Until now I've been all for criticizing Hillary

[senseandsensibility]

Some of the criticism has been too strong for my taste, so I've ignored it. But I haven't objected, mainly because I wanted to reserve my right to criticize her. I also wanted to reserve my right to speak out against Obama, Edwards, or anyone else I darn well pleased. It's still the primaries, after all. I'm all for a rough and tumble primary season and may the best candidate win. Or, in other words, if any of the candidates can't handle the heat maybe they shouldn't be here.

But this morning the line seems to have been crossed. True, it's just my line. but now I understand what others have been saying for a while now. We are moving into dangerous territory when we begin using right wing talking points and personal attacks. It will come back to haunt us later.

I'm not a Hillary fan, supporter, or defender. You will not find one positive word written about her by me on these boards, quite the opposite in fact. But I will not use right wing talking points against her. I will not read threads with titles that do so.

I am speaking for myself, and I realize that many of you couldn't care less. Jeez, when I'd read these kind of threads a week ago, I couldn't care less either. So I realize that people will do as they wish, but I ask you to consider keeping your valid criticisms and comments to factual matters of policy or tactics. Don't lose your passion, but remember that we will all have to come together at some point to win in November!

Thanks for listening.

[ccpup]

1. I appreciate your Post

and appreciate your honesty. If more acted with a similar sense of decency on DU, it would be a much better place to visit.

[senseandsensibility]

3. Thanks

I try, but I am far from perfect, ccpup!:hi:

[oasis]

2. Well said. k and r

[SoFlaJet]

4. My criticism

hasn't been so much against HRC as it has been towards her surrogates and supporters here. I've been called names-some of which I don't even know the meaning of. Look, if I have to vote for her in November I'll have no problem doing that but on the 29th down here in The Sunshine State my vote is going to Edwards.

[AlCzervik]

5. Good on you, she's my 3rd choice but really some of the spammers are past

ridiculous.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

6. 5th R. you represent your screen name well.

:applause: MKJ

[senseandsensibility]

10. Thanks

Same back atcha.:hi:

[Harper_is_Bush]

7. Just logged on. Can you give me some details, without

singling out posters (as we're warned not to do by the rulebook)?

I scrolled around and noticed some posts about Bill Clinton accusing him of "whoring" and outrage over the Lewinsky thing...that it?

[senseandsensibility]

9. Basically, yes.

I've seen other threads as well. But as I stated in my OP, I won't click on threads with right wing talking points in the title, so I can't give more details.

[MH1]

8. Just so you know

I posted a link this morning that I would have hoped never to have to post.

But when right wing attacks are raised here against Obama, I think it is fair to note what attacks will be used against Clinton if she gets the nomination. Just to point out the FAR richer trove of un-rested scandals.

But I think I posted it in the right way - "look here, and compare."

Any candidate we nominate will have so-called "scandals" brought up. If someone wants to discuss them here, then the question we should be discussing is which provides the bigger pile of ammunition.

I hate to tell you, that's Hillary by miles.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

14. And, when we begin comparing the "scandals" of each of our candidates, rather then the tremendous

strengths each possesses, we are doing the RW's dirty work for them.

This dialog is right where the RW wants it. Because they really don't have much, besides innuendo and whispers, which we then amplify because we're used to using their terms and tactics. In that way, they win every day on this board.

We CAN elevate the dialog and demand our candidates do the same. I applaud them for stepping back from the campaign slug fest a while back, thus reducing the MSM talking heads to having to do the mud slinging themselves.

Each has apologized graciously when they've stepped over the line, which has not been nearly as much as one would gather from the heated exchanges here on DU.

We HAVE to stop caring what RW neocon, knuckle draggers say. WE have the momentum and the people on our side, as evidenced by the high turn out for the Democrats in the primaries, so far.

MKJ

[senseandsensibility]

16. Beautifully said.

I can't add anything to your post.

[papau]

23. Well said

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. We will. I will vote for whoever is the nominee. I do feel that if it's Clinton, she will lose to

any Repuke. If it's Obama, maybe not so, but the country is filled with racists, extremist ones, moderate racists, and secret racists. I don't think Democrats are thinking clearly. I also began to feel very threatened when I began to see Bill Clinton palling around with the elder G Bush. I feel very threatened when anyone extends a hand to the people that have done so much harm to the elderly, to the working poor, to the middle class.

[JohnnyLib2]

12. Thank you FOR the sense and sensibility--

It's hard to imagine that cannibalism will defeat Republicans later this year.

K & R

[senseandsensibility]

17. No, the repugs are not mentioning the scandals

of other repug candidates, are they?

[laylah]

13. As a fan of your

posts and perceptions, once again I must applaud you. I, too, am not a Hillary supporter; however, what, imvho, appears to be the problem is that so many do not realize and/or remember, we are ALL in this together and may the best wo/man win! Thank you for posting this.

[senseandsensibility]

15. Thanks for the kind words

But as I posted above, I am far from perfect and get caught up in the heat of battle juat as often as others, along with all my other faults. This is not about being nice or polite, but about not doing the repug's job for them. Good luck to your candidate, whoever that may be, because this is NOT over!:hi:

[Captain Hilts]

18. Nicely put. I'm reading Mansfield Park right now... nt

[senseandsensibility]

19. Good for you!

I need to read that again. :-)

[Captain Hilts]

22. I've read P&P, and Persuasion, so I'm steaming through this because of PBS's Austin-a-thon.

I want to have read a good chunk of it before it comes on.

I'm now leaning Clinton, but really want Edwards to hang in and have a voice. I like all three candidates. I'm stunned that the media treats Guiliani like a contendah, despite his lousy numbers, and then ignores Edwards, despite his significant level of support.

[senseandsensibility]

24. I agree. Always read the book before seeing the movie

The film will never rise to the level of the book, but with luck they will complement each other. For me, Jane Austin's writing is so light and sparkling and yes, funny, at times that it is hard to match that on film. But thanks for the heads-up on the PBS series. I've been watching very little TV lately, and had no idea.

[Captain Hilts]

25. You've only missed 'Persuasion'. It goes every Sunday night into April. nt

[The_Casual_Observer]

20. The extreme anti-Hillary naderites around here aren't

going to come together, they either won't vote or vote for Peter Camejo or some other nit wit that will come along. They won't matter this time anyway.

[Pathwalker]

21. "You should be ashamed for not being ashamed of your choice."

Over the top? Yes.
That's what Hillary supporters have been told repeatedly. Might work on young children, but grown women - not so much.

[Bright Eyes]

26. On the contrary. Hillary Clinton is using right wing talking points

Invoking Al-Qaeda against Obama was the lowest of low shots; at a fellow Democrat no less!

[senseandsensibility]

27. I didn't like that either.

But this thread was about DUers using right wing talking points, not the candidates. That's a whole different subject, which I think has been pretty much exhausted on the board already.