I don't think Joe said you shouldn't be angry or that people aren't angry

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Link to tweet

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R

[Honeycombe8]

2. Believe what people tell you. "Some say Democrats are angry..well I don't believe it."

He couldn't have been clearer.

[emulatorloo]

5. That's Heer's misinterpretation of the speech and Biden's meaning. Here's a link to the full speech

Take a look and see if you still agree with Jeet Heer’s misleading tweet.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Neera Tanden was owning him in their exchange

Jeet was arguing that uber progressives won the mid terms. Tanden pointed out that center left candidate winning swing districts is what allowed the Dems to pick up forty seats. Jet then concedes the argument but say it won't be enough. Wut? There are red districts, there are blue districts, and there are purple or swing districts. If one party wins their districts plus the swing districts they will win the election.

[emulatorloo]

11. I don't understand how any reality-based person could make the argument he makes re mid-terms

It just isn’t fact based. Yes we had some good progressives wins.

But no uber-Our Revolution type candidate flipped a red seat to blue.

[Cha]

43. They can't be.

I'm shocked they're trying to high jack the Midterms as wins for "..uber progressives.." Not shocked.

[Cha]

42. Jeet.. ".. uber progressives won the mid terms.. "

on What Planet!?!

45 Red Seats were Flipped to Blue Wave.

Jeet's not reality based.. I find they can't be and maintain.

[Honeycombe8]

7. Where in that speech does he say that?

I don't want to listen to the whole thing, waiting for that statement.

I tried watching this speech before and stopped...it didn't have the effect on me that it apparently had on others, I guess. No offense, but it just wasn't what I wanted to hear, and wasn't ...well, wasn't what I'm looking for. The speech is more in line with where the country was about 20 years ago. Talking about Republicans like they are not people who support caging children, aiding & abetting a hostile foreign nation in infiltrating our government, refused to even hold a confirmation hearing on a S.Ct. Justice, as if the chair of the Intel Committee in the House hadn't been thwarting justice and working as loyalists for Trump, and all the rest As if the past 10 years hadn't happened. As if the Republican Party hasn't been taken over by the Tea Party, supported by neo-Nazis. Unity with them? Seriously? What world is he living in? Has he been paying attention?

I'm a moderate who has typically wanted to see unity and compromise. But that was then. These are dangerous times. These people are not "Republicans." They are something else...and they're coming for us, full steam ahead.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. "I tried watching this speech before and stopped..."

You admit to not watching the speech and yet you criticize others who watched it for not knowing what is in it.

[Honeycombe8]

12. I edited my post, so please read it. "I don't believe" that Democrats are angry, he said.

He couldn't be clearer.

Believe someone when they tell you what they think.

[Demit]

16. I watched the whole speech but I don't know the exact 00:00 he makes the statement, either

I'd like to go back and re-hear the statement in context, but I think it's a fair request to ask if the poster can guide us to the point in the speech where he makes it.

[emulatorloo]

15. You haven't seen the speech. You're relying on a misleading tweet from a biased tweeter.

Perhaps you should reconsider making definitive statements about a speech you haven’t heard.

I don’t mean any offense, because I have made that mistake too in the past:

Accepting the ‘interpretation’ of a biased commentator as the “truth”, when the meaning of what the Democrat said was completely different from the commentator’s misleading spin.

Since then i’ve tried to go straight horse’s mouth to hear with my own ears when I see someone “interpreting” Democrats negatively on twitter, blog posts, etc.

[Honeycombe8]

25. I saw half the speech before I turned it off. The statement is very long, & very clear.

I believe when a person tells me what he believes. You couldn't point to the part of the speech where he says that, so I can revisit that part of the speech.

This jives with his repeated use of the word "unity." Over and over again. Although as a moderate, I typically have wanted to see compromise and unification, things are different now. This is a very dangerous time. The person who would be President needs to be fully aware of what's going on, and that the current Repubs in charge are the Freedom Caucus, an activist group who have no intention of ever bending. I'm thinking they are happy hearing the word "unify," since they know that means the other side will have to bend in order to do so, since the Freedom Caucus doesn't bend.

Unify with people like Devin Nunes, Steve King, AG Barr, McConnell? Seriously?

So yeah, I believe that he is not angry, so he can't understand that many are.

