Lets be clear about Bernie vs Hillary

[RobertEarl]

Most of us have been political junkies for a long long time.

Some of us proudly voted for McGovern!

So we have been watching the scene go down for a long time.

We have watched the Clintons for going on 25 years now, most of us voted for Bill, twice.

Through all of these years we have watched as the system ate up and discarded good progressive, liberal, loving candidates who we knew, if given a seat of power, could change the system. We supported and voted for Obama because we had hope he could change the system, and in some ways he did.

But now we have Bernie. A politician who has been through the grinder, and he still stands. Indeed, he stands tall and has a real chance to wield our greatest aspirations for our country and our planet as POTUS.

Hillary is plan B for us. Plan B, because we see her as a fixture of the system, and if we have to, we will support her. But we have Bernie and therefore we have real hope to use him to change the system.

So......... if anyone continues to disrespect Bernie, expect a backlash. A backlash that comes from the pent-up frustrations of 30+ years of seeing our best hopes be trashed by the RW and even supposed friends.

We are sick of it.... we have a real champion in Bernie this time and we are ready and willing to fight. Do not be surprised by the reaction if you get in our way and show disrespect for us and our champion.

Thank you and have a nice day.

[FSogol]

1. So, now we are down to threats?

this is starting to seem like a forum where clowns argue about who the greatest football team is.

:facepalm x ?

[tgards79]

2. I'm happy to debate...or what you call backlash...

...but I really want to win the election.

[lewebley3]

46. Yes, Sanders people ideologues, not loyal Dem's

Last edited Thu Jul 9, 2015, 05:37 PM - Edit history (1)

They are the kind of people that supported Nader and attacked Gore,
so we ended up with Bush

[ladjf]

95. I totally disagree with your assertions that Sanders people

were the kind that supported Nader and attacked Gore. I think you are way off on this matter.

[Gore1FL]

109. Still pushing that nonsense, are you?

You were soundly repudiated in the past for the same assertion. just to mix it up a little, don't you think it's time to make up another baseless assessment of Sander's supporters?

[ut oh]

111. I'm a Bernie supporter

I did not vote for Nader. I think Nader is an egotistical jackass....

I voted for Gore.

So what was that again about Bernie supporters?

But of course keep up the personal attacks.... That really brings people to your side... not!

[redstateblues]

150. Good for you. It is amazing however

That most Nader voters rarely step forward

[TheKentuckian]

183. It is a small portion of people, nothing too amazing about it.

There are only so many boogiemen/punching bags in that closet and most of them were probably in "safe states" and had no impact anyway.

I voted and campaigned for Gore, knowing then what I do now though I wouldn't have as we might be in better shape if enough did the same and sent an undeniable message to the party that the Turd Way garbage was not going to be acceptable and that no realistic number gains made appealing to the fake center aka the right would replace the number on the left willing to say sit and spin since the TeaPubliKlans were going to bulldog and our folks were going to roll anyway.

[Trajan]

119. I supported every Democratic candidate from Mondale to Obama

And now I support Bernie ...

Go figure ...

[Enthusiast]

142. Me too.

[bvar22]

162. Links Please.

You made an outrageous claim.
Can you support it with more than hot air?

[Dustlawyer]

172. I supported Gore and now I support Sanders. Sanders is the only one of either Party who has not

been bought with campaign money. He doesn't owe anyone but us! Nader and Sanders are two different people, with different agendas. Sanders has worked within the system, but has not been corrupted by it. He has worked with Democrats and Republicans and knows compromise is appropriate and necessary at times, but he also knows when we are getting the shaft and he has our back. I don't have to worry that Wall Street, the MIC, Big Pharma, NRA, or any of the other usual suspects got to him to screw me over. He is running as a Democrat to avoid a Nader situation since he knows it would put a Republican in the White House.

I do not believe Hillary is evil or bad, but I believe that she has played this game far too long and has too many wealthy, powerful friends that she will take care of before us. This is how our political system has operated since before she and Bill came along. She has learned the game and played it masterfully. She too has worked both sides of the aisle and accomplished a great deal. But, she has divided loyalties. Like Obama, she will throw us a few bones with some meat on them, but the real dinner is at the table where we are not allowed. Will I vote for her if she wins the Primary, of course. Am I tired of picking from Wall Street approved candidates, you bet your ass I am!

The root problem that has caused, or at least made substantially worse, most of this country's problems is the legalized bribery that SCOTUS has put on steroids. Bernie, with a whole lot of us behind him, wants to get rid of campaign contributions and have Publicly Funded Elections. If that were the only thing I agreed with him on I would still vote for him.

Hillary doesn't want to change the system, she is a creature of it. She is its champion actually. She can raise more bribe money than any other candidate this time around because she knows and is friends with all of the most wealthy, powerful elite this world has. She has proven she can deliver their bacon almost every time. They know that with her they will have access. Hillary is not doing anything different than all of the others except Bernie, she just does it better!

I view this election as a rare opportunity to level the playing field and return Representative Democracy back to We the People. Corporations and the very wealthy control all aspects of our society, from Washington politicians, much of the Judicial branch, the media, and most of the money. I want a return of the power to the people where it belongs, that's what this election means to me and my fellow Bernie supporters!

[brett_jv]

236. Beautiful post ... very well said!!!

[MissDeeds]

249. Excellent post

This should be an OP.

[druidity33]

253. I totally agree. nt.

[marym625]

268. This!

I supported and voted for Gore. But I am sick to death of the people even saying it's Nader and Nader supporters that got us Bush. The SCOTUS got us Bush. Kathryn Harris and Jeb Bush got us Bush. Gore won the election. And anyone that doesn't know that, doesn't know the facts

[lewebley3]

313. Gore didn't run as team player, that hurt him: Hillary is running as a team player

Go Hillary

[KPN]

317. Awesome!

Well done sir!

[corkhead]

209. Judging by the amount of help Gore got from the Clintons in 2000

You are making me wonder who they voted for in that election

[blackspade]

216. That is a false statement.

We ended up with shrub for one reason: SCOTUS. Full stop.

[Nitram]

251. You know, spade, sayin' it doesn't make it true.

It is not a false statement and there were numerous factors that produced the eventual election result. SCOTUS was the last word, but not what led to their involvement in the first place.

[blackspade]

255. Facts are what make it true.

Gore won.
SCOTUS stopped the recount that cost Gore the election.
Not Nader or any of the other 'factors' that people continually run up the pole to test the wind.

[senz]

240. Nader ran as a third party candidate.

He was a real spoiler. A vote for Nader was a vote that, in most cases, would have gone to Gore -- if Nader weren't running. So Nader voters took away from Gore's vote count in the general election. Plus, Nader even admitted that he wanted to hurt the Dems.

This is not the case with Bernie. He is running in the Democratic primary, and if he loses the primary nomination to Hillary, he cannot run in the general election. Furthermore, he has already indicated that if he loses the primary, he will throw his support to her. So Bernie's not going to harm Hillary's chances in the general election. (And anyone who thinks she shouldn't be challenged in the Democratic primary is a little fuzzy on the whole notion of democracy.)

[lewebley3]

296. Yes, its is: Dem's are having to waste money and time

Last edited Thu Jul 9, 2015, 03:38 PM - Edit history (1)

The Koch's are already using their money to go after Hillary, and
Sanders people are helping.

Hillary could have run as sitting President, which would increase the odds
for election. The American people like people the know!

Hillary earned this nomination a long time ago, the country knows her and
Trust, she is as close to sure bet in politics the Dem's are ever going to
have. We don't have waste money on name id, we don't have to worry
about Sanders past, or Sanders untested political skills.

Sanders is just another attack dog, against the Dem's, the GOP will
fund Sanders campaign and will use him to divide the party.

The GOP are reading the Sanders supporter just like they did the Nader
supporters.

[DebJ]

324. Wow, so you think debates are a waste of time and money? That there should be no choice?

The primaries and the debates therein are the MOST important phase of the process.

The Democratic process.

Where people can speak and be heard.

Where ideas can be heard and supported, or not.

To toss this process is to lose any shred of democratic action.

[lewebley3]

328. Obama, didn't debate anyone when he ran for a second term!

Everyone trusted Obama and knew where he stood on issues,
the same is for Hillary.

Its only Sanders supporter, who are trying wash away 30-40 years
of History with Hillary working for the Dem's.

Hillary, or any Dem has a better chance when the run as a sitting President,
its because the Dem party is united in one thing.

The only thing that could hurt the Dem chances is division, and that is what
Sanders supporters are trying too do.

[DebJ]

381. Duh, uh, after you have been/currently ARE President, um, YES

your positions are well known.,

Hillary's keep evolving.

And it is absolutely ridiculous for you to state that Sanders supporters desire to create divisions
so that the Democratic candidate for President cannot win.

WTF?

A Sanders Presidency and a Hillary Presidency would be two very different things.


ALL the people need to be able to see that, to hear that, on the debate floor, across the nation.

We're not afraid to see Sanders debate Hillary; since you think Hillary is the 'anointed one', then
what have you to fear?

[lewebley3]

384. Hillary should keep evolving, times change, Political challenges change

Politics is not a stagnate game, but one thing we do know about
Hillary, she has been a loyal Dem for 30 years.



There is nothing to debate with Sanders or Hillary they have the
same positions.

It would be smarter take whatever candidates on the GOP that can't get
into the debates on fox, and invite them to debate Hillary and Sanders,
now that might be worth watching.

[DebJ]

392. Wow, it is truly amazing how you stick to your position that no one should

be allowed to be heard except Hillary.


Dumbfounding. And NOT 'democratic' with a little 'd'. Not at all.

[lewebley3]

393. No one is stoping anyone from being heard:

[DebJ]

394. You just don't want them to be seen next to each other for comparison.............. n/t

[lewebley3]

396. Oh, please: What difference does it make what they look like?

The Debate will be a snooze: because they are same policies,
they only thing people will talk about is the difference in
hair, What difference does that make?

[DebJ]

398. I don't think this debate will be a snooze at all...unless Hillary does some

serious side-stepping left, left, and left again with public statements over and over and over
and over again before any debate.

[lewebley3]

399. Hillary never side stepped any questions; She dosen't dance to Sanders tune!

She beat Obama in polls after the Debates, she was the one
answering the hard questions.

[DebJ]

400. Hm and those polls were spot on, weren't they? n/t

[lewebley3]

379. We had a lot of Debates, there is nothing new about Sanders or HIllary

Hillary, has had many debates with Obama, and she has
answered every questions put to her in different forms, so
has Sanders.

It would be different if Dem's were like the GOP, the GOP
doesn't have any body good. They are still waiting for
someone to save them.

Dem's don't have anything to debate about, and most the country
knows Hillary and trust her to run the country.

[DebJ]

380. Dems don't have anything to debate about???????????????????????

Do you actually read the posts on Democratic Underground???

That is a ridiculous statement. We are the party of those who cannot agree.

Also, voters not familiar with the candidates need to see them, hear them, respond to them.

I repeat my statement that attempting to halt debates among candidates is an effort
to squash democracy. If your preferred candidate is the best candidate, then you
would have nothing to fear from debates.

[Mother Of Four]

404. Deb-

I've seen this poster on quite a few threads. You're wasting your time trying to reason with them. They have a, for lack of a better way to say it, twisted view on the democratic process.

I could feel the frustration and hated to see it.

[DebJ]

410. Thanks Mother of Four. Actually, I have a lot of stray small bits of time on my hands

this past week and so this was sort of like a cat playing with a mouse, me being the cat.

I wanted to see how far this person would go...........

[AlbertCat]

333. Hillary earned this nomination a long time,

That is not Democracy.

No one "earns" a nomination. It is voted on. That's why she lost the nomination last time. She could not get the votes.

This RW notion that someone somehow "deserves" to be president should not be championed on a democratic site.

No wonder there are more and more Bernie supporters!

What country do you live in, because it ain't this one.

[Ken Burch]

367. "Hillary could have run as sitting president"?

When did the actual sitting offer to resign?

[davidpdx]

389. Oh dear gawd

Bookmarking for the next time I have to provide proof someone said that Hillary earned the nomination.

What a bunch of bullshit! Primaries are not a waste of time, they are PART OF THE PROCESS!

Equating Nader to Sanders is ridiculous.

Please give me one example of Sanders making a direct attack on Hillary Clinton. A newspaper article or video clip from a reputable source

[artislife]

395. +1 nt

[Scootaloo]

412. Another shining example of what Hillary supporters on DU are like

Hillary could have run as sitting President, which would increase the odds
for election.

she's never been elected president, and thus is not an incumbent.

Hillary earned this nomination a long time ago

Actually in point of fact, she lost the nomination. In 2008. And her chances haven't improved.

or Sanders untested political skills.

eight years as a junior senator do not trump forty years as a mayor, congressman, and senator.

Sanders is just another attack dog, against the Dem's, the GOP will
fund Sanders campaign and will use him to divide the party.

Please provide proof that Sanders is receiving money from the RNC.

The GOP are reading the Sanders supporter just like they did the Nader
supporters.

I'm not sure the GOP could red a TV Guide.

[AlbertCat]

332. So Nader voters took away from Gore's vote count in the general election.

And he still won!

[lewebley3]

406. Sorry, to much is on the line: Sanders is not helping the Dem's fight the GOP

[sabrina 1]

283. Got anything to back that up with? This Sanders 'person' and every one of those I knew

at the time did no such thing. So who are these 'sanders people' you are talking about?

GORE WON THAT ELECTION and each time someone tries to get the SC off the hook for their treasonous interference in an election it causes other people to wonder 'why on earth would they try to do that'?

[lewebley3]

295. History of the Dem's backs that up: Nader did not give speeches for Gore

He bashed the Dem's and Gore every chance he got, and the left
wing , the ones supporting Sanders went right with him.

Sanders people are into themselves, not fighting the GOP

[DebJ]

382. "Sanders people are into themselves"....what in the world does that mean, in English?

You truly do not believe in Democracy or the process.

[davidpdx]

390. You do know that Nader is NOT a Democrat

Nader was running as an independent, Sanders is NOT. I think you are utterly confused and have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

[lewebley3]

391. Yes, but He is America who chose himself over the country

Nader with his bashing of Gore, helped Bush into office.

