Those who attack Hillary are insulting Bernie Sanders and what he stands for.

[RBInMaine]

Attacks Attacks Attacks. NO, it is not "fair debate and criticism." It is ATTACKS, meant to be ATTACKS, born of unrealistic political purity, and very disgusting. We had a very good, substantive debate this past week. EVERYONE who calls oneself a "progressive" or Democrat should be proud of the performances. Both Sanders and Clinton did well. One of the strongest and most dignified moments was when Bernie said he was sick and tired of "damn" email crap and to get back to the real issues. Kudos to him for that.

Sanders and Clinton can have their fair and honest debate, and they will also agree where they agree, which is A LOT. MANY of their positions are very close.

As much as everyone KNOWS that right wing attacks against Obama are largely born of RACISM, everyone also knows that MANY of these endless posts against Hillary are sheer NASTY ATTACKS and not merely "fair points to debate."

Purity is NON-REALITY. It is fantasy land. Even Bernie himself, arguably on gun issues, supporting the Affordable Care Act, and some others is NOT a total purist.

Hillary Clinton is PROGRESSIVE, and it is completely radical and absent any sense of the planet Earth to assert otherwise. She is not a purist, but she is PROGRESSIVE. Enough of the ridiculous and endless ATTACKS. Bernie would be disgusted with it, and all it does is hurt his very cause.

Supporters of a candidate in our party should spend more time arguing WHY people SHOULD vote for that candidate, not just on trying to tear down the other candidate. Enough of the attacks, and by the way, enough of the endless complaining about conspiracy theories of around the DNC not having more debates, etc. We had a two-hour debate. FIVE more are scheduled. And there will be several other candidate forums, and the candidates themselves are holding rallies, town hall meetings, etc. My goodness, how in hell can anyone argue all that isn't enough time to make one's case? The American people don't want to sit through endless debates. Six is how many they have traditionally had in years with about this many candidates. Heck, soon enough some will drop out and it'll be down to very few left for several more debates. PLENTY of time.

[questionseverything]

1. 6,two hour debates

12 hours every 4 years to examine the candidates for leader of the free world...minus commercial time of course

<insert every imaginable cuss word here>

we should be having debates every week, devoting 2 hours to one topic...get some actual substance instead of the sound bites

[RobertEarl]

15. 12 hours leaves no time for attacks

But on DU, as the OP has proven, attacks on Bernie fans is 24/7.

No, the OP doesn't build up Hillary. The only thing said was H was progressive. I guess if you question H being progressive the OP takes that as an attack?

H would have been president if she was not a war hawk who voted for the Iraq invasion. Is that an attack or just Truth?

[questionseverything]

17. just truth

[Hortensis]

41. Principled criticisms of her actions and positions are reasonable, but

this hostile, aggressive noise against not just her but all Democrats who don't support Bernie? RBinMaine is absolutely correct. They not only do Bernie no good, but we don't actually need to hear his comments on their more aggressive behavior to know what he must make of it. Bernie's own behavior speaks for him.

BTW, since Bernie was surprised by the crowds of supporters who gathered quickly to his strong-left banner, it's reasonable to think that he probably also had no idea he'd be attracting the support of strong social conservatives, or that they'd declare war on those liberals who were currently backing other Democrat candidates. On HIS behalf!

[questionseverything]

42. my original post in this thread was about there being so little debate time allowed

less than 12 hours every four years

we are missing such a huge opportunity to actually discuss and refine policy

how we got from that to....attracting the support of strong social conservatives,?

i do not know and would question what you are talking about

clinton's welfare reform devastated the safety net...hc lobbied for it,work a book supporting it...if i mention that is it an attack?

[Hortensis]

43. It's the style and attitude, Everything. Some people not only

are able to support a candidate positively but are unable to understand those whose version of supporting a candidate is to attack everyone who does not. Correction: Everyone on the left. Those on the right get a free ride.

As for your question, no, criticizing Clinton's policy is fine -- as long as it's about policy and not just a platform mounted to launch insults at today's Democrats from. Impossible as it may be to believe, virtually nobody on the left wants to return to days when the nation was so far right that a Democratic president backed policies like that. So far it seems to be no more satisfactory for bernistas than it was for PUMAs to accept that their favorite enemies are not actually their enemies.

