Joy Reid: why are black potential candidates getting singled out for attacks by Bernie people?

[pnwmom]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[ismnotwasm]

1. Black Twitter has taken notice.

Pull a lions tail and see what happens.

[LonePirate]

2. That separating line between the far left and far right is practically indistinguishable nowadays.

[Zoonart]

13. Yep!

Back to back they faced each other,
drew their swords,
and shot one another.

[missingthebigdog]

236. Hey! I know that poem!

Hadn't thought about it in years. Thanks for the memory!

[Adrahil]

22. Frankly, I believe elements of the far right....

are trying to drive a wedge between Democratic constituencies.

They are succeeding.

I don't understand why the leaders of a certain element of left cannot see that they are being manipulated. It seems obvious to me .

[apnu]

41. I have long believed that many Bernie supporters were actually alt-right psyops accounts.

Not all of them, mind you, but a some of them, especially on Facebook and Twitter.

During the #GamerGate fiasco, I interacted with a few accounts that claimed to be liberal supporters of #GamerGate, but when pressed they were revealed to be alt-rights pretending to be "woke" men. Saw similar trends in the Sad Puppies / Mad Puppies movements when they kicked off.

The alt-right loves stirring the pot, its one of their tricks.

The sad thing is, there's a lot of young naive idealists on the left and they don't know any better so they fall for it.

[LisaM]

56. I still can't even mention Hillary to some of my Bernie-supporting friends and family.

They are sticking to the Trump narrative that the primary was "rigged" by the DNC (and they conveniently forgot that in 2008, the DNC actually did rig the primary against her by refusing to count the votes from Michigan and Florida after Hillary won both states).

[dsc]

101. For all too many of those people the rigging consisted of the fact black people had the temerity

to vote in a way they didn't like.

[LisaM]

134. Especially in the south. n/t

[apnu]

141. Ugh. I feel your pain.

There are Bernie people who are delusional true believers and can't come to terms that their guy lost so they're going to make up and stick to whatever fiction best protects their fragile psyche.

Spend two minutes learning about how elections actually work in America and one will find out that it is impossible to rig an election in the way they describe.

[yardwork]

146. I have the same experience. These are real people, not online.

They're brainwashed. They believe that Hillary "stole the primary" and a lot of other wildeyed conspiracy theories. I assume that the Russian propaganda got to them. These folks I know are all ages and interact online in different ways. Some are on Facebook, some on Reddit.

Russian propaganda was highly effective, amplified by a lot of gullible entitled fools. Residents of college towns in the Midwest, I'm talking about you!

[Ninsianna]

132. I think there was a huge separtion between Bernie supporters and the

the vicious online jackals who were the "bros". They did ensnare many of the naive. Lots of people liked Bernie just fine, but were not under any delusions that he was something he was not. A vast majority of them voted for the nominee of the party, and very small minority (sadly, enough to make a difference) were intransigent, they believed the propaganda that is still even now being pushed, since it catered to their ignorance, their psychological issues and their anger. They literally didn't know how or why the things they were being told were just not true.

Take a look at how many still don't have a clue that political parties don't run elections. Kind of a basic thing to learn about government in the U.S. and they lack that knowledge.

Then there are the nefarious actors who keep peddling their strawmen that anyone who calls out the bad actors is somehow savaging anyone who supported Bernie, which is laughable on its face, and then you had the factions drawn and the divisions created. The divisive forces are still out there and they know they don't even have to be covert anymore.

[apnu]

150. I'm one of those Bernie people who voted for Hillary in the G.E.

I gladly made my mark for Hillary and didn't lose a second of sleep over it. She wasn't my first choice but she was the only thing to stop that orange monster and so there was no real decision on my part.

You are right. There are some Bernie people who are true believers and haven't matured enough to accept his loss and return to his diminished role in government. And there are quite a few who were never really Bernie people or progressives, but actually ratfuckers from the alt-right stirring the pot.

Its all rather confusing in the best of times, frustrating in the worst of times.

[Ninsianna]

173. They are deliberately being targeted, just like the Right are.

Nefarious actors play on the gullibility and the anger that they created themselves. It's a propaganda tactic, one used effectively in this election. The point was chaos and they hit "both" sides of the political divide.

The ratfuckers need to be called out, by everyone. It's not just the alt-right, they were targeted by outside actors, including, but not limited to Putin. It was shocking to see, I keep forgetting that there are people who are gullible on the left as well.

[The_REAL_Ecumenist]

100. EXACTLY, Adrahil. That's EXACTLY what I believe...

This seems to be a different version of the disinformation and nonsense that was spouted around the Net, in increasing amounts in the months leading up to the election by bots & paid Macedonian bloggers and propagandists. STOP FALLING FOR IT...CUZ, damn!! Just insert Hillary clinton, Podesta, etc and it's EASY to see the pattern

[IronLionZion]

152. They tried so hard during the 2016 election

to divide us against Hillary. It was so obvious that Trumpsters were promoting it on social media.

[Eliot Rosewater]

32. Same agenda, that is why.

[SharonClark]

3. I love Joy Reid but her stats seem way off about Sanders supporters

"Just as a statistical matter, aren't there more black Democrats than leftists who refused to vote for Clinton, as 90% of Sanders voters did?

[fishwax]

29. it's inelegantly worded, as it could mean either 90% voted for Clinton or 90% refused

I think she means the former, which is plausible, rather than the latter, which is absurd.

[G_j]

114. I think the first explanation is probably accurate

90% voting for Clinton, or at least in the ballpark.

[heaven05]

147. it's not "inelegant"

obvious from the read of campaign 2016, 90% of BS primary voters DID NOT vote or did not vote for HRC because they were so pissed off....their man did not carry the day

[brush]

99. There have been a couple of anti-Kamala Harris OPs here lately.

And one poster even dragged up posts from two years ago.

There may be some inelegance in the phrasing about the percentage of Sanders voters for Hillary but her main contention about potential AA candidates being targeted seems to hold water.

[leftofcool]

167. No, I thnk she has her stats about right.

[SaschaHM]

4. Here's the first tweet that is linked to for some more context.

Link to tweet

which does contribute to a concerning pattern of "Black candidate has a Bernie problem" think pieces that are popping up now.

[pnwmom]

6. Thanks, SaschaHM! n/t

[ismnotwasm]

7. I am going to listen to the voices of black people on this one.

Joy Reid isn't the only one speaking out on this topic.

[SaschaHM]

10. As a black Dem, this current never-Kamala/Booker/Patrick trend...

is a very bad look. There was an amazing twitter thread about white alt-left writers that have suddenly sprung up as the purity police for black potential candidates.

[ismnotwasm]

11. I noticed this from the people I follow

It is indeed, a horrible look.

[uponit7771]

72. yeap, Sanders needs to speak up on this

[GulfCoast66]

177. Don't hold your breath

He is too busy criticizing the 'establishment' whatever the fuck that is.

[RandomAccess]

238. It's a bad look, but don't put too much weight on it

It's the kind of thing Russian bots and the alt-right would be all over

I hate seeing this because I know in my heart this is ratfuckery, pure and simple. I hate seeing Joy Reid fall for it, jump right in the middle and help rile everyone up.

[bettyellen]

48. They're also venomous toward Joy on Twitter.... using the same language

That was used against Hillary last year, same crap they're using against Harris et al now. Harris is a war monger? What the hell? They're delusional.

[Skidmore]

207. Yes.

And it was used to bludgeon Hillary supporters and drive them out of discourse. It is a tactic of disenfranchisement by taking youvoice away while creating space to spew disinformation about the candidate.

[bettyellen]

211. At debate watching parties I was surprised to learn how many normally outspoken Dems were just weary

Of the bullshit conversations. I'd ask people who "hated Hillary" why and I'd realize they knew nothing about policies or the platform... and when you'd try and give them a history lesson they'd roll their eyes and claim they didn't believe it. Not believing facts. Same as Trumpsters. Good Dems were silenced- because the ignorance and hostility just got exhausting. I'm not talking about trolls, but about dudes who claimed to be liberal. Shit was crazy.

[Skidmore]

214. Much my experience too.

Effective dirty politicking straight from the bowels of reddit.

[bettyellen]

218. A very liberal friend of mine still parrots Greenwald and RT bullshit...

Even though he readily admits there was a propaganda campaign. He's never going to admit he fell for it though.
It's astounding.

[geek tragedy]

224. it's almost like the Chapo brocialists have an issue with black women nt

[LisaM]

49. Exactly, and thank you.

As a woman who feels as if I've been bleating in the wilderness since 2008, I applaud the point you just made. Of all the annoying memes in 2016, the "Bernie is more of a feminist" one hurt the most, so yeah, I'll stick with Joy on this one.

[Freethinker65]

5. More like a few vocal "Sanders" supporters the media loves giving airtime/ink to

Purposely being used to try to divide the Democratic Party.

