Instead of tearing down Hillary Clinton...

[Cali_Democrat]

...why not build up a candidate you like?

Instead of going negative, why not go positive?

[samsingh]

1. good point

the key is to get a Democrat in office. i support Hillary, but i'll support whoever the nominee is.

[Cryptoad]

41. I'll support, work for and vote for the most viable Progressive

candidate in the Race.... so far that is HRC. We Progressives need to start figuring out how we are going to have any influence on policy making seeing that it seems there will not be a "hard-core" Progressive elected President in 2016.

[samsingh]

89. i agree

[JaneyVee]

2. Waaaay too rational and sane.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. And ...

won't get 1/10th of the recs and "Yup" posts. So what would be the point?

[sheshe2]

28. Nailed it!

[William769]

58. Off topic but when I saw this I thought of you and I just had to share.

[sheshe2]

65. That was so beautiful, it takes your breath away.

Tracy Chapman by far has the best rendition of that song. It has always been a favorite of mine.

Thank you so much for thinking of me.

Sweet William!

[Andy823]

47. Exactly!

Some days, and this last weekend was on, it's like a contest to see who can post the most negative posts, and get the most recs at the same time. The funny things is that most of those who are in the "rec" race, never seem to post about any candidate in the "positive" way, only negative post for them.

[justiceischeap]

3. I posted elsewhere that if progressives want a truly progressive candidate

It's not going to happen in 2016. In order to run a progressive candidate and win, they need the backing of the DNC. The DNC is full of centrists. Hence, unless we change the structure of the DNC, we will not get a truly progressive candidate.

[jaysunb]

5. +1 n/t

[JI7]

6. but the dnc is incompetent .isn't that why people are always

Saying debbie alderman Schultz has to go.

[justiceischeap]

10. They may be "incompetent" but they certainly have power

If I remember history correctly, President Obama didn't want to run for President. He felt it was too soon and that he didn't have enough experience. The DNC basically said, we're behind you, so we'll get you elected. If the DNC decides not to support a candidate financially, for example, that candidate is not likely to win but if the opposite is true, look how much money they'll dump into a campaign.

[JI7]

12. no this is not true. Obama certainly DID want to run

[Warren DeMontague]

17. She's not helping.

And given her ties to the Clintons i think it would be better if Hillary clarified her intended position - sooner, rather than later- on whether or not she feels the DOJ should keep putting medical marijuana users in prison, etc.

[DURHAM D]

29. Surely you are aware that DWS serves at the

pleasure of the WH. Tell the President if you have issues.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. The White House picks the head of the DNC?

Funny, I thought there was a vote.

[DURHAM D]

61. When the Dems have the WH

the President can decide to remove/change the head of the DNC.

Further, you may recall that when Obama won the primary the DNC was basically moved to Chicago. Several long time staffers were let go and others were allowed to move to Chicago to work for the campaign. It morphed into Obama for America and then they that kept going as Organizing for America (draining funds from the party) and so the DNC has never recovered. OFA is now non-partisan and is probably still draining funds.

However, a big part of the problem is PAC funding vs. party funding and the increased strength of the DCCC and DSCC . iows - the DNC just doesn't matter as much as it once did.

The President apparently doesn't care about party development. The biggest loss is recruitment of young people to start at the bottom of elective office world and work up. The Democrats just don't have a bench at the national level or even a feeder corp at the state and county level and I have no idea how that is going to change any time soon.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. I agree with you about the bench.

But either way, DWS aint helpin'.

[bvar22]

34. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should have been kicked to the curb a long time ago!

The fact that she wasn't raises alot of nasty questions about the Party Leadership.

In 2008 Debbie Wasserman Schultz refused to endorse these 3 Democrats
who had won their Primaries and had a chance to win Republican seats:

Miami-Dade Democratic Party Chair Joe Garcia

Former Hialeah Democratic Mayor Raul Martinez

Democratic businesswoman Annette Taddeo

All three had won their local Democratic Primaries, and were challenging Hard Core Republican incumbents with whom Wasserman-Schultz had become cozy.
Not only did the head of the DCCC Red to Blue Program REFUSE to endorse these Democratic challengers,
but she appeared in person at at least one (possibly more) Campaign/Fundraiser for their Republican opponents.



FL-18, FL-21, FL-25: Wasserman Schultz Wants Dem Challengers to Lose
by: James L.
Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 7:15 PM EDT
<snip>

Sensing a shift in the political climate of the traditionally solid-GOP turf of the Miami area, Democrats have lined up three strong challengers -- Miami-Dade Democratic Party chair Joe Garcia, former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, and businesswoman Annette Taddeo to take on Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, respectively.

