I've been reading up on Kamala Harris....

[CTyankee]

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kamala-harris-president-election-20190121-story.html

Maybe I should temper my earlier enthusiasm and find out more about her...

she may not be as great as I thought...

[bigtree]

1. I'm putting all of my activities on hold until we hear from you again

...godspeed.

[CTyankee]

4. You do that...

[bearsfootball516]

2. Ah, I see it's time to start eating our own!

[question everything]

64. This is what primaries are about

to decide whom we prefer.

And, yes, this is a discussion groups when - one hopes - we debate and discuss and disagree about the candidates. I do hope that expression opposition and doubts do not mean "attacking a Democrat" as per the guidelines.

[BannonsLiver]

3. Not pure enough?

[CTyankee]

7. I didn't say that...

I just want to find out more about her career to this point...

I didn't know that this was frowned upon here at DU...

[BannonsLiver]

11. Well let us know what you find out.

[athena]

17. Why don't you quietly find out more

rather than post publicly about how you feel your initial attraction to her was unwarranted?

Omce again, I wish you a happy six years with President Trump. At least, he’s a man! It would be horrible to have a woman president who wasn’t perfect in every way!

[CTyankee]

24. Oh, come on! It's fair to do some research because we have so many people running or about

to run. DU's gonna get crazy when we hash out the primaries. I trust we Dems can figure out who will be our best candidate. I look forward to primary season. I know some of my preconceived ideas might be changed in the process.

[athena]

30. Do your research quietly.

No one is against doing research. What we don’t like is people NOT doing any research but posting loudly about how they suddenly realized they hadn’t done enough research on a candidate they had initially liked. The implication is that something is very wrong with the candidate in question. It’s an easy way to create a negative impression of someone without having to give any specifics.

[CTyankee]

47. well, obviously if we run primaries we have to weigh what it is we like about our candidates and

what's important to us. And we'll debate that here during the primaries. We'll advocate for our candidate but always vote Dem in the General election. i don't see anything wrong with that.

[athena]

50. But you haven't posted any facts!

There is no “debate “ here. You’re just making insinuations without supporting those insinuations with facts!

My last word to you is, “Enjoy six more years of Trump.” We get the president we deserve.

[Bradshaw3]

57. Does that rule apply to everyone here?

Or only to posters who question Harris? I've seen posts about Beto saying they don't "get it" as to why people here like him, with no facts to to back that up. There are posts here everyday where people question candidates based on many facgtors other than facts. Is that OK?

The article the OP linked to included facts about Harris and why some on the left might question her bona fides. Those aren't insinuations. As to getting the presdient we deserve, yes we do, that is why we have to look at every candidate closely. We don't want more of tRump. We want a candidate who can beat him, or any other repub, in 2020 nd who will change the direction of this country.

[athena]

67. It does.

I am not here 24/7. And you don’t know who I favor to be president. I don’t think we should be casting doubt about Democrats. Period. By attacking Democrats, we’re doing the GOP’s job for them. I thought we learned that lesson in 2016.

What did you read in the article that you found concerning? That she’s against the death penalty? That she’s against banning same-sex marriage? The article was very complimentary to her. If you see anything in there that makes you question her “bona fides”, then I have to say, enjoy your current president.

[Polly Hennessey]

79. I can tell you are not here 24/7.

It is perfectly acceptable to question our candidates. We have Primaries to decide who we prefer. I have questions about Harris, Gillibrand, Beto. I am not going to support anyone just because they are female. We need someone capable of cleaning up the disaster left by tRump.

[question everything]

103. +1

[progressoid]

115. Gee wiz, why would someone discuss a political topic on a political discussion forum.

[Eliot Rosewater]

101. Yep...if this was my place this shit would be stopped THIS INSTANT

[Hassin Bin Sober]

112. It ain't so you will have to deal with discussion.

Whatever happened to heavy “vetting”?

[Heddi]

118. Shh. That only applies to certain people

Certain people are vetted.
Others are given a red carpet

haven't you learned ANYTHING???