[leftstreet]

9. +1

Although I'm not sure it's the 'media' attempting to divide the party. The 'media' will do ANYTHING for viewers and link-clickers, and they rely on controversy for that. But once out there, those forces hoping to unite and/or divide will go bonkers pressing their agendas

[frazzled]

14. Oh, that old canard again

Blame it on a few outliers. How many hundreds of times did we hear that during the 2016 primaries?

Let me tell you this. Unless the leader (who is specifically invoked in that article posted above) disputes the claims of these so-called "outliers," then the charges accrue to him. He owns them, because they are being invoked in his name.

This is what a leader would do: he would make a public statement to say that he does not agree with these opinions: that Kamala Harris and Cory Booker are trusted colleagues whom he respects, and that Deval Patrick, the past governor of a neighboring state, is an upstanding Democrat who did many good things. And he would disabuse them of the notion that the Democrats "played dirty" in the primaries or in the DNC elections.

But someone who is not a leader lets his supporters act and speak unimpeded. That's what Donald Trump did: he let the white supremacists and anti-semites and other nutters run loose. And he'd say, "oh, these are just a few outliers, I can't control what they say or do."

Not buying. The only people trying to divide the Democratic Party are the people (who mostly mistakenly identify themselves as 'leftists') who write the articles like that one: http://theweek.com/articles/715955/why-leftists-dont-trust-kamala-harris-cory-booker-deval-patrick?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[apcalc]

34. +1

[bettyellen]

52. Agreed. These folks are using Sanders name to create divisions and he should disavow it. There's a

Bot army on twitter - likely half fakes - and they are ruining his name. He should say something.

[LisaM]

58. Good luck with that.

Just sayin'.

[JHan]

60. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[nini]

65. yea.. it's more than a 'few'

AND Bernie is leading the pack with what he is saying himself.

He just wraps it up in 'establishment' code.

[Eliot Rosewater]

70. Plus gazillion, is that a number? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hey, the only thing riding on it is life itself.

It being 2018

[uponit7771]

74. +1

[mcar]

80. +1000!

[wryter2000]

104. What you said

Wish I could rec a reply.

[George II]

159. "Unless the leader (who is specifically invoked in that article posted above)....

...disputes the claims of these so-called "outliers," then the charges accrue to him. He owns them, because they are being invoked in his name."

Indeed. Of course this reminds me of Truman's "The buck stops here", or even Scaramucci's comment last week regarding the Italian saying about fish.

[KitSileya]

215. Wish I could rec a reply!

Because this definitely deserves a rec.

[Tarheel_Dem]

221. THIS! THIS! THIS!

[Greybnk48]

8. More divide and conquer.

I'm going to ignore Joy Reid's response, she's smarter than that.

[pnwmom]

12. Ryan Cooper's article was what she was responding to. With good reason.

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2F10029410252

[KTM]

17. I dont understand

I dont think most people replying here actually read that article you link to... it seems to indicate that there are some legitimate reasons why people take issue with each of the three individuals, and then goes on to hypothesize that centrist Dems will ignore those issues and attempt to deflect any criticism of them as either racist or sexist.

It seems people here in this thread are doing exactly what the article implies ? When you say "with good reason," what are you indicating about the article? That it is somehow inappropriate ?

[pnwmom]

25. I read the article and I don't understand why you don't see the problem.

Why does the article single out three black potential candidates as posing problems with the left -- candidates who have little in common except they are all black Democrats? What about all the white potential candidates? Don't they have as many things in their backgrounds that could be concerning?

What happens is that, when a minority or a woman candidate, against all odds, reaches the upper ranks of politics -- they are routinely denounced by some on the alt-left -- BECAUSE of their very success. BECAUSE they are successful fundraisers. BECAUSE they have attained some power in the white-male dominated world.

So the only African American who is acceptable to some of these people is one who is outside of the mainstream -- and such a candidate would have almost no chance of winning an actual election.

[KTM]

31. But they do have another thing in common

They are all, according to that article, rising stars in the party who are "being groomed by the centrist establishment to run for office."

Are there other candidates who are "being groomed by the centrist establishment?" If that is the case, but "concerns" are only being addressed about these minority candidates, than I would agree that it smells of racism. On the other hand, if these folks are THE candidates "being groomed" and there are not others, then it would seem that the accusation of racism/sexism is being used to deflect valid "concerns."

I guess there is a chicken/egg thing here ?

[pnwmom]

40. The candidates themselves are NOT centrists. And there are plenty of other

candidates who are being groomed by the "centrist establishment," whatever that is.

But the alt-left seems to single out the African Americans and women for special negative attention.

[KTM]

51. I am only going on this article

I dont know who else is "being groomed" or by whom. That article indicates that each of those potential candidates has ties to Wall Street/Big Money/Donor Class, whom those in the Sanders Wing (for lack of a better term) most aggresively distrust. Are there other potentiates being groomed who have those same ties but who are white/male who are getting a pass on that criticism ? Again, if that is the case than I would tend to agree with you.

On the other hand, you seem to be making the argument that those criticisms are merely thinly disguised ways to dismiss these potential candidates based on sex/race. Are you saying that if these people were white/male, their ties to Wall Street/Big Money would be a non-issue to the same group?

One side seems to be saying "You only make those arguments because the candidate is a minority!"
The other seems to say "You are dismissing my real concerns about a candidate because they are a minority and you presume I am racist."

[KPN]

259. I agree. There is also, at the same time, the tendency to basically ignore

the influence of money. What I don't understand is why this isn't an issue for all Democrats. There's certainly plenty of reason for skepticism if not outright evidence when it comes to thre influence of corporate and Wall Street donations.

[George Eliot]

285. And media. MSNBC the messiah.

[lapucelle]

93. Cooper's article links to a right-leaning tabloid

to support one of its dubious claims. The New York Post? Really, Mr. Cooper? Is that better or worse than your links to Buzzfeed and The Intercept?

And where else do Mr. Cooper's links about the canny centrist establishment's manipulation of the Democratic Party go? To stories tarnishing former President Barack Obama, of course.

So who is Ryan Cooper? Well, he's read a lot of books.
http://www.ryanlouiscooper.com/p/books.html

One thing I will give Mr. Cooper: He's very practiced at making grandiose pronouncements.
http://www.ryanlouiscooper.com/p/ethics-statement.html

And crafty about technicalities in case he's ever called out for being not quite ethical about the sources of those pronouncements.
http://pressthink.org/2011/09/if-he-said-she-said-journalism-is-irretrievably-lame-whats-better/#aftermatter

Here's what I learned about Mr. Cooper today. The devil (like the details) is in the links.

Caveat lector.

[KTM]

136. Shoot the messenger then ?

Im not sure what you are implying here, but I dont see much "there" there. The New York Post link you object to was a pretty straightforward article indicating that Harris met with some Clinton inner-circle donors in New York and is a rising star. Where is the controversy there ? Likewise the rest of the links used in his article... I see nothing controversial. I went and read/skimmed each one, and see nothing to make hay over. I am also confused about the pressthink link you provded - it doesnt seem to be connected to Mr. Cooper in any way ?

Im not seeing how any of what you have posted serves your presumed purpose of discrediting this author ?

[lapucelle]

153. I'm questioning the credibility of Cooper's message

based on his sources and his background.

While I am not surprised that some might be bewildered by what I have written, I have a "no comment" policy regarding "explain please" directives.

[KTM]

162. Ok....

Did you actually READ any of his linked articles, or are you just saying they must be bad because of where they are hosted ?

I see nothing in his background (as far as what you have linked to) that has ANY negative impact. The vast majority of his links were to thinkprogress and politico... and all were merely used as suporting evidence for the background claims that other people, not the author or this article, have brought up against these candidates. How can he talk about the criticism without giving evidence of it?

It seems you are saying "I dont like this guy because he reads books, has a code of ehtics that he has publicaly posted, and links to articles I dont want to read because of the source." Thats seems pretty dumb to me, but maybe I am "bewildered."

[emulatorloo]

170. It seems you are saying we should accept all right-wing sources like Breitbart, Fox News, Moonie

Times as long as they smear Democrats you don't like.

[lapucelle]

190. And Cooper begins his article

by using BLM in his effort to sow mistrust of a WOC because, you know, as a white dude he's entitled:

Let's take each in turn. The former attorney general of California, Harris is mistrusted by the left mostly because of her roots as a prosecutor. The Black Lives Matter movement has put anyone with law enforcement history under close scrutiny...

[KTM]

241. Not in the slightest.

I have no place for the kind of bogus "news" those sites propagate. All I have said here is that the linked articles that the poster above objects to are in no way "fake news" or slanted pieces, and in no way call into question the authors credibility. The author of the linked article simply links to them as evidence of the criticism these people were receiving. He links primarily to Politico and ThinkProgress, and only links one article each from the Intercept and the division of the NY Post, neither of which are factually incorrect or heavily slanted.

