I'm not a particular fan of either Sanders or Harris, but I couldn't help...

[LAS14]

.... wondering at the huge intense push back regarding Bernie's decision to give a rebuttal on Facebook, while I don't think I saw a single objection to Harris' doing the same thing. Odd.

When I say I'm "not a particular fan," it doesn't mean I have negative opinions. That clarification wouldn't fit in the subject line.

[Dennis Donovan]

1. Because it's DU...

[Joe941]

54. This is DU. Simple. No one here claims to be impartial.

[Garrett78]

78. Or because it's apples and oranges. See post #72.

[pnwmom]

82. The Hill published a false report saying that Bernie's would be at the same time as Stacey's.

Later, the Hill changed the report to add that his speech would FOLLOW hers, but they didn't note that this was a correction. So a lot of people didn't understand where anyone got the idea that Bernie was trying to compete with Stacey.

This problem didn't occur with Kamala, because her announcement came out later, and it was never reported that she'd be speaking at the same time as Stacey.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Maybe because the latter is a Democrat.

[stopbush]

64. We have a winner!

[treestar]

3. Harris does not have a history from 2016

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

[LongtimeAZDem]

5. +1

[Trumpocalypse]

33. Well said

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

[R B Garr]

35. Exactly, and this is not hard to understand or remember,

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

[progressoid]

37. Doncha hate it when Democrats bash Democrats.

Perhaps Clinton's most fresh and savage criticism on Wednesday was directed at the Democratic National Committee. She went as far as to say that when she became her party's presidential nominee, she inherited "nothing" from the committee.
"I'm now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party," Clinton said. "It was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, non-existent, wrong.

[treestar]

38. that doesn't quite seem to be the same thing

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

[progressoid]

48. True, it wasn't any individual. It was the entire DNC.

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

[treestar]

69. Ironic, since Bernie has supporters who blame the DNC

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

[R B Garr]

87. Exactly again. The accusations about Hillary caused explanations

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

[Hassin Bin Sober]

45. So it's got nothing to do with the speech. Some people just can't get over 2016

I figured as much.

[KPN]

58. Bingo

[treestar]

68. Speech?

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

[Hassin Bin Sober]

70. Yeah. Like I said.

[treestar]

71. don't know what you are getting at there

oh well

[Rhiannon12866]

79. And Bernie Sanders spoke last of all, criticized Trump and praised Abrams

Who he had previously endorsed.

[treestar]

80. Bravo!

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

[MontanaMama]

53. Yup.

+1

[genxlib]

4. If i am not mistaken

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

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

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

[LAS14]

15. This makes sense, but I believe Sanders spoke after, not opposite Abrams, or...

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

[klook]

73. Interesting.

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

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

[Hassin Bin Sober]

46. Sanders spoke after. Next?

[Bluepinky]

57. Bernie spoke after Abrams, and he started his speech by praising Abram's response.

Are you going to criticize him for that too?

[Rhiannon12866]

67. Yes, I heard his response and it was scheduled after Abrams

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

[Rhiannon12866]

77. No, Bernie Sanders spoke last, well after the others.

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

[TCJ70]

6. The whole outrage was based on ever moving goalposts...

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

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

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

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

[Bluepinky]

25. Yes, it's Berniephobia, irrational hatred of Bernie Sanders.

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

[pangaia]

26. Yup.

[mr_lebowski]

30. Very astute ... agreed ...

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

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

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

[Arazi]

32. Agreed

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

[Hassin Bin Sober]

47. Definitely.

[Behind the Aegis]

84. I agree as well.

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

[Arazi]

92. 2016 had outright Bernie Sanders anti-Semites, out loud, here

Some remain

[ZeroSomeBrains]

34. Evil Bernie dares to exist offending some

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

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

[KPN]

60. Yup.

[LiberalLovinLug]

62. +1000

Exactly. Your line sums it up perfectly:

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

An irrational circular firing squad.

[shanny]

65. bingo

[Raine]

81. Yes, EXACTLY nt

[MrGrieves]

7. Maybe its because Harris didn't do one?

She did a prequel.

[TCJ70]

11. She called it a "pre-brutal". Preempting the official Democratic rebuttal. N/t

[LexVegas]

8. Harris didn't do a rebuttal.

[TCJ70]

12. She called it a "pre-buttal". I guess she just had to go first...

...before Abrams.

