What if Democrats supported all Democratic primary candidates?

[yardwork]

I like Bernie Sanders. I agree with many of his positions, and I think it's good that he's talking about them to large, enthusiastic crowds. I hope that the Democratic Party moves back toward the left and reconnects with working people. I don't think that Bernie is racist or sexist. I don't think he's secretly promoting Israel just because he's Jewish. I think he's a fine person and I'm glad he's running.

I admire Hillary Clinton. She's smart and tough as nails. She's a fighter who can win this election, keeping the White House in the hands of Democrats. That is essential.

Neither of these candidates is perfect. They both have flaws. What I don't like is supposed Democrats smearing our own candidates. We can argue about which candidate is best without resorting to right wing smears. That only helps the Republicans.

Why not work together and promote all our candidates?

[hrmjustin]

1. Because not everyone here is here to build up the Democratic party.

[randys1]

4. EXACTLY

[hrmjustin]

6. It is become increasingly apparent.

[randys1]

7. ANd I JUST read a thread where Alabama is all but doing away with your abiliity to get

a drivers license SOLELY so they can prevent Black people from voting

I dont know about you but the next SMEAR of Hillary I see on this board and I am alerting on it and every fucking one from there on out, which I have NEVER done until now.

It stops NOW

[hrmjustin]

12. I put over a hundred on ignore the other day so i don't have to deal with the vitriol.

There is just no point in arguing with people who post Republican talking points and post conservative hit pieces to destroy Hillary.

[yardwork]

18. Hi there!

Did you see the thread today that compares the Clinton Foundation to Jared Fogle's pedophile ring? I kid you not. That's what reminded me of swift boating. It's on.

[hrmjustin]

21. Good God! No I did not see it.

Did it get hidden?

[yardwork]

33. No. PM me if you want the link.

[hrmjustin]

36. I just found it and it is disgusting. A ppr would be appropriate.

[yardwork]

41. I think it's from the same people who swift boated Kerry.

Sounds just like them.

[hrmjustin]

42. I think that might be someones sock.

[yardwork]

43. Several possible socks in that thread, as another poster noted.

And a bizarre kamikaze flameout from a supposed Hillary supporter.

I can't tell if it was innocently dragged here or not but the repeated references to Jared Fogle mean that that meme is out there.

[hrmjustin]

45. That was someone who realized their sock was found out and flaimeout.

I am not participating in mirt anymore but from what I read there are some good guesses as to who it might be.

I hope a ppr follows.

[hrmjustin]

47. .

[hrmjustin]

58. Now we know.

MIR Team (EarlG) banned Beauregard
Mail Message
Reason:
Trolling with multiple accounts (candelista, Beauregard), previously banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com?com=profile&uid=322593&sub=trans

Real name:
DU Member for: 4 months, 5 days
Posts: 376
Recommendations: 22
Star member: No


MIR Team (EarlG) banned candelista
Mail Message
Reason:
Trolling with multiple accounts (candelista, Beauregard), previously banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com?com=profile&uid=316121&sub=trans

Real name:
DU Member for: 1 years, 1 months, 5 days
Posts: 1,986
Recommendations: 117
Star member: No

[yardwork]

60. Thanks. Good troll hunting. Thanks MIRT and Earl.

[hrmjustin]

61. I congratulate them as well. Good job all around.

[zappaman]

64. They'll be back...

[hrmjustin]

65. Would love to know who she was before.

But yes it was just precious.

I guess she realized people were unto her.

[leftofcool]

22. Are you kidding me?

I wish I had seen that one. On the other hand, I am glad I didn't. There are some really nasty people on DU these days.

[yardwork]

34. It is a very weird thread.

[leftofcool]

10. So true.

[hrmjustin]

14. Sad but we need to be honest about it.

[PowerToThePeople]

27. True.

Some are only here to build up neo-liberalism.

[stevenleser]

92. I've seen several definitions issued here on DU for that term so it has become useless.

Unless you explain how you mean the term, the attack is meaningless.

[LWolf]

72. The reality is this:

there are many Democrats who feel that the neoliberal takeover of the Democratic Party has torn it down, not built it up, and that to build it up we must reject neoliberalism and the politicians and candidates who support that neoliberalism.

