There's been a few scuffles with candidate supporters and me in the past few days.

[bigtree]

I want to attempt to make a few things clear.

Question, first: Have any of you taken time to criticize your own candidate for what they've said or done?

I have.

I've made such criticisms for a couple of reasons. One, because I participate in the political process (and in discussions here) to defend, represent, or advocate for issues, not merely on behalf of (or against) politicians.

Secondly, I want to demonstrate that my criticisms aren't designed to thwart one candidate or in favor of one candidate or the other.

In this election I've chosen my former governor to support as my choice in our primary, Martin O'Malley. Hillary Clinton was my third choice in the 2008 presidential contest (after my earlier choices faded), but I'm not advocating in favor of Hillary in this season's primary. That hasn't however, kept me from offering a few favorable posts about her history and her record. Having spent time advocating on her behalf, there are obviously things that I feel comfortable promoting about Mrs. Clinton and I've offered them up again this time around (along with a few other favorable articles from this year).

examples:

Hillary Clinton's most interesting hire yet

Clinton Email Kerfluffle: Bush/Cheney Used Private Email

Hillary Kicks Off Campaign With Roundtable at Kirkwood

Hillary Clinton's commitment to civil rights

and my favorite:

A Different View of Hillary

Why would I promote another candidate? I want to demonstrate comity in our political deliberations here. I want to demonstrate that there isn't any grudge hidden behind any criticisms I might make during the campaign. I want to demonstrate solidarity with all of our Democratic candidates; ultimately resulting in my support for one of them against the republican rival, and a vote for our nominee in the general election.

Bernie Sanders also got the same sort of consideration from me. In fact, he got a bit of a wedge of support from me against the Clinton bid. I offered up a rationale and my support for his candidacy in an early, brief op:

(Certainly not as effusive an endorsement as I gave Hillary in 2008 and downright confrontational to the Clinton bid...)

bigtree Wed Apr 29, 2015
This is the value of a Sanders candidacy

Hillary had a chance to oppose the TPP without qualification or hedging. Martin O'Malley had already staked out a solid position of opposition to the trade pact. Now, with the emergence of a Bernie Sanders candidacy, there will be a unified break from politics as usual from the Democratic field with Hillary caught on the sidelines.

Bernie's straightforward advocacy for progressive issues, coupled with O'Malley's own brand of populism in this campaign, will solidify the left in this election and characterize the Democratic quest for the presidency as vote for actual change; not just a 'feint' echo of the status quo. Now, the Clinton campaign will be challenged to either compete against republicans with the progressive tide, or tack against it. Kudos to Bernie Sanders for joining the fight for progressive values and interests in this election!

more:

Bernie Sanders: "It is time to end the politics of division in this country"

Bill McKibben to speak at the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign kickoff

Sen. Bernie Sanders Opposing Obama’s AUMF: ISIS Fight a ‘Battle for the Soul of Islam’

Bernie Sanders Rips “Crazy” Senate For Passing Keystone XL Bill

Bernie Sanders: I will not be a spoiler who ends up helping to elect a right-wing Republican

1962. Bernie Sanders. Speaking at a sit-in. Organizing for civil rights.

I mentioned above that I've also criticized these candidates for one position, statement, action or the other; ALL of them. It would be self-serving to replay my criticisms of Hillary or Bernie, but here are a few I've offered against my own choice, Martin O'Malley:

Martin O'Malley op-ed in support of the controversial 'Protecting Cyber Networks Act'

...Although I strongly support Martin O'Malley's campaign for president, this cyber security bill isn't something which I'm comfortable about promoting or supporting. There are serious privacy concerns which many legislators I consider allies in Congress correctly opposed in the passage of the House bill. Gov. O'Malley makes a cursory mention of these privacy concerns and I'm interested in how much he's willing to support this bill without significant changes. His op-ed doesn't make that clear.

In His Announcement Speech...

