I frequently see a call for "vetting" Bernie Sanders. I welcome vetting Bernie Sanders

[Tom Rinaldo]

And the same goes for all of our candidates. I make this observation though. There is a fine line between vetting and attacking. Vetting means exploring possible legitimate concerns about a candidate. It means impartially examining his or her record to see if controversial stances or actions are contained within it that must be addressed. It means considering past or present behavior at odds with the values and beliefs that candidate currently espouses. It is a combination seeking of the truth and light probing to determine whether a candidate has critical weaknesses that will successfully be exploited by our common enemies. It is important that all of us vet all of our potential candidates.

Vetting however does not mean looking for facts or events that can be ripped out of their proper context and spun politically to damage a specific candidate only. It does not mean fixating on every possible blemish one candidate possesses, minor as it might be in the larger picture, to the attempted exclusion of any exculpatory information or extenuating circumstances. It does not mean an unrelenting attempt to tear one candidate down while other candidates are barely given any similar scrutiny by the same players so intent on vetting one of them. That isn't vetting, that is negative campaigning pure and simple, and there is a big difference between the two.

What FOX news gave unlimited coverage to Benghazi allegations, that quickly went well beyond the "vetting" of Hillary Clinton. It was a political agenda. It was a hit job. True "vetting" is not a partisan fixation on taking someone down, be that a Hillary Clinton, a Bernie Sanders, or a Joe Biden. And every camp that employs negative campaigning calls it "vetting". And usually the inverse is true also, those being vetted often claim to be victims of negative campaigning.

OK, so it isn't always as clear as day which is which from a single instance. But DU has a pretty sophisticated membership. I think we are up to telling the difference between the two if we really want to.

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread Tom Rinaldo.

[Snotcicles]

3. +1.nt

[KPN]

2. Bernie hasn't been vetted?

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. The claim has been made that he wasn't really vetted when he ran in 2016

In my opinion there is some truth to that, but the corollary was that Sanders wasn't taken seriously enough as a legitimate candidate with the potential to win the nomination for a long time either. I think to an extent those two things went hand in hand.

Since November 2016 however Sanders has probably gotten more "vetting" than any of our candidates. To a large extent that was natural because he was the runner up for our 2016 nomination and remained high profile. With the 2020 race begun in earnest now I think all of our candidates will come in for more of this if it seems there is any chance they might win.

[ehrnst]

11. He's the only one in this field who has run before, so it's puzzling why he's still so irked by

being asked by a reporter about things like tax returns, instead let him run the interview.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Questions about his tax returns, and seeing how he handles them, are 100% legitimate vetting n/t

[ehrnst]

18. I hope that he and many his supporters come to that realization sooner than later. (nt)

[Celerity]

20. Biden has run before, twice, unless you mean only declared candidates now

[ehrnst]

23. Yes. Until he declares, I personally don't consider him a candidate.

He was assumed to be intending to run in 2016, and he did not.

[Celerity]

25. thanks for the clarification

[Gothmog]

29. sanders was ignored by the press-there is a ton of oppo that will be coming out

If Sanders had been the nominee, Trump would have destroyed him. Trump had a two foot thick book of oppo research on Sanders http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach....

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers....

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

I am very happy that sanders is being vetted this cycle.

[ehrnst]

9. Not nearly as thoroughly as HRC was, and not as thoroughly as previous Demcoratic candidates.

His testiness at being questioned by the press simply about when he will fulfill his promises about tax returns indicates surprise at being the subject of the scrutiny that all with ambitions to the most powerful office in the world are expected to undergo.

Well at least those running as Democrats.

[KPN]

13. Well no one has been vetted as thoroughly as Hillary. No question about that -- or attacked

without merit. No question. But Obama comes in a close second on the attacked part in my view.

[bahrbearian]

15. Did we ever see the Transcripts, the Public Side and the Private Side ?

[ehrnst]

19. What transcripts are you talking about?

Can you clarify what you are talking about?

[George II]

36. I think that's a reference to the speech transcripts for whatever relevance that has in 2019.

[ehrnst]

41. I wonder if they are talking about "private" islamophobia, or "public" alignment with

brutal authoritarians like Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, or Bashar al-Assad.

