@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
...watching progressives attacking each other over their preferred candidates seems so silly. It's sad how polarizing elections can be.
Well, I find it very entertaining and not just because I enjoy seeing dissension in the ranks of the
enemy.
In such discussions you will see and hear things being said about a progressive candidate (HRC most obviously) by progressives who only a short time earlier would have been seen or heard vigorously defending her against the same charges
I'm not necessarily saying the attacking aspects of these debates are of any real value (other than , again, my entertainment) but there is absolutely no reason why progressives should refrain from criticizing one or more of the candidates running in the Democrat primary.
It's a dilemma of course if you are of the mind that the worst of the Democrat candidates is better than the best of the Republican ones or visa versa.
There are always voices during the primaries bemoaning the internecine battles that go on. I agree when it comes to nasty attacks that involve misinformation or outright lies, but it makes perfect sense for Rand Paul to criticize the polices promoted by the other candidates and for Marco Rubio to speak of and criticize accordingly the voting record of his fellow candidate who are currently Senators. They are competing for a very important position after all and a large part of the competition involves drawing clear distinctions between themselves and their opponents. And it's not as if Sanders is going to provide the Republicans with a line of criticism that they would never come up with on their own,. If Rubio wins the nomination and the Dem candidate accuses him of flip flopping on immigration, it won't be because Cruz disloyally spilled the beans.
Even if you are inclined to discount or dismiss the conservative critics of HRC in this forum, the debates that have occurred among progressives over several separate threads indicate there is quite a lot to criticize HRC for, and quite a lot of common ground among the areas of progressive and conservative criticism.
What disturbs and disappoints me is how someone who can clearly see a candidate's serious faults during a primary race, is able to shrug them off when the general election rolls around.
I have made no secret of my dislike and distaste for both Trump and HRC. I will never cast a vote for Clinton, and the chance that I cast one for Trump barely exists as it depends on him undergoing a transformation that is, at this time, inconceivable. So if they end up as the two main candidates I will be voting for whomever the Libertarian candidate is, and that only because I feel compelled to exercise my right to vote. I am not going to say about Trump, "Well, at least he's nominally a Republican and that makes him better than anything the Democrats can put up." I will also not consider a vote for the Libertarian a vote for Clinton.
The Sanders Supporter's rationalization come the general election will be "Well there really isn't that big a difference between Hillary and Bernie. I won't really be, at best, contradicting myself if I vote for her and at worse, abandoning my principles."
If this is the case then why support Sanders at all? Despite the blather of people assigned to the Damage Control Unit, a close race between HRC and Sanders will not make her a better General Election Candidate. If it is prolonged and tensions grow (as I expect they will) she will be a weaker GE candidate in the fall. You may prefer Sanders over Clinton, but if there really isn't a significant difference between the two and both will essentially follow the same progressive agenda why not help the one that has the best chance of winning the White House by supporting her rather than weakening her through the enabling of opposition from someone who is in essence the same progressive candidate?