The poster above attempts to discredit the author (whom I know nothing of) by linking to what is basically his bio, and I dont see anything there that discredits him. Whats wrong with his list of books ? I see Orwell, Stroud, Hemingway, Galbraith, Piketty, Gibson, Fukuyama, Abbey, Lessig, Russell... how is that link used to call his character into question?

He crafted a statement of personal ethics, which is somewhat standard for a journalist, and posted it publically, thereby allowing readers to call him out when he violates those standards. How does that call his character into question?

The third linked article has no mention of him, nor any content of his. How does that link call him out ?

I dont have any dislike of any of the candidates discussed in this thread. I have tremendous respect for each of them, and support them fully. I simply disagree with the tribalistic mindset that produces a knee-jerk reaction to any and all criticism of *any* political figure, and attempts to derail discourse with unfounded accusations of bias.

[LovesPNW]

276. Indeed

I guess the end justifies the means.

[lapucelle]

193. I think you've already established that you're unable to see certain things.

No need to belabor the point.

[KTM]

242. Again, we have a different perspective

You think I am unable to see; I think you see things that are not there.

I am not discounting the rampant bias that exists; racism, sexism, ageism - all isms should be called out, denounced, and derided when they exist. At the same time, we must not become the same as the other side, willing to blindly write off anything we take issue with as some sort of otherism. The thing that most defines Democrats to me is that we are critical thinkers; we are empathetic and intelligent and able to discern a much more complex palette of nuance and authorial intent. We parse the words of our political class with a much more developed mind, and are not simply "the other team."

In this case, I think some people are seeing a trio of minorities criticised, and see it through a lens that makes them perceive a racism/sexism issue that is not there.

[George Eliot]

249. I appreciate your effort at objectivity. You said it well.

[Eliot Rosewater]

35. You said "I dont understand why you dont see the problem"

Yes you do...

[ciaobaby]

131. +1,000

[KPN]

258. Well said.

[brush]

106. Maybe you shouldn't ignore it. Find out what she's responding to. There have been...

anti-Kamala Harris posts right here on DU.

[PoorMonger]

15. What Bothers Me Most...

Is the insinuation that these people are being called too ambitious to be trusted on issues before they've even begun to run. Who among Presidential hopefuls isn't wildly ambitious?

Let campaigns actually start before you write individuals out for fuck sake. In a time when the country is so in need of leadership we must embrace the encouraging fact that we have many capable people. Let them debate issues without the Never this or that attitude and see who actually gets traction.

There is a way to disagree on policy and not tear each other apart as immoral and untrustworthy. If we contribute to that falsity we've only done Republicans work for them.

[geek tragedy]

16. these aren't "Bernie people" so much as they are flamethrowing assholes

who happened to attach themselves to Bernie. These people were terrible before Bernie ever ran for President, and they're by no means a substantial percentage of Sanders's fans.

[ismnotwasm]

19. I hope not

I think this is a matter for the Bernie folk to pay attention to, because like I said, there is a very ugly perception happening, Joy Reid is by no means the only one speaking out. These flamethrowering assholes need to be shut down, or they will drag all of Sanders people in the mire with them.

[Adrahil]

24. The problem is that Bernie doesn't speak out about it nearly enough.

In fact, I think he really does believe the left needs to abandon "identity politics" (that is, after all, a pretty core socialist belief) and isn't inclined to raise too much of a ruckus. He needs to IMO. He needs to disown this kind of rhetoric.

[geek tragedy]

26. meh, Bernie is ranking member of the Budget Committee and has his hands full

fighting Republican efforts to ram through catastrophic policies via reconciliation.

No one is a candidate, and online Twitter wars between fans of politicians is a low priority.

[ismnotwasm]

38. Yeah, but he historically hasn't spoken up very well on this issue.

I'm no fan of his, but many are. They want him to shine. They want to shine. This is a growing perception and if it's a group of assholes, he should say something--he just had an op-ed talking about unemployed youth. He could do this.

[geek tragedy]

42. I haven't always been a big fan of his (no secret, that) but when his team did criticize

the Chapo crowd that they stopped acting like flaming, nihilistic assholes.

Dirtbag asshole leftist Twitter is going to be a thing no matter what he does or say, better to focus on actual policy and his full time job instead of acting like a candidate. Which is what he's being doing--he's been very good at grinding at the policy wheel instead of grandstanding.

[ismnotwasm]

66. Ok--we will agree to disagree then.

I like to pay attention to trends. Twitter fascinates me--it is much like flocks of birds getting ready for migration, and a powerful social media tool. When AA voices are speaking-they are speaking to millions.

I've written off the "bros" the same way I've written off Trump supporters--not worth pursuing. Who is worth pursuing however, are the African American vote as well as the historically non-political. The disaffected Bernie supporters who reluctantly supported Hillary are as appalled at Trump as anyone decent should be, and I'm not overly concerned about them doing the right thing. I am concerned about Democratic unity however. The racial divide was a deep one. Sanders let the narrative get away from him once, I believe he should stay on top of it. He too, influences millions.

[geek tragedy]

83. this is the same crowd that went after Barack Obama in 2006-2008

the only effect it had was that they self-marginalized.

I expect Sanders wants to push these candidates to the left, so he may not want to de-incentivize them from adopting single payer, free college etc plans by trying to call off the dogs early.

Also, if we're going to be honest, a lot of what drove the dynamic in 2016 was hatred specifically for Hillary Clinton. They can try to talk themselves into a tizzy, but bashing Booker/Harris is really not a thing the way bashing Clinton was.

[ismnotwasm]

103. It's going to backfire, which is my actual point

And backfire big. i just don't want to backfire on the Democratic Party---I hope you are right though. That these are the basement dwellers of the Bernie revolution. I'll find out when I get more active in my own district--my rep. was endorsed by Sanders, but so far she is very impressive. I've stayed away--I didn't want to hear crap about Hillary--and now I'm thinking I've done her a great disservice.

[uponit7771]

78. Naw, he can walk and chew gum at the same time. Obama spoke out against Dr Wright while running for

... prez

[geek tragedy]

229. Obama spoke out against Wright precisely because he was running for prez

My personal theory is that the alt-lefters are freaking out because they won't have anyone they really like in the primary and will wind up getting trampled by Booker or Harris.

[emulatorloo]

82. You're right. They are Bernie "detractors", as they detract from Bernie's message.

Unfortunately they are loud as fuck, and they need to be called out often.

[geek tragedy]

87. eh, or they can just get run over when the attention turns to 2020.

I mean, Harris has been in office for 6 months and they're already attacking her. Obvious trolls are obvious to everyone.

[emulatorloo]

102. Dunno, a few folks in this thread getting super-defensive or pretending Reid fabricated it.

I don't know why it is so difficult for some to call out these trolls. But it is.

[Docreed2003]

18. I don't know...and I'm deeply troubled by it

During the primaries, there was a vocal contingent of Sanders supporters here that just couldn't accept that black democrats weren't lining up to support Bernie. Some became so extreme in their beliefs, they were, appropriately, banned from the site. In their minds, they couldn't understand how black leaders weren't lining up for Bernie and there were innumerable posts as to how black leaders were "sellouts" for supporting Clinton; some will remember the infamous "Stockholm Syndrome" thread. The flip side was true as well, any black leader that lined up behind Bernie were lauded and praised. Just bizzare to me, as if a primary were a measure of ones liberal credentials.

For the record, I don't believe that Bernie Sanders thinks like that, not in the least.

As for me, a Sanders support in the primaries, I'll just say I'm constantly learning and trying to listen more and talk less. When I was younger, I thought I was tuned in to the matters of civil rights because I grew up idolizing John Lewis and MLK, I had been to the Lorraine motel, I had cried at 16th st Baptist church, and I had stood in the pulpit where MLK gave his mountaintop sermon. I thought myself enlightened for so many reasons, but that was just a start. I've learned as I've gotten older that I have no place speaking for any minority group, not blacks hispanics, women, LGBT, even though I consider myself an advocate for civil rights and women's rights and LGBT rights. I'll gladly add my voice to stand up for rights, but it is not my place to assume the role of their voice.

Maybe that was and continues to be part of the problem. Maybe these "Sanders supports" can't understand how anyone could think in a way that differs from their own beliefs. Maybe there's a more nefarious motivation from some who'd rather disrupt and cause chaos than work toward unity. I don't know, but it's infuriating and troubling, especially coming at a time when we need unity more than ever!

(Sorry for my verbose response....see, I still haven't learned how to shut up and listen! )

[brush]

115. Well reasoned post.

[Paladin]

20. Get 'em, Joy Reid. (nt)

[we can do it]

21. Same reason that shit on Hillary- bigots.

[hunter]

23. There are plenty of "left wing" racists.

The sad thing is they often don't recognize their own racist tendencies and will insist they are not.

There's a subset of Bernie supporters who are uncomfortable with black men, strong women, and most uncomfortable with strong black women.

