What do Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Al Gore and Bill Clinton have in common?

[Tom Rinaldo]

Yes, they were the last four Democratic Party candidates for President who won the popular vote. And none of them helped Jon Ossoff before the Georgia special election either. Neither did any living former Democratic President or Vice President - that adds Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden to the list. Nor did any living former Democratic Party candidate for President or Vice President - that adds Mike Dukakis, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards and Tim Kaine to the list. But why stop there? Far as I can tell neither did any living former Democratic Party runner up for the Presidential nomination - that adds Bill Bradly and Bernie Sanders to the...

Whoa! Did I just add Bernie Sanders to that list? Surely that must merit its own DU thread attacking him for not helping Jon Ossoff, and Lo, there indeed is one, and it got 122 DU Recs. I could also have added to the above list leading contenders for the 2020 Democratic Party Presidential nomination, and mentioned Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand, and Sherrod Brown, and Al Franken, and Amy Klobuchar, and Andrew Cuomo, and Martin O'Malley, and Cory Booker etc, none of whom to my knowledge helped Jon Ossoff either - but I don't have a definitive list of leading Democratic contenders for the 2020 nomination. Besides I had enough to make my point.

I think DU has experienced a significant outbreak of Sanders Derangement Syndrome. And I don't say that simply because there have been multiple posts that express criticism of him. I certainly don't say that because some people have criticisms to make against Bernie Sanders. There are numerous points that can be made with varying degrees of justification that are not wholly flattering either to Bernie, or his political endeavors. He's fair game like every other Democrat or politician who caucuses with Democrats (maybe if I looked hard enough I could find a thread critical of Angus King here).

DURING THE 2016 PRIMARY SEASON there were lots and lots of DU threads critical of both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. There were really nasty ones about each. There was some reasonable criticism of each also. And then the primaries ended, and then we had a nominee and primary season officially ended at DU. I just counted 8 threads on the first two pages of this forum that at root are critical of Bernie Sanders - and I left off a couple that take more glancing swipes at him. Conversely there are none there that are directly critical of Hillary Clinton, and only one that perhaps could be considered "veiled" criticism of her politics. My point again isn't that there is nothing of any merit that can be said negative about Bernie Sanders. There are positive things said of him here also but he is after all, according to our DNC Chair and our Congressional leadership, generally on our side. My point is that there is more said negative about Bernie Sanders on DU than is being said about any other figure in American politics with the exception of Donald Trump.

There are more negative comments on DU toward Bernie Sanders than there are here toward Mike Pence, or Paul Ryan, or Steve Bannon, or Mitch McConnell, or Rush Limbaugh, or Ted Cruz etc. There is even more said negative toward Bernie here than there is toward Joe Manchin - and that's sayng something. Bernie Sanders is more than just a controversial figure who some have reason to be displeased with for some of the things he says or does, or doesn't say or do. He won 45% of the votes in our last presidential primary. He has millions upon millions of supporters who like him for what he is, and who wanted him to represent our Party as our candidate for President. Yes I am one of those people, but I don't find Bernie Sanders infallible. He makes mistakes. He can be criticized. His way forward may not be the best way forward. There is room to disagree.

But DU is looking more and more like it used to last Spring, except only one side remains on the attack.

[L. Coyote]

1. Cool it on the divisiveness and exacerbating #TrumpRussia inflicted wounds.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. I'm not calling out anyone pesonally, and I accept that Sanders is fair game for criticism

There are good DUers with divergent views on Sanders who have gotten caught up in this. I know it ain't just trolling. Yes I agree we need to cool it on divisiveness. That's why I am not playing extended ping pong with anyone on anti-Sanders threads. It's also why I positively commented on two pro Hillary threads in recent days. I would just like to remind people that just because it is possible to find something negative to say about someone it is not always helpful to jump on every opportunity to do so.

[delisen]

60. Question: Who do you think is the base of the Democratic Party?

Or do you not think in terms of a base.

Do you think the Democratic Party has certain core values which define it or are these flexible.


Aside from that I am not sure that you hear what I am hearing-a sense of demoralization among Democrats when some of Sanders comments on tour are reported in media, even on NPR news reports.

Possibly he can do his outreach without these comments and still reach his objectives.

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. Of the Democratic Party or the Democratic Coalition?