As for losing time to discuss, we're in the Information Age. Everyone who wants to pay attention has more material available than he can possibly get through. Fact is, almost no one is and won't be until we're into next year. But for those who care already, watching debates is infinitely, infinitely inferior to sitting down and educating oneself. Starting with the candidate statements of position that they can barely touch on in debate.

Note that although national exposure is crucial, assuming that's what you really want, and why not, a debate format against a formidably skilled opponent like Hillary, where performance counts so much more than positions, is not necessarily the best way for Bernie to get his message out, and one mistake could easily undo all the good he did in the first debate. The audience would be almost exactly the same as for the first one, remember. A lot to lose, not as much to gain this time around?

[questionseverything]

45. the audience would be almost exactly the same you say...

i saw a recent poll where only 14% of those polled actually watched the entire debate...so let's hope you are wrong about that

about educating oneself/////i can be as educated as anyone and yet no one in power will listen to me....debating issues on a national stage might move the ptb in a better direction as they still like to pretend to take the public's ideas into consideration


you said,
"where performance counts so much more than positions"

that is where you could not be more wrong, this is not a high school debate team where all practice both sides and debate whichever side they draw out of a hat.....this is supposed to be the free exchange of ideas that determine the direction we take the country

i would of given hillary the debate win if i was judging on style but on substance bernie wins hands down

[Hortensis]

46. Everything, O'Malley had great substance and modest delivery. He's at 1%.

It did him almost no good.

People may WANT substance, but in large numbers we react strongly to mistakes in performance. That's why those toward the front of a field usually want fewer debates -- they are very unforgiving.

[questionseverything]

48. omalley reinforced he does not believe in the 4th amendment

in the focus groups he was called out on that over the nsa and his broken windows program

you said,People may WANT substance, but in large numbers we react strongly to mistakes in performance

actually the net polls were the instant reaction were bernie and his substance were overwhelmingly well received....it was only the insiders and the msm that dwell on perceived "mistakes in performance" but since they control the narrative we do not get actual policy discussions either at the debate or in the analysis after

you said,

the front of a field usually want fewer debates -- they are very unforgiving.////////////////

obama and hc had 25 debates in 07/08, everything but the kitchen sink was thrown at him by hc and he got past all of it readying him for the repubs, i feel the dems giving hc free pass will kill us if she makes it to the general because the repubs are not going to be so forgiving...they are going to talk about things i can't say here at du without getting a hide

[Hortensis]

49. If I pulled your Bernie spiel string, it was by accident.

As for the Fourth Amendment and its effect on O'Malley, most Americans don't know just what the Fourth Amendment says, those that remember anything at all. Someone here on DU likes to point out the Freedom of Speech clause, not realizing that it applies to Congress, not DU or the DNC. Well over a third of Americans can't name the three branches of our federal government, much less describe what they do. Substance starts at home.

O'Malley mainly didn't do well because he had a weak presence compared to HRC and Bernie.

[mcar]

2. K&R

[ronnykmarshall]

3. For real!

But I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears in here.

[Ron Green]

4. There's a false equivalency here;

Bernie is calling for transformation, Hillary is not. This is huge difference, because it requires a sea change from a consumer and growth economy to a human-based one.

It's not just that they are both "progressives."

[Vinca]

5. Pot. Kettle.

I've read so many negative and untrue posts about Bernie on this site I've grown numb to them. You seem to feel having an opinion on whether Hillary is or is not progressive is somehow a slur against her. It's not. It's an opinion. Honestly . . . if you're not a paid member of her staff you really should be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Oh, is she a progressive this week? What happened to the guilty moderate?

Is she a progressive in the same way she was dead broke?

[Broward]

9. Yeah, a few weeks ago she was a moderate.

I can't keep up.

[Mnpaul]

13. No she is a PROGRESSIVE this week

All caps make it so. It must be true, this is the second thread out of three I opened with PROGRESSIVE in it.

