because it's a line that says half the human race can still be enslaved by the other half. That is unacceptable at all levels.

Who would I vote for? I'd probably leave that line blank, I will not participate in my own enslavement.

Fortunately, I don't live in PA so that state party doesn't need to worry about me.

...do you think leading figures in the Democratic Party and our allies should keep their distance from him as much as possible, or should they appear on stage together at campaign rallies in warm joint appearances for the sake of winning elections?

He's not an activist for anti-abortion measures the way his father was. I'm a Pennsylvanian and Casey is ok by me.

He is no friend to half of us even if he doesn't get up and deliver fire and brimstone about all us harlots going to hell.

Your brimstone/harlots/hell imagery notwithstanding.

I hope he gets primaried out before he gets any more powerful in the Senate.

Who's the Democrat in PA you think could primary Bob Casey? I'm afraid you don't know enough about this state. He's fine. He's no danger to women. And he's not interested in amassing power in the Senate. He actually had more interest in the governorship here back when they tapped him to run. He answered his party's call to get rid of Santorum. He's a good faithful Democrat. Hold your fire, he's not your mortal enemy.

I don't give a damn what they say. I look at what they do.

He is opposed to de-funding Planned Parenthood, for one. If he's still "pro-life" he's certainly not a nut-job about it. I have no problem with with Sen. Casey as a female. Primarying him would be destructive. We NEED to keep a Dem senator from PA and hopefully 2!

a religious viewpoint of what science is." He drives anti-abortion people here nuts with his support of PP. I am very comfortable with him.

Unfortunately PA just reelected Toomey so we're stuck with him. But I'm pretty sure we'll keep Casey in 2018.

No I don't live in Pennsylvania but I paid a lot of attention to Rick Santorum and I knew we had to get him out of there. I wonder if the Democrats in Omaha feel the same way about their current Republican Mayor as you did about your Republican ex Senator.

However, when I lived in PA, I voted for Casey. Always vote Democratic. The GOP would have been way worse. I did not work for Casey's election ...sometimes you are not entirely happy about any candidate but we need a majority. I also voted for Tim Ryan before he had his epiphany about choice. I always vote Democratic...but I would not vote for an anti-choice candidate in a primary. Now the Mello things is annoying because why are we wasting resources and time on a mayoral race when we have a House, Senate, Governorship's and legislatures' to fight for in the coming elections? Perez and the DNC have distanced themselves from Mello. In fact Perez will attend an Ossoff rally in Georgia and not the one in Nebraska. This is Senator Sander's deal according to the DNC...I guess Mello has similar views on economics as Sen. Sanders.

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/20/524962482/sanders-defends-campaigning-for-anti-abortion-rights-democrat

Mello has drawn support from a number of Democratic Party constituencies, not just those focused on economics. When that story was published, by the way, Perez was still saying this:

“Our job at the DNC is to help Democrats who have garnered support from voters in their community cross the finish line and win ― from school board to Senate,” Perez said. “The biggest threat to women’s reproductive rights is the relentless Republican attacks on women’s health care, including legal, accessible abortion services. And I won’t let anyone get in the way of our fight to protect a woman’s right to choose.”

Again, I welcome this overall debate. What is upsetting to me is how a matter that involves Democratic Party leadership on every level, both past and present, has become a blunt instrument used to bludgeon Bernie Sanders only.

Your linked story noted this:
"Mello has co-sponsored several bills in Nebraska's unicameral legislature that would restrict abortion rights, including a 2009 measure requiring doctors to inform women seeking abortions about the availability of an ultrasound."

Above another story, from the Washington Post last year, was linked to about Tim Kaine. It included this passage:

"He (Kaine) backed Virginia’s “informed consent” law, which requires women seeking the procedure to undergo medically unnecessary ultrasounds".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/26/why-tim-kaine-can-oppose-abortion-and-still-run-with-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.f57abf8cbf06

Tim Kaine was our nominee for Vice President last year.