[haele]

157. Racism is insidious. On the left, it often shadows an individual's ideas about meritocracy...

Because many otherwise well-intentioned people who were raised and pretty much spent their lives in environments where they were "the normal" either don't see or understand the additional barriers people who aren't normalized in society face on a daily basis.

They also don't understand the huge difference in effort and conviction it takes between:
A) applying for the available opportunities to improve yourself and working to make "good enough grades", and
B) working your ass off to make your own opportunities when there are few available because the society around you assumes you're going to fail because you're just not born into the right quality of people.

To the average child of social (not economic) privilege, being considered socially normal means there's an expectation you're going to succeed if you just apply yourself.
Just "spend less time on the video games, try a little harder and you can be Summa cum Laude, and get that scholarship to State". And, of course, we won't mention that Mom or Dad, or their more more successful (or Alumni) friends and/or employers can add recommendations in your applications that help grease the skids for that slot or scholarship...
These normal people don't understand why "those people" just can't get their act together enough to "try a little harder and get that scholarship", like they could. Those people must be struggling to just make the acceptance scores because they and their parents are lazy or have the wrong attitude...

I - and my parents - grew up as urban working poor/lower middle class; we all spent time off and on as "normal" kids in minority-majority neighborhoods. Heck, I live in "the 'hood" even now due to economics.

Every day, I am exposed to how much the expectation attached to one's social status trumps any amount of actual merit that one's actions and talents can bring to the table.

Success ultimately comes from Society's recognition of an individual's talents, intelligence, strength (of body and character) and drive - and coming to a consensus that the individual deserves the role that indicates success - through the establishment of position within a hierarchy, social respect or patronization.

It is not that it doesn't take hard work to achieve success, it is that there is a social pre-disposition to identify people who are expected to achieve success, and those who don't fall within that expectation have to work harder with less resources than those who are expected to achieve it.

The "Glass Ceiling". The "Color Bar". They're real, even though there are a few people who manage to surmount it - and those people are too often held up as examples that all the barriers are gone -

"Look, that woman or POC graduated with a PhD from <FITB Ivy League Institution>, is a respected researcher or a head of government/Fortune 500 corporation.
That person has Real Power, while in the meantime, there are hundreds of thousands of Joe Rotary-Clubs with just their BA, mortgaged house in the 'burbs, and a family property management/small business they built up on their own for a retirement plan. Where's his success?

There's where your "left wing" racism comes from.
The expectation that "if all people are created equal, why aren't I treated as equal as that other person over there" gnaws harder at the souls of those who have more in the first place simply because (to use the baseball analogy) they were at least born in the batting rotation, even when their ire is directed at those who were born in standby or on the farm team working their ass off just to get into the rotation, and were lucky enough to get noticed. Instead of glaring at those who are born on second or third and pretending they hit a home run.

It's easier to put down someone below you trying to get into your social place than criticize those "above you" who are pulling the ladder up behind them and shitting on you.

Haele

[hunter]

220. This is an excellent post.

I hope people take the time to read it.

[Else You Are Mad]

27. Simply put.

We should choose potential candidates on their merits alone. The best person should win regardless of race, religion, sex, and orientation.

[Weekend Warrior]

28. I really wish these racist "leftists" wouldn't have attached their wagon to Sanders.

Considering the make-up of the party it has been damaging. Minorities would benefit greatly from Sanders economic vision and many minorities promote just that. It's in-line with our values and an extremely important part of the puzzle. Unfortunately, the racist elements are also more often than not the loudest elements. It's why I think we should be continuing to elevate people like Warren, Harris, Booker, Perez, etc. One single day in Seattle strapped Sanders with this stigma for life.

[apcalc]

30. It's not necess. a black thing

It's a " you're not Bernie" thing.

It was slung at HRC as well.

IMO it is a well organized Russian propaganda campaign on both the left and right. There is NEVER anything said against mother Russia nor against Mr. Sanders.

What is troubling to me is that Mr. Sanders has twice voted against Russian sanctions, there was , and may still be, a pro-Putin comnection between Tad Devine and Paul Manafort, Mr Sanders has released only one tax return , and that was very skimpy, and there is at least $10 million in foreign campaign contributions which , at last word , the FEC was still trying to nail down.

Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

33. Joy (conveniently) forgets that --

most of the Sanders supporters who are not thrilled with Harris and Patrick (like me) would be thrilled to vote for a Nina Turner. Hate to break the news to you Joy, but it's about policies, not color.

[LonePirate]

44. The same Nina Turner who supported Sanders and nearly signed on as VP on the Green Party ticket?

Is fealty to Bernie a necessary condition before some people will support a black Democrat nowadays?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

86. Yes, that Nina --

and I would support her for her stance on the issues that are important to me, a working class woman who is increasingly feeling left behind by many in the Party.

[leftofcool]

169. That would be the one.

[JCanete]

268. no, how about policies and advocacy? nt

[pnwmom]

50. A lot of the Turner fans would be equally thrilled with Jill Stein. No thanks.

Turner has a thin resume, with only 6 years in the Ohio State Senate, and time on a city council. Her main claim to fame is being a huge Bernie supporters.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

90. A very popular President here --

was also accused of having a "thin resume". I appreciate Turner's stance on the issues, especially economic, and her willingness to speak some hard Truth.

[pnwmom]

109. President Obama had been a United States Senator, an Illinois Senator,

and, with a law degree from Harvard, had taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

Nina's resume is not comparable.

[bettyellen]

57. She's well aware that these people claim to support fringe candidates without any chance of being

Elected- that's why there are so many bots being hired to echo their opinions on Twitter. Like it or not, not all your "fellow supporters" want any liberal to win. Funny they're only targeting the most popular Dems, and supporting those with super low chances of winning- like Nina. It's by design.

[LexVegas]

61. Nina Turner.

[SaschaHM]

95. Some folks act like the bus wouldn't be rolled on top of her if she challenged Bernie.

Elizabeth Warren, who was the female candidate that many said they were willing to vote for, declined to endorse anyone and was thrown under the bus by them (including Nina Turner).

[lunamagica]

158. I know

[NurseJackie]

195. Oh my! She's quite a character, isnt she? (Did she endorse Stein, or am I thinking of someone else?)

[uponit7771]

79. Cornell West too ? Thx in advance

[Hell Hath No Fury]

92. I love Brother Cornell.

He speaks a lot of Truth.

[uponit7771]

96. OK... the guy who called Obama niggerized is loathed by black politico and loved by Bernie Bro ....

... in and of itself is a problem and brings a bit of contextual truth to what Reid is saying.

We need to talk within the democratic party about this kinda shit, the base shouldn't be split and now is too numerous to be for people like West to be tolerated.

[LexVegas]

130. Yep. nt

[Squinch]

81. LOL! "Democrats not Welcomed" Nina Turner? That Nina Turner?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

94. Nice characterization of what she says.

[lunamagica]

161. Yes. The Nina Turner who has no chance of becoming POTUS

[Ninsianna]

175. Would they really, though?

It's not about the policies, if it were they're wouldn't be attacking these particular people whose policies are pretty great actually.

Should Nina Turner at some point before 2020 be positioned to be a threat to Sanders, they would also be proclaiming how they would not be voting for *that* black woman.

Recall how they turned on Warren.

[AngryAmish]

36. Well said.

[rogue emissary]

37. Yet, Rep. John Delaney the only Democrat to announce a presidential run for 2020.

Hasn't generated anywhere close to the number of negative opinion articles the black candidates have received. He's also a wealthy business man to boot. I wonder what separates him from, Harris, Booker, and Patrick.

[LonePirate]

47. Hmmm.... what a mystery that is. You'd almost think the answer was plain as day.

[KTM]

91. That seems presumptuous

I've never heard of this guy... a quick search led to a bunch of articles that basically say the same thing - "What was he thinking?" From the few I read, there is no indication that he is being supported by any particular group, or that he is some sort of party darling.

Most point out that he will face criticism over his business past, although the two businesses he had and sold appear at first glance to be non controversial (note that in the article that Joy was referring to, the discussion focuses on Harris, Patrick, and Booker's ties to OneWest and Bain Capital.)

The Politico piece on his announcement indicate that he has many things that the left will see as negative, including support for the TPP and for some Republican-liked economic policies.

He seems like a relative nobody, supported by relatively nobody, so it doesn't seem surprising that there is not a ton of criticism of him yet. You are ascribing the lack of criticism of him to racism, when it seems the simpler answer is that the lack of criticism stems from the fact that the response to his announcement seems to have been an overwhelming "meh" from both party and populace.

[LonePirate]

151. The fact that he's white means he's not viewed as a contender or a threat by the Bernie wing.

[NurseJackie]

39. I'm glad Joy Reid is shining a light on this. Also, regarding that 90% figure she quotes...

... is that correct? Does that mean that 10% didn't vote for Hillary? (Stein? Trump? Write-in?) That's pretty amazing if it's accurate and true.