Either that or it is well hidden spam from an insurance company.

[Fumesucker]

7. And those who attack Bernie are doing God's work

[Thinkingabout]

8. Just follow the money, the tab will be arriving.

[AtomicKitten]

10. Oh FFS. If I wanted passive-aggressive finger-wagging, I'd call my mother.

[cprise]

35. Not just finger-wagging, its the fallback tactic

Blame the supporters for "attack, attack" whatever. Apparently we're deemed an easy target that can be abused without repercussions. Abusing Bernie has repercussions because the abuser is easily shown up with facts about Bernie's record. Abusing supporters can be done in a vague and insinuating way and there's no simple way to answer broad claims about "those people".

Same tactic emerged in 2004 primaries and the (Kerry) insiders here ejected supporters of the anti-war candidate (Dean). We were not kissy-kissy enough and Kerry supporters (though I'd say they were more intelligent than Clinton supporters of today) didn't have comebacks for the criticism just platitudes about "unelectability".

It will be interesting to see if they try to pull that shit again.

[AtomicKitten]

44. We are already seeing evidence of that playing out.

Very peculiar tactic because it's done in a vacuum here. Seems rather pointless in the bigger scheme of things. What is becoming apparent is that some Clinton supporters are going to lose their shit when she loses again. I fully expect she/they will try to blow up the party rather than concede. We're going to need a mop.

[Broward]

11. Hillary called herself a moderate a few weeks ago.

I guess she's a radical and lacks any sense of the planet Earth.

[Vattel]

12. Her record on many issues is not that of a progressive.

Has she been a progressive with respect to war? Nope, way too hawkish for that. Has she been a progressive on decriminalizing marijuana? Nope, she has dragged her feet. Has she been a progressive on issues of state and corporate surveillance of citizens? Nope, she supported the patriot act, didn't show up for the vote on telecom immunity, and hasn't been an advocate for strong privacy protections. Has she been a progressive with respect to immigration issues? Nope, she has been all over the map on that issue. Has she been progressive on animal wellbeing issues. No, she is firmly a human supremacist. I could go on, but you get the point.

Setting aside her weak progressive credentials, her dishonesty in the debate was a real problem for me. (Misrepresenting what she said about TPP being the gold standard, misrepresenting PLCAA, misrepresenting Snowden's options.) Plus she really did a poor job defending her foreign policy record.

[jfern]

14. But making up lies about Bernie and attacking his supporters is perfectly OK

[aikoaiko]

16. Supporters dont say that Bernie is pure, they say his positions are better & better historically.

Nastiness in attacks is often a matter of perspective.

Surely, you've seen HRC supporters post increasingly nasty remarks as Hillary's lock on the nomination becomes increasingly less of a lock.

HRC supporters have had the luxury of playing defense mostly because she had a great big lead. As the lead is reduced, HRC are doing exactly what you accuse Sanders supporters of doing.

[sadoldgirl]

18. Sorry, but I am not Jesus Christ

and turn the other cheek. By the way are the
Hillarians like him?

If so, I had not noticed. Oh, my bad!!

[Scootaloo]

19. You lost this soapbox when yours called Bernie "A Republican with his head between women's legs"

A rapist.

A gun nut.

A protector of pedophiles.

Bought by Israel.

A segregationist.

All his supporters are white supremacists.

And on. And on. And on. And on.

[Puglover]

47. Isn't it amazing that some folks

cannot wrap their heads around the fact that this is the internets and what you post on the internets is a matter of record.

It really puzzles me.

[99th_Monkey]

20. Hillary self-identified as a Moderate, until she didn't

so screaming SHE'S A PROGRESSIVE will not erase that tell-tale piece of history.

[ronnykmarshall]

21. and right on time ...............

the same screeching from the same traps. You can set a watch by them.

[Jim Lane]

23. So your use of the term "screeching" is how you respond to the OP's call to be positive?

From the OP:

Supporters of a candidate in our party should spend more time arguing WHY people SHOULD vote for that candidate, not just on trying to tear down the other candidate.

OK, technically, I guess you're not tearing down another candidate -- you're merely tearing down all the Democrats who dare to disagree with you.

