Annnnnnd there were some here who thought Bernie wasn't qualified to be president because he wasn't rich enough after years in office. Poor management skills.

Oy.

is kept for Bernie and not Elizabeth

So true.

a Democrat through thick and thin, not merely a Democrat of convenience.

Hope that your holiday season was great!

actions, their own words, and own ideas.

I must have missed that.

She’s her own person.

When she didn't Sanders jumped in.

He was being begged to run and didn't "jump in" to fill a vacancy. Geez

at the time having been a vocal advocate of and then appointed by Pres. Obama to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

She was known nationally for that while Sanders did not have the same national prominence.

You can't rewrite history.

and an even temperament, which IMHO Senator Sanders lacks.

For those reasons and others I believe she is a better qualified candidate than Bernie, who I supported in 2016 primary.

makes an appearance that Elizabeth is Not like BS.

but that is what he is going with...

So if true, it is bad... and if false, it is bad for a different reason.

Yikes.

...that his 2018 re-election campaign addressed it.

How can one address an issue and not know about it? He needs to read up on President Harry S. Truman, ya think?

what happened doesn't speak well for his leadership skills.

Exactly.. how can he know nothing about it when it was supposedly already addressed.. except for the 24 staffers who now want to meet with him and jeff weaver in person?

in this case and thus not "bad" at all.
It becomes bad however if he was made aware of it and made efforts to cover it up.

"He has always been a hands-on campaigner. He has had the people who have had the title of campaign manager, but he is always his own campaign manager,” said Terry Bouricius, a longtime Sanders ally and former aide who served in the Vermont House of Representatives. Sanders wants to approve “every single everything,” Bouricius added, “so it’s a bigger change of gears for him than it is for most people.”

Mind you, he would not be my first pick for the office as I would prefer someone like Hillary but I think he would do a far better job than the jackass that currently is in office.

Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2019, 02:47 PM - Edit history (3)

I pointed out how surprising it is that he would not have known how many people in his campaign were experiencing this.

Sanders refused to endorse his director of Latino outreach, Arturo Carmona for his own run for office in 2016. Carmona was one of those who was accused.

And even after all the revelations about his behavior came out in 2017, he was still invited to "The Gathering" held by Sanders recently in Vermont.

My problem with Bernie has always been that he sounds a little too much like someone we've all come to know and loathe.

"I alone can fix everything."

"I know more about how the gov't should be run than anyone else."

"I'm too important to be bothered with details."

"Every great idea is something I thought of first."

"Anything that goes wrong is someone else's fault."

same thing!

Though it seems he gets blasted on DU at ever opportunity and it's 2016 all over again He's a good man who has done a lot for our party's direction. It's like watching someone insinuating Hillary's huge corporate speaking fees made her shortsighted and greedy when in fact it was just what they offered to hear her speak. I hate watching people make allegations to justify their deep seated resentments.

I seriously doubt that had he been aware that it would have been allowed to continue. Just like every organization or company stuff happens and it doesn’t always make it to the boss’s desk.

No one can be everywhere at once, but that seems to not be good enough for some on this board.

You mean like this?

"insinuating Hillary's huge corporate speaking fees made her shortsighted and greedy "

the sentence explains why it was unfounded.

"Deep seated resentments" are duly noted.

Sanders must be a real threat to Wall St. The NY Times is all about attacking him. What a shame that dems on this thread are joining the feast. Many voted for him and I guess that angers many here.

for Wall Street now?

How do you explain their "feasting?"

Feasting can be explained. I should have said that the critics jumped on the bandwagon after the story about the Sanders campaign was run through The NY Times and other news media. This site has many here eager to put down candidates. Be careful friends, about joining the attacks.

You know that putting down or otherwise "attacking" allies of Democrats is not allowed here on DU.

What "attacks" are you talking about? Factual news stories? The words of his own staffers?

Do you think that they are not being truthful about their experiences? Are you saying that saying one believes them them is "jumping on the bandwagon with critics?"

No surprise....

....he's got upwards of $1M invested in "Wall Street", so I seriously doubt that is a factor.

This scandal has nothing to do with political ideology or policies. It has to do with sexual harassment and sexual violence.

I'm a Democrat.

I loved that he made a part of our discussion income inequality, Medicare for all, Free public college, campaign finance which refused corporate donations, increased min wage to a livable wage plus all the things Elizabeth Warren stands for regulating the banks and wall street reform. How anyone could view such a positive person so negatively is puzzling to me...especially someone I admire cause I would not vote for one with such qualities. I would have no problem voting for Bernie if he becomes a democrat again.

We cannot ignore these revelations by his former staffers, nor his statment that he didn't know about how pervasive this was, nor the concern that his 2016 staff has for his 2019 and 2020 campaigns.

about a pervasive hostility in BERNIE’s campaign—the letter is current news— and we could see it for ourselves how hostile his reps like Jeff Weaver were/are. We can see it with our own eyes, so the letter just reinforces it.

