A "revolution" of character assassination and the lowest of low roads.

[RBInMaine]

It certainly doesn't speak to the behavior of all Bernie supporters, but too many seem more in it for unbridled character assassination of his opponent rather than campaigning on Bernie's merits. Around here, it is just endless, and so much of it is so petty and nonsensical. Listening to some of the Sanders people you'd think Hillary Clinton was the reincarnation of Lucifer. Such wild-eyed hyperbole and utter nastiness. And this from those who are supposed to be so idealistic, and moral, and ethical, and way up there on this high soaring plane of transcendent political greatness.

But ask Bernie supporters to explain and account for why he hammered Obama, Mondale, and Kennedy and there is little to no real answer, mostly just accusations and diversions. Ask them to explain and account for Bernie trashing the Dem Party for decades, and no real answer, just more of the same diversions. Ask them to explain how he is actually going to build a REAL political movement to get things passed, and we don't get much of an answer. Just more diversions. Ask them to explain just how a European type Socialist calling for MASSIVE government expansion is going to elected in the AMERICAN general election with our tradition of NOT being a European type system, and few to no thoughtful answers. Little to no analysis and consideration of our history. Just attacks and diversions.

I have said it time and again. I think Bernie has a good heart and is raising very important issues around the need for serious economic and political reforms. Hillary agrees with those goals too. We all do. But we just don't think Bernie is electable for the office of the Presidency in a American general election given his very far left ideology, nor do we think he will actually be able to turn enough of the electorate into the real kind "revolution" needed to do the kinds of massive transformations he wants to make. Much of what he says does need saying, and we do need real action in these areas, but he is going over the top with huge good sounding promises that won't happen in this real world anytime soon. It is one thing to be inspired by a certain brand of talk. It is quite another to actually do the hard and complex work of governing in such a diverse society. It is easy to go to a rally, hold a sign, write nasty things on the web, and even go vote. It is quite another to actually make policies happen.

In the meantime, enough of the character attacks. Why not focus on the issues, the merits, and explaining how this new political revolution is actually going to formed and led in the longterm to make real change happen.

[MADem]

1. If he continues to allow the behavior of his supporters to continue w/o censure, I can only assume

that he endorses it.

[cali]

4. Get back to me when Hillary condemns her surrogates, some of her supporters

and shitcans the loathsome David Brock.

[mariawr]

30. and Jonsthan Capehart and Amanda Marcotte

Who shill online and in print, poisoning the well...for Clinton.

[PunkinPi]

9. You mean, like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511172330

[MADem]

10. That was well over a week ago. Didn't seem to work, did it?

And that IS a problem.

[PunkinPi]

18. C'mon, what else can he do besides saying "we don't want this crap"?

Just like every segment of society, you can find jerks. He can't possibly control every person who supports him.

[Jefferson23]

2. If you would, tell me one attack at a time, where Sanders went after whoever, and

I am happy to discuss each one with you.

I am wondering too, you seem to be suggesting you have received no substance
in response from Bernie supporters, before this OP. So are you saying you do
not understand what Bernie has said himself? I believe he has been perfectly
clear...so what is the confusion you hold?

[GreatGazoo]

21. don't hold your breath

these twice daily rants never seem to go beyond generalities that seem more like projection

Benenson believes that there is extreme risk for the attacker in character assassination. When he worked for Obama they crafted the line: "Change we can believe in" It was aimed at HRC's ever sliding credibility but without saying her name. It implied rather than said outright 'you can't believe HRC.'

Now Benenson works for HRC and is trying to play the other side of his equation -- claiming that Sanders is the one doing the character assassination while they try to bring Sanders credibility down to HRC's range. It ain't working.

Benenson on how to beat his employer:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-to-beat-hillary-clinton

[Jefferson23]

22. Nope, won't hold my breathe but I made the offer.

That is a foolish strategy, I think. Obama had no baggage unless you were
a dumb racist...if her team thinks people don't know her history they're
paying too much money to Berenson for his services.

[GreatGazoo]

23. If I understand Benenson's strategy right now it is

that she has to attack Sanders to try and knock his credibility numbers down (because there is no moving hers up at this point). Since Team Clinton is in attack mode (and recaptioning photos mode), Benenson understands this will drive people away from Clinton so they are trying to claim that Team Sanders is the one attacking (or that "both sides do it&quot in order to blunt the damage of going negative.

[Jefferson23]

26. You're probably right, as we see each and every day their reliance on bullshit

memes...hoping enough of it will stick. The problem as I see it, is none of what they
have said so far undermines the main culprit in politics today which is corruption.

That is what his message has been his entire career and nothing she has said
changes that, imo.

Her team keeps trying to make this about Sanders and it really is not, he is
and has been a free agent, if you will, to speak out against both sides on
this matter. Most Democrats, as only one example, are against TPP and
although she says she is now too, we go back to the honesty factor..which
she has horrific numbers on when polled.

[virtualobserver]

28. don't you mean 10 times daily?

[farleftlib]

3. Enough?

Of things like this: What's with the loony Hillary derangement syndrome?

which, of course, was locked for being ridiculous flamebait.

Pot meet kettle.

[mmonk]

5. .

