How do you feel about all the criticism of dem candidates on DU?

[Fresh_Start]

Poll question: How do you feel about all the criticism of dem candidates on DU?

There is a great deal of criticism of democratic candidates on DU.
There are DUers who say they will never support some democratic candidates.
There are many DUers (myself included) who wish other people we'd prefer would announce their candidacy but we'll get behind the parties candidate because the alternatives are worse.

I find myself getting irate over the tone of some of the criticism.
I find myself shaking my head over the adulation of other candidates which approach a "Jesus Camp" fervor.

[PDittie]

1. Worth a K & R

[Bobbieo]

2. It's 'open season'!

[donco6]

3. 7 choices for supporting criticism and one against.

Can anyone say, "Push Poll"?

[Fresh_Start]

9. since my own view is discomfort with the tenor

of the criticism or adulation, I guess you'll have to say I've overcompensated so it certainly wasn't intentionally a push poll.

[youngdem]

4. I'm for a lockstep, Nazi-like Republican-esque coronation based on legacy instead of merit

Seems to work.


(:sarcasm: for those who need it)

[aein]

5. I would like criticism, if it were actually reasoned. Most of it is totally BS and politically-slant

[MonkeyFunk]

6. exactly

for every reasonable criticism, there's 100 smears, cheap shots or just outright lies.

[paulk]

16. exactly -

I could vote for the first option, but most of the "criticism" on DU is not sincere.

[mtnsnake]

12. You nailed it. nt

[Fresh_Start]

13. I was trying to make a distinction between sincere

criticism and strong criticism.

I'd suggest that sincere or honest criticism is reasoned/balanced/thoughtful/equitable.

There's a lot of political candidate jingoism here and it distresses me to no end.
In some ways it approaches the Bushie followers blindness to their candidate failings and unwillingness to see the value in opposition views.

[cleveramerican]

7. Its SUPPOSED to be hard.

At this level, the tough scrutiny every candiate must face comes not just from your opponents.
Principled supporters should take a hard de-tached second look as well.

if you can't stand the heat.....

[Fresh_Start]

8. I think thats what I intended by the its the natural outgrowth

of the political process

[cleveramerican]

11. I criticize those I vote for fairly often

tough, even unfairly biased attacks don't necessarily rule out a vote. That was my clumsily made point.

[Fresh_Start]

14. I wasn't suggesting your point was clumsily made

And I agree that you have to make tough choices because politicians are politicians. As such, they make many calculated moves some of which are individually appalling.

[cleveramerican]

18. I said that about myself

because I liked my more considered response more.

If you think DU is tough on anyone, you should see how tough ordinary voters are.
Not to mention Kim Jung Il.

[MissWaverly]

10. the lurkers and trolls are a fact of life here

they will be here in droves to bash anyone who appears to be a strong candidate, or they
will post something deliberately divisive about a candidate to pull support from him.
We just have to make up our minds that this country needs a dem win. I have just finished
Invasion of the Party Snatchers by Vic Gold. Mr. Gold has been an influential GOP'er since
1964, it's rather chilling. It's about image and how a negative thing is managed, not so
much about 'accountability.' He acknowledges that a great deal has gone wrong since Bush
became president but if the dems had a better strategy in 2000 or 2004, it would not have
happened. We need accountability in government so we need to pull together and deliver
the best candidate that we can: the most honest, most credible, the best qualified for
the job. My message from Osama fund raising is, the grass roots has thrown a big monkey
wrench into the "bundling" strategy. We the little people can have a 'say' just as much
as those who can "bundle" large cash contributions. I think 2008 is going to be a very
dirty fight. Remember, if a dem president gets in, and a true majority in the senate and
house is achieved then some of these individuals will be going to the "slammer." They
will fight tooth and nail to elect a "suck-up" who pardons everyone.

[KingofNewOrleans]

15. Criticism is part of the process, those that promote sainthood for their

candidates are just as bad. Any post that says Candidate A is the only one who ..... should be deleted.