While there is an enormous sense of excitement and optimism surrounding these candidacies, some Democratic lawmakers, including Florida Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Kendrick Meek, are all too eager to kneecap these Democratic challengers right out of the starting gate in the spirit of "comity" and "bipartisan cooperation" with their Republican colleagues:

But as three Miami Democrats look to unseat three of her South Florida Republican colleagues, Wasserman Schultz is staying on the sidelines. So is Rep. Kendrick Meek, a Miami Democrat and loyal ally to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

This time around, Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their relationships with the Republican incumbents, Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and his brother Mario, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, leave them little choice but to sit out the three races.

"At the end of the day, we need a member who isn't going to pull any punches, who isn't going to be hesitant," Wasserman Schultz said.

Now, you'd expect this kind of bullshit from a backbencher like Alcee Hastings, but you wouldn't expect this kind of behavior from the co-chair of the DCCC's Red to Blue program, which is the position that Wasserman Schultz currently holds. Apparently, Debbie did not get Rahm's memo about doing whatever it takes to win:

The national party, enthusiastic about the three Democratic challengers, has not yet selected Red to Blue participants. But Wasserman Schultz has already told the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that if any of the three make the cut, another Democrat should be assigned to the race.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1537

The bloggers also are furious with Rep. Kendrick B. Meek (D-Fla.), who similarly refuses to endorse the Democratic challengers to the three Cuban American Republicans.

They are calling for Wasserman Schultz to step down from her leadership role at the DCCC. And they're not letting up, even after one Florida liberal blogger reported that the congresswoman seemed "frustrated" by the blogs and had asked to "please help get them off my back."

This prompted even harsher reaction from perhaps the most influential of the progressive political bloggers, Markos Moulitsas, a.k.a. Kos, founder of Daily Kos, who wrote on his blog Wednesday: "On so many fronts, the Republicans are standing in the way of progress, on Iraq, SCHIP, health care, fiscal responsibility, corruption, civil liberties, and so on. Those three south Florida Republicans are part of that problem. And she's (Wasserman-Schultz) going to be 'frustrated' that people demand she do her job?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031903410_3.html

Here are Kos comments on the Wasserman-Schultz betrayal of the Democratic Party:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/20/480511/-DCCC-Says-Uproar-Over-DWS-Recusal-Much-Ado-About-Nothing




A lot of time has passed since 2008, but I don't take these kinds of betrayals lightly.

bvar22
Cursed with a memory

"I want to thank Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for being an outstanding chair of our party. (Applause.) She is a great partner."--President Obama

With "partners" like this, we don't need Republicans!

[swilton]

36. Incompetence and having power are mutually exclusive

Just look at the neocons in the State Department as a case study

[Jackpine Radical]

66. Controlling the resources does not automatically translate into using them well.

Debbie has to go.

[hrmjustin]

4. Great idea!

[JI7]

8. fRom my experience i think many like to mostly complain

And attack.

This it's Why the support for warren is so weak . It's not really support for her as much as to use her to attack other democrats.

[zappaman]

15. To be fair, support for Warren May be weak

Cuz everyone knows she's not running for President since she has only said it eleventy thousand times!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

76. This ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

[JDPriestly]

22. Sorry to disagree, but your statement is simply false.

I like Elizabeth Warren because she is a strong advocate for the interests of the middle class and working people. She is effective, trustworthy and did the research on the economic struggles of the middle class and working people and therefore is credible in her belief that the system is rigged and her dedication to changing that reality.

Bernie Sanders is running on his record of years of service to his constituents, to the middle class and working people of Vermont. He is a Progressive and has proved it.

Those of us who support Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are not just negative about Hillary Clinton. We believe that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders offer both experience and hope that other Hillary Clinton does not offer.

Please respect those of us who do not see the candidates and issues as you do. We are sincere in our choices.

[Raine1967]

38. I have not decided who I will support, but I need to say this:

Elizabeth Warren is not running.

Perhaps people who ask for respect would respect her choice. She is not running, and I respect her decision.

Having said that, I agreed with you in totality WRT to Senator Warren and Senator Sanders. I am not convinced that Ms. Clinton does not offer what you want.

That said, I am not going to try to convince you otherwise. Please know, Warren is not going to run.

[MaggieD]

39. You can cheer on Sanders and Warren without denigrating other Dems

It's entirely possible, you know.