:insert really annoying .gif here:

[Dem2]

5. I like her

Warts and all. We'll see what her views on these issues are going forward.

[athena]

6. That was totally predictable.

Enjoy President Trump ‘s second term.

Clearly, people didn’t learn the lessons of 2016: that insisting on total purity and attacking our own is not in our own best interest.

[CTyankee]

10. I'm not attacking her.

I want her to have a fair shot.

She's not our candidate yet. Aren't we supposed to do our homework before coming all out in support of our candidate?

[athena]

14. Sure. People didn't attack HRC, either.

We saw how that played out. I’m sure everyone who was so concerned about HRC’s hawkishness and pro-business attitudes are relieved that she’s not president now.

[CTyankee]

32. Well, I didn't. The moment she won in the primaries and became our candidate I was in full support

of her. I liked Bernie in the primary here in CT but in the general she got my wholehearted support.

I got physically ill when I found out Trump had won. That's why I am pleading for each of our candidates to come up with good Electoral College strategies.

[athena]

34. Do you remember how fiercely she was attacked here during the primaries?

Do you remember all the horrible things that were said about her by liberals here and elsewhere? Do you honestly believe that didn’t play a role in her loss? If it weren’t for all the Bernie supporters who stayed home in the general, she would have been president. Let’s not repeat the same mistake.

There is not a single Democrat out there who wouldn’t be infinitely better than Trump. So, I’m sorry, but skepticism about any Democrat is simply not warranted.

[CTyankee]

41. I have one very practical reason for reading up on her: we can be prepared for what the Trump

campaign will throw in our faces and we'd better be ready to throw it back in their faces.

Having said that, the country is mostly sick of Trump or scared of what he is capable of doing. That will help us get a Dem in the WH.

[shanny]

55. oh fuck I thought it was all the Russians' fault, or Jill Stein.

So hard to keep up.

btw, if Democrats can't ask questions, express opinions or doubts about Democratic candidates during the selection process, how do you expect to learn enough to pick someone? Should we just draw straws?*


*on this one occasion, that might be sufficient

[Maru Kitteh]

69. It would be convenient if the Perpetually Pouting Purity Brigade could absolve themselves

of all fault for Trump, but the blood is on their hands too. Them and the different kinds of bros who just couldn't vote for "that" woman.

The Russians presented them with the levers, but it was up to each of them to reach out and pull them.

[Apollyonus]

90. You rock !! n/t

[Power 2 the People]

78. +1

[Eliot Rosewater]

102. They had very clever, tempered ways of attacking her to make it seem like not outright

attacks but of course it harmed her greatly.

I am experiencing PHYSICAL FUCKING RAGE right now

[HipChick]

16. Enjoy Trumps second term..

while looking for the perfect flawless candidate

[Apollyonus]

99. Correct .. sadly n/t

[PatSeg]

28. That's a fair point

I really like her so far, but we have so many great choices, we don't need to commit to one so early on.

Obviously, no one is going to be perfect, but we have to consider what republicans will use against any candidate we choose. Of course, if the attacks come early, that means they are afraid of her/him.

[athena]

38. What exactly is wrong with Harris?

Nothing has been posted that suggests that she would be vulnerable to Republican attacks. The article the OP linked to made Harris look really good.

I’m not committed to any one candidate. But I don’t like to see DUers criticizing Democrats, any one of whom would be an enormous improvement over Trump.

[PatSeg]

100. Oh, I have nothing against her

When I lived in California, I voted for her for Attorney General. I was just agreeing with CTyankee's comment about doing our homework before committing to a candidate. As for being "vulnerable to republican attacks", I meant that generally for any candidate running for president, not Harris in particular.

I'm not committed to any one candidate either. I'm just going with the flow, as I know how contentious primaries can get and the emotional letdown if one's candidate doesn't end up on the ticket.

We have some incredible choices, it will be hard to pick this time.