I assume you mean the former but I think the latter group is the most significant when it comes to winning elections, given that less than a third of the public identifies themselves as Democrats. I would say that the Green Party, for example, has the luxury of not having to reach out for support beyond its membership (or if they do they really suck at it) so they can reach an internal consensus on a platform and then expect strong internal cohesion from their members. The Democratic Party, however, attempts to build a governing coalition and to do so also relies on voters who do not self identify as Democrats.

Speaking personally as a Democrat approaching his 50th anniversary within the Party, over the last three decades in particular I have not infrequently wondered if the Democratic Party always holds to core values or whether it has shown too much "flexibility" regarding them. My doubts coincided with the rise of "New Democrats" and the DLC. They manifest on matters such as "welfare reform" and "mandatory minimum sentencing" and "the war on drugs". They popped up in regards to our tepid at best support for Organized Labor, and our willingness to embrace international trade pacts that championed "globalization" and "free trade" with insufficient regard to environmental and labor rights as our largest corporations exploited a subsequent "race to the bottom" effect that pitted the most desperate workers world wide against those only slightly less desperate somewhere else.

I do understand how when some of "Sanders comments on tour are reported in media, even on NPR news reports" they can feed some demoralization among some Democrats. Can you understand how some of them can also contribute to a sense of new hope for the Democratic Party's future identity among some other current Democrats? Both phenomena are real. he bottom line though is that Bernie Sanders is an important part of the Democratic Party Coalition, though he is not a Democratic Party member. He is not only speaking to registered Democrats, and neither is the DNC by the way. The Democratic Party continually reaches out to voters who are not registered Democrats in order to win the votes necessary to elect Democrats to positions of power in America. We can not afford to stop doing so.

[David__77]

2. The winds will most assuredly shift.

...

[nycbos]

5. Obama, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore aren't popular in that district.

It is likely their involvement would have hurt Ossoff

[safeinOhio]

16. Hillary did pretty good, but I'm sure

She helped out.

[Honeycombe8]

51. Gore wouldn't be much help. I excuse the Clintons & Obama....they're TIRED!!!

The Clintons just went through one of the most grueling attack phases in our history, and it lasted a year at least. They are TIRED and spent at this point. They're not robots.

I excuse Obama for similar reasons. He's been going through his own trials & tribulations with Trump's slanderous allegations, and he's off on a looooong vacation after eight very difficult years. Give him a few months off. He's out of politics now.

Thing is...there aren't few leaders in the Democratic Party right now who carry a lot of weight with voters.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. There were extra forces against Hillary also that she bears no responisbility for

I am always quick to acknowledge that. Whether or not she could have run a better campaign can always be debated but at this point that debate is most useful when when engaged in by campaign professionals who always need to draw lessons from defeats. Blaming Bernie though doesn't help anything. I too voted for Hilary in November. I want Democrats to win and I don't want to continue with a circular firing squad.

[mikeysnot]

22. The media

they did her in. Handed trump a bullhorn and put Hillary under the microscope...

[StevieM]

26. Neither Hillary, nor anybody supporting her, ever said that it was her "turn."

100 percent of the time that this argument was made it was being said by Sanders supporters about Clinton and her backers. They attributed the sentiment to us and to her, having heard us advocate that point of view exactly zero times.

Simply put, it was a smear. It was a way of belittling the campaign of HRC and the intellectual integrity of those who were backing her.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. I agree with you.

It is true that people tend to move up through the ranks in all areas of life, and attention (and some expectations) does fall on those who are nearing the top. But that is natural and not the same as someone "getting their turn"

But more important it is clearly not helpful for anyone to pull that out now when we need to regroup and not tear at old wounds. People backed Hillary Clinton because they wanted her to be President. Period. There were plenty of good reasons for people to feel that way.

[StevieM]

40. Thank you for your kind words. It makes me feel united as a party when Sanders supporters

show respect to Secretary Clinton and acknowledge her accomplishments.

As a way of continuing the Era of Good Feelings let me provide you with a link to my 4000th post, which I put up last year.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027803980

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. An excellent way to mark that event. n/t

[StevieM]

29. And it is absurd to blame HRC alone for her defeat. She was smeared by a corrupt FBI and a Russian

hacking operation. No candidate has ever been up against that before.

Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley would have had a hard time living down an FBI that deliberately set out to destroy their reputation in order to help elect their Republican opponent.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. I absolutely agree. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. "She alone is responsible for her defeat". I'm going to assume that you've had no access to a.....

radio, tv machine or a computer in a LLLLOOOONNNNGGG time. That's the only rational explanation for a statement like that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Only in the sense of "the buck stops here" is there any grain of truth in it

A candidate should never shift all blame for a loss away from her or himself. But Hillary has not done so. Compare that to Donald Trump who blames the media for why he didn't win every state, even after he got inaugurated.

[Control-Z]

8. None of them hold public office?

"What do Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Al Gore and Bill Clinton have in common?"

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. True enough. Unlike Kaine and Warren and a lot of others n/t

[rock]

10. None of them are politicians

Did I get it right?

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Sure, among many possible correct answers

They are all also American mammals

[SalviaBlue]

12. Great post! These anti-Bernie, anti (small-d) democratic posts need to stop.

Hey Skinner, clean up is needed on GD aisle.

[JHan]

13. None of them hold the position as "Head of Democratic Outreach"?

[SaschaHM]

15. Nor are they giving interview after interview. Speech after speech. Townhall after townhall.

If Bernie wants to fade away like an ex-President/former nominee, I'd be fine with that. If he's intent on staying in the spot light and pushing his agenda, I expect him to take action.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. For the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus you mean?

That's the position Sanders holds. Are you suggesting, perhaps, that the only reason why no Democratic Senators have done anything to help in that Congressional race is because Bernie won't give them the green light to help? If he is blocking them all from doing so he deserves some scorn for that

[JHan]

23. So his leadership position is .. for what exactly?

I know what I expect from the head of democratic outreach. He is on a tour with Perez. He stated he's campaigning for Mello because it's important for Dems to make inroads in red areas. How different is that situation to Ossoff's?

I don't expect him to crawl in adoration of Ossoff but even I could think of ways to answer such a question if posed to me.

I am sure if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or Al Gore were interviewed and Ossoff's name came up they'd respond in a supportive manner.

I'm genuinely perplexed at the spin over something so incredibly simple - we expect high-profile allies to fight on our behalf right ?especially ones who have been given the mantle of outreach and yet we have these whataboutisms to try to rationalise inconsistencies in support?

Is Sanders rhetoric and approach now off limits for discussion?

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Lots of ways I can answer you

First off, to repeat a point I tried to make above, much as I like him Sanders isn't perfect. And those who do not tend to appreciate him that much from the start can probably come up with more ways they think he falls short of perfect than I would. From that perspective you argue that he really blew that answer to a question. OK, even if I fully agreed with you (more on that later) it doesn't change my basic point. Sanders didn't blast Ossoff, Trump did. He wasn't critical of positions Ossoff has taken. He didn't call him to task on anything. If you believe it was harmful to Ossoff that Sanders said he didn't know if Jon was progressive, than that is a fair thing to criticize him for. I agree, and said so above, that he is fair game for criticism.

You wrote above: "He stated he's campaigning for Mello because it's important for Dems to make inroads in red areas. How different is that situation to Ossoff's?"

For one thing that shouldn't just be glided right over. A seat pickup in any district is a seat pick up. So Bernie is actively working to help Democrats get closer to a Congressional majority using his own time and credibility in support of Mello. That is more than most are actively doing during these special election races. I personally think that had Sanders ben taped saying that he thinks Ossoff is a progressive it would have worked against Ossoff in his race. Sanders has been effective with rural working class voters who have defected from the Democratic Party in recent years and decades; everyone from Reagan Democrats to folks who supported Obama in 2008 or 1012 but went for Trump this time. That is not Ossoff's district.

It is suburban conservative and I think if those folks ever voted Democratic it was most likely before Nixon's Southern strategy. Either of our Virginia Democratic Senators might have helped out there, but I think Bernie identifying himself with Ossoff would have hurt him more than helped.

But my biggest point is that even if you grant that Bernie blew it there - he still takes the field with our team in the Senate and there are millions of Democrats who really like him, and constant non stop criticism of Bernie and Bernie alone among politicians in our caucus begins to have an adverse effect on our unity well beyond any unhelpful comments some accuse him of making. It's a forest and the trees type thing. Any single attack on Bernie can be justified to varying degrees, but step back and look at the DU forest. What sense does it make and what good does it do our coalition to make him the second most vilified politician on our forum?