[ehrnst]

40. Was there anything in them about cozying up to dictators? Islamophobia?

Get back to us on that.

Bashar al-Assad... really?

[mcar]

42. If you are talking about speech transcripts,

please direct me to the released transcripts of any paid speech given by any other presidential candidate.

[namahage]

48. Did we miss the part where a candidate promised them,

then stalled and delayed releasing them?

[BlueFlorida]

44. Exactly. The only thorough job was done by NYDN

Bernie botched the NYDN interview where he couldn't come up with answers to simple questions.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/05/this-new-york-daily-news-interview-was-pretty-close-to-a-disaster-for-bernie-sanders/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.50404a8e5b7a

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/05/9-things-bernie-sanders-shouldve-known-about-but-didnt-in-that-daily-news-interview/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3bbd7d8cb950

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/04/05/bernie-sanders-new-york-daily-news-edit-board/82677134/

I hope EVERY media outlet does a thorough job like NY Daily News.

[NastyRiffraff]

45. Yes, he often refuses to answer questions he doesn't like

and in the past he all too often got away with it. But with this Democratic field it will be very different. I have a feeling he's not going to like the debates one bit. He can't constantly interrupt ALL those people with impunity.

[Gothmog]

27. sanders was treated with kid gloves last cycle

Sanders was a very weak candidate who was never vetted. The Clinton campaign treated Sanders with kid gloves because sanders had no chance in the real world of being the nominee. The press did not vet sanders because sanders was such a weak candidate and it would have been a waste of their time Sanders was not vetted and was in fact treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:

I have no interest in litigating any of these attacks here. Like any Democrat elected president in 2016, Sanders wouldn't be able to get much done, but he would block attempts to roll back Obama's accomplishments and have a chance to fill a few Supreme Court vacancies.

When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?

But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.

His supporters would need to recalibrate their umbrage-o-meters in a serious way.

Sanders was treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign because of the amusing over-reactions of the Sanders supporters in the primary process. It appears that you are upset that Hillary Clinton did not use all of the oppo research that was available. Sanders was a weak candidate and would have been destroyed if the oppo research was used.

[ehrnst]

32. Indeed. (nt)

[KPN]

34. It appears like I'm upset? Where did you

come up with that?

[George II]

37. Not the way other candidates have, either in the media or here.

[KPN]

38. Which other ones?

[ehrnst]

4. There are those who equate the call for standard vetting of Democrats with "attacks."

FoxNews coverage of Benghazi, and the sham of the investigation did not go "above and beyond vetting" because it was never 'vetting' in the first place. It was an attempt to discredit her in advance of an election by her enemies.

To compare the standard, thorough vetting of any Democratic candidate by Democrats with the actual hit job that was done to HRC by the GOP with "Benghazi" is a false equivalence.

I believe that the vast majority of DU membership is indeed sophisticated enough to see that "as clear as day," and not believe that victimizes any candidate with 'negative campaigning."

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. I get your point

Benghazi was always intended as a hit job by Republicans. But there theoretically was a legitimate Congressional role of oversight to explore how it came about that a U.S. Ambassador was murdered. Secretary Clinton admirably cooperated in all legitimate attempts to explore, in retrospect, what if anything could have been done differently to avoid that outcome, and she came through with shining colors. The Democrats on the original committee used that forum properly and responsibly to explore how well the various aspects of our State Department and military responded to that crisis.

[ehrnst]

16. Yes, she cooperated full and didn't push back at all on the idea that she should be questioned.

Those are the actions of someone who is secure in what they are being questioned about, and that they did their best as a competent SoS.

Getting angry and defensive about being asked direct, relevant questions (as though one is being attacked) doesn't serve anyone well, particularly if they have ambitions for the WH.