I liked that he made a specific reference to the unrest in Baltimore (not unexpected for a former mayor of the city), and I thought he framed it well - even though he lapsed into suggesting an economic solution to what ailed the city, instead of directly calling out the rabid police force for their violence (as I would have liked)

O'Malley made a false step associating 'mental illness' with the Charleston shootings

...if I thought Martin O'Malley had sufficiently addressed the racism apparent in the Charleston shootings, I would have highlighted it here, like I've done for other statements I think he's been correct on. He did not. If O'Malley expects to attract people of color to his campaign, he'll need to say more than a smattering of patronizing lines about race, with the baffling conclusion he made here that he doesn't 'think anybody figured out the magic solution' to it all.

Even more disappointing was the knee-jerk statement about 'mental health' without any evidence that was even an issue in what appeared to be a premeditated hate crime, or domestic terrorism.

While Gov. O'Malley saw overwhelming support in his elections in my state - and while he certainly has a good record of material support and relationships with the black community (as all of our Democratic candidates do) in Maryland - much more discussion on the campaign trail is going to be needed to address specific interests and concerns related to the black community; economics; job discrimination; health disparities; voting rights; and more.

As for this statement Friday, it's clear that he needs more preparation and needs to be more direct and assertive on these issues in his campaign rhetoric.

As you can see, I made as pointed a criticism of my own candidate above, as it was in line with my own interests and concerns on race and how our candidates address the issues and concerns associated with race, and more. I have not restricted my criticisms to my opponents, and I will continue to speak out wherever and whenever I feel my presidential choice has made a mistake in his campaign rhetoric. I will continue to do that - to speak out clearly and forcefully - because I believe in the issues and political positions I'm advocating. I will likely offer more criticisms of my candidate in the future ( I think it's inevitable we will disagree again).

I hope this helps folks here understand that I'm not working or scheming to undermine ANY Democratic candidacy. I am, however, more committed to the issues I advocate for, than I am to personalities and politicians.

[morningfog]

1. That's all well and good but doesn't really comport to your recent OP

in which you cut off the critical part of Sanders' quote and then relied on your edited portion to throw a litany of criticism his way.

To be clear, I like your positive posts on all candidates and I don't begrudge or dislike critical posts of all the candidates. But the OP I am referring to does not promote comity. It was either a careless or dishonest post.

[Bonobo]

2. 100% agree

It was frivolous to the point of being comical.

[bigtree]

4. I deleted that thread on your request

...one for one, as it were.

That's as much responsibility as I'm going to take for what occurred there. Moving on...

[hootinholler]

7. Not exactly

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026877114#post46

Then you double and triple down.

Spare me that bullshit. You have an ignore button. Use it.

Then 10 or so hours later you self delete?

[bigtree]

8. well, truth is

...all that resulted in was an extension of open season on my character for having the temerity for posting it.

I don't make ONE apology for posting that thread (well, maybe one, to the polite person who responded to me on this thread). It was a valid representation of my views. The only responsibility I will take for the shooting range that it became is to end it. If that's not good enough for you then maybe politics isn't something you should be involving yourself in. You have every right to disagree with what I posted, but it's out of line, as the majority of responses to me were, to suggest there was some destructive or sinister motive in my expressing my opinion. You may not like my opinion or the way I expressed it, but that's never been the standard of discourse in our political discussion that we should only post things that you might approve of.

(going for a nap now. If there's a need to respond further it will need to wait until I get some sleep)

[Bluenorthwest]

16. That thread was dishonest in the extreme and you were rude as shit to those who called you out on

it. You edited Bernie's statement and argued with the portion you left intact. You, you mentioned Hillary in the OP yet when others mentioned her in return you called them 'passive aggressive'. You introduced her as subject of discussion then attacked people for discussing her. It was a display of ego and mendacity rarely seen on DU.

People such as yourself seem to have so many political allies you can burn some of them to the ground. But when you do that, you are destroying allies of others who do not have friends to spare.

Some of us have to contend with 'support' like this, here is you defending Rick Warren in a thread in which Will Pitt crafted excuses for Warren:

64. I don't believe the prayers themselves will be any kind of an imposition

Edited on Wed Dec-17-08 11:49 PM by bigtree
There's no requirement that you listen, or any mandate that the words are heeded or adhered to by the President or the Vice-President.