[JHan]

55. Ok, so we agree that he could have answered the question better,

but that's not just it. I am not gliding over his support of Mello, it's important to reference for a couple reasons..

As much as I find Mello's views on abortion reprehensible, Democrats need to make inroads in conservative districts and Sanders has said that there's room for compromise on Abortion. So Sanders is capable of pragmatism and compromise even though he's attacked such approaches in the past. Water under the bridge I suppose yet...

He applied a purity test in that interview, it's not as though that's news for us is it?, which is why Ossoff responded today that he has no time for purity tests, leaving it to the pundits to define who he is. Sanders also said he will not support a Democrat simply because of the D behind their name because not all democrats are progressive, yet Mello's stance on abortion isn't exactly progressive, so how does this work?

And I will point out when Sanders does something off. There's a lot I have had to make peace with where Sanders is concerned, which I will not rehash here, but if I see ridiculous criticisms of the democratic party and empty sloganism that doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny I will draw attention to it and question it. Drawing attention to it, and even asking about it, is not being divisive, is not "hating" on Sanders, it is me doing my duty as a democrat.

We're all in this to rid this country of conservative policy that has wrecked states and is, right now, wrecking our government. That is the only objective I care about.

[OKNancy]

14. None of the past candidates have said negative dismissive things except one

Sanders dismissed Ossoff and he also has ranted against the party that Ossoff belongs to.

How about just admitting his faults and weaknesses and move on? He's no saint and I understand completely why many Democrats are dismayed and irritated with his latest pronouncements.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Nancy the best way to move on

isn't to proclaim strong sympathy for whoever may be dismayed by Sanders and then expect everyone who appreciates him to simply shut up. It doesn't work that way, honest. I already admitted that he's no saint. That didn't seem to help in this case, you are still actively dismissing him.

[OKNancy]

21. yes it's true

I dismiss him. I have really grown to despise him. This is the first and only time on DU that I will post this feeling.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Fair enough

More than fair actually. I sincerely respect your need to share those strong feelings then (not that you need my approval). You are not one of the ones who takes repeated shots at Sanders at every conceivable opportunity to do so.

[SaschaHM]

18. So now Sanders...

has the same national profile as ex-presidents and former nominees?

If he wants to retire and fade away from the political scene, I will be the first to throw a celebratory party. However, he's part of the Democratic congressional leadership. He's giving interview after interview. He's on a damn tour with the head of the DNC. His profile is high and his words carry weight.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. I ran down a long list of high profie Democrats and started at the top.

Then we got down to future contenders In the specific district that we are talking about help from virtually any of them would be more valuable than anything Bernie could offer. I honestly think Bernie's endorsement would be counter productive there.

[zentrum]

19. Agree with you Tom.

It's suddenly felt very weird around here.

[C Moon]

28. That's for sure. It was very sudden. Almost like a planned attack on DU.

[zentrum]

45. I know Louise Mensch

.....has attacked him as a Russian agent because he wouldn't say Ossoff was a progressive, or something like that. So maybe the affection for her around here is the reason it's happening?

I've decided to ignore it.

[padfun]

25. I'm one who agree's with the OP

Good post. There are some here that I will not reply to since that would get me banned.

BTW, I voted for Hillary.

[fleabiscuit]

30. Other than innuendo, prove the help. nt

[BigBearJohn]

31. Thanks for this post, Tom. I would trust Bernie with my life and I could care less what ANYBODY says

Bernie could have used Hillary's email problem against her and trounced on her, but
he took the high road. I thank God we have politicians who have the caliber of Bernie,
Hillary, Elizabeth and Franken. I am making a habit of placing on ignore anyone on DU who
attacks Bernie. I don't attack Hillary. If we can't stick together now, we really do
deserve whatever we get in 2018 and beyond. GOOD GRIEF.

[Nevernose]

33. I wonder who stands to gain the most...

...when Liberals aren't standing together?

[BainsBane]

57. That's a message

I would like to see conveyed to Sanders. The idea that concerns of a citizens on message board about one man must be silence to promote unity, while a politician's statements condemning the party on television are treated as gospel, tells me the call for unity has absolutely nothing to do with the electoral prospects of Democrats.

