Which of our candidates, other than Harris, have made statements defending Joe Biden by name?

[highplainsdem]

I have no doubt at all that Joe would be defending them, probably at length, if they were under attack by Trump in this way.

But so far I haven't heard of any of our other presidential candidates speaking up in Joe's defense, except for Harris (and kudos to her for that).

[emmaverybo]

1. They should be circling the wagons. Anything can happen and one of them become the next target.

What’s at stake is not only Joe Biden’s reputation and candidacy, but a larger issue, our democratic process. Every primary candidate must decry Trump putting our democracy, our national security, at risk.

[blm]

2. Oh geez. Now you are SEEKING a way to attack other candidates

Show some restraint.....please. It’s not enough for you that most all of us here have piped in to stick up for Biden and/or jump on the media giving credence to Trump’s attacks?

Why would you want to alienate those of us who support other candidates for this primary over an issue you are MANUFACTURING?

Please reconsider your intent here.

Gee, I hope I’m just missing something and your intention isn’t to cause unnecessary primary strife. It would be just awful if you were manufacturing primary strife deliberately. How does THAT sound to you?

[highplainsdem]

4. I'd expect Biden to speak up for any other candidates being attacked this way, too.

[blm]

8. Baloney. And it may have escaped your notice that this is a GD issue

And an LBN issue here at DU. Yes, there’s some crossover here, but, this post LOOKING to squeeze some primary strife out of this news is passive aggressive and inappropriate.

[Cha]

10. No.. this should be in Democratic Primaries.

[blm]

12. No, this was an attempt to squeeze primary strife out of

an issue that is of national security concern.

Hard to imagine you were happy to roll with the OP’s original approach which was dripping with passive aggressive smarm. Thought that wasn’t our thing?

[highplainsdem]

13. See reply 11. And drop the personal attacks.

[blm]

15. It was an accurate description of your post.

I attacked the post and how it was written. You wrote it. Some of us caught your intention. Deal with it.

[highplainsdem]

17. Some of us feel the other candidates should defend Biden by name. Deal with that.

[emmaverybo]

33. Personalized attack. "Deal with it," certainly conveys an attitude. Were you attacked? No candidate

was even singled out.

[Iliyah]

14. No, as democrats, we should care about each other, this is what

makes us different. I learned this from Pres O and VP Biden.

If it were any other Democratic Candidate, I'm pretty sure VP Biden would have dropped the name alongwith statement.

[emmaverybo]

35. THIS. These candidates represent our party. It is fair for us to have expectations of them as a

group. At the very least, it is fair for some of us to wish they would transcend self-interest, suspend competition for a moment when one of them is under unfair, seriously abusive, and corrupt attack by this president.

They are judged by the American public as a group. It is fine to urge sporting behavior on the team we root for. It is not bad behavior on our part to call upon them to show good conduct on the court.

[Cha]

19. Nope still belongs in Democratic Primaries.

Boy.. you really know how to insult other members.

[blm]

21. Her OP was insultingly disingenuous in its original form

[highplainsdem]

23. No, it wasn't. And you can tell by the replies here that others understood why I felt it was

important for candidates to defend one another by name in this kind of crisis.

If you don't think that's important, feel free to post your own OP to that effect.

[blm]

26. What's with the 'by name' goal post? Attacking Trump for what he did

to try and hurt Biden and noting its illegality now translates in YOUR world to not defending Biden at all?

Sheesh. Petty.

[highplainsdem]

52. I'm surprised you don't understand the importance of defending fellow candidates by name when

they're unfairly attacked.

It's important to show a united front, as Drunken Irishman pointed out in reply 31. If our candidates don't, Trump and the GOP will look for ways to exploit apparent divisions. It would be very easy to do a digital ad asking why candidates X, Y and Z aren't defending candidate A (and easy to find video of X, Y and Z looking disapproving). Why make something like that easier for the GOP?

It's important for rival candidates to let their own supporters know that the candidate being attacked by the GOP did nothing wrong. When this RW smear about Biden first surfaced, I saw some supporters of other candidates pushing it as a way to go after Biden. And yesterday, not long before I posted this OP, I saw one supporter of another candidate on Twiter complaining that another supporter of that candidate should NOT have posted a news story making it clear Biden did nothing wrong, because "the story helps (name of their preferred candidate). The best way to stop that is for the other candidates to defend the candidate under attack by name.

It's important for all our candidates to keep in mind that we don't have a nominee yet, and the candidate under attack could well be the nominee, and it hurts our chances of winning in 2020 if candidates aren't defended by name.

And since there are important reasons for defending candidates by name, NOT doing so will almost inevitably raise questions about why that wasn't done.

One is whether whoever isn't defending the candidate under attack might believe the attacks. If so, that raises a whole new set of problems.

