She is a Democrat. She does not have followers who claim anything was stolen from her. Nor has she whined about the DNC. She has no history of trashing Democrats.

I would add that Harris made her comments before the speech and didn't try to steal the spotlight by giving it after.

so it looks like endless revisionist history to pretend to deny it.

she's not bashing any individual. She also appears to be defending some charge that she got advantages from the DNC.

The headline: Clinton slams New York Times, DNC, Comey for her loss

Claiming they rigged the nomination for Hillary. After all that, they failed her in the general according to her.

that they are now using against her. Typical revisionist history.

I figured as much.

Due to her history vs. Bernie's, her speech is less critic-worthy. Plus it was before the SOTU.

oh well

Who he had previously endorsed.

And he didn't put down the DNC or call the D party oligarchic? Most commendable.

+1

Harris did a prequel slot and left the actual "response" to the officially designated Abrams.

Sanders spoke opposite Abrams. It is seen as further dividing the messaging and stepping on an AA up-and-comer.

Not saying I feel strongly about it but that is the reason.

... at least that was the plan. I'm not sure what really happened.

There was a thread on DU yesterday with about 978 hyperventilating replies, excoriating Sanders for scheduling his rebuttal opposite Abrams... pointing out how he "just doesn't get it," will never get any support from POC, etc.

I'm sure all those posters returned later to self-delete their posts and will make sure they have their facts straight before jumping into such a feeding frenzy next time.

Are you going to criticize him for that too?

He criticized Trump and specially praised Abrams who he had endorsed.

I listened last night. He criticized Trump and particularly praised Abrams who he had previously endorsed.

First it was: Oh my god he’s going to speak at the same time as her! (Literal fake news. He didn’t.)
Then it was: BUT UNITY!!! (Suggesting that his response, which wasn’t be televised, wasn’t concurrent with, and you have to actively go looking for, will somehow detract from the official Democratic response.)
Then it morphed into: Why does he feel the need to talk after Stacy Abrams in particular? Perhaps, sexist-racist!(Well this is the third time he’s done it so it’s not her.)

Ultimately it was just two elected officials putting their thoughts on their own social media outlets. Who cares?

The same people who were outraged at Sanders weren’t at Harris, despite her addressing the same subject, on the same platform, BEFORE Abrams...because her name isn’t Sanders.

Once you boil down the complaints it really just becomes the fact that’s Bernie did something, somewhere, at some time that set people off.

For some, the man is spawned from the devil and can do nothing right.

If you're an actual dyed in the wool progressive, like me, regardless of whether you're a fan of the man himself, I don't see how you could NOT have loved Bernie's address. He freakin' killed it.

I'm not saying 'he should be the nominee' or anything, far from it. But the man knows how to articulate the shit I care about ... WELL. I'm forever happy 'he's around' even if he's not PERFECT on every issue.

BTW, I think he's very wise to use the phrase 'GUN SAFETY REGULATIONS' instead of 'GUN CONTROL' ... it's a far, far smarter framing. Other Dems could really learn from that.

Have thought for a while there's more than a whiff of anti-Semitism at play in the sheer irrational hatred of Bernie as well

Most is simply a "derangement" issue, but, yes, I too feel there is a stench of anti-Semitism with some "concerns" about Sanders.

Some remain

I haven't watched Bernie's response and I only caught a bit of Abrams last night as the dumpster fire had to speak so damn slowly and took forever. From what I heard I liked what she said and as a fan of Bernie I'm sure his speech was great too.

Remember that it's usually the same folks who constantly bombard every mention of him in any post to blame him personally for Hillary losing in 2016. To them him not doing an ad with Hillary once is more damaging than the voter suppression from Republicans and interference from Russia on Trump's behalf.

Exactly. Your line sums it up perfectly:

"Once you boil down the complaints it really just becomes the fact that’s Bernie did something, somewhere, at some time that set people off."

An irrational circular firing squad.

She did a prequel.

...before Abrams.

“But DU didn’t push back against the Democratic response to the SOTU as much as against the Independent response”

As a member of Democratic Underground how, exactly, is it that this fact is capable of surprising you?

To be fair, Bernie has done his response for the last 3 SOTU's.

Kamala made a statement PRIOR to the SOTU. No big deal... imo.

However, Bernie on the other hand assumed that the formal Dem response by Abrams was not going to be good enough so he had to add his. Typical of the man who thinks he is smarter than everyone else.

The more voices speaking out against Trump’s agenda the better. And Bernie congratulated Abrams speech at the start of his speech.

He always seems to want to stick his finger in Democrats eyes. I am tired of him.

If he gave a speech the day after the SOTU speech, you’d be asking why couldn’t he wait two days?
I’m a Democrat, and I love his speeches. He knows his facts and statistics front, back and sideways.

"Some people defend their sacred cows no matter what they do...."

What did Bernie do or say in his speech last night that was wrong? Or is it just the fact that it was Bernie doing or saying it?

enough, so he had to add his...."

And you know this, how, if I mat ask?

Kennedy II , Elizabeth Guzman, Maxine Waters, Donna Edwards and Sanders.

Typing error.

-- Kennedy was the official response.
-- Guzman's was the official Spanish language response
-- Waters was for the BET network
-- Edwards was for the Working Families Party.
-- Bernie was for himself on social media.

The party sends dozens of surrogates out to put spin on the speech.

I mean they even have a “spin room” ffs.

However, the others appear to have had legitimate reasons for separate responses.

Bernie's seems to have been more about himself.. as usual.

Always has to be in the limelight

Harris also did not lead a group of rabid and vocal opposers to any Democratic presidential candidates.

rabid and vocal opposers were democratic voters, yes?

More Bernie supporters voted for Hillary than puma's voted for Obama. A tiny fraction may have voted for Trump sure. But the vast vast majority of us voted for our Democratic candidate.

...at this point, do you NOT realize that the "bernie bros" were a Russian op?

Many were bots. But many more were just people annoyed by "social justice" who picked up the bot flag and ran with it.

...I'm talking a few dozen people at a minimum.

Do you work and socialize in Minsk?

Fortunately, our candidate in 2008 was popular enough to overcome the PUMA nonsense. And, AFAIK, Russia had no involvement in that movement - it was organic.

...not a fairweather Democrat who just uses our moniker when running for president, then abandons it in defeat.

Surely they would not do such a thing!

might suggest to some that to move beyond that, those who were part of the 2016 election perhaps would be best if they stepped aside to allow those who were not part of 2016 to lead the way, and avoid the divisions from 2016 that are very much present

One is a Democratic candidate for president who posted a video prior to the SOTU, and encouraged her audience to tune in for Stacey's rebuttal. Candidates for president are naturally going to post videos on all sorts of occasions over the next 2 years.

The other is an Independent Senator who is not running for president (at least not yet), who posted a rebuttal after the SOTU even though the party he belongs to when it's convenient had already designated Abrams to give the official rebuttal. Was Sanders representing the Independent Party? Or what exactly was his purpose?

Anyway, these are not one in the same. Not even close. I don't know why anyone would be confused about this.

inequality. He’s passionate and knowledgeable on the subject. Glad he’s keeping our attention on it. If you don’t like him, don’t listen to him.

You seem to have missed my point and the point of this thread.

even when he doesn’t deserve it. I feel like he supported Abrams rebuttal with a lot of statistics and facts. And it was great how he pointed out that Repubs aren’t passing, or even discussing, financial reforms desired by a majority of Americans.