A few things HRC opponents could do to make things easier for their candidates in '16

(this is a companion thread to one I started earlier for HRC supporters here)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025100581

A lot of us have issues with a HRC candidacy in '16, but there needs to be work done to make it possible for people here to unite
positively around whomever the party nominates that year, whether it be non-HRC Dems feeling good aboout getting behind her OR HRC supporters being able to embrace another nominee if she runs and isn't nominated.

So, as in the thread I started for HRC supporters, some suggestions for those backing other Dems or those not backing any candidate but feeling less than well disposed to HRC:

1)The issues should be HRC and her positions, not the posters who back HRC. It's possible to be in opposition to a HRC candidacy without being personally hostile to HRC supporters or them as willful enablers of evil;

2)The fact that some find some of HRC's positions are too conservative or hawkish does not mean that her supporters here are themselves to our right, or even that they agree with those positions themselves. It might be possible to appeal to them to raise their voices to try to get HRC to change those positions. Better to try for reasoned persuasion than scorched earth rhetoric aimed at the supporters themselves;

3)Don't try to drive HRC supporters out of DU. Remember, if somebody else gets nominated that anti-HRC DU'ers prefer, we're still going to need her supporters to get behind that candidate and work hard for her or him;

4)Find a good way to address the "electability" argument regarding whatever candidate you back other than HRC. The electability card is the high card in HRC's hand, as her supporters see it. Those backing someone else need to be able to argue either that that candidate can match HRC in electability, or that embracing that candidate's ideas(something more likely to occur if that candidatee runs a strong second in votes and delegates)will increase the elecxtability of HRC;

5)I shouldn't even have to say this, but gender should never be an acceptable argument for opposing HRC. It shouldn't even sound like that view is part of the case you're trying to make. A lot of HRC supporters already assume that progressive arguments against HRC are just a cover for something close to electoral misogyny. It isn't, as far as I can see,, and we all need to call out any instances in which opposition to HRC is just sexism.

And before anyone raises the point, I probably have broken some of these guidelines in past posts. I apologize for any time I've ever done that, and pledge here and now to do my utmost not to repeat those mistakes.