The other is whether a rival candidate isn't defending the attacked candidate by name because the attacks might benefit the rival's campaign by hurting the campaign of the candidate under attack.

I don't want to think any of our candidates would do that.

But they should understand that it's important for them to defend any candidate under attack by the president and the GOP by name.

[emmaverybo]

29. Yes, because it involves an alleged attempt to meddle in the primaries by inflicting damage on

the current primaries front-runner.

[Cha]

36. Exactly.. Thank you, emmaverybo!

[highplainsdem]

11. No, it's a primaries issue. I'd like to see our candidates willing to defend one another from

attacks by Trump, just as I'd like to see them avoid attacks on one another.

I realized when I saw the topic here about what Harris said that I hadn't seen or heard of any similar statements from other candidates, and a quick check of Twitter didn't turn any up, either.

I will have a higher opinion of candidates who defend Biden by name. They might be rivals for the Democratic nomination, but they're still supposed to be on the same team, and IMO it shows more leadership to speak up clearly in defense of other candidates who are attacked unfairly.

[sprinkleeninow]

54. Uh, I agree this is latest news more so than a Dem Primary

item for discussion. Whatever the deciding factor to post in the primaries group, this has kinda devolved into a fest of sorts. Choosing my words here carefully, I hope.

I have my favorites who shall remain unnamed for now.

Won't hold my nose for the nominee, just so y'all know.

Kick the orange disaster outta 'our house'.

[Cha]

64. Hope every candidate will follow @SenKamalaHarris's lead.

Link to tweet

We're not the only ones feeling this way,

[JI7]

5. also Biden doesn't need to be defended as much as trump needs to be called out for what he is doing

which is what he did in 2016.

why let them lead us around.

[blm]

27. Exactly. But that truth doesn't fit the agenda.

[emmaverybo]

40. No agenda. Asking them to be stand up candidates and follow Harris's gutsy and righteous lead.

[highplainsdem]

6. I have deleted the last two sentences of my OP. But I do want to know if other candidates are

defending Joe by name, because I consider that important.

[Bongo Prophet]

55. Thanks for deleting the last two sentences of your post. That changes the whole tone of the post.

I agree that is is best to defend each other, and would like that to be the norm.
Glad to hear Senator Harris speaking up about it as well.

Same goes with various supporters of their respective candidates. Often they can go a bit over the top in their characterizations of competing candidates' actions or intent, or those of their competing candidates supporters. This can leave deep wounds that could affect their support on down the road. And I think that its bad strategy to risk alienating supporters of other candidates by coming too hard at them. We will need as many as we can muster to join together to defeat the GOP in presidential and congressional races.

I know we both want that.

[Bongo Prophet]

7. I think her intent is pretty clear, based on recent history.

The outrage and swarming is the same, even if the candidate may be different. Divide and conquer...

[Cha]

20. ".. swarming.."? Do tell us more about this

"swarming" accusation.

[Bongo Prophet]

57. Sure thing Cha! It is not an accusation, but an observation of human behavior

Swarming is a group behavior where defenders of a cause, politician, philosophy, etc come out in numbers to defend and attack perceived threats to their cause, etc.

WE have done this together, defending Obama from attacks, or Hillary, and so on. It can be somewhat coordinated, via texts DU messaging, other websites and such, or just an organic thing that comes up in a forum such as this one.

It is not really a bad thing in itself. A hornet is just protecting its nest. A flock of crows will group together to run off a hawk, porpoises to orcas, you get the idea.

The downside can be when we allow ourselves to get so into it that we start dumbing down as a group. One good example is when uber-progs kept saying Obama said he agreed with Reagan in a famous quote where he was just pointing out how repubs now opposed thing they agreed with a few years prior. It was clear what he meant, but no matter how I tried to get them to consider a fairer interpretation it never really mattered at all, even when they said, "oh, you make a good point about that." An hour or more later, they repeat the same mischaracterization, right in the same forum.

Tribalism has strong and weak aspects, and I try to check myself from so much that it becomes self defeating. We need unity in 2020, and we both remember what happened last time.

Mahalo, Cha, and thank you for being a good supporter of our (best) prez and 1st family!

[highplainsdem]

22. LOL at the ludicrous idea that asking if any other candidates (besides Harris) defended Biden by

name is "divide and conquer."

The OP about what Harris said made me aware that I hadn't heard of any similar statements from other candidates, and that seemed odd.

If supporters of other candidates are uncomfortable that anyone's wondering if their favorite candidate defended Biden by name, I can't help that.

I think it shows more character and party loyalty to defend him by name. I'd like to see all of them do that.

If you don't think that defending a fellow candidate under attack this way by name is important, you're entitled to your opinion.

But spare me the faux outrage over my post.

