(Bernie Group) Should Hillary be (for us) she who shall not be named?

[Jack Rabbit]

I don't want to get into a pissing contests about personalities with supporters of other candidates on this board.

A way to handle this, and in the spirit of a campaign that is about issues and not personalities, is simply don't mention Mrs. Clinton's name while criticizing her position on the issues, such as foreign policy, or even her presumed stand on issues, such as free trade.

It's not a difficult as it might sound at first. For example, the idea that corporations will be able to skirt US law by appealing to a unelected panel of corporate shysters is just wrong, no matter supports it. Why even mention that Hilary does? That denies partisans of HRC the defense that Mrs. Clinton has taken no stand on the TPP, while any one who isn't a fool and has followed Mrs. Clinton since she was First Lady knows very well what her stand on the TPP is. It's a good way to avoid an annoying argument with a sophist.

We owe quite a bit to the HRC group. After all, who else would tell us that NAFTA created jobs, nothing in the TPP is secret because everything you need to know about it can found at www.whitehouse.gov, and the Big Banks do not support Mrs. Clinton? Who would have known any of that otherwise?

[still_one]

1. Any candidate running not only needs to state what they would do, but also contrast it with what

their opponent would or would not do.

[Cleita]

2. Good idea. I have already referred to her as the other candidate

in some posts. That way it doesn't trigger posts about her on a search. It gives us time to actually have a discussion before the swooners arrive.

[malokvale77]

3. Good advice...

I will try to remember to never mention her name. I really don't want to pile on anyway after finding out how much she had to struggle with babysitting and dishwashing.

[Scootaloo]

4. I'm a fan of specifics

Your method just leads to "Oh, he must be talking about Jim Webb"

[sadoldgirl]

5. That depends on the OP and on the issues.n/t

[edgineered]

6. When needed, the candidate is Clinton, and not the given name of a friend. nt

[TBF]

7. I think we're ok if we stick to issues

and contrast positions. I don't think we "owe" anyone anything except the truth. And I'm pretty sure that is what Bernie would say as well. He doesn't get personal - sticks to issues and is specific about what he is discussing. The American people deserve that and frankly we have no idea who reads here. Yes many of us are activists or very interested in politics. But we have no idea how many moderate lurkers may find their way on to boards like this. They may not follow every single issue and posting vague generalities is not going to help them figure out who they agree with.

[jeff47]

8. You mention that Clinton does because enormous numbers of people

think vague statements in speeches that contradict her 2008 speeches are the same as decades of concrete actions.

[Phlem]

9. Hmm...

I would lean towards the side of not perpetuating ignorance.

Who, What, When, Where, Why?

My Mantra, the information is triangulated using any other contrasting sites and comments. Distilled down too, even more questions but better questions.

Rinse Repeat.

A pretty good footing of the landscape is revealed. Sometimes you just know from past experience and past similarity's and contrast is shown.

However anyone comes to an opinion or decision, I think it should be at the very least based on facts and critical thinking.

Having the answer is not as important as asking the right questions.

[TM99]

10. Hell no!

I will not give Clinton a pass on these things.

I will not avoid saying her name like she is some queen or empress.

Hell no, if she said it, she owns it. If she does it, she owns that as well.

[SoapBox]

11. I'm glad some are kind...

But I'll stick with The Annointed One.

[eridani]

12. No. Just stick to issues and policies n/t