to overcome the rancor of the primary and bring their supporters enthusiastically onboard.

Often hard core supporters of one candidate remain pitted against those of another (and sometimes against the winning candidate as well) regardless of the example set by the candidates themselves.

Every single one of them.

>>>>> Hate. <<<<<<

“Bernie or bust” ers. As far as 2008 after she was eliminated Hillary Clinton became a Team Obama player. Eight years later, at the 2016 Democratic National Convention when Obama and Hillary hugged you could see the affection they have for each other. That night gave me chills! 😃👍🏻

All of them.

Every single fucking one.

No one is entitled to any seat in politics, they have to prove they are the best person for the job. Primaries give the candidate a chance to explain their issues and bring people to their vision of America. The best vision and the person who hits all or most the issues that are important with the voters wins. It looks like we will have a great field to pick from.

And I agree that it is looking like we will have an exceptional field of potential presidential candidates in 2020. But they remain a form of elections, and elections have their dark as well as light sides to them. It has become virtually impossible to win any reasonably competitive election without some forces on "your side" engaging in the darker electoral arts, at least to some extent. That's true whether we like it or not. We can't afford to be naive and allow that to sour us to whoever emerges victorious or, to only a slightly lesser extent, on whoever comes close but falls short. The loser in a close primary still won a lot of support. We all have a role to play in reuniting our party, individual registered voters being a big part of that, behind our eventual November candidates.

but we don't have to hate the winner and the people who supported the winner. Neither do we have to hate the candidates who loose the primary.

It is however natural to hate the Republican winner.

why would any Democrat attempt to tie it to them? Should that candidate have to step down because of what someone else did? Do you think everyone knows everything that everyone they know or who works for them is doing?

But if there are repeated incidents that aren't dealt with it says something about how the campaign is run. If Bernie was smart he would announce how things were handled was a mistake and what he is going to do to prevent them from happening again.

aren't satisfied with his apology that's not his fault. Nothing he could possibly do about it would be good enough for people who don't like him.

And often, there seems to be a lack of control from the top.

Members of his data team accessed Clinton's New Hampshire data. Later on members of Bernie campaign team pretended to be members of the Vegas Culinary Workers union after the union had endorsed Clinton.


If the culture is a brogressive again these problems will remain.


I went to UVM. The term "Bernie Bro" is very accurate. There is a reason why Vermont hockey games are more diverse then crowds at Sanders rallies.

However, if he and his campaign handles things differently in 2020 then I will admit I am wrong.

Learning from our mistakes so we don't make them again.

Including his statement the other day about not knowing anything about a federal discrimination complaints lodged against his campaign by two staffers against another staffer, and that his campaign paid 30k to settle it?



There was plenty of interest in talking about revelations from the 2008 primary. And at the time she wasn't considering a run.

Sanders is a potential candidate - by his own admission. Vetting is very relevant, and will be more thorough now than ever. No one is exempt.

Is there a double standard? Female candidates are forced to resign, male get a pass?

Disgusting, isn't it?

If someone else ever did something then our guy can do it too, something like that

Hypocrisy isn't solely a potential failing of a candidate. It can also be a failure on the part of someone who raises a stink about something candidate A does but defends or remains silent about candidate B's behavior under similar circumstances.

Sure "Whataboutism" is sometimes used to deflect attention away from an important discussion of someone's (say a politician) negative behavior onto a discussion of someone else's negative behavior instead. But it also can illuminate when a double standard is being applied by some, calling into question motives. "Whataboutism" was highly relevant and valid vis a vis what Al Franken went through, used to expose the hypocrisy of some who were selectively eager to lynch him.

Personally, I'm staying away from discussions about any of our candidates past or present on this particular thread (other than the framing reference to the 2008 primary, which was negative toward neither candidate.) My OP isn't partisan in that sense. People obviously can discuss anything they want.

Last edited Fri Jan 11, 2019, 03:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Hillary had her own campaign sexual harrasment issue in 2008 where she did not fire the top aid who had been accused of sexual harrassment. He went on to work for a group supporting uer in 2016 where he was fired after another sexual harrasment claim.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/us/politics/hillary-clinton-chose-to-shield-a-top-adviser-accused-of-harassment-in-2008.html

No one cared here when that surfaced.

Kamala Harris had a top aid while she was AG who was accused by his assistant of sexual harrasment back in 2016-2017. He became a senior adviser in her Sacramento Senate office. The case was settled by her succesor around the time she took office in the Senate. The accuser was awarded 400k by the state and the Senator, who claimed she was unaware of the charges, fired the man.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Kamala-Harris-aide-resigns-after-sex-harassment-13447386.php

How does a women that intelligent in that type of top level postion not know her top aid has been accused of sexual harrasment of his assistent ?

Would it be the right thing to do to have half a dozen different members post threads about it every day ?

Are the 3 cases that dissimilar ? Is it a matter of liking one candidate and not the other ?

He's not a Democrat you know.

....each were one abuser and one victim, and they were both addressed as soon as they became known.

On the other hand there were many incidents, remember two dozen women signed that letter. And his campaign was characterized as "a pervasive culture of toxic masculinity".

It has nothing to do with the affiliation of any of the three, it has to do with the specifics of the three - the Clinton case and the Harris case are in no way similar to the Sanders cases (plural!).

I have no idea why the three are being compared, or even why the first two were even mentioned.

....that satisfied the victim. It wasn't kept quiet for two years. She didn't "shield" him. It was addressed to the satisfaction of the victim.

As for the Harris situation, she wasn't aware of the incident until around the date of that article to which you linked. Read the article.
The complaint wasn't even filed until after Harris left the DA position to be Senator.

Being a settlement between the state and the plaintiff, it had to be kept confidential and only those involved directly (i.e., the state and plaintiff) knew about it. Settlements like that have confidentiality clauses. Therefore Harris would NOT be aware of it.

Are you calling her a liar? You're really stretching to generate a similarity between the three which doesn't exist..

Also, the Clinton and Harris cases both were stand-alone cases, one abuser and one victim each. There weren't more than two-dozen individual cases, and the Clinton and Harris cases weren't characterized as a "pervasive culture of toxic masculinity" as has been done in the Sanders campaign.

It has nothing to do with liking one (or two) candidates and not the other. The first two are simply completely different from the third, and those two were addressed at the time.

a lot deflection and attempts at distraction from the reality of the staffers and women coming forward with their stories.

I will back everyone and vote for the eventual candidate.

"I see you". Good advice and a nice essay. Well written. I couldn't help but think of that picture of Pres Obama and Pres H. Clinton having a laugh sitting together. Obamas head down so he doesn't choke on his drink, and she w a big grin on her face.
Have a good weekend. It's Friday.