He was also a former governor and a Senator...we are talking about a mayoral candidate...I would vote for him if I lived there...any Dem is always better than any Repub...but I would not support him in a primary nor would I call him a 'rising star' in the Democratic Party. I just think that Sen. Sanders considers economic issues more important than social issues...and the irony is that these issues are also economic issues...also why waste money and time on a Mayoral race when we need the House, the Senate, Governorship's and state legislatures? Ossoff is way more important in my opinion and there was not a good word said about him.

Of course Mello claims to be evolving also in terms of now keeping his personal beliefs from interfering with women's reproductive rights anyway. We may or may not find out if that is true. We can hope that in the event of a tragedy had Tm Kaine become president that his evolved views would have cancelled out his personal beliefs in the event of a Supreme Court opening. My guess is yes.

Major elections early in 2017 are few and far between and if and where Democrats do well the effects of that surge are magnified beyond that race alone. I don't think Bernie handled the Ossoff run as well as he should have, but I also don't think it would have helped Jon to be associated with Bernie in that district which is suburban, not rural or urban, and upscale conservative, not working class. Sanders did endorse James Thompson in the Kansas Special Election (which most national Democrats stayed completely out of) and "Our Revolution" provided some logistical support and fund raising there. Sanders has also announced that he will campaign for (NARAL supported) Democrat Rob Quist in the upcoming special election for a congressional seat in Montana

Why Tim Kaine can oppose abortion and still run with Hillary Clinton
By Danielle Paquette July 26, 2016

Sen. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.) listens as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks during a campaign rally at Florida International University's Panther Arena in Miami on Saturday. (Mary Altaffer/Associated Press)

Eleven years ago, as he ran for governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine made clear his stance on abortion: “I have a faith-based opposition,” he wrote on his campaign’s website. “I will work in good faith to reduce abortions.”

Kaine went on to laud adoption as the best solution to an unwanted pregnancy. He promoted abstinence-only sex education (and later slashed funding to the program, citing research that found it wasn’t effective). He authorized the sale of “Choose Life” license plates to fund religious counseling clinics that discouraged abortion. He backed Virginia’s “informed consent” law, which requires women seeking the procedure to undergo medically unnecessary ultrasounds.

In short, he was conservative on reproductive issues, by his party's standards.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/26/why-tim-kaine-can-oppose-abortion-and-still-run-with-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.f57abf8cbf06

"He backed Virginia’s “informed consent” law, which requires women seeking the procedure to undergo medically unnecessary ultrasounds."

I accept that he has his own moral views and I don't so much mind those who work to make adoption work as a choice. But authorizing “Choose Life” license plates to fund religious counseling clinics that discouraged abortion." is also problematic to me. In general though I accept the word of those who say he has voted to support a woman's right to choose.

Making room in the Party for Democrats like Bob Casey and Tim Kaine was never at the center of a raging fire storm on DU before, especially not in an off year. It wasn't even an issue during the recent presidential election year. They were embraced at the highest levels of our party by our party leaders. Is that over now?

in the rush to judgment of other people. Funny how that works.

And know to take a backseat to the prochoice and others in the party.

Sanders lack of support for ossoff while supporting mello and referring to him as progressive was a problem .

Hopefully he will learn from it.

Hard core Trump supporters are a minority in America. Even hard core Obama supporters were a minority in America (a larger one though). We sometimes act like these lines are hard and distinct and that we can draw up one precise sociological profile to describe virtually all of the people who vote one way or another during a specific election year. Given the closeness of the vote in those "rust belt" type states, a case can be made that the loss of Obama voters to Trump plunged our nation into the nightmare that we are going through now - and that is the ultimate bottom line; who gets to govern and who doesn't.

If you are talking about Bernie's overall message, of course he cared about fighting for the interests of working and middle class families and made that central to his platform. Frankly so did Hilary Clinton, and it was wise of both of them to do so, but not to the exclusion or downgrading of other core values Democrats believe in. My memory of the Sanders campaign (and I was paying very close attention to it at the time) was that he made his strongest appeal toward bringing out younger voters to the ballot box and into our political process. Much of his campaign was campus centered, and his strongest support came from youth demographic groups that overall were lukewarm at best toward the Clinton campaign. I think there has been a little bit of revisionist history about how Sanders campaigned and who he was primarily trying to mobilize and get involved in Democratic politics.