Democratic unity is not promoted by demanding citizens remain silent when the Democratic party and their concerns are attacked by a politician. I understand that for many, the party matters less than Bernie's career. But let's cut the pretense that has anything to do with party unity, when the goal has been to demand citizen acquiescence to him, including his attacks on the party. Conformity and silence are not unity, though that is exactly what we have seen advocated. Demanding I obey Bernie and remain silent as he dismisses issues and rights that are important to me is about asserting dominance, not unity.

The refusal to consider that anyone but Sanders supporters have any legitimate concerns as citizens is divisive, as is holding support for him up as a gauge to determine someone's worth. People have legitimate concerns, and in dismissing them the clear message is that our lives are worth less.

[bucolic_frolic]

35. "Helping" a candidate has to be strategic

it's not just load all your assets on a bus and go campaign. The voting public
is turned off by heavyweights from outside the district treading on their turf.
It seems presumptive, and treats locals like a bunch of incompetents.

Then there is the candidate. You don't force a prescription for success candidates.
They have brains, and ideas, and have to live with, jive with, want your help.

If you deploy your best assets and lose, that's worse. You've signaled that voters
are turning against you.

Many a President has tried to influence midterm elections, and had their clocks
vacuumed out.

Besides, Democrats are supposed to be grass roots, that's the whole idea!

So I don't agree with very much of the OP. But keep on pluggin!

[NoMoreRepugs]

38. If more people don't stop looking back

rather than ahead the progressive/liberal movement is going to have to watch Rethugs in power for a long time. This is the fight for the future, put the big boy pants on and get into the melee......

[George II]

41. What's your point? How many of those you mention are heading up Democrats' outreach effort?

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. For the Senate Democratic caucus?

Did all of our Senate Democrats need Bernie Sanders to kick their ass to go down to Georgia to help? Some of them probably could have helped there much more than they would have hurt. Personally, in a southern heavily Republican suburban district whose voters weren't buying Trump's fake populist message (Price way outperformed Trump in that district), it really wasn't Bernie turf. I think Jon is helped by Sanders keeping his distance there and not giving the Republicans a leftist sound bite endorsement to use against him.

[George II]

54. Why is he touring with the Democratic National Committee chairman?

[George II]

56. Whether they did or not, chances are they knew whether or not he was a progressive. Sanders?

[IronLionZion]

44. Punish Democrats First!

Purge and purify it down to a party of 0. That'll teach em

DU had a whole postmortem forum after the election to analyze what went wrong and learn lessons from our mistakes.

[lark]

46. Totally off the mark.

If you think that the derisive remarks about Sanders are even in the same universe as the pithy remarks about Hair Furor, you may be just selectively reading posts. Almost all threads have nasty and deserved remarks about the so-called president. It may just seem that way to you since you obviously like Bernie. I still like his policies a lot and voted for him in the primaries.

There is one point you aren't taking into account - Bernie is head of Outreach, it's his job to promote progressive candidates and instead he promotes an anti-abortion candidate and ignores the true progressive in GA. This is news and has been showing up a lot lately, but it will blow over and we should go back to the way it was after the primaries and up until recently where we didn't see his name unless it was for something good he'd done or said. Hopefully he'll support all Dem progressives in the future or take a different job and let someone else do that.

[DanTex]

47. I'll take "none of them are part of the Democratic leadership right now". How'd I do?

My second answer would be: none of them said that Joel Ossoff might not be progressive enough to be worth supporting.

[Astraea]

48. sick of the anti-Sanders bs too

nt

[BainsBane]

49. I think you make some good points

Last edited Thu Apr 20, 2017, 07:43 PM - Edit history (1)

but I suggest you consider why there has been a proliferation of those threads. It is in reaction to: threads insisting Sanders is the head of the Democratic Party; threads insisting any positive developments were entirely because of him (erasing activism by hundreds of thousands, even millions of citizens in the process); demands that no criticism of him is acceptable; and his many public condemnations of the party, which are in turn treated as gospel by his supporters on this site.

Bernie remains a divisive figure. Some adore him. Others dislike him. Yet those of us who don't care for him are told that the audacity to question him on ANYTHING means that we are "corporatists" or trolls.