[840high]

323. Nonsense. I did not do that.

[lewebley3]

409. Bernie rep's a lot of talk, Not change

[Scootaloo]

401. 200,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush.

Just thought you might like to know.

[lewebley3]

407. If someone voted for Bush, they were not Democrats by definition

[Scootaloo]

411. They were registered Democrats and they voted for Bush

Over twice as many of them as people who voted for Nader.

Now, if you want to ignore and defend the corruption and political glad-handing from teh Tampa voting comission all the way up to the supreme court that allowed George Bush to steal the election - which is exactly what you are doing when you "Blame Nader" - then the next biggest problem that needs to be addressed is... these turncoat Democrats.

[sabrina 1]

402. Got some data on that? I'm a Bernie supporter and did NOT support Nader

Sanders is attracting AMERICAN voters from across the political spectrum.

No one can win a presidential election with just the base of a political party. And since both major parties are losing their memberships, Repubs now down to 29% of registered voters and Dems down to just 32%, how do you propose to get a candidate with little crossover appeal to win this election?

The biggest voting bloc in the country, historically I might add, is the Independent vote now.

It is currently between 42% and 46% of registered voters. Bernie will get that vote. People who no longer have faith in the status quo or status quo candidates.

Times have changed, you appear to be living in a past that today's voters are no part of.

We've had Dems supporting Bush policies since then, NCLB, Forever War, the Patriot Act, all of which are opposed by a majority of Americans.

You have made a claim, now prove it or it is not even worth the amount of time it took to type it.

[shenmue]

184. Yep

Be ready for what?

[AverageGuy]

206. It is exactly the same

We have two teams that we root for. People don't listen to what candidates say. That is why people vote against their own best interest. Since all politicians are liars and thieves, they are all the same, so just vote for your team. That is the biggest problem progressives like Bernie face.

[FSogol]

247. I completely reject the "both parties are the same" meme. That old canard is

used to suppress the vote and allow the GOP to win. Low voter turnout = GOP win. The worst/weakest Democratic candidate this time is better than the best GOP candidate by leaps and bounds.

[Betty Karlson]

242. I suspect we are down to open frustration.

If you find that threatening, I suggest you address the cause of the frustration, not the expression thereof.

[RobertEarl]

370. Lets be clear

Do not be surprised by the reaction if you get in our way and show disrespect for us and our champion.

Is not a threat, just telling it like it is. "Reap what you sow" is an age-old piece of wisdom that some posters here should be aware of and recognize.

[FSogol]

371. and now you've personalized it.

[RobertEarl]

372. Speaking your language is all

You have nothing but personal smears. Just look at your posts in this thread.

Do not be surprised by the reaction if you get in our way and show disrespect for us and our champion.

[FSogol]

373. Show me one post where I have been disrespectful to Sanders.

[RobertEarl]

374. You disrepect yourself

I've come to expect that from you tho. Show me one post where you showed any respect for Bernie, or his supporters.

Do not be surprised by the reaction if you get in our way and show disrespect for us and our champion.

[FSogol]

375. Couldn't find one, huh?

[RobertEarl]

376. You are the one claiming a threat: which is a false claim

Do not be surprised by the reaction if you get in our way and show disrespect for us and our champion.

You are very careful, I give you that. You make personal smears against me but toe the line of not going that one step over. But looking at your lack of response to your O'Malley threads you post, should inform you of your influence, eh?

[FSogol]

377. I've been quite pleased with the responses to my posts on O'Malley. You keep on

making friends and influencing people Robert.

[RobertEarl]

378. Thanks

Do not be surprised by the reaction if you get in our way and show disrespect for us and our champion: Bernie Sanders.

What about your false claims of me making a threat?

As for influence, just look at the recs from good DU members to my OP. I think you are jealous. Just remember that this thread is about Bernie and not about me, and although you have tried to make it about me, you have failed.

[JaneyVee]

3. Have a nice day?? You just threatened half of the posters here with backlash.

[FSogol]

6. Translation: I hate you all, Love Robert.

[JaneyVee]

7. LOL. Pretty much.

[RobertEarl]

8. With friends like you?

It was no threat.... funny some of you feel threatened. It is just advice to let you know that if you mess with Bernie, we take it personal.

[FSogol]

10. You are making threats, but that doesn't mean I feel threatened. Pace yourself,

you're going to rapture before Super Tuesday at this rate.

[SunSeeker]

60. LOL

[Raine1967]

72. ROFL!

I could not help it!

[2banon]

187. Take YOUR OWN COUNCIL. Your claims of threats are desperate at best.

to read this OP as a threat is absurd.

[Nitram]

254. I thought Bernistas prided themselves on their open-eyed view of the world.

Insisting that a threat isn't a threat is disingenuous at best.

[2banon]

286. distorted twisted perspective on the definition of threat. n/t

[Nitram]

287. "a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment in retaliation for...

...in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course"

...we are ready and willing to fight. Do not be surprised by the reaction if you get in our way and show disrespect for us and our champion."

[Fred Sanders]

276. Threats. Followed by mockery? Here is why some are upset by your OP. Follow the White Rabbit:

This is a comment on a thread reporting on Walkers's attempt to kill democracy by throwing a blanket over all transparency when making laws - from a DU member with several thousand posts on a GD thread:

"8. Could give a rat's ass about her socks while she give's a rat's ass about transparency. It's sad

when her transparency & honesty record is worse than Walker's.

Help us Bernie-wan, you're our only hope.
I feel strongly about it either way...."

You see what I mean?

Is this a real Sanders supporter, or a RW poster? Would you alert? Why should we waste time trying to figure it out or even alerting, because we see how that is going lately.

How are we who love Sanders, and Clinton, and O'Malley and Feingold, and Chaffe and Holder, what are we supposed to think and how to react when the most well know and respected members of DU are playing the same ad hominem games?

Personally, I thinK Clinton and Sanders are co-ordinating the whole operation - to pull the country out of the rut the mass media has kept it in for the last 20 years....in the end we will discover we have all been played, in a good way, by President Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Commerce, Trade and Fucking Up The Banksters Bernie Sanders.

[FSogol]

277. Yeah, it is very sad. Sometimes it feels like I am reading Drudge or Briebart or Freepville

by mistake.

Every single person running for the Democratic nomination is a vast improvement over the GOP's collection of bigots, frauds, grifters, and crybabies. It is possible to promote our candidates without spending a single second tearing down other good Democratic candidates or bickering with their supporters.

[JaneyVee]

11. Don't worry buddy, we'll all gladly support Bernie if he wins the nomination.

No need to threaten us. We are lucky to have such great candidates.

[lewebley3]

51. No one is messing with Bernie, he is getting free ride because is a nice guy

You just can't face that fact most Dem and lib's don't support his candidacy

[concreteblue]

104. "You just can't face that fact most Dem and lib's don't support his candidacy"

That has yet to be shown. I personally think you will be surprised when it is all over.

[Nitram]

256. If y'all are so sure Bernie is going to win...

Last edited Wed Jul 8, 2015, 08:51 AM - Edit history (1)

...why the defensive threats and constant attacks on Clinton? Sounds like y'all can sit back and relax while Bernie does his little cakewalk.

[Bubzer]

388. Constant attacks?

I've seen her involvements with banks and other big corporations being questioned.
I've seen some of her stances being seen as less than progressive,
and I've seen her hesitancy to take stances on issues get viewed with a jaundiced eye.
Are we not supposed to have a critical eye on our candidates?
Should we not be vigorous in insuring we get the best possible candidate?
Would you prefer we all just wear kid gloves, and possibly allow in a Bush lite president as a result?

[Bubzer]

228. I'm confused...

Why is the virtual media black-out on Bernie is considered a free ride? Or when he is mentioned, they bring up socialism nearly every time he's there (fortunately he's pretty quick to defuse that one by proudly accepting who and what he is)... why is that considered a free ride? For that matter why is considered a free ride when Bernie Sanders has virtually no political baggage compared to other politicians?

Each time I see people complain about Bernie getting a free ride, it feels more like they're complaining that there isn't more baggage to pick on him with.

Isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't we, as Democrats be happy about that?

[sufrommich]

174. "It is just advice to let you know that if you mess with Bernie, we take it personal."

Are you sure you're not confusing Bernie Sanders with Justin Bieber?

[brooklynite]

5. Am I to understand that challenging the assumption of his electability is disrespectful?

[rhett o rick]

185. The OP did not even come close to suggesting that. You know what disrespectful means.

Electability, I assume by your definition, means they have the backing of the big billionaires. We've been following that method for many years and it's lead us to where we are. We have 22% of American children living in poverty. The billionaires don't care. HRC said just the other day that we needed to solve this problem, not by making the wealthy pay more, but by growing the economy. Which means "rising tides raise all yachts."

Think about 22% of American children living in poverty, 45% living in near poverty. That's the status quo. Those numbers will get worse if you vote for the status quo.

[brooklynite]

190. Think about 50% of American children living in poverty if the Republicans win...

[blackspade]

218. And why would the GOP win?

Any of our candidates will crush the GOP field.
Fuck, my 5 year old would crush them....

[brooklynite]

223. I'm not convinced...

...based on Sanders' political self-identification, lack of financial resources, and polling to date.

And I'm not prepared to take the risk.

[rhett o rick]

226. I am so glad our founders were more brave than you. Take a chance on freedom and liberty. nm

[rhett o rick]

225. So you rationalize that 22% is ok. I am going for reducing that number, not justifying why it's ok.

Your rationalization is what's gotten us into this situation. "22% is better than 50%".

I hope you understand that these levels of poverty are literally killing people. Our founders were brave enough to fight the oligarchy that was controlling them. It's time we did the same.

[Nitram]

257. You are making some rather far-fetched and patronizing assumptions aboutt Clinton supporters.

You make the obnoxious assumption that anyone who supports Clinton and thinks Sanders is unlikely to win means, "Electability, I assume by your definition, means they have the backing of the big billionaires." How is that not nastier than simply stating the belief that Sanders is unelectable for a plethora of reasons.

[rhett o rick]

274. Wow. Since the poster doesn't define "electability", I had to assume as to what they meant.

Instead of discussing my assumption, you settle for calling my post "nasty". Really?

Those saying that Sen Sanders is not electable either don't say why they believe that or state that he won't be able to raise enough money, while the HRC campaign is expecting to raise over A BILLION dollars from big donors. It's clear that some believe that being able to raise big money is required to be elected.

How is my assumption, obnoxious when some have stated it outright? And I didn't in anyway address Clinton supporters.

[Nitram]

275. My suggestion is , if you are in doubt, ask what their definition is.

Don't assume the worst of your fellow liberals.

[rhett o rick]

281. My assumption was a legitimate assumption as I've many times that Sen Sanders

is not electable because he won't get enough in donations. I have asked before only to get ignored. The only "electability" issue I have ever heard here is about financial backing. And my point is that liberals shouldn't pick their candidate because of their financial backing.

[Nitram]

282. It was a personal assumption, no matter how you try to defend it. Why not just ask?

Could it be that you've already made up your mind about what Clinton supporters believe? I'm willing to support either candidate, but people don't support Clinton merely because of her financial backing.

[rhett o rick]

284. I was addressing the poster not Clinton supporters.

"but people don't support Clinton merely because of her financial backing." You are changing the discussion.

Some here continue to challenge the electability of Sen Sanders, meaning they don't support him or recommend supporting him because he is not electable. The only reason I've seen to back up the "not electable" meme is because he can't raise enough money.

Why put forth the "not electable" argument if that doesn't enter into one's decision?

[Nitram]

285. "Not electable" is not equivalent to "not backed by enough coporate sponsors."

Pegging Clinton as purely a pawn of big-business with not a liberal bone in her body is absurd. But that's one way to persuade the uninformed to vote for Berni rather than Clinton. It really doesn't matter who you were addressing, you implied that Clinton supporters support her only because she has the support of big business.

[rhett o rick]

289. I doubt that anyone here has ever said that Clinton has "not a liberal bone in her body".

To call that absurd is a strawman.

The CEO of Goldman-Sachs says he would be happy with either Clinton or Bush. That doesn't mean they are the same for all things. H. Clinton supports social justice and Bush does not. Wall Street is willing to support a candidate if they support social justice issues as long as they will be good to Wall Street. Wall Street believes that Clinton will be good to them. At a paid lecture she even told Wall Street that picking on bankers was foolish.

I believe that social justice and economic justice go hand in hand. Don't you? And therefore, I will only support a candidate willing to fight for both.

[arcane1]

9. You kinda lost me there toward the end, but I liked the rest

To me, another Clinton presidency would not be a step back, but it would be a delay, or a postponing, that I would prefer not to wait 4-8 more years for.

[RobertEarl]

14. To us, Clinton is more of the same

We have seen this story before. Now we have the Real Deal. A real champ who is bringing us alive again. Feel the Bern.

[leftynyc]

56. And I remember the very same

thing being said about Barack Obama.

[Tommymac]

101. Obama took corporate money.

Bernie doesn't.

[RichVRichV]

123. Obama was foreshadowing what's to come.

Think about this for a second. He had a message of hope and change, proven to be mostly just a message, with little else known about how progressive he'd be. On largely just that message, and not much of a track record to go on, he beat Hillary in 2008.


Now you have a true to the core progressive (in all senses of the word) campaigning on a very long standing track record, with real specifics about how he wants to improve peoples lives and not just idealist catch phrases. Obama's election was a foreshadow of how politics are changing. People are waking up from the trickle down stupor we've been under for the past 30 years. People are fed up with the status quo. We're hungry for something better than what is. The power structure better take note of the changes in the electorate or they're going to get blindsided by the results.

[brett_jv]

237. No offense brother but you're not thinking it through all that deeply ...

Or maybe I should say, you're thinking about it TOO deeply.

Obama is extremely charismatic, brilliant speaker, very handsome, has a beautiful family (not that Bernie does not), was AMAZING at making people feel good about themselves, and made people feel good about 'the future' under his Presidency ... without naming any real specifics about how he'd do it, nor supporting anything remotely challenging to the status quo. Not to mention the 'elephant' ... the reality that a lot of people would vote for him because he's black. Not taking away from him, but it is a fact. We all know it is.