Not everybody is here to sell the soul of the Party for a "win," and some see electing neoliberals as just that.



We are constantly told to work from within the party for the changes we want to see, rather than abandoning the party. When we do, suddenly we're not "building up" the party?

I disagree.

[hrmjustin]

73. I have no issue with people wanting to move the pwrty to the left or talk about issues here.

I don't think everyone who claims that is their motive here are being honest.


Take that how you want.

[LWolf]

78. When politics are involved,

honesty is regularly a casualty. For way too many, honesty and integrity are tossed aside as irrelevant to "winning." I see that every campaign season, out in the world and here at DU.

[HFRN]

2. sounds like you want to ban comparing and contrasting nt

[randys1]

5. Funny, OP said SMEAR and you changed it to comparing and contrasting

I sure hope everyone is paying attention

[frylock]

57. Sadly, comparing and contrasting is conflated with smearing all the time around here.

[yardwork]

9. Actually, that's what I am advocating.

By all means, let's compare and contrast candidates and choose the best one. I'm saying that we can do that without becoming conduits for right wing smear campaigns. I'm seeing OPs and posts on DU that remind me a lot of the swift boating of John Kerry. That only helps Republicans.

[randys1]

3. I have been saying that for months.

So much damage has been inflicted onto Hillary here and elsewhere that at this point I dont know if it is possible anymore.

There is a concerted effort in rightwing land and on DU to make sure Hillary is NOT the president.

[yardwork]

15. I also see unfair attacks on Bernie Sanders.

I see no evidence whatsoever that Sanders is racist but there is a concerted effort to paint him that way. Again I ask - who is helped if African Americans are discouraged from supporting a Democratic candidate?

[randys1]

26. OH no, Sanders is no more racist than any of us white privileged males. YOu see, all white

straight, American males, are hugely privileged (Women too but not to the extent of men).

It is very easy for us, including Bernie, to not really understand the race issue the way a Black person does, even though he was a founding member of CORE and SNCC.

He is the least racist white man in America, probably, but he is still white, and a male, and as such sees things very differently as do all of us white males.

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. I have to take issue with this ...

I see no evidence whatsoever that Sanders is racist but there is a concerted effort to paint him that way.

I think if you traced that narrative, you will find at its inception, a straw man built by Bernie supporters. The routine goes like this:

"Bernie's economic primacy message is not/has not resonated with Black folks"

"How can you say that? He has been doing Civil Rights work his entire career"

"Okay; but, so what? His economic primacy message still doesn't/hasn't resonated among Black folks because social justice ranks higher among our concerns"

"Are you saying Bernie doesn't care about Blacks?"

"No. I am saying that Bernie prioritizes economic justice over social justice."

"So you ARE implying that Bernie is a racist and doesn't care about Black people!"

"No. I'm not!"

"Yes you are ... you just implied it."

[yardwork]

48. I stay out of those tail-chasing threads.

This is exactly what I'm saying we need to stop doing. Accusing any of our candidates of racism is counter-productive since none of them appear to be racist. (If we had a racist candidate I would say go after them.)

Likewise, accusing other posters of accusing one of racism is a silly waste of time.

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. I agree ...

It's just no one (that I have seen) has called any of the Democratic candidates, racist ... even the one that richly deserves it (Webb).

[yardwork]

51. Is Webb running?

I didn't know that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. Running ... far, far behind ... Or, I, for one, would be making much more noise. n/t

[zappaman]

59. Exactly!

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. I've explained through the routine so many times ...

my key board types it on its own.

[aikoaiko]

88. Let me ask, when Kanye said, "George Bush doesn't care about black people,"

was he implying that Bush was racist?

[1StrongBlackMan]

89. Probably so. n/t

[aikoaiko]

90. Me, too. And I think that was implication from the response from some black writers

when they said Bernie's message of economic justice didn't resonate with them.

They didn't feel "cared for" and people who don't care for black people are racist.

Its one degree away from Kanye's statement.

I'm sure we'll continue to disagree, but soon it won't matter.

[1StrongBlackMan]

91. You don't see a difference between Bush's inaction during and after Katrina ...

and Bernie's proposing economic solutions to civil rights issues?

