Let's be clear about what "going negative" is

[MannyGoldstein]

Making up stuff, like claiming your opponent is a misogynist because he talked about "shouting"? That's going negative.

Pointing out your opponent's actual record? That's not going negative.

Questions?

[Ed Suspicious]

1. Clear to me. Thanks.

[HerbChestnut]

2. Yep.

About sums it up. Thanks, Manny.

[Autumn]

3. Nope. No questions.

[Scootaloo]

4. Oh, Manny, when will you learn?

Clinton doesn't HAVE a record! Nothing she has ever said or done, no action she has taken, no vote she has made "counts." She's like the Virgin Mary in church dogma, existing in a timeless and perpetual (if nonsensical) state of immaculate perfection.

[merrily]

11. Good point, as always, Scootaloo!

[senz]

17. lol -- wonderful!

So true.

[FlatBaroque]

42. Oh! Have I mentioned I'm a girl?!!

[Bubzer]

48. ...

[L0oniX]

61. LMFAO

[hifiguy]

79. That, Scoots, deserves to be Post of The Week.

Bravo!

[marym625]

95. Thread winner!

[99th_Monkey]

5. Thanks for clearing up all the confusion about this important difference Manny

Last edited Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:45 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm certain Hillary people will now reign-in their "Bernie's going negative!" worries,
and be happy to discuss actual issues that voters care deeply about.

[Art_from_Ark]

24. Oh, yeah, that's sure to happen any day now

[Teagan]

38. My timer says since June 13th

it's been ticking to discuss actual issues.

[hifiguy]

80. Eeyup.

Shortly after the heat death of the universe.

[L0oniX]

64. Awaiting talking points from the representatives of the oligarchy.

[SheilaT]

6. Or pointing out serious inconsistancies

in one person's record. That's likewise not going negative.

[99th_Monkey]

7. For the record, I don't think pointing out an opponents biggest donors is "going negative"

Especially if they are very same corporations (or executives therefrom) that
my opponent tells to "Cut it Out!" or says they will "hold accountable", if
elected.

[erronis]

50. +1 - thanks for reading my mind (limited that it is) and stating it succinctly.

[L0oniX]

65. Wait! What? Someone is going to hold the oligarchy accountable?

[99th_Monkey]

68. Heaven forbid that the ONLY Dem candidate who is "of, by & for" 1% ever be accountable

If I do that, I'd be "BASH. BASH. BASHing" poor defenseless Hillary.

[sheshe2]

8. Ok. nt

[bravenak]

9. I refuse to agree on principle.

[sheshe2]

15. Ha~

Me too...just said Ok....because......

[bravenak]

26. I know how you feel.

[Kip Humphrey]

16. What principle? Heaping scorn and attacks on fellow DUers who happen to support

Bernie Sanders demonstrates a complete disregard for principle.

[bravenak]

27. I do not know what you mean. I recieved far more scorn than I give.

[rpannier]

29. I'm certain they'll roll out with something

to 'prove' their point that makes as little sense as their above comment to you

tbh: I am guessing, they have one of those calendars like the word of the day kind. Only it's a meme of the day.
They threw out that meme at you, but have no idea what they're talking about

Good to see you back btw bravenak

Haven't seen u in a while here
Hope everything is going well

[bravenak]

30. Hey!!

I know how it is, but it is sad sometimes.
Things are good, having a good time laughing at the republican debate.

[LiberalArkie]

53. I did not have the heart to watch them self-destruct.

[bravenak]

54. It was sad. Sad sad sad sad. Sad.

[NCTraveler]

35. They know it.

It's a shit stirring op and you are replying to comments that match. One of the most blatant displays of goading we have seen. They are pushing further as it's not working.

[Bobbie Jo]

60. Gives them something to do

with the frustration, I suppose.

No, it's not working. The endless theatrics have zero effect on the poll numbers.

Seems the energy might be better spent doing things that translate into votes

[NCTraveler]

62. It can be fun. I find it to be more rewarding than tv. Guess that isn't saying much.

Happy Thursday.

[Bobbie Jo]

67. Good point...

Maybe a disclaimer is in order...

*For entertainment purposes only.

Happy Thursday!

[sheshe2]

28. Excuse me?

[NCTraveler]

34. Principles?

Not getting behind an agenda driven op who is feigning to promote ethics during the primaries.

[merrily]

10. I have questions.

How about posters implying on DU that the candidate you don't favor is a pedophile, etc.?

Lower than whale poo?

[AgingAmerican]

20. It's called "Bottom Feeding"

It's what people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh do. It is right wing behavior.

[merrily]

22. It's disgraceful, shameful behavior.

[sheshe2]

31. ...