If you think Obama won in 2008 purely on the strength of a rising tide of progressivism ... I have to wonder how close you've been paying attention to events on the ground. Obama won re-election in 2012, yes, but since 2008, we Dems have been losing ground ... seats in the US Congress, State Congresses, and Governorships. I'm not seeing much evidence of a radical swing to the Left in this country apart from increased support for Same Sex Marriage and reformation of MJ laws, and slightly higher approval ratings for the ACA (which is hardly properly called 'liberal'), to be honest.

We (meaning us progressives) spent 6 years in teh political wilderness (of course in part due to the 'help' of the SCOTUS ... but they didn't give the GOP both Houses of Congress, did they?) from 2000-2006 because we didn't have us another Bill Clinton ( a man who, let's face it, shares quite a lot in common with BHO) waiting in the wings ... instead we had Al Gore. And what should have been a rousing victory for Dems in 2000 given the success of the economy under Clinton in the latter part of the 1990's ... gave way to a decision close enough for the SCOTUS to steal it from us.

I think it's misguided to think that Bernie (or hell, Hillary for that matter) can win in 2016 simply on the basis of the 'foreshadowing' of BHO in 2008. That was a very different situation (in part because everyone saw the economy TANK under GWB right before the election) and a very different candidate ... from 2016, with Hillary or Bernie.

Whichever of them runs is going to have to become a LOT more likeable to the common man, and charismatic in their demeanor and speaking style ... or someone like Jeb Bush is going to clean their clock. As WRONG as it f***ing is ... POTUS isn't won on ideas, it's on 'who the average Joe would prefer to sit down and have a beer with'.

I want Bernie to be POTUS ... DESPERATELY ... but I'm also a realist. As are probably the large majority of people on DU who are skeptical as to whether or not he can actually win. No amount of dissing of people like myself are going to change our minds.

[Nitram]

264. Nicely put, brett.

[Nitram]

258. "Mostly just a message?"

Considering the opposition Obama has faced from the GOP, who set out to block everything he tried to do from day one, he has accomplished a good deal. Not perfect, but headed off the worst depression since the Great One, concrete progress towards universal healthcare, Wall Street reform, credit card and bank reform, fought voting discrimination at every turn, reformed the VA, and a great deal more. My concern is that if Bernie were elected, the GOP congress would have no difficulty blocking every initiative he introduces because he will not compromise and he would not negotiate.

[RiverLover]

259. +1

Very well said RichV! People are waking up, we want change & still haven't gotten it. We're hungry now, but won't settle for simple rhetoric.

Both Sanders & O'Malley have great track records for progressive policies and actions, not just the right words.

[hrmjustin]

12. So basically you can't take criticism of your candidate.

[OnyxCollie]

36. This is the Hillary Clinton group.

[IMG][/IMG]

[AlbertCat]

40. That bubble should be made of steel.

[OnyxCollie]

65. Safety glasses required.

[IMG][/IMG]

[hrmjustin]

127. Do you feel the same way about the Sanders group?

[OnyxCollie]

143. Unlike Hillary, Bernie did not order diplomats to spy on the UN.

So, no.

[hrmjustin]

144. I said the Sanders group. Not Sanders.

They ban people like the HRC group.

[OnyxCollie]

154. The Hillary Clinton group bans people

for pointing out the similarity between Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice.

Rice authorized National Security Agency to spy on UN Security Council in run-up to war, former officials say
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/After_domestic_spying_reports_U.S._spying_1227.html

Two former NSA officials familiar with the agency's campaign to spy on U.N. members say then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice authorized the plan at the request of President Bush, who wanted to know how delegates were going to vote. Rice did not immediately return a call for comment.

The former officials said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also participated in discussions about the plan, which involved "stepping up" efforts to eavesdrop on diplomats.

Hillary Gets Wiki-Served
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_gets_wiki-served_20101130?ln

Hillary Clinton should cut out the whining about what the Obama administration derides as “stolen cables” and confront the unpleasant truths they reveal about the contradictions of U.S. foreign policy and her own troubling performance. As with the earlier batch of WikiLeaks, in this latest release the corruption of our partners in Iraq and Afghanistan stands in full relief, and the net effect of nearly a decade of warfare is recognized as a strengthening of Iran’s influence throughout the region.

~snip~

Instead of disparaging the motives of the leakers, Hillary Clinton should offer a forthright explanation of why she continued the practice of Condoleezza Rice, her predecessor as secretary of state, of using American diplomats to spy on their colleagues working at the United Nations. Why did she issue a specific directive ordering U.S. diplomats to collect biometric information on U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and many of his colleagues?

As the respected British newspaper The Guardian, which obtained the WikiLeaks cables, said in summarizing the matter: “A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clinton’s name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications system used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.”

The Guardian pointed out that the Clinton directive violates the language of the original U.N. convention, which reads: “The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable.” The spying effort derived from concern that U.N. rapporteurs might unearth embarrassing details about the U.S. treatment of prisoners in Guantánamo as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the directives demanded “biographic and biometric” information on Dr. Margaret Chan, the director of the World Health Organization, as well as details of her personality and management style. Maybe she’s hiding bin Laden in her U.N. office.

US diplomats spied on UN leadership
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un

A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clinton's name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.

It called for detailed biometric information "on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders" as well as intelligence on Ban's "management and decision-making style and his influence on the secretariat". A parallel intelligence directive sent to diplomats in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi said biometric data included DNA, fingerprints and iris scans.

Washington also wanted credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers for UN figures and "biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives".

~snip~

The UN has previously asserted that bugging the secretary general is illegal, citing the 1946 UN convention on privileges and immunities which states: "The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action".

Factbox: Main revelations of WikiLeaks diplomatic cables
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/30/us-wikileaks-details-idUSTRE6AT1I720101130?pageNumber=3

ARGENTINA

-- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton questioned the mental health of Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez, asking U.S. diplomats to investigate whether she was on medication.

[hrmjustin]

155. Comparing her to a republican or criticism of her is not allowed in our room.

If you don't like it complain to the owner.

We ban people just like the Sanders group.

The room is only for Clinton supporters.

[OnyxCollie]

157. It's the land of Make Believe.

[hrmjustin]

160. Do you approve of safe haven banning those who break their rules?

[OnyxCollie]

163. Yes.

But when one smears DUers as hypocrites from a "safe haven," expect to be called on it (which will get one banned).

[hrmjustin]

166. Well we can argue all night but i think i made and you made your point.

[OnyxCollie]

168. I wear my ban with pride.

I have no need for ANY fan club.

[hrmjustin]

169. I am sure several wear their bans from different rooms with pride as well.

It was not personal.

[Violet_Crumble]

267. I didn't criticise her or compare her to a Republican, yet I got blocked....

I posted this, which was really supportive and the opposite of disruptive, because I get on really well with two of the hosts and would never cause them grief.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11079671

I didn't realise that a host who has a weird personal grudge going would unilaterally block me with no warning and no discussion with the other hosts. And that the other hosts wouldn't consider unblocking me because they're worried about the ensuing head explosion from the blocking host. While Skinner says that hosts can block for any reason and 'Because I hate you!' would be a reason, it's not a good way to run a group for the candidate who's likely to become the Presidential candidate, imo. It gives the impression of not being particularly welcoming at all. I think it's unreasonable to expect that those who go into the group to criticise or attack Hillary would be allowed to keep posting there, but I didn't do that...

[hrmjustin]

314. Well you are welcome to complain to skinner.

[Violet_Crumble]

340. Skinner's not a host of the group who blocked me because of a personal grudge. You are

Yr the one who thinks it's fair to operate a group like that, even though you've been attempting in this thread to make out that people are welcome in the group if they're supportive of Hillary Clinton. My block is proof that's not the case at all.

The vast majority of group hosts run their groups with the purpose of encouraging DUers who respect the SOP and who aren't disruptive to participate. Most group and forum hosts don't allow their personal dislike of another DUer to affect their objectivity. What I learnt from this is no matter how supportive I am of the SOP of a group, in future I'll check the hosts list and if you or the host who blocked me are on it, I won't ever post in there because I'll get another bogus block

[hrmjustin]

341. Take care and enjoy posting.

[Violet_Crumble]

342. I will. Just wanted other DUers to know they can be blocked for petty personal reasons...

While I haven't seen that happen in any other group, I'd be advising anyone who you or the other host dislike to think twice about posting in that group.

[hrmjustin]

343. Lol i have plenty of times.

[Violet_Crumble]

344. What groups that yr supportive of the SOP of have you been blocked from because someone hates you?

And even if you had been, why would you then turn around and support the same thing being done to me in a group you host? Sorry, but it's a really bad look for hosts to be blocking DUers solely because they hate them...

[hrmjustin]

345. I have seen it done to others. I am not blocked from any group.

[Violet_Crumble]

346. So you think it's fair for anyone to be blocked because a host hates them?

I doubt very much you've seen that done to many others at all, btw. I've been here a long time and I've only ever seen it done to one other person, and not surprisingly it was done by the same host who blocked me...

[hrmjustin]

347. You are putting me in the position of publicly calling out a host of another group

I have no desire to do that.


But i assure you i have seen it done.

I know you don't like your ban but the decision is final.

[Violet_Crumble]

348. I take it ur answer is you do think it's fair

That's a very strange way to run a group where you block people solely because you dislike them even when they do support the sop and aren't disruptive. Not the way me or many other duers approach hosting as the point of hosting is to block people posting disruptive stuff and not block people because you hate them or other petty reasons. If the latter is how you want to act as a host then don't be surprised when people pull you up on it if you* try to pretend you welcome anyone who supports the sop of the group.

* generic you btw

P.s - one other thing I wasn't aware of until now was that you disliked me and oppose me being unblocked. Not sure what I've ever done to you but thanks for dropping the pretense.

[hrmjustin]

349. Look, from what i read just before you were banned you got into it with several HRC supporters in

GD

You had also been banned from HoF and he decided to do a premptive ban which i agreed with.

[Violet_Crumble]

350. Huh? No I didn't. And I've never critic used hlary

That whole preemptive block thing is total bullshit. That host and the other one u mentioned dislike me and I guess they got some warm fuzzy feeling out of doing it. I'm not surprised anymore that you'd support without question anything they do

[hrmjustin]

351. But you gave our members a hard time.

The room is for supporters. Posters who critiize Hillary or her supporters on this site are not welcome in the HRC room.

You can call it what you want but we have the right to make that decision.

[Violet_Crumble]

353. Again that's totally untrue.

What does 'giving someone a hard time' even mean? As I've never criticized Hillary and posted a supportive and positive OP in the group, it's all sounding very cliquish. How am I supposed to know who u define as a 'Hillary supporter' and that I'm not supposed to disagree with them on anything that's not even about Hillary? Maybe you should include that rule in ur sop so others won't be caught unawares. I would have thought you'd encourage positive contributions to the group like mine was. Clearly not.

[hrmjustin]

354. You posted this right before you were banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026869122#post185

And you went on in the thread with a back and forth.

[Violet_Crumble]

355. That wasn't right before I was blocked and had nothing to do with hillary

So 'getting into it' does translate as replying to anyone you define as a Hillary supporter even when it's got nothing to do with Hillary. That's just weird. So if ur claiming my blocks not personal, which of course both of us know isn't true, next time ur in a thread claiming u only block people for disruptive behavior in the group or attacking Hillary, you should add 'and also disagreeing with me or a friend of mine in GD about something that's not about Hillary.' If I'd known about that I would never have posted my op in the Hillary group.

[hrmjustin]

356. Yes it was you were banned the next day,

[Violet_Crumble]

357. No it wasn't. And it wasn't about Hillary.

It was two days prior to the block, not right before as you claimed. As the host blocked me unilaterally without any warning or discussing it with other hosts, I can only assume that if they're saying its that post then they have the worlds slowest response time. Again, that post in GD wasn't even about Hillary, wasn't attacking anyone and it's bizarre that anyone would try to make out that it's okay to block duers from a group if a host disagrees with something they say in GD about something else.

I'll stick to participating in groups where the hosts do the right thing and only block people who are disruptive in the group and ignore warnings. And like I said in future I won't post in any group where one or two people are listed as hosts

[hrmjustin]

358. You posted it on the 21 and was blocked on the 22nd.

You do what you please. No concern of mine.

[Violet_Crumble]

361. My timestamp says 21st and 23rd...

So it was at least 24hrs difference, not the right after that you claimed. And as you ignored it, I'll point it out again. That wasn't an attack on Hillary Clinton. I've never attacked any of the candidates and never will. I will, however, reply to who I want to on other topics in GD if I disagree with them and I'll disagree civilly. I wasn't aware there was a rule in the Hillary Clinton group disallowing it and such a rule would make it the most restrictive and exclusionary group existing on DU. I mean, that pre-emptive block protected the group from having me post the follow up interview that Hamish & Andy did with Hillary a few years later, where again she came across as personable with a great sense of humour. That would have been a catastrophe!
he
Not that I asked for yr blessing or permission for anything I post at DU, but I tend to do what I please, and in the case of what I said about being careful to check the hosts list in future, I suspect most DUers would agree with me it's a wise thing to do.

This exchange reminds me of something Skinner said recently in ATA. It's a shame those who really need to take heed are the ones least likely to:

DUers are (mostly) well-informed and highly opinionated. Almost nobody is going to have their primary vote changed because of something someone posted here. But it is very possible to drive a wedge and make people who support other candidates resentful and angry. We will need their support later. We are ambassadors for Hillary Clinton -- we need to embrace that role and be the best ambassadors we can be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598186

[hrmjustin]

362. No but you gave HRC supporters here a hard time.

And we can choose to ban for whatever reason.

[Violet_Crumble]

363. So you keep on claiming, but that's just not true...

And if you go back and read my first post you'll see I mentioned that hosts can block for any reason. While hosts can block DUers for petty reasons like having a personal dislike of someone, DUers can also voice their opinion on those sort of tactics being used by group hosts.