[progressoid]

105. Sounds about right. And 8% of AA voted for Trump.

28% of Latino's voted for Trump. http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls Go figure.

Can't find the stat now but, a higher percentage of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary last year than Hillary supporters voted for Obama in 2004.

[NurseJackie]

154. It's not always easy to understand what motivates otherwise intelligent people.

Can't find the stat now but, a higher percentage of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary last year than Hillary supporters voted for Obama in 2004.

Oka-a-a-ay.

[NurseJackie]

184. LOL! Such a thing would be impossible. (And why does this matter?)

[JHan]

196. the obfuscations are amusing aren't they

So many whataboutisms .

And since 2008 is making it into this thread, Hillary conceded to Obama after just three days when she knew she could go no further.

/the end

[George II]

203. And I believe she was out on the campaign trail with him a few days after the convention.

[George II]

188. Obama ran for President in 2008.

[JoeStuckInOH]

230. So his stat is 100% correct

because zero Hillary supporters voted for Barrack Obama in 2004. They couldn't have

[NurseJackie]

243. OMG! How did I miss that??!! THAT'S HYSTERICAL!!

[LexVegas]

43. Why, indeed. nt

[lark]

45. Love Joy, but that first tweet is just so wrong.

90% of Sanders supporters didn't refuse to vote for Hillary, that's totally absurd. I know lots of people, most of my friends, who voted for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general. I get it she's pissed, but it is totally unhelpful to say 90% of Bernie's folks didn't vote for the sane candidate.

On edit - I don't even believe 10% of Bernie's supporters didn't vote for Hillary, but it looks to me like she was saying 90% didn't vote Dem. I get why she's pissed and she has a right to that. She doesn't have a right to make up facts however.

[tammywammy]

54. It's poorly written, but I think she meant the more probably 90% voted for Clinton. n/t

[lark]

67. That makes better sense, but that is not what she said.

[pnwmom]

59. Joy is saying the opposite. She's saying 90% of Bernie supporters DID vote for Hillary,

so that the ones who did are a small fraction of Bernie supporters -- and a less significant number than the African Americans who supported Hillary.

[LiberalLovinLug]

71. I agree

I think she is great. But that statement is totally absurd.
She is only emboldening the Dividers in the party, at the time when we need unity.

[Gothmog]

46. I love AMJOY

[SHRED]

53. Could this be a Russian driven wedge?

Let's not fall for this if it is.

[uponit7771]

84. Yes but in MHO the Russians have enablers, this would be a perfect Russian wedge issue but I don't

... think it'll work among the non politico like it didn't work last time, she still got 3 million more votes than Benedict Donald and just as many votes as Obama did in 2012.

[Squinch]

88. Yes, but the trick is figuring out where the point is. Seems like it's the ones

trashing the black candidates are the plants to me, not the ones pointing it out. This whole effort against Kamala was very transparently bot wedge stuff, and what Joy is talking about is just more of the same.

[progressoid]

55. Hyperbole much?

One guy's article = Bernie "people"?

[pnwmom]

63. Get real. It's not just this one article and you know it. n/t

[progressoid]

85. OK, then why only link to this one article by this one guy?

[emulatorloo]

76. It isn't "one guy". it is a trend. Visit wayofthebern @ Reddit for example.

[progressoid]

118. It's not a trend.

I don't do reddit, but how many people are on that sub-reddit? There will always be people on the fringe. There will always be people that vote 3rd party. It's disingenuous to imply that a few former Bernie supporters constitute a trend.

All of the Bernie "people" I know supported Hillary. And 90% are active in the Democratic party at the grass roots level fighting for us (I'm on two committees with a lot of them).

[emulatorloo]

135. Sanders primary "person" here. These Bernie detractors exist and are loud as fuck.

You're right, they are fringe. They detract from Bernie's goals.

They are attempting to dominate the discourse.

I do not understand why the 90% of Bernie people should not clean house and push back very loudly on these kooks.

Yet you'll see several folk in this thread getting super-defensive about them or

[progressoid]

149. Me too.

And I won't defend those loud a-holes. Had to deal with one while waiting in line to see Hillary last summer.

I'm just tired of the lumping everyone into one group.

[emulatorloo]

182. " I'm just tired of the lumping everyone into one group." amen to that

[George Eliot]

262. A fair amount of denigrating good Dems who supported Sanders.

I thought against TOS.but no flagging so guess not. Hard to read.

[LexVegas]

62. Love Joy. And she is spot on. nt

[Renew Deal]

68. I think we've come to realize that the 2008 PUMA's, 2016 busters, and 2020 Harris-Booker haters are

All the same people. Many are unwittingly assisting the Russians.

[Lazy Daisy]

73. SMH

Joy Reid (as usual) and most here have done exactly what the writer has said Democrats would do.

There can be no questions of these candidate because they're black or female or both. Nevermind each of them has in their background something that goes against what a lot of people have been fighting for these last few years.

Yes Joy, I'm a Berniecrat. So I guess that makes me racist. I get it.

[pnwmom]

111. Minority people and women who've managed to reached the highest ranks of politics

are routinely criticized for being too well connected and too well funded.

[Lazy Daisy]

129. yes

but what if they are? Are we to look the other way because they're black or female? One of the things that was brought up by Democrats about Mitt Romney was his connections and money. Was that because he is Mormon or is it because he is well connected and well funded and would not have the best interest of the whole country in mind?

[pnwmom]

145. Unless you want to have a party that is all white male, then you don't kneecap women and minority

candidates who have managed, despite the obstacles in front of them, to achieve success in the system.

Obama was also criticized for similar reasons. But if we will only support women and minorities who are NOT succeeding at high levels in the system, as it exists today, then we only be supporting people who don't have any chance to win. Like Nina Turner.

[Lazy Daisy]

194. I see

So if a black or female candidate does not have a platform I agree with I'm to vote for them anyway. Good to know.

[geek tragedy]

116. The "Never Kamala" crowd are not on our side, and never have been. They're our political enemies

who pretend to agitate from the left, when all they care about doing is tearing down Democrats.

Cooper bashed Harris by appointing himself the white spokesman for Black Lives Matter and those concerned with criminal justice reform--didn't cite any of them, just said "the left and BLM hate prosecutors, so she sucks."

His article was trash.

[Lazy Daisy]

139. Must have read a different article than you did

I didn't come away with the same information.

Not prosecuting Steve Mnuchin might be understandable. Lots of his type got away with what they did to this country, but her getting a contribution from him? That should bring up questions. I don't think it should put her in the "Never Kamala" column (far from it) but are we to overlook it? Nothing to see here, move along? Every candidate should be scrutinized, no matter who they are.

What this writer is saying is because they are black, Democrats will cry foul if they are scrutinized. And that's exactly what's happening.

[geek tragedy]

176. the author singled out the only three possible black candidates, and then

says "anyone who noticed that I singled out black candidates is playing the race card."

Trump would be proud of that tactic.

There are flaws in every candidate.

But Cooper--and others on the alt-left--seem to get a bee in their bonnets over blacks, women and especially black women.

[Lazy Daisy]

197. Who are the white possible candidates?

I'm familiar with Kamala and Cory being groomed for 2020, don't know who else is. So if all the front runners are black how are they being singled out because they're black.

[geek tragedy]

204. "being groomed?"

Top three candidates are Biden, Sanders, Warren.

Also possibly running, Amy Klobuchar, Steve Bullock, Terry McAuliffe, Martin O'Malley, Andrew Cuomo, Schiff, Moulton, Gabbard, Garcetti, Landrieu.

Not to mention Mark Zuckerberg. maybe Mark Cuban.

But, no, white people don't get to target black people and then complain about identity politics being a thing.

[NurseJackie]

206. "Being groomed" suggests the belief in smoke-filled backroom deals where an heir-apparent...

... is pre-selected by means and methods other than primaries. It's a subtle way of casting doubt on the party and its process. It's just a way to be dismissive, to delegitimize and to try and "throw shade" on up-and-coming or popular Democratic leaders.

[Lazy Daisy]

228. Then forgive me,

that's not my understanding of the phrase.

[Lazy Daisy]

210. O.F.F.S.

Yes, "being groomed". Isn't that what they call it when a party starts coalescing around a candidate?

As has been stated time and time again here on this site Bernie is not a Democrat.

Biden had his chance, don't see him in the race in 2020. Same with Warren. They're also older and people seem to want a younger candidate.

As for the rest of them, with the exception of Tulsi, meh. Haven't seen their names thrown around much.

But tell ya what. From here on out the rule is no one can say a damn thing if the candidate is a minority. But when we end up with President Kanye West, that's on you.

[geek tragedy]

212. It's 2017, not 2020. People attacking potential candidates three years out are not doing

so because they want to improve the party's well being.

Also, Patrick is far less likely than several of the other white pols on that list. He's been out of office for a long time and is working for Bain Capital.