[trueblue2007]

66. Stop bashing Senator Harris

[Amishman]

46. We learned the lesson of 2016, the 2016 Senate that is

We left several seats on the table by running several weak or flawed candidates

McGinty ran a poor campaign in PA and was an uninspiring candidate. Toomey should have been toast.

Rubio should have been an easy target, particularly with the damage inflicted against him during the Republican circus/primary. Murphy never managed to take advantage.

Feingold in WI was a little different but ultimately was the wrong fit for the race at hand. He did not handle the adversarial style of recent elections and didn't fight back hard enough when Johnson called him a phony.

We have the luxury of a very deep field for 2020, if a candidate has baggage or flaws, we can probably do better. Senator Harris's AG days could be enough of a red flag to move on toward better choices.

We need to avoid self inflicted injuries, too much is at stake

[LanternWaste]

8. It can be disappointing to find out everyone is human.

[Bettie]

9. She was a prosecutor

so she will have had some harder views on some things than someone who wasn't part of that system or who came up from a different area of it.

No matter what, she's been a good senator and she can hold her own in a debate. Plus, she is FAR better than any Republican, so if she's the nominee, I'll enthusiastically support her.

Really, how many candidates are we going to agree with in every way?

There are few (probably no) humans who I agree with on everything.

SO, choose your primary candidate based on whatever you think is most important, but VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT IN THE GENERAL!

[CTyankee]

12. Of course. I always do.

And, BTW, I have no prejudice against her for being a onetime prosecutor. My son is a prosecutor in Brooklyn and is busy now on freeing people unjustly treated by our criminal system. He's a good guy...

[Bettie]

18. It's just so important this time!

I'm really reactive!

[CTyankee]

20. I know how you feel.

[Wounded Bear]

13. This...

What she said.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

15. We need what the Brits have.

No campaigning until what 6 months, maybe 3 months before the election? We now have at least 3 declared candidates for an election 2 years away. It's nuts...………...

[CTyankee]

19. Everyone is so sick of Trump we can't wait to see him gone...

[BannonsLiver]

22. I think their general election campaigns are just 10 weeks

Sign me up for that shit. Sounds like heaven on earth.

[WeekiWater]

29. What is their population and land mass

That must be covered in a national election?

[BannonsLiver]

37. Makes zero difference

What is this, the 1800s? People getting their news from wagon trains?

I know we all love our American exceptionalism, but there are things other countries do better. And this is one of them.

[WeekiWater]

49. Face to face is huge.

Specially in the early states.

Even more so, look at one of O’Rourkes big campaign points of visiting counties.

It makes a huge difference.

[BannonsLiver]

52. LOL

We’re a nation of 300+ million people. Face to face doesn’t matter in a general election, which is what we’re discussing here in this sub thread, not a primary or senate campaign.

Did you not get the telegram?

[WeekiWater]

73. I get that being offensive is your primary goal.

No one disputes the power of face to face. It has exponential benefits. It’s an enormous part of everyone’s campaign.

[BannonsLiver]

75. Face to face is meaningless in a GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

You do know the difference between a primary and a general right?

[WeekiWater]

77. Your offensive tone is having limited impact.

Face to face is big in a general election. It has a widespread impact. Holding a rally in a specific area has benefits that reach far beyond those at the event. Sweeping through volunteer offices on your way to those rallies has an impact outside of the office. Face to face is one of the most important cornerstones of campaigns. It’s the big reason candidates are in a parpetual state of motion and not just hunkered down. You being offensive will not change that.

[BannonsLiver]

82. Wow, you should really work on a campaign

And to think all this time these dopes who run these campaigns have been using these expensive data mining operations, tv and radio ad buys and internet advertising, when all they really need to be doing is knocking on a few doors and hanging out at the local diner to get their message out. I mean, it’s only 50 states, right? How many diners and front doors can there be when you really get down to it?