If by 'hard time' you mean daring to reply to someone you like and not agree with them 110% on a topic that wasn't Hillary Clinton, then yes, but by that yardstick everyone at DU would be giving everyone else a 'hard time'. As it had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton that's a weak excuse to justify blocking someone from the group who'd only posted positive stuff there. Like I said, I wasn't aware when I posted a positive OP about Hillary Clinton in the group that to remain a member I wasn't allowed to disagree civilly with certain other DUers on any topic they spoke on. There's no way I'd want to be a member of a group that places restrictions on who DUers can reply to in GD and barring them from disagreeing with a few chosen DUers on any topic at all, nor of a group where one of the hosts uses their position to unilaterally block DUers they don't like. Each to their own, though. I'm sure that sort of thing appeals to a few people somewhere

[hrmjustin]

364. We can argue this forever but i have no desire to.

[Violet_Crumble]

365. Well seeing there's nothing there to argue it'd be pointless

Anyway now I'm aware of this form of hosting I'm off to block from GD everyone who doesn't agree with how awesome my taste in music is. Thanks for leading the way on this!

[hrmjustin]

366. Take care of yourself.

[Capt. Obvious]

271. Were you looking in a mirror when you typed that?

Number of people banned in the HRC group: 99
Number of people banned in the BS group: 54

HRC is winning that front 65% to 35%.

[hrmjustin]

312. The hrc room has been around since the beginning of DU3.

The Sanders group is less than 3 months old and they are up to 54.


What did you say about that mirror?

[hrmjustin]

133. How do you feel about the Sanders group?

They ban as well.

[Nitram]

260. Not when Bernistas post stuff like this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x821971|

[hrmjustin]

42. The hRC group like the Sanders group is a safe haven for supporters.

This is GD.

[OnyxCollie]

61. A safe haven

to launch broad-brush smears against other DUers.

[hrmjustin]

62. Your opinion. If you have a complaint you can take it to skinner.

[hrmjustin]

128. I got a hide for calling spmeone dishonest last week.

He accused me and "others" of trying to get a beloved member here banned.

When i asked him to back it up he couldn't and he apologized but i got the hide.

[kath]

138. And how many times have you posted this?

Whooooooooooosssshhhhh.

[hrmjustin]

141. 1 think one in gdp and once in the HRC room.

[Capt. Obvious]

273. Does the one in ATA not count?

[hrmjustin]

311. I never mentioned my hide in ata.

[Bobbie Jo]

147. Does it matter?

Sheeeeeeeeeeeshhhhh.

[LordGlenconner]

203. Oh FFS as if the Bernie group is any different

Neither group can claim any high ground there.

[pscot]

57. That's comical

I got tossed from the Clinton group for one (my only one) mildly skeptical post.

[hrmjustin]

64. I wasn't the one who banned you but it is a safe haven for HRC supporters.

The Sanders group is a safe haven for Sanders supporters.

[pscot]

88. I was and am undecided for the primaries

Gratuitously alienating folks who are still trying to sort things out is maybe not the best electoral strategy. It's saying, in effect, we don't need your vote. I understand the why of it. I didn't take it personally, and I may yet end up caucusing for Hillary. If I do it will be in spite of her DU supporters, not because of them.

[hrmjustin]

94. You called her a place holder of the 1 percent.

The ban was appropriate.

The Sanders group bans people as well.

[pscot]

97. I still think she's a placeholder for the one percent

It remains to be seen what else she is.

[hrmjustin]

98. That is your right but the host was right to ban you.

[pscot]

106. As noted, I didn't take it personally

I was responding to that thread off the latest page, and wasn't aware of the group it originated from. Except for the gungeon I try not to aggravate merely for aggravation's sake. But as you say, the ban was warranted. I wasn't complaining; just highlighting the irony of your post.

[hrmjustin]

108. And the ban was not personal.

[George II]

116. On that, I agree....I was banned from the Sanders group because I responded to a post...

....on the home page too. When I respond, I don't first look at where the post is (i.e., "latest", "trending", etc.)

That's a problem with the way this site is - a post on the home page does NOT differentiate where it is - I think posts on "safe haven" forums should not wind up on the home page for any reason.

[A Simple Game]

129. I agree and if I remember right they didn't before DU3. n/t

[PatrickforO]

192. Yeah that might be good, because I replied on a thread that was in the HRC 'safe haven' room and was

asked to self-delete. I did, but you know that kind of rubbed me the wrong way. We NEED to be having this debate and no one who is running for POTUS should have or even expect a 'safe haven.' This is primary season - the time where we voice our opinions and make he case for the candidate we're supporting, whomever that might be.

Hillary Clinton has some good points but I honestly think she's too corporatist, and too beholden because of her funding to Wall Street. In the past she's done and said some things that I as a potential voter haven't particularly liked. That's why I'm supporting Bernie because he has not - I'm in agreement with the guy on virtually ALL the issues.

Like I said, we NEED this debate.

[George II]

196. I can see having separate forums for like-minded people where their ideas and thoughts...

....aren't constantly being scrutinized and criticized.

But I don't think posts from those forums should find their way on the DU home page just because a "safe haven's" forum members conduct organized "DU-Rec" campaigns to get those posts on the home page.

[hrmjustin]

197. We are having the discussion in General Discussion.

[PatrickforO]

198. So we are!

[George II]

115. That's as offensive as people mistakenly claiming that Sanders is a "Communist" - I know it's...

...stupid, but all these chickenshit labels put on people are idiotic.

[George II]

113. And THAT is what we've had to put up with on this site - all this "corporatist" candidate crap....

....and doing the bidding of the 1%, yadda yadda. It's getting tiring and boring. Who knows what it's going to be like come January next year.

[hrmjustin]

117. Yep. And we will not put up with it in the HRC room.

[George II]

120. We shouldn't have to put up with it anywhere on DEMOCRATIC Underground........

.....maybe on Independent Underground, but not here!

[Indepatriot]

135. Censorship is not Democratic

[hrmjustin]

137. This site has rules.

[Indepatriot]

193. I think you're confusing DU with HU...

[hrmjustin]

194. What is hU?

[George II]

140. It's not "censorship"

[frylock]

67. Join the club

[OnyxCollie]

68. Welcome to the club!

You have been blocked from posting in the Hillary Clinton group by Little Star. If you believe this is an error, you may contact Little Star for more information.

[Angry Dragon]

69. I got tossed also

[Enthusiast]

145. Me too.

[jeff47]

199. Got banned from it in 2012 for saying she might not win 2016.

Not can't, or won't. But might not.

[hrmjustin]

205. No you got banned for your responses in this thread.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/1107787

[jeff47]

208. And you'll note I got attacked

for statements like this: And if Clinton wins in 2016, she'll go down in history similarly.

Ooooooo! How awful.

[hrmjustin]

210. Well if i am not mistaken you are not a fan 8f HRC.

The hosts at the time likely knew that.

You were asked by a host to stop but you kept going.

Remember the room is for supporters only.

[jeff47]

211. I hadn't posted anything about her for a very long time at that point.

She wasn't particularly relevant at the time, since she was laying low before the campaign.

At the time, I was somewhat uncomfortable with the idolatry. Then I got banned for the horrible argument that we shouldn't support Clinton just because she has two X chromosomes.

Remember the room is for supporters only.

Supporters are capable of handling someone wanting to talk about issues instead of their candidate's gender. I'd argue the room is for people who are far beyond "supporters".

But enjoy your forum where they discuss important issues like just how awesome the Clinton logo is. Thanks to a deep journalistic effort by our admins's sister site.

[hrmjustin]

212. Yeah i think the hosts got it right.

Have a good night.

[jeff47]

217. Now. I should thank them for the push. (nt)

[rhett o rick]

227. If the criticism is based on fact. So tell me your criticism that is based on fact. nm

[Left coast liberal]

13. Very nicely put!

[RobertEarl]

16. Thanks

I tried really hard to be really nice. I have this target on my back that some love to take shots at. So I have to be very careful and be extra nice.

[JaneyVee]

19. This was your attempt at being extra nice??

[calimary]

219. Indeed. Valid question.

[quickesst]

91. Sounds....

....paranoid

[zappaman]

15. Really only one appropriate reply to this mess of an OP

[leftynyc]

17. Bernie's been through the grinder?

What grinder? He's a senator of a very small state in the most liberal area of the country. Not that I don't like him - I do very much but have no idea what that means. If you want to talk about a candidate that has actually been through the grinder, that would be Hillary. Just my opinion. And frankly, I only see Hillary supporters questioning his being electable - nothing personal at all. Quite unlike the many disgusting personal attacks I see against Hillary.

[OhZone]

189. You got that right -

If Sanders would get the nomination, which is unlikely, he will be torn to shreds in and behind 10 points three days later after the lying corporate media get him. Guaranteed GOP win, IMHO.


Oh well.

[blackspade]

220. Not a chance.

There is no a GOP candidate that can hold a candle to Sanders or any of the other Democratic candidates.

Not one of the GOP field can win the general.

[leftynyc]

244. Wow - I just got a chill

reading your post. I'm old enough to remember the same being said about McGovern.

[blackspade]

252. And why did McGovern lose?

Because huge segments of the Democratic Party sat out because of a split in the party.
The party bosses and money men encouraged that split and the result was Nixon.

[leftynyc]

262. Not sure what your point is

I haven't seen one Hillary voter say they wouldn't vote for Bernie but I've seen several (really more than several) say they wouldn't vote for Hillary. The problem isn't Bernie...it's his supporters.

[blackspade]

320. I think my point was pretty clear

The party machine failed to support McGovern which resulted in Democratic 'centrists' abandoning the party.
Thus the loss.

In this case you seem to be intimating that this would again happen if Bernie is the candidate.
Otherwise what was the point of you bringing McGovern into the discussion?

[leftynyc]

321. McGovern was the candidate

of the left - including the far left. I've already lived through where that takes us. Nobody wins without moderates. So, no thanks.

[blackspade]

322. So your saying that if Bernie wins that centrist Democrats won't support him?

Interesting.
So it was centrist Democrats that gave us Nixon. Great.

[leftynyc]

325. Stop putting words in my mouth

It's very bad manners and an awful way to have a discussion. Just fucking stop it. I never said centrist Democrats - I used the word I meant - MODERATES, including INDEPENDENTS (perhaps capital letters will keep you from shoving words in my mouth). Nobody wins with just their party anymore and I can't believe I have to tell anyone on a political board that very blatant fact.

And maybe it's just me, but I find those smilie things juvenile.

[blackspade]

327. I'm putting NO words in your mouth.

You brought up the fucking McGovern topic to begin with.
You were the one that was making some kind of historic connection between McGovern and a Sanders candidacy.
I was merely pointing out this fact:

There is not a GOP candidate that can hold a candle to Sanders or any of the other Democratic candidates.
Not one of the GOP field can win the general.

Which of the GOP pricks do you think can beat any of the Democratic field?
How about some words come out of your mouth clearly stating who and why?

So how about you "Just fucking stop it" by stirring up shit. "It's very bad manners and an awful way to have a discussion."

[leftynyc]

330. Spare me the bullshit

I said moderates and you translated into centrist Democrats (for whatever stupid reason). I see the same thing happening if we elect Bernie that happened when we nominated McGovern, we lose moderates - it's that simple. Perhaps Bernie could beat a trump or a cruz but he's not going to beat Bush or Kasich. Thinking there is no way a Democrat can lose is how we got Reagan. Just how old are you that we seem to have to learn the same freeking lessons every 30 years or so?

[blackspade]

352. FFS, You are all over the place on this.

You brought up McGovern. I pointed out that he lost to Nixon because of a split in the party caused by a lack of support by the party bosses.
Notice, a split in the party. It was not independents that caused the loss, but 'moderate' Democrats that sat the election out or voted for Nixon.

You keep bringing up 'moderates' in the current election cycle. What do you mean by that?
Independents in the last election cycles have broken to the Democratic Party so that is a worry that is unfounded.

http://cookpolitical.com/story/6608
and
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article24761941.html

And Bush and Kasich? They have little chance of winning no matter who we nominate.
Reagan is not a good analogy in this case either. There were a host of issues from economics, Iran, and division in the Democratic Party to cheating, lying, and sedition on the part of the GOP.

And what does my age have to do with anything anyway?

[leftynyc]

368. Oy vey

I'm NOT all over the place, I'm saying the same freeking thing over and over. It wasn't just a party issue for McGovern. That's simply nonsense (and frankly, if you think the big money people - the ones needed to win in the days of citizens united - will throw it at Sanders - you're dreaming). You can't win an election of just Democrats. Just look at what percent of Americans even identify as Democrats - I think it was 37% - can you win an election with 37%? NO, YOU CAN'T so ignore moderates and independents at your own peril. Those same moderates and independents that elected Pres Obama elected GWB TWICE. Look at how many state houses are republican, how many governors - this is NOT a red or blue country - it's a purple country. The simple reality is that this country's moderates and independents wet their pants over the word socialist - these are not people who follow politics day in and out but they do vote in presidential elections.

I asked your age simply because the younger you are, the more idealistic and whatever the antonym of cynical is. I used to be flabbergasted that anyone would vote for a republican for President. Then I grew up and realized far too many Americans vote fear. Fear beats idealism every single time. And if you don't think this whole immigration issue in the news right now is anything but trying to make people afraid, you're not paying attention to anything but what you wish to pay attention to. And I still strongly believe it will be Jeb Bush simply because that's who the establishment wants and they tend to get what they want.

[OhZone]

359. OHMY! I'm beginning to think a lot of people here -

are new to politics. McGovern? Dukakis? We even had a win in 2000 and yet they STOLE the Presidency. The media is conservative. All they have to do is sell some lies or obsess over a Dean scream or a Gore sigh and byebye Sanders. Oh wait - SOCIALIST! SOCIALIST SOCIALIST. End of story.

That being said, I LOVE Bernie. He just isn't built for the GOP Smear machine. Oh well.

[hamsterjill]

18. I thought the primaries were the time to get to know the candidates.

I'm a Hillary supporter, but I absolutely love Bernie. I'm interested in seeing some debates between the candidates and see what I think. It is my belief, at least at this point in time, that Hillary is going to be the nominee. I will vote for her.

Should that assumption be wrong and it is Bernie who wins the nomination, I will vote for Bernie.

