It's enough to present your own candidate's record and intentions without tearing at other Dems

[bigtree]

who are running for president . . .

All of that should be left for the opposition.

I practice what I preach.

[MadMaddie]

1. Same Discussion at following link

good point

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3124628

[Bitwit1234]

2. I guess I have made people mad for posting that here

I am like you the republics are smearing and slaming and sluring the democratic candidates enough without the democrats trying to slur their own. I thought democrats were above the smear and slur and slam of the republics.

[Horse with no Name]

3. You want an echo chamber?

Cmon Bigtree...your candidate has some major flaws that none of his supporters want anyone to talk about.
Backing up the claims with facts is debate...and people that aren't aware of his flaws need to be so that they can decide for themselves if they can stomach filling in that black oval for him come election day.
I have to be PERFECTLY honest...if it weren't for the election machine issues, he would be the candidate I would get behind because he does have a lot of good qualities. But that ONE issue is important and not one that I can negotiate.
For you to claim he is perfect and attack those that point out he isn't is extremely unreasonable.

[bigtree]

4. those 'flaws' are debatable, but presented as definitive

and in a manner which dismisses the important accomplishments and intentions of 'my candidate'. That's unnecessary and destructive. These aren't unknown figures and many of these charges are perpetuated by long-time political enemies and get recycled every campaign as new revelations without attribution, context, or facts.

I'll defend his record against a presentation of supportable facts, but I'm not going to be cowed by innuendo and half-assed attacks, from any quarter.

[Horse with no Name]

5. They are very documented flaws

just ones you don't want to acknowledge. And unfortunately, it DOES diminish your candidate for a lot of people who believe that fair elections are important.
If we can't count on our government officials to ensure fair voting and make sure every vote gets counted...that is a betrayal of trust.
For some, it isn't important. For others, it's the ONLY thing that is important.

[bigtree]

6. and they are defended when they are documented

that doesn't mean that one side or the other is assured their own interpretation of facts and events. These things can be debated, but not against every weak presentation of charges. I'm not going to take every backhanded smear and come at it with a flurry of my own documentation. That would be a ridiculous waste of time, and I think, lost on some of those who are just not going to be swayed from their beliefs.

As for the specifics of 'my candidate' and the issues surrounding him, this thread is not the right forum for me to expand into a defense of the summary charges (concerns) you've presented.

[Horse with no Name]

7. Nor do I want that debate

However...people can put their sourced info out there and let people peruse it and make up their own minds.
You have obviously discounted it. Good on you. That is your right.
Just let everyone else make up their minds after reading it so they can discount the information or discount the candidate.

[jobycom]

8. Almost exactly my sig line.