[Codeine]

116. You know, I actually totally agree with the

point you’re making and I believe you’re totally correct in your analysis, but you’re being tremendously obnoxious with your posting style.

[UniteFightBack]

35. Yes...this. nt

[yardwork]

21. What is the problem?

I read the article you linked and I don't see any new revelations or issues of concern. Could you tell us what you don't like about Harris? It's not obvious from your link.

[athena]

25. Good point. It was a very complimentary article.

Even where they said she’d been criticized, it was for things like being against the death penalty and against discrimination against LGBTQ people.

[NastyRiffraff]

31. I was wondering the same thing

The article was primarily an announcement of her candidacy; it didn't appear to take sides of any kind. Maybe I missed something but I found nothing of concern.

[CTyankee]

36. I might have read it elsewhere and linked to the LAT article by mistake...

I am reading everything I can on our possible candidates and I really want a woman. It's embarrassing that we as a nation has never had a female president.

[athena]

39. What did you read that made you have doubts?

What was the claim? Explain, please.

You can’t post a laudatory article, implying it says something negative, and then say, “oh, it must have been something else.” Please clarify exactly what your concern is so people can evaluate it.

[CTyankee]

44. I'm sorry...I really think I got confused and posted the wrong article...

we've had some house issues that got me off track...(we can't get our car out of the garage and have called the neighbors for assistance. Hubby is handicapped and we both feel helpless...)

[BeyondGeography]

53. Maybe it was this NYT opinion piece?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

[CTyankee]

60. That might be the one but I've already thrown out that day's paper...

i was surprised at the time I read it. It seemed so unlike the NYT to do a hit piece on a possible Dem candidate....

[DFW]

80. I think the NYT article was what you were looking for

The link you posted didn't contain much of anything to give pause about.

The NYT article was more critical, with passages like these:

"Time after time, when progressives urged her to embrace criminal justice reforms as a district attorney and then the state’s attorney general, Ms. Harris opposed them or stayed silent. Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors."

"Consider her record as San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004 to 2011. Ms. Harris was criticized in 2010 for withholding information about a police laboratory technician who had been accused of 'intentionally sabotaging' her work and stealing drugs from the lab. After a memo surfaced showing that Ms. Harris’s deputies knew about the technician’s wrongdoing and recent conviction, but failed to alert defense lawyers, a judge condemned Ms. Harris’s indifference to the systemic violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights."

Was that what you were looking for?

[CTyankee]

93. Thanks, DFW, that sounds like the one I read....

There will be some angry LTTE in the NYT coming soon!

[DFW]

97. If we don't confront things like this now, the Republicans and the Russians will reminds us later

Better we do our own laundry than they do it for us.

[yardwork]

113. Now that I've seen the NYT editorial, I have some concerns.

We as Democrats need to vet our candidates carefully. The opposition surely will.

[yardwork]

111. Aha! This was what my son was referencing.

This is a concern to me. Thank you, DFW.

[geardaddy]

40. I agree. I don't see the problem with the article.

It seemed very complimentary.

[WeekiWater]

23. I'm big on Harris.

As I am with Warren and Gillibrand.

Here is the thing, take the whole body of work, including recent events. This board would run Biden off if he wasn’t VP under Obama and only his past economic views were taken into account.

[athena]

27. Or if Biden were female.

Can you even imagine? Especially after he said he was the most qualified candidate?

[elleng]

26. I'm on HOLD!

Sad to say, my # reason for selecting a candidate will probably be 'likelihood to defeat trump,' and the many other important issues to me will wait.

[BannonsLiver]

33. Nothing wrong with that at all

From my POV, the only thing that matters is winning. If you don’t do that, the rest is moot.

[Scruffy1]

43. I'm with you.

At this point its way to early to see which candidates are viable. Maybe around the Iowa caucus time it will be more clear on who is viable. I'm not going to waste my time and effort on maybes.

[miyazaki]

42. Some peeps in Socal and particularly in the San Diego area

are familiar with how her office rejected an investigation into the celebrated Rebecca Zahau case.
They won't forget.

