Definition of "attack" seems to be very fluid around here among all sides

[Armstead]

Shit we don't even have any consistency about whether an "attack" is a good thing or a bad thing.

Clinton makes a statement that accuses of Bernie being sexist for using the word "shouting" in a debate over gun control. She's a strong candidate defending all womenhood against sexist neanderthals like Sanders.

Sanders points out areas in a political speech where he has been consistent, drawing a contract with Clinton, without mentioning her name. He is "attacking" and, worse yet, a man beating up on a woman.

In all fairness, we Sanders supporters are guilty of the same double standard.

When his self-description of being a "social democrat" or "democratic socialist" is mentioned as a potential political liability, we get into high dudgeon about "red-baiting attacks."

Or we get all upset when Clinton makes a joke that the US is not Denmark.

The double-standards and contradictions fly fast and furious. As do the implications. Hillary, on one hand, is a strong woman who can stand up to the worst the GOP can fling at her. But she is a fragile flower, and we can't use any words that might have a remotely "sexist" connotation, even when they have nothing to do with gender, such as "shouting."

And, we Sanders supporters have to accept the fact that if he were to get the nomination, the GOP will be digging up old statements and video of Sanders praising the Sandinistas, or blasting the Democratic Party, etc.

And, the future implications are also something to consider. I know it's unlikely, but if the GOP nominates Fiorini or -- more likely runs a female VP -- does that because of the GOP candidate's gender that Democrats will be unable to criticize them forcefully ?

Look, Sanders will be unfairly attacking if he says things like "Clinton is morally unfit for office and is bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs." Clinton will be attacking if she says "It would be awful if the Democratic Party makes the mistake of nominating an avowed Communist who can't deal with strong women."

There's plenty of room to argue heatedly about the positions, the backing and even the personal qualities of candidates without all this meta bickering and oversensitivity. It will undermine our ability to join forces when it counts.

[Agschmid]

1. No matter what this is nothing compared to what they would face in the GE.

But yes "attack" is used much to often around here.

[Armstead]

3. It will also be a challenge to our own intellectual honesty

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. And be aware of a tendency toward confirmation bias.

Which is why I'm not a fan of the candidate groups - they turn into echo chambers.

[emulatorloo]

8. It is good to remember MSM is attempting to create drama

So they can raise their ratings. So they can charge more money for ad space. IMHO That's why they label things as "attacks" that aren't attacks.

[restorefreedom]

11. yup. they are just shaking the tree. they are on their own agenda. nt

[mmonk]

2. People prefer labels and innuendo.

They seem to forget both the human side and points a well intentioned person may offer.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. It's all about whose ox is being gored.

My anger is righteous; you are a bitter asshole.
My political position is a breath of fresh air; yours is extreme.
I am thorough and analytical; you are a nit-picker.
I am sensitive; you are a cry-baby.

And so forth.

[Armstead]

5. Yep. Exactly

[azmom]

6. I don't mind "attacks" per se, but what is up

With all the distorted logic argument posts. Those are really fucked up.

[Armstead]

9. Well logic and "reality" are also open to interpretation

[azmom]

10. You are right; because when I read

Some of those threads, I'm convinced that their is nothing we can even agree on. It depends on what your meaning of is, is.

[MisterP]

12. eventually, having an intact memory was reimagined as some sort of "privilege"

that was being imposed on people who just didn't feel the need to have any consistent positions from "the X candidate" and that if you kept pushing you were insulting Xs because Clinton was "the X candidate" regardless of how she viewed/treated Xs

[Uncle Joe]

13. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Armstead.

[elleng]

14. and did anyone even notice that Martin O'Malley 'attacked' BOTH hrc and Sanders,

by strongly challenging their positions (while not mentioning the candidates by name) on gun control (NRA NRA NRA) and Wall Street? Received standing ovations too!!!

[Armstead]

16. If his poll numbers go up, the "attack" meme will be leveled at him too

Or there will be complaints about his "attacks"

[elleng]

17. OK w me if that's what it takes to get him ATTENTION!

[Armstead]

18. Well more power to him....but be caredfull what you wish for

I like O'Malley, and I actually think he'd make it a more interesting and meaningful race if he had more visibility.

But be careful what you wish for. Be prepared for him to be called a racist, sexist and to be called racist and sexist yourself for supporting him.

And that'd be the Sanders supporters....Wait until the Clinton Clique starts in.

[elleng]

19. 'Sticks and stones . . .'

I rarely read the bash and trash stuff; I post to provide information. If readers don't like it, too bad for them.
Thanks for the warning, tho!

[Bluenorthwest]

15. I think the Drama Masters on both sides are pernicious and on their own side, but for those who

really want to make sure we don't have Republicans in charge it is simply a wiser choice to arduously maintain a realistic and well informed verbiage toward their rivals. Ask Clint Eastwood how well it goes when you argue with an imaginary rival in an empty chair instead of the reality of your rival. To win you have to beat the actual candidate, not the characterizations of the candidate.
So who ever it is you want to defeat, know them very well and go after their actual and easily demonstrable weaknesses. That's the way to do it.

Also going after supporters of a candidate or judging a candidate by the behavior of a self proclaimed supporter is the act of an idiot, a patsy, a chump.

[99Forever]

20. Simply put:

Whiners gotta whine.

[Aerows]

21. Running down the character of Bernie Sanders supporters has been in vogue

since Hillary Clinton announced. I don't recall people lodging complaints that Hillary Clinton *SUPPORTERS*, not even Hillary Clinton herself, were every evil thing in the book.

Please don't make me whip out a search, because I can, I will, and I don't want to embarrass anyone publicly. I'm waiting for "Bernie Bro" to morph into something even worse at this point, and that failed spectacularly, so please don't go there. We don't need the Democratic party to become even more fractured.

[Armstead]

22. We all (moi included) do it.

What I am saying is there's plenty of fodder for actual debate, without this meta whining about who is attacking whom.

[BlueCheese]

23. So far, these are very mild.

When they start calling each other by name, then we have a problem.

[Armstead]

24. I agree. That's my point.