Connie Shultz, Sherrod Brown's Pulitzer prize-winning wife, explains who she WON'T vote for:

[pnwmom]

Link to tweet

?fbclid=IwAR16Wjzvs1z0MuiVjd1_qaGWfFqDcLmXs4KjcTbBgITMEfxZhQ6DgJJUIvc

I haven’t decided yet which presidential candidate I’m supporting. A surefire way to guarantee it isn’t you is to cast those who oppose you as sinister non-believers, and their support for someone else as an act of aggression.

https://www.creators.com/read/connie-schultz

Exploring and discussing candidates' strengths and weaknesses is a crucial part of the primary process. Sharing our views and listening to the opinions of others — informed and otherwise — is part of the process, too. So is hashing out coverage of candidates and responding to how they evolve, or don't, on the campaign trail.


An opposing viewpoint about your favorite candidate is not an act of sabotage. Disagreeing with a candidate — out loud, in public — is not an attempt to hand over the 2020 election to Donald Trump, nor is it providing fodder for Republican attacks for the fall. For that to be true, Trump and his cabal would be planning a fair fight. That will not happen, and anyone who believes otherwise needs to leap out of that animated Disney movie and join the rest of us here on Earth.

This column began as a repeated refrain on my public Facebook page. Every time I post a story offering the slightest scrutiny of a Democratic candidate, accusations of "eating our own" swarm like fruit flies to a putrefied peach. We are vetting candidates, not consuming them.

SNIP

I see this happening too often, even in earnest debates about candidates. Someone raises a concern about a Democrat, and another Democrat lunges. Accusing someone of "eating our own" is not a call for unity. It's a reprimand, and it often feels like an attempt to intimidate and silence.

[tblue37]

1. Who did that? nt

[Blue_true]

31. I think Bernie did it this week. nt

[True Blue American]

2. That is our Connie!

Next step is for Sherrod to run against DeWine and clean up our state.

[irisblue]

15. Okay, Brown whipping DeWines ass, again, would be nice

DeWine never ever got over that.

[True Blue American]

16. That was what

I was thinking!

[MaryMagdaline]

3. Perfect!

[Quemado]

4. I'm totally confused by this tweet. Anyone else?

So, who is "you"?

[blm]

5. She's using a general you and she

specifies how those yous would lose her support.

[pnwmom]

6. I just added the the OP a piece of hers that further explains her viewpoint. n/t

[True Blue American]

17. What Connie is saying is any candidate that

Says bad things about another candidate will not get her vote!

The question is was she referring to anyone in particular?

[pnwmom]

19. That's not what she's saying, IMO. I think she says that any candidate

who basically accuses another Democrat of being a bad or corrupt person, because of differing policies, will not get her vote.

[True Blue American]

20. Wasn't that basically what

I posted?

[pnwmom]

22. I guess I misunderstood what you meant about "bad things." n/t

[True Blue American]

23. :)

[Blue_true]

32. That is how I read it. Along with accusing reliable Democratic Party ally organizations. nt

[Quemado]

24. I give up. I'm not a millenial.

Born in '55. I guess I'm just used to people communicating straight up without all the indirect innuendoes.

[ecstatic]

7. She's talking about Bernie and his most ardent supporters. nt

[pnwmom]

8. Or anyone who thinks a candidate should be coronated because he's at the top

of opinion polls -- instead of being vetted.

[shanny]

10. And the ardent anti-Berners. nt

[hedda_foil]

30. No, she's talking about supporters of most candidates who think a critique of them is unacceptable.

That includes DUers on all sides, though she is not referring to us in particular because this is going on all over the web.

[Kurt V.]

9. She's talking about the cap (non) controversy.

[murielm99]

21. What is the cap controversy?

[oldsoftie]

26. I'd also like to know

[Blue_true]

33. CAP is the Center for American Progress.

A distinctly left leaning think tank that Bernie went after as being establishment democrats earlier this week. One of the Center's donors also started the very left MoveOn.org.

[murielm99]

35. Oh, I see.

It is a controversy because Bernie makes noise? I do remember reading about the CAP thing now. This reminds me of how he said Planned Parenthood was "essshtablishment." Show Bernie your uncritical devotion or else.

The OP has a point.

[Blue_true]

36. Bernie and his supporters.

Bernie's supporters will literally go to war for him. I see Bernie as an idealistic but flawed primary candidate.

His supporters here finally found some footing on the tax return by comparing Bernie's giving rate favorably to what Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Harris and O'Rouke gave. Klobuchar and Gillibrand are certainly NOT wealthy, so I could see lower giving in some years. O'Rouke and Harris had a giving issue, especially Harris, who swamped everyone on earnings at close to $2 million. BUT what the Bernie supporter that dug up the data failed to mention was what two competitors did with giving. I happened to stumble across the data about an hour ago while starting to read for the night. Elizabeth Warren made substantially less than Bernie but gave more that twice what Bernie gave to charity, her at 8.4% of her earnings. But the best of all was Inslee. Jay Inslee made around one fifth what Bernie made and gave a whole percent more than what Bernie gave to charity.

The issue that I have with Bernie is his lecturing of the rich. Senator Warren sometimes pans the rich too. But when the rubber met the road as far as living what she demanded, she did more than twice what Bernie did.

If a person lives the letter of what they demand that other people of similar conditions live then I have no issue at all with that person, he or she is being true to what he or she believes. But as we see a lot with rightwing evangelicals, a lot of people are not true to the principles that they demand of others. So on a nutshell, if Bernie was true to his concern about helping the downtrodden, his giving would have been similar to Senator Warren's or Governor Inslee, but his giving does not match those two people and his supporters are looking over that by highlighting the giving of O'Rouke and Harris, but neither of those two make a daily habit of lecturing the rich and pointing out how evil they are (many rich are bastards about helping the unfortunate of society, but a lot are not).

[Cha]

11. I totally get what she's saying

Mahalo Connie

[True Blue American]

18. I thought you would!

[Cha]

28. It's too

Easy!

[plimsoll]

12. It's a fair criticism.

Probably not even most Democrats, but enough. The ones who do behave that way make life unpleasant. I really do hope we have the best candidate, not the one with the most obnoxious acolytes.

[JI7]

13. sounds like she is referring to the reaction to CAP

[Kahuna7]

14. Sounds like it to me too. nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

25. Can't say I disagree with this:

Accusing someone of "eating our own" is not a call for unity. It's a reprimand, and it often feels like an attempt to intimidate and silence.

Just keep in mind what is good for the goose...

[rpannier]

27. I do agree with this

Funny things is, in another thread on something not about her and her comment, I wrote something similar, but not as eloquent

[dalton99a]

29. Kick

[KayF]

34. she gives three examples

1. she criticized Beto calling his wife the primary caregiver of their kids
2. she shared a photo of Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren smiling
3. she criticized Bernie's flip comment about his book income

She's talking about over-sensitive reactions to things she's written, and gave those three examples.