[Gothmog]

31. No one took sanders seriously in 2016 and so sanders was not vetted

No one took sanders seriously and so he was not vetted. Vetting is important I amso glad that sanders is being vetted this cycle https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/28/why-bernie-sanders-has-an-uphill-climb-ahead/?utm_term=.1b4f90c2a717

Finally, what happens when the oppo dump on Sanders comes? We have no idea, because it never happened in 2016. Clinton was so terrified of alienating his supporters and seeing them vote for Jill Stein in the general election (or not vote at all) that she tiptoed around him for pretty much the entirety of the primary campaign. That doesn’t mean that he’ll be destroyed when stories about the more colorful aspects of his history start cropping up, but there’s just no way to know.

Which is what we could say about the Sanders candidacy as a whole: There’s no way to know how it’s going to go. But he’s got his work cut out for him.

See also https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-campaign-donald-trump/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2019-02-20T14%3A52%3A07&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social%C2%A0

2. How will he withstand more scrutiny and more attacks?
One of the secrets to Sanders' success in 2016 was that no one -- most especially Clinton -- thought he had any chance of going anywhere in the race. Clinton largely ignored him for the better part of 2015, allowing some problematic parts of Sanders' record for Democrats -- most notably his voting record on guns -- to go unnoticed. (When the race began to tighten, Clinton gently prodded Sanders on guns and health care.) Sanders, too, largely flew under the radar of investigative reporters for major news outlets who were busy looking into Clinton, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and others seen as more viable candidates. (That reality clearly benefited Donald Trump in the early days of the campaign, as well.)

Sanders will get no pass -- from either the media or his fellow candidates -- this time around. He is among the frontrunners -- and will be treated as such. His wife's time as president of Burlington College could well come up. And his opponents will do a deep dive into his nearly 30 years of votes as a member of the House and Senate. This is all very normal stuff in a campaign. But not for Sanders.

There is a ton of strong opposition research out there that will come out this cycle

[jalan48]

6. Funny how some are all for vetting except when it comes to their own candidate. Then it's a slur.

Human nature I guess.

[marylandblue]

8. Vetting in 2020 includes how well you stand up to attacks.

If you can't handle other Democrats coming after you, you can't handle Trump.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. True. Just call it what it is though

Weighing how well someone stands up to attacks is an aspect of vetting. But attempting to find ways to destroy one person politically is attack politics.

[ehrnst]

17. Other Democrats making valid points concerning candidates is not "attack politics."

Attacking Democrats or journalists who make valid observations or posing valid questions (based in data) or who simply do a fact check on a politican's claims as "haters" or "corporate shills" is indeed "attack politics."

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Of course not.

I tried my best in the OP to distinguish between vetting and attack politics. I don't think I can personally add any more clarity to it. This is what a discussion board is good for, exploring what constitutes this or that when the lines defining the differences are sometimes subject to intentional manipulation for whatever reason.

[ehrnst]

22. I think that the title of your OP created a perception that you are weighted towards

calls for Bernie being vetted being attacks more often than others.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. To be honest, until the "hands on" stuff rose up regarding Biden, I don't recall much...

...being explicitly said about any other of our potential candidates specifically needing to be vetted. I think it was the Washington Post column about the need to vet Sanders that sparked me thinking about the topic. Clearly we have to vet everyone. Trump must be defeated.

[ehrnst]

26. You seem to have missed an abundance of attack politics deployed against

Klobuchar, Harris, Booker, and Gillibrand.

Also, none of them has a history of pushing back against a standard of personal financial vetting for Democratic candidates as has Senator Sanders, so anticipating that he may continue to do so (and he has) is logical and reasonable when talking about vetting him.

Not so for the others I mentioned. Especially those who didn't require asking at all for their returns. Apparently Harris seems to be the most common "whataboutism," since she's also released only one year of returns when asked, and it was the most recent year.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. Perhaps.

I am not taking issue with your observation. This is getting a bit into the weeds but I focused on the word "vetting", as in literal calls that so and so needs to be specifically "vetted". Clearly there are "issues" being raised about many candidates here and elsewhere, some clearly legitimate calls for discussion and others maybe less so.

Honestly, it just sparked me to thinking about what if any difference there is between "vetting" and negative campaigning. I dunno, I found it personally useful to give that some thought. Hopefully some others get something out of it too.

[Hortensis]

10. Good. And agree, vetting must be honest and objective

and fact-based or it's not vetting, it's smearing.

