How about it?

[NanceGreggs]

Are you a Hillary supporter? Are you a Sanders supporter? Do you plan to support a Democrat other than HRC or Bernie as our eventual Democratic candidate?

Great news!

How about an OP about “Why I think Bernie should be our next POTUS” – without mentioning Hillary, and her many flaws?

How about an OP about “Why I think Hillary should be our next POTUS” – without mentioning Bernie, and his many flaws?

How about an OP about any viable Democrat who should be considered – without mentioning HRC’s drawbacks, or the obstacles to Bernie being elected?

Let’s not pretend that there aren’t people posting here whose only interest in the upcoming Democratic primaries is to sow division among Democrats, and foster infighting. Let’s not turn a blind eye to posters whose only purpose is playing “let’s you and him fight” so they can stand back and watch the fireworks, and post about their success in igniting them on “other websites”.

If you can’t support HRC without denigrating Sanders – if you can’t support Sanders without denigrating Hillary – if you can’t support any (D) without denigrating the Party as a whole, chances are your only purpose in being here has nothing to do with honest discussion or debate – but has everything to do with sowing discord among people who agree that the election of a Democratic president in 2016 is far too important to engage in virtual fisticuffs while watching another Republican sleaze their way into the Oval Office.

Tell me that Hillary is totally unelectable despite the reality of her poll numbers against potential GOP candidates – la, la, la, I can’t hear you.

Tell me that Sanders is unelectable because he’s old, white, has unkempt hair, and lives in Vermont – la, la, la, I can’t hear you.

Tell me that the Democratic Party is thoroughly corrupt and “needs to be sent a message” by NOT voting – LA, LA, LA – I can't hear you.

If you have something positive, compelling, and informative to tell me about your Democratic candidate-of-choice, I am all ears. If your only “positive” is a “negative” about someone else, you might want to learn sign language – because I can’t hear you at all.

[MADem]

1. Right on!!!!!! nt

[olegramps]

100. Hell, with all the basing of Hilary I have read on this board I thought I had stumbled into Repukia.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Well said, my dear Nance!

It's great to have your thoughts. We need you!

[NBachers]

3. I've been judiciously scanning the pages, and avoiding the hyperbolic hyperbole postings.

Just where I'm at right now. I like all of our fine candidates. I'll leave the schoolyard taunting to the schoolyard taunters.

I have no need to support anyone by denigrating another. I like Hillary. I like Bernie- he really resonates with me. I've liked Jim Webb for a long time. And what little I know of O'Malley makes him look good.

See? That's not hard, is it?

[AuntPatsy]

5. I feel the same

[NanceGreggs]

8. In a perfect world ...

... or on a "perfect Democratic website", there should be an OP at the top of the Greatest Page every day about how many truly inspiring (D)s we have to choose from when deciding who to support.

I've not seen any (D)s proposed as a candidate who don't bring something of substance to the table, who don't offer something of merit.

I think we should leave the gnashing of teeth to the GOP sites. Given the Clown Car Candidates thus far, they're the voters who have plenty to complain about.

We, on the other hand, have everything to celebrate.

[Voice for Peace]

82. That's a great suggestion! You start.

Glad you are back!

It would be, as you suggest, great to get to know
all of the candidates, and not through contrast and
compare but just all together now.

One will be the candidate, one may be the VP choice. It
behooves us to be open minded and keep all digestive
systems healthy. To be able to take in the good, discard
the rest.

[RobertEarl]

4. Ignore, Trash, and no reply

Are my friends.

But if I do come across some trash talk about the activists in the party... watch out. Like one recent post claiming the activists were like yapping dogs who were being told to STFU. We need our grassroots activists. Watering the grassroots by peeing on them is not going to be tolerated by moi.

[shraby]

6. As usual Nance I cannot add or detract from what you said. You said it all

perfectly! Good going. I only wish I were as good at putting words together.

[blue neen]

7. Beautifully stated, NanceGreggs.

Thank you.

[Cha]

9. I'll tell you we Are going to get a Democrat in the White House Again after President Obama and he

Will be campaigning with them and For them!

