The revolution is real, but it's unclear whether Sanders will lead it

[DonViejo]

By David Weigel and Michael Scherer May 16 at 7:49 PM

Democrats across the board are embracing the policies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Medicare for all, legal marijuana and free college — but primary results underscore that the 2016 presidential candidate is struggling to emerge as a kingmaker in the party.

Liberals on Tuesday defeated an establishment-backed House candidate in Nebraska, a mainstream gubernatorial candidate in Idaho and a conservative House candidate in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley. Sanders was not involved in the first two races and endorsed a runner-up in the third.

Instead, two House candidates backed by Sanders in Pennsylvania lost on the same night to candidates who supported his position of health care for all.

After 2016, Sanders was the hottest commodity in Democratic politics as he captured 43 percent of the primary vote and pushed eventual nominee Hillary Clinton to the left. But since then, his role in the party has become a bit more complicated. He is on the road constantly, selling his populist message and clearly putting together the building blocks of a 2020 presidential campaign.

While Sanders hasn’t dominated the Democratic Party, his ideas have made huge inroads.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/the-revolution-is-real-but-its-unclear-whether-sanders-will-lead-it/2018/05/16/34d2d7b0-58bf-11e8-8836-a4a123c359ab_story.html

[Orsino]

1. There's a big ol' opportunity for Dems.

An appetite for change ought to attract party leaders, who should acknowledge it, adapt to it, and lead.

Whoever thought of the revolution as a Sanders cult ought to be thinking bigger.

[Hortensis]

62. 2015 response to Elizabeth Warren revealed much

larger support for stronger action among Democrats than anyone knew. All polls had been worded to miss what ordinary Democrats wanted and suggest relative apathy. To the point that I wonder about the motives behind this mass incompetence. But I remember being so tremendously thrilled to learn that my own frustration with the apathy of others was actually shared by practically all of us!

Same for our party leaders, of course. This much greater voter support equated directly to greater power to make more happen, and the Clinton group in particular immediately started considering what more could be done with it. Of course. Hillary especially is a major progressive policy wonk with a long, long list of things she wants to accomplish.

Sanders stepped into a farther left void when Warren didn't run for president to continue pushing for change from an oppositional position. Contrary to his claims, though, NONE of his positions were new in him, or even close to new. He did call loudly for more change, but what he proposed were actually long-time standard Democratic issues and proposed solutions. I, like virtually all involved mainstream progressive Democrats, have supported them all for decades, waiting for what should have happened in 2016 as Hillary moved ahead from what Obama started under very adverse conditions. We really thought the time had come.

But to some degree it has anyway. Some voters failed to turn out for change federally by the thinnest of margins, but at least Democratic leaderships and Democratic voters in many blue states are proceeding where they can anyway.

[ehrnst]

73. ...

I also think Warren has driven the conversation on economics further than anyone has in years.

She brought an expertise and detailed strategy that only an academic of her stature could bring, and got actual results that only an academic could - in policy, in changing the course of government's ability to regulate.

After the savaging she got from those on the left that had touted their support for her running for POTUS as proof they weren't 'sexist' for hating Hillary a mere day before she announced her endorsment for Hillary, I don't blame her for not running for POTUS.

But she knows that can do more in the Senate for the economic policies that she champions than she could as POTUS, showing a greater wisdom than some of her more ambitious peers in the Senate.

[Hortensis]

83. You're right, of course. The virulent enmity of Wall Street

toward Warren was both an indication of a ferocious ability to achieve change that the candidate she
couldn't endorse never began to match and also an indication of why she chose not to run for president. She was also a woman...

Hillary was also, of course, and was also loathed for her progressive ideology, plans for putting business back on regulatory leashes, and using taxation to attack economic inequality. I would have loved those two powerhouses on our ticket. Wonder if she'd be VP now if she'd been the designated attack dog whose job was to spike the attacks and lies that turned out to come from every direction? Sigh...

I'm also very glad Elizabeth's in the Senate at least. Enemies of progressive government haven't taken her out.

[Wounded Bear]

2. I'm glad the party is finally moving back to the left...

Bernie should probably stay in his Senate seat.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

3. Riiiight, after leading Democrats on all these issues... sure thing!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[Wounded Bear]

4. Thanks for sharing, but I don't do 2020 speculation yet...

Perhaps my definition of "leading" is a bit different from yours.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. Definitely.