[aikoaiko]

93. Of course I do, but the ultimate implication was that black lives don't matter to either.

Or, at least, black lives don't matter enough.

I will agree that no one here or elsewhere, as far as I know, called Bernie a racist directly.

[1StrongBlackMan]

94. I think you are reaching really, really far to arrive at that implication. n/t

[aikoaiko]

95. Maybe so.

But I can't ignore what I think is the meta-message sent by black critics and their allies.

[1StrongBlackMan]

96. I have used the exact phrasing ...

regarding economic primacy not resonating with (the vast majority of) Black voters ... and I do not believe Bernie to be racist, nor do I believe he doesn't care about Black people.

In fact, I believe he believes that economic primacy is best for Black people, just as it is for white people; despite our facing different issues.

[aikoaiko]

97. Thank you for that. I agree that Bernie is not a racist and cares much for black people and issues.

The thing about meta-messages is that they don't have to be intentional.

Again we may disagree, you may think I'm stretching, or you may think I'm seeing things that aren't there.

Take your last sentence as an illustration. Has Bernie ever said that economic primacy is best for Black people just as it is for white people? No. Is that the message you've received from him. Apparently so.

I think the meta message about Bernie to the Black community was clear, has been received, and the damage done.

I thank you for discussing this issue with me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. Actually. Bernie HAS said ...

Has Bernie ever said that economic primacy is best for Black people just as it is for white people

Or, something really, really close:

Well, I am focusing on the fact that whether you're white or black or Hispanic or Asian, if you are in the working class, you are struggling to keep your heads above water. You're worried about your kids. What should the Democratic Party be talking about, Steve? What they should be talking about is a massive federal jobs program.

...

You should not be basing your politics based on your color. What you should be basing your politics on is, how is your family doing? ... In the last election, in state after state, you had an abysmally low vote for the Democrats among white, working-class people. And I think the reason for that is that the Democrats have not made it clear that they are prepared to stand with the working-class people of this country, take on the big money interests. I think the key issue that we have to focus on, and I know people are uncomfortable about talking about it, is the role of the billionaire class in American society.

http://wabe.org/post/sen-bernie-sanders-how-democrats-lost-white-voters

[aikoaiko]

99. When I read the entirety of that piece, I hear why whites should vote Democratic

and why Blacks continue to vote Democratic and not why Blacks should vote for Bernie, per se.

But in fairness to you and my message of received meta-messages, I can see how you heard what you did.

[1StrongBlackMan]

100. Meta-Message ...

"Where you stand depends, largely, on where you sit."

[Maedhros]

8. I think Hillary will keep the White House in the hands of Wall Street.

That she has a "D" next to her name is irrelevant.

[yardwork]

11. She's not perfect, but would be far better than any Republican.

Compare Bill Clinton's eight years to the terms of George W. Bush.

[Maedhros]

24. That's propaganda used by the conservative elements of the Party

to keep us more afraid of the Republicans than turncoat Democrats.

It's no reason to vote for Hillary.

[yardwork]

29. I am much more afraid of the Republicans than of any Democrat.

Personally, I am a socialist who is far to the left even of Bernie. I'm also old enough to have seen a lot of presidencies. I don't like the Third Way conservative Democrats but they aren't bat shit crazy psychopaths like every Republican has been since Ike.

I don't want another manufactured 9/11 (yes I am of the belief that it was done on purpose by Dick Cheney and Co.) and I'm certain that that's exactly what we'll get if the Koch brothers get to put another bozo in the White House. Hillary is not perfect but I trust the Clintons not to be complete morans. They won't go to war with Iraq.

[Maedhros]

37. It has definitely been effective propaganda.

I see Hillary as being just as hawkish as the Republicans. "We came, we saw, he died." The way she totally got off on killing Qaddafi freaks me out.

[yardwork]

39. Again, huge difference between Clinton and Bush.

To get elected in the U.S. a candidate has to appeal to the right-leaning independents. Has to raise money from Wall Street, insurance industry, Big Pharma, etc. It's bad. Overturning Citizens United would help. That won't happen if JEB gets to pick two or three Supreme Court justices.