Hmmm~ bottom feeding is when you trash this President and Dems~

[frylock]

72. Criticism of shit policy isn't trashing.

[hifiguy]

87. To the fanboys and fangirls it is.

IT IS SO!!! Like criticizing Bieber's haircut. Their chosen ones are perfect in all ways, always. Scootaloo covered this point upthread, and hilariously.

Talk about sad! Their critical thinking faculties rival a canary's.

[frylock]

91. Fanboys and fangirls don't do policy..

Policy is hard. Look at the pictures in that post ffs! Tiger fucking Beat all up in here.

[hifiguy]

92. Indeed.

[zeemike]

107. That looks like idol worship to me.

When all you have to offer is pretty pictures. Kind of creepy to me when it is done to a politician. Reminds me of Mao or Kim Jon Il or what ever his name is.

But I have never been a personality fan so I don't understand it

[sheshe2]

108. Uuuum~

Bernie supporters. Take a look. eom

[zeemike]

110. Is that an "I'm rubber you're glue" point?

Or did you mean that Bernie supporters should just gaze on that wonderful picture you posted and feel the warm thrill of confusion, that space cadet glow you feel when you see it?

[Kalidurga]

12. Making up stuff

I think is worse than going negative. To me it seems like something a depraved mind would do.

[kristopher]

19. +1

[merrily]

21. Excellent point and excellent distinction.

It's not the same pointing out something that did in truth happen that could be construed as negative.

It's pretending that something negative happened when nothing negative actually happened. That's just flat out dishonesty, which is worse than simply going negative with true information, such as Eagleton's* hospitalizing.




*McGovern's VP choice at one point, for those who do not already know.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. It seems that going negative means

That if one criticizes Mrs. Clinton, one is a misogynist. Criticizing includes pointing out her sorry ass record and close ties to corporate criminals.

This definition of misogyny against Mrs. Clinton is brought to you by the same people who just a few years ago told us that if we didn't like President Obama and the NSA trashing the Fourth Amendment and spying on all of us was a racist.

[OnyxCollie]

23. +1, hater. nt

[Bubzer]

49. +1

[tex-wyo-dem]

71. Agree...and she's already tee'd up the misogyny defense/counter-attack...

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, how would you not be a third term of President Obama?

CLINTON: Well, I think that's pretty obvious. I think being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents we've had up until this point, including President Obama.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/13/the-oct-13-democratic-debate-who-said-what-and-what-it-means/

[hifiguy]

81. Blammo.

You can drop the mic now, Jack!

[Cassiopeia]

14. None

[rpannier]

18. You got that 100% correct

Your record is most of what people have to decide on what they think of you, kind of like your resume
Calling someone misogynistic or other similar firebombs without actual evidence is negative

[LostOne4Ever]

25. I agree with you but I would rather be safe

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=indigo]I am just going to support Bernie on DU by defending him, and focusing on his positives and pretending Hillary Clinton doesn't exist till the primary is over.

There are too many people I like and respect on DU who are Hillary supporters, and I don't want to risk upsetting them.[/font]

[hootinholler]

32. There are too many Hillary supporters that I have lost respect for

That I don't care if I upset the rest of them.

[Maedhros]

74. Sadly, I agree. [n/t]

[jeff47]

93. +infinity (nt)

[bvar22]

78. That is the same thing Debbie Schultz said when asked why...

...she wouldn't endorse Democrats for open Congressional seats in Florida.
She didn't want to upset her Republican friends.

[snagglepuss]

111. I wasn't aware she said that. That is jawdropping.

That alone speaks volumes.

[bvar22]

116. She actually showed up at Republican Fund Raisers!

See this for more horrid details....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4653003

....and THIS is the woman selected to lead the DNC.

[snagglepuss]

118. There's been so many so travasties its hard to keep track.

Thanks for the link. I kicked it to inform people like me who missed it and remind others of just how despicably opportunistic DWS is. That her antics didn't get her kicked out of her position speaks volumes about those who could have ditched her but didn't.

[Enthusiast]

36. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

Way to go, Manny!

[jalan48]

37. I'm confused about this shouting thing.

Is the Hillary campaign upset because Bernie shouted about "Those damn emails"?

[kenfrequed]

39. No... they actually want people to forget that.

Thus they are continuing to refer back to Bernie's general comments about gun control to somehow being a sexist dig. Personally, I think it is really poor judgement to go negative when you had a great month and are 20+ points ahead nationally.

For some reason some advisors in the Hillary team really didn't want the most memorable comment of the debate to be Bernie dismissing the email question. It made him look too outside the box and too honorable. So, find some place where he talks about "shouting about gun control" and somehow make it into Bernie being sexist.