I'm guessing you think Clinton is highly likely to be the nominee. At that point, will you be hoping for support (time, money, votes) from the people you now describe as "screeching"? And if so, is your post intended to facilitate that quest?

[Luminous Animal]

22. And those who attack Bernie are reinforcing what Hillary stands for.

ATTACKING.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

24. Give it a rest.

[AgingAmerican]

25. If ya can't take the heat

You shouldn't be in the kitchen. Hillary is being treated with kid gloves compared to how she was treated by Obama supporters in 2008.

[TM99]

26. I think this is a secret code.

Let me see....

NO ATTACKS -- ATTACKS EVERYONE A LOT -- MANY RACISM -- MANY NASTY ATTACKS -- NON-REALITY NOT PROGRESSIVE --PROGRESSIVE ATTACKS -- SHOULD DNC? -- FIVE PLENTY.

I guess this makes sense in a strange sort of way!

[djean111]

27. More thwarted authoritarianism.

Must really suck when people don't follow your orders!

And, really, you should stop labeling any criticism of Hillary "an ATTACK!!!". Getting silly. And does not work.

[leftupnorth]

32. It is very troubling just how many authoritarians have infiltrated the party.

Very troubling indeed. Authoritarianism is usually a right wing thing.

Maybe it's the sporting event mentality that's causing it, I'm not sure.

[whatchamacallit]

28. Get your own house in order

[leftupnorth]

29. Progressives vote for military adventurism, trade agreements, and hobnob with economic traitors

Interesting.

[lovemydog]

30. Though you're speaking rationally

and with wisdom, some tell you they don't want to hear. I find it really funny & hope you see the humor too. Your post is thoughtful & intelligent. Don't let the critics bring you down. Keep speaking the truth as you see it.

[99Forever]

31. Yes it IS fair debate and criticism.

It means jack shit that you don't agree.

This ISN'T a fucking coronation, it IS an election. If you don't like the process, I suggest you stay the fuck out of it.

[BootinUp]

33. The truth is Bernie wants Hillary to be elected as much as any

Hillary supporter. If he was that concerned about it he wouldn't have defended her against the stupid email attacks. He would be bringing up all the tired old attacks we see here every day. Its not rocket science folks. lol.

[djean111]

36. Bernie is in this to win this.

The truth is Bernie wants Hillary to be elected as much as any Hillary supporter.

That is about as delusional as it gets, folks.

Bernie is a gentleman, even when campaigning. Hillary runs a very dirty campaign. Bernie is not going to stoop down to the level of someone who emphasized her hard-working WHITE supporters (for instance).

Another reason i will not support Hillary. She will have no problem flinging muck, or having others fling muck for her.

[BootinUp]

37. I think its something you don't want to be true nt

[djean111]

38. So, you really think Bernie is raising all that money and drawing all of those crowds for HILLARY?

He said he would not run unless he thought he could win. Are you calling him a liar?

Actually, I think that is something YOU want to be true. And it is ridiculous.
And how sad - that you think Bernie being a decent human being and a gentleman only means he wants Hillary to win.
How very telling.

[Hortensis]

39. Don't think so, Bootinup. Note that he wasn't DEFENDING her, he was

criticizing the Republicans and the press for misdirecting public attention away from real issues. And saying, "Enough of the damn e-mails!"

But Bernie initially was in it to move the Democratic candidates. especially HRC, farther left, more toward his positions. His success took him and his staff by surprise, and it's doubtful still that he actually thinks he can win, much less expects to.

I imagine he's now giving it all he has. Or maybe not -- he may not want to be president, something that seemed out of the question when he began. Who knows? He may still be fighting with a main goal of developing far more support for his principles and positions than he initially thought he would be able to achieve.

But, he's not for Hillary supporter, that we know. He may be after the primary, given the grim dangers represented by the GOP candidates.

[elana i am]

34. corporatist warmonger does not equal progressive

no matter how many times you try to foist this bit of fantasy on us, it's not going to convince me otherwise.

[Fawke Em]

40. Shall we just go after her supporters like her supporters go after Bernie's fans, then?