I did the same thing in 2008. I wanted Hillary then. She didn't get the nomination, and I was quite comfortable voting for Obama.

I think healthy discussion about the candidates is great, but I also think that fighting amongst ourselves is unhealthy. After all, there is still going to be a DU when the nominee is known.

[RobertEarl]

30. Thanks, Jill

That was a nice, sound reply with meaning and thought. Kinda rare these days.

[Mother Of Four]

405. Oh sweet sanity -

Thank you for this post Jill.

[hamsterjill]

408. Appreciate your words.

I'm simply tired of all of the divisiveness on DU. We are all in this together and we need to discuss rather than to argue.

[lewebley3]

20. Bernie has not been through the grinder: He sat in a small state doing nothing for years

Hillary: Two Governorships in a small poor state
Two Clinton's Admissions the most successful in history;
Two Senate Terms in a very large blue state
Worked in another successful attestations for Obama


Bernie has not gone through anything, all his history has been
talk. He could never be in charge of Defense, it just won't
been safe.

If Senator Box were running, Senator Brown, or another real Dem were run
the were would have a choice.

[leftynyc]

24. Wait a minute

I'm a Hillary supporter but can't let falsehoods stand.

Hillary was never the governor of any state
She also was not the President
She only had one complete senate term, she left during her second to serve as Secretary of State

[peacebird]

31. Thank you leftnyc

[lewebley3]

34. The Clinton's are a team,

The are Clinton's are Team, the got elected together, they
ran very successful administrations together.

Cheney wasn't President either he ran government

[leftynyc]

53. Uh - no

Both Clintons are their own people with their own positions. Bill had Al Gore as his vice president, not Hillary. But she was a great senator (for one full term, one part term).

[lewebley3]

80. Hillary has different positons, becasue times have change!

During the Clinton era, it was important for Dem's proved themselves,
After Obama success, Hillary will be set up to really make changes.

[retrowire]

125. but

Bernie has had the same position for 40 years, even though times have changed.

No "evolving" was necessary.

How can she make changes to a government controlled by big money, when she is funded by big money?

I understand that Hillary has reputation and is likely more well received in the house and everyone is her buddy there because she's shook hands and smiled for years!

But, I don't want a friendly president in the white house. I don't want someone that will nod and say "yes" to the "right people" just to stay in power. I want someone to clean the place out, I want someone to change the whole system because they're unhappy with the system. I want the guy that everyone scoffed at for being "crazy", I want the guy that doesn't back down even when everyone in the room disagrees with him. What is right is right.

The system doesn't work for the people, and I don't want a president that uses that system to their benefit without thinking about how it diminishes the people and our voices.

[2banon]

188. .....

Both Clintons are their own people with their own positions.

[tularetom]

63. You guys need to make up your mind

If they're a team, then it's fair game to blame Ms Clinton for some of the godawful policies enacted during the "successful administrations" that they "ran…together".

If they aren't a team, she can't take credit for anything positive that happened during his administration.

She can't have it both ways.

[lewebley3]

77. They have been fair game on everything, The Clinton's have with stood all of it!

Bernie not had his every word gone over, his family and political have not been questioned team questioned about anything,
his history is unknown. The Clinton's have escaped nothing, if there
were anything the GOP would move heaven on earth to get it.

Bernie: Senator of 600,000 people 95% white, 73 years old and
now he wants to get up doing something for the country.

Dem's don't have to take a chance on Bernie they have Hillary!

I think Sheri Brown should be the VP, then Dem's can take Ohio.

[tularetom]

86. Very nice, but how about answering the question - are they both running or just Hillary?

If she wants to claim that he's part of her campaign, then she accepts all the baggage he brings with him.

If not, then being first lady has nothing to do with her candidacy.

[RiverLover]

215. First of all, "Sheri" is SHERROD, a male.

And here is what we know now about Bill Clinton's "successful" administration~

15 Ways Bill Clinton’s White House Failed America and the World
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=8899

If you really look at the past, what actually happened during his tenure during an economic bubble, you will see conservatives taking over our party, our government under the guise of being "pragmatic centrists". Hillary tried to run as that in 2008, so she's campaigning as a leftie in 2016 in hopes of a better outcome. Only those ill-informed will buy into her very carefully constructed candidacy.

[leftynyc]

245. Bullshit

I don't have to do any such thing. There were things she was involved with (healthcare) and things she had nothing to do with. You need a tighter grip on your obvious disdain for Hilllary if you wish to be taken seriously.

[grahamhgreen]

165. "He could never be in charge of Defense, it just won't been safe." We're not safe now, in fact

we've been fanning the flames of war in the middle east since Poppa Bush invaded, and our safety lessens with every passing bomb we drop.

What do you think would make us safe in the middle east?

Do you even know what Sen Sanders plan is for the ME?

[jeff47]

200. You really want to hang bank deregulation, welfare reform, NAFTA and anti-drug laws around her neck?

You're better off with the "Hillary is not Bill" version.

[lewebley3]

303. The Clinton's administration was one of the most successfully economies the US has ever had!

Bush and GOP crashed the economy, not the Clinton's, the
crash came after 7years of the GOP

There were no crashes under the Clinton's, the Clinton's were and are extremely
progressive, they raised taxes on the 1%, created a surplus.


Hillary is different because her times are different and she will have different
challenges. The Clintons are not trust fund babies, they fought from a
very small poor state to give the American people a better life.

Bernie sat in Senate doing nothing until he is 73, and he was never a Dem.

[jeff47]

305. Hrm...let me look....Did I mention the economy in that list?

Huh, no I didn't.

Btw, please list specific actions Bill Clinton took to create the tech bubble that caused the booming economy.

If you want to give Hillary Clinton credit for Bill Clinton's presidency, then you get the good and the bad. So why did Hillary Clinton deregulate the banks, causing the 2008 crash?

[lewebley3]

310. The Clinton's first Budget, the one that didn't bet a single GOP vote!

Deregulation is a GOP policy and still is, the crash was caused
by Bush and GOP policy: but also like everything else the GOP did
made things worst because they were incompetent. Bush was
a stupid man, there were plenty of opportunities to stop the crash,
if a Dem has been in office I think things would have been different.

GOP, always ruins the economy, Hoover did the same thing, deregulate
cut taxes. (Regan ran up the biggest debts in history)

Because, the Clinton's put in some deregulation, it doesn't follow that
the Clinton's were responsible for the crash after 8 years of Bush.

Just as the Clinton's and Obama are not responsible for 911, although
people keep trying charge them both for 911

The Clintons did a fantastic job for the American people: And under great duress
from the GOP. GO HIllary!!!

[jeff47]

360. What in the budget caused the tech bubble?

Deregulation is a GOP policy and still is

Then why did Bill Clinton do it?

GOP, always ruins the economy

The economy under Carter says "hi".

Because, the Clinton's put in some deregulation, it doesn't follow that
the Clinton's were responsible for the crash after 8 years of Bush.

Uh, the deregulation that Bill Clinton signed is what let the banks make CDOs and other fraudulent investments. So yes, it does follow. Even when you desperately don't want to follow it.

[lewebley3]

385. Again the Clinton's were successful:Dont visit the Bushes mistakes on Hillary

To Charge to the Clinton's with anything that happen 8 years after they
left offices is nonsense, not matter what theory you personally
have.

The GOP were responsible for the fraud on their watch not the
Clintons.

[jeff47]

386. It took you two days to come up with that?

You could try actually answering the questions. Like why Clinton signed the bill deregulating banks.

The GOP were responsible for the fraud on their watch not the Clintons.

Guess what? The fraud started under Clinton's watch. The deregulation started the ball rolling on CDOs and other frauds. It took a while for the house of cards to fall down.

[lewebley3]

387. NO, I didn't take two days: I have a life!

Sorry, there is always fraud on Wall St, that is why
there is an SEC.

but, their was not enough fraud to bring down the economy
at the time of the Clinton Administration.

Bush and the GOP are responsible for the fraud under their watch, they
pulled off the watch at the SEC, and put their friends on SEC to help
their GOP donor's

Bernie Madoff, talked about all the GOP government people that
help him evade the SEC.

[DownriverDem]

297. Hey Bernie Folks

Will you vote for whoever gets the Dem nomination? If not, a RWNJ will be living in the White House. Bernie said he would not attack Hillary. He said he would not be a spoiler so some RWNJ wins.

How about you folks?

[George II]

21. I don't know who "us" is, but Hillary Clinton is certainly NOT a "Plan B" for many DUers.

Yeah, Bernie Sanders has been put through the grinder, in the tiny state of Vermont.

I've felt your "backlash", your unexplained backlash with a series of hypothetical leading questions and quotes of only HALF of a sentence of mine over and over again. And sadly, after more than 10 years on this site and thousands of posts here, you became the very first person that I've put on "Ignore".

I'd say before you lecture others here about their respect toward candidates and each other, you take a deep breath and lecture yourself first.

[zappaman]

22. Don't do that!

You'll miss some comedy gems!!!

[FSogol]

35. Thru the grinder in Vermont means they were out of Cherry Garcia & he had to buy Funky Monkey

instead.

[greatauntoftriplets]

204. ...

[Gothmog]

161. I am very worried about the SCOTUS and Hillary is not plan B for me

Sanders has not been attacked on this board. Just wait unitl the GOP and the Kochs start the negative ads if he is the nominee and is unable to respond to these attacks due to a lack of financial resources.

[calimary]

222. I'm worried about the Supreme Court too.

I like Bernie Sanders a lot. If he beats Hillary to the nomination I will certainly support him. But one of my concerns about him - and it's as objective as I can be - is the "socialist" part of his "Democratic Socialist" self-label.

I myself do not have ANY problems with the "socialist" label. NONE. Sometimes socialist ideas are the best for serving the greater good. Social Security and Medicare come immediately to mind. I know enough about Bernie Sanders NOT to be afraid of that big bug-a-boo word that has been used to scare so many Americans absolutely stupid. If there's any doubt, please go back and savor some of the photos from any one of the bajillion teabagger rallies - where you inevitably find ding-dongs carrying their badly-spelled homemade signs, many of which will roar "Keep your hands off MY MEDICARE!!!" Well, those sign-holders do not realize, and will refuse to concede if you argue it with them, that what they want hands-off - is a SOCIALIST program. It doesn't scare me in the LEAST. I actually rather like it.

His self-declared "socialist" identifier doesn't scare me off one bit. But I bet it'll be toxic to vast numbers of ill-informed voters in this thoroughly dumbed-down electorate we're stuck with. They'll run from it in sheer panic. They'll be voting with their little heads, not the big one centered above their shoulders. It will be off-putting. That is a hurdle he may not be able to jump if he makes it as far as the general election. That's not his fault. It's the fault of the idiot low-information, easily-spooked, conspiracy-panicked, neurotic voters out there in the red states. I fear that's guaranteed to put whatever CON is the nominee over the top.

It's not him. It's the idiots out there in low-information Pox Noise/limbaugh Land. Who don't get it, and WON'T get it. Especially with a gazillion attack ads ramming "SOCIALISM!!!!!!" down their throats at every commercial break on every network and cable channel they watch, roaring at them that the whole country's gonna be taken over by COMMIES!!!! They'll be convinced it's no less than Josef Stalin rising from the grave to run over all the white people and shove Putin and Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx down their throats. It will scare people away who can't understand and don't pay attention - except exclusively to the noisy gongs and clanging cymbals on the far wrong. They'll hear "SOCIALISM!!!" and it will liquify whatever brain matter they thought they had inside their thick skulls - even when he's talking about things they like and might want. I mean - look at the Affordable Care Act and how it's helping so many of THEM - and most of 'em still hate it because the propaganda they swallow whole insists that it's the worst thing since Original Sin. They'll be scared stupider - if that's even possible. Count on it.

[mwooldri]

191. Keeping this positive... population size isn't that important.

I could certainly talk about a certain politician who was John McCain's running mate in 2008. That politician did not complete their term in office. Mr. Sanders I believe has completed a number of terms in office. He didn't quit.

There's a difference between being put through the grinder in a large state vs a small one (population wise). Your performance, good or bad, is magnified more in the smaller population areas.

[murielm99]

229. Population size isn't that important?

You expect us to accept that?

[kjones]

233. Make up your mind...

"population size isn't that important."

vs

"Your performance, good or bad, is magnified more in the smaller population areas."


I think what's most important here is population homogeneity (which is easier to have
in small states, of course). The more similar the population, the easier the politics are.

[Gamecock Lefty]

23. Just So You Know . . .

I can appreciate your opinion, but Hillary is PLAN A for me!

RAISE HILL 2016!

[Ed Suspicious]

25. I support you and your candidate even as the Clinton supporters mock.

Thank you for your posts and for your support of a candidate who truly represents a change in the way we do politics in this country.

[RobertEarl]

29. That's what this campaign is about

Change in the way we do politics. That is what is so inspiring.

[blue neen]

96. Really.

"Change in the way we do politics". Threatening people with backlash is definitely NOT a "change in the way we do politics". Not at all.

"That is what is so inspiring". I'm assuming that you want the rest of us to feel inspired by your candidate. Using a threat of backlash is not going to accomplish that goal.

Furthermore, "disrespect" is a two-way street.

You really should consider taking down this ill-advised OP.

[safeinOhio]

32. I'm with you

I will vote Hillary if she makes it. I'll hope for Bernie . I see him as our chance for another FDR.

[Lil Missy]

26. You flatter yourself. n/t

[lewebley3]

27. Your just the Kind of person that Helps Dem's lose election

Bernie has not experience any fight with the GOP, he is a rookie at best
in politics.

I will not risk the white house going to the GOP, because of kindly
nice man, who means well, or carries your wishful hopes.

It's unlikely that the house will change, and we only have 50/50 in Senate,
the GOP own the state houses.

Hillary is the best chance the Dem have to keep the white house, most
American wants her to be President no matter what party they are from.

I think its very foolish to risk the country on Bernie Sanders,: sentiment
can not be factor in supporting Bernie. Dem need to stick with candidate
most American want and trust that is Hillary.