[jalan48]

40. So it's not really about 'shouting' at all?

[snagglepuss]

112. The shouting refers to a remark Bernie made about guns.

He said something to the effect that all the shouting in the world isn't going to solve issues surrounding guns. It was an offhand remark directed at everyone concerned about guns.

Hillary jumped on that remark, insinuating that Bernie (read male sexist) was directing that remark to her. She referred to how male sexists try to silence women by dismissing women as overly emotional. The upshot being that Bernie is a sexist who dislikes powerful, uppity women.

[jalan48]

113. Simply wow! After Bernie stands up for her on the email issue.

Sounds like she is using the poor, shouted at woman strategy.

[Mike__M]

117. "Jumped on that remark"

...only several days later, after staff had time to comb through the transcripts for anything that might work as a wedge.
If it was really offensive, the reaction should have been immediate. For example, I personally had an immediate reaction to the use of the phrase "I know how to stand my ground." It seemed tasteless to me for a candidate to use that phrase after they had all (most of them) affirmed that Black Lives Matter.

[rhett o rick]

41. Bernie used the old expression "no amount of shouting" in reference to fixing the gun problem.

HRC fired back that "shouting" is used as a sexist term with regard to women speaking out.

Some have pointed out that when someone has deliberately and falsely accused another person of being a sexist in order to gain some sort of political advantage, it's defined as the "gender card".

"No amount of shouting" has been around forever and never thought to be a sexist phrase. HRC had to really stretch to get there.

Bernie didn't fall for the bait and didn't get pulled down to that level and gave a very professional response.

[jalan48]

43. Thanks.

And it follows that since Bernie supporters are off-the-wall obnoxious then Bernie must be too-as in 'shouting' at hapless women who are not strong enough to stand up to him? I like it-one of the big issues facing Americans is men shouting at women and Hillary, if elected, will start dealing with that problem day one.

[Maedhros]

75. Did you forget the 'sarcasm' smilie? [n/t]

[jalan48]

82. I just might have....

[kenfrequed]

44. Except at the time she didn't

At the time she said nothing and took the phrase "no amount of shouting" as a completely general statement after the moderator and two of the other candidates had challeneged him on guns. The same statement he had made again and again for several months before hand in interviews and public commentary.


Hillary started referencing the "shouting" thing in her stump speeches on three occasions to try to connect guns to gender and imply that Bernie was somehow talking down to her in a sexist manner.

[hifiguy]

83. HRH actually said that?

I'd always at least given her credit for being intelligent, if not ethical or principled. No more. Jebus wept.

She must be reading the paranoid and imaginary horseshit that some are posting over on the Sewer Site

[rhett o rick]

85. I didn't quote her exactly but I tried not to be too biased with my version. nm

[hifiguy]

86. Even if that's merely the gist of it

that is so feathering derped as to be beyond absurdity. That's last-night's-debate levels of nutsery. But I am not in the least bit surprised.

[rhett o rick]

89. HRC is in a tough spot. She can't be more honest or show more integrity than Sen Sanders

so she has to do something else. She can't win on comparing stands of issues either.

[hifiguy]

90. Her "honesty" and "integrity"

were sold to the banksters and the MIC long ago. She's got nothin' left. Nixon in a pantsuit.

[Utopian Leftist]

99. Exactly. And it should prove to her detriment

that on every single issue, with the possible exception of gun control*, Bernie has reached the liberal viewpoint more quickly, often by years, than she reached it. Worse yet, anyone who is old enough to remember her husband's antics already anticipates that her many, sudden, recent "liberal" epiphanies are set to expire immediately after the Party Nominates Bernie. The public is not as easily fooled these days as we used to be, ergo Bernie's surging popularity.

* And this point is likely moot anyway, as I feel reasonably certain that Bernie's position on guns is currently every bit as liberal as Hillary's. So she reached the progressive conclusion earlier on one issue? I doubt even she would stoop to brag about that?

[rhett o rick]

102. It hurt her in 2007 and it will again. Her loyality to Goldman-Sachs is

obvious to anyone with half a brain or more. Goldman-Sachs doesn't care about the 50 million Americans living in poverty so don't vote for Goldman-Sachs or their candidate.

[MADem]

101. You're making that up, otherwise you could find video of that, and you can't--because it never

happened.

She never 'fired back' anything of the sort. She never called Sanders sexist.

Link or slink now.....

[jwirr]

45. K&R.

[Bubzer]

46. Manny, your not doing your duty as a newly confirmed hillary neophyte.

Pointing out hillary's actual record? That's always going negative.