Regarding "pro-life" Democrats and whether or not they know "to take a backseat to the prochoice and others in the party" in my experience that is a lesson they tend to internalize the higher they seek to rise in our Party, and it tends to manifest in evolving positions on the matter as they move from the local to state to federal level of involvement. Hence both Bob Casey and Tom Kaine, for example, at earlier points in their careers took stances that were less acceptable to prochoice Democrats than the ones they have settled into now. I think we are watching as Mello begins to hit that learning curve in earnest at this relatively low profile (but changing) point in his career.

Regarding Bernie and Osseff I don't differ that much from your views. I think it was clumsy of him to inject the word "progressive" into his statements regarding Osseff - unless that was tactical in the sense that Osseff is appealing to a local voter base that sees "progressive" as a negative label. I think the latter is possible but more likely Bernie was off the cuff clumsy with that comment. Either way though I don't think Sanders associating more closely with Osseff would have helped Osseff in his district. What Bernie can bring to the table for a candidate like Osseff, who is in a very conservative suburban district with upscale incomes and education levels, is grassroots enthusiasm for his candidacy - which Osseff largely already had in the bag as evidenced by his national fund raising appeal. And I think Bernie did lean a lesson from how he initially handled Osseff. His more recent tweet regarding him was much more overtly positive and directly supportive of him. Sanders does make mistakes, and I am glad to see when he learns from them.

I found it interesting how the initial negative reaction toward Sanders began as you described it - valid criticism for not calling Osseff a progressive but then morphed into contrasting how he related to helping Osseff vs Mello, and then morphed into criticizing Sanders for supporting a "pro-life" candidate, and then morphed into attacking Sanders for being willing to sell out women, and then morphed into saying that Sanders doesn't consider women to be his full equals. When I sensed a strong whiff of righteous hypocrisy at work it led to my posting this thread.

I found that Sen. Kaine's record on Women's Rights was continually thrown in my face, this by mostly younger women and also by some older activists I've known (and protested with) for years...both demographics feeling lost, abandoned, and insulted by their party because women's reproductive issues have ranked high on their list for decades. When people spend a goodly chunk of their free time organizing meet-ups and earnestly trying to raise consciousness amongst their peers, the choices some leaders make hurt to the core.

The irony of this entire Mello kerfuffle bowled me over earlier today, here.

I think some people must need to get out more, speak with actual moving faces with honest living brains behind them. It's the only way anything has ever been accomplished or won in this country.

A history of supporting:

- Abstinence only sex ed

- Restrictions on partial birth abortions

- Parental consent laws

- Informed consent laws

- Allowing religion into government through those "Choose Life" license plates

I was really surprised that it wasn't more of an issue for some.

non-negotiable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-tom-perez-abortion-rights_us_58fa5fade4b018a9ce5b351d?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004


He isn't engage in transparent false equivalencies to promote privilege over equality. He isn't pretending a politician's votes from more than 15 years ago are the equivalent of currently promoting the view that women's rights should not be a priority.

Meanwhile, this is what Bernie is promoting:


Why did he decide he had to campaign for Mello anyway? What purpose does it serve? Could it be his anti-choice record was not incidental but a feature? He also endorsed the anti-choice Marcy Capture in the primary last year. How can one possibly claim to champion economic justice while excluding half the population? That isn't economic justice. It's greater inequality.

Hillary has never argued that women's rights were optional. In her confirmation hearing for Sec of State, she told a GOP Senate that abortion rights were central to women's rights and their economic survival. She talked about how women around the world were unable to rise out of poverty because of lack of access to family planning. She insisted that abortion rights would be very much part of foreign policy under her leadership, and she made good on that promise.

Clinton had the courage to champion abortion rights before a hostile GOP confirmation committee, in China while she was First Lady. Yet Bernie describes them as a wedge issue, less important than his anger at Wall Street, less important that catering to white male Trump voters. This despite the fact reproductive rights are supported by a large majority of voters.

You go ahead and cast Bernie as like conservative Democrats if you want. I don't care even a little bit about his career or celebrity. I care about the influence he has on his supporters, some of whom have decided to make excuses for undermining the rights of half of the citizens of this country. Pretend the calls for economic justice aren't rendered hollow by ignoring evidence of increase impoverishment of women without access to abortion.