I suspect that most folks welcome the accompaniment of the prayers in the ceremony, aside from whatever feelings they may have about the ones delivering them.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4672637


So my advice is if you don't like what you hear, there is no requirement that you listen. That's what you told gay people when you supported subjecting us to a hate preacher to please Obama.

[bigtree]

27. I was attacked personally for expressing my opinion

...which I still hold.

Apparently, it's some huge sin to use adjectives to describe a politician's actions. I didn't take the personal abuse there and I'm not taking it on this thread from you, either.

And you bring up a post from 2009?? WTF!

[marble falls]

17. Nice side stepping of explaining how you came to misquote Bernie. How did that happen, anyway?

[bigtree]

3. well, I deleted that thread, so

...I'll just leave all of that there and move on.

I do apologize if you feel I slighted Sen. Sanders. I expressed my opinion on that in the thread and it serves absolutely nothing to continue that argument here.

[morningfog]

5. I just saw the delete.

Certainly no need to argue it here. Like I said, I like your posts and have for some time.

[Enthusiast]

10. +1!

[KittyWampus]

14. Oh, the context was there. AND there is another interview with Sanders that backs up

the FACT he sees everything as an economic problem to be solved.

[Dustlawyer]

6. In a long era where we have not questioned our politicians seriously, I find we are way past due!

There is too much blind allegiance in our politics. These are not football teams, they are possibly our future leaders, and as such, they need to explain IN DETAIL where they truly stand on the real issues of the day. All of the issues, not just hand picked ones that they have run through poll testing etc.

[zeemike]

20. I agree with that.

As long as we blindly follow and see our candidates as a rock star to be adored we can be fooled.
The unexamined candidate is not worth electing.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. There's a third, and more important (electorally) reason to criticize the candidates.

The sooner criticisms, especially valid ones, are raised, the more time the candidates have to address them before they actually end up mattering in the actual primary or general. Their damage is 'baked in' and lessened if they show up early on. Try to sit on a flaw in hopes that no one else will notice it, and chances are strong it will be pulled out at the worst possible moment for your candidate. Better to get the warts all out in the open early, so the candidate can do whatever mitigation efforts they can.

[rpannier]

18. Really good point

If the issues are dealt with early and resolved they're less likely to be an issue later
Except on faux, where the time in 2nd grade they kicked little Jimmy Wexler would still be a top story night-after-night

on edit: In the case of HRC it would be when Hillary kicked little Ben Ghazi in the shin

[Separation]

11. You are absolutely correct.

Each candidate must be thoroughly vetted, whether they are our pick or not. You probably don't know me from Adam, heard of me or seen any of my posts, but I have read quite a few of yours though. I find them to be quite educational and enjoy them.

I would liken each candidate to a sports star or team during election season. The people who haven't quite picked their team yet will probably be got to a lot more than those who have. There is also a right and a wrong way to go about it. The people who have made up their mind up about their team will be insulted or feel attacked when an, in your face OP comes out about their candidate comes out. Those people however, I would imagine, aren't the people who you are trying to get through to anyways as they are less likely to change their mind. Its the people who haven't quite crossed the line and committed are the people who you want to get to.

Election season, it's in the game.

My ¢2 anyways.

[Thor_MN]

21. I haven't made a choice yet, but

the sheer arrogance and disdain that some of the Sanders supporters are displaying are turning me off. All drama, all the time.

Note that Bernie isn't turning me off, just some of his supporters.

[Koinos]

12. Thank you, bigtree, for your honesty and sincerity.

Enthusiasm sometimes makes supporters a bit blind to their candidate's weaknesses. All of the candidates are human beings; they are not deities. As I have said before, none of these candidates walks on water; and I do not think that hero worship is appropriate. Pointing out strengths and weaknesses of all candidates is very helpful to those trying to make an informed decision, but it is also good for the candidates themselves. It is better for problems to come out and be addressed early in the process.

Once again, bigtree, I think you represent what is best about DU. I appreciate your rational and calm approach to the issues. We all get carried away now and then, in the heat of debate; but I think you comport yourself honorably and credibly on a consistent basis.