[FreepFryer]

9. Disingenuous. "Not a particular fan of either" false equivalence setup.

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

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

[octoberlib]

10. Harris's response was a prequel. She wasn't trying to compete with Abrams.

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

[TCJ70]

13. "Pre-buttal".

[pangaia]

28. I didn't see Sanders as trying to compete with Abrams either.

[honest.abe]

14. There is a tradition to provide a single voice in response FOLLOWING a SOTU address.

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

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

[Bluepinky]

16. I disagree, I see it as another voice against Trump's BS.

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

[honest.abe]

17. He could have waited one day.

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

[Bluepinky]

20. Some people criticize Bernie no matter what he does.

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

[honest.abe]

22. In most cases he deserves it.

[LanternWaste]

49. The corollary is just as valid.

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

[Bluepinky]

55. Not sure how that applies in this situation.

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

[TCJ70]

18. You're a mind reader now?

Bernie on the other hand assumed that the formal Dem response by Abrams was not going to be good enough

Based on what? This is the third year he’s done this.

[honest.abe]

21. With Bernie its fairly easy to see his motives.

[TCJ70]

23. Let me fix that for you: "assume his motives". N/t

[pangaia]

29. " Bernie on the other hand assumed that the formal Dem response by Abrams was not going to be good

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

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

[progressoid]

36. There were 5 rebuttals last year.

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

[honest.abe]

39. I thought it was Joe Kennedy??

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/30/watch-joe-kennedy-iii-democratic-response-to-trump-state-of-the-union.html

[progressoid]

44. Yes, Kennedy the 3rd.

Typing error.

[honest.abe]

41. Ok.. yes, that is basically correct but..

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

Along with the Democratic party’s official response to the speech, to be delivered by Massachusetts representative Joseph Kennedy III, Elizabeth Guzman, a state lawmaker in Virginia, will give the official Spanish-language response, vocal Trump critic Maxine Waters, a California congresswoman, will deliver a response on BET, Maryland politician Donna Edwards will respond on behalf the Working Families Party, and senator Bernie Sanders will offer his own take via social media.

https://qz.com/1192720/trump-state-of-the-union-2018-how-to-watch-the-response-videos/

[progressoid]

43. so clearly the TRADITION of a SINGLE voice wasn't followed last year either.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

50. It's never been followed.

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

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

[progressoid]

63. I'm all for more voices against these assholes.

[honest.abe]

51. I have to admit I did not realize that.

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

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

[njhoneybadger]

19. Bernie Bernie Bernie

Always has to be in the limelight

[Squinch]

24. I've never heard Harris trashing my party.

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

[Glamrock]

31. You do realize that a shitload of those

rabid and vocal opposers were democratic voters, yes?

[LexVegas]

40. A shitload were Trump voters.

[Glamrock]

66. Uhm no

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

[Dennis Donovan]

85. Neither did Senator Sanders...

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

[Squinch]

86. Sure they were. Russians who worked where I work and socialized where I socialize.

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

[Dennis Donovan]

88. Every single Sanders supporter - every single one - voted for Clinton in the GE

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

Do you work and socialize in Minsk?

[Squinch]

89. It simply isn't true that "every single Sanders supporter... voted for Clinton in the GE."

[Dennis Donovan]

90. The number of "bros" in 2016 pales in comparison to the PUMAs of 2008...

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

[redstatebluegirl]

27. Because Harris is a Democrat not just one when she is running for President.

[bigtree]

42. she's a Democrat

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

[RelativelyJones]

52. Harris is a Democrat and didn't spend 2016 kneecapping HRC. Hence the push back.

[QC]

59. Are you suggesting that people are rehashing the 2016 primary?

Surely they would not do such a thing!

[still_one]

56. Right or wrong this should be a message that the ghosts of 2016 are still with us, and why it

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

[stonecutter357]

61. Cool Story, Bro , !

[Garrett78]

72. I don't really care about Sanders posting a message but there is a big difference here.

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

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

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

[Bluepinky]

74. So says you. I like hearing what Senator Sanders has to say and agree with him about income

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

[Garrett78]

75. I didn't comment on his message or say anything about liking or disliking.

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

[Bluepinky]

76. Ok, I apologize. I'm just tired of hearing him criticized for everything he does,

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

[treestar]

91. [phone]

[Hortensis]

83. And so you just had to "discuss" it all over again. I understand.