That speech could have been made 20 years ago. A lot has happened since then, Joe. This is not politics as usual. A hostile foreign nation has infiltrated our government, aided and abetted by Trump and his loyalists. Refusal to hold a hearing on a S.Ct. Justice. Supporting caging children and not being angry they didn't keep records, so the children can be returned to their parents. This is not 2008, Joe.

[emulatorloo]

28. Here's the relevant excerpt in this post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=125651

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/18/biden_some_democrats_dont_want_to_hear_about_unity_think_the_angrier_you_are_the_better.html


—————-

BTW:

I hope you will please refrain from these definitive statements like ‘Biden wants to work with Devin Nunes and Steve King’. There is zero basis in fact.

For one thing Biden has called out White Supremacists, and called out Trump for lifting up White Supremacists. Steve King is a White Supremacist.

Until you have a direct quote from Biden saying he wants to collaborate with Steve King, Devin Nunes, Mitch McConnell, please stop definitely claiming he does.

[Honeycombe8]

34. He didn't say "unify" and "work with" and "unify again," except for Trump loyalists.

He was speaking about everyone, he said. He particularly didn't exclude McConnell, who refused to hold confirmation hearing on Judge Garland. Refused. Biden and McConnell go way back and are pretty friendly, so I'm pretty sure he includes McConnell in "unify."

I'm usually all for compromising and unifying, but these times are very different, as we all know. And the extremist Freedom Caucus and Trump loyalists have taken over the Republican Party. This is not 2008.

But whatever...he'll probably get the nomination.

[Honeycombe8]

36. That other quote you gave means to me that he's out of touch.

He seems to equate realizing you can't unify with the Trump loyalists, with running an angry campaign. ???

Realizing you can't unify with Trump loyalists is recognizing reality. Like the sky is blue, the grass is green, you can't unify with Trump loyalists unless you go along with them or become one with them. It doesn't always mean you're angry that the sky is blue.

It also is reasonable to be angry after all that has gone on. It would not be normal, IMO, not to be angry, after what the Trump loyalists have done and tried to do.

So his message just doesn't resonate with me. I think I know what he's doing and whose votes he's after. He'll probably get them, so "whatever, Martha."

He doesn't say "unify," except for Trump loyalists. That would at least have shown he recognizes what's been going on for 2 1/2 years. They simply are not going to unify with the Democrats. We've seen who they are.

[mcar]

40. He loudly and clearly criticized Rs for their obstruction

Specifically mentioning the ACA and Recovery act.

[PatSeg]

23. It is a shame you stopped

watching the speech. It was excellent and deserves more than a few quotes out of context. He makes it quite clear that yes, "These are dangerous times" as you say. I think anyone who wants to criticize what he said, should actually LISTEN to what he said, not someone else's version of the speech.

[Honeycombe8]

32. I DID watch half of it. It wasn't excellent. I got where his head is at.

Unify with Devin Nunes, unify with Devin Nunes. Don't be angry with McConnell, don't be angry with McConnell. Unify unify unify. Since those extremists don't bend, that means WE bend, if we want to unify. I get it. And it's possible I heard the OP quoted statement and just didn't notice it. It was a pretty boring speech.

He's got most moderates, so now he's going after independents and establishment Republicans (who have said they won't vote for Trump), IMO. He knows the far left won't fully back him. He's okay w/that, since it's the older moderates who are the reliable voters, according to stats. Hence, unify unify unify.

I'm a moderate, though, and don't think "unify" is the message for these harrowing times. I found myself wondering if he's fully aware of what's been going on. His son died a few years ago, he's getting up there in years. Maybe he's stuck in a prior decade?

In any case, it did not strike me as an excellent speech. You have to accept that. It's not that it really WAS excellent and I didn't understand it. I understood it just fine. I disagree with you about the speech is all.

Rather than reach enthusiastic support for a candidate, it looks like I'll arrive at choosing one by eliminating the objectionable ones.

[PatSeg]

39. I don't expect to agree

with every Democrat throughout the coming months. I've heard a lot of speeches by Joe, some outstanding, others rather mediocre. This was one of his better speeches.

He pretty much was saying that some believe that a candidate must be "angry" in order to win the nomination. He goes on to equate such an angry candidate with Donald Trump and that that is not what Democrats want.

"Some say Democrats don't want to hear about unity. That they are angry - and the angrier you are - the better. That's what they are saying you have to do to win the Democratic nomination. Well, I don’t believe it. I believe Democrats want to unify this nation. That’s what we’ve always been about. Unity."