[sheshe2]

71. Well, JD.

Those of us who support Elizabeth Warren

My great state of Massachusetts supported Warren long before you did. We elected her to the Senate. Our Senior Senator. She is where she wants to be. Please respect that decision.

[demwing]

48. Your experience is insufficient

If you're referring to Warren's support in the DU community, it's quite strong. If you're referring to Warren's support in the "real world" then I'd like to know your measure of comparison...are there other people who aren't running who are doing any better?

[Andy823]

50. You sure got that right!

So many here only attack, but never post in a positive way, and they may have a Warren sig line, but for some reason I never read anything about her except she is better than Clinton. Even though she has made it clear she is not running, she still is used to attack Clinton.

[treestar]

51. +1

[Rex]

9. I agree with that, however good luck convincing others that want Bernie or Warren to win.

People will tear down another candidate that is a threat to their personal choice. HRC out polls all potential rivals. Do the math.

Because.

Politics.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. ...how about instead of attacking the people who arent on board with HRC

Making a cogent case - Along with recent specific and clear position statements on actual issues, if she ever makes any - to try to convince people to support her in the primaries?

[Cali_Democrat]

20. I haven't attacked anyone in my OP.

I'm not yet supporting Hillary in the Dem primaries.

O'Malley hasn't announced, but he looks like a good candidate to me and it's possible I'd support him in the primaries.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. I'm just making a sort of general suggestion, as are you!

[Cali_Democrat]

37. fair enough

[Raine1967]

40. I really did not see this as an attack.

Right now, there are no there candidates and honestly, not everyone is ready to support Ms. Clinton. It's not black or white, imo —

Are people on DU already saying that we should just support her in the primaries when there is none yet? I did not get that from the OP.

Hillary CLinton is the first to declare. She will not be the last.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. I have lots of positive things to say about any Democrat who didn't vote for the IWR

Yep. Tons and tons of positive praise for any politician who wasnt so craven as to vote for that turd.

[rhett o rick]

19. I second that. nm

[Andy823]

78. Did you vote for Kerry? nt

[Warren DeMontague]

80. Yes, and I'm perfectly happy to have this conversation-- Again. Even though

I've had it a number of times on DU, already.

I've been here since spring 2004, so anyone so inclined can go back and look at the archives, but here's the condensed version: I supported Kerry in the Primaries, because at that time I bought into the line that having a decorated war hero with a record of being "tough on terror" would inoculate us from Bush's cynical use of 9-11. I was wrong, and not long after the election I did a lot of soul-searching and came to the conclusion, and acknowledged I was wrong on that-- in retrospect I felt we should have run someone with the ability- particularly by not having voted for the thing- to speak with moral clarity on the subject of Bush's Iraq invasion.

Maybe Howard Dean would have lost, too, but it would have presented the American people with a clearer, a better, choice.

So yes, I supported Kerry in the Primaries and I supported him as the Democratic Nominee just as I support the Democratic Nominee every 4 years, TYVM... but after that I was pretty well convinced that in 2008 we had to run someone who hadn't voted for the war, which was one of my biggest objections to HRC then. The fact that she refused (then) to call it a "mistake" AND the fact that she- and her supporters- were running on little more than "inevitability", didn't help.

Now, is the IWR a deal-breaker for me in the 2016 primaries? Hardly. (And, again, standard disclaimer, I always support the damn nominee) but is it still an issue? Yes, it is.

[leveymg]

14. Like who? Jim Webb?

Not a lot to choose from in the declared and semi-declared Democratic field, unless you want to grab for a Republican-lite.

[yallerdawg]

16. Exactly what you say!

So far since officially announcing, Hillary is for:

1) campaign finance reform

2) free community college

3) building on what works in the Affordable Care Act

4) expand pre-K programs

5) expand family leave programs

6) equal pay laws!

7) comprehensive immigration reform

...and a whole lot more! Let's stay positive!

[Thinkingabout]

18. Maybs some are chronic complainers,

[MellowDem]

21. Because Clinton is the presumptive candidate...

Backed by the establishment, and is a sign of what is wrong with our democracy in many ways.

Expect lots more criticism. It's justified.

[mcar]

24. What a concept!

[FSogol]

25. K&R. n/t

[HereSince1628]

26. People work with what they have available...

This is a natural part of H> getting out in front with huge pledges of money and fostering inevitability.

To be the nominee this must be weathered.

If nothing strange happens and if the pledges come through, the pragmatic money is on her success.