[gordianot]

13. I have always used DU to vent opinions and said things I later regretted.

I got into flame wars in 2008 no longer. I find the prospect of 2016 and the prospect of the Republican field so appalling I buried ideological purity and criticism in the back yard next to our deceased house cat. The cat has a marker the other two are unmarked.

[Vattel]

15. IMHO, you are a sincere poster with many thoughtful and intelligent things to say.

And you actually address the arguments that people give in opposition to what you are saying instead of just deflecting or ignoring them. That virtue is all too rare around here.

I think we should all recognize that primaries tend to generate a lot of passion resulting in basically good people sometimes going overboard in attacking or defending candidates. Like everyone else on this board, sometimes your biases trip you up, but I can see that you strive to be fair.

[madfloridian]

19. Appreciate your posts, bigtree.

We disagree at times, but usually it is respectful. You try to see other sides and positions.

[catnhatnh]

22. That has to be the stupidest defense anyone will ever offer.

...the arrogance, egotism, and self-delusion in that statement is stunning.

[Bonobo]

23. It's a complete non-apology with a big dose of vanity thread.

When he asked me to delete my thread, I did.

I did not add a comment at the end when I deleted, I did not start a new thread to brag about what a good person I was for deleting (while simultaneously saying I had no reason to delete!).

[catnhatnh]

24. My post is actually one of his replies to me yesterday...

including his title-I just edited it to fit the situation...

Mine was the first reply to his deleted post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026877114

[bigtree]

28. who said it was an apology?

...why should I apologize for expressing my opinion on what I believe a politician said? Where's my goddamn apology from the people on that thread who attacked me personally for expressing my opinion? I stand by what I said about Sander's comment. It shouldn't have been such a big deal, but apparently the sensibilities of some folks here toward politicians is so tender that they can't bear anyone using adjectives to describe these political figure's statements.

I'm not 'bragging about what a good person I was for deleting' the thread. If you didn't want it deleted, maybe you shouldn't have asked me to. Now it looks like you were just being insincere

I'm demonstrating in this thread that I'm evenhanded in my politics here, and that I care more about the issues I advocate than about the political figures that are held up as inviolable and unassailable here. And that I'm not just criticizing your candidate or anyone elses to the exclusion of my own. If that escapes you, or you think you need to carry on your personal animus toward me for speaking my mind, then there's absolutely nothing more I have to say to you. I'll be fine with that. Will you?

[Bonobo]

30. Ummm you did.

"I do apologize if you feel I slighted Sen. Sanders. I expressed my opinion on that in the thread and it serves absolutely nothing to continue that argument here."

[blm]

25. I believe you are sincere when you post. Earnestness can also make for some awkward posts

as I well know.

You're still amongst friends here, big….even when we occasionally disagree. ; )

[Thinkingabout]

26. Bigtree, sorry your offer of an olive branch has not brought the results one would expect, I admire

your attempt to do this.

[JTFrog]

31. Some of them were very expected.

Like clockwork.

[LWolf]

29. Not here.

I do, of course, look carefully at whatever candidate I've thrown my support has to offer, both in the way of positives and flaws.

At DU, my conversation is quite a bit more limited than it is out in the real world. Partly because of the partisan nature and rules of the board, and partly because I don't expect to change anyone's mind about anything here. I do think that discussion of my candidate's flaws is throwing red meat to those determined to bring him down before it's too late.

I have a bottom line, and some political lines in the sand I won't cross. Mine are not the same as all Democrats'. I am not interested in thoughtfully discussing the possibility of nominating a neo-liberal. That's a line in the sand I won't cross. So, as long as neo-liberal Democrats are triangulating the shit out of the primaries to keep their candidate of choice positioned to prevail...I'm not interested in that conversation. My only interest is to push back as hard as I can against the neo-liberal army.

For me, it's about the identity of the party, and about the future of the nation and the planet. I'm not going to pretend that it's an acceptable compromise for the party to be ruled by neo-liberals.

I'm also simply not interested in political spin. I don't give a flying fuck about personalities. I'm all about issues, and I'm not backing down on issues. So I'm going to choose the candidate with the best record on issues. That's it. The rest is all dross.