[CTyankee]

45. I don't recall that name coming up in the article I read.

[athena]

48. Oh, ffs.

One thing you disagree with, one single thing, and you won’t vote for her. And it’s about an expensive investigation into a rich person’s death, when poorer people are dying every day for all kinds of reasons.

Until we learn to accept that female politicians are also politicians, are allowed to make mistakes, and can’t be expected to be pure as the driven snow, we will get what we deserve: woman-hating sexual predators in the White House.

[George II]

72. If we judged all of our candidates on one thing we didn't agree with in his/her career....

...which might span 20-30-50 years, we'll wind up without a candidate in 2020.

[FrankBooth]

51. IMO, you better get used to her...

Because she's going to be on the ticket ... what's unclear now is what slot.

I know that's probably not a popular opinion around here, and is very easy to declare in Jan. of 2019, but I honestly believe she is special and is going to be on the ticket. GOPers are very, very worried about her which means she's going to be dragged through the mud and savaged at every turn. It would be great if fellow democrats didn't assist them.

[CTyankee]

54. I honestly don't know why you are so upset with me.

During the 2016 primaries I recall seeing lots of information on our candidates.

I cannot for the life of me understand why you are taking this out on me.

[FrankBooth]

58. Upset?

I'm not upset with you in the slightest ... and am not taking anything "out" on you at all. You stated your opinion, I offered mine.
And I stand by my post.

[demmiblue]

59. There are some ugly attacks on you in this thread.

There is nothing wrong with finding out the background of our candidates.

Ugh, I can't believe the nasty tone is already starting (some of it never left, tbh).

[CTyankee]

65. thanks demmi. We dems can't bury our heads in the sand. I know we're all upset with Trump

and for good reason. I want him gone yesterday.

[demmiblue]

76. This tweet by Lawrence O'Donnell from this a.m. is food for thought (for any candidate):

Link to tweet

I think that is probably a good approach.

Take care CTyankee! And again, I'm sorry people are being so nasty to you.

[trueblue2007]

63. because of the way your worded your post. You should delete this whole thread.

[question everything]

56. Surprised they did not mention her support of Civil forfeiture

She should at least explain her stand. She can always apologize. This is what we've seen here.

[Cary]

61. She's human?

Imagine that.

I reserve judgment on all of them. I look forward to the campaign.

Woo me.

[trueblue2007]

62. the way your post is worded .... sounds like my sister who is a GOP.

You don't like her because she is a woman?

[CTyankee]

71. No, I WANT a woman president in my lifetime.

[jcgoldie]

68. Concern Noted!

What a genuine post.

[WhiteTara]

70. I remember the lab employee

kerfuffle. I think she just didn't want to blow a big case she was working on. That could be considered bad judgement. But she's still my top pick. Her battles against the mortgage companies was a good battle won for us.

[George II]

74. I think we should all wait until we see who is going to wind up deciding to be a candidate....

.....before we make a definitive decision.

[Freethinker65]

81. Yikes! How about supporting one's preferred candidate, or explaining why they are the better choice?

[CTyankee]

83. i think that is a good idea.

[Faux pas]

84. I have hinky feelings

about her, Booker and Gillibrand. Not from anything written, just my own gut.

[Polly Hennessey]

85. Stay the course, CT Yankee.

Your approach is one of truth and knowledge. We need to find out all we can about our Primary candidates. You know from past experience that the naysayers and “my way or the highway” are going to descend upon us. We who have been here since the beginning understand your search for information about our candidates. I am going to vote for the person who is able to bury tRump. No matter their gender, ethnicity, religion, preference. Looking forward to hearing more from you. Athena, take a deep breath—you will feel better.

[CTyankee]

87. DU was enormously pissed off at Gillibrand after the Franken thing and perhaps rightly so.

There were some nasty things that were posted here. I mostly stayed out of it due to its bitterness. Sometimes I forget that we are all human and at least we are trying...

[Apollyonus]

88. I am sooooo concerned

about the concerns shown about anyone who is not a certain specific candidate.

On the other hand, any genuine concerns expressed about a certain specific candidate generates a stampede.

[apcalc]

89. The more I read my support for her grows stronger

She is a fabulous candidate

[KY_EnviroGuy]

91. CTyankee, good luck with your research and please keep us posted.

I've been on Sen. Harris' email list for a long time and appreciate her efforts to help Democrats get elected in the mid-terms and I also like her openness. She seems to be very intelligent and a good orator willing to face the hardest of challengers. I'm just delighted we have her along with several others with these important characteristics!

One of my hopes for the 2020 election is that we don't get distracted by every detail of a candidate's past record serving in local and state offices. Right-wing media will try to bait us with a barrage of those items, along with any crazy little thing they did in their youth.

People serving in any public office have an obligation to carry forward their constituent's desires for their government, and those of us that are several states away should not criticize them being faithful to that obligation.

I hope all our candidates issue policy papers outlining their views on a wide variety of issues so we can make rational decisions going forward.

......................

[Decoy of Fenris]

92. The same people saying "Don't bash Harris or Dems" are the loudest against Gabbard.

I particularly got a kick out of a post decrying one-issue dislike of a candidate, when there are many of the same who would so enthusiastically take a crack at another Dem, Gabbard, or other Dems who are less than servants to their respective pet issues.

Simple fact of it is, folks got their favored horses in the race and they're sticking by them already. I'd just ignore those taking cheap shots at you and do your research. One of the worst things in society is willful ignorance, and the last thing the Dems need are voluntary dipshits.

[wryter2000]

94. I didn't know she's from Oakland

IMHO, no candidate is perfect. I'll evaluate them as we get closer, but this country would be well served by a child of Bump City.

[ProfessorGAC]

95. Disappointing Post

Seems like a post the usual "devil's advocate" posters would put forth!
You ALL know what I mean!

[Blue_Tires]

96. Smear season started earlier than I thought it would...

Harris clearly has some folks shook

[CTyankee]

106. How is what I posted a "smear"? I thought we were now evaluating the relative merits of our

Dem candidates? Was what I posted a bunch of lies?

[tenderfoot]

98. Way to go listing out your reservations!!!!!

[guillaumeb]

104. Your advice is excellent.

But some feel that any such advice amounts to attacking Democrats.

I thought that the point of such pieces is to examine the candidates.

[CTyankee]

105. I never thought I would have to justify my research into the Dem.candidates before the primaries

and was shocked at how misunderstood I was and how nastily I was attacked. I thought this was a political discussion board. I've been at DU for a long, long time and if I were some kind of traitor to the Democrats I would be outed by now. I had faith in a fair review (and pushback from those who disagreed but did so respectfully) and really wasn't prepared for the disrespect I got.

Sometimes I wonder what happened to DU. I love DU and have been a member/donor for YEARS here. I am DEEPLY disturbed by this turn of events.

[guillaumeb]

107. If we cannot openly discuss issues on a DISCUSSION BOARD,

that seems somewhat counterintuitive.

Cat videos are fine, but some of us want more.

[MFM008]

108. im sure there is plenty of info out there

I go by my "gut" you know, it works for the maggot.
Im getting Barack Obama vibes from her,
AND you can see the maggot minions are afraid
they are already trying the birther crap with her
saying she was born in Jamaica or some crap......

[KWR65]

109. LA Times is pay walled

[CTyankee]

110. Sorry, it wasn't what I meant to post anyway...it was a NYT article, but that is probably

pay walled too...

[octoberlib]

117. I would read some of the comments on the NYT article, specifically the ones posted by other lawyers

They thought the article was unfair and a mischaracterization and felt the author had left out some key facts. There were reasons a prosecutor would act the way Kamala did, according to them.

[uponit7771]

114. There's no one as pure as Obama is, the rest are all going to hell!!! /sarcasm