AND, you forgot to add your official "H" logo!

[a2liberal]

51. I came here to say something like this :) (nt)

[Bubzer]

52. Heh

[L0oniX]

66. Luv your sig line.

[Bubzer]

115. Thank you!

[dae]

109. He must be backsliding, he'll be okay.

[MisterP]

47. emphasis on so-called "facts" is a phallogocentric assertion of dominance culture

in a place forcibly deprived of safe space

[Bubzer]

55. Facts lack a gender bias.

Hillary is factually associated with the dominance culture, asserted by big banks and corporations in order to forcibly deprive everyone of safe spaces. Gender doesn't enter the equation.

[MisterP]

56. fear not, I was being sarcastic

but it's funny how they turn so easily to far-left whitewashing for neocon stuff

[Bubzer]

58. Ahhh... and I fell for it! Well done!

[MisterP]

63. too much experience! *sobs*

[DhhD]

104. Seems like Bill was depriving safe space while being the other gender.

[Bubzer]

114. Bill was depriving safe space while being a 1 percenter. Gender was incidental.

[hifiguy]

84. I've read similar prose right here on DU.

Something that blitheringly nonsensical, cretinous and incoherent was posted in "response" to a post of mine defending the scientific method a couple years back. As said method was developed by male scientists, it is inherently untrustworthy and suspect. For pretty much the reason you mockingly stated.

And I am not exaggerating or making it up.

You can no more fix that kind of bone-deep drooling idiocy than you can fix the fundys.

[sarge43]

57. Forget it, Manny. It's DU primary season. n/t

[beerandjesus]

59. Absolutely right. For example, it would be "going negative"...

...if I said that Hillary felt the need to reiterate her support for the death penalty NOW, as things get heated with Bernie, because her latent anti-Semitism runs so deep that when she thinks about Jews, her mind automatically goes to death camps. And then I could ridicule her supporters for Gentile-splaining when they have the temerity to claim that Hillary, in fact, is not secretly a Nazi.

Of course, that would be a really shitty thing for me to do, and I won't do it.

[Mike__M]

73. No, don't do it

Also, please don't point out the prominent use of the phrase "stand my ground" in that debate either. Because "I know how to stand my ground" is not racist, has no racist connotations or political associations or hidden meanings, intended or not, and is in no way similar to the phrase "Stand Your Ground" that we kept hear during the trial of Treyvon Martin's killer.
To imply any lack of judgment in a candidate's use of that phrase in a debate and again in a major speech a few days later would be going negative. Don't do it.

[ieoeja]

69. Going negative in politics means saying negative thinks about your opponent even if true.

You described the difference between "negative" and "dirty". At some point Bernie's campaign will probably have to discuss Hillary's negatives, like reminding people of her racist 2008 campaign. I expect his campaign to remain clean.

No such expectation exists for Hillary's campaign.

[demwing]

70. Also, calling out some one for going negative

Is not "going negative"

Claiming a person is "negative" for rightfully calling out negativity, is also "going negative"

[WillyT]

76. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[hifiguy]

77. Kickety rec!

[Android3.14]

88. Yup.

Ethical and/or informed voters recognize the difference, whereas the folks lacking good ethics or who engaged in willful ignore-ance just become angry bullies, never realizing their anger is at themselves for being incapable of justifying their support in a way that will mesh with Democratic values.

[marym625]

94. BUT! BUT! HE LEFT EARLY!

Or when it was over. But he didn't shake hands with his supporters! Except when he did. But, he doesn't work with Republicans. I mean Democrats! I mean, so what if he works with both to help Veterans? A republican said it. Or, uhm. Whatever.

[TrollBuster9090]

96. Agreed. I like both Bernie and Hillary, but her campaign needs to save the STINK BOMBS for the

She and her campaign need to save the stink bombs and kicks to the groin for the Republicans.

Somebody should remind them about what happened during the 2008 primary, and they thought they were just SO CLEVER to use THIS PHOTO against Obama. I think that when her operatives leaked this photo was when I decided she deserved to lose the primary.

[pnwmom]

97. And disagreeing with Sanders' record opposing the Brady bill, etc., is NOT shouting,

despite what he claims.

[stonecutter357]

98. You seem concerned.

positive from MannyGoldstein

[leftofcool]

100. The DU arbiter of what is and is not negative

I think I will decide that for myself.

[Iggo]

103. Perfectly.

[Uncle Joe]

105. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, MannyGoldstein.

[George II]

106. Now she claimed Sanders is a "misogynist"?

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

I knew this day would arrive, just not before the end of the year.

[sabrina 1]

119. Thank you Manny, for standing up for what is right in the face of all the lies and distortions.