Thanks Nance~

[Warren DeMontague]

10. I think the next President should be... A Democrat.

Beyond that, your message is a good one, but not terribly realistic. Primary seasons are always 6-12 months of fire-breathing truckasaurus fighting shit-flinging robot monkeys in the MUDDDDD pit.

Same as it ever was.

[maddiemom]

98. 6 to 12 months of primary season would be great!

These days we have at least 18 to 24 months. The conventions are more than 12 months away, and many have thrown their hats in the ring months ago. With most politicians, intentions have already been obvious long before this year. Get elected to Congress, even as a freshman, and immediately begin running for POTUS. Forget about the job you were elected to do. A modest proposal would be to limit announcements and campaigning to the year of the presidential election Campaigning for the actual job limited to 6-7 months before the actual election; conventions held about April or May. This leaves more time to evaluate the actual candidates than the few months we now have now. Lots of stuff wrong with this, I know, but surely we can do better than the long-running circus we now have. Other elective offices have between the spring primary and the actual election in November to choose between the parties' candidates. Ironically with the national level bids for POTUS, we have a mish- mash of procedures, caucuses, primaries and a shorter time after the conventions. Don't get me started on the obsolete electoral college. If it wasn't addressed after Bush/Gore, it sadly never will be.

[maddiemom]

99. SORRY! Meant to say say that the 2016 elections are more than 12 months away.

[TheProgressive]

11. Bernie has many flaws?????

[Nye Bevan]

13. Yeah, kind of a dangerous sentiment to express here on DU.

Last edited Thu May 28, 2015, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

"Bernie Sanders, the candidate with many flaws (according to the widely respected NanceGreggs)....."

[TheProgressive]

17. I'll take my chances and do the unthinkable....

...form my own opinion!

Senator Sanders is probably the first presidential candidate in 80+ years that people, real people, will *want* to vote for.

[Number23]

21. Lots of "real people" voted for Obama. MILLIONS of them

You are doing absolutely nothing but the garbage that the OP is imploring there be less of here.

[TheProgressive]

26. Now that you mention it...

My use of 'real people' was not what I really wanted to say and kind of silly of me...

I did not *want* to vote for President "clean coal" Obama - I voted against McCain.

With Senator Sanders, I *want* to vote for him because he is a *real* honorable democratic person.

I don't participate in the back and forth, pro and con dialog with Clinton or Sanders posters. I am voting Sanders and nobody
can change my mind!

[brooklynite]

27. Good for you...

...but 18 million Democrats voted for Obama in 2008 and another 18 million Democrats voted for Clinton...and I suspect most of them were happy to do so.

[Number23]

36. No one cares one whit who you are voting for. I hope that you understand that

I objected to your claim that Sanders will be the first person in 80 years that "real people" will vote for.

Like I said, lots of "real people" voted for Obama. MILLIONS of them. And would do it again in a heartbeat.

[Art_from_Ark]

39. Speak for yourself

I for one and glad to hear of another vote for Bernie.

[Number23]

101. No one cares and is trying to change your mind about that either.

[Art_from_Ark]

121. When you say "no one cares", you mean that you don't care.

You don't speak for everyone.

[Number23]

124. I mean no one cares. That's what I mean. Especially when someone is screaming

"I'm voting for Bernie and you can't stop me!!one"

Dude. No one cares and is trying to stop you, he or anyone from doing anything. Vote for who you want.

[DanTex]

60. Gee, I consider myself a "real person" and I actually wanted to vote for Obama. Twice.

Three times if you count the 2008 primary.

[blm]

126. REALITY is what you've been convinced is true - see 'real' FOX news voters.

My vote in primaries will be for Bernie - I also WANTED to vote for John Kerry for decades, basically since he investigated and exposed IranContra, BCCI, and CIA drug running. But then, I am an anti-corruption voter. You did NOT want an anti-corruption candidate - OK - but, my vote is what I wanted and I am just as real and significant a being as you are.

[treestar]

57. I thought we are supposed to hold their feet to the fire?

And analyze their every flaw?

LOL, it's so hilarious, after being called the Tiger Beat squad for Obama, to see that people find that Bernie is an idol too.

[KamaAina]

78. I can only think of a few

the gun thing, perhaps his age, and that he's from a small state that only has 3 electoral votes.