Meanwhile, the weather is getting worse as the world heats up. No time for another Republican. If the candidate is Hillary she gets my full support.

[Skwmom]

13. Because, some of us have NO desire to support a Corporate Democrat. n/t

[cyberswede]

16. Awesome. It would be even better if people stopped sniping about various candidates' supporters, too

[yardwork]

23. I try not to do that but I call individual cases as I see them.

I have seen posts on DU that sound exactly like right wing smear tactics and I point out that those posts reflect badly on candidates.

[elleng]

17. Did you forget Martin O'Malley?

Learn about him HERE: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1281

[yardwork]

19. I didn't forget! I respect all our candidates.

Thank you for posting the link.

[elleng]

25. Then you should NAME him/them.

[yardwork]

32. Good point. Sorry.

[elleng]

35. Thanks

[seaglass]

20. Agreed yardwork and O'Malley too.

I'm going to vote for whoever is selected as the nominee, they all have strengths as you have outlined. They also ALL have flaws. Even so my conscience won't be bothered the tiniest bit voting for any of them because I know at the very least I am voting against Republican rule.

[yardwork]

30. That's it!

[longship]

28. We will eat our own.

That is what I see here. The Balkanization of DU.

The Elizabeth Warren group. The Hillary Clinton group. The Bernie Sanders group. Yadda, yadda, yadda. If one posts anything contrary to the candidate's supposed ideolology (e.g., That no! Elizabeth Warren is not going to run for president and has said so many times, you are banned from the group. Regardless, it is still true.)

This shit does not help the Democratic Party, let alone the Democratic candidates. Plus, the personal attacks need to be stopped. Immediately!

I am sick of the infantile, childish behavior here. It is no wonder that we have lost so many of our oldest and most sage contributors. The behavior here recently disgusts me, too.

I would recommend the elimination of the candidate forums and a return to decency and enforcement of the TOS, that personal attacks be handled with firm retribution. There are no excuses. And I vote that way on every jury.

BTW, just like the candidate forums, the GD forum is just another excuse to act badly. It is needless 14 fucking months before the election.

Let us band together instead of devouring ourselves.

[onehandle]

31. If only.

DU is overrun with disrupters of all kinds who are hoping to tear our party and our candidates to bits.

The management, who has admitted that they are very disappointed with what's going on here, will not act.

I'm with you, and in 2008 was saying Exactly what you are saying there.

I sometimes wish I had not stated a preference for this primary.

In November of 2016, like every election, I look for the D.

[left-of-center2012]

38. Sadly, it's not a perfect world

Some here see support for Bernie as an attack on their candidate.

[hrmjustin]

40. Some here think support for Hillary makes you Dino or..

... the third way boogyman.

[artislife]

49. And back down the spiral we all go

I guess we cannot help it.

I will vote on issues only.

[frylock]

52. What if you're not a Democrat, but vote for Democrats because you agree with their policy?

I'm not a Democrat, but have voted almost exclusively for Democrats my entire life. Why would I support or vote for a Democrat that does not represent my, or many other people's best interests?

[yardwork]

54. I'm a socialist who votes for Democrats so that Republicans don't get control.

The worst Democrat is better than any Republican. This is because we aren't really electing a person. We're installing a system.

[frylock]

62. I'm done voting out of fear.

[ibegurpard]

55. Because not all of them will advocate for my values

And since we're having a primary I'll fight like hell for the one that does that.

[bvar22]

56. Because that would be nothing but a big Pep Rally...

...for those whose only connection to politics is to wave Pom-Poms.

There are MANY issues on which Hillary and Bernie disagree.
I want to hear then ALL.


Hillary needs to be held account for her vote to help Bush kill over a MILLION innocent people.

[ancianita]

66. I'm down with it. Just because I prefer Sanders doesn't mean I'll cast shade on Hillary or her Dems.

Now, that's not to say that beyond their individual 'flaws' as you call them, there aren't character and integrity issues connected with their donor funding. The divide you see here is about how a qualified candidate with corporate donors can suddenly turn populist, or how some Bernie votes compromise his socialist claims.