[pnwmom]

185. Why is Kamala Harris singled out for this criticism, when Steven Mnuchin

has also given money to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Al Gore, and the League of Conservation Voters? (He also has given to other Democrats and to Republicans as well).

So focusing on the black woman who received a single $2000 donation from him seems unfair. Do you honestly think she'd let that donation affect whether she'd prosecute him or not?

www.opensecrets.org

[Lazy Daisy]

205. As the article reads

She is the only Senate Democrat who got a donation. That is why it's mentioned. Barack Obama can't run for President, the rest probably won't be. Kamala may possibly be running. That is why it's mentioned.

Look I'm not saying there is a damn thing wrong with her. I'd really like her to be our candidate based on what I've seen of her in Senate hearings. She doesn't mince words, and doesn't allow anybody else to. Way too much "word games" go on and she cuts through that. And yes, being a woman helps in my eyes. Would really like to see our country elect a female President. Even though I wasn't a Hillary supporter I woke up last Nov 8th and said "today I'm voting for a female to be President" I had tears in my eyes as I left the house to vote. The feeling was beyond amazing. Every woman on this site knows exactly what that felt like. For those few short moments in the booth it was like electricity was running through you.

But I think people are not taking away the message this author is trying to convey. We can't go back to the politics of 2016 dividing us up by claiming anybody who has a harsh word for these candidates are racist. Quite frankly I'm sick to death of Joy Reid and her bash Bernie agenda. And by falling into this trap we'll lose again.

[pnwmom]

223. The article is false then. Chuck Schumer is in the Senate. So are others Mnuchin has given to. n/t

[Lazy Daisy]

227. I apologize, let me correct

The article states she is the only one in 2016.

[pnwmom]

232. You'd really have to hate her to think she would make

a decision on that case based on a single $2,000 donation.

[Lazy Daisy]

234. maybe

Or maybe you're a person who wants to know everything there is to know about a person who aspires to hold the highest office. Maybe you're a person who can sift through all the information and make an educated choice. Maybe you're a person who can support her even though she made a bad decision because everything else is in line with what you expect from an elected official.

nah, you're right. gotta hate her if you believe this is something that should be sorted out.

[lapucelle]

226. As long as people are are asserting

that "every candidate should be scrutinized, no matter who they are", then we should insist that any and all financial disclosure documents that are filed, were filed, or should have been filed be made available to the public and the press for close examination.

[mcar]

75. Coincidence, pure coincidence

[Tiggeroshii]

77. 90% of Sanders voters refused to vote for Clinton?

[emulatorloo]

89. She means 90% of Sanders supporters voted FOR Clinton.

Extremely poor sentence construction though. She's well aware that the great majority of Sanders supporters like you and me voted for Clinton in the GE

[Tiggeroshii]

98. Ahh

That makes sense... thanks!

[ejbr]

97. Those same Bernie people

who are promoting Nina Turner? hmmm, can't seem to figure that out.

[emulatorloo]

107. Oh you mean Nina Turner, who is aching to endorse Republicans, Greens, and Libertarians?

Maybe that will help you a little bit.

https://www.thenation.com/article/nina-turner-it-is-not-our-job-to-fit-into-the-democratic-establishment/


CM: Will the group (Our Revolution) be endorsing non-Democrats?

Nina Turner: You know what, yes. We are open to it. And for me, I’ve also heard the senator say this lately too: Let’s put the political affiliation to the side. If there is a Republican or a Libertarian or Green Party person that believes in Medicare for all, then that’s our kind of person. If there’s somebody that believes that Citizens United needs to be overturned, that we need the 28th amendment to the Constitution that declares that money, corporate money, is not speech and that corporations should not have more speech than Mrs. Johnson down the street and Mr. Gonzalez around the corner, then that’s our kind of people.

[ejbr]

137. She believes in policy above party

The nerve!

[emulatorloo]

142. Please share the Republican and Libertarian policy you and Ms. Turner find so captivating!

[ejbr]

148. Well

No more unnecessary wars and prison reform: Rand Paul as an example. Can't vote against my own best interests. No, Rand Paul is generally worse than any Dem, but some Dems seem to be okay with killing innocent people and ensuring full prisons at any cost. Not cool. Not cool at all.

[emulatorloo]

163. Rand Paul? Ah, ok.

[ejbr]

178. Anyhoo,

Back to the point of this OP, Berniecrats are not necessarily racist for addressing issues.

[JHan]

201. Uhm there's a Dem whose positions on criminal justice reform are identical

To Rand Paul - Cory Booker.

But I forget... Cory Booker is a neoestablishmentcorporatistbigpharmaShill

[ejbr]

231. And yet

Rand Paul voted for the importation of drugs from Canada while Booker, initially, did not for ridiculous reasons. He doesn't represent me if he is okay with seniors on fixed income having to pay twice as much for drugs than our Canadian neighbors.

I am not seeking 100% agreement with any candidate; we both know that's not possible. But certain positions are nonnegotiable. Senator Booker is making an effort, however, to at least consider what Americans want. And as I mentioned previously, Rand Paul is worse than any Democrat in total. Still, I vote with policies and not party. The Dems do edge out Repigs in many instances, but a (D) by one's name is not all that matters to me.

[JHan]

235. Those were not "ridiculous reasons"...

This piece dissects the outrage:

https://cenlamar.com/2017/01/14/if-bernie-sanders-cares-about-cheaper-drugs-he-should-stop-smearing-his-colleagues-for-rejecting-his-flawed-amendment/

"Well, for starters, Sanders couldn’t figure out if he wanted to create a fund to import drugs from Canada or the entire world. In its initial iteration, his amendment sought to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for the importation of drugs from “Canada and other countries.” Amy Klobuchar subsequently cleaned up the language and eliminated “other countries” from its title.

But, aside from the confusion about the scope of this proposed reserve fund, the primary reason it failed is that Sanders misapprehended the mechanisms necessary to establish an importation process that conforms with FDA guidelines. It’s not enough to say “these drugs must be safe;” there needs to be funding for quality control and compliance, which was never addressed.

Sure, this was a non-binding budget amendment, and some will argue that things could have simply been cleaned up later on. But it was ostensibly designed to be a funding mechanism, and instead, it read like a milquetoast resolution. There were a number of other amendments introduced that very day that included provisions for the Food and Drug Administration; Sanders’s didn’t, and it needed to.

In making the case for this legislation, Sanders spoke almost exclusively about the re-importation of patented American pharmaceuticals, and to be fair, that is an enormous part of the equation; it’s also what most American consumers demand. However, it doesn’t capture the entirety of the market. In some cases, American consumers may turn to Canadian compounding pharmacies for cheaper specialized medications; in others, Americans may want to purchase generic medications that are no longer patented and can be manufactured independently at a lower cost. And that’s why we need FDA oversight and compliance."

and this diary is also excellent in its take down of the smear leveled against Booker at the time.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/16/1621097/-Cory-Booker-Made-the-Right-Call

many reflexively went with Sanders' assessment of why the amendment failed.

And I can clear up your confusion: Booker is not "Okay with senors on fixed income having to pay twice as much for drugs than our canadian neighbors."

The fact Paul gets any mention at all boggles the mind. Paul would like increased competition , without care for regulatory input, because that's his libertarian philosophy. Paul, as you correctly note , is worse than any democrat, because he would never support a universal health care system. He believes in the fallacy that the invisible hand of the market place solves everything. He wouldn't care about the effects of americans piggybacking the canadian system in lieu of implementing universal healthcare coverage ( which doesn't necessarily have to be single payer)

"Our Revolution" spends time dissing democrats but has time to "reach out" to republicans like maybe Rand Paul? I don't think they know how to pick their allies well.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

108. I read Ryan Cooper's piece the other day

Is he really that tone deaf?

[lapucelle]

253. I think he's even more tone deaf than that...

On the "About Me" tab on his website, there is only one photo. Here it is.



From his "Ethics Statement"
I swear to do my utmost to hold the elite to account.
I swear to do my utmost to avoid being captured by the elite.

Mr. Cooper begins his article on "Why Leftists Are Suspicious of These Three Specific People Who Just Happen Not To Be White" by using a facile appropriation a BLM principle to arouse suspicion about the woman of color whom he selected for his very special treatment.

http://www.ryanlouiscooper.com/p/about.html

[KPN]

110. Joy Reid is way off base with these

remarks. 90% of Bernie supporters did not refuse to vote for Hillary. She has always had a thing for Bernie and Bernie supporters and is willing to fuel division in the party to serve her views. These remarks are irresponsible. They are strikingly threatening. They are indicative of someone who has let her success go to her head.

[pnwmom]

112. You keep misreading her tweet. She says that 90% of Bernie supporters voted FOR Hillary.

"Just as a statistical matter, aren't there more black Democrats
than leftists who refused to vote for Clinton
as 90% of Sanders voters did?

Yes, she could have been a little clearer if she'd ended her sentence "as 90% of Sanders voters did vote for Clinton." But it's obvious in context what she was saying -- and as a well-informed person in the media she knows that the vast majority of Bernie voters chose Hillary in the general.

