We shall see!

...

it makes me wonder why she is doing it. Stacey Abrams is perfectly capable of giving the rebuttal.

For example, she might repeat what the media fails to repeat and make clear:

In case Trump speaks about the wall and uses it to declare a National emergency, Kamala may want say THERE IS NO EMERGENCY AT THE BORDER:
Most crimes, per capita, are committed by US citizens (including Trump himself).
The wall only provides a payout to the Russian oligarch (crime boss) whom Trump has tapped to provide the steel.
Most immigrants who live here illegally fly into the US and overstay their visa.
Drug dealers send in drugs via sea, tunnels, sling shot, hidden containers.
Building the wall requires the taking of US citizen’s land via imminent domain

He stood up there and lied repeatedly about immigration and the wall.

You can be sure that there will be an army of trolls criticizing any democrat for anything! Don’t feed the trolls. I am thrilled that we have so many prominent democrats making comments and having their own media to carry them. Let’s have a robust discussion of great ideas!

What policies should be supported? Opposed? That sort of thing!

She is not doing a reponse to Trump's SOTU, she is doing an alternative to it, so she is not stepping on what Abrams is doing, which is a response to Trump's SOTU.

Bernie gets a free pass!

There you go....

You could call it a pre-rebuttal or just an alternative SOTU.

And that's the name of that tune.

We should be so fortunate to have newscasts filled with statements from the Democrats opposing Trump.

Instead of the person the Democratic Party chose.

And that's the name of that tune.

Before, during, and after the SOTU. We should be so lucky to fill up the airwaves rebutting Trump and flooding out the rightwing talking points

You make it sound like the news is "Here is our required two minutes of democratic coverage, and now back to Sarah Sanders..."

that she is trying to steal Abrams' thunder.

The game is obvious. But hey, it may work. It works for others. But IMO it's not respectful of another Democrat who was chosen to present the Democratic message. So I know who I won't vote for, for the nomination. I'm up to my ears in disrespectful behavior by politicians.

Are they not allowed to also rebut the President?

Abrams has the point slot and totally deserves it, but that shouldn't preclude anyone from being heard.

IMO. It's ego. (Note: Bernie isn't a Democrat; he's an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, and registers as a Dem.temporarily when he wants to run for President.)

This has never been done by any respectable politician, that I know of. It's positioning oneself to grab the news. Shows unbelievable ego. You think Obama would've done that? Never. He was confident in himself and would have waited for his own clear chance, and not interfered with the designated party speaker for that night.

But you have a different opinion. We have the right to have different opinions about it.

You are not making any sense. Do you truly see no difference between people commenting before Trump's SOTU, like Harris and others are doing, and holding yourself out as providing a response to Trump's SOTU, like Bernie is doing?

Bernie is claiming he is giving the response to Trump's SOTU.

What part of First African American woman giving the Democratic Response do you not understand? 

Why can't he let us look like we are unified, speaking with one voice in rebutting Trump tonight, of all nights? 

Why does he create the suggestion that Abram's rebuttal will be so inadequate that he must give his own, immediately following hers? 

Stacey Abrams is delivering the Democratic response.

....

...Bernie's last rebuttal to a Trump speech wasn't carried by anyone important, didn't upstage anything as I suggested it might.

This is a big yawn, except, perhaps for Harris fans who want to see what she thinks of the SOTU.

Link to tweet

Sheesh. All the piling on from politicians. Can't we just follow protocol and let the designated response by Abrams go ahead?

Its the official rebuttal after the SOTU which is better to be one clear consistent voice. Bernie will attempt to disrupt that.

She must be so full of herself to think her message needs to be put in front of the person invited by the Democratic Party to deal with the SOTU. How are we to be unified if anyone can talk at any time about this stuff!

/s

Or maybe just pretending.

...

...That's really hard for some people to accept, though, I guess. Frankly I don't care if she speaks before, after, or during the speech. I just expect equal outrage and so far I'm being let down.

"I'm f**king glad Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders are speaking out!"

even if they disagree, the more sane voices contradicting the liar in chief, the better.

the best policy : concentrate on what sanders, abrams, and harris agree on as points to help unify us against this monster.

...

seem almost like a put on, using a cartoonish perception of Democrats instead of what Democrats really are.

...

Fascinating--and very instructive--story behind him.

I do see this: https://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x1936778

Insinuated himself into this place by acting like the most democratty democrat that ever democratted and spent all of his time pitting people against each other here. Man, could he stir the shit, and he had quite the fan club here.

And then on election night of 2004, he outed himself as a freeper.

If you love your country and have the audience then it’s fucking time to speak out against the Mobster president every single time he shows his face or opens his mouth. I call that patriotism.