[Bobbie Jo]

12. K&R!

This I would love to see.

[sheshe2]

14. KnR~

Thanks Nance!

[awoke_in_2003]

15. I will vote for the candidate that wins the primaries...

until then, I will try not to get drug down into the mud. Don't wrestle with a pig- you get muddy and the pig likes it

[Agschmid]

16. This would be amazing...

[Hekate]

18. Amen, sister. Truth!

[BainsBane]

19. I did see a helpful link to a NYTimes article

That listed some key votes in the Senate where they took opposite positions. I found that a constructive post.

[MarianJack]

20. Well Said!

I support Hillary but I consider Bernie to be a great man and I will NOT attack him. I remember our division in 1968, 72 & 80 and how they cost us victories in 2 (68 & 80) winnable elections. Never again!

PEACE!

[Raine1967]

22. I rise to your challenge

At this point, I am in support of Martin O'Malley. And I will admit what I am about to do is lame.

But, We have a group here on DU that is FOR a candidate and has an SoP that asks that no one tear down other democrats.

I am in complete agreement that we should be able to support the candidates we would like to see without tearing down other Democrats.

So, as I said, I would rise to your challenge.


and after Martin O'malley declares (this weekend) — I really believe that the Democratic Primary will get very interesting.

Right now, when we look/listen to the MSM, it seems as though all eyes are on SoS/Senator Clinton.

Senator Sanders is getting very little attention. I believe that with O'Malley entering the race people will start to pay attention to the fact that the Dems are actually going to have a real primary. They will stop focusing on Hillary Clinton all day every day and will have to pay attention to the candidates that are running for office.

I think it is a good thing for all Dems. I think it will be a good thing for the O'Malley campaign. Just a few days, and the race for the democratic nominee begins.

Against the TPP.
Against the death penalty.
Supports the DREAM act. (Maryland was the first state to pass the DREAM act)
Supports comprehensive immigration reform.
Against detention camps for immigrant families. (Hat tip elleng)
Supports Stem cell research.
Supports abortion rights.
Supports Middle-out economics as opposed to trickle-down economics.
Against School vouchers.
Supports giving educators what they need.
For public financing of elections.
Pro Gun control.
Supports the ACA and wants to make it stronger. link
Supports increasing funding for the National institute of Health.
Believes that our first responders are the first defense in the United states to protect citizens from terrorists attacks. (see other links I have posted in this group)
Formally recognized the Piscataway tribe
Supports Marriage equality.
Supports raising the minimum wage.

ETA:
Supports re-instating Glass-Steagall and Tougher Wall Street reform (Hat tip to Jim Lane)
Supports reducing Student Loan Debts and has a solution to do so.
Supports investing in infrastructure. (Hat tip to Koinos )

I can go on… He is on the record for all of this. Add more and I will update this list!

That said, I want to let him sing for himself, and this is a great rendition of this song!

We are all in this together!

[Andy823]

127. I couldn't agree more

"We are all in this together!"

[Raine1967]

128. I thought he was great today!

I loved all the speakers that mad statements before him, it made me happy.

[whereisjustice]

23. Clearly we need a web site for only positive news about Democrats, we can call it

HillaryUberAlles.com.



Now, we all know who supports the TPP and NAFTA. For sure we don't need to hear about that negativity.

Do we?

[NanceGreggs]

111. If you understand ...

... not promoting your candidate-of-choice based solely on the negatives of the other choices as meaning "only positive news about Democrats" being acceptable, I'm afraid I can't help you.

It seems to be a matter of reading comprehension, and/or an inability to differentiate between discussing negatives as part of the conversation and limiting one's self to discussing the negatives of some candidates in lieu of actual, fulsome discussion.

If the only "positive" you can offer about your chosen candidate is to point to the "negatives" of their competitors, such support doesn't come across as being remotely well thought-out nor sincere.

[whereisjustice]

112. So if one candidate for the nomination has 100 negatives and 1 positive....

and the other 100 positives and 1 negative... then we should all agree and only discuss on the positives?

One of two candidate has got a dump truck full of stinky cargo following them around.

No use trying to blame it on the dog.