Spamming Whatabout Hillary because she knew one guy...that is divisive.

I'm only showing the hypocrisy in here by some.
This story came out recently, but the facts of the cases are different. In one, the candidate didn't know about it. In the other the candidate swept it under the carpet and punished the victim. But hey, who's counting. Both were awhile ago, the primaries are over, none of these stories are worth digging up.

Why give the Trump cultists any ammunition against one of ours? Oh right, our most popular senator, who draws crowds, and gets young people to vote Democrat, is the enemy.

should be with his staffers who are confronting him again about this. Your analogy is completely false— there is proof Sanders knew about it, but is denying it (swept it under the rug? —your words).

Your spin on why we have Trump is also false and self-serving. It was the baseless and prolonged attacks on Clinton, sort of as evidenced with your own post here, where she is accountable for all the men on her campaign while Bernie is responsible for none. Those are the real hypocrisies and double standards.

Biden is the most popular......

An OP entitled "Sanders says he did not know about sexual harassment allegations during campaign", but why not just take out the word "not", and then your argument looks better eh? Because....you know that he is lying right?

And my chief reason why Hillary lost was exactly because of the "the baseless and prolonged attacks on Clinton". Not by the imaginary hordes of "BernieBros", but by Russia, and the GOP voter suppression, and the nasty RW media. And that decades long anti-Clinton smear campaign worked, and that is one reason why IMO Sanders had more of a shot at winning the Presidency....and with him a lot more Democrats.

And I brought that story up not because I want to condemn Hillary. It was a bad incident, to which she was not directly responsible for, much like in the Sanders case, to which she has apologized for and said she'd have done it differently if she could. And Sanders is also open to hearing out the complainants and dealing with it as well. My point is what good does it do to elevate stories like this? Whether its against Sanders or Clinton?

And geez....does it really matter if Sanders, in some other poll, is #2, or #3? That is still popular enough to take into consideration when deciding to pile on.

and Hillary basically won except for the baseless and prolonged attacks on her. There is no excuse for it and there is no defending it. You should stop. But mostly, rehashing these ruminations about Hillary have nothing to to with this thread. This thread is not about Hillary.

This thread is not about Hillary. This thread is about Sanders staffers confronting him about the abuse they endured working on his campaign. We all saw the very hostile Jeff Weaver on TV, and the letter does seem to call him out.

This thread is not about Hillary. I doubt a very hostile and confrontational Jeff Weaver could have convinced the majority of Democrats about much of anything because he was so combative and insulting. That is what the letter is about. This thread is about Sanders knowledge of the problems in his campaign. It’s not about Hillary.

Whatever you say Garr

Yup, here we go.

BUTWHATABOUTISM is what the GOP does, just stop it.

this is. NONE of these candidates wanted harrassment to occur. I would not be surprised if some incident happened in every major campaign. It is a societal problem. Look at the stories and the polls asking women if they were ever harrassed. A campaign - with a looser power structure than a business or a government office, where people are away from home, working endless hours likely have more problems.

My first impluse is to say every 2020 campaign needs a strong one proven incident - you are out. However, looking at the Clinton 2008 case, there were likely two reasons she kept a high level abuser. The one she gave is that her religion teaches forgiveness and second chances. The second - which is conjecture on my part - is that she saw him as an important, unique person whose outreach would be key to winning the Presidency.

The Sanders campaign might have been far more likely to have problems than many others because his team was quickly pulled together and incuded many contractors. He did not have a big political team from the past to pull from. Does this reflect on Sanders management cababilities? Sure, but so would the Harris and Clinton problems reflect on theirs. In all three cases, they managed the CA Attournry General's office, the State Department and the town of Burlington respectively -- as well as their Senate offices. I would be more concerned if there were incidents that were NOT responded to in these more stable offices. I have heard NOTHING suggesting that he did not deal with harrassment in his Burlington Senate office or from people speaking of his tenure as mayor - even from people who were not completely positive about him.

He is known for being VERY hands on with his campaigns, and this is more than just a few people. Tad Devine certainly wasn't a newbie to major national campaigns, and certainly not to Sanders. Many of his 2016 campaign alumni are asking for a meeting to ensure it doesn't happen again, because they are not sure that it won't. They've been talking among themselves about it.

My point is that I would not make the claim that Sanders -- or Clinton of Harris - should be disqualified as lacking management skills because they either did not know or did not respond strongly to people reporting to them harassing people. My point is that one should look at the broader picture to assess how they would be as managers. In addition, my point was NOT to judge Sanders, who I do not think will be the nominee in 2020, but to consider the issue of how campaigns should address this.

Note that the reccomendation is to develop a gold plated standard going forward. As a response to ME Too, this should be something that ALL campaigns address. My point is that sexual harrassment is a function of our culture and exasperated by the environment, the hasty organization of campaigns (hasty compared to a company or a government organization), and the nature of campaigning. The purpose of publicly and within the campaign of setting a red line is to make people think before doing anything untoward.