"If the American people want a president to add to our division, to lead with a clenched fist, closed hand and a hard heart, to demonize the opponents and spew hatred -- they don't need me. They've got President Donald Trump. Folks, I am running to offer our country -- Democrats, Republicans and Independents -- a different path. Not to a path that never was but a future that can fulfill our potential as a country."

No way is what he said excusing people like Nunes and McConnell or the rest of the spineless Trump toadies. He also made many progressive points about a Medicare option, free college, and climate change. As for unity, we can't win and get rid of the destruction republicans in congress without it. We aren't going to agree on everything, but we need to work together in a common purpose.

We have every right to be angry and we should be. Justifiable anger may fuel us, but in the long run it cannot sustain us alone. There has to be more.

Meanwhile, I expect people to disagree with me, though I can see where we have common ground as well.

[mcar]

41. That isn't even close to what he said

Not even close. Joe isn't my 1st choice, but I try to watch most of the candidates big speeches. He pushed unity but also slammed Rs.

[Honeycombe8]

44. Ummm...did you miss that his "movement" is called "UNITE"?

He said to text 30330, which spells "UNITE"? In his speech he directly addressed that some people say you can't work with the current Republicans. He goes on to say he doesn't think that's true. He says he has worked across the aisle and will work across the aisle when he's President. Compromise is not a dirty word, he said.

He concedes that sometimes you have to fight for something, like the ACA. But you don't need to go toe to toe with the Republicans on everything.

He doesn't want to demonize anyone. They've got Trump for that, he said.

Jill's introduction referred to Biden's "movement" to bring together the people. One nation. One America.

And so on. One of the themes of his campaign is to unify the nation and work with the other side.

Actually, I have veered toward supporting candidates like that in the past. But I think we can all agree that this crop of extremist Freedom Caucus and Trump Loyalists are not your normal Republicans.

McConnell flatly refused to even speak to Obama's nominee for a S.Ct. Justice, for gosh sakes. Nunes refused to conduct a fair investigation in the House, and worked w/the White House to make things "work out" for Trump. Republicans remain silent while children are treated inhumanely. And on and on.

That's my view, anyway. This election is not like any other in the country's past. The speech I heard seemed more like a speech that would have great a decade or two ago.

But it's not up to me. It looks to me like he's going to be the nominee.

[highplainsdem]

27. See reply 22 for a shorter clip.

[emulatorloo]

3. Recommended. That tweet from Jeet Heer is Willful Misinterpretation

Fox News has perfected that strategy of deliberately and willfully misinterpreting what Democrats say and what Democrats stand for.

It saddens me when progressives like Jeet Heer adopt Fox style propaganda techniques to smear a primary candidate they just don’t happen to prefer.

[highplainsdem]

8. Way too much willful misinterpretation of Biden going on. Like the attacks on his "middle ground"

climate policy, when he'd said no such thing and this was a willful, malicious misreading of a Reuters headlinen that for some bizarre reason had put quotes around words their reporter had inferred but not heard from two unnamed Biden campaign sources.

The Biden campaign immediately pointed out that the story was a mischaracterization, but Biden's critics pounced on words that weren't his and started screaming about it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Even in this thread.

If that's all they got it's not nearly enough.

[emulatorloo]

18. Some people seem upset that voters are responding well to Biden.

I am happy when voters respond well to any of our Democratic primary candidates

They all share the same core set of values and the same policy goals. They may have different strategies, but I am not going to tear them down over something like that.

Trump must go. That’s the bottom line.

[PatSeg]

26. You know

I'm beginning to realize that whenever critics attack Joe, they are often just doing him a favor. The resulting clarifications by Joe and his campaign actually bring out the best about him. For instance, watching Biden's friends and colleagues defend him after the attacks about his excessive public affection, only reinforced what a genuinely good and decent person he is.

Its going to be a long campaign and there will be plenty of attacks and misrepresentations. Joe has been around a long time and by now, I'm sure he used to this.

[emulatorloo]

45. His team is good, aren't they?

[PatSeg]

46. It appears so

Years of cultivating relationships is finally paying off for Joe.

