General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: DO NOT BE FOOLED!!! [View all]H2O Man
(73,993 posts)with other recent posts where she lumps all people who oppose a Clinton candidacy into one group, and applies the worst qualities to all. When others have noted this, her response is consistent: oh no, I'm only speaking about the trolls, etc. But a pattern has emerged.
Obviously, she has the right to advocate for a candidate in any manner she wants to. And, clearly, a heck of a lot of forum members appreciate her pro-Clinton contributions to the discussions on DU:GD. She is a talented communicator.
In my opinion, the number of "trolls" on DU is so tiny, that they are without any significance. There are, however, a large number of good people who oppose Clinton (or at least doubt they could vote for her). They raise valid concerns -- her foreign policy, her stance on some environmental issues, and her ties to Wall Street.
None of the most vocal of Clinton advocates seems willing to address these very real concerns. Rather, they tend to dismiss them by way of dismissing anyone who raises them. Trolls, don't you know. It would seem to me that there would be advantages to having one of DU's better writers who is pro-Clinton address them -- especially if one seeks to convince others that Ms. Clinton is a solid choice for President.