[JonLeibowitz]

6. My response: start talking about the issues then

And I mean this seriously: start a serious good-faith discussion about a particular issue where there is disagreement. Do not be disingenuous. You may be surprised at the response.

But if you are like the Clinton supporter I tried to have a policy discussion with yesterday (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511253814), then you'll not get very far. There was no willingness to get into the dirty details of policy there; the poster kept using debunked stats as if they had some meaning. That is not a good-faith discussion of policies, that is disingenuous.

I refuse to debate electability because nothing about this election is predictable so it will just degenerate into a shouting match.

And yes, I do believe that Hillary is an unethical, immoral candidate. But not Lucifer -- she is a product of the nasty political environment and I fault her no more than any other political insider.

[MADem]

11. LOL at calling out another poster, and LOL again at "good faith."

10. See post #9. Your $200BB cap talking point is full of hillfail.


Because using terms like "hillfail" is SO "good faith" of you!

Man, you don't even see it when you do it!

[JonLeibowitz]

15. I called out the failed argument, not the poster personally.

The stats were just too silly to take seriously.

[Empowerer]

16. I'm trying to do just that - with some, albeit limited, success

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511253598

Thanks for doing your part.

[jham123]

7. I love it

Hillary rants on for her entire allotted time patting herself on the back about her Foreign policy prowess

Bernie pipes up "I wouldn't be so proud about taking advice from Kissinger"

And that is somehow perceived as "An Attack"

Then, two days later a concerted attack on Bernie and the Photo-Gate from so many different angles ON THE SAME DAY!!!

Simple observation = Concerted effort to destroy credibility

Nothing to see here folks....move along

[hobbit709]

8. When exactly did you start focusing on the issues instead of character attacks?

Like your constant red baiting.
Better yet, how about the stuff YOU said about Hillary back in 2008.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x114882
Responses #11, #12, #13.

[delrem]

13. 2008 was way back then. It doesn't count.

It's all in the "evolution", you know?

[John Poet]

25. In 2008 they were RIGHT! eom

[SheenaR]

29. Response 13

still applies

[delrem]

12. Look. HRC campaign attacks claiming "Bernie supporters" are despicable creatures go nowhere.

Not that I'd ever expect you to comprehend why.

[VulgarPoet]

36. I seem to remember the HRC campaign calling Bernie supporters the Left Wing Tea Party

I'm sorry, but no amount of merits will bring me back into the Clinton camp after that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Is that you Mr. Capeheart

That was actually character assassination and changing of historical records. This time it flopped.

By the way, after the personal attacks and questioning my minority status by HRC supporters you got no ground to talk.

Thankfully I vote on policy, not board idiocy or campaign swift boating. After Capeheart and Time you really do not want to go there. But you will...please proceed governor

[farleftlib]

17. Drop a dirty bomb and then run and hide!

WTG, just like the last one that got locked.

[Waiting For Everyman]

19. I consider your thread and the allegations in it

an attack on me as a Sanders supporter.

[Orsino]

20. It was probably inevitable...

...that I would find yet another thread attacking ________'s supporters, rather than a useful critique of a candidate's record and positions.

This is an Internet discussion board, and much of the concerns expressed here will be about us and our housekeeping. But I am goddamned tired of stupid sniping meant to impugn a candidate over anecdotal slights between DUers.

Goddamned tired.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Is this another "poor Hillary" OP?

[Deny and Shred]

27. By a poster who rarely comments in her own threads

[SheenaR]

31. Speaking only for myself

I tried campaigning here on his merits when I first arrived, but I was told I am unrealistic, I believe in Santa Claus and unicorns and he has no shot so I should just support Hillary..

So I can see how supporters can get angry.

[VulgarPoet]

37. +100.

[whatchamacallit]

32. Here, I'll put it in simpler, less hyperbolic terms

I don't like or trust her, and think her presidency would be bad for the country. Better?

Also, I'm not amenable to sacrificing my ideals because backward Americans aren't "ready" for a candidate like Bernie. Sorry.

[HassleCat]

33. You gave yourself away, there.

When you got to that part about how we all agree with his goals, we all want the same things, etc. No. No, we don't. This is a form of straw man argument. We are all Democrats, but we don't all want the same things. Some of us want an end to capital punishment, for example. Some of us do not want an aggressive foreign policy that leads to bogus wars. It is not true we all want the same things, but just differ on how to get them. Some of us do not want politicians to receive campaign money from corporate interests and we do not simply differ on which corporate interests.

So, yes let's focus on the issues. Let's talk about dramatic change vs. incremental progress. Let's talk about how our party went from being a New Deal powerhouse to a fragmented minority party at all levels of government. Those are interesting topics, and we should discuss them regardless of who is running for president.

[CentralMass]

34. He hammered them on bad policies and he was right..

[H2O Man]

35. Respectfully disagree.

I'd be more than willing to discuss any/all of the issues that you have raised here. And I don't think that I'm unique in offering to do this.

I definitely agree that there is far too much negativity in many of the OP/threads on DU:GDP. I think that both Clinton and Sanders supporters contribute to this. It's not necessary, and no good comes from it.

[phleshdef]

38. Step away from the Internet if its getting to you. Trust me.