Where Do We Draw the Line at "Constructive Primary Criticism of a Candidate"

[McCamy Taylor]

versus using this forum in order to spread RNCish innuendo/dirt? For example the "Clinton kill list" is probably not something that belongs in a Democratic primary discussion---but it has been brought up here. The molehill that still has not made it to mountain status "scandal" involving her emails is widely discussed as a sign that she can not be trusted. The only thing it symbolizes to the Dems I know in real life (as opposed to DU) is that the GOP still hates and fears Clinton. So, is the fact that the GOP still hates and fears Clinton a legitimate topic of discussion at DU? Might be, if the point you are trying to make is that the GOP will mobilize their own voters using Clinton-o-phobia. However, being the target of multiple right wing attacks does not impeach a person's character. And do real Democrats really do eye rolls when someone mentions that the Clintons have been the target of right wing attacks

Once the party selects a nominee, no one will be allowed to spew conspiracy theories about any of the Democratic candidates. Pardon me for being suspicious, but sometimes I wonder who are the people taking advantage of the temporary ban on the ban against bad mouthing Democrats? How much more will we have to read about Vince Foster and Monica and Whitewater before next summer? How many times will I have to read about Clinton's emails here, on a site that is supposed to be free of corporate media bias?

This can hurt any Democrat, by the way. So, before you decide that it's ok as long as it only affects Clinton, ask yourself how you will feel if your candidate moves up in the polls---and suddenly he or she has his or her very own "kill list"? And no fair saying that all the conspiracies about Clinton are true, but any conspiracies about anyone else originate from the Clinton campaign---that is just another GOP Big Lie that was proven wrong in 2008 when she did not "crib death" Obama's campaign at the convention. Clinton is too good a Democrat to shoot her party in the foot.

Are we as good at being Democrats as she is?

[Scootaloo]

1. Maybe somewhere BEFORE calling them rapists, pedophile-protectors, and segregationists?

Just gonna put that thought out there.

[virtualobserver]

3. . other than email, I haven't seen any of the things that you just mentioned on DU

any links to those posts?

[FreakinDJ]

4. I was thinking the same thing

And I didn't get the email either

[artislife]

5. I have asked for the allowable source (s)

before, but no one answers.


Oh well.

[99th_Monkey]

6. I've never harped on -- or even brought up in any op -- the email thing

because it does not rank very high among issues voters actually care about,
like income inequality, affordable education, racial & social justice, TPP, ending
mass incarceration, climate change, Keystone, et. al.

I have however posted many ops on THESE ^ and the often stark contrast
between Hills & Bernie on these and other issues important to DEMOCRATIC
voters.

[jkbRN]

7. Well, the suppression of debates by her

is essentially the antithesis of being democratic.

Do you have the source regarding Clinton kill list? I have not seen it.

Ps, You should always provide resources when making claims like this.

[Ron Green]

8. I don't think the GOP hates and fears Clinton as much as you think.

At least, not the GOP's masters. Their ranks and files of mouth-breathing minions hate and fear her, of course, as they well are told to. But she is quite helpful in keeping them riled up with culture war battles, while not posing a real danger to the money and power structure. That real danger would be Bernie Sanders.

[Fumesucker]

9. HRC is shooting her party in the foot by having her surrogate manipulate the debate schedule

[sibelian]

10. The threshhold beyond which ANY behaviour can be deemed acceptable or otherwise...

... *should* be set collectively and according to rational and/or moral principles, as your post implies.

But it almost never is. It's almost always set by people who have an interest in setting it where they need to in order to benefit from setting the threshhold.

[99Forever]

11. So which is the "real" Clinton?

The poor mistreated, hapless victim?

The powerful, ready for the world stage, wonder woman?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[reformist2]

13. I think most posts here critical of Hillary, take issue with her positions and campaign donors.

Both of these are perfectly legitimate topics for debate.

[LWolf]

14. Obviously, we draw the line at

any criticism at all of Hillary Clinton.

I don't need right-wing talking points to criticize Clinton. As a matter of fact, I don't come to DU to criticize Clinton, and I generally stay out of threads about Clinton.

This thread, though, simply urges me to criticize Clinton.

It's simple. I can do it with a single line that says everything:

Hillary Clinton is a neo-liberal.

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. What is said on DU about Hillary Clinton hurts DUers, not Hillary Clinton.

[ibegurpard]

16. funny

I don't see much about anything you just said here. I do see a lot about her vote on IWR, her refusal to give her views on Keystone or TPP, the money she's raising from corporate America, her specific-light policy positions (while actually SPURNING specific policies like reinstatement of Glass Steagall), and her past support of third-way policy being at odds with where she says she stands.
I don't need to mention ANY of the things you just brought up to give valid reasons as to why I will never trust her.

[Indepatriot]

17. Personally, my line was drawn by Third Way "democrats" over the last 30 years. I'll be crossing that

line for as long as it takes to make the Democratic Party "democratic" again. You might say that in this case, like Rick James, I'm a "habitual line-stepper"....

[oasis]

18. Thanks. It needed to be said.

[Capt. Obvious]

19. Many Even Think Aloud