[NanceGreggs]

113. Once again ...

... if you don't understand the difference between basing your support of one candidate solely on the negatives of another candidate, and NOT on the positives of your own candidate-of-choice, I can't help you.

A simple understanding of the English language seems to be eluding you.

[whereisjustice]

117. Small positives don't out weigh massive negatives, I'm going to call out your false equivalence

Some things aren't equal and as Democrats we are obligated to consider the character and history of a politician. We also have a moral (*) obligation to call out the complete picture of a candidate even if it is inconvenient to the presumed front-runner that corporate democrats so desperately want to shove down our throats.

As far as negatives? You leveled a personal attack against me. You have no credibility on this issue. It's not even a nice try.

(*) morality and ethics - seems the 3rd way corporate types are teaching us all that none of that matters. To the New Democrats, 3rd way Democrats, wining is everything even if a few more Americans get thrown out into the streets when another million jobs get sent to slave labor in Asia. Yea for our side.

[NanceGreggs]

118. I offered no "equivalance" ...

... false or otherwise. Again your failure to comprehend plain English - or use it appropriately - is not my problem.

[whereisjustice]

119. and another personal attack from you. lol @ your grammar police schtick, the last refuge

of someone who has nothing left.

[NanceGreggs]

120. It has nothing to do with grammar.

It has to do with basic comprehension of what is being said.

[spanone]

24. k&r...

[uppityperson]

25. Great thoughts, here are my threads inspired by this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026744305
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026744306

[freshwest]

28. Negativity is a non-state of reality:

I'm for what is!

[7wo7rees]

29. it is really nice to have you back at DU. nt

[McCamy Taylor]

30. Excellent OP!

[Yorktown]

31. Strictly positive: I see H. Clinton win D. primary, then presidential election.

Which in a way is sad, because I enjoy political drama for the sake of it.

I don't expect to see many bumps on the road this time round.

Especially given the poor R. line-up. Even Jeb looks like he doesn't give a damn.

[csziggy]

32. Either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would be great presidents IMO

And infinitely better than anyone in the Republican clown car.

There may be things that I like better about Bernie Sanders and advantages that Hillary Clinton has but I believe they are both excellent people more interested in doing what is right for the American people than in what is most profitable for themselves.

I refuse to jump into the primary preparation circular shooting game - it is far too destructive to our own causes. I will quietly make my own choice for my primary vote and support whoever wins the primary in the general election.

Thank you for your OP, NanceGreggs. As usual you cut right to the core of the issues.

[Rex]

33. I won't vote for Sanders unless he actually runs in the Democratic primary.

I won't vote for him if he stays third party. Besides that, it is game on between those two and whoever else joins in. I don't really think the GOP clown car has a chance next year.

I believe all Dem candidates will push for Obamacare to stay a law and maybe even push it further. I expect them to address the crisis at home, the unrest in the streets over civil rights violations. I think all our candidates more than qualify to fix what is the source of the problems. I know they are qualified to fix Wall Street.

I think this 'talk' by 'people' in the GOP high command wanted HRC to be the primary winner is bullshit. I think they fear her becoming the first female POTUS. Also I think they fear reprisals by her, which they so most richly deserve. The GOP is long due a good asskicking for all the warmongering horseshit over the decades.

All our candidates at least understand how stupid Frank Abbott is. That is like a 1000 gold star points automatically.

[BrotherIvan]

38. Bernie Sanders is running in the Democratic primary

[Art_from_Ark]

41. That little fact

doesn't seem to sink in to some people.

[BrotherIvan]

42. It's the new birtherism

[merrily]

49. ? He always said he would not run as a spoiler. Weeks ago, he said he would run as a Democrat.

He formally declared for the Democratic primary this past Tuesday.

[stevenleser]

114. He's actually on the registered list of folks running for the Democratic nomination

He's not my candidate, but I can assure you that he is running for the Democratic nomination.

[C Moon]

34. NanceGreggs, this is great. Thanks! I'm getting so tired of all the bashing.

[akbacchus_BC]

35. Nance, I was hoping Howard Dean would run.

Guess he is not interested. Kuch probably not interested either. Richardson probably not interested. Only Hilary is left.