This is the only time I have seen anyone acknowledge that any criticism of Sanders is acceptable. If people had adopted that position earlier on, if they were willing to treat him as a public servant rather than someone who must not be questioned, I don't think you would see the reaction you have.

That said, none of it compares to the level of vitriol against Clinton that dominated this site for a very long time. Those threads are less prevalent now because Clinton has kept a low profile, while Sanders has made a continual string of television appearances in which he has criticized the party and trivialized the concerns of its base (ie. identity politics and wedge issues). The fact is all of us don't see our interests linked to white male prosperity. Some of us value equality more broadly, not just in term of a demographic that already earns twice the median income. As a result, we don't see Sanders as our champion. That he has again chosen to support a pro-life candidate only reinforces those concerns. Don't expect me to support someone who treats my rights as disposable or negotiable because it is never going to happen.

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. I'm kind of out of time for now

I want to give your reply the attention it deserves but this is a quickie I will try to return to later.

Hillary supporters got a lot of real crap on DU during the primaries. So did Bernie supporters be the way but we all mostly remember "incoming". It all left scars. I have an interesting history regarding this. For most of the 2008 primary season I was backing Hillary on DU. I switched to Obama when it became really obvious to me Hillary couldn't win (right after she lost the Oregon primary). I was a very active and pretty effective advocate for Hillary though neither she nor Obama were among my initial top choices for the nomination. So I was just detached enough to keep some perspective. The attacks back and forth were vicious.

Because I was a strong Clinton advocate initially I blogged alongside some who were really devoted to her. Some of them were really angry with me for acknowledging before Hillary conceded that she could not win. Some of them went on to become PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass) and they never were able to back Obama - even Hillary becoming Secretary of State wasn't enough for some of them. But DU moved on.

This time around I think most of the DUers who really could not stand Hillary are gone from here now, some voluntarily and some non voluntarily. For the most part the few that remain just don't go there anymore with Hillary. We still all argue over the future of the Party at DU but that is something that should be debated.

There are some pro Hillary threads still posted at DU, and for the most part they don't get trashed anymore. They don't turn into 200 post marathons with the same group of posters barging in to repeat talking points against Hillary, even though she too remains a controversial figure to many. If the pro Bernie threads at DU were mostly ignored by those who don't respect him - not completely mind you, just merely not swarmed over. This place would settle down a lot. What draws out the knives always is when someone who has a strong following on DU gets repeatedly attacked.

I have gotten more involved, posting threads like this one, because of that. Negative threads bread negative discussions, breed negative feelings, breed more negative threads, then also more "in your face" positive ones. It's a viscous circle and we are in that now. I have taken some pains in this thread to acknowledge that Bernie has flaws and that Hillary has strengths.

I've been through the DU Dean/Clark primary wars, and the DU Clark/Edwards primary wars, and the DU Obama/Clinton primary wars and then the DU Clinton/Sanders primary war. I've seen hard feelings linger - but never before have I seen such sustained overt attacks against a leading figure on our side as this time, months after the elections all are over

I'll repeat something I wrote earlier. Sure Sanders is fair game for reasonable criticism, but why is he the second most vilified political figure on DU, by a mile, while the Republican Party is destroying our nation? Simply stated may I suggest that it is counter productive.

[BainsBane]

64. Interesting perspective.

And I agree we would do better to ignore the threads. I have his name on auto trash but tend to get pulled into threads through the front page or jury duty. I must do better because I've wasted far too much time.

I think he is vilified precisely because he is so divisive. I initially argued to Clinton supporters that they not blame Bernie for Clinton's loss. Yet he soon because so public and frequent with his recriminations, he made it difficult to ignore him.

While I appreciate and agree with him on a number of the issues he raises, on some issues his influence has been to move a large group of voters to the right. Since those are issues that most directly affect my daily life, that concerns me. I'd feel a lot better if his supporters would say I admire Bernie cecause of x, y, and z but disagree with him on q. We instead see contortions designed to defend him, with anything he says treated as infallible. Any criticism or even suspicions of inadequate devotion are fiercely patrolled. Frankly it scares the shit out of me.

[Jim Lane]

67. Bernie's overall influence has been to move the electorate to the left.

You write that "on some issues his influence has been to move a large group of voters to the right." I really don't see that.