So, if we can just unite now to beat the idiocies of the other team, we can fight these fights later. Too many people here give too much general election fodder to the Republicans. Not to mention alienate fellow Democrats with personal and straw man attacks and otherwise 'purist' standards for upholding the party.

[yardwork]

69. Yes, yes, yes. You said it.

[Jim Lane]

67. Because if criticisms of Dems weren't mentioned on DU, they would magically go away?

This is the primary season. Part of what goes on is vetting. Attacks on a candidate are trotted out -- sometimes by other candidates, sometimes by other candidates' supporters, sometimes by journalists or commentators, sometimes by RW operatives. Then we see what happens. Are the attackers' allegations as to matters of fact supported by evidence? Are they making false assumptions? Are there countervailing considerations? We also see how the attacked candidate deals with typical campaign hurly-burly.

Consider the most prominent current example on the Democratic side -- the email server controversy. For my part, speaking as someone who very strongly hopes Clinton is not our nominee, I don't see much there there. She was probably a careless in some minor respects but it's unlikely to be any worse than that.

Nevertheless, if it is worse than that, I want to find out now rather than in October. Trying to suppress the criticism now won't prevent it from being made by Republicans in October if she's the nominee. Let's have a full airing of the subject, including allegations and interpretations that are in dispute. If there's really no there there, then Clinton can only benefit by having a discussion that exposes here critics as swiftboaters.

[yardwork]

70. If you read my OP again, I hope I made clear that in not discouraging criticism.

I'm suggesting that we can discuss differences without resorting to tactics such as I observed today, in which the Clinton Foundation was said to be worse than a pedophile's ring.

[Jim Lane]

76. To me you didn't make that clear

Your OP didn't mention pedophilia. There are plenty of Clinton supporters on DU who berate any post that's critical of Clinton over the emails or the Clinton Foundation.

Comparing any of the issues raised about Clinton to pedophilia is just silly, so I agree with you that posts like that are worthless. (They're not necessarily harmful though; they might actually help Clinton by tending to discredit all her critics via guilt by association.) More to the point, though, that kind of silliness is not typical. What I've seen much more of (re emails and Foundation) is: this will sway a lot of independents away from Clinton; her underlying conduct and her response to the criticism show she's politically tone-deaf and/or a bad campaigner; it exacerbates her worst problem, namely the widespread feeling that she's not trustworthy; if she's the nominee the Republicans will use this to distract from the real issues, where most voters agree with us; etc. None of those comments is close to the pedophilia comparison. Nevertheless, that doesn't stop the Clinton supporters from implying that anyone who says any such thing wants RWNJ's on the Supreme Court (because Clinton will be the nominee and saying anything negative about Clinton on DU will hurt the Democratic ticket 15 months from now).

You expressly castigated "resorting to right wing smears." I've seen language of that sort used against, for example, anything presenting a view critical of Clinton's handing of the emails, if the critical view comes from a right-wing source (with "right-wing source" rather broadly interpreted). If the Wall Street Journal or the like publishes an analysis of State Department procedures concerning classified information, and uses it to denounce Clinton, I think that's a proper subject for discussion on DU. The issue is whether the criticism has merit, not whether it's being advanced by someone with a right-wing agenda. If it truly is nothing but a right-wing smear, let's air it here and expose it as a smear.

[ms liberty]

101. Both of your replies are excellent...

Very good discussion here, and yardwork too!

[Starry Messenger]

68. I always love seeing your avatar.

It's like the sun coming up!

[yardwork]

71. Oh hello there my friend!

I love seeing your name!

[Garrett78]

74. There is a valid leftist critique, you know.

There are distinctly different factions within the Democratic Party, and there is a very valid left-wing critique. As I wrote about here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251541941#post18. I think a lot of people are either so glued to the label ("Democrat&quot that they're in denial or they are just flat-out ignorant (unaware even of what neoliberalism is in spite of it being the dominant ideology for the last 30+ years).

It's not all right wing smears.

[Zorra]

75. Please examine this chart. Sanders supporters and Clinton supporters are somewhat like apples

and oranges with regard to the qualities we want in a candidate, and what we expect from a candidate.

Ideologically, we differ very significantly, but not totally.

[GitRDun]

77. I support all of the candidates

I have no problem with people picking a horse to ride early, I prefer to wait.