I won't be joining the effort to move the party sharply to the right, toward an elevation of whiteness and patriarchy over equal opportunity and civil rights. I will be fighting reactionary policies and efforts wherever I find them because equal rights are infinitely more important to me than any career or any politician.

Has Hillary had a change of heart about letting a pro-lifer like Casey be her surrogate? Did she forgive Kaine for his past pro-life positions before choosing him as the person to put one heat beat from the Presidency?

That's what links are for.

Let me quote:

"Perez initially defended the DNC’s acceptance of an anti-abortion Democrat.

“Our job at the DNC is to help Democrats who have garnered support from voters in their community cross the finish line and win ― from school board to Senate,” Perez said. “The biggest threat to women’s reproductive rights is the relentless Republican attacks on women’s health care, including legal, accessible abortion services. And I won’t let anyone get in the way of our fight to protect a woman’s right to choose.”

But Perez changed course Friday and delivered a big victory to the reproductive rights movement, saying that he “fundamentally disagree[s] with Heath Mello’s personal beliefs about women’s reproductive health” and that “every candidate who runs as a Democrat should do the same, because every woman should be able to make her own health choices. Period.”

I grant you that in hindsight now, upon reflection on how many Democrats have reacted, Perez probably wishes he had never endorsed Perez in the first place and would not do so again if he had it to do over. But he pointedly did not withdraw his previous endorsement far as I can tell from following your link as they are intended for.

I acknowledge, as you know from our prior exchange, that this is a very valid subject for discussion and debate. The story you linked to handles it in just that matter, as a larger debate within the Democratic Party as well it should be. The story also notes "Perez’s statement will likely alienate some high-profile anti-abortion Democrats in the party, including Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards and Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Joe Manchin of West Virginia". And if the standard Perez is using references "personal beliefs" about abortion - then Joe Biden and Harry Reid get swept up in that net also even though they, unlike Mello, Casey and Kaine have not let their personal views on abortion leak into past "prolife" political positions they have taken.

But I still saw plenty of evidence of selective outrage at work, here on DU in particular where criticism of Perez before his revised statement was made was highly muted at most, compared to some of the things being said here about some and not others.

Do you think we should go after Bob Casey now? Do you think other Democratic leaders, such as our last presidential nominee, who have closely associated with him will be on board for that?

And your continued blatant attempts to smear Bernie as anti choice and misogynistic still don't work on those of us that have been watching his career for many years. He's no saint and I've disagreed with him many times, but he's not how you paint him, ad nauseum all over any thread you can find with his name in it. I've seen recently that you are beginning to attempt to link him in your posts to a belief in patriarchy, white supremacy, and opposition to equal rights and civil rights, more ugly canards not borne out by his record. If you think that is where you need to make your stand I feel for you because you're wasting your time. It's not Bernie you need to be fighting, it's Trump and the GOP.
But we get it. You hate him. You hate him bad and we all know the root reasons why, but The. Election. Is. Over. And trashing him now over statements and actions that raise no questions or opprobrium when done by Democrats at the exact same time makes obvious what you're doing, and why you're doing it.
You can reply all you want, but I've said what I wanted to say to you; this is almost but not quite like The Argument Clinic, and we are definitely not Cleese and Palin.

Spare me your poutrage that someone dared to criticize Bernie. I could care less about your pre-modern obsession with great men. You obviously didn't read the OP or my post.

You are exactly right. Economic equality can not be achieved without Woman's right, and we need to get rid of the Hyde amendment...which sends poor women to the abortion butchers or keeps them in the permanent underclass...there can be no economic success without both cheap/free birth control and abortion rights for all women.

He's running for mayor of San Antonio and sent a flyer with the Virgin Mary on it.

(I'm not voting for him...but he has a huge following with our large Mexican-American population. He is a pretty unethical guy. Using party HQ as his personal campaign office. Lying about when he came to the US. Lying about recently running for office in Mexico. Was involved in Panamanian politics. Everyone is calling him a Mexican Trump)

If anything the state party should get on his case, but they say their hands are tied.

ETA: He is also being endorsed by the Tea Party. The Tea Party!!! How undemocratic can you go??


