While it's difficult, I encourage everyone to try to ignore dirt

[MineralMan]

on our Democratic candidates until a little time has passed and there have been opportunities to fact check it and to hear from the candidate about it.

Rushing to judgment the minute something comes out is never a good idea. Opposition research is always conducted, particularly on candidates who are apparently doing well or leading. Sometimes, it's done by other candidates of the same party. Other times, it's done by third parties or the opposition party.

It seems to me we should be willing to give the candidate being attacked an opportunity to explain what has been revealed. Often, dirt is presented out of context and with negative aspects of it being the only information released. Allowing a candidate to explain what happened and why seems to be the fair way to go with this.

Why do I offer this caution? Because we are going to see dirt on every candidate who is doing well. Every one. Yesterday it was Biden's position on busing. Today it's information about Kamala Harris keeping information about the Catholic Church's child sexual abuse under wraps, rather than releasing it to the public, from an earlier time when she was a District Attorney. I haven't heard her explanation for that, but we have heard Joe Biden discuss his decades old busing opinion.

We should not accept dirt at face value as soon as it is released. We need to remember why people release such information. It's never in support of a candidate, but is always released to hurt a candidate.

Let's not fall for that, please.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. And sometimes dirt isn't even dirt.

Sometimes an incident or a statement is made to look like dirt when the context is conveniently omitted.

[MineralMan]

2. Yes, absolutely.

The problem is made worse because the initial negative information always gets more play than the eventual explanation of it.

Everyone is susceptible to being misled by negative information, especially if it applies to someone other than their favorite candidate.

[Dickbaker]

3. Candidates tossing dirt on candidates

As a new democratic convert I find it terrible when the dirt is tossed by democratic candidates who's ambitions lead them to assume that it should be them or we will have to live the nightmare of another Trump term. I had dreams of a Biden/Harris team but the consensus seems to be that her agenda doesn't include anyone but her. She seems willing to fight Trump from her senate seat for another whole four years.
Dick ,
one time very moderate republican who has come to dispose the Trumpian GOP

[wyldwolf]

4. Welcome to DU!

How did your conversion unfold?

[MineralMan]

5. Well, throwing dirt clods at your opponents is a time-honored

tradition in both political parties. It is also a very stupid tradition. Political campaigns lend themselves to people doing stupid things in their zeal to come out on top.

Sadly, flinging poo at other candidates just gets everyone dirty and smelly, and gets in the way of achieving goals.

In a two-person primary race, it can become so vicious that neither candidate wins in the general election. In a crowded field of candidates, like the one we have this year, all of the filth is being thrown at the candidate who is leading. So, that candidate is the target of multiple others.

In the end, the poo-flingers do not end up winning, but everyone loses.

I wish that were not so, but it appears that we're on that track, even this early in the primary campaign.

More's the pity.

Welcome to DU!

[Turin_C3PO]

6. Welcome!

Glad you understand the Trump threat to our nation.

[MustLoveBeagles]

7. Welcome to DU

[Politicub]

8. We're Democrats.

Infighting comes with the territory.

Welcome to DU.