FYI - helpful extract from the rules about supporting Democrats and Democratic candidates

[HughMoran]

There seems to be some confusion about the rules here with regards to supporting Democrats (clearly Barack Obama is a Democrat). In an attempt to clarify the rules in a thread in GD, I extracted the most salient sections WRT supporting Democrats at DU - feel free to cut and paste when a clarification is needed:

In the basic rules section:

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

If you click into the http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html">detailed rules, it gets even more specific:

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I hope this post proves helpful as it's time consuming to have to search through the rules every time this question arises, which seems to be almost daily from what I am reading.

[Cha]

1. You're right..it is time consuming..I remember

searching frantically for such rules in a past dicussion in one of those forums back when I thought people had to adhere to them.

Tip O' the Hat to you for carrying on and thank you for posting a handy reference guide, Hugh.

~Keep This Kicked~ Too bad we don't have recs..we could greatest page it.}(

[HughMoran]

2. Perhaps someone who doesn't have a large target on thier back

Like I do (and I'm sure you do too - lol) could post this as a 'gentle reminder' of how the rules tend to be enforced more strictly in an election season. It would be seen as a provocation if I did it, but there are a few here who have only a small number of detractors in the general forums.

[OregonBlue]

3. I believe this could be posted as a reply to many posts I've seen on LBN with a follow-up alert to

the mods.

[Cha]

4. And, or, I like

OregonBlue's suggestion in the post below.

I thought about doing that Before the BOG.

[Cha]

5. Kick in lieu of being able to be Pinned.

[rebel with a cause]

6. Thanks...

I think that clears up something that I posted on another thread. I did not click into the more detailed rules and was a bit mix up on it. My bad.. :spank:

[AVID]

7. kick

[Kaleva]

8. I expect to get verbally reamed for expressing support for Stupak against any Republican.

[grantcart]

9. Well it is going to be very interesting after the primaries this time

[HughMoran]

10. kicking

the rules have no meaning here any more, but perhaps it would be nice if we were aware of them.

[TicketyBoo]

11. My first thought upon seeing your post was

the rules are not enforced.

When I alert, nine out of ten times (actual count), it does no good.

I've pointed out rules to people. That does no good, either.

There's actually a rule prohibiting posting conspiracy theories outside the 9/11 Forum, but they're rampant.

I don't particularly want to read how Bush was complicit in the assassination of JFK and how the attempt on Reagan's life was also set up by Bush, etc., etc.

[CTLawGuy]

12. constructive criticism

"criticism or advice that is useful and intended to help or improve something, often with an offer of possible solutions"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/constructive%20criticism

There appears to be two elements to constructive criticism: (1) usefulness and (2) intent to help or improve.

Most of the shit on here does NOT qualify under this definition.

What should be allowed under the definition of constructive criticism, even if we don't agree and it makes us upset:

-policy disagreements. Not really criticism at all in its purest form since it is about the POLICY not the PERSON.
"I think we should get out of Afghanistan; I don't agree with Obama's policy."
"I think a good health care bill should not have mandates."

-expressions of emotional reaction to things Obama does, again not really criticism since it focuses on the poster him or herself.
"I'm angry because Obama hasn't repealed DADT yet."
"I'm disheartened because of the loss of the public option."

-suggestions as to what Obama should do differently which can include the reasoning behind the suggestion, if useful and done with intent to improve his performance.
"Obama needs to go down and talk some sense into Harry Reid, the senate needs a swift kick in the butt."
"Obama should fire Tim Geithner and Larry Summers."
BUT NOT "Obama needs to listen less to the corporations and more to his progressive base." (Inflammatory)

-predictions that are not inflammatory
"Obama will have a tough relection in 12 if he does policy X"
"If Obama doesn't turn around the economy, Dems will probably lose seats in 10."

-calls for a primary challenger in 12. No one is entitled to the nomination for any office including president. That was the reasoning justifying Ned Lamont's challenge of Lieberman, for example. This, while unpleasant, should be allowed, as it is the democrats' prerogative to nominate the best candidate possible.


what should NOT be allowed under the definition of constructive criticism:

-Questioning of motives/character without solid evidence from a reputable source to back up the charge. (IMHO the rules don't require us to ignore the fact based truth, even if unpleasant).

"Obama is a tool of the corporations."
"Obama doesn't really want a health care reform bill to pass."
"Obama hoodwinked us"
"Obama lied on the campaign trail about the public option."

-comparisons to republicans/right-wingers/teabaggers etc., without solid evidence from a reputable source to back up the charge.

"Obama is no different than Bush"
"Obama is a right of center president."

-Inflammatory characterizations in general

"Obama and his DLC buddies..."
"Obama doesn't care about poor people"
"Obama is an elitist"
"Obama is a failure as a president"

-Predictions that are inflammatory, except if there is solid evidence provided from a reputable source to back up the prediction
"Obama will be a one-term president"
"Obama is not going to pass a health care bill that is any good."

-Calls to support a third party challenge or stay home from voting. Unlike a primary, a challenger in the general election does nothing but help the opposition. Also includes concern-troll statements on the subject.
"If Obama doesn't do X, I will stay home/vote green"
"If Obama doesn't do X, will Democrats stay home?"

[HughMoran]

13. Good post

Thanks for adding to the 'reference' value of this thread. Lots of good examples.