The desired destiny of H> supporters requires this period of unpleasant sounds of people straining as they are squeezed into that adjustment.

Embrace it. This is the sound of victory

[DeSwiss]

27. Justifiable and accepted criticism......

...of a candidate that has been thrust into our faces and we're being told to accept because this is it?

So that is now being relegated to ''tearing down'' now?

Sounds to me like some are tired of hearing the TRUTH and want the subject to change.

- I don't accept your premise because under our corrupt system you and I both know that Hils is THE ONE.

BECAUSE SHE'S THE ONE WITH THE MOOLA AND THIS PIECE OF SHIT SYSTEM RUNS ON MONEY!!!!!




If you can't win with the current rules, change them.........

[MaggieD]

35. Yes, it is "tearing down" and it's not good

I sucked it up over Obama for the sake of the democratic agenda even though I knew he would waste at least one term trying to compromise with republicans. There is nothing good to come from tearing down democrats.

[DeSwiss]

62. Democrats?

Who are they? Politicians with a thin veneer coating of democracy applied to their outer hull? As Harry above said: ''If you can't take it go somewhere else.''

If you believe that the elucidation of one's past career activities is synonymous with being ''broken-down'' then I'd say you were worried about the wrong things. One of those pragmatists who doesn't see anything but winning and labels.

- Granfalloons, the whole lot of 'em.

[MaggieD]

85. If you don't support Dem Politicians and party agenda....

Why are you here?

[Moonwalk]

60. Justifiable and accepted criticism, yes...but too many times that's used as an excuse to...

...freely express hatred. I think people can say, quietly and without expressing fear or anger over her as a candidate, state their concerns, their likes and dislikes, and what they do and don't support about her.

Negativity is when you criticize out of fear, anger, hatred, and dislike, rather than because there are genuine facts that concern you. Likewise—because I know you'll want that likewise—positive should not mean shutting one's ears to anything unpleasant. Supporters should be willing to listen to facts and admit when their candidate needs to change or do differently. Like when so many here did when discussing, for example, Obama failure to be vocal about gay rights during his first term.

If the Hillary supporters are willing to listen to criticism of her, then, likewise, those who don't support her should be willing to listen to the positives of her and admit to them as well. This is what keeps such criticism valid and from tearing us apart as democrats rather than keeping us united but honest.

And yes, the Kitchen is going to be hot and Hillary is going to have to survive that. But that doesn't mean that we, here, in a place called the Democratic Underground, need to make that kitchen even hotter—do we really need to add more fuel to the fire the GOP is going to be lighting under her—and have been for the last few years--for the next year and with billions of dollars at their disposal? If she isn't—JUSTIFIABLY—a horrible candidate on the level of Bush, jr. then we really are just cutting off our nose to spite our face if all we can do is tear her down. Building her up with justifiable praise should be as acceptable as justifiable criticism.

[DeSwiss]

64. I don't know how one sieves the cranks out of the process.

- That's a judgement call every time. Until we can see into the hearts of men, we won't know why someone is saying what they're saying. The illegitimate criticizers keep mingling with the legitimate ones. It's all mixed up.

It's an imperfect system that should be entirely replaced. Until then, this is what you got.......

[99Forever]

30. I see.

So pointing out the significant facts of a candidate's history that neither the candidate or the candidate's supporters care to address honestly cause you to not want to support them for office, especially the most powerful office on the planet, is "tearing them down" now?


Wellllll...

.... alrighty then...


Guess you told 'em.

[MaggieD]

33. But you don't have any significant facts...

Against HRC. That's why her detractors have to invent them.

[99Forever]

43. There is none so blind...

... as those that simply refuse to see.

The facts I spoke of have been posted countless times on this very forum. That you even try to respond in the manner you did, says all I need to know about you.

Have a nice life.

[Andy823]

52. Yes she does have faults

But if some here spent as much time backing another candidate they might want to see jump in the primaries, as the do attacking Hillary, the person might stand a chance to change things.

[MaggieD]

83. I can see just fine

Thanks.

[orpupilofnature57]

87. You can't hear yourself talk though .

[DeSwiss]

73. Significant facts?

- Hmmm.... can you describe it? Exactly what does this ''significant fact'' look like in comparison, say.... to an insignificant one? Because I always thought something ''significant'' varied from person to person.

For example, I found this to be both significant and telling: ''We came, we saw, he died.''

[MaggieD]

84. You're a big fan of ghadaffi?

I'm not. What about him enamors you?

