like Hillary was as First Lady.

The attackers need to look in their own damn backyards.

Should people refrain from considering pros and cons of every candidate?

Saw a DU’er name call her yesterday as “Status Quo” “Centrist Democrat” without providing any supporting evidence.

As you know her actual voting record belies that.

In 2016 they said HRC was bad because she defended criminals? Now they say Kamala is bad for prosecuting criminals.

Other sites are also saying she slept her way to the top.

I expect things like this are the main reason she’s being attacked:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211719047

Kamala Harris wins latest Daily KOS straw poll

Is there a lobby for hoodlums? I am definitely not referring to non-violent criminals or for those for whom incarceration doesn't match the crime.

one of the right's favorite targets.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to have someone who wants to uphold the law actually at the head of the branch of government that is supposed to faithfully execute the laws?

Intending "cop" to be derisive in this case should backfire on those using it thusly, in my opinion.

anyone who knows more than I do and shares that honestly. As far as Kamala Harris, I like her very much but don't know much about her.

I keep telling myself there's plenty of time to get to know them all while narrowing the field.

I think I need to see a debate or two!

where they can find something to talk about.

Maybe it won't be so bad as the "Hillary defended a pedophile" which was crap because defending an accused does not mean supporting what they are accused of.

But there is already one floating out there about choices not to prosecute. We can argue back that it is a decision based on lack of evidence and that there should not be a presumption of guilt.

As far as I can tell those using the TOP COP smear are not interested in record so much as namecalling

crimes is somehow wrong in and of itself. I've debated on DU itself with people claiming there should be no cops.

"Secretary of State" and "U.S. Senator" might be more relevant to her qualifications.

She (and we) was robbed.

upset by a career woman as FLOTUS, but of course we had "Benghazi."

And Harris' husband will be looked into. (A la Clinton Foundation or just general holding Hillary responsible for Bill's actions).

Also noticed Harris got married for the first time at 50, and has birthed no children. Right wingers will go after that. (We had a thread about Booker not being married, too - oh the horror!)

got 3 million more votes. STILL. Pretty impressive I'd say.

Those usual suspects are going to be in for a rude awakening when they are left in the dust from Super Tuesday, and the California Primary.

"Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016"
California Senator Kamala Harris has raised over $1.5m with an average donation of $37 per donation during the first 24 hours of her presidential campaign, aides to her campaign say.
Ms Harris received the support from over 38,000 donors, topping the 35,000 people who pitched in to prop up Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders when he began is presidential bid in 2016 against Hillary Clinton — but still roughly matching his first day total of $1.5m.

“These numbers reveal a campaign powered by the people — an energetic, nationwide movement eager to elect Senator Harris and support her vision of an America that actually works for the people”, Mike Nellis, the campaign’s digital aide, said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kamala-harris-democrat-funding-bernie-sanders-campaign-money-2020-a8741496.html

Gee, I wonder why some people feel threated by strong women?

Sort it out in the primary's.

Let's not sabotage those running. Make the rethugs do their own work.