[Ed Suspicious]

33. I'll take a chance. Hillary is no risk. She isn't a risk because we can be reasonably assured

that we will see hawkish war in the middle east. We can be reasonably assured that finance will get its way in nearly all instances. We can be reasonably assured that a neo-liberal approach to globalization will continue to march on. We can be reasonably assured that her cabinet will be selected from the largest corporate lobbyists from companies such as Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, etc. We can be reasonably assured that we will still be throwing people in jail for cannabis. We can be reasonably assured that we will matter less than her big-money donors. I would love for you to show me how wrong I am, but I think you probably can't.

I'll risk it all on Bernie, or any candidate who fights the same way for the same reasons.

[lewebley3]

38. Bernie has nothing to recommend except he isa nice guy: So is my Dad

Bernie can not fill Obama shoes only Hillary can

[99Forever]

179. Would that be those "comfortable shoes"....

...he couldn't seem to find when it came time to stand up for the workers in Wisconsin as Snotty Walker fucked them over?

Senator Sanders doesn't make false promises just to fool people into voting for him. Something neither Barack or Hillary can honesty say.

[lewebley3]

298. What Bernie says doesn't matter: What Hillary and Obama says does they in are working politics

Bernie is a politician too, he is pro gun: because he has people
in state that are paying his bills that want guns.

President FDR said: to be a good President one must be a good poker player, and
strike and spring like a cat. ( that's not Bernie: playing cards against many players,
is not something he has had any chance to learn) He comes from a small state
where politicals skills are not much in use.

Bernie can be honest, as long as he is never in the game of politics to win
for the American people. All he has done is talk, and sit in his seat
in senate. The Clinton's and the Obama have actually done things
one behalf the American people, they dealt the people some cards.


The Obama, Clinton's and other Dem's who have been fighting and working
against the GOP: leading the Dem party :fund raising and keeping
the Dem in the fight, are the real hero is politics,

[99Forever]

301. .....

Meanwhile, here on Planet Earth....

[AlbertCat]

269. Bernie can not fill Obama shoes only Hillary can

What... does she "admire Ronald Reagan" too?

[lewebley3]

293. Hillary admires a lot of people; She is a nice person!

[AlbertCat]

326. She is a nice person!

Oh, you know her personally then.

[retrowire]

43. all or nothing for me

bernie!

if bernie loses the primary and Hillary is my only choice then guess what? I may or may not begrudgingly drag my "lost all hope for this nation" ass to the polls.

I supported Hillary before Bernie came along though. women's rights are important to me. so at least that may work out. but Bernie stands to rock the boat a lot more than just that. and that's what I want.

[LuvLoogie]

126. Why did he vote for the ACA?

Last edited Wed Jul 8, 2015, 12:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Wasn't that the vote of "corporatist"? There was no public option. He should have voted no. Was his vote a sell out?

It was arguably the most important vote of the last decade. Heck, since the vote for social security.

Yeah, Bernie wrote his own Single Payer bill, but he couldn't get anyone to score it.

He is lobbing Hail Mary's from a safe seat in Vermont and only started gaining traction after Hillary has been put through the grinder.

[retrowire]

130. If I recall correctly...

He voted for it because it was better than nothing.

It was either vote for it and help it get through so that the people had SOMETHING better than what the Repubs cooked up, orrrrr.... just be impartial.

It's better to put forward a vote than to not vote at all. I mean, he could've not voted and stated why he didn't, sure. But he saw a bill worth voting for, just so it could pass and revisions could be made to it down the road.

If he hadn't voted and he just complained about it... I wouldn't have wanted that guy in politics.... I prefer a proactive type rather than one to shout and yell when things don't go their way. cough* lee bright *cough.

[onenote]

146. And yet you suggest you might stay home if HRC is the candidate

Apparently because you don't think like Bernie, who knew that supporting an imperfect outcome was better than the alternative.

[retrowire]

148. I admit my fallacy.

You're right. My wife tells me if Bernie doesn't win, we're going to go vote for Hillary.

So I will be a tad upset, but a happy wife means a happy home.

[AlbertCat]

272. a safe seat in Vermont

All this VT bashing! You'd think it was in the South!!!

Did anyone wonder WHY VT is such a nice place? Because of its politics, perhaps, not its population number? Are NH or AK, or ND and SD and WY such nice liberal places?

[Curmudgeoness]

280. ^^^THIS^^^ Excellent point. nt

[LuvLoogie]

329. How is it Vermont bashing?

The safe seat refers to: He was a mayor in Vermont; a congressman in Vermont; A senator in Vermont. Would Bernie have been elected in Arkansas as a self-described Democratic Socialist?

[Gothmog]

164. And you are willing to let the GOP control the SCOTUS for a generation?

The stakes for this race are very high. The winner in 2016 may get to control the direction of the SCOTUS for a generation http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251430291

[retrowire]

170. no

read my conversation with the others

[Gothmog]

176. I did

[PatrickforO]

195. Yeah baby! That's what I'm talkin' about!

[virtualobserver]

37. the house will only change if the Presidential candidate successfully nationalizes......

all of the house races, and makes a case for liberal government.

[lewebley3]

44. Bernie can't do that: Hillary can because American's know her and trust her

Bernie is untested, and unprepared.

Hillary, is some one that can be counted in a fight, and toget things
done.

Hillary, is a liberal Dem, Bernie supporter keep telling trying to
wash away Hillary's years as a loyal working Dem.

[virtualobserver]

49. the winner of the Democratic Primary is the best prepared

if you can win the nomination, you can win the election

To win back the house, the nominee will have to shake things up.

[lewebley3]

66. No, winner the of Dem party is not the most prepared: Dem lost over and over

Until the Clinton's showed the Dem how to win!

Check your history: Dem kept nominating type Sanders candidacy and they kept losing,
always the winner of nomination was a nice guy like Sanders, then the GOP
gained power and went after the middle class.

Sorry, I am sticking with the Dem that know what they are doing, not ideologues

[jeff47]

207. Uh, no. I'm afraid it's you who needs to "check your history".

Let's see
Obama - "Hope and change" isn't a conservative campaign. Wins. Governs as a centrist.

Kerry - Runs a moderate campaign. Loses.

Gore - Runs a right-of-center campaign (You don't pick Lieberman as VP to show how liberal you are). Loses.

Clinton 1996 - an incumbent during an economic boom. A dead rat could win that election.

Clinton 1992 - Perot siphons of 20% of libertarians, and so Clinton wins.

Dukakis - Slightly-left-of-center. Loses to a pseudo-incumbent in a good economy.

Mondale - Centrist. Loses.

Carter 1980 - Incumbent during lousy economy. Loses.

Carter 1976 - A liberal! Wins.

McGovern - An actual liberal! Loses to an incumbent during a good economy. Also backstabbed by that era's version of the DLC.

Humphrey - "Line up behind the chosen one!". Liberal on some policies, conservative on the war. Loses.

LBJ - You gonna tell me the guy who rammed through the Civil Rights Act and signed it during the campaign is a centrist?

JFK - Mostly liberal. Wins.

How far back you wanna go?

[bunnies]

54. Are you using talk-to-text or something?

[navarth]

78. LOL

It's painful to read that poster.

[bunnies]

82. Maybe English isn't the first language?

So many errors I just want to ! We dont normally see that here.

[navarth]

84. In order to avoid flames,

I think I will avoid further comments about the relative intelligence of that poster. For now anyway.

Waving right back atcha!

[bunnies]

85. ...

[lewebley3]

83. The Dem party is about sharing and being smart!

[bunnies]

87. Interesting response.

Fun, is it? I've never tried.

[Kalidurga]

71. The number of people who trust her is significantly dropping, her favorability is dropping...

and the worst part of that is that it's in swing states. She is still ahead of all Republicans, but who knows if that will hold up with the media and Republicans hammering at her in the general should she win the nomination

[lewebley3]

81. No she is not: Real clear poltics or the CNN poll

[George II]

158. "Significantly" dropping? What is that in numbers?

[abakan]

74. I know her...

That is exactly why I don't trust her. I will vote for her if I have to, but it will be with misgivings.
Hillary is not as liberal as you might think, she is a third way democrat and once she is in office she will pivot to the center right so fast it will set your hair on fire, I for one will not be surprised.



JMO of course.

[mwooldri]

201. Coming from the other side of the pond...

I would certainly not have described Hillary as a liberal democrat, let alone a Liberal Democrat. It is worth noting that Candidate Clinton in 2008 was to the right of Candidate Obama.

If you believe the guys at Crowdpac.com they still have Clinton on Obama's right.

I think whoever wins the primary (and yes I do hope it's Bernie) can win the general handsomely. Just look at the Republican Clown Bus. If by some miracle Trump becomes their candidate then I think we'd be wondering which states won't vote for the Democratic party primary winner... heck whoever loses could run as an independent spoiler with a Trump GOP candidate and the Democratic Party candidate would still win.

[TM99]

232. All polls on trust and favorably

show that Clinton is actually NOT trusted by Americans.

Sanders has been tested for decades.

Who has Clinton fought against and won something major on? She gave up on single payer in the 1990's. So give us some examples of this?

Clinton is a New Dem. She is moderately socially liberal as circumstance demand and culture has changed. She is decidedly neo-con on foreign policy. And she is neo-liberal on economic ones. She helped draft and supports the TPP/TSA. She loved welfare reform. She loved three strikes. She loved the Iraq war.

Please.

[AlbertCat]

39. Hillary is the best chance the Dem have to keep the white house,

Nonsense.


Hillary is the best chance we have of more of the same Third Way crap.

[retrowire]

121. THIS.

[artislife]

151. This is the same thing that was said in 2008

What good is having the White House if the person there is proTPP, proMonsanto and pro Wall Street? We are crashing our planet, our food and our people. Now is the time for change...actually, 20 years ago was. We are on a collision course where there won't be anyone left to remember who won the White House in 2016.

[George II]

173. "What good is having the White House if......."

What?????? Are those three oversimplified and generalized issues ALL that the next President is going to do? If that were true we're in worse trouble than we think.

[Gothmog]

177. Getting to pick Scalia's and Kennedy's replacements on the SCOTUS is meaningful

[Luminous Animal]

100. He spent many years fighting the GOP and big money

http://www.portside.org/2015-06-05/bernies-burlington-what-kind-mayor-was-bernie-sanders

And getting things done.

[lewebley3]

304. What has Bernie gotten done? He a talker

[Luminous Animal]

318. You stick with that.

[kenfrequed]

105. Eh...

Hillary has been running for office for about a decade now. That experience does not assure that she supports the best policies or that she is the best candidate. There are many people that spend their careers running for higher offices and it is no garauntee of success.

Moreover, the republicans have been preparing to run against her for years. They are ready for her and they know they can do some damage and maybe someone from the clown car can even stumble across the finish line. It would explain why so many of them are running as they may have some idea of what is to come.

They are Not ready to take on Bernie Sanders. Not even close to ready.

[wyldwolf]

28. oh dear. I'm shaking in my boots.

[asjr]

41. Maybe I am blind but I have not seen anyone here on DU

that has disrespected Sen. Sanders. I think he is a fine man and a Democrat to boot. I do not blast Democrats. If he is the nominee then he is my man. My first choice is Hillary Clinton. I have liked her ever since she was first lady. She is smart, intelligent and a woman! I would love to see a woman in the White House as president. She was very courageous when the Republicans and probably some Democrats wanted to impeach her husband because of a sex scandal. I am sure she probably wanted to beat the hell out of Bill and I wish she had, but that isn't Hillary Clinton. She has been vilified by the Republican Congress. They can't seem to ruffle Obama so they take it out on her. Rep. Issa is a vulture. He probably wants to Benghazi her to death. If not that, then they will try something else.

Bernie Sanders is not our enemy. Whether you realize it or not Hillary Clinton is a very fine person and would make a good president.

[Sheepshank]

55. Thank you, that was very well said n/t

[Gothmog]

167. Well said

[Man of Distinction]

45. +1 Many people are afraid of Bernie

and what he truly represents. Us. The 99%'ers. The long forgotten middle class who are the engine to keeping America going.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. ...

So......... if anyone continues to disrespect Bernie, expect a backlash. A backlash that comes from the pent-up frustrations of 30+ years of seeing our best hopes be trashed by the RW and even supposed friends.

We are sick of it.... we have a real champion in Bernie this time and we are ready and willing to fight. Do not be surprised by the reaction if you get in our way and show disrespect for us and our champion.

[oberliner]

48. For many here, Hillary is Plan A

Diminishing her or her followers is not especially constructive.

[Metric System]

114. +1

[elleng]

50. YES, LETS. Its Bernie v Hillary v MARTIN,

and if we miss this important fact we're missing as much as we would have missed if we missed Jimmy Carter.

A JOBS AGENDA FOR IOWA'S RENEWABLE ENERGY FUTURE
As a nation we have made great strides toward becoming energy independent. Now is the time to accelerate that progress.

https://martinomalley.com/climate/iowa/

Martin O’Malley: A Strong Foreign Policy Starts With a Global Middle Class.

http://time.com/3947720/martin-omalley-foreign-policy-middle-class/

“I have the ability to move our country forward”

“Threats we face are different today than they were back then,” O’Malley said. “From nation state failures, to the rise of ISIS, to pandemics, to climate change and the stabilization that brings about. We need a national security strategy that focuses on threats as they are rising and then takes action to reduce those threats before we are backed into a corner.”

http://www.kmaland.com/news/o-malley-i-have-the-ability-to-move-our-country/article_9fa7be38-245c-11e5-8e49-83b883114bf6.html

The poetry of greater purpose

With Martin, there is a poetry of greater purpose. Just the day prior, Martin gave a landmark foreign policy address, then joined the marriage celebration at the steps of the Supreme Court. A day of boldness of heart and leadership; to which he is no stranger. Passing marriage equality. Defending it at the ballot box. Fifteen years of hands-on executive experience. Data-driven governance. A Maryland DREAM Act. In a phrase, New Leadership.

Martin doesn’t need to “evolve” – he has led; never has that been more clear. On equality, terrorism, gun violence, racism, immigration, climate change, rebuilding our cities, economic rebirth – O’Malley comes out swinging.

There are big ideas and there are those who achieve them.