[Bongo Prophet]

59. I had no "outrage" faux or otherwise.

And I don't have 'the ludicrous idea that asking if any other candidates (besides Harris) defended Biden by is "divide and conquer." '

As I said in another post to you, I agree with your post without the callout 2 sentences that you removed, to your credit.
You must have seen that those 2 sentences were a bit much, and so we agree on that also.

If you look at your response above, you would see you LOLed at a mischaracterization you made about my position. Claimed a moral high ground, proclaiming innocence of intent, then another micharacterization -"If you don't think defending..is important..." - which I did not, nor would ever say, you can see that you have a responsibility to check yourself as well.

Divide and conquer can work in many ways. And it was not a reference to your OP specifically, but based on recent history this cycle. At least since the 1st debate, positions have hardened a lot for many posters. It's like every other cycle, at least in internet era, and I have observed several patterns that come up again and again.

There are certain personality types that fill the same or similar roles every primary.

Point people, who often have a lot of spare time, will do research and post talking points, push narratives that often come from candidates own sites, or those of published allies to their cause. They can be very valuable. But unfortunately, they often can be overly aggressive, and insulting to their peers. This can be self-defeating in the long run, but they enjoy the role, the praise, and the feeling they are leading an army of righteousness.

Cheerleaders don't do as many detailed posts, if any, but just cheer on those who do.

Snarky stick pokers, who just post laughing emojis, or gifs of celebrities laughing, whatever. To mock and dis their "opponents" - who aren't necessarily really opponents, just supporters of a different candidate. I think they have least to contribute, but want to be in the cool kids. Just a theory.

There are also "Can't we all just get along" types, who bemoan the state of discourse going too low to win the long game. I prefer light more than heat, and conflict resolution over "beating someone in an argument" approach.

And the analyzers, who see it from bird's eye level, wondering how to best explain patterns that might be better to evolve out of.

I guess that's sort of where I am now. I have also been guilty of other roles in the past, (defending Kerry, Obama, Clinton) but pretty weary after seeing the process play out for 20+ years.

It always goes pretty much the same way. We start out focused on the gen election opponent, then move to disagreements, then outrages promoted by the pack leaders, which in turn cause deep rifts and bad takes on things that happened during the whole sordid process.

Sorry for the long post, and apologies for coming out too harsh. I won't be posting much at all in the primaries this cycle either. I had sworn it off after 2016, getting accused by one on my own "side" after saying I drew the line at calling Bernie supporters "vermin", even though I was appalled at their actions during the convention. THAT is how far that year went.
I don't want a repeat of that level of contention.

I hope we agree on that, as well.

[blm]

24. They aren't swarmers. They just didn't feel its tone as some of us

felt it. It was edited fairly soon after we spoke out. But, yeah, trying to make an issue where there is none is really bad form for anyone at DU.

[highplainsdem]

28. There were replies here agreeing with me before I edited it. I had not meant to offend anyone here.

But I am bothered that I haven't heard of more defenses of Joe Biden, by name, from his fellow candidates.

I believe those other candidates would help themselves, make themselves look better, if they made such statements.

And I don't want to overlook any such statements if they have been made.

Which is why I asked if anyone had made statements like Harris's.

And btw, I couldn't help noticing that some people responding to the OP about what Harris said actually suggested she wanted to be Biden's VP. Effecively belittling her statement.

Would you like to go lecture them?

[NCLefty]

44. It's ok if she wants to be VP too. That's on the way to president. :D

And it's not too early to be considering it, nor any shame in it.

I do feel Biden and Bernie should pick a woman/PoC to run with if they win the nomination. It would energize both women/PoC and Trump-haters (since he's so racist). Stacey and Kamala are both great choices.

[emmaverybo]

30. Why not address the OP directly?

[Drunken Irishman]

31. It is funny, isn't it?

When Don Jr., when after Kamala Harris about not being 'really black', every single Democratic candidate came to her defense.

It's called showing a united front. I liked it then, I'd like it now.

[highplainsdem]

34. Great point!

[highplainsdem]

37. USA Today article on how the other candidates defended Harris then:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/07/01/democrats-defend-harrs-after-donald-trump-jr-race-tweet/1611224001/


Biden's tweet about the attack on her, which was mentioned in the article:

Link to tweet

This was just a couple of days after she'd gone after him in the first debate.

But he didn't hesitate to defend her.

The same forces of hatred rooted in 'birtherism' that questioned @BarackObama's American citizenship, and even his racial identity, are now being used against Senator @KamalaHarris. It’s disgusting and we have to call it out when we see it. Racism has no place in America.

[Cha]

56. Thanks for the reminder of Biden's

tweet defending Kamala, highplains !

Have you seen this post.. a tweet from Beto defending Joe Biden?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=288750

[emmaverybo]

32. Why wouldn't you want your candidate to show some unity and why, if for whatever reason your

candidate shrinks from doing the right thing like Harris, would you have been “alienated” to have the question raised? Given Harris being so soon “on it,” and all others silent, the question arises
naturally. Maybe you can answer it.