[orpupilofnature57]

31. Bernie !!!!!

Positively one of the only people we can depend on doing the right thing .

[MaggieD]

32. Bernie is not going to be president

But I guess you have some time before you have to face that fact.

[orpupilofnature57]

42. Thanks, as long as I don't become a mindless cheerleader.

Forgone conclusions aren't facts, they're just easier .

[DeSwiss]

74. Hils is just more popular than the others.....

- She can't help it!

[LondonReign2]

59. Irony impaired, eh?

[MaggieD]

82. No, not typically

Just smart enough to realize Bernie is not going to be president. He has about as much chance as Dennis Kucinich had (which was none).

[LondonReign2]

94. So in a thread that asks that people build up their candidates ratehr than tear them down

...and someone dares to promote someone other than Hillary
...you immediately begin pooh-poohing it

Perfect

[MaggieD]

96. In what way am I tearing Bernie down?

I specifically stated in the post above that I like the guy. But I am also a realist. The powers that be are not going to allow someone like Bernie (or Ted Cruz or Rand Paul for that matter) be president. We are never going to have a president that isn't supported by billionaires and mega corps now that we have Citizen's United. And you can thank Nader for giving us that USSC. (And no, he is not a Democrat - far from it. So I am as happy to tear him down as I am Cruz or any other republican).

By the way, I doubt Bernie thinks he is going to be president either.

[LondonReign2]

97. Hopeless

[MaggieD]

98. Hopeless to get me to agree....

....that DU should turn itself into HRC Bash Central for the next year and a half? Absolutely.

[LondonReign2]

99. As I said, hopelessly irony impaired

[MaggieD]

100. You can keep saying it, but...

That doesn't magically make it true. I don't "tear down" other democrats. And if you think predicting the reality that Bernie is not going to be president constitutes tearing him down then it appears obvious to me that you need to rethink things.

[LondonReign2]

102. I am not going to waste my time on dumb anymore. Goodbye

[MaggieD]

103. Sounds good to me

Since you can't explain how being realistic about Bernie's chances is "tearing him down" it's probably best that you disengage.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. She's the front runner and is being scrutinized. Positively and negatively.

Get over it.

[orpupilofnature57]

45. +1000 ! I wonder if they argue on free - press ?

[George II]

46. Did I get lost on my way to DU? Such logic I haven't seen recently!

[winter is coming]

49. So you're only concerned about "going negative" when Hillary is the candidate. Gotcha. n/t

[Moonwalk]

56. So...the OP said negative things about other Dem candidates?

I think, if so, that the OP should apologize for that and affirm turning over a new leaf—but if they haven't, then I think you owe them an apology for falsely accusing them of this. The OP DID indicate that their primary vote would not be for Hilary. So though the post is asking for people to try and not tear down Hilary, it seems more likely that they're asking this because she's the most visible candidate and getting the most negativity. Not because they want her.

If it makes you happy, however, I'll say, for everyone in everyone's camp, including those, like Warren, who aren't running....

"Instead of tearing down Democratic candidates, let's say positive things..."

[cantbeserious]

53. I'm Ready For Oligarchy - Are You?

[DeSwiss]

77. Yes, I'm ready for the Oligarchy......

...

!

[demwing]

54. If Hillary is a strong candidate, these "attacks" won't harm her at all

if she's not a strong candidate, we had damn well better reveal that now before her donors secure the nomination.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. I think some people must secretly fear she's not as inevitable as they think.

I mean, remember what happened last time when not enough people believed in the magic inevitability flying carpet, and it crashed like Wile E. Coyote making the mistake of looking down.

I actually think they're wrong, she probably will be the nominee. So they have nothing to worry about.

So it doesn't make sense how hyper-paranoid they are about anyone threatening the predetermined primary outcome.

[shenmue]

57. That makes way too much sense

Never happen here.

[Thor_MN]

63. A-freaking-Men

If all one has to offer is a negative Right Wing talking point (about anything, not just a Democratic candidate) how is that different than just being a troll?

[clg311]

68. Barbara Lee!

opposed the Iraq travesty, US militarism and the Patriot Act.

[msanthrope]

69. That is not the agenda of some. nt

[The Green Manalishi]

70. Not 'tear her down'

It's that I want to see pressure, lots of pressure, for her to repudiate publicly her neocon positions.

I want her begging for forgiveness for her Iraq vote (actually I'd like everybody who didn't activelyPROTEST the war in a defendant box at the Hague). Everyone who voted for that war is a war criminal and should be brought to justice.