A man of his time

http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/17536348-95/my-turn-omalley-and-the-poetry-of-greater-purpose

[FSogol]

52. +1 Well said. n/t

[Raine1967]

79. Thank you!

I especially loved this line:

YES, LETS. Its Bernie v Hillary v MARTIN, and if we miss this important fact we're missing as much as we would have missed if we missed Jimmy Carter.

These threats, like that of the OP honestly get tiresome.

It's like we are in thunderdome or something.

[Renew Deal]

58. Could it be argued that we have "30+ years" of seeing candidates like Bernie lose and

there is no reason to believe he will be different?

[ladjf]

103. I disagree that we've been seeing candidates like Bernie for 30+ years.

I don't recall seeing any candidate in the last 30 years as intelligent, articulate and brave as Bernie. I believe that he has great
qualifications to lead America in it's hour of need. He's smart. He cares about America and he's not a crook. (I'm not implying that any other Dem candidates are crooks.)

[randys1]

59. I can agree with this, especially the reality of a Plan B.

Although I am not comfy with the OR ELSE attitude

[marble falls]

70. You pretty much had me until the threats part.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. Are you suggesting you get more with candy than a hammer?

eom

[marble falls]

75. Hammers don't convince.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. And when all you have is one the whole world looks like a nail./nt

[Indepatriot]

89. OUT OF THE PARK

[Spitfire of ATJ]

90. Nice to see the "no disruptive meta" rule is strictly enforced....

Might as well ask how many Hillary supporters here are looking forward to a purge of all of the liberals that followed Obama into the White House to be replaced by "the adults" of the DLC.

[historylovr]

92. You had me up until the last three paragraphs.

We can support Sanders without resorting to backlash. Besides being counter-productive, it just adds more ammunition to the meme that we can't take criticism of our candidate. Far better to just ignore people you find disagreeable and trash threads which are obviously flame-bait.

[BrotherIvan]

180. Agree!

[ladjf]

93. I hope to hell you are correct. It would please me to see that America still

has many people who can think and therefore act in ways that are best of most Americans. Who were able to fight off the
massive propaganda that has been dumped on us for years.

[HassleCat]

99. Frustration

Yes it is frustrating seeing democratic socialists and progressives cast aside by the Democratic Party because "they can't win." McGovern is cited as the classic example, but he had to deal with the Eagleton thing, and the media suddenly decided Nixon was the anti-war candidate. If people want to disrespect Sanders, that's OK with me. I can't be too hard on anyone who unquestioningly subscribes to the conventional wisdom. Most people don't like too much change, so they probably find the idea of a President Hillary Clinton a comforting notion, since she is likely to bring about change, but nothing dramatic, just enough to make people feel good. Sanders, on the other hand, makes people nervous, because it's clear he plans to work for more dramatic change. Maybe the voters are ready for significant movement on issues such as the wealth gap, tax inequities, off-shoring jobs, etc. I hope so. I'm ready for Sanders, but people I talk to about Sanders seem hesitant, as if thinking, "It sounds like a good idea, but there must be a catch." The catch is, you have to recognize your own interests and support a candidate who will defend those interests against corporations and banks.

[Gothmog]

181. The Eagleton thing was the only problem that McGovern had

Nixon and the Committee to Re-Elect the President (aka CREP) did a great job of painting McGovern as not being in the mainstream. Yes, the media bought that story but McGovern never effectively countered that line of attack. McGovern was vulnerable to being painted as being out of the mainstream and Nixon exploited that vulnerability and the media did not look behind that story.

Sanders is a good man and I agree with most of his positions. However, I doubt that Sanders will be able to raise the financial resources necessary to counter or lessen the effect of the negative ads and attacks that will be focused on him by the Kochs and the GOP candidate. I am from Texas and I can just imagine how the socialist label will play here and in other parts of the country. Without a well financed campaign organization, Sanders could easily face the same fate as McGovern.

[Motown_Johnny]

107. As Mahatma Ghandhi said;

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.


I think the Clinton campaign and supporters are starting to get to the fighting stage.

Lets see how the debates go. This prediction just may play out.

[olddots]

110. I'm used to being marginalized here since 2003

[Metric System]

112. Hillary has been through the grinder. Bernie hasn't been the target of the Right like she has. That

will likely change, but we certainly don't know how he'll fair against their smears.

[ismnotwasm]

118. I didn't vote for Clinton. I voted Socialist at the time

Hillary is plan A for me because to me she is the best qualified candidate who can carry forward momentum from the Obama administration, as well govern very well. The Left and the Right slams her--often for polarized reasons. She preserveres despite lies, distortion and misinformation.



I have no problems voting for Sanders if he is the Nominee.

[TNNurse]

122. Well, I will make my point again.

I will vote for the Democratic candidate and support whomever it is.

I have never voted for a Republican for President and can brag a little to those who voted for McGovern. My first vote was my freshman year in college by absentee ballot (yes you could vote in GA at 18 then), so my first vote was for Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Still proud of that.

[Glennn1000]

124. Corporate Greed

It is to bad that Hillary Clinton is not campaigning to end the most destructive problem we have which is destroying the middle class.

She is NOT saying that she will work to end Citizens United which allows corporations to give millions and millions of dollars to their favorite politicians in turn for special favors that help corporations make lots of money but make living conditions worse for U S Citizens.

She is NOT saying that she is FOR the financial REFORM of Wall Street
when Wall Street Corporate Greed is destroying the security of the American people, our country and our environment.

Corporate greed is the main reason that the Middle Class is in serious trouble and it has to stop now before it is to late.

Corporations give millions of dollars to politicians who in turn make it possible for the corporations to do what ever they want to do without any regard for the safety of people or the environment in our country and around the world.

Doesn't she care?

Lately she has been touching on these issues briefly because Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has forced her to address it.

But it is clear that Mrs. Clinton does not care to talk about it which makes me question that if she were the
president of the United States, will she just ignore it even though corporate greed is crippling our democracy?

It is clear that she supports
corporations that put profit over the health and safety of the American people.

Bernie Sanders has been genuinely and seriously fighting for the financial reform of Wall Street for years.

[Enthusiast]

153. Excellent first post!

[Glennn1000]

159. Thank you

Thank you
I tell it like I see it

[RiverLover]

221. Love it!!

Welcome to DU! And I mean that. This isn't one of those dark menacing Welcome to DUs you may see down the road.

Excellent post.

[Glennn1000]

383. Thank you

Thank you

[questionseverything]

300. welcome to du

[Sancho]

131. Clear; or opaque?

Most of us have been political junkies for a long long time.

Some of us have been as active as you or longer.

"Some of us proudly voted for McGovern!"

I was there for McGovern, Carter, etc. I protested Vietnam, worked for the 18 year old vote, etc. Longevity may not mean you have a lock on good choices.

"So we have been watching the scene go down for a long time."

I've met Nixon (when he was VP), Carter (when campaigning), GWB (campaigning for his father), and I worked specifically for several politicians - mostly in the 80's.

"We have watched the Clintons for going on 25 years now, most of us voted for Bill, twice."

I will vote for the Democratic candidate. I may not agree with every issue, and I'm usually surprised by things some of them do when elected, but it a lot better than the repubs. No one could miss the Clintons or Bushes or ever Bernie over the last 25 years if you followed politics at all.

"Through all of these years we have watched as the system ate up and discarded good progressive, liberal, loving candidates who we knew, if given a seat of power, could change the system. We supported and voted for Obama because we had hope he could change the system, and in some ways he did."

As you know, even Bernie has caved in on some issues that were not consistent with his proclaimed progressivism/socialism. It's been posted a number of times. In the US system, it's pretty rare for any elected official to wave a wand and get what they want. The GOP for several decades have held more power than their actual number of voters when they stuck together (neocons), using gerrymandering, manipulating elections (DREs), manipulating media (FOX), by setting up schemes (like ALEC), and by going to court. The way to beat them is not a "louder" politician or even a louder screaming crowd crying about the economy. The way to beat them is to recognize the manipulations and call them out - like Hillary did over voter rights, a path to citizenship (changes gerrymandering), and with numerous sponsored bills.

"But now we have Bernie. A politician who has been through the grinder, and he still stands. Indeed, he stands tall and has a real chance to wield our greatest aspirations for our country and our planet as POTUS."

We would disagree that Bernie has been through the grinder. Even so, he speaks well about some progressive values - mostly economic ones. That seems to be important to NE and Midwest, white, middle class folks. I'm used to hearing 3 or 4 languages a day, and I don't care if you are "undocumented". I suspect I might find some of the people at Bernie's rallies are actually modern versions of Archie Bunker; they may not know it. They think guns are ok, boarders should stop immigrants, Americans are exceptional, and a military base at the local airport is fine. In the liberal parts of the sunbelt, those are not the primary issues. Hillary is more progressive than Bernie to many Democrats because she is the WOMAN who is actually STILL STANDING in many, many ways. She has true goal aspirations that she has worked on for many years: women's rights, children's education, citizen ship for people seeking a better life, helping others in the third world, and looking foreign leaders in the eye and seeing where they stand. Those really are my aspirations for the US on this little globe.

"Hillary is plan B for us. Plan B, because we see her as a fixture of the system, and if we have to, we will support her. But we have Bernie and therefore we have real hope to use him to change the system."

Hillary is not plan B (is that an allusion to birth control...hmmm, maybe a Freudian slip there RE). She is finally ready to be the most qualified, experienced, and first woman President of the US. Just like our US National Women's Soccer Team, she is ready to win!! Bernie simply doesn't have the experience nationally, internationally, as a lawyer, or even as a Democrat. To me, he's not as strong a candidate.

"So......... if anyone continues to disrespect Bernie, expect a backlash. A backlash that comes from the pent-up frustrations of 30+ years of seeing our best hopes be trashed by the RW and even supposed friends."

You've already been called out on this threat. You can make enemies or end up on a lot of ignore lists, but you likely won't change minds with a backlash. I also hate the bash and trash threads, so sometimes I jump in, because I think the threads deserve someone pointing out when they are simply propaganda, or wrong.

"We are sick of it.... we have a real champion in Bernie this time and we are ready and willing to fight. Do not be surprised by the reaction if you get in our way and show disrespect for us and our champion."

Bernie can be your champion if you like. I appreciate that there is someone who might make the primary interesting so that we GOTV. A Democrat will be my champion.

Thank you and have a nice day, too.

[RelativelyJones]

132. Bernie's cool

I love seeing him push the conversation leftward. But if in the end Hillary wins, I'll be supporting her to kingdom come. Otherwise say hello to three Republican appointed Supreme Court justices. Not going to leave my kids with that if I an help it.

[Cosmocat]

134. I am sick of THIS

and I am going to vote for Bernie ...

You had me until the end.

Yes, Hill is exactly what you portrayed her as.

And, Bernie has stripes for sure.

But only in a very small, supportive electoral pool. He has been a very tertiary national figure.

I have been heartened by how focused and effective Bernie has been at going straight at the Rs in a simple manner, relentlessly, since he announced his POTUS run.

But, this hypersensitivity relative to Hill by dems pisses me off to no end.

He hasn't seen jack shit for "attacks" yet. He still is getting the plucky under dog treatment from the media because republicans still have Hill in their sights.

You are living in a fantasy world if you think the media won't follow the republicans lead and turn on him VICIOUSLY once the Rs decide he is the candidate they need to take down.

Such time as he is a certifiable threat to win the nomination, it is going to get real, and he is going to face the endless stream of bullshit the republicans throw out to take a D down, with the media eagerly doing their work for them.

Hill has taken this kind of shit for a quarter century, and I had my fill of Rs piling on her two decades ago.

So, back at you - pile on Hill and I will come back at you ...

Gritting my teeth because as much as I like Bernie I can't stand this bullshit.

[blue neen]

230. Excellent post, Cosmocat.

[Enthusiast]

136. Just watch what you say, RobertEarl. You'll be alerted on for the slightest fucking thing.

[RobertEarl]

224. Yeah,

Been there done that.

This is what I like about this campaign; no need to be too careful about what one says or who it is said to, as long as it fits with the Bern.

[MarianJack]

139. I am a Hillary supporte, but...

...I consider Bernie to be a great man. There are many reasons why I support her and I understand that there are many reasons why Bernie's supporters support him.

I consider Bernie to be a great man. While I will speak of Republican/teabagger candidates with sarcasm, derision and the UTMOST of disrespect and downright contempt, I will NOT criticize or attack Bernie in any way shape or form!

I expect Hillary to be the nominee, but I would happily vote for and support Bernie. I have expect the teabaggers to nominate Rand Paul given his party's and the media's circle jerk over him since 2010, but will be equally derisive of ANY of those morons.

I will NOT contribute to ANYTHING that would possibly foster Democratic disunity in the face of one of the most genuinely MORONIC collection of candidates I've EVER seen!

PEACE!

[glinda]

149. I find it totally disrespectful how some on DU talk about him. He is and has been a

very hard working public servant. Rare to find really. No matter what Camp you lie in it is surprising to me the hostility at times.
I think good and sometimes robust discussions are excellent but I find the aggressive attacks on individuals embarrassing, thoughtless and rude. Mean actually sometimes.
Sad.....this does nothing to help our Country in the long run really.

[randys1]

152. I agree, but I also find it totally disrespectful how some on DU talk about Hillary

I dont like her friendliness to Wall Street which is why I support Bernie, but reading some of the stuff here, hell I might as well be at Free Republic or somewhere else run by rightwingers.

Dont you people get it, IF Hillary is the nominee, the same shit used HERE to attack her will be used by the right.

No, she is NOT my first choice at all, but boy oh boy will I support her and work for her if she ends up being my only REAL choice.

[Gothmog]

175. What is exacting disrespectful? Many here doubt that Sanders is viable in the general election

I believe that money matters in politics and I worry that Sanders will not be able to compete in a general election contest. Sanders has not been attacked here on DU but Sanders will be subject to some really nasty attacks by the Kochs and the GOP nominee if Sanders is the nominee. Questioning Sanders ability to compete in a general election is nothing compared to the negative and attack ads that the GOP will run against him. Right now, the GOP candidates are somewhat busy attacking each other and trying to get into the debates and so have not focused all of their efforts against Clinton. Just look at the crap that the GOP are throwing at Hillary Clinton now and imagine all of the vile attacks being focused on whoever the Democratic nominee is.