Edwards is so messed up, even though he had good intentions, he too not in the running. That leaves you all with Mrs. Clinton. I believe she will do a good job as President but I cannot forgive her for the BS she did to President Obama. Amen!

[Paka]

37. K&R

Bernie has so many positives. All we need to do is get the word out and make sure potential voters know his record and where he stands on the issues.

[Jamaal510]

40. I'll probably

vote for Bernie (if the primaries even last long enough to reach CA), but I'm with you. HC is also a good candidate, and had an under-reported progressive voting record in the Senate. At the end of the day, they both want much of the same agenda, and Republicans don't like either of them. The only things that set them apart politically are that they have somewhat different approaches to politics, and different stances on a few issues. I have no reason to not vote for HC should she become the nominee, or help spread misinformation about her.

[lamp_shade]

43. I remember that in '08 I was a strong Obama supporter... and yet

it was a good feeling to know that if he lost to Hillary I could easily support her; that she would make an excellent president. I had no reason to criticize her and, therefore, I didn't. I'm supporting her now, but I feel the same way about Bernie as I did then about Hillary. He would make an excellent president and it gives me a good feeling. I have no reason to criticize him and, therefore, I won't.

[RandiFan1290]

44. 6 Hidden Posts

How are you allowed to post?

Did Skinner change the rules for Hillary supporters?

[Violet_Crumble]

45. No, it's got nothing to do with Hillary supporters...

Nance lost her husband, who was also a DUer, very recently, and Skinner allowed her to return early. I'm glad he did, coz it was the right thing to do and also she posted the most amazing OP about healthcare in Canada and how people should be fighting hard to get similar in the US...

[RandiFan1290]

46. Ah, different rules for different posters

Got it!

[Violet_Crumble]

47. I don't think it was coz that situation hasn't happened before...

I suspect Skinner would have done it for anyone in the situation Nance was in.

[RandiFan1290]

48. I doubt it. nt

[boston bean]

50. I see, you think Skinner should have just left her unable to post about her

husbands death, because you "think" he wouldn't do it for someone else.

You may be right about one thing. He probably wouldn't have done it for some troll or nube with just over a couple thousand posts.

But, this poster has been here for quite sometime and so wasn't her husband.

Show some respect and feeling for your fellow humans and knock this shit off.

[skepticscott]

61. Well, ironically, it is Nance who has not shown respect

for other posters here, to the tune of 6 hides in the last 3 months. And now you as well, labeling people as "trolls" or "nubes" because they don't post as much as necessary to gain your approval. If you'd bothered to check, you'd have seen that RandiFan has been a DU member longer than Nance, so your attempting to deflect things by calling them a "nube" is rather laughable..and telling.

[boston bean]

62. what is rather telling is your support for that poster in regards to these posts. nt

[skepticscott]

65. And equally telling is your inability to address ANY

of the points I raised. Instead, you try to point some vague finger back at me. But please, tell us what you see in your crystal ball about me.

[boston bean]

67. What points do I need to address. Your insults, your opinion that a poster

who lost their husband can't be given a break with the rules.

Go away and leave me alone, and stop using my posts to attack someone who is grieving and attacking people who did something nice in the face of the tragedy.

[skepticscott]

84. What points? To start with, YOUR insults

Calling another poster a "nube" and a "troll" when they've been a member since 2003 (two years longer than Nance). Was it necessary to insult them and to use falsehoods to do it? Apparently it was, for you anyway.

And pretending that this is about respect for other posters when the person you're defending has six hides piled up and counting, all for disrespecting other posters.

And where did I say that someone who lost a spouse can't be given a break with the rules? Nowhere. Just more shit you made up. Obviously they can, but the question is whether that's what this is really about, since, as I pointed out, lots of posters suffer personal tragedies and don't get to post as much shit as they want that gets hidden. Only special ones, apparently.

[geek tragedy]

93. People who care about DU posting privilege rules

more than basic humanity should really spend two months off the fucking Internet.

The display you are putting on here is one of the most grotesque and inhuman I've ever seen here.

[one_voice]

63. +1

I believe he would have too.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. DU at it's nastiest finest ...