I want her to have to jump through some hoops to get the nomination; it's not 'hers' for the asking; she's not the most worthy, just the most electable.

I think everyone on this board would say she would beat the hell out of anyone the Republicans nominate, but I want her to have to run as a DEMOCRAT, on record and scrutinized closely by us. Yeah, I'll vote, and work for her if she's the nominee, but she needs to feel some party discipline instead of entitlement.

So far I'm rather happy with her stated positions, but she needs scrutiny on foreign policy.

[whatchamacallit]

72. Because you don't mean it

I've seen multiple threads "encouraging" DUers to support the candidate of their choice if they don't like Hillary. But as soon as someone does an HRC supporter does this:

Subthread -> http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6539605

[morningfog]

75. In a political campaign a candidate must go negative to win.

As a zero sum game, a winning strategy by necessity includes going negative.

On a discussion board, it doesn't make an iota of difference one way or the other.

[bigwillq]

104. Yup

[peace13]

79. Here we go again........

[Jim Lane]

86. So you mean that, in this cycle, no candidate should run a "3:00 am phone call" type ad?

That ad illustrates the point that others have made in their responses. Elections are generally a matter of comparing two or more candidates. It's quite natural that the discussion will include pros and cons of each major candidate.

Hillary's status as the front-runner at this point is much clearer than was Obama's in 2008 when she engaged in tearing him down. If Hillary were now at single digits in the polls, she'd be suffering as much tearing down as Jim Webb is -- that is to say, virtually none. Do you think she'd want to be in Webb's position of not being deemed worth criticizing?

BTW, if you stop obsessing over posts critical of Clinton and look at the whole board with an open mind, you'll see plenty of positive comments about Bernie Sanders; positive comments about Elizabeth Warren from people explaining their support for the "Draft Warren" movement; and, over the last couple weeks, a growing number of positive comments about Martin O'Malley. Lincoln Chafee made his interest known more recently but there've already been a few posts about him (mixed positive and negative). Webb is generally perceived as being the most conservative of the bunch but even he has gotten some praise here.

[LWolf]

88. Here's a deal for ya:

When you and others trying to tell me that HRC is inevitable, that she's somehow the great liberal/progressive hope, that she's everything sugar and spice, I'll stop explaining why she doesn't have my support, and won't have my support.

It's that simple. If people aren't promoting her, I have nothing to say about her at all.

Meanwhile, I'm hoping Sanders will announce, so I'll have a reason to be involved, at least in the primaries. When the GE rolls around in another 18 months or so, unless some miracle occurs, I will simply plug some key words in to be hidden, and hope to find something of substance on issues to discuss that is not about promoting HRCs positions because she's campaigning. Which means I'll spend less time at DU, just as I did in '12 and '08.

That's what a campaign is about, isn't it? Campaigning AGAINST the opposition? That's what hanging out at DU during campaign seasons have taught me, anyway.

Why do you want her opposition within her own party to silence themselves about WHY they oppose her?

[JaneyVee]

90. Kick for common sense.

[MoonRiver]

91. Cause haters gonna hate. n/t

[leftyladyfrommo]

92. I think she has come up with an amazing strategy

and I'm starting to really cheer her on. Still a little on the fence.

[JonLP24]

93. What would be effective is outbiding the others on issues

we disagree with on Hillary Clinton. It isn't just her but that is a reason why I'm on the Bernie Sanders bandwagon, he isn't so easily bought.

[workinclasszero]

95. Because the purists have nothing

Zero.

Sen. Warren isn't running, Bernie Sanders is not even a democrat and not running either.

So yeah, nothing. Nothing except a deep hatred of Hillary Clinton like you will find all over Hate radio, Fox "news" etc.

Is she perfect? Of course not but she will be a fine President unlike the horrors of a President Cruz or Herr Walker will definitely be!

Its called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[NCTraveler]

101. Negativity is about voter suppression.

A lot of the negativity here with respect to Clinton is not as honest as you might think. Voter suppression is a time honored tradition. Getting someone to not do something is much easier mentally and physically than actually getting them to do something. Simply intellectual laziness. We do see some posters here promoting their candidate. They are the best and intellectually honest.

[stevenleser]

105. There is zero risk in complaining about someone else and anonymously being holier than thou on

the internet.

No one can take you to task for being a hypocrite (because we know very little about most anonymous/handled internet posters' behavior IRL) and no one can pin you down and attack your positions or your candidate.

It's 100% safe and therefore more than a little cowardly in general.