Bernie was criticized for focusing too much on issues of class and economics and comparatively downplaying other matters. In the age of the sound bite, no politician can cover every issue in every speech, but, putting that aside, even if you buy that criticism, Bernie's denunciations of "millionaires and billionaires" certainly didn't move anyone to the right on social issues. The worst you could say is that it was a lost opportunity to move some to the left. (As for his position, years ago, in opposition to marriage equality, I recall hearing exactly the same thing from Hillary Clinton.)

What Bernie did do on those issues was to bring into the system many people, especially younger ones, who were already progressive on the issues but who had not been motivated to get involved politically, not even to the extent of voting. Causes like women's rights and LGBTQ rights are in better shape today because of Bernie's campaign.

You write, "Any criticism or even suspicions of inadequate devotion are fiercely patrolled." As someone who's had a couple posts removed because of insufficient Clintonolatry, I can certainly agree with that generalization, although of course not in the way you meant it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

71. One other observation

I admit to being bedeviled, to an extent, by all litmus test issues. I believe in them but then sometimes it is hard to thread through the mine field of eliminators they present to end up with a viable candidate to oppose a Republican who violates a slew of litmus test issues him or herself. Both Clinton and Sanders had exceptionally good records on "woman's issues" in Congress. Both offered leadership in that regard, but I agree that Hillary offered by far the most leadership of the two. Still Hillary has supported Pro-Life candidates in the past. Bob Casey, the Democratic Senator from PA, is one of them. In 2016Casey worked as a surrogate for Hillary:

"Soft-spoken Bob Casey grows into role as surrogate"

...But the Scranton native known for his mild manner has taken on a sharper tone as he stumps for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who also has ties to northeastern Pennsylvania. Casey is a top Democrat in a battleground state, making his advocacy even more crucial to her campaign...

Casey already has backed Clinton during her appearances here, with introductions at events in the primary and by promoting her remarks on terrorism following her event in Pittsburgh last month..."
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/mc-democratic-convention-bob-casey-clinton-20160726-story.html

Ed Reendell, former DNC Chair, Pennsylvania Governor and long time close associate of Hillary praised Casey's Democratic credentials in light of his "pro-life" position just a few weeks ago in this interview (embedded video of MSNBC interview at this ink):

"Ed Rendell Exposes Casey’s Recent Leftward Shift"
https://www.americarisingpac.org/ed-rendell-exposes-caseys-recent-leftward-shift/

Whether to support Omaha Mayor candidate Heath Mello may not be the easiest call, as a case in point for litmus tests. Bernie isn't alone in doing so however, the DC under Tom Perez does too. Here is Mello's recent comment:
The Democratic candidate for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska, told The Huffington Post on Thursday that if elected, he “would never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care.”.

The HuffPo story offers a good overview of the controversy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/omaha-mayoral-candidate-under-fire-says-he-would-never-do-anything-to-restrict-access-to-reproductive-health-care_us_58f8e868e4b018a9ce590a84

[BainsBane]

79. Bernie presents himself as better

As the arbiter of progressivism. He has through a series of statements and actions that women's reproductive rights are not a priority. I do not have time to look up Casey's record, but that really isn't what concerns me. I care whether progressives will stand up for women's rights or if their movement is about the increased prosperity of white men at the expense of rights and greater poverty for women. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028958175#post45

[nini]

52. If people would quit bringing him up like he's the freaking savior of the world

Maybe those who see through him won't have anything to answer?????

[mwooldri]

53. One reason why JackpineRadicals.com came to being.

2016 Hillary Vs Bernie was AWFUL. Bernie supporters sought sanctuary from the toxic place DU became. I didn't hang around there long because it got too anti-Hillary for my liking.

Please let us go after Trump, Pence, Sessions, Ryan, McTurtle and a whole ton of other Republicans who are doing real damage to the country RIGHT NOW.

[emulatorloo]

58. Sorry, those folk brought egregious rightwing sources to DU in order to smear Democrats

BreitBart, Fox, right-wing cartoonists, etc.

Another reason JPR came to be is they wanted a place to call Hillary a cunt without any pushback.

I am a Bernie supporter. Most people on DU were Bernie supporters. There was no need for Bernie supporters to seek "sanctuary". We were the majority on DU.

