I guess.

or something,

Seems like some "progressives" would rather help a Republican win the White House then help elect a Democratic President who isn't "pure" enough or who doesn't cater solely to their "economic populist"* issues. I've got three words for you: The Supreme Court.

*What about the economic rights of women, or LGBT Americans, or minorities in general? Notice how it's always this generic "economic populism", and it's almost inevitably uttered by those who remain silent or worse on issues affecting women, minorities, LGBTs, etc. Because we don't want to be "divisive" or "distract from more important issues".

Her positions and policies are!!!

NOTHING!!!

Don't even get me started on the hair and the staged events....

from a third party senate race from a small state with a presidential campaign, with absolutely no concern for the dramatic differences in running for the two offices. If I compared Sanders' money with the local school board candidate, he'd come out looking like he was money grubbing. It would be dishonest, as is the other comparison.

There is an important issue about the role of money in politics to discuss, but they aren't interested in that. As far as I can tell, it's all about defeating a single candidate.

until Mayweather vs Pacquiao!

So far Clinton is the only candidate we have to discuss. There are many on people's wish lists, but none have declared yet so we can only focus on what is available. I agree 100% with you that sexism regarding Clinton is wrong (as it is in all cases) and I believe her record and positions should be the focus. However, how do propose that those things be discussed? For instance, when her vote on the IWR is brought up her supporters immediately counter with "other Dems voted for it too", or when her close ties and financial support from Wall Street is mentioned, again the supporters downplay this as nothing more than today's political expediency. Is this the kind of debate we should resign ourselves to until the primaries are finished?

I'll have zero problem checking the box by her name in the GE, as I have done for every single Dem candidate since my first opportunity to vote, but until the time comes that there is only one name on the ballot I want the people asking for my vote to make it clear why I should vote for them.

It may be a factor in your decision whether to support a candidate, but it is not an ongoing issue. The ongoing issue is the role of the US in the world and our current and future military involvement, military spending, etc...

Yes, there is a definite handicap in not having another candidate declared. That's why I suggested just relax and post about issues. you don't have to decide who to support today. I haven't. I'm going to wait until close to the caucuses, until I've seen debates. My decision will depend on who runs and the issues that arise through the course of the campaign.

Instead what we now have is a situation where people are arguing against Clinton and FOR nothing, which gives the impression that their only concern is defeating her. I also think there is a problem in personalizing major issues like the role of money in politics, in pretending though that is all about Clinton. It ignores the severity of the problem. Clinton was defeated in 2008, and look what happened to the role of money in the political system since. It only worsened. Clinton's ties to Wall Street are a symptom of the problem, not its cause. The cause is the nature of campaign financing, a problem that thanks to SCOTUS can only be resolved through constitutional amendment. I myself favor one requiring public financing.

If your only goal is to argue against Clinton, none of what I said matters. That presumes people care about more than a single candidate. Some do not, which is their right, just as it is the right of others to not put much stock in their views.

Yet your OP was directed squarely at those questioning Clinton's motives and positions and nowhere did I sense your desire to see the vitrol scaled back included a similar chastising of the posters who support Clinton and deride anyone who questions her record or positions.

It's the posts that are all about opposing her and for nothing. Part of that is because we don't yet have another candidate, and some I suspect is because that is the extent of their concerns.

The anti-Clinton crowd has been influential. They convinced me, someone who refused to even consider her in 2008, to have a look at her. For two years I've been inundated with posts about how terrible she is, posts that project onto her all of the ills of capitalism and the American political system. They have pissed me off. There are only so many vapid arguments one can read before reacting against them.

I'd call myself leaning Clinton, but I don't decide until somewhere just prior to the election. The effect of all of the anti-Clinton vitriol over the past two years, however, has to make me lean, something I've never done about a candidate this far out before. Still, I won't vote based on reaction. I'll see how things unfold and decide when the caucuses come around. In the past, the candidates I preferred have always dropped out by the time it came to vote or caucus.

Take my word or don't. It's of no matter. My preferences aren't important to anyone but me anyway.

The incessant cheerleading and disregard for legitimate concerns regarding her record and positions tend to turn me off toward her. To each their own I guess.

and the claim is not absurd. The foulest was a picture of an aged, ugly looking Clinton as queen. There are countless comments about her appearance, her hair, her clothes, etc. One post said something like "whose balls are bigger, Clinton's or Warrens."
It's not exactly subtle. You have to work hard to miss it.

That they support Warren means nothing. 1) Warren isn't running so any support is hypothetical 2) Even if they would vote for her, they are still invoking sexist crap against Clinton. One doesn't have to refuse to vote for a woman to invoke sexism for their own purposes.

There is sexist crap and even misogynist profanity used against conservative women all the time. Now they are doing the same thing against Clinton.

I'm not interested in debating this with you. Clearly you see only what you want. I've seen enough of your posts in the men's group to know where you stand on these issues.

and to suggest cause you support warren, you would not implement the TOOL of sexism, to degrade and dismiss, to devalue and degrade an opponent is incorrect. we see it often.

again, you will not see it so why bother.

so why bother to throw out an accusation you can't prove

and described some of the posts. You ignored it. When someone linked to one of those last night he had a post hidden. I'm not going to link so someone can alert on me for a call out.