Bernie Sanders and the Peter Principle

[Jim Lane]

198. I've been told that on DU by a DUer with a Hillary-arrow avatar.

I direct your attention to this thread, and in particular to the sub-thread beginning with post #4 (which was from a different Clinton supporter).

After the DUer with the H-arrow avatar referred to "Hillary hate", I sourly observed that Clinton supporters seemed incapable of recognizing any criticism of her as legitimate; they instead ascribed it all to Hillary hating and/or Hillary bashing. I followed up by asking point-blank if there was legitimate criticism of Clinton on DU. I was told (by the H-arrow DUer) that there is no contest for the Democratic nomination and that, in consequence:

Attacking Hillary here is carrying water for the repubs because the real race is between Hillary and who ever remains in the clown car.

My personal opinion is that attacking any of the Democratic candidates on a substantive basis is perfectly legitimate. For example, I've seen posts taking differing views on the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. Nobody on DU should object to criticism of their candidate's position on Glass-Steagall (O'Malley and Sanders are for it, Clinton is against it, I don't know where Chafee stands).

Much of your post bemoans the current state of DU. Yes, on this board there are more Sanders supporters than Clinton supporters. The obvious result is that criticism of Sanders will draw more disagreement than will criticism of Clinton. Another obvious result is that, if we assume that each group of supporters has about the same proportion of jerks, there will be more misconduct by Sanders supporters than by Clinton supporters (just as there will be more misconduct by right-handers than by left-handers). Those facts aren't likely to change anytime soon. If you can't deal with your inability to attack Sanders with impunity, post your attacks in the HRC Group or in those "more congenial climes" (at least one of which I looked in on briefly and found to be Supporter Misconduct Central).

Finally, you write: "Sanders could nip this shit in the bud--he could issue an edict that anyone who plays dirty just isn't on his team." First, I don't think any candidate can reasonably be expected to monitor supporter conduct on DU. Second, there's an underlying disagreement about what constitutes playing dirty. I haven't seen anyone on DU say that Clinton should be opposed because a woman can't lead the Free World, and I assume a post like that would be hidden 7-0. If someone says Clinton has called the TPP the gold standard, some of her supporters will consider that to be playing dirty. (By the way, has Clinton issued an edict that no one should bring up Sanders's religion? Because it has been brought up on at least one of those more congenial climes, it apparently being congenial to anti-Semitism.) Third, I don't think Clinton or Sanders or any of the other candidates has much control over what people say. I don't think Sanders has ever called Clinton a corporatist or a war hawk but some of his supporters here honestly feel that way and are not trolls.