[Autumn]

28. When a candidate is blamed for an accusation brought up by a woman by the supporters of, and

the candidate himself that has been accused by that woman, with absolutely no proof the other candidate has anything to do with it that's not vetting. That's a smear campaign by some and a deflection by the candidate facing the accusation. I lost a lot of the respect I had gained back for Joe when when he and his campaign did that. There is absolutely no proof Bernie had anything to do with her complaint about Joe but they ran with it. I also notice they pretty much ignored another woman who came out with another complaint because she " wanted a woman candidate".

Biden Advisers Smell a Conspiracy

April 2, 2019 at 6:56 am EDT By Taegan Goddard

“Joe Biden advisers believe coverage of allegations of inappropriate behavior is being stoked by rival Democrats — a dynamic that could actually fire up the vice president at a time when others see success as increasingly improbable,” Axios reports.

“Several around Biden think advisers to Bernie Sanders are at least partly behind the anti-Biden campaign. One prominent backer thinks Biden will run, and ‘is ready to kill Bernie.'”

Said one source close to Biden: “VP directed staff this evening to reach out to supporters and donors with a simple message — full steam ahead.”

###

https://politicalwire.com/2019/04/02/biden-advisers-smell-a-conspiracy/

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128748439

[Power 2 the People]

33. +1

[TCJ70]

35. I don't have any posters blocked...or keywords for ignore...

Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2019, 02:22 PM - Edit history (2)

...and having been around here for many years I definitely feel comfortable figuring out who's doing legitimate vetting and who's just expressing their grudge.

[KPN]

39. Right on. Spot on. Excellent post we

should all take under advice.

[BlueFlorida]

43. Hillary treated Bernie with kid gloves

because her campaign saw him as a harmless guy helping Hillary move to the center. Hillary never complained that the media allowed Bernie to skate (also thinking he was not likely to go anywhere so why bother?) So Bernie skated without any hard questions, throwing platitudes and promises of free this and free that. He had that publicity junket to Rome on a private jet where he took the entire extended family with him and laid in wait for the Pope after the Pope had expressly stated that he wouldn't meet Bernie.

It was too late by the time "harmless" turned into venomous -- not to win the primaries but to damage Hillary Clinton.

This time, we are asking for a thorough vetting of Bernie's past essays, the Burlington College scandal and, of course, his tax returns.

We want his policy proposals and platitudes thoroughly vetted. Paying for free this and free that with taxes on "rich people" will not suffice. The way it stands, Bernie's plans cannot be paid for even if the top 10% incomes are taxed at 100%.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. The "Medicare for all" & "Living wage" & "Tuition free public college" platitudes that many...

...if not most of our candidates seem to be using/backing? Only Sanders should be questioned on that?

[BlueFlorida]

47. All those have different definitions

for different candidates. Most of them are fiscally far more sensible than Bernie's.

[Gothmog]

49. Bernie Sanders is "providing political cover" for Donald Trump not releasing his tax returns,

Link to tweet

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. What will he be doing then if he releases them soon?

I would say "blowing Trump's cover" under that scenario. As in "Even Bernie Sanders has now released multiple years of tax returns leaving President Trump isolated in his refusal to do so himself."

Trump was going to fight releasing his tax returns regardless,for very personal reasons, even if every potential Democratic candidate had already released decades worth of filings. This is going to the be decided by the courts. I predict Sanders will release his own well before a court rules on the necessity of Trump releasing his returns.That will ADD pressure on Trump, not reduce it.

However if I am wrong in my assumption concerning when Sanders releases his taxes, if they remain unreleased as the debates come close, than I will concede the point to "Smiley", and join him in calling on Sanders to drop out before the first debate if he can't get them filed by then.

[Gothmog]

51. All Democrats need to release their tax returns

Otherwise, we take this issue off the table

I am still wondering if sanders will ever release his tax returns due to the Old Towne Media issue

[BeckyDem]

52. What makes you think they really want to?

I don't see it that way here at all, and not just about Sanders.

[Gothmog]

53. Stephanie Ruhl-Could Bernie Sanders' tax returns drive his supporters away?

Link to tweet