[Mme. Defarge]

3. Damn straight!

[BeyondGeography]

9. I love my candidate's response

If Democrats had heeded her advice with full force five-plus months ago chances are very good Trump wouldn’t have pulled this shit on Biden. Principles are bigger than any one person and standing up for them in this case protects all Democrats, not to mention our democracy.

[Hekate]

16. I hope to see all of them speak up in the next few days. If they don't hang together in the face of

...Trump, they will surely hang separately.

Trump's MO is to pick off opponents one at a time -- that is how he got to be nominee in the first place. No one should delude themselves that Trump will not come for them if they fail to speak out -- all that will happen is that there will be no one left to speak for them.

Senator Harris is just the first one to recognize this in its fullness.

[highplainsdem]

18. +1,000,000

[emmaverybo]

38. And another +1000 for your wise comment.

[Cha]

47. Well Done, Hekate!

Thank you!

And, Props to Senator Kamala Harris!

[peggysue2]

66. On the mark!

This attack on one is an attack on all. Our candidates would do well to make a united statement that this WILL NOT STAND.

Because I guarantee you this smear machine will not stop with Biden but will attempt to grind every single contender who dares oppose Trump and his criminal enterprise.

to Kamala Harris for stepping out first.

[jcgoldie]

25. zzzz

This is rather ridiculous.

[emmaverybo]

39. Some of us think this, the need to stand for each other against Trump's unlawful interference and

political attack, is the most urgent primaries issue to arise so far.

[lunasun]

41. Beto probably others stood by his statement . Not sure what you want

Link to tweet

?s=21

[Cha]

48. Mahalo, lunasun, for Beto's statement!

The OP was asking if anyone else had spoken out for Joe Biden besides Senator Harris and this is excellent news!

This is a brilliant post from Hekate on standing together against trump..

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=288663

[dalton99a]

49. +1

[world wide wally]

42. Biden / Harris

Makes more sense now. Doesn't it?

[JoeOtterbein]

43. Pretend it's Bernie's son. Would you be so loud?

[Hekate]

45. If it came straight from Trump begging a foreign nation to criminally intervene, I hope we would ...

...all shout out loud and clear, standing together as Americans against this lawless traitorous president. Why would you think otherwise?

[Cha]

46. We don't have to "pretend".. trump is

going after Biden's son.

And, the OP is hoping for unity in standing up for Biden and his son.

[highplainsdem]

50. If Trump were doing something like this to Bernie and his son, of course.

[Hekate]

58. By the way, what is Senator Sanders' response?

Just curious.

[33taw]

51. Trump has attacked many democratic candidates, including Warren, Sanders, O,Rourke...

I don’t think the candidates need to always engage Trump.

[highplainsdem]

53. This attack is several orders of magnitude worse than anything else he's done in this election.

[33taw]

61. We need to defend all of the candidates as soon as the abusive behavior starts.

Abusers/bullies won’t back down until they are called on it. The Pocahontas remarks should have been addressed by every candidate because it offensive to Native Americans and Elizabeth Warren. The attacks on the four freshmen representatives should be called out by the candidates. The more we let go by, the worse it gets. The attack on Joe Biden’s son should be called out. But so should all of the attacks.

[Tipperary]

60. Biden should be able to defend himself.

If he will be the nominee, he will have to handle this crap.

Why do you think he cannot?

[Cha]

63. Hope every candidate will follow @SenKamalaHarris's lead

Link to tweet

It's a unity stance against trump.. like Biden and the other candidates stood up for Kamala when trump insulted her.

[LanternWaste]

68. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Asking why a thing is not done (the OP) is not equivalent to asking why it's not being or cannot be done (your inference).

And your first two statements are points no is arguing one way or the other.

[Tipperary]

69. "...no is arguing one way or another."

Huh?

[aikoaiko]

62. Biden doesn't need defending.

[Gothmog]

65. Julian Castro is a class act-see how he defend Biden

Link to tweet

[thesquanderer]

67. I'm not sure vigorous Biden defense helps us.

The news is all about how Trump screwed up and did something he might be impeached for. It's hardly at all about any allegations against Biden. If everyone came out in defense of Biden, it would lead to more attention on the Biden aspect of it when we want the focus to be on the Trump side of it.

If there were a story about a guy burning down a house because he thought the people inside were crooks, then putting out lots of stories about how the people inside weren't crooks is not helpful, when the story should be that the guy burned down the house.

Put differently, when your opponent is self-destructing, don't stand in his way.

Plus I think that if a whole bunch of Dems came out defending Biden, there would be a possible reaction of, "why all this big defense over nothing? I bet there's something there."

Looks to me like Biden is doing just fine on this by himself. Let it lie!

Not that I fault Harris for saying anything... she was asked, she had to answer.