I was here in 2008. I supported Obama. But I don't recall being told that there could be

[JTFrog]

109. How is it different?

This is what he said about this election season:

What criticism of Hillary Clinton will be permitted? (link)

Unfortunately, there is not going to be a hard line between "fine" and "not fine."

But basically, I think it comes down to this:

If you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to help her succeed, then you'll be fine. But if you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to tear her down, then you won't be fine.

Now, I'm not a mind reader and I can't know for certain what everyone's intentions are. But I think that if the criticism is coming from a place of "wanting her to succeed" then that will be reflected in the tone and substance of the post. If the criticism is coming from a place of "wanting to tear her down" then that will be reflected in the tone and substance of the post. If you are here on DU then you are supposed to be supporting the Democratic nominee against the Republican nominee in the general election -- it shouldn't be very hard to write a post in a way that sounds like it.

I believe that it will be possible to discuss every substantive issue that DUers might want to discuss.

I think his 2008 post about constructive criticism should be revisited as well.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tgdoyHvB-xcJ:journals.democraticunderground.com/Skinner/264+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

A thought about context and the constructiveness of criticism.
Posted by Skinner in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Wed Jul 02nd 2008, 08:59 AM

Since the FISA and faith-based stories have been in the news, there has been a lot of discussion about whether (and how) members should be permitted to criticize Barack Obama, our presumptive presidential nominee. I'm not going to get into the gritty details of enforcement, or what is-or-isn't permitted, because that is not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is merely to make an observation about criticism, and the context in which it is offered.

If someone offers criticism of Barack Obama, I find that the criticism is easier to accept if the speaker has already sufficiently demonstrated their support for Senator Obama's candidacy.

Put another way: If you want to be taken seriously, it helps to prove your bona-fides.

To be clear: I'm not speaking as a DU Administrator here. My purpose is merely to offer some helpful insight to those of you who don't seem to understand why you are not showered with rose petals when you offer your special brand of constructive criticism here on DU. Allow me to explain.

If you have spent the last six-to-twelve months trashing Senator Obama here on DU, and since the primaries ended you have not given any credible indication that you are now a supporter of his campaign, then if you post a thread about how you are incredibly disappointed in him because {insert reason here}, people are likely to wonder about your motivations and conclude that you are still trying to derail his campaign.

I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying it's fair. What I am saying is that it is virtually inevitable.

So, if you want to be taken seriously -- if you want your constructive criticism to be accepted as constructive -- I humbly suggest that you put some effort into demonstrating that you actually want our guy to win this thing.