[geek tragedy]

90. At least you have your priorities straight.

[skepticscott]

55. What does the one thing have to do with the other?

Does having a family member die give you extra privileges with regard to violating DU rules? If so, why isn't that stated in the rules? Or is this just about being popular and generating attention for Skinner's site? If that's the case, fine, but why not be up front about it and just say that this person is allowed to insult and berate other posters as much as they want because she has lots of followers who increase the traffic on the site. Lots and lots of DUers go through personal tragedies without being granted those kinds of special privileges.

[LanternWaste]

66. I try to takeaway the most petulant and irrelevant things about many OPs too.

I try to takeaway the most petulant and irrelevant things about many OPs too. And just like you, I'll try to rationalize my behavior as something it's not when I get called on it.

[skepticscott]

85. If I had been commenting on the original post you might have a point

But I wasn't. I was commenting on a subthread that I didn't start. And I have nothing to "rationalize", despite your rather cute attempt at sarcasm.

[MineralMan]

71. If the admins want to make an exception, they can do that.

It comes from ownership of the site. I can't see how it matters, to tell you the truth.

[skepticscott]

86. Sure they can...who said they couldn't?

But how about standing up and saying straight out "Nance Greggs has lots of followers and generates lots of traffic for this site, so she gets as many hides as she wants"?

[MineralMan]

88. But, see, that's not really true.

She's been off the site as much as she has been on it recently. Due to alerts and juries hiding her posts, she's often on timeout from posting. So, she doesn't really generate lots of traffic, and was only allowed back on during a timeout because her husband died, so she could post something about that.

I can't fault the admins for cutting her a break for such a thing. Lots of others get way more views and recs than her posts do. I think you're incorrect in your assessment, frankly. It was a nice gesture on the part of the admins to let her post about her loss. I sure wouldn't fault them for that.

I think it's odd that some people have done so.

[NanceGreggs]

106. Thank you, MM.

"Lots of others get way more views and recs than her posts do."

I should think that's been obvious for a long time now.

[MineralMan]

107. Well, different people's recs have different weight it seems.

If I write an OP and it gets 50 recs, that's the same as if someone else writes one and gets 200. I don't quite understand that math, but there it is.

See, you're really important somehow, so one of your ops is equivalent to ten of someone else's somehow. It's voodoo postonomics or something. It's confusing.

[NanceGreggs]

108. "It's voodoo postonomics or something ..."

What a great term!

[geek tragedy]

91. OFFS. Someone's spouse dies

and you think they're getting a sweet deal.

How any human being of flesh and blood could react this way is beyond me.

[NanceGreggs]

105. The idea of my "being popular" here ...

... and "generating attention for Skinner's site" is laughable. I WAS popular here at one point - but that was years ago. In fact, I stopped posting here altogether for several years, because the tone of the site had changed, and I was usually at-odds with what was being posted on a regular basis.

My "personal tragedy" was not just personal. My late husband was a long-time DUer, and the creator of the DUzy Awards. The news of his passing generated several OPs by those who knew him via his participation on, and contributions to this site.

If you have a problem with Skinner being kind enough to allow me to post under those circumstances, in order to acknowledge the OPs honouring my husband's contribution to DU, I suggest you take it up with him.

"Why not be up front about it and just say that this person is allowed to insult and berate other posters as much as they want ..."

If that were the case, I wouldn't have been on a time-out in the first place, would I? Skinner could have easily "expunged" my hides from his end, as though they'd never happened - if that's the way he operates. But that's NOT the way he operates - and isn't that obvious by now?

I believe you owe Skinner an apology for even suggesting that he applies DU rules differently to some posters rather than others. But I doubt such an apology is forthcoming, now or ever.

[boston bean]

122. Nance, you owe these assholes not one second of thought.

They are mean humans.

I am very sorry for your loss. Please take care.

[Agschmid]

116. +1

[MadDAsHell]

83. I can't speak to the hidden posts because I didn't see them, but how does one get that many?

It seems like almost anything is allowed on DU, how far do you have to push the envelope to get that many that quickly?

[geek tragedy]

92. Criticizing certain DU folk heroes. nt

[Andy823]

123. Exactly

However I like to call them DU shit stirrers.