[Autumn]

10. He's not denying that voters are angry, he's just saying he doesn't believe that they are angry.

Seriously, you can not twist those words into saying he doesn't think anger is a good strategy. If he said those words in his speech trying to change them looks dumb. That's ridiculous. That's his opinion... He doesn't believe Democrats are angry. Own it and move on. He's a grown intelligent man. If he wanted to say he doesn't think anger is a good strategy to win the nomination and the general election he could have easily managed to put that sentence together.

[Honeycombe8]

14. He didn't use the word "strategy." He was clear.

He doesn't believe that Democrats are angry. He used the word "unity" repeatedly. This is how Biden has historically been, but these are different times. I was very disappointed to hear the same thing he said a decade or more ago.

You can't "work with" Devin Nunes, McConnell, Steve King, and other Trump loyalists. They don't want to have unity, although I'm sure they'd welcome US bending over trying to unify. Do what they want, and they'll be happy to be unified with us.

There are establishment Republicans who can be worked with, but they are not in control.

But that's just my take on it. Others apparently disagree.

[Autumn]

20. I agree with everything you said. People interpreting his sentences

to clean them up and make them more palatable is ridiculous. The former VP knows how to articulate his thoughts. If he doesn't we are in trouble.

[emulatorloo]

21. I am watching them all. Biden's a better candidate than some DU'ers are giving him credit for

It isn’t a surprise he is appealing to voters.

All of our candidates are good!

I posted to you in another thread that my current top 4 are

Warren
Harris
Mayor Pete
Biden

Biden got on that top 4 list because I went to a rally in Iowa and heard him speak. He was really really good

There are other candidates on my top 10, who may move up after I see them or see the first debates

[KPN]

30. I have the same top 4 ... oh, wait, I'm down to 3 this morning.

[honest.abe]

19. Exactly.

[highplainsdem]

22. Biden doesn't believe that "the angrier a candidate can be" the better chance of winning nomination.

This RCP article has video of that section of his speech, and it's pretty clear he's talking about candidate strategy.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/18/biden_some_democrats_dont_want_to_hear_about_unity_think_the_angrier_you_are_the_better.html

[emulatorloo]

24. Thanks for posting the clip

[PatSeg]

31. Thank you

Hearing the words in context makes a big difference.

"Some say Democrats don't want to hear about unity. That they are angry - and the angrier you are - the better. That's what they are saying to have to do to win the Democratic nomination. Well, I don’t believe it. I believe Democrats want to unify this nation. That’s what we’ve always been about. Unity."

"If the American people want a president to add to our division, to lead with a clenched fist, closed hand and a hard heart, to demonize the opponents and spew hatred -- they don't need me. They've got President Donald Trump. Folks, I am running to offer our country -- Democrats, Republicans and Independents -- a different path. Not to a path that never was but a future that can fulfill our potential as a country."

[KPN]

35. You know what, interpret it however you want, In the moment, when I first heard this statement, it

came across as criticism of other Democrats (candidates, strategists, and voters -- "some" of us here). So I'm not convinced.

One of the problems with using the word "some" as antagonists is nobody can really know for sure who he or she meant in using it. Just like Reagan's "they". It's loose language ... and sometimes overt (when used purposefully).

[nolabear]

29. Has everyone forgotten that "angry Democrats" is a RW talking point?

45 uses it. His minions use it. Trolls use it. It’s used to mean “They’re angry they’re losers. They don’t think. They’re unfair because they’re so angry!”

Joe is in fact trying to draw people toward him by denying the shallow anger people all over the country are accusing Dems of and saying we can talk together, acknowledging we disagree and sometimes indeed being outraged. But not “angry” the way women used to be called “hysterical.”

[PatSeg]

33. That's a good point

Like today's Democrats are somewhat like some radical hippies from the 1960s and 1970s - angry, reckless, and out of control. Though of course, it is just projection on the part of republicans, as it is their base that is angry, reckless, and out of control.

[KPN]

37. Well, he ought to say that. He didn't. He said "some" ... leaving it to interpretation.

The question I have is did he do that purposefully. I will never know because none of us ever can. We can only interpret it the way it strikes us in the moment. In this case, it sounded to me like he was taking aim at "some" of the other candidates, "some" Democratic strategists, and "some" Democratic party members.

[KPN]

38. This sort of reminds me of reading and remarking about scripture in the bible. It's subject to

interpretation ... and spin if seeking to influence.

[Gothmog]

47. Democrats need to unite to beat trump