Why isn't the DNC involved with this mess??

In Panama, Medina’s company received at least $2.5 million in government contracts
http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/In-Panama-Medina-s-company-received-at-least-11090443.php


Our other mayor candidates are all Democrats. Our current mayor also religious and I'm sure she is pro-life too. Here she is. She always wears a cross.


Honestly, I don't think whether a candidate is pro-life has ever has ever been an issue in a mayoral race around here. We've got enough nuts in Austin running that show. I don't see how it should effect a mayoral race in Nebraska either. And I don't know why the DNC is endorsing in a Nebraska mayoral race.

We've got a rogue candidate that is running down here and the party is doing nothing.

ETA Again: If Manuel Medina wins, he will cause irreparable damage to the Bexar County Democratic Party. This is one of the bluest in the state of Texas. It could turn Bexar County red again. It could have permanent repercussions in the state. Our city and state do not need this!!!

(Sorry about the long post!!)

In legislative bodies we need control, period.

That means filling seats either with Democrats or with independents who will caucus with us.

Control of the body means that the leadership decides what votes even come up. No anti choice legislation is going to make it to a vote if we run the party leadership for that body.

So in those cases if it comes down to supporting a few of the candidates who are far less than perfect, but will be a seat to give us control, that seat is the most important thing and as long as we control the leadership they won't have a chance to cast votes for bad legislation because we won't bring it up. And we do have the leverage of party support for their next campaign if we really need to force a vote for good legislation they might not like.

On the other hand a seat like a mayorship gives us nothing in the way of control on any legislative body and instead in the big picture is a place to be grooming good candidates for higher level offices. There is nothing to be gained as a party for supporting bad candidates in local races like that because outside that cities jurisdiction it doesn't affect anything else the party does and it means you are letting a compromise candidate occupy that "launch pad" seat.

We all need to try to do more of that. You make a good case. I agree that those are good points to throw into the mix of considerations. I suspect some of the calculations that have gone into consideration for support of Mello has to do with the role Omaha plays in Nebraska, and the role Nebraska plays in both the Electoral College and the U.S. Senate (because Nebraska sometimes elects Senate Democrats, unlike most other states in that region.

For one thing Omaha for all practical purposes represents its own Electoral College vote, since Nebraska proportions its votes on a Congressional District basis. To emphasize how important Democrats have viewed winning in that part of Nebraska in the recent past, in 2016 the Clinton campaign invested $167,845 in late media buys in an effort to pick up that one electoral college vote in Nebraska (in the Omaha market). That stands in comparison with $25,542 that Clinton spent on media adds in Wisconsin during the 2016 campaign in that same period.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-tv-ads/

This is so sad.

And let's not forget that this divisive and unnecessary controversy was brought to us, once again, by Bernie Sanders.

...to support Mello, to which both agreed.

Everybody has that line they won't cross on certain issues. Welcome to the club, fellow purists! I am personally not pleased with an anti choice candidate but the intensity of the outrage would make one would think Bernie himself was calling for the end of abortion rights. I am sure if there was an anti choice candidate being promoted in a different context, by somebody other than Bernie, the outrage might not be as orchestrated and loud. It's obvious what is REALLY going on here.

party, not to pick fights with party candidates. Sometimes the candidates are far from perfect but I will continue to support the DNC.

Now, suppose we had a non Democratic person who chose to support a handful of Democratic candidates and those candidates had two things in common. Suppose also that those things were; they support the outsider that supports them and are willing to follow in lock step with his economic plan. I would not be a fan of that non Democratic person.

It was the support of Mello combined with the lack of support of for Ossoff whose record was much better in that regard. That is what Sanders was being rightfully criticized for.

It started with criticism that Sanders hadn't personally helped Ossoff, even though virtually no high profile Democrat had personally helped him either. Then it centered on complaints that Sanders wouldn't say Osseff was a progressive. Then it got to your point - anger over Sanders seemingly being inconsistent with his support From there it quickly moved on to charges that Sanders willfully throws women's reproductive rights under the bus in order to appeal to Trump voters on an economic basis only. After that came charges that Sanders doesn't literally view women as his full equals.