heart of hearts who I would choose first in the primary. My choice is still saying no and unfortunately she probably means it, but I keep wishing it could be different.

My positives for Hillary right now are:

That at least I might get to see a woman elected President in my life time. I know I will probably get flack for saying that, the whole voting with the vagina criticism, but given all the set backs the GOP is trying to hand women it would be nice to see a woman kick their elephant rears in the Presidential election.

And at the very least I think she'd at least stand up for civil rights.

However my big negative is the same as some others:


IMHO, the only way for the country to get back on it's feet and stay that way , is for us to elect someone who can stand at the Presidential podium and forcefully and persuasively argue to the American Public that supply economic theory has been tried and tested over and over again with devastating consequences for the long term and it needs to be labeled failed once and for all, and trash canned forever and ever. I can't see Hillary being either able or willing to be the one to convince voters we need to stick a fork in it any more than Obama could. They both agreed with too much of it and admired one of it's foremost cheerleaders ever, 666 Ronald Wilson Reagan.

[Rex]

30. Well to the bigger point, GD will never be an echo chamber much to the chagrin of some here.

Believe me, I have watched some of the people here try and try and try to make GD their groups own personal echo chamber...but with no success. So I wouldn't worry much about GD...never happen over any subject.

Every person can find a group to where they can go and feel good. Sometimes you have a shitty day and GD is just pissing you off...so you go to where everyone knows your name and they are all glad you came.

[Cryptoad]

33. If yall truly believe

that the Koch Bros would not covertly fund Hillary Haters to cut the mustard here.... Contact me, I have some good bridges for sale!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

35. "BOG 2: This Time It's Personable"

[SomethingFishy]

36. "Some people say"? Do you work for Fox News?

You do realize that is the line they use when they want to insert an unfounded opinion in a "news" story. I look at the link you posted and I see no one advocating changing the rules.

[catnhatnh]

49. YOU deliberately misquote me...

...and then ask if I work for Fox News? Extraordinary.

[gwheezie]

37. I like hillary

I plan on voting for her if she runs but if someone else wants to challenge her and they make a better case for nominating them I could change my mind.
I'm not going to bash other dems. Criticism and challenging is healthy and for whoever the dem nominee is I think it will help in the ge.

[MineralMan]

50. My role in choosing the Democratic Presidential candidate is vanishingly small.

That's why I don't stress myself about it. I'm very active in electoral politics in my own districts, state and federal. I participate in local caucuses, and am a delegate to district conventions. I have a role in selecting and endorsing candidates for my state legislators and congressional representatives. If I decide to, I can also become a DFL state delegate. But I have almost nothing to do with presidential candidates at all.

My role in presidential elections, though, is really no larger than any other voter. Sure, I caucus for candidates, but only the state convention really has much to do with sending delegates to the national convention, where my state is just one of 50 states.

So, I vote in the primaries for my preferred candidate for President, but that's about it. Once a nominee is selected, I work to elect that candidate as I work to elect every other candidate. I'm a Democrat. I campaign for and canvass for Democrats, and vote for them in every election.

There are far more important things that individuals can do than argue about who the Democratic candidate will be. We have little to do with it as individuals, and places like DU don't really influence the selection of a nominee for President either.

I encourage people to look closer to home and try to get the very best possible Democratic candidates for legislative and local offices elected. Work on GOTV. If Democrats go to the polls in record numbers, the Presidential election will go just fine.

[TheKentuckian]

57. Just lay there and take it and if you just focus on the act and the little things that bring

you happiness, and stop struggling you might enjoy it and at worst it will soon be all over.

Everything will go just fine. It is out of your hands so you may as well enjoy it. Just lay there and take if you can't get into it.

This isn't a response to impotence but rather the source of it. The willing herd creatures actively prevent any effective power for the people.

[MineralMan]

58. Feh!

Your post is unresponsive and insulting.