Harris' statement will be on Facebook. Stacy Abrams' rebuttal—the official Democratic rebuttal—will (presumably) be televised.

Stop putting down our Dem candidates.

His social media event is after Abrams tv event. Does he use his super powers to go back in time?

One steals the spotlight from Trump, the other steals the spotlight from Abrams.

Democrats are making a powerful statement without anyone uttering a word at the State of the Union address tonight. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will sit on the dias behind Trump; Stacey Abrams, who narrowly missed becoming Georgia’s first black woman governor, will deliver the Dems’ official response. And now White House aspirant Kamala Harris is set to deliver what’s being called a “prebuttal” address live on Facebook before the event.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/feb/05/trump-state-of-the-union-news-live-latest-updates-democrats-sotu?page=with:block-5c59ce12e4b04a6f567d9670#block-5c59ce12e4b04a6f567d9670

to Facebook, YouTube or Twitter to watch any of these? Or will even know they are happening?

to the SOTU sham over the next several days.

Now I know who NOT to vote for, for the nomination.

Harris is in essence doing an alternative SOTU. Abrams is doing the Dem RESPONSE to Trump's SOTU. Harris is not trying to steal Abram's thunder, by claiming it is a response to Trump's SOTU. That is what Sanders is doing. So that must mean you're not voting for Sanders either, eh?

She will be rightly be shown exclusively on cable and broadcast giving the official Dem response.

Whereas, he will be speaking after she does and only online. Cable and broadcast outlets will not be covering him.

Link to tweet

What part of First African American woman giving the Democratic Response do you not understand?

Why can't he let us look like we are unified, speaking with one voice tonight, of all nights?

Why does he create the suggestion that Abram's rebuttal will be so inadequate that he must give his own, immediately following hers?

So this is no longer about stealing thunder or spotlight but gender and race. Got it.

interfering or competing with Abrams giving “the Democratic response”.

Was there actually some problem with three of our leaders giving great responses to the SOTU? What calamity resulted? Why were people here so determined to create controversy over this?

It implied her response was inadequate. And it was tone deaf, considering she is the first African American woman to give the Democratic response.

Couldn't he wait just 12 fucking hours?

There was no "calamity," except to Bernie's campaign. But it was still tone deaf and disrepecful. That is how many African Americans saw it. Stating this fact is not an attempt to create controversy. Bernie created the controversy.

Link to tweet

a 12 hour buffer around it? Not 8? 4 wouldn’t do? Perhaps 12 wasn’t enough? How do you determine how big a buffer Abrams needed?

She gave a great rebuttal. I still fail to see how Sanders on YouTube after her tv appearance interfered with her speech at all. In fact I think it is patronizing and perhaps racist to argue that Abrams needed protection from Sanders.

You don't respect someone because they are "weak" or need "protection." You respect someone because they deserve it, like Abrams does. Abrams deserved the spotlight this evening for the response to Trump.

If you and Bernie can't understand why what he did was racially tone deaf and disrespectful, I can't help you.

Good night.

tv broadcast steal the spotlight from Joe Kennedy last year?

Now granted Bernie did not have much of an actual audience, but the press still reported on him, like they always do. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/02/06/bernie-sanders-state-of-the-union-response-2019-economy-sot-vpx.cnn

Media space on a topic like SOTU responses is limited. Stories spent reporting on Bernie's response to Trump necessarily takes away from stories on Abram's response to Trump.

So, he stole some of her spotlight, even if a little. That was disrespectful to the first African American woman to give the Democratic response.

And with regard to Joe Kennedy, he was not the first white male to give the Dem response. There was not the same historical context to it, so Bernie stepping on his spotlight did not have the same racial tone deafness aspect and disrespect to it, so it did not receive the same level of criticism. But Bernie's response then still served to steal some of Kennedy's spotlight, however small.

Not surprising at all. I've sensed it throughout. During a long campaign you need to know when to accelerate and when to brake. I think Kamala Harris would be too much of a one-gear type

In fact, we need more senators to speak out about this horror that is Trump.

...

Kamala Harris before, Stacy Abrams after. This is so perfect!

....wants to steal the spotlight from Stacey Abrams ....


https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100211772676

Kamala Harris may grow into a good candidate eventually. I don't believe she is there as of now. It seems to me like she has presented herself as an Elizabeth Warren wannabe without having the record to back that claim up.

Elizabeth Warren is the real deal and has been for her entire political life.

They are making decisions toward energizing a base and winning a nomination, while I'm focusing on instincts required in a long general election battle against an incumbent.

and the speeches haven't even begun. I won't be watching anyone but Stacey Abrams.

I like Kamala and could imagine someday voting for her for something. But I'm not looking at ANY candidates this early. I'll let at least a dozen weed out before I start examining those who are becoming potentially viable.

...