As I said, I would like a one strike you are out rule. However, looking at Clinton's explanation and the underlying information on that specific charge, I can see how complicated it could be. If you assume that someone is uniquely valuable to a campaign AND they would be difficult to replace, do you think many (if any) campaigns would not give the second chance that Clinton gave -- with actions intended to monitor that it never happen again.

Was Kamala's staff being harassed by that man along with others who were under her perview? No.

Again, Sanders is known for a very hands on management style. And your response was not to the OP. It was to a post that pointed out the whataboutism concerning Kamala Harris' very different situation.

Several Sanders staffers have come forward. Where the managment failed in this situation wasnot addressing it in a way that those who experienced it have faith that real change was implemented.

Hence the meeting that the alumni staffers (some who were senior staffers) want to have with Jeff Weaver and others.

There was no such discussion or call for a meeting among alumni staffers of HRC's 2008 campaign. She dealt with it to their satisfaction in 2008.

That is good management of personnel.

Not to mention, at this point we do not know all the stories of the Sanders campaign, but it may be that known of the harrassers were as prominent in the organization as that man was in the 2008 campaign.

As to where I responded, there is no rule that your point considers just the immediate post you reply to. As in a normal conversation, the context is the entire conversation.

after the 2008 campaign to prevent it from happening again?

It's about a "predatory culture" and "an untenable and dangerous dynamic that developed during [the] campaign."

the abuse we could all see for ourselves, namely the abuse of Clinton.

You obviously haven’t read the actual letter or are intentionally mischaracterizing it to exonerate Sanders, but the letter calls out Jeff Weaver pretty clearly—not a bunch of “contractors” as you are trying to distract us with.

discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

I see no hippocrisy on mcar or anyone else's part - just your whataboutism.

Perhaps you can explain where Kamala's staffer is being defended - which is what would make your accusation of "hippocrisy" accurate.

Otherwise - it's whataboutism.

Some are using the bad behavior of others to bash someone they don’t like. So go ahead, open that door. Just don’t be surprised when that leads to other doors being opened. Now whataboutism away.

Got it.

You pointed to Kamala in an attempt to make someone else look less flawed, when no one was holding Kamala up as a defense.

Whataboutism.

Is that clearer?

evident in this thread when they face similar controversies. Anything less would be hippo-critical.

So you act like it has, and get defensive when you are called out on whataboutism.

Just own it - you're upset that several staffers have made these allegations about that campaign, so you try an "over there! Look over there!" to anyone who might be his opponent in 2020 an effort to make it seem less problematic for your preferred candidate and bring more so for "their" candidate. "Everybody else was doing it, Mom!"

When it's actually it's a group of people coming forward about the Sanders campaign, unlike with Kamala.

Perhaps you can find something on yet another Democrat who is a potential challenger for 2020 that the "anti-anyone but Bernie crowd" can use to portray the rest of us here as being "hippo-critical?"

You might take note that the post you are responding to with a high five got removed.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

But I get it... when a sacred cow is illustrated to be less than sacred, irrelevant sacrifices, and false equivalencies must be sacrificed on the altar in its stead.

Hippos, indeed.

Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2019, 03:39 PM - Edit history (4)

His harrassment of campaign staffers was public by late 2016. He makes a point of saying it was Jane (not Bernie) who did the inviting.

like Pence and other candidates have been.

Amen, don’t feed the toll mainstream media who love a good put down.v Anything to keep the focus off the real issues of the presidential campaign. Let’s talk back and ask why they aren’t reporting on the issues!

and "mainstream media?"

Bernie Bros were created by the Russians.

Jesus H., Democrats are very good at eating our own.

I like Tulsi Gabbards and she doesn't have a prayer because Democrats already ate her.

Pence was left off of transition emails that he should have been included on.

Does that make it "better" or "worse" than if he knew what was going on?

Sanders insists on signing off on every email that goes out. He's a known micromanager. I'm not sure why he wouldn't have known about larger issues such as this going on.

knowing anything about it?

Mahalo for the laugh.

It is literally what the GOP does -- mention something Trump has done, and it becomes BUT HILLARY BUT WARREN BUT WHOMEVER.

He was too busy to know what was going on?

Not for everybody it doesn't.

how the word never made it up the chain of command.

I don't care how busy he was. Someone at the top should have dealt with this AND informed him. Somehow, he gave them the impression that they shouldn't bother him with stuff like this.

to know about, then it appears to be an excuse.

Sanders is known for being very, very hands on with his campaigns.

The number of staffers who have come forward makes one wonder why he didn't know this was such a problem.

Perhaps you have another ugly, false accusation to repeat verbatim about HRC to use as an "illustration" of how "hateful" people can be about Sanders?

none of the complaints were deemed important enough to get attention at the top?

It's so much easier.

Link to tweet