[NanceGreggs]

103. Setting the record straight ...

My husband, DUer JeffR - long-time poster and originator of the DUzy Awards - passed a week ago.

There were several OPs posted about his passing, and because I was on a time-out, I could not acknowledge all of the incredibly lovely things posters said about him, along with the kind thoughts expressed for myself and my family.

I sent Skinner a PM, asking to be re-instated so that I could reply to those posts, as well as the many PMs that were sent. Within minutes, I received a message from Elad saying he had been instructed to override my time-out and restore posting privileges.

There are a number of RL couples who post here. I cannot imagine that Skinner would not have done the same for any one of them in the same circumstances.

The implication that "Hillary supporters" are not subject to the same rules as everyone else is absurd on its face, and an insult to Skinner and the other Admins. I believe you owe them an apology.

[stevenleser]

115. So you attack the person with a non-sequitur rather than address the content of the OP?

A uniformly positive OP at that.

Interesting.

[pampango]

51. Great OP! Of course, MY candidate is pefect. YOUR candidate is is one step above a republican. (Or

perhaps one step below.)

We come to DU for the same reason that freepers go to freeperville - to trash Democrats. It's the beauty of the internet.

[djean111]

52. Bwah! You couldn't post something about the both of them without pushing Hillary and denigrating

Bernie with your examples.

Tell me that Hillary is totally unelectable despite the reality of her poll numbers against potential GOP candidates – la, la, la, I can’t hear you.

Tell me that Sanders is unelectable because he’s old, white, has unkempt hair, and lives in Vermont – la, la, la, I can’t hear you.

[tkmorris]

59. That rather belies the stated purpose of the OP doesn't it?

Still, she TRIED to rise above the juvenile sniping. I suppose half points should be awarded for the effort.

[NanceGreggs]

75. ...

It is ridiculous to insist that "HRC can't possibly win the general" when her poll numbers continue to be strong in head-to-head match-ups with potential GOP candidates.

It would be equally ridiculous were someone to say that Bernie is getting no traction, when there are multiple sources that clearly confirm the number of his supporters is growing every day, and his message is resonating with a lot of voters.

It has nothing to do with pushing or denigrating either candidate - it has to do with dealing in realities, instead of ignoring the facts as they currently stand.

[totodeinhere]

95. Is it legitimate to indicate why we don't support one candidate or the other?

Can I say that I do not support Clinton because I think she is too close to Wall Street? Or could I say I don't support Sanders because until recently he wasn't a Democrat? Or is that being critical of another Democrat and not allowed? If we can't say not only why we are for one candidate but also why we are not for another, then we can't really spell out our entire case. But of course we should be civil, keep away from personal insults, and keep away from impugning other DUers for whom they support. But this is a primary campaign, not a love fest. And of course we should all support the eventual nominee no matter who that is.

[Peacetrain]

53. Good Op Nancy!!

I am supporting Martin O'Malley ...

[Puglover]

54. Hear Here!

Don't fall off your chair. If I could recommend this 10x I would.

Nice job!

[treestar]

56. Good idea. Some people here are inherently negative though

But it is getting tiring hearing the same old thing. Hillary is a warmonger based on one vote. Hillary is really a Republican. The Democratic party is conservative. It's better not to vote or vote your principles even if that throws the election to the Republicans. The banksters control everything and there's no point.

[totodeinhere]

96. Or coming from the other side suggesting that Bernie is not sensitive to issues of race. n/t

[treestar]

104. That's not what I meant

Nobody says Bernie is not a liberal.

[Tipperary]

58. This is a fantastic post.

Thank you.

[one_voice]

64. Awesome OP!

K&R

[Mbrow]

68. Cool Beans! K & R!

[AlbertCat]

69. What is so "awesome" about this complaining Op Ed?

So she doesn't want to hear people fight about their candidates. Like that will ever happen?

How can you divide the Dems re the election when the primary is miles away?


Lots of pearl clutching and lecturing way too early to tell if any of it is warranted.

Besides.... when it comes down to brass tacks, I think most posters here will vote for the Dem, no matter who it is. I wouldn't take the criticism of either (or any) candidates at this point too hard. Save it for the real election.