I think if we could just take a breath and realize whoever is in the White House, they can't do a damned thing without the help of hundreds of Democrats in Congress that would be helpful on DU.

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter if HRC is a little closer to Wall Street than we'd like. It doesn't matter that BS is not as attuned to some of the groups in the big tent as we'd like. They are one person among hundreds it takes to make any real change.

So there's no need to smear candidates, insult each other, be offended by someone's view of a candidate. It's just not that important.

What is important is that on the other end of all of our posts are people. Here on DU we don't like it when cops shoot unarmed suspects, usually because they're afraid. We call them unfit.

Yet here we are, rhetorically "shooting" unarmed posters, piling on in many cases because we're afraid if we don't belittle them or their post, "our guy" maybe dies a little. What a bunch of hypocrites are we.

I jumped in and started responding in kind when I saw the way bravenak was treated. Despite not always being on the same side of the argument as she was, I respected her passion and authenticity. Responding in kind felt like defending, the right thing to do. Now I'm not so sure anymore. bravenak is gone, followed by others..the shooting just continues.

Folk singer Lee Hays once said, "If you can't turn it around for yourself, you can't turn anything around for the world." If this site can't turn it around, start respecting each other even just a little, then who are we to be outraged at the way people in the rest of the world behave...they're just like us.

[yardwork]

79. Very good points.

[oberliner]

80. "I don't think he's secretly promoting Israel just because he's Jewish"

Where the hell did that come from?

[yardwork]

83. Idiotic, isn't it?

Lots of stupid things said on the Internet.

[brooklynite]

81. Define support...

...while I have no objection philosophically to any of them, I can only vote for one, and only one can be the nominee. That candidate must be the strongest one we can put up against the Republicans. I've picked the candidate I think that will be, so my goal is to get her nominated. How then should I "support" any of the others?

[yardwork]

84. By not repeating unproven smears. Not that I'm saying you are!

My objection is when we do the Republicans' work for them.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. I am happy to allow the fannish to be fannish, but I think supporting the Primary itself is

important. No matter which candidate you might favor personally, each of them needs rivals in order to advance themselves properly and as preparation for the general election. 2008 drove DU to distraction fan style, but in reality we registered many new voters, got huge participation, we picked a nominee and then we won. To win, you have to have a race. To have a race you have to have rivals.
I vote in 10 months or something and I want the Primary to be active in my State and region.

[lovemydog]

85. O'Malley, Sanders, Clinton.

I like all three. I love President Obama. I want to see his Administration's accomplishments strengthened and expanded upon. All three would make a fine President, especially with a more leftist Congress.

Great post yardwork.

[MohRokTah]

86. I'm not too keen on Webb and Chaffee.

Hillary, Bernie, Martin, and if he gets into it, Joe are all great possibilities in my mind. Of that group, I doubt if Bernie Sanders is electable at all.

[aikoaiko]

87. What are examples of right wing smears against HRC?

[HassleCat]

102. I'm in same boat with you

I'm a Sanders supporter, but I don't like it when people on DU float all these stories about email problems, why they doom the Clinton candidacy, why they prove she's dishonest, etc. As I keep telling people, I support Sanders because I like Sanders, not because I dislike Clinton. I'm saving my loathing and disgust for the Republicans.

[GitRDun]

103. me too n/t

[yardwork]

105. That's exactly my point. Thank you.

[Chan790]

104. Because some of them are simply not supportable in any capacity.

What do you see as the main internal organizational defect of the Democratic party? I think it's corporatists and conservatives trying to pass themselves off as moderates, centrists, third-wayers or...absurdly...progressives or liberals. Regardless if you agree that is the main organizational defect...can you concede that the proper response to any organizational defect is corrective action and not embracing the defect?

A chicken coop analogy.

Everything is not hunky-dory in all corners of the Democratic henhouse. There are some bad eggs that need to be flushed out before they cause the egg-rot to spread. If one cares about the henhouse, the right course of action is not to praise the rotten eggs...it's to pick them out and throw them into conservative trashbin or corporatist incinerator. Thus it is with Hillary.

I don't, can't, support Clinton to any degree because she is the single most-major threat to Democratic values.