[SaschaHM]

117. At this point, assume that they're just pointing at a grammatically confusing sentence...

to dress drown Mrs. Reid and avoid the substance of the tweets.

[emulatorloo]

126. Fox News tactic. Willfully misinterpret an out of context quote.

It is clear that Reid's tweets are talking about the small minority of busters who are engaged in attacking Patrick, Harris, Booker.

[melman]

264. No it's not clear

And deliberately so, so it's Reid that was employing the Fox tactic. Otherwise why would she fail to clarify when scores of people asked her to?

[KPN]

261. Keep misreading? I only read it once. But you are right,

I misread it. Having not seen the article she apparently was responding to, it sounded at quick glance as just another rant against Bernie and his movement by someone who has done so in the past.

[emulatorloo]

120. Dude, stop with the willful misinterpretation. Joy is talking about the 10% that DIDNT vote for

Clinton in the GE, those who are now targeting Harris, Patrick, Booker.

Sentence construction is poor, but Reid is well aware that the great majority of Sanders supporters voted for the Dem nominee in the 2016 general election.

[SaschaHM]

123. It's easier to nitpick at grammar than to address the substance. nt.

[G_j]

138. I wouldn't call it nitpicking grammar

when a number of people (including myself) actually thought she was saying the opposite of what others here are saying she actually meant.

[HuskyOffset]

140. The sentence is very poorly worded

The way I read it, it could mean two different things. Maybe I'm just expecting too much from someone whose profession is communication.

[KPN]

255. Yes, I did misinterpret her statement -- which was very poorly worded but my bad.

It wasn't willful. Though I will admit that her history re: Bernie and supporters contributed to my misinterpretation and I am subsequently not a fan.

Question: how does she know it's Bernie supporters who didn't vote for Hillary that are "targeting Harris, Patrick, Booker"? I have some reservations -- not strong ones but some -- re: Booker.

[George Eliot]

248. I noticed that as well. Several msnbc personalities displayed a sort of contempt for sanders.

I was uncomfortable with that.

[KPN]

256. Yep. That's the way I saw it. Maybe one exception -- but the rest were

in the establishment camp as was most of the msm during and following the primary.

[R B Garr]

257. Those tweets were very informative, forward looking and timely.

She doesn't have a "thing" for anything like you say. She is just informative, and that is where the info takes her.

[KPN]

260. Well, I respectively disagree on that.

[George II]

113. Oh boy, oh Joy! Good job Ms. Reid.

[melman]

183. Really?

How do you know she 'doesn't think that'? Just wondering because she most certainly did not say that. Many many people have asked in that thread for her to either clarify that that's what she meant, or offer something to back it up is she meant the opposite.


She's ignored them all for going on eight hours now. Wonder why that would be.

[GaryCnf]

125. I might be

more concerned about this, being a black Democrat myself, if other factions had not imposed the same "fealty to our way of thinking" requirement on Shaun King, Cornell West, Nina Turner, Marc Hill etc.

[Hekate]

128. Ouch! A toast to Joy

[workinclasszero]

133. That's a very bad optic

And a terrible...coincidence?

[Doug the Dem]

143. Bernie People?

Or Bernie Bros?

[ananda]

144. This Sanders supporter ..

.. is not a bot, and is still a good Democrat.

In my view, the Democratic party is one of
inclusion and humanity.

Nuff said.

[Jane Austin]

191. Absolutely Amen!

And Amen.

[FairWinds]

155. Why read tweets about the article when you . .

can read the article itself?

http://theweek.com/articles/715955/why-leftists-dont-trust-kamala-harris-cory-booker-deval-patrick

Cooper makes some good points, but I am very distrustful of anyone who writes for the New Republic or WaPo.

DU needs to debate this and other issues.

[Lil Missy]

156. We all love Joy Reid! ..... until she says something about bernie and/or his supporters

[nycbos]

160. The left has a big problem with sexism. It is time to confront it.

[UT_democrat]

164. F this S

Lots of us Bernie primary supporters voted for HC in election. Wake up and quit chasing phantoms.

[lunamagica]

165. Well done, Joy!

[aikoaiko]

168. Classic Joy Reid promoting a division between Bernie supporters v supporters ofMainstream Democrats.

Its her thing. And she knows her audience.

[LexVegas]

171. ...

[aikoaiko]

180. Don't cry Lex. It will be OK.

[NurseJackie]

189. She's being honest and truthful. Why would anyone object to that?

I like Joy Reid a lot.

[aikoaiko]

192. I'm sure you do. Her audience loves her when she puts down Bernie supporters or Bernie.

Hey, it gets her ratings and that's her job.

After all the negative comments about HRC in the primary and the supportive comments toward Keith Ellison for DNC chair, one would think Joy would realize that criticism from Bernie supporters is not due to the skin color of the candidates. Truth.

[NurseJackie]

200. That sounds a lot like the "some of my best friends" fallacy.

I'm seeing an "if-this, then-not-that" statement... but it just doesn't follow. Supportive comments for one person don't disprove the actions of others. That's some very weak tea.

[ismnotwasm]

209. Are you fucking kidding me?

criticism from Bernie supporters is not due to the skin color of candidates

Holy fucking shit. Had no idea there was a racism exemption there.

[Caliman73]

199. Agreed.

I am even willing to give the benefit of the doubt and say that it is not the majority of Bernie supporters (of which I was one). However, all of this focus on Harris, Booker, Patrick, and other candidates, when there was support for an anti-choice more Sanders backed candidate in a recent election, seems odd to me.

[NurseJackie]

202. I think that some people are unaware that many of us can think for ourselves, and...

... that we have (mostly) good memories, and that (in a pinch) we can use search engines to refresh our memories. All these things aren't happening in a vacuum. There's context, there's history, and we can read!

[Caliman73]

233. No doubt.

My fall back is to always remember the nation's history with African American people. 1971, just two years before I was born, was when as a nation, it was decided that Black people had the right to marry people of another skin color throughout the entire country. Just 7 years before that, legislation had to be made to explicitly tell people that discriminating against people because they were Black, or women, or other minority groups, was not legal. It is not a coincidence that all of the up and coming politicians (and seasoned one in the case of Hilary) are Black and/or women.

We can have discussions on progressive policies and messaging. We can discuss concerns over the level of involvement that a politician has with moneyed interests. I have no problem with that, but seriously be honest, and be consistent with your concern.

[Me.]

198. Nothing Classic About It

During the primary, she often had BS team members on, especially Nina Turner.

[NurseJackie]

208. Yes. I remember.

[Me.]

213. In Fact I Thought For A While

She might be a supporter, but I think she was just being fair.

[NurseJackie]

216. I remember the CONTRAST between the two women. Joy Reid's calm and thoughtful demeanor -VS-...

Joy Reid's calm and thoughtful demeanor -VS- Nina Turner's loud, fast-paced, non-stop, frenetic, can't-take-a-breath, aggressive, interrupting, won't-let-anyone-else-speak, and evasive persona ... well, let me just say that the differences were striking.

I honestly don't know if that's a character she becomes for TV purposes, or if maybe she's a different person at home and in real life, she might very well be a nice and normal person. But what I do know is that watching and listening to Nina Turner was a chore, and I fail to see what the attraction is. (Apparently, once her Ohio district got to know her, they'd had enough of her as well. Little wonder, in my opinion, that she didn't win reelection.)

[Me.]

217. Watching Nina Was Indeed A Chore

AS much as I liked Joy, I had to turn the channel.

[pnwmom]

225. The ones promoting the division are those who attack Kamala, Booker, and Edwards

as not being real progressives.

[George Eliot]

263. Yes, too much divisiveness and I avoid her because she feeds it.

It is a time for unity but I fear that will be hard to come by noting the bitterness which still remains among some Democrats. You might find this article enlightening. Apparently a campaign to sabotage Sanders is alive and well. So it isn't about 2016 at all but the present and the future.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/behind-the-media-surge-against-bernie-sanders_us_59477d1fe4b024b7e0df4d9a

[R B Garr]

275. She pointed out that it is Kamala being sabotaged.

Joy Reid is a reporter pointing that out. Kamala is being sabotaged. It's not about Bernie being sabotaged.

[George Eliot]

284. "By Bernie People"--more divisiveness. Why Bernie people?

Last edited Sun Aug 6, 2017, 06:53 AM - Edit history (3)

And what Bernie people? Big tent- making targets of anybody on the left is unproductive. Couldn't it just be that "Bernie people" prefer progressive Democrats over centrists? Reid alienates people the party needs to win. I wish she wouldn't.

[moondust]

172. Are you sure

it's not about their ties to Wall Street and big "moneyed interests" and not about their race?

I *suspected* some reverse racism against the white guy back during the primaries even though it was Bill Clinton who grew up immersed in Southern culture and had a history of making at least one racist comment about Jesse Jackson.

