There's been a few scuffles with candidate supporters and me in the past few days. [View all]

[bigtree]

I want to attempt to make a few things clear.

Question, first: Have any of you taken time to criticize your own candidate for what they've said or done?

I have.

I've made such criticisms for a couple of reasons. One, because I participate in the political process (and in discussions here) to defend, represent, or advocate for issues, not merely on behalf of (or against) politicians.

Secondly, I want to demonstrate that my criticisms aren't designed to thwart one candidate or in favor of one candidate or the other.

In this election I've chosen my former governor to support as my choice in our primary, Martin O'Malley. Hillary Clinton was my third choice in the 2008 presidential contest (after my earlier choices faded), but I'm not advocating in favor of Hillary in this season's primary. That hasn't however, kept me from offering a few favorable posts about her history and her record. Having spent time advocating on her behalf, there are obviously things that I feel comfortable promoting about Mrs. Clinton and I've offered them up again this time around (along with a few other favorable articles from this year).

examples:

Hillary Clinton's most interesting hire yet

Clinton Email Kerfluffle: Bush/Cheney Used Private Email

Hillary Kicks Off Campaign With Roundtable at Kirkwood

Hillary Clinton's commitment to civil rights

and my favorite:

A Different View of Hillary

Why would I promote another candidate? I want to demonstrate comity in our political deliberations here. I want to demonstrate that there isn't any grudge hidden behind any criticisms I might make during the campaign. I want to demonstrate solidarity with all of our Democratic candidates; ultimately resulting in my support for one of them against the republican rival, and a vote for our nominee in the general election.

Bernie Sanders also got the same sort of consideration from me. In fact, he got a bit of a wedge of support from me against the Clinton bid. I offered up a rationale and my support for his candidacy in an early, brief op:

(Certainly not as effusive an endorsement as I gave Hillary in 2008 and downright confrontational to the Clinton bid...)

bigtree Wed Apr 29, 2015
This is the value of a Sanders candidacy

Hillary had a chance to oppose the TPP without qualification or hedging. Martin O'Malley had already staked out a solid position of opposition to the trade pact. Now, with the emergence of a Bernie Sanders candidacy, there will be a unified break from politics as usual from the Democratic field with Hillary caught on the sidelines.

Bernie's straightforward advocacy for progressive issues, coupled with O'Malley's own brand of populism in this campaign, will solidify the left in this election and characterize the Democratic quest for the presidency as vote for actual change; not just a 'feint' echo of the status quo. Now, the Clinton campaign will be challenged to either compete against republicans with the progressive tide, or tack against it. Kudos to Bernie Sanders for joining the fight for progressive values and interests in this election!

more:

Bernie Sanders: "It is time to end the politics of division in this country"

Bill McKibben to speak at the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign kickoff

Sen. Bernie Sanders Opposing Obama’s AUMF: ISIS Fight a ‘Battle for the Soul of Islam’

Bernie Sanders Rips “Crazy” Senate For Passing Keystone XL Bill

Bernie Sanders: I will not be a spoiler who ends up helping to elect a right-wing Republican

1962. Bernie Sanders. Speaking at a sit-in. Organizing for civil rights.

I mentioned above that I've also criticized these candidates for one position, statement, action or the other; ALL of them. It would be self-serving to replay my criticisms of Hillary or Bernie, but here are a few I've offered against my own choice, Martin O'Malley:

Martin O'Malley op-ed in support of the controversial 'Protecting Cyber Networks Act'

...Although I strongly support Martin O'Malley's campaign for president, this cyber security bill isn't something which I'm comfortable about promoting or supporting. There are serious privacy concerns which many legislators I consider allies in Congress correctly opposed in the passage of the House bill. Gov. O'Malley makes a cursory mention of these privacy concerns and I'm interested in how much he's willing to support this bill without significant changes. His op-ed doesn't make that clear.

In His Announcement Speech...

I liked that he made a specific reference to the unrest in Baltimore (not unexpected for a former mayor of the city), and I thought he framed it well - even though he lapsed into suggesting an economic solution to what ailed the city, instead of directly calling out the rabid police force for their violence (as I would have liked)

O'Malley made a false step associating 'mental illness' with the Charleston shootings

...if I thought Martin O'Malley had sufficiently addressed the racism apparent in the Charleston shootings, I would have highlighted it here, like I've done for other statements I think he's been correct on. He did not. If O'Malley expects to attract people of color to his campaign, he'll need to say more than a smattering of patronizing lines about race, with the baffling conclusion he made here that he doesn't 'think anybody figured out the magic solution' to it all.

Even more disappointing was the knee-jerk statement about 'mental health' without any evidence that was even an issue in what appeared to be a premeditated hate crime, or domestic terrorism.

While Gov. O'Malley saw overwhelming support in his elections in my state - and while he certainly has a good record of material support and relationships with the black community (as all of our Democratic candidates do) in Maryland - much more discussion on the campaign trail is going to be needed to address specific interests and concerns related to the black community; economics; job discrimination; health disparities; voting rights; and more.

As for this statement Friday, it's clear that he needs more preparation and needs to be more direct and assertive on these issues in his campaign rhetoric.

As you can see, I made as pointed a criticism of my own candidate above, as it was in line with my own interests and concerns on race and how our candidates address the issues and concerns associated with race, and more. I have not restricted my criticisms to my opponents, and I will continue to speak out wherever and whenever I feel my presidential choice has made a mistake in his campaign rhetoric. I will continue to do that - to speak out clearly and forcefully - because I believe in the issues and political positions I'm advocating. I will likely offer more criticisms of my candidate in the future ( I think it's inevitable we will disagree again).

I hope this helps folks here understand that I'm not working or scheming to undermine ANY Democratic candidacy. I am, however, more committed to the issues I advocate for, than I am to personalities and politicians.