I hate Citizens United but to compete in today's world, one needs to be adequatedly financed. Sanders will reject Super pac help which means that the GOP and the Kochs will have a major advantage. Negative ads work and the only way to compete with negative ads is with sufficient money to run your own counter ads.

If Sanders wants to win the Democratic primary, he will need to convince mainstream democrats that he is viable. I have yet to see any facts that make me feel comfortable with trusting the fate of the SCOTUS on the concept that money does not matter and negative ads will not work.

[glinda]

234. I understand very well all of what you have just said. But

what I was specifically speaking about was a thoughtless just plain old angry vile attitude instead of discussions.
Contrary to my name, i do not live in a bubble and I do see something is happening with the American people and perhaps...just perhaps.....Senator Sanders, with his record and his integrity stands a chance. I am working to help that. Dollar by dollar. Person by person.

[blackspade]

250. Discussions about viability are pointless at this stage.

And this argument was the very same used against Obama.
Any of our current candidates are viable against the GOP clown car.
All it will take is an actual Democratic Party push to make a win happen.

[Gothmog]

261. I disagree-we are in the primary process and we need to select the best possible candidate

The purpose of the primary process is to select the best possible candidate which means a candidate who can win in November of 2016. Viability is an important criteria in determining who one will support in the primary process in my opinion. You are free to base your support on whatever criteria you deem appropriate but I think that we need to nominate someone who can win in November.

One observation that I found compelling is that Sanders is in effect committing to bring a knife to gun fight. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac, The super pacs associated with Clinton raised $24 million and so Clinton raised $70 this quarter.

[questionseverything]

302. i thought candidates were not supposed to coordinate with pacs?

bernie will not have a choice if a "pac" makes info commercials to promote him


millions of regular citizens will use word of mouth to deny the koch brothers victory...will it work? i don't know but it really is our only chance

[Gothmog]

307. Pacs are not suppose to but the system is broken

The FEC is unable to enforce the rules and PACs are coordinating https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/here-are-the-secret-ways-super-pacs-and-campaigns-can-work-together/2015/07/06/bda78210-1539-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html

If you want to keep up in this area, you may want to look at Prof. Hasen's blog http://electionlawblog.org/

[questionseverything]

308. from your link

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/feds-want-nearly-4-year-sentence-for-republican-operative-convicted-of-illegal-coordination/2015/06/11/7ecbdc72-0ed0-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html

[Gothmog]

309. If the FEC was able to do its job there should be more such convictions

I love Prof. Hasen's blog and follow it closely

[questionseverything]

315. just to be clear...coordination is illegal

it just is rarely prosecuted then?

and my point remains the same....millions of us will try and do bernie's "pac" work with or without his blessing

[Gothmog]

397. How Presidential Candidates Are Pushing Past Campaign Finance Boundaries This Time

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/09/2016-campaign-finance_n_7757258.html

[blackspade]

319. So money trumps (no pun intended) policy on the viability scale now?

That is a sad reminder that OUR government has been hijacked by corporatist authoritarians.
I would say at this point that Sanders on the ideas and policy front is bringing a Abrams to a gun fight.

I guess we will see what wins this primary cycle; money or policy.

[sulphurdunn]

171. An argument bears no logical relationship

to the arguer. If everyone could grasp that concept we could dispense with the pissing contests that increasingly pass for discussion.

[Martin Eden]

178. I guess that depends on how you define "disrespect"

Criticism of a politician and disagreement about who would best represent the public interest and can win the general election can be done in a respectful manner. Without an open exchange of ideas and honest debate, a forum loses its value. Echo chambers are to be avoided.

Earlier today (not noticing a thread near the top of the Greatest Page was in the Hillary Clinton Group) I responded to a post containing a very flawed argument -- and in very short order was blocked from posting there. I trashed the Group so I wouldn't see it any more. It really has no value in terms of discussion, at least for me.

BTW, I fully support Bernie Sanders for president. He can withstand criticism & disagreement, and so can we. In fact, I enjoy the opportunity to engage in those debates.

Respect should always be shown, even in a heated debate. Losing your cool usually means losing the argument, even when you're right.

[66 dmhlt]

182. This is disgusting! You should be ashamed of yourself! I know Bernie would be!!!

[2banon]

186. Well Done, Robert Earl, Well Done Indeed.

Thank YOU!

[brewens]

202. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore! That's what we need. Bern Baby Bern! n/t

[Progressive dog]

213. Is disagreeing with Bernie on any issue the same as disrespecting Bernie?

Is supporting Hillary instead of Bernie disrespecting Bernie?
I am sick of people who claim to be Democrats who think that the rest of us (Democrats) should stand aside for their candidate. Some of us actually believe in democracy. If you want Bernie to win give the rest of us real reasons. Convince us--don't whine about the unfairness of you not getting your way.

[blackspade]

214. But the backlash should be factual...

And measured.

OTT responses will undermine any point made.

[McCamy Taylor]

231. Champion? I distrust anyone who hero worships a politician.

And I especially distrust anyone who expects a politician to become his or her hero.

[JDPriestly]

235. If Hillary and Bill sincerely tried to change the system (Citizens United for example), it

would have changed by now. They have a lot of influence. They give a lot of speeches to influential people. I have to ask what in the world they think they are doing having so much influence and changing the world so little for the better. And I am taking into account the undoubtedly good things they do with their Foundation. But they have done relatively little in recent years to support or demand the changes for which Hillary is now advocating.

So that is why many of us do not trust Hillary Clinton. She has had many years to work really hard for change. She could have drawn a lot of public attention and energy to the issues she is now and only now really starting to talk about. She has not shown a fervent desire for progressive change. To the contrary. She sat on her hands. She is too cautious, too afraid to pay a political price for displeasing conservatives. It's too late.

We have a tiny window of time to use our free internet to counter the corporate-owned mainstream media. Occupy tried to do it and awakened the consciences and understanding of many Americans as well as people around the world to the economic disparity that is bound to tear the First World apart if not dealt with. (Think about the dishonesty and greed that led to Greece's and Europe's crisis. It could happen here. It really could.)

And now we have Bernie. But we have very, very little time. It may be 2016 or never. We might get another chance, but how long will we have to wait? We need a non-violent political awakening (I think that is what Bernie means by "revolution&quot in the US. 2016 is the year. We cannot wait.

Hillary could have supported the Occupiers. She did not. Elizabeth Warren expressed sympathy for them. That was an act of great courage. Hillary showed no courage when it came to the Occupy movement.

[senz]

243. Beautifully said, JDPriestly. Thank you.

[SoapBox]

238. Fully agreed, RobertEarl.

[emsimon33]

239. And we are tired of 3rd Way "Democrats" who are more like Republicans than true Democrats!

[senz]

241. Okay, reading through this thread, I'm a tad horrified to read that groups here at DU actually

"ban" those who disagree with them. I've looked in on DU, mainly the front page, for at least a decade. But what little I had seen of the forums (or fora) had always seemed friendly, even sort of bland. I just assumed that trolls and nasty, hateful commenters probably got banned, but I never imagined that people would be banned for disagreeing about candidates in a Democratic primary. Especially when the difference is between liberals! I didn't know there were "rooms" just for people who agree on everything. Sorry for the show of naivete here...and from an old person, at that. Oh well, I guess it lends a reassuring consistency to human nature...

[Glennn1000]

246. HILLARY DUCKS TAX THE RICH QUESTION

With the majority of the people who want taxes raised on millionaires and billionaires,

Hillary was asked today if she is going to work to raise taxes on the rich.

She completely ducked answering the question.

WE NEED YOU BERNIE

[Darb]

265. Of course she does. It's a stupid stance. It doesn't sell. Except to Bernie supporters.

Doing it and running on it are two different things.

[99Forever]

266. Congrats.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've read this morning. And it's early, but I'm guessing it will hold that 1st place ranking all day.

[Darb]

270. You're system of rating the ridiculousness of a post matters nil.

Running around screaming "tax the rich" and "break up the banks" is fucking stupid. Raising taxes on the rich is one thing, running on it is another. Nobody likes taxes being raised, even on the rich, because they aspire to one day be rich, whether a pipe dream or not.

Here you go, smart guy, why not propose a tax on each Wall Street trade. It would be unnoticed by the actors and would produce huge amounts of cash.

Being wrong AND being a smart ass about it soooo unbecoming.

[ieoeja]

290. You do know that Sanders has already proposed a small tax on Wall Street trade?

And Hillary supporters have been attacking him for it.

[Darb]

331. Not this one. I think it is a great idea, and one that would not hurt.

My point is simple. Attacking Hillary because she won't go ON THE RECORD about your precious income tax increase is stupid. Why don't you go ask the Republicans to go on the record about it. They will for sure. They are against it. But noooooo, you gotta play gotcha with our team.

That's a farkin stupid tactic. But keep doin it if you want President Bush.

[Kermitt Gribble]

306. Umm...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/taxing-the-rich-poll_n_2203400.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149567/americans-favor-jobs-plan-proposals-including-taxing-rich.aspx

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/23/poll-most-americans-support-raising-investment-taxes-for-wealthy.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/294713-poll-majority-support-taxing-the-rich-to-redistribute-wealth

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100335218

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polls-show-longtime-support-for-tax-hikes-on-rich/

[Darb]

334. This is about elections and strategy, not some stupid popularity contest.

Trying to make Hillary give ammo to the other side because Bernie is dumb enough to do it is nothing short of stupid. Let her run her own campaign and you cheer lead for Bernie, umkay?

I'll say it again, going on the record about tax hikes is not raising taxes. It is nothing but giving ammo to the other side to call you a tax and spend liberal who wants to raise taxes, PERIOD. It is just plain dumb and she doesn't need to go on the record for anything you Bernie people want, so stuff it.

Let her run her campaign the way she sees fit. All your handwringing about promises is nothing more than ponyism. Stow it.

[Kermitt Gribble]

369. Just pointing out

that your "Nobody likes taxes being raised, even on the rich" comment is flat out wrong.

[raouldukelives]

248. I echo your sentiments in many ways.

I've held my nose and voted more times than I can recall.

For the first time I feel like I have a democratic candidate who takes the issues that matter most to me seriously.

Like, the continuation of earth being able to house a viable ecosystem for lifeforms.

That is radically important to me.

It literally overshadows virtually ever other issue that is in the forefront of my ideals and without it, all my ideals mean virtually nothing.

I can't take any more footsie with the merchants of death.

[Darb]

263. Not for me, Hillary is A, Bernie is C.

For what it's worth. Bernie has managed to stay relevant because he hails from Vermont, arguably the most liberal, and quite small, state in the union. I'd say he could have only managed it in Vermont. Hillary is a different story altogether. To remain relevant and compete and win in larger states and on a national scale it takes different strategies and the ability to straddle the fence somewhat in times that change, and they do change, but sometimes over decades.

So before you scream that Bernie has kept his message the same the entire time, well he didn't have to compete in a national or large scale arena. And by the way, his message has changed a bit. He used to be waaaaay out there as we have seen recently (fluoride/sexual repression).

So, again, for what it is worth, Hillary is my A, and O'Malley is B, and Bernie is C.

Hugs and kisses.

[FSogol]

278. A "B"? Can I submit this for extra credit and get the grade up to a B+ or A-?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251431537

[Darb]

335. B+

Nice job. I like O'

[FSogol]

336. LOL, Thanks! n/t

[Darb]

338. O'M supporters are not as aggressive as the Sanders folks, why is that?

I like Bernie too. He's on the money most of the time. I just think Hillary could do much of the same stuff and maybe more, and more importantly have big coattails.

[FSogol]

339. When we put together our O'M group on DU, we acknowledged that at the end of the day,

it was vitally important for a Democrat to win. No point in bashing someone who might become the Democratic nominee. All of our candidates are far superior to those on the GOP side and we need all our votes to beat them.

[DownriverDem]

292. Repubs Getting Ready

And you can bet the repubs will use all he said going back to the 1960s against him too.

[Darb]

337. No doubt, he will be

Vlad Lenin before they are through with him.

[mmonk]

279. Yep. Recommended.

[DrBulldog]

288. I knew Bernie was for real when ...

... I heard two different well-known Hillary supporters/spokesmen trash and insult Bernie publically in TV - and Bernie just ignored them and laughed, and without losing a step went right on fighting for the middle class. He really does welcome the hatred from those who really don't want change.

[DownriverDem]

291. Beware of Repub Plan Against Bernie

I love Bernie, but am not naïve either. I hope we all can see the repub plan that is being used against him. Repubs are beginning to hit him loud and clear as a socialist. Why? Polls show that many folks will not vote for a socialist. I will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is. I hope folks here will too. Why? Because who wants a RWNJ in the White House?

[Beacool]

294. I guess this is a one way street for you.

Who on this site disrespects Sanders? On the other hand, I see mostly nothing but disrespect for Hillary. Post after post bashing her, some so rabid that this might as well be a RW site.

So don't you be issuing ultimatums to any Hillary supporter. Most of us have been nothing but respectful of Sanders. I wish the opposite were true and Sanders' supporters were more respectful of our candidate.

BTW, when all is said and done, Sanders will not be the Democratic nominee. That's the only thing of which I'm sure about the election.

[yellowcanine]

299. Just an observation: Any OP which starts out "Let's be clear...." is probably not going to go well.

Just sayin'.

[Fla Dem]

316. What disrespect? Even Hillary supporters have nothing but postive things to say about Bernie.

This is a canard. If there is any disrespect it going entirely the other way. HRC is figuratively and metaphorically being stepped on and spate on by some Bernie supporters. If anything's coming back negative, it's at a Bernie poster who has shown disrespect to a fellow DU'er, or has posted false rumors from a RW web site to incite HRC supporters or is a RW troll here to simply stir the pot

I'm pretty neutral right now. We have a long way to go. There are things I like about both of them and frankly only see a difference of positions on a few issues. Yes, HRC's big money backing bothers me. I don't want her to be tight with Wall Street. But I'm keeping my powder dry for now.

[Scootaloo]

403. Shame on you, making people hyperventilate

Don't you know they're fragile? So very, very fragile, the tiny little ducklings.