[Greyhound]

17. I'd prefer it if people would concentrate on advocating the positive aspects

of their chosen candidate, but that isn't America anymore (maybe never was). As always it is easier to destroy than to create and most will always take the easy way.

Democracy does benefit from honest disagreement and debate, but only when there is an honest desire to achieve a meeting of the minds.

[MissWaverly]

25. I like when people post critical things

20 people then post why that person is wrong, sometimes in very salty terms, what response
do you get from the Tv news pundits, NONE. But I think criticism based on emotional or appearance issues are non-starters: ie the whole "girlie man" issue.

[Greyhound]

27. Not what I've seen here. There are little cabals that come into candidate threads

and trash the candidate, ignore the responses, and support each others idiocy, very republikon of them. Check out a few of Flabbergasted's threads.

[MissWaverly]

29. agree some of the criticism is just flaming

I agree that some of this bashing is out of line, personally, I think that there should
be penalty points like in sports for flaming candidates w/o a real reason. I include
the "he lives in a big house" argument in this category.

[Greyhound]

32. Good idea. n/t

[Radical Activist]

19. People should try to be fair and realistic.

I get tired of people who argue a very weak point to death because they feel like they have to defend their candidate. That doesn't make for interesting or insightful debate. Admit that your chosen candidate isn't 100% perfect and accept that there are some good things about the other candidates as well.

[unlawflcombatnt]

20. We Need Much, Much MORE Criticism

And we need to push candidates to state tangible positions on issues, instead of trying to stay on both sides of the fence. Obama has a slight lead over Clinton in the "fence-sitting" race. None of the candidates seem anxious to take any tangible position on anything.

Where do they stand on unrestricted free trade?

Where do they stand on tax cuts for the rich?

Where do they stand on protecting the right to unionize?

Do they really want to stop the Iraq war?

And how many times does a particular Democrat have to say "I don't doubt the other side's sincerity"?
Who gives a rat's ass about the other side's "sincerity"?


What benefit is there to advocating "unity," "cooperation," or an end to "partisanship"?

Do we want someone who's going to simply go along with the Republi-thugs? Do we want someone who's going to simply compromise with Corporate America, and their persistent attempt to upwardly redistribute wealth?

We need someone to fight for workers and middle class Americans, not someone who promotes "unity" or "compromise" with the Bush Corporatocracy.

[MissWaverly]

21. agreed, anyone can talk a good game

and say that they have hunted all their life, at least since last year. Or they really
don't know how they had a "business agreement" with someone who is going to be indicted.
We have to get past the media image to the person's qualifications for the job.

[Fresh_Start]

23. YES, its not what they say

its the totality of what they've done in their lives

If Bush was put through the filter of his actions before 2000 election, he'd never have been elected.
His 'talking points' worked. But his life showed his talking points to be empty.

[MissWaverly]

24. Yes, and who is going to argue with blue sky and apple pie

nobody, but that doesn't mean that he was ever qualified to be president.

[Fresh_Start]

22. We need more critical analysis

I agree with you

[MissWaverly]

26. yes, and it should not be a coronation

we really need to have a contest between several candidates, I am glad that there will
be at least 3 strong dem candidates now to pick from. I wish there were at least 2
more including Gore.

[TwilightGardener]

28. Nothing wrong with criticism, as long as it's done in the right spirit.

I see the mean-spirited stuff from time to time, but most of it is OK. The big no-no for me is deliberately spreading misinformation, or trying to besmirch character, race, gender, etc. When it comes to GOPer candidates, however, my attitude is that any rumor, any cheap shot, any slanderous lie is to be tolerated--nay, encouraged!

[Adelante]

30. As long as it is based on what is true

I'm all for criticism. Our candidates should be criticized in primaries if we want to end up with the best possible nominee.

Too many times, though, lies are repeated endlessly, no matter how many times they have been debunked. I hate it.

[wyldwolf]

33. and there is the point right there

Too many people think "swiftboating" other Dems is a good idea if the end justified the means.

[Zhade]

31. It's called democracy. We're all supposed to be in favor of that here.

Of course you can dislike it, that's your right.

I find it refreshingly honest, love it or hate it.