[KitSileya]

219. Did you just say "reverse racism" un-ironically?

Really? You think "reverse racism" is a thing?

[lapucelle]

254. I'm sure it's all just an innocent coincidence.

[GoCubsGo]

174. Now that she mentions it, that's a great question.

I hadn't really connected the dots until she pointed it out, sadly. I see what she means now. I pretty much trash any posts that discuss or poll for 2020 candidates. We need to worry about next year's elections, before we deal with another that is three-and-a-half years away.

[DonCoquixote]

179. Because

They are mad that Obama, for all of the things that he could be criticized for, did more to hold back the tide of destruction than they ever did. They think that be destorying any sense of idnetity, black , woman , gay, that we can finally become that big mass that so many of the old left promised.

Maybe if you old "union boys" did not make it a popint to attack women, gays and minroties, you might have allies, but no, you went archie bunker, which is why those of you that did not vote sanders loved trump.

[GulfCoast66]

187. Seems very disgustingly tactical to me

And is is just the few Bernie supporters who are all about Bernie and couldn't care less about the party. Say less than 10%. Most Bernie supporters are loyal Democrats

This small but loud group think Bernie will run and without a clear cut favorite like Hillary was last time they feel the largest threat to him are African American voters in the south. If they can knock out anyone they feel will wrap up an early delegate lead down here then in their minds Bernie wins.

Because heaven forbid African American voters in the south get a major say in the political party in which they are the most loyal supporters. Looks deplorable to me.

But what do I know. Maybe they are not that smart.

[Tarheel_Dem]

222. Bernie people are still holding out hope that he'll run again in 2020. They have to cut Kamala,

Corey & Deval off at the knees, because Sanders wouldn't stand a chance in a Democratic primary against any of them. They must be eliminated now to make way for a Bernie do-over. I was told the other day by a returning Bernie supporter that it is a real possibility that BS will run again under our party's banner. Imagine my shock! I'm sure Joy feels the same way.

[Progressive dog]

237. I like Joy Reid and respect her opinions

She is dead on with this one.

[ucrdem]

239. shazam!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

240. I proudly stand with Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Deval Patrick.

[killbotfactory]

245. Good to know policies and positions are off the table.

It's not like they matter.

Whatever horrible universe we've descended into is beyond my comprehension.

Even for democrats, it's just too much to ask that the boot of wealthy and powerful not stamp on the face of working people forever.

[pnwmom]

246. What are you saying? That the black progressives Kamala, Booker, and Patrick

pursue bad policies?

Otherwise, why are they being singled out?

[DoodAbides]

247. Blacks and women, consistently. nt

[jimlup]

250. She is obviously wrong on several counts

90% of the Bernie voters did not "refuse to vote for Clinton." I have only anecdotal evidence but I'm sure this is wrong.

In my family, of 7 Bernie voters, 6 voted for Clinton enthusiastically in November (I am one of the 6.)

Further, I have trouble with her calling this out. She provides no evidence that it is even happening and then proceeds to call it out. Seems to me it is picking the scab of the 2016 election. Just say'n

[pnwmom]

251. She meant the opposite. 90% DID vote for Clinton, as she knows from her own reporting.

So to focus more on the 10% who did NOT than all the African American voters who DID isn't right.

That's what she's saying.

And the link she pointed to was an attack at three black politicians -- Harris, Booker, and Patrick. No white politicians were singled out -- just these three black Democrats.

"Just as a statistical matter, aren't there more black Democrats
than leftists who refused to vote for Clinton, as 90% of Sanders voters did?"

[melman]

265. You keep saying that

Bit it's clear she meant to imply the opposite. Her absolute refusal to clarify gives it away.

[pnwmom]

266. She has reported that the vast majority of Bernie voters voted for Hillary in the general. So has

everyone else on her network, and on CNN.

She hasn't suddenly rejected her own reporting.

And she doesn't waste her time engaging with tweeps who are deliberately misrepresenting her views.

[Gothmog]

252. K&R

[JCanete]

267. What the fuck is she talking about? Does she have any evidence that black candidates are being

singled out? That would makes absofuckinglutely no sense. Name a candidate, I'm sure you can find things said about them by "Bernie people," and recently.


"Sure seems like", based upon one article talking about up-and-coming contenders for leadership in the democratic party is the kind of journalism Joy Reid likes to engage in I guess.

[YCHDT]

269. Except the three mentioned in the article?

[JCanete]

270. yes, the one article is now a trend that she sees. nt

[pnwmom]

274. She's not the only one who sees that trend. n/t

[JCanete]

283. Are they all basing that trend on the same article? That's not called a trend.

It is patently ridiculous because there is no love lost between the Bernie camp and the Manchin's of the world, and there's plenty of harsh words for Biden and Tim Caine and Perez and Waserman Shultz....and Clinton, etc. Is it all racist? is it all sexist? Could it POSSIBLY be something else? It's not like there isn't love for Ellison and Ben Jealous and Nina Turner and Elizabeth Warren(who could actually be a front-runner in the 2020 GE). It concerns me that people want it so bad to be about something other than the issues. Then, they can dismiss the message out of hand.

[George Eliot]

287. MSNBC group think. Look at the interests of the extablishment. Perez over Ellison.

This is about race in one way: the Obama black vote did not turn out for Clinton. The party needs that vote and demands the right centrist candidates be ready. I'll be curious to see how much demand/backing there will be for Warren should she run.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

272. 90%?? If true, that is seriously fucked up. No wonder there is so much antipathy towards Sanders

and his supporters.

[pnwmom]

273. She is saying that 90% of Bernie supporters ended up voting for Hillary. That's clear

from her reporting, however clunkily worded her tweet was.

[LittleBlue]

277. Joy Reid talking out her ass once again

Bernie people, shockingly, want Bernie. They tear down opponents to Bernie the same way that Hillary supporters tear down threats to Hillary. The same way that Obama and Hillary supporters went at each other in 2008.

Of course Joy Reid has to attack Bernie supporters for racism because she has nothing else to talk about. The 90% statistic isn't even real, she just made it up. She's the left's Hannity.

[pnwmom]

278. The 90% IS real. At least 90% of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary in the general.

Her tweet was ambiguous but in context -- on Twitter and in the context of her own reporting -- her meaning was clear. She's saying that it's wrong to focus on the 10% of the Bernie supporters who failed to vote for Hillary, to the determinant of the vast majority of African Americans who DID vote for her.

[LittleBlue]

280. That must be what she meant

"aren't there more black Democrats than leftists who refused to vote for Clinton, as 90% of Sander voters did?"

Usually that final clause refers to the previous clause, the "leftists who refused to vote for Clinton." Your explanation must be right because that makes zero sense.

This happens in literally every primary in both parties. Dump supporters were slandering Cruz/Jeb and everyone else. For me, Kamala Harris's support of property seizure without trial is a large enough question mark to prefer someone else. That's a progressive position to take, as I've never known a time when we supported the ultra-authoritarian position of seizing property without trial.

[pnwmom]

281. Do you know where that story about her supporting property seizure without trial comes from?

RT, the Russian propaganda network, is pushing a story about how Kamala Harris is being mean to So Cal, an energy corporation that was responsible for a gigantic methane leak that affected millions of people in LA. As the Attorney General, she has filed a lawsuit against So Cal, and she is asking that the judge freeze some of So Cal's assets while the case is in progress -- so that the company won't be able to say that it doesn't have enough assets to pay for the damage it did.

Russian's oligarchs own big pieces of energy companies around the world, and they don't want to be held responsible for damage that their companies might do -- whether it's oil leaks, methane leaks, or anything else.

And so RT is duping Americans into thinking that Harris is doing something wrong by suing So Cal and holding them responsible.

Here's an article about the environmental disaster in LA. I'm not going to look of the RT article that talks about the asset seizures because I won't post that here anyway.

http://time.com/4205708/california-worst-gas-leak-socal/

[LittleBlue]

282. It came from the Monterey Herald

She sponsored the bill.

In an effort to fight criminal organizations, a newly proposed bill could give prosecutors the power to freeze illicit profits before filing criminal charges...

The bill comes a month after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sharply limited a civil asset forfeiture program that had come under bipartisan scrutiny. A number of ideologically opposed groups, including American Civil Liberties Union, The Institute for Justice and Americans for Tax Reform, have all criticized forfeiture programs, particularly when no criminal charges are filed.

The bill is being sponsored by Attorney General Kamala Harris, who has focused on battling transnational criminal organizations. Harris said those groups have made California the biggest point of entry for methamphetamine trafficking into the United States, adding that this bill could equip local and state law enforcement with tools to “dismantle these dangerous organizations.”

http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20150223/NEWS/150229908

I think this is wrong in a free country.

[DBoon]

279. Because almost all the attacks are from Russian botnets

with the purpose of dividing opposition to their "president", rather than advancing any progressive agenda.

Don't confuse anonymous Internet posters with living humans who voted for Bernie in the primaries