Don't criticize Hillary Clinton in the primary season?

[bigtree]

Who the frick came up with that rule? If you oppose her then you have every right to work to put folks off of voting for her. Same goes for the rest.

[David Dunham]

1. Dems should criticize the Repugs, not each other

[mmonk]

2. Why?

Democrats are opposing democrats in the primary.

[mitchtv]

5. you wre right

but let's keep it civil, like avoid the name calling, if it all possible. you don't want your words coming back to haunt the nominee later., as happened in Calif. leaving us with Boobengrabber.

[Le Taz Hot]

11. That's not what happened in California.

The brain dead amongst thought it would be cool to have "The Terminator" as a governor -- they voted for a movie star and that's ALL that happened in California. Second term: Angelides just wasn't a strong enough candidate to compete with the movies star. It all hinged on that one fact. He sucks, of course, but not as bad as a neo-con would have.

[mitchtv]

12. I can't argue with that, but

lack of support by Dems waiting for mr goodbar, Steve Westley's quotes in Arnold's ads certainly didn't help either. No Discipline, i feel.

[WinkyDink]

15. It wouldn't be OUR words; that's up to the candidates themselves.

[davsand]

4. Newsflash: This is a PRIMARY race. That means Dems running against other Dems.

That is how it works. It is how a "functional" political party selects a candidate in any contested race in our current electoral process.

What happens the day AFTER the Primary is the critical part. Winner or not, you back the nominee if you want to call yourself a member of that particular party.

I have to wonder what planet some of our folks have been living on up to this point. Primary races are never much fun but they serve a vital role in the process. they help the party self ID.


Laura

[JDPriestly]

6. What is the point of the primary then?

What is the point in just saying nice things about each other's candidates? Is the idea to see which one has the most nice things said about him or her?

No, we need to know what the negatives as well as the positives are on each candidate before voting. Sure, the Republicans will find fault with all our candidates. But some faults are more troubling than others. And some faults are potentially more damaging to our country than others.

Signs of immaturity, panicking, sinking into what Eckhart Tolle calls the "pain body" under the stress of campaigning concern me.

I really like Obama's message and his personality, but I am concerned by some of the statements coming from him and his camp in the last few days. He does not seem to be staying on message. He seems to be stressed out. And that surprises me because one of the things I have liked about him is the fact that he seems very calm.

One of Bush's great failings is his inability to cope with stress. Hillary tends to get defensive and surly under stress. Maybe I am just missing it, but I don't see that reaction from her now when she must be under a lot of stress.

Obama, it appears, is reacting the worst from the stress by veering from his message and attacking others. He has really disappointed me. On the other hand, he is new to this business. This is the point at which his lack of experience with national campaigns shows. He is learning. He will be ready for the next round if he gets too stressed out this time.

Edwards needs to make sure he doesn't wear himself out.

This is a test of emotional, mental, physical and spiritual strength. We are able to watch how our candidates handle very great stress. The primaries are not the time for pleasantries. They are a test. We shall see what happens.

I'm 100% for Edwards. May the best man or woman win. We need the best man or woman.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

20. But we should.

That's the point of the primaries. We want to find the BEST candidate to represent this country and what it stands for. We can only do that by discussing and criticizing their platforms.

[mod mom]

21. Put a "D" after your name and then we should act as sheeple like the GOP?

Sorry, not in my world.

[tnlefty]

3. I wish that I had a clue as to what you're referencing...

it seems as though she along with others are criticized here. Is this a new rule that I'm not aware of, and if so, who the hell came up with the rule? :shrug:

[creeksneakers2]

7. I'd be happy if people would just stop lying about her

There isn't even a rule against that, much less one against criticizing her.

[WinkyDink]

16. She has explained her Insurance Coverage Plan well enough for me not to vote for her.

I don't need "lies".

[Catherine Vincent]

8. Don't be silly.

Hillary is trashed and criticized. And so are the others. What are you talking about?

[niceypoo]

9. Could you please be more random?

Then your 'point' would be even less vague

[MalloyLiberal]

10. Stupid sheep

[Perry Logan]

13. In these critical times, it's daft to publicly attack any Democrat.

But that doesn't stop the Hillary haters for even one second. They are hurting the party every day--and congratulating themselves for it.

[rAVES]

14. Yea Perry, forget the Obama hatred, its only your crappy Candidate that matters.

[WinkyDink]

17. "Hillary haters" sounds like it's from the same playbook as "Bush haters"; i.e., mindless criticism

of her critics.

[bigtree]

18. It's okay to smear folks we know absolutely nothing about

but not the Clintons, whose public (and private) affairs and dealings are well documented and have been thoroughly and well debated. :crazy:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

22. But it's OK for you to bash the Dems in here?

Hypocrisy much?

[Sparkly]

19. I didn't see that rule.

:shrug: