If we are going to go back decades to find issues on

[MineralMan]

candidates, we're going to find issues on candidates. It's really easy to take specific things out of context and treat them like they represent the candidates' views today. Every candidate in the Democratic Primary race has done stuff stuff that would look bad, if taken out of the context of the time that stuff occurred.

Take Kamala Harris, for example. As a prosecutor and Attorney General, there are cases and positions she took that don't look so good these days. I saw some of those raised earlier in this campaign cycle. Elizabeth Warren was a Republican. Bernie Sanders wrote some pretty awful things decades ago. Joe Biden worked in the Senate with some pretty awful Southern Democrats. Each of our primary candidates has a history of public service and elected offices.

Stuff that sounds bad when taken out of the context of the time they occurred is easy to find. You can count on the Republicans to dig it all out when we've picked a nominee. That's guaranteed. But, why would we be publicizing such things in a primary race of our own Democratic candidates? And why would one Democratic candidate bring them up as a means of damaging another Democratic candidate? It's not a great idea.

Now, a candidate who is hit with such a thing can explain the context and describe the reasons that candidate did that or took that action decades ago. Such explanations, though, never make the splash the original accusation does. So, it's a losing proposition all around. We should not be doing those things to our own candidates. It's bad politics.

It's not vetting. It's attacking someone you're competing with with out of context information that looks bad, but that can be explained in almost every case. If something happened decades ago, most people don't remember the context, and it can be difficult to reconstruct that context.

I'd advise our candidates to avoid that sort of attack on competitors. The reality is that it's easy to find and reveal shit that looks bad. Everyone has some things in their past that can be framed in a way to look even worse. If you dish the dirt on a competitor, you should expect to receive the same in return. If not from the competitor him or herself, then from someone else.

Many actions and decisions can be framed in a way that ignores context. That's easy for any clever person to do. I hope we aren't going to start seeing that happening with greater frequency, because that will hurt our nominee down the road and give aid to the Republicans.

So, please, let's not do that digging up of non-contextual issues and bring them forward. It will backfire, I guarantee.

[hlthe2b]

1. Yup.. As I've been repeatedly saying CONTEXT is everything. Such "issue mining" may backfire on all.

It is really foolish precedence to set.

[MineralMan]

6. It's tempting for candidates and their supporters to use things like that

to try to get an "edge" on a competitor. Very tempting, in some cases. However, ignoring your own history when you do that is very dangerous. How people voted on some issue at some time in the past is one of that sort of thing. Some made something of Biden voting for some things years ago. But, then, when you looked at others who are running and who were in Congress at the same time, you find that they also voted for the same thing.

It all can be explained, of course. Maybe something noxious was part of a bill that couldn't have been passed without that section, but that did a great deal of good in other areas. Nothing that comes out of government is pure. It's all polluted with stuff that gets added and that are in there because the bill can't be passed without the vote of those who put that pollution in it.

It would be great if government were pure and clean. It's not. Every last bill that is passed has points of compromise in it that someone doesn't like. That's the nature of our system, unfortunately. So, you can find some noxious thing that has been voted for as part of a larger bill by almost anyone running for any office.

We shouldn't be doing that to our own candidates, and our own candidates shouldn't be doing that to their competitors, either.

[cwydro]

2. K and r.

Thank you.

[Bayard]

3. Agreed

I hate to beat a tired drum, but a circular firing squad only helps tRump. He will try to capitalize on every criticism Dems throw at each other.

We need a united front against him, not provide him ammunition.

[MineralMan]

8. I don't particularly like the circular firing squad analogy, but

sometimes its aptly used.

[Duppers]

41. ...

[Perseus]

77. So you think republicans won't or have not done that research on their own

I see, they are waiting to see what Democrats find out about Biden or any other Democratic candidate for them to use during the campaign, because the republicans are not good at finding dirt themselves, they not only find it, they make it up (pizzagate anyone?). In the mean time we can all shut our eyes, and are ears of course, to make sure we don't hear any negatives about those Democratic candidates we have become fanatics of.

This is the most self-defeating argument I have ever heard. We either work like intelligent Democrats/Liberals that we claim to be, find out who our best candidate to not only beat the creature but to govern as it is demanded from the American people, or we are no better than republicans who follow, blindly, whomever the party decides.

The creature, his minions, and cronies have been rooting for Biden, they know so much about Biden they don't care to read DU for new information, they already have the firing squad ready, they want Biden, all the "show of fear" that some people think they show is just acting. Nothing will make them happier than to have someone who has been around for a long time, has a lot of baggage, will put his foot in his mouth thus giving them more ammunition, and someone who likes to be liked and has cozied up to republicans in the past.

You are underestimating the trash machine from the republicans, that is one of the few things they do very well.

[Demsrule86]

88. I highly doubt Republicans will bring up being opposed to busing...it is worse coming from our

side the pre-planned hit on Biden should be used on Republicans not Democrats by Democrats...if this continues, we will lose the general.

[marylandblue]

4. The problem is the vain attempt to explain the context.

The way to approach it is to acknowledge the past, then look to the future. In this case, Biden should have acknowledged the hurt feelings, then talked about his plan to increase funding for Title 1 schools. Instead, he acted surprised and brought up other things from the past.

But the whole thing about past issues has sunk other candidates with or without Democratic help. That's why 6 out of the last 7 first term Presidents ran as Washington outsiders coming to fix Washington. Reagan, Clinton and Bush II won second terms ran against insiders who had been in Washington much longer than they had. Romney was technically an outsider, but he didn't run as one, and he ran against his own healthcare plan.

Former Republican Warren has a good story. She says was a Republican until she started studying bankruptcy and learned all the ways conservatism screws the average person.

[treestar]

10. So it would be fair if Harris

went after Mayor Pete regarding the shooting of the black man in South Bend? And the only thing that would matter is how he handles it? And of course, he will handle it well.

The right is not going to use attacks about hurt feelings. That would not appeal to Dotard's base. Isn't their motto "Fuck your feelings?" It is not preparation for the general election season.

As to how Joe dealt with it, no one will remember within two weeks. Mueller will be testifying mid-July, no one will give a shit about how Joe should apologize for hurt feelings (which are being courted in this case, and if they are that desperate that they have no better example, well . .). No one will remember much. He will still be thought of as a gaffe machine and a good man. Harris hasn't increased that impression one bit. It was known before she got to her teens.

[marylandblue]

26. First of all, Fuck your feelings doesn't apply when it's in their interest.

Second of all, the point is, they are going to use EVERY vote he ever made from the day he entered the Senate and EVERY thing he ever said against him in EVERY possible way. Just like they did to Kerry, Gore and Clinton, only worse. Our candidates didn't seem prepared for it on any of those occasions. Each of them had possible strategies they could have used against the attacks, but didn't.

Would it be fair if Harris attacked Pete on the shooting. No it wouldn't, but that doesn't matter, and she probably won't bother. He had zero support in the AA community but he was just starting to get some traction when the worst possible thing happened to his candidacy. I don't think he can recover, it's not his fault, and you are like the fourth person who thinks the unfairness against Pete is some kind of gotcha. It isn't, because all I care about is what works, not what's fair. So I am doing the unfair to him. I'm switching to Warren, as of now. In part because I think her best counter to unfair attacks against her is to stay on message. Which she has been doing. So let Harris call her Pocahontas or DINO or whatever, I think Warren has a plan for that. We'll see.

If I am wrong (I hope I am) and he recovers, maybe I'll switch back.

[Demsrule86]

89. I personally think Harris should face this too and Warren also. Hell all of our candidates...it

is of course as your say the right of the candidate to do anything to win and ... The primary is way more important than say the general. I mean let's just destroy every candidate and let Trump win the general... I am sure the losing Democratic candidate in the general will be as pure as the driven snow. Purity trumps winning and all.

[marylandblue]

96. That's good, because that has nothing to do with my point.

And since your point is always that Biden is the only one who can win, you treat anything that damages him as an existential threat. Which I think is a huge blind spot for Biden supporters, but that's okay I don't want to scare you with a different opinion.

[Demsrule86]

102. He is the only one who can attract rustbelt voters...Trump takes Mi, WI and PA, he wins...that is a

fact but actually, I was lamenting the Democrats bad habit of destroying those who become the nominee in the primary. I fear for our chances to win a general.

[marylandblue]

107. Well, if you only believe in one nominee, what else could you think?

Even if there are examples where it didn't happen, happened differently or happened to Republicans. Carry on.

[Demsrule86]

109. I believe in winning...if there was another nominee with a better chance, I would support him/her.

I don't particularly care about policy this election...any of our Democrats will do...but I will say they all supported policies during the debate that will come back to haunt us. MFA (take away private plans), healthcare for undocumented (sure it is the right thing to do but don't run on it), make crossing the border a misdemeanor...We are digging a hole as far as the general is concerned that we won't be able to climb out of...we have a great opportunity here and our last one in terms of saving the courts... I hope we don't blow it ...the idea that Trump will be beaten by any or our worthy candidates is simply not true. We need to rebuild the blue wall or we will lose in 20, 24 and beyond. We have no path to winning the presidency without doing this...and look at the Senate...it is a disaster in terms of winning a majority. Biden is right when he says four more years of Trump will change our country forever.

[saidsimplesimon]

128. Excellent response, I agree.

[treestar]

125. Yes how come any supporter of anyone else

has never even tried to argue that the candidate can win those 3 states?

[treestar]

124. Prove any of the others can win

I really have my doubts about that, come to think of it. Supporters of the others need to explain. And not with a flash in the pan (like Harris right now) that will be long forgotten by the time of the first primary. They should be able to do it without saying we should vote for them just because they aren't Biden. Both that they would be able to beat the Orange Horror and that they would make a good President. I'm wondering at some of them having even the ability to be better than the Orange Horror as far as competence goes.

[marylandblue]

148. I've checked my crystal ball, and it proves that any of the following could win

Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, Harris, Beto, Klobuchar, Bennett, and Bullock. I questioned my crystal ball's choices and it pulled rank on me, pointed out had it once predicted Carter's win, Reagan's win, and Obama's win. I told it that it predicted Trump's loss, and it replied that it did not speak Russian or Moronish and so could not account for all the factors. Then I questioned some of it's low polling choices like Bennett but it replied in Spanish, so I had no idea what it said.

The I asked it to prove it was right and it asked me to predict the GDP growth in in the third quarter of 2020. I actually had an answer for this, based on economic forecasting and said it would be -1%. The crystal ball said if that's true, then any Democrat could win, but then it asked me to prove my forecast. I said the crystal ball should be able to such things. Finally it trumped me by saying that magic doesn't work that way, however it did give me next weeks, Powerball numbers. My entry into the 1% this assurred, I quit my job and became a Republican.

What does.your crystal ball say, and how does it prove it? Does your crystal ball have a money back guarantee if it's wrong? Mine doesn't.

[treestar]

151. The whole point of campaigning is to try to win

When do I hear from the other candidates why they can win and why they should? So far, it's just "Biden has all these faults." Why should I vote for them then? Because they aren't Biden? No one is making the case for their candidates very well.

So Harris pointed out the Biden hurt her feelings and those of others with his remarks about how it's become so partisan compared to when he was first in the Senate. Why would that make her a good President? That is some really weak sauce. I heard her remarks over several times as every pundit has played it. It does not sound Presidential. Only Drumpf talks to the press about how mad he is at what others have said.

[marylandblue]

160. Other candidates have certainly made cases for themselves.

Warren- I'm taking on the corporations and 1%ers that are screwing you.
Sanders- I'm bringing the revolution.
Klobuchar - I'm a sensible midwestern moderate just in case you don't like Biden anymore.
O'Rourke - I'm a dynamic Texas moderate with some great ideas, and I promise you'll see that guy in the next debate.
De Blasio -I am an obnoxious New York super liberal who can beat Trump in a fist fight.
Harris - I can take the fight to Trump.
Buttigieg - I'm a smart young hot shot who can change the world.
Castro- Let's be nicer to immigrants.
Inslee - I'm running because of climate change. I can also do other things.

Lot's of positive messages out there but most Biden supporters seem more intent on defending Biden from attacks than exploring other candidates.

[treestar]

162. Not much there

Vague. Mere assertions. Mere promises.

Biden has the most attack threads on DU. And people have to respond to attacks. There are a few threads on other candidates that don't attack Biden. More of that rather than attacking each other. One of them will win, and we don't need them damaged to the max. We can prepare for the right's attacks without that. It puts a general idea they are bad people out there in the ether where the voters who don't follow this stuff live.

[marylandblue]

166. Oh brother, have you been even watching the campaigns?

You can't complain they have no ideas if you aren't even listening.

Yeah, there's a lot of mudslinging. I don't like it but it doesn't bother me that much. I knew it would be like this, almost impossible for it not to be.

Trump told us something about the downfall of Western democracies. Putin knows all about it. We are watching it in real time. It's painful to watch, and I still have a little bit of hope, but I am not under any illusion that one person is our savior or that our fate lies in the hands of 3 midwestern states.

It's okay, the other Western democracies don't understand what is happening to them either, so they are in no better shape than we are.

Of the candidates now running, I think only Buttigieg and Warren understand it, and I'm not sure either of them can win.

[ChiTownDenny]

39. Obama didn't support marriage equality.

People change and evolve, especially over 30 years.

[JI7]

56. actually Obama did support it but changed his position when he ran for president

for political reasons.

[ChiTownDenny]

68. Well, that's totally different, then.

Nothing wrong with a little pandering to advance one's political career.

[Demsrule86]

90. No he didn't. He supported civil unions...Biden pushed for marriage.

[moose65]

42. Plus, Trump has taught us that this stuff doesn't matter

If the Democrats are smart, they’ll just say “Well, my issue pales in comparison to Trump.” That might be an effective way to shut Trump up in the general election campaign. Whenever he tries to attack, just remind him of all his past sins, and assert that he changed campaign norms. We can’t play his game and hit back, but this might neutralize him. 😁

[MineralMan]

12. Yes, Warren does have a good story, and I don't hold her earlier

Republican connection against her. Others might not feel the same, though, if it becomes an issue.

Explaining context for things is too difficult in our short-attention-span world. It never really works well.

I just don't want us to cut our own throats by poisoning the well we all drink from. Frankly,. most primary voters don't look that closely at the details. So, it's entirely possible that we'll have a nominee that many of us do not think is the best choice. That's always a risk in presidential elections.

Once the nominee has been picked, though, the media begins airing everything it can, and the opposition puts forward everything negative it can find. 2016 is the lesson. 2020 is the opportunity not to repeat that debacle.

[highplainsdem]

5. Agree completely.

[empedocles]

7. Wapo headline, 'Rivals attack Biden, with Harris leading the way on race issues', 6-28

Wapo headline, 6-'29, 'Biden defends recprd pm race as rivals dig in'.

[ Does any Dem think this will have any effect whatsover on future race policy - for some good? Like Biden would, if elected, do some anti race law?]

On the part of the accusers; opportunistic, or raw, or naked exploitation? Certainly not good for Democratic policy/party - useful for some individuals.

[MineralMan]

9. Actually, it's not useful for those individuals, either.

In the end, the result is always negative. I know the stuff that could be used against Harris. You'll never hear it from me, but there's plenty of it, actually

Joe Biden won't use it, either. I hope nobody does, since I'd like to see Harris as the VP nominee, to tell you the truth. She'd be a huge asset in that role. I don't see her becoming the presidential nominee, though, so I hope she is careful not to lock herself out of another roll.

[empedocles]

14. As a VP nominee, Harris' negatives would be heavily used against the Dems, by rw media.

[MineralMan]

15. Everyone's negatives will be used by the Republicans.

We have to run our own campaign and seek our own voters. Trump's base will not be moved to the left. We have to sell the Democratic nominees. That's the only priority.

We will need to win some independent voters who are frustrated with Trump. We can do that.

[empedocles]

19. trump's 20% base will not be moved. The 80%, trump's next 20%, has spots for picking imo. Various

trump issues may annoy various voters in that group; pathological lying, pervasive and blatant corruption, flagrant war mongering, social atrocities, incompetence, personal ugliness, [even some evangelicals may hate the immorality], the list is endless.

[MineralMan]

23. Yes, exactly. We need some of those voters to pad our results

and overcome any meddling by the Russians or others. We need a larger margin of victory in the popular vote than in 2016. That's what I think, and I don't want to see us squander that by being stupid.

[empedocles]

38. The larger the winning Dem margins the greater the repeal of trump disasters.

Down ticket power, bigger majorities, will enable good things. Many of the Dem candidates, see trump as largely self-destructing and it may as well be one of them who rides the opportunity right into the WH. Many of these candidates may not have down ticket enthusiasms or strength.

[Somewhat related. The 2018 Dem victory may have been softer than imagined. Wolff, using 'con sources, says McConnell wrote off, and even wanted to see 'cons lose the House in 2018, - to strengthen trump's desperate need for the Senate, to McConnell's hmmmm benefit. I will provide direct quotes in some future thread on these interesting aspects].

[colorado_ufo]

43. I used to think she would be a great VP, but not after that cheap shot at Biden.

Didn't like it one bit - she had years to address that with him. I think she burned her bridges and wants only the White House - not VP.

[emmaverybo]

36. I don't think Dems cheering on these attacks do so with an eye to what's good for the party

or the causes they purport to support. They enjoy the spectacle, approve of “opportunistic...naked
exploitation,” and urgently want their candidate to destroy Biden to get ahead.

Sad. And ironic. Biden was the only candidate to launch his campaign on Trump’s praise for white supremacy and the need to fight for the soul of America against these dark forces, the only
candidate with a long history of civil rights support and involvement, the only candidate to serve the first Black American president, Obama, for two terms, with a raft of accomplishment and tremendous respect in his own right as VP.

He is also the candidate with by far the most Black voter support, endorsements, and ties all over the nation to Black leaders. He is the frontrunner.

He must be picked off. The poster on the board who flamed for him to drop out NOW, expresses
the urgency of Biden-bashers. I do distinguish them from critics whom on some points regarding his debate performance I can agree.

Down the road, how their urgency will impact our party’s chances in the GE, we can not predict.
I think their self-serving and manipulative campaign against Biden serves neither the Dem goals nor themselves. Once introduced, this cutthroat style, becomes a toxin, setting a tone if encouraged, that, whatever Biden’s political chances, spreads.

They come for Biden now, who next? They undermine Biden’s credibility and his future endorsement for the nominee is tainted.

Not winning. Not even a wining look.

[emmaverybo]

11. Good post. Support everything you said. NT

[MineralMan]

13. Thank you!

[democratisphere]

16. When a candidate has nothing of themselves to offer and they resort

to undermining another candidate who might be a frontrunner, the offending candidate is only out for themselves, instead of working for the greater good of all.

[Indygram]

17. If Biden had of fixed the "boy" comments and apologized instead being defensive

Then he would not have left the opening for Harris to toss the grenade into.

Frankly, he did it to himself and will continue to do so just as he has always done.

That's why no matter how much anyone likes him he's not a good presidential candidate.

Defensiveness and reacting to attacks is NOT how you overcome a narcissist. You win by simply refusing to play their game and talking about and focusing on the ISSUES and not stupid distractions.

To be perfectly honest, Biden's gaffes have become just as big a distraction from things that are important as we have become used to seeing for the last few years. That's just not good enough for me.

[MineralMan]

25. I think you are incorrect in that.

And in some of the other things you said. That's all I will say about that.

[Demsrule86]

91. She had this planned before that...she was going to use it all along...but I see no reason why Biden

should apologize for working with the other side and getting say the civil rights bill through...he used the segregationists as an example of the worst deplorable and yet somehow for the good of the country...they found common ground...perhaps she may want to go after John Lewis for saying he also worked with this sort...She did herself damage during the debate...wait for it.

[treestar]

126. For the love of dog please

tell us why Beto can win the swing states, beat Trump and make a decent President. If you need this, you are telling me he can't.

[FloridaBlues]

18. Agree, no candidate will be above reproach

If this goes on every candidate will be damaged.

[MineralMan]

21. Yup. I guarantee that every candidate has mistakes and things in

their history that can be framed to look bad. We should not be doing that to ourselves, and neither should our own candidates. That's a huge mistake we should avoid making.

The thing is: Joe Biden stands a strong chance of ending up as the Democratic nominee. I suspect that he will be. A lot of people were trashing Hillary Clinton in the run-up to the 2016 election. Some of the same things used by Democrats who didn't favor her were later used by Republicans in the general election campaign to hurt her chances.

I do not want to see that happen again in 2020. We're paying a high price for it right now, and Trump is capable of winning in 2020 if we do not do everything right, starting right now.

It's a different world than the one I grew up in, politically. It's an ugly world where the old standards no longer apply. Donald J. Trump is a threat to the continued existence of the United States as we have known it, with all of its faults and benefits.

I don't want to leave this planet with the likes of Trump in charge. Nope!

[wyldwolf]

20. And because of Kamala's cheap shot, she has a target on her back unfortunately.

[MineralMan]

22. Well, what happened happened. It can't be reversed.

I'm just hoping we don't continue making the same mistakes and exacerbate the problem. That one thing will be soon forgotten, but it's a long way until November of 2020. If we keep fucking up, we could lose, and we can't afford to lose.

[wyldwolf]

28. It can be contained, though

A simple statement from Harris admitting the issue is much more complicated than most believe it to be and that Biden is, in no way, a racist.

[emmaverybo]

45. I would call for that and for Booker to admit to the context in which Biden used the word "boy,"

known to him, yet he still is agitating over a racial slight, not only not intended, but not made. The word is used variously. It did not originate as a racial slur and its use in non-racial contexts continued with differing intents and meanings between white males.

“ Good ole boys” derived from a widespread colloquial use of the term in such a non-racial situation and with an entirely different intent than to demean.

Booker is aware. He continues despite understanding. Neither he nor Harris want to drop their
vital weapons in the fight to discredit Biden.

They both owe an apology and not just to Biden.

Using the issue of systemic racism, historical, ongoing, in this moment—segregation, use of painful racial slurs, injuries done to black children and families, socio-ecomic inequality—to advance one’s ambitions , rather than to address systemic racism, mobilize and unify against it, and propose solutions, is cynical and calculated.

[Demsrule86]

92. True but after seeing her on Thursday...really doubt such a statement is coming.

[Cha]

24. Yeah, Glass Houses and Shite.

[MineralMan]

27. You'd think everyone would know that already.

These are not inexperienced people. Everyone needs to stop, take a deep breath, and think about things and their consequences before acting. Everyone!

[peggysue2]

65. That's exactly right, Cha

And MM's correct in reminding us that every candidate has things they've done or didn't do that could be exploited by a competing Dem (though the blowback can be significant) and certainly by the Republicans who are famous for mixing fact with fiction until the most innocent comment takes on a negative, ominous meaning.

We need to be smarter to win in 2020. As in not providing the GOP lethal ammunition.

Because if anyone thinks the win in 2020 is a given? You're sniffing fairy dust.

[Cha]

100. I don't think Biden is going

to be attacking anyone except the fascists.

Link to tweet

I understand pointing out differences in policy.. fair game but don't be taking things out of context and trying to make a BFD out of it. pun intended.

[treestar]

127. right Cha

[Cha]

169. Aloha, treestar!

[RHMerriman]

29. Good post ...

Good post. Seriously.

The ONLY target Democrats should have is Trump and his fellow traitors.

Perhaps someone can find Trump's language "hurtful" and have their voice quaver about it on national television. That will be a game changer.

[MarcA]

76. More likely the gaffes and Pathetic excuses will continue. n/t

[RHMerriman]

82. Patheic?

More likely the gaffes and Patheic excuses will continue. n/t

Meaning something derived from Société Pathé Frères?

Please explain.

[Demsrule86]

93. Oh I don't know...perhaps you are being to hard on ...Harris.

[First Speaker]

30. Oh, I know...I supported the free coinage of silver back in 1896...

...and I've never been allowed to forget it...

[StarfishSaver]

31. Biden "went back decades" to talk about working with Eastland

Why can't anyone "go back decades" to talk about what he did with Eastland during that time, such as work together to advance anti-busing legislation.

[brush]

32. Sorry, Joe bought this on himself. He's the one who originated...

the talk of his interactions forty years ago with segregationists. No one would be talking about it if he hadn't bought it up.

It's an unforced error he's got to learn to avoid.

[emmaverybo]

50. He did not work with them during the era in which they became well known and virulent

segregationists. Moreover, it is extremely disingenuous to call a vote against Federally enforced busing a vote for segregation and against civil rights.

[brush]

57. "...a vote for segregation and against civil rights?" No one said that but you.

I said Joe has to avoid unforced errors like bringing up his interactions with segregationists forty years ago. No one would even know or be talking about it if he hadn't bought it up for some inexplicable reason.

Now he's living with the fall out from his own recollection.

[emmaverybo]

60. Fair enough. I am referring to conflating a vote against federally forced busing with segregationist

policy and mentality, as has been done in many political quarters, and which I believe Harris meant to imply.

To correct the impression she meant to make, the younger Kamala Harris, was voluntarily bused, not bused under Federal mandate.

[LakeArenal]

54. Biden isn't mischaracterizing himself. The detractors are.

My parsing of Joe’s words are a lot different than others.

What I heard was Joe has worked with the most despicable characters in the past, characters who affirmed never to change anything, to work to change the racial divide and create positive reforms.

My parsing of the words are as valid as the next.

[brush]

58. The problem is they are his words. He bought up working with segregationists 40 years ago;

No one would be talking about it if he hadn't bought it up. Joe needs to look forward as he says he wants to, without bringing up the past that no one needs to know.

[LakeArenal]

61. That is your summary and opinion

Mine is Joe works with even the most entrenched bigots in government and still creates positive change.

That’s an achievement not a negative.
That is experience. That is bipartisanship.

[brush]

64. Fair enough, but no more forty-year-old stories about segregationists, pls.

He's taken unnecessary hits on this that could've been avoided.

[LakeArenal]

103. Once again, your opinion.

Since I think his words were fine and applicable. He has worked with the worst repububs in past history. Now he must do it again with even worse ones.

[brush]

115. Harris is not the only African American offended by his recollection. He was panned...

across the board by African Americans, a big part of the party base. No Dem can win without African American support.

I hope he puts this in past quickly and speaks of the future from now on.

[LakeArenal]

117. I heard here on DU he went up points. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Jim Clyburn came out in support of his work with segregationists. 🤷🏼?♀️

[treestar]

131. I dunno, I have a feeling that maybe no matter what he says

someone is going to find a way to jump on it and make it into a negative.

[brush]

139. It's worse than you think. Biden just said at an LGBTQ event...

that "five years ago it was considered ok to mock a gay waiter."

Needless to say there was pushback.

It's early and it will be a long campaign and I don't know if he can make it through without putting his foot in his mouth even more.

Too bad as he can trounce trump on the stage during a debate.

[pazzyanne]

66. That was also my take on the situation.

Fault finding is a self fulfilling prophesy. It is better to stick positives not negatives. As a person looking on to what Kamala said, my opinion of her fell. She is better than this remark, I think.

[brush]

116. And Joe should know better than to bring up segregationists and the "boy" remark.

Harris is not the only African America upset by his recollection of long-forgotten racists. I'm Affrican American and I consider it an unnecessary, careless, unforced error on his part. Why deosn't he know better than to stay completely away from that kind of stuff?

Older AA voters don't like it and younger voters of all ethnicities don't even know why the hell he's talking about stuff that makes him seem out of step with the times, and those are a big part of the Dem electorate.

[pazzyanne]

120. I'm still with LakeArenal's post!

Thank you for weighing in.

[treestar]

130. It's also unforced error to make a really big deal of it

jump on it to use to try to take down another candidate because you can't beat them on your own merits.

[brush]

135. It's called politics, not bean bags.

We shouldn't blame someone for being good at it. BTW Biden unfortunately commited another unforced error by saying at LGBTQ event that "it was ok five years ago to mock a gay waiter."

His staff has to be pulling their hair out.

[treestar]

141. and people are sick of it

think all the politicians are bad, and is why they don't vote. And all these gaffes matter to the left, not the voters in general. The swing state voters who matter could care less about both of these gaffes and could even agree with Joe. Politics is about getting votes, and in the POTUS election, getting the ones that matter most.

[ooky]

33. Really good post!

K&R.

[watoos]

34. I want a tough as nails candidate to be our nominee

Kamala handed Joe his lunch. If Joe is our nominee he better not be debating Trump and say my time is up.

By the way, why is everyone picking on Kamala? Bennet handed Joe his lunch on extending the Bush tax cuts and on passing the Sequester which is still in effect today. The sequester takes 10% in reimbursements to Medicare doctors.

I said before Joe decided to run that it would be an uphill battle for him. He has been a politician for a long time, lots of votes and lots of speeches to pick apart.

[colorado_ufo]

46. Its because it is an old issue, and she pulled the race card, like WAY early.

The issues Bennett discussed were current and legitimate, not presented as a personal grievance. Harris has so much going for her, that this cheap shot was disappointing and damaging, in my view. I think she was poorly advised and made a rookie (on the national stage) mistake.

[FakeNoose]

62. No it was a cheap shot

... and Kamala's the one who's living in the glass house. Just like Mineral Man says.

[pazzyanne]

67. Here is my take on that incident and your response.

"Kamala handed Joe his lunch." When she did that I lost my lunch and respect for Kamala.
It was more like a Republican debate and I expected better of the Democrats.

[Perseus]

81. I never thought I would say this before Wednesday, but that person is Bill de Blasio

Bill de Blasio will make the creature crap in his pants, then Buttigieg for VP to debate Pence.

I want Bill de Blasio to get close to the creature and stare down at him, the stage will smell as the creature does it in his pants. The creature is a coward, he won't be able to take on de Blasio.

[Demsrule86]

94. I sort of saw a vulnerable child...exposed not tough as nails...she was that little girl after all.

[treestar]

134. I'm amazed at the idea that this particular incident

made her seem tough. She was being a victim of his hurtful statements. And making a big deal of it. I heard that tape played several times (every pundit played it Rachel, Lawrence, Chris ) and heard it when others were watching the TV a couple more times. It does not come off as tough.

[marieo1]

35. Biden - National Treasure

Joe Biden is a national hero and treasure for all of us!!! We should trust that he would always made decisions for the good of all. Some we will not understand his reasoning but we should trust one of our national heros and have faith in them. We have all known Joe Biden for many, many years and have cried with him during the times he had to suffer. But we all should know he makes decisions based on his trying to help all of us - just like most parents do!! Not at all like that wind bag in the WH now. The debate should have been each candidate telling us how they would help our country and not trying build their own ego.

[Voltaire2]

37. Your guy dug this issue up all by himself.

Nobody else to blame for this mess but Biden. This is what he does.

[pazzyanne]

71. At this point, aren't they all "our" guys?

I was tuned in to see what I could learn about candidates as they sold themselves. I was stunned to see the attacks, especially this early. I wanted to hear each candidate talking about themselves and what their plans are. Not interested in flaming this early!

[Voltaire2]

111. If you have selected one of the candidates

then that is your ‘guy’, as far as this forum is concerned.

[pazzyanne]

113. My selecting a candidate does not mean I am not interested in learning

more about other candidates. That is the reason that I watched all of the debates on Wednesday and Thursday. I have my "hometown" candidate, but it is personally necessary for me to learn all I can about everyone at the podiums. They are all potentially my candidate, as time goes on.

[MarcA]

79. Exactly. And will continue to do.

[treestar]

136. Nobody was forced to make a big deal of it

[Duppers]

40. EXACTLY!!!

[CentralMass]

44. Joe Biden went back decades and brought up the issue.

[pazzyanne]

73. Hmmm.

Sometimes people with decades of experience do that. That is part of introducing themselves, which I thought the first debate was all about.

[CentralMass]

97. My point being that if this is being percieved as a wound, it is a self inflicted one.

[Thekaspervote]

47. Agree! I see the mayor of Atlanta came out the next day in support of Biden

Also, he had the 2nd highest 24 hr period of donations following the debate. And more importantly, the AA base support for him went up 18%.

Doesn’t seem in the long run to be hurting him. Maybe those using the “50 years ago you did this” attacks should be rethought

[colorado_ufo]

48. Yes.

[wsbradshaw]

49. Its the response

Your point is valid but its Biden's response that reveals his character. He denied holding those positions back then even though there is video and transcript evidence of things he said. In other words he lied. Don't need an other on of those in the Whitehouse.

[friend of m and j]

63. If you were a sitting Senator and you had a bill you were trying...

to get passed that you thought it was critical for the good of our country but you were 2 votes short of getting it passed and there were 2 Senators from Segregated states and were hardcore segregationist and you felt you could get their votes, would you ignore them because they were segregationists. You might promise to help them pass some bill they had pending - a courthouse named after one and maybe a new dam in their state. That is how legislation is passed. You don't get the votes by telling them they are segregationists and racist and so you don't want their votes.

Can you find the video and transcripts that prove Biden held those segregationist views "back then" and prove he lied about not being a segregationists. I, for one, would certainly like to see them.

[wsbradshaw]

78. Its all over the internet

Its all over the internet. One source is NPR another is the Washington Post. I suggest you read an article on the Daily Kos called "In 1975 interview Biden opposes School integration, proposed ban on voluntary busing." Let me ask you this if Biden shot some one in the middle of the street would you still support him??

[Demsrule86]

95. He opposed busing...so what...From what my Mom told me most did...you

know what else is all over the internet...Harris's pre-planning of the attack...

[friend of m and j]

122. I had hoped this would be a civil discussion without unnuendos or implying that..

Biden's supporters are comparable to Trump supporters. Here are some comments that Biden made about the segregationist Senators courtesy of a press pool report written by the Wall Street Journal’s Ken Thomas:

“I know the new New Left tells me that I’m — this is old-fashioned. Well guess what? If we can’t reach a consensus in our system, what happens? It encourages and demands the abuse of power by a president. That’s what it does. You have to be able to reach consensus under our system — our Constitutional system of separation of powers.”

Then, as an example of how this could be done, he brought up segregationist senators Eastland and Herman Talmadge (D-GA). Though he disagreed with them, he said, “we got things done.” Such “civility,” he went on, is sadly lacking in today’s politics."

Biden is also reflecting the political conventional wisdom of the time — the 1970s, when he joined the Senate and served with these men — that Congress and the Democratic Party had many racists and segregationists, so working together with them on some issues was simply a matter of practicality.

Mr. Biden then brought up a deceased Georgia senator, “a guy like Herman Talmadge, one of the meanest guys I ever knew, you go down the list of all these guys. Well guess what? At least there was some civility. We got things done. We didn’t agree on much of anything. We got things done. We got it finished. But today, you look at the other side and you’re the enemy. Not the opposition, the enemy. We don’t talk to each other anymore.”



In answer to your question about would I still support Biden if he shot someone in the middle of the street. Biden has said that his number one priority in making a decision is "Is it the right thing to do?" If he shot a mugger who had a knife to the throat of someone walking down the street and there was no other way he could stop it, I would applaud him and still support him.

[treestar]

142. His main point was how much worse it has gotten

that there is no compromise anymore. That was literally the main point, and so jumping on an example of it as if he were a racist himself is totally disingenuous. It makes the point for him in fact, as there are plenty of arguments from our side that "they can't be reasoned with" etc.

[treestar]

138. Warren was a Republican, we could easily do this to her

Is that how you think she will win?

[delisen]

106. Was Biden actually 2 votes short on his anti-busing bill or are you

posing a hyoothetical?

[friend of m and j]

121. Delisen, My hypothetical really was not intended to ..

be related to busing or segregation. It was intended make the point that Biden has a record of creating bipartisan in the Congress. Compromise is usually needed to bring about bipartisanship and avoid Congressional deadlock. A Senator (or House member) is not concerned about the members views on other issues as a requirement to vote for his bill.

[treestar]

137. Oh, please. Really?

Warren can't win without this absurd claim? Warren lied about her ancestry. Is that what you want to hear? If Warren is the nominee, we will have to deal with that. Is that what you want to focus on?

[dawg day]

51. I wonder if maybe having things come out now will make the issues obsolete in the future-

You know, spiking it now. Maybe in the future, everyone will think, "Didn't we already talk about that? Old news. Boring."

Campaigns often want to "get the bad out" early. I don't know... but I think Trump will find horrible and scurrilous things to say about everyone anyway.

[wsbradshaw]

83. Right

Your exactly right. If Harris hadn't brought this out now, Trump surely would later. We need to air all our dirty laundry now.

[treestar]

146. True, though the Orange Horror will in most cases

Not being able to say a thing without complete hypocrisy, though he is not above that, voters other than the Deplorables will see it. The whole issue of touching uncomfortable women is something the Pussy Grabber can't use without total hypocrisy. Anything to do with busing would be hilarious as the Dotard apparently does not even recall the issue and thinks it refers to school transportation (he was talking about how he is going to get out a terrific busing initiative). As to being hurt by comments like the one Biden made, well the Dotard's comments will be far more hurtful. As to gaffes, the Dotard makes Biden look like a very circumspect speaker.

[dawg day]

167. That really was funny in a horrible way, that Trump doesn't even know what 'busing' refers to-

What the heck, he spent the 70s and 80s combing his hair and pretending that Princess Di and Madonna wanted him. Nothing going on in the world registered.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

52. Well, there is that issue of Trump previously being registered as a Democrat.

Does that make him a fake Republican?.........

(actually, tRump has no genuine allegiance to any party, but instead only to himself)

Thanks for bringing this issue to light, MineralMan. One contextual problem I've seen numerous times is when a politician is in lower-level political office, he/she probably will support the wishes and beliefs of the majority of their constituents - regardless of his/her personal beliefs. However, if that person later runs for a higher office, he/she may express that personal belief which could then be used against him/her as being hypocritical. That's dirty politics in my book for not honoring and publishing the full context.

[loyalsister]

53. This is a current issue

Because institutional racism is still with us. It is also something people will defend in order to protect their own superior status. School funding is a prime example also directly influenced by ongoing redlining and tied to overrepresentation of minorities who experience economic oppression and don't have access to opportunities for upward mobility, health, and safety that come with it.
White supremacy is real and part of our current reality.

[ooky]

59. Yes, racism is a current issue. One we should be attacking Republican policies and their

candidates over instead of dredging up issues that are decades old to attack our own frontrunners over. Busing is not a current issue. Our party's issue is getting the monster in the White House out, winning back the Senate, and protecting our House majority.

[loyalsister]

84. The bigotry that drove the most vocal opponents

to bussing is current. The institutional racism which still thrives has been supported and enabled by white people who see themselves as not part of the problem because they aren't malicious.
It's quite possible for people who are not bigots to support white supremacy. As evidenced in the response to the Willie Horton ad as well as buying into Reagan's racialized version of welfare recipients.
In fact the only way it persists is with the denials and defensiveness of good white people and the steps taken to avoid appearing to be too critical of the system that protects the superior social and economic status of white people.

[gldstwmn]

55. That's exactly what's going to happen in the general.

If we don't talk about it will it just go away?

[Demsrule86]

98. Attacking a good Democrat and a Vice president...deliberately taking his words out of

context over a 50 year old busing debate...is ridiculous...busing failed and it was a horrible policy, and I sincerely hope no Democrat will run on such a thing...Biden is not racist...and Harris should be ashamed of portraying him that way which is what she attempted to do during the debate...hope it backfires on her...think it will.

[gldstwmn]

118. I don't see it as an attack. He brought it up

and on himself.

[Bucky]

69. Strongly disagree

Republicans fight dirty so they don't have to discuss issues--the last Republican who ran on policy specifics was Barry Goldwater. He didn't break 40% of the popular vote.

So I think it's true we should have substantive policy debates in our primaries, we also need to vet candidates for how well they can take a hit and punch back

[DallasNE]

70. Misses The Point

How the candidate responds is the point. Biden's words are problematic but that the problem could have been avoided.

Biden Isn't Very Deft In Such Matters.

He could have said "I've evolved over the last 35 years and those statements haven't reflected my views for at least 25 years". A little humility can cause things to backfire on the other person but that wasn't in Joe's arsenal so here we are. Can he learn from these early mistakes? For his sake, he had better or he is toast.

Keep in mind that the rape charge against Trump is almost this old so you're suggesting that the charge against Trump should not matter either. You can't be situational here. You must be consistent. Besides, I'm not a fan of blaming the messenger for the message. Is Biden showing his age here by not being able to be nimble and deflect this issue away. Indeed, this is exposing issues with Biden as a candidate. For this we should be grateful.

[demosincebirth]

72. The Crap I done 45 years ago (never went to Jail) I couldn't run for dog-catcher. I'm not the same

person today. Biden had to work with the southern Dixiecrats to get thing done in the Senate. I was friends with many southern segregationists when I lived in the south at that time. I just had to keep my mouth shut about the laws in Dixie land.

[Perseus]

74. Good try, but what Biden is facing today is not only things he did in the past but things

he has said recently.

One more thing, the things Biden did in the past he did while he was an adult, not as a kid, he was a politician, it is important to find out what he did, what he thought and how much of that has changed because he is still putting his foot in his mouth and showing traces of the same ideas.

Why are many democrats trying to sell the idea that we need to forget the past? I am sure no one in DU was happy when Obama said "move forward" and left the 9-11, Bush/Cheney off the hook on real investigations...No, we have to see/know the past, what they were thinking then and what they have done up to now.

Biden has said some things as of late that reflect some of the things he is being called on.

We either vet our candidates 100% or we have to admit we are a bunch of fanatics, we either face the music on the good and bad about our candidates or we are no better than sheep following the heard.

I hope people understand that Biden is not Obama, he will never be Obama, and he was not the president of the USA, any nostalgia about the Obama years and hope that Biden can restore them is just a dream.

My concern is that Biden likes to be liked too much, he has shown that throughout his career, I have to assume that he truly believes he can work with republicans, and that is a fantasy in his head, anyone who believes that has not been paying attention.

We need to stop trying to stop people from bringing out the facts on candidates, we need someone who will not only beat the creature, but who will govern on behalf of all, someone who will not cave in to republicans, something Biden has done in the past.

[Demsrule86]

99. Enjoy today because I really think after being out and about today that Biden will weather this

lates attack by Democrats...disgusting just fine and will be the candidate in the end. Being liked gets you elected...no one elects a person they don't like...

[KPN]

75. Biden is playing to third party 2016 tRump

voters instead of running for the Dem nomination. Three big money fund raisers in NYC in one week was a look one would think anyone would avoid like the plague after the damage similar speaking appearances/audiences caused HRC. The fact that he then talked about his ability to and success at working with anyone, including segregationists, etc., was mind bogglingly inept in today’s context. Is Joe really that clueless?

Frankly, I don’t think so. It strikes me that he’s campaigning as if he’s already the nominee; as if he’s already aiming at peeling 3rd party and possibly some disgruntled R voters away from tRump in 2020. If he’s doing that, he’s assuming Dems will come out to vote like they did in 2018 ... for him. That’s a big assumption.

Joe’s brought this upon himself.

[stopbush]

80. Sorry, but this incident says a lot more about Biden not bothering to prepare

properly for the debate than it says about Harris’ going after him.

Biden supporters need to face up to that. Otherwise they risk being pissed off about everyone else who will take their shots at Biden. And believe me, they will take their shots.

[Peacetrain]

85. Everyone has a history that can be exploited... and I will take VP Biden any day over some of the

stuff I have read and know that will be thrown at others as they come into the limelight.. but what can you do? I have worried about that from day one of this cycle.. and the Republicans have an amoral approach that has us beating each other up.. and they do anything they want with no consequences..

[UncleTomsEvilBrother]

86. So are you saying that...

...opposing a federal integration law that stood for racial equality is as bad as a candidate belonging to the Republican party?

Why can't Biden just say, "It was a bad decision on my part."?

Joe has done extraordinary things on civil rights, and I totally want to vote for him, but he is wrong on this. It's hurtful to think that opposing a law that was meant to serve towards racial equality is being minimized to "every candidate has done stuff to look bad". This is huge, and it directly impacts the voting base of the Democratic party.


Again, Biden and his camp need to either a) apologize or b) let this go.

You do not need older Black women who lived through segregation thinking Biden somehow supported it.

[StarfishSaver]

87. A candidate running on a decades-long record should expect opponents to "go back" decades to check o

They can't have it both ways.

"40 years ago, I did something great.

"40 years ago, you did something not cool."

"Whoa! Why are you bringing THAT up?! It was 40 years ago!"

[shanny]

101. "We" nothing.

Biden tee'd up this subject himself and all but invited attacks on it. His own aides advised him against using those Senators' names when telling his folksy tales... And he ignored them.

If you serve up a fastball right over the plate you can't be surprised when someone smacks it.

[Demsrule86]

105. She had it planned a long time ago...there is a post right here on it...so it was a hit job.

[shanny]

114. lol

A hit job. This was not enemy action like we'd expect from pukes or Russia. As they say, politics ain't beanbag. If Biden can't take this kind of heat, he shouldn't be in the race.

[oasis]

104. "Food fight vs. food on the table". Kamala cleverly cleared the decks

for her attack on Joe.

Kamala should have been mindful of another food reference from the 2012 Presidential Campaign.

"Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"

[Grasswire2]

145. Yes, noted.

She said that, got her applause, and then threw old stuff at Joe. Clever. But it reveals a side of her that I do not admire. Desperation of a sort.

[oasis]

158. I don't like the idea of anyone wounding our best chance

to beat Trump. Kamala knows full well that Biden is, at heart, a good and generous person. He is also a Democrat that has the political connections which will quickly have his administration up and running.

Kamala Harris appears to be candidate who is afraid to run on her own merits.

[Grasswire2]

165. agree nt

[treestar]

149. Make that remark and then start a food fight

does not seem very compelling.

[oasis]

161. When a candidate can't win on their own merits and then resorts to

desperate attacks, their credibility usually pays a heavy price.

[aikoaiko]

108. But sooo many here demanded hard vetting of others and now they are getting it.

And they don't like it so much.

Weird that.

[Demsrule86]

110. See that is where you are wrong...I never wanted hard vetting during a primary for Democrats...

also known as the circular firing squad. I view a primary as where we pick the candidate who can beat Trump...nothing more and nothing less...you may notice that while I have said who I think can win a general...I don't post shit about other candidates ever. We need to have a candidate who is not damaged at the end of the primary process...it is supposed to give us a candidate who can win not a candidate who has twisted themselves in knots and is so damaged, we lose. And if Trump wins,we are all fucked.

[aikoaiko]

112. I vaguely remember you being pretty harsh on Bernie as a candidate.

[Raine]

119. Exactly! nt

[McCamy Taylor]

123. You can't take the prosecutor out of the presidential candidate.

Harris would make a good attorney general. But prosecutor tactics do not work in an election. Her job is not to vilify the opposition it is to sell herself. If Harris was running for AG she would have my vote. Maybe she is running for AG.

[Politicub]

129. No. Someone just has to go back a couple of weeks. n/t

[MineralMan]

133. Flinging poo leaves you with dirty, smelly fingers.

As a campaign strategy in a primary race, it often ends up having a negative effect on your own polling.

Polls shift around, but Joe Biden still has a double-digit lead, so he's the target of the moment.

[Politicub]

144. People need to defend themselves and their communities at times. And Biden supporters

need to think about what they are saying when they try to stop the poo slinging.

I say this because people start defending the content of what a candidate said even if they claim he didn't say it. This is happening right now on DU about some comments Biden made or didn't make at a gay rights fundraiser in 2014.

Biden may have misspoke then. Maybe he didn't. Maybe the media didn't report it verbatim. Maybe it was a media hit job.

That's not the core issue. The defense of Biden became a problem because people are on the thread talking about how it wasn't a big deal xx number of years ago that certain behavior was okay. This makes people (me) defensive because I have been the brunt of what people are defending. It has gone from defending Biden -- who could have misspoke or who did not say anything at all -- to posters saying making fun of someone was okay xx number of years ago. Does this make sense?

Empathy. It all goes back to empathy. If people would just acknowledge that making fun people was simply wrong and not tie themselves in knots to make it seem like it was okay, the issue would go away quickly. It's no longer just a Biden problem once people start defending the indefensible. That's a different issue than poo slinging.

[lanlady]

132. Agree completely, MineralMan

Busing was an issue 50 years ago. 5-0! Why is anyone even talking about it? It would be one thing if Biden had a history of racism, but he doesn't. Let's move on, PLEASE.

As much as I like Kamala, that was a low blow she took, and harmful to the Party.

[MineralMan]

140. Mandatory busing ended a long time ago, too, because

it didn't actually accomplish what it set out to do in most places. In most places, it has been replaced with other techniques to even the balance, sometimes successfully and sometimes not so much.

In my own urban area, our two major cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul, have disproportionately high percentages of minority students in their schools. White people moved out to the suburbs, starting in the 1960s. So, affluent suburbs like Edina spend more money on their schools, leaving the major city schools to fall behind.

There is an answer, but it's not a popular one, and requires the state to set a per-student spending cap that is even across the state. Since the affluent districts will not accept cuts in school spending, that will raise the per-student spending in the inner cities. So far, Republicans have managed to stop such plans.

I live in St. Paul, one of the minority-heavy cities. Our schools vary, but there are some schools that have poor results. Mostly, they are the larger schools in minority-heavy neighborhoods. Although the city allows parents to choose their children's schools and busing moves kids all over the city, many parents do not take advantage of that, leaving those larger schools still disproportionately attended by minority students.

We keep passing higher taxes on ourselves, and gladly, but the problem persists. A solution appears to be very difficult to find.

[Grasswire2]

143. Yes, why are our Dems doing the oppo research on each other for the benefit of Republicans?????

I will NOT SUPPORT a candidate who tears down another Dem candidate.

It's just damaging to OUR party, and stupid. Bernie doesn't do it. Warren doesn't do it. And they are top tier.

[MineralMan]

150. Desperation. That's why.

If you're polling in the single digits, clearly you are falling behind in this race. Before long, if you have only single-digit support, you'll need to be looking for something else to do, frankly.

That's especially true if your polling percentage is lower than Biden's double-digit lead.

Right now, it's Biden, Warren and Sanders. Everyone else is fighting to join the race for second place. So far, they're not succeeding. Time is running out for the single-digit candidates and they know it.

So, that's where the attacks will originate.

[Grasswire2]

152. But it's a failing transparent strategy, ultimately.

And not all of the "everyone else" is struggling in ways that blister other candidates.

[MineralMan]

154. You're right about that. It's weak sauce, really, when

it comes from someone lagging back in the field.

[Grasswire2]

156. Well, she did get a buzz from the media.

But she also drew some ire in the party.

[MineralMan]

157. She got a temporary bounce, which has already disappeared,

according to one polling outfit.

That's the risk. And now, others are pointing at her over some decision she made as a District Attorney. That's the danger of flinging poo at the leader in a campaign. All of the candidates are having their records looked at. And all of them have something or another that doesn't look good in those records, I guarantee.

It would be best to argue for yourself than to fling poo at others, I think, in such a crowded field.

[Dickbaker]

147. Democratic goals not personal egos

As a new democrat I have my doubts about candidates who toss mud in order to reduce the national appeal of a competitor who might truly remove Trump. Do you want to save America from Trump or satisfy your political ego?
Dick

[oasis]

168. Dems run the risk of having a low AA voter turnout if

they continue to hit Biden with every scrap of ancient history they can dig up.

[stopbush]

153. Biden supporters are on the defensive. They need to realize that Joe put himself

and them on the defensive.

Simple as that.

[MineralMan]

155. Not really. We will defend Biden, of course,

when he is unfairly attacked. But, we're not on the defensive. We don't have to be, given his double-digit lead over the second-place candidate.

The risk is to those who are attacking, really. Mistakes in making an attack will backfire.

[stopbush]

163. It's usually the Rs who are warning the Ds that doing something politically savvy

might “backfire.”

Seeing it coming from a Biden supporter is also very telling.

As far as Joe’s double-digit lead: that could also be a problem. At this point in the process, he has nowhere to go but down as the field narrows and other candidates gain support. Trumpeting his poll numbers this early in the process could also - what’s the word? - backfire. Those who live by the early polls often die by the later polls.

BTW - let me make it clear that Joe will have my 100% support - including $ donations - if he is our nominee.

[colsohlibgal]

164. They Are Dogged

I prefer the more progressive candidates to be sure, but also I think it’s time to turn the page. I am more aligned with Bernie than Biden but in both cases I just think they are just too old.

Do we really want a President in their late 70s or 80s? Again it is clear Reagan entered early mental decline by 1987. It can happen. You can be fine one year, not so sharp the next.

It is time, in my opinion, to pass the torch, as JFK famously said in January 1961.

[Chemisse]

159. I understand your point and bias may color my opinion, but: I don't think what Harris did was about

the distant past or even all that much about race. Busing was extremely unpopular at the time and a down vote could have been explained pretty easily.

For her is was clearly about achieving a breakaway moment with a surprise attack, which she did successfully. For spectators it is about seeing if Biden can nimbly navigating an unexpected and difficult question, which he failed at badly.

This was good for her and I would argue also could be good for him. The primaries are a time to tone up and prepare for the big match. Biden has been winging it - and it shows. He needs to get serious or he won't win the nomination, much less the presidency. Gentle treatment does him - or us - no favors.