[Lisa D]

70. You make too much sense

K&R

[world wide wally]

72. Looking at the bright side...

I haven't heard either Hilary or Bernie attack the other one yet.
They are settings good example and I suggest people follow it.

[Hepburn]

73. Whoever wins the nomination of the Dems...

...I do and will support. PERIOD. Let's face it: Choose the Dem you deem to be the "worst possible candidate." Then look at what the Repukes have in their stable. Easy choice, IMO.

[raven mad]

74. I will support any Democrat who is nominated.

But Bernie floats my boat!

[I hate liars]

76. Nice thought but it doesn't reflect the way most of us make our choices...

Nance, I agree in principle that one should argue for a candidate based on their merits. But many (if not all) of us make voting choices based on trade-off assessments. In other words, we vote for the best available (or least objectionable) candidate.

That means we take the negatives into account as well as the positives.

For example, there are positives I could cite about the positions taken by politicians for whom I would never vote. Their negatives far outweigh the few positives. And I have voted in the past for very flawed candidates because they were the best available (not voting isn't the only logical outcome of viewing one's party as severely corrupted).

One of the reasons I like Bernie Sanders is that he holds so many positions that the Democratic party establishment would never back. For me, the contrast between Sanders' integrity and courage (positives) and a party establishment that does not, by and large, act in the interests of average Americans (negatives) only makes him a more attractive candidate.

[NanceGreggs]

81. Let me be clear.

I am not suggesting that any candidate's "negatives" should not be discussed.

However, when one's only argument for a candidate is pointing out the negatives of other candidates, their support of their candidate-of-choice rings hollow.

How often have we seen the phrase here that "he/she is better than a Republican" is not sufficient criteria on which to base one's vote?

The same holds true here. Advocating support of one candidate over another based solely on the negatives of one rather than the positives of the other strikes me as a means of bashing one candidate under the guise of supporting someone else.

[totodeinhere]

97. OK Nance you answered my question upthread. I have no problem with your analysis. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

77. I'm thinking the game changes dramatically with O'Malley's announcement.

[zappaman]

79. You may well be right!

[Gamecock Lefty]

80. Love My Dems!!!

I am a Hillary supporter 100%! I really like her and if elected believe she would make a fine President.

But being an H supporter does not mean I trash my fellow Dems nor does it mean I dislike them. I love Bernie Sanders and was inspired by his Presidential kickoff speech. If Sanders is our nominee I will support him 100%!

Hillary may not win our nomination, but I think she will. I'm not going to say she is next in line and deserves it (that’s a Republican line), but I do believe she has the wind at her back this time - much more so than 2008.

I look forward to a robust debate of the issues amongst our fine candidates. I love my political party of choice and I love those of us who are Dems. If we have Hillary and Bernie as our top two choices how damn exciting is that???

And just look at the other guys – we could be deciding between Bush, Huckabee, Carson, Cruz and Santorum!!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

89. +1 ...

Well stated ... but what you suggest is a lot less fun than posts.

[geek tragedy]

94. Plenty of other places on the Internet where we can learn the latest

Fox News and Politico stories about Bernie and Hillary.

[mountain grammy]

102. My first choice is Bernie, and I'm going to agree completely with this post.

I look forward to our primary. We will bring up issues people care about. We will be head and shoulders above the clowns on the other side. If Americans want to listen to honest ideas about how to move America forward, they will have to listen to Democrats.

United we win, and we will win with the best platform going forward. Let's do this! Time to make Americans pull their head out of their asses and listen up.

[trof]

109. Don Siegleman gets my vote.

Free Don!
Obama pardons him in time for him to mount a campaign.
Millions flock to his bid for POTUS.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

110. I'm fluent in ASL, and let me tell you...

Repuke crazy bullshit sleazdom sucks just as bad in visual language as it does in aural language.

It sucks in Northern ASL, Southern ASL, NYC ASL, California ASL, and everything in between.

[Andy823]

125. I couldn't agree more

Way to many here just want to bash every candidate but their own. If you have confidence in you candidate, you don't have to bash others with made up BS.

No matter who wins the nomination the goal should be to support whoever does win, because having ANY republican in the WH is just not acceptable.