Those folks were, by their behavior and actions, Bernie DETRACTORS. They detracting from Bernie's message.

I agree with you 2016 at DU was toxic, but a huge amount of of that toxicity came from those Bernie Detractors.

------

At any rate yes let's go after Trump, etc. I like Bernie a lot, but I think he makes gaffes a fair amt of the time. I think people need to sit back and give him a little slack when he sticks his foot in his mouth like this. His heart and head are in the right place.

[mwooldri]

65. +1 :) nt

[Jim Lane]

68. During the primary, there was toxicity from both sides.

Were far too many Bernie supporters engaged in vitriol toward Clinton and her supporters? Absolutely. But what really got me was that so many people, on both sides of that divide, saw only virtue on their own side, with all vice being across the aisle.

I read right here on DU that Bernie's supporters were cultists, bedbugs, terrible human beings... I can no longer remember all the personal attacks.

So, yeah, some Bernie supporters did feel a need for a sanctuary where they wouldn't have to put up with crap like that.

[JI7]

61. what does that have to do with answering a simple question when asked ?

He was asked about ossoff and he could have just said something like ossoff is the best candidate in that race.

[LongTomH]

62. Well Said, Sir!!!

I'm in total agreement.

Bernie is working for the party, and we better realize we need him. Yeah, we won the popular vote; but, we still lost the election, and that's just the White House. The Democratic party has lost both the US House and Senate, governorships, and state legislatures across the country (Someone want to remind me about the exact number?), and offices all the way down to school boards.

[KittyWampus]

63. None of those people regularly disrespect the Democratic party nor are any of them

HEAD OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY OUTREACH

[Tom Rinaldo]

78. See post #76 n/t

[GulfCoast66]

66. Let's see...

None have refused to say a word in support of a young progressive candidate who has a small chance to pick up a solid red house seat.

None have done the above while supporting an anti-choice candidate

All of them are members of the Democratic Party.

None of them regularly criticize the Democratic Party while utilizing it's resources.

So are you asking me not to criticize such behavior, which I have not really done here? I find some of these things troubling no matter who does them. Perhaps you can write these things off but many of us cannot no matter who does them. I do not really dislike any of the major players in our part or our close allies. But I will not keep quiet when they do things that I find troubling.

It's late! Have a nice evening.

[delisen]

69. You are Confusing Original Posts with Responses

Original posts about Sanders usually are pro-Sanders but contain false information or propaganda statements, and/or criticisms of democratic candidates. These "opening salvos" often elicit response not in favor of Sanders.

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. That happens to an extent

We don't have to agree on to what extent but I'll leave it at that for now. But no, I wasn't confusing them. I literally counted threads that started out in the OP with a negative spin toward Sanders. While there are also many pro Sanders OPs posted that really isn't the same thing. This is a board that supports members of the Democratic Party Coalition, and Sanders is in that category whether or not he is controversial to some. Sanders won millions of Democratic votes in the primaries in one of the closest presidential primary contests that the Democrats have waged since Carter vs Kennedy in 1980. Only Obama vs Clinton in 2008 was closer. Sanders lost but he still has a great deal of support among Democrats. We usually don't focus our sustained fire on someone like that at DU except during primary seasons.

[delisen]

70. Of the 4 persons you list all are Democrats; none are Head of Outreach for Dems

With Sanders it is just the opposite - he is (proudly) not a Democrat and he is Head of Outreach for the Democratic Party.

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. Have you passed on your displeasure to Chuck Schumer?

Schumer appointed Sanders to the position of "Chairman of Outreach" for the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus. That is not to be confused with the position of "Head of Outreach for the Democratic Party" which does not exist anywhere. Sanders is not a member of the Democratic Party but he is a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

[delisen]

81. Thank you for your correction on Sanders official title in outreach.

[LanternWaste]

73. Politicians are criticized, tin gods and sacred cows are attacked.

"except only one side remains on the attack..."

Politicians are criticized, tin gods and sacred cows are attacked. Let's pretend we're unbiased and objective while we're at it.

[frankieallen]

75. they are all democrats?

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. Sure. Another correct answer. They are also all white non members of the Senate Democratic Caucus

who have not campaigned for any Democrat in recent months.

[leftstreet]

80. DURec