[BannonsLiver]

5. Leading?

[R B Garr]

7. Using...

[George II]

46. Following

[ehrnst]

68. Yep, following. (nt)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

13. Yes, leading with a vengeance... the results speak for themselves.

[LanternWaste]

42. After This, Therefor Because of This.

After This, Therefor Because of This.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

55. Before, during, and after... Bernie 24/7/365!!

[stevenleser]

149. That went right over your interlocutor's head. nt

[George II]

61. Can you name a few?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

84. For example, from the first three lines of the article...

"Democrats across the board are embracing the policies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Medicare for all, legal marijuana and free college"

[George II]

89. That's not to say that the article is correct in saying that....

Democrats have been advocating for a form of "Medicare for all" since 1943, several states have a form of free college tuition. In fact the founder of my college way back in 1859 established a trust to provide free tuition for every student for approximately 150 years.

These aren't revolutionary policies, and others been advocating them for decades (if not > a century), and some have succeeded.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

92. Oh okay... you might want to take that up with the Washington Post.

[George II]

102. The Wash Post didn't say he was "leading with a vengeance....the results speak for themselves"...

...you did. So what are these results of which you speak?

Do we have free college tuition? No.
Do we have Medicare for all? No.
Is marijuana legal (assuming you mean under Federal law)? No.

[Docreed2003]

101. That'd be a big NO....just saying! Nt

[ehrnst]

70. Can you be specific about the "results" you are referring to?

Examples?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

85. For example, from the first three lines of the article...

"Democrats across the board are embracing the policies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Medicare for all, legal marijuana and free college"

[ehrnst]

108. You mean results like Sanders embraced the policies of HRC in the form of his

most recent free college proposal that requires the wealthy to pay?

Or Sanders embracing the policies of Ted Kennedy and Harry Truman on single payer?

Or Sanders embracing HRC's proposal that $10 an hour would be something that he would work toward (once Trump was in office) but claimed it was "not enough" when she proposed it?

[Eliot Rosewater]

126. I dont think explaining the truth about where the ideas come from will work.

I havent seen any evidence that people with a predetermined position in their heads will change their position.

But by all means NEVER stop doing it, who knows, maybe someday people will wake up!

[sunRISEnow]

130. I think more than anything, it is continually repeating fact, out loud.

So that opposition cannot take ownership in a false story. Too many gullible people, too many stupid people, too many people that are creating false realities because of agenda, purposely. I think this may be the messaging we Democrats need to do, take a position on a continual cycle of fact. Continually state fact so the false story cannot gain the energy and ground and be created like, Trump was sent from god as our savior, clearly seeing the immorality of the very person Trump is and has always been.

I think this is where the Democratic Party has to really fine tune and stay on top of. Bots are here. World wide.

[ehrnst]

147. Indeed. (nt)

[disillusioned73]

112. Exactly..

you will get a lot of push back on this truth..

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

116. That's okay, they're the ones who deserve push back. By their ridiculous logic...

MLK was not a "leader" because there were many others who came before him calling for civil rights. Now, I'm definitely not saying Bernie is the MLK of his time - far from it - just simply using MLK as an example of how silly some people here sound.

OTOH, Bernie, as the most popular politician among potential 2020 presidential candidates, having come from 60 points behind to almost win in 2016, while taking ZERO dollars in dirty money from corporations - yes, Bernie was THE leader on that issue also, now that Kamala, Elizabeth, Booker, Gillibrand, and others have jumped on that "Bernie Bandwagon" - has a MEGAphone based on that popularity and is CLEARLY a leader on many issues that no one has been even close to popularizing the way Bernie has.

People's unwillingness to recognize this simple fact is sad, given the influence Bernie has had in advancing progressive issues. Indeed, the New York Times, Washington Post, and other media outlets recognize the influence Bernie has had in pulling the Democratic Party to the left - thank goodness!! - but, nooooo, ANYONE can do THAT!!... certainly doesn't require a "leader." Yeah, riiiiight!!!

[disillusioned73]

117. Pretzel logic is just

not worth the effort.. for me anyway, and yes MLK is a perfect example.. his quote says it best;

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr 16 April 1963

Sound familiar?? "A more convenient season".. the rainbows & unicorns are coming home to roost..

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

120. You got that right! That's just the typical Bernie bashing schtick to which we've become accustomed.

[KPN]

142. That was an awesome post.

[sunRISEnow]

119. This post is akin to God sending a bird down to land on Bernie's podium as a message from him.

[KPN]

141. Yes it is sad. The only credit he gets from some here

is bad credit. That's okay. He has had a huge effect in the past 3 or 4 years -- I think largely because he has been consistently speaking up and saying the same things for virtually his entire career. Most people don't question his motives.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

155. Yes, your points are well taken... we just have to keep reminding ourselves of that.

[lapfog_1]

6. Bernie will turn 79 before the 2020 election.

This is not "looking forward".

For the same reason I do not want to see Hillary or Elizabeth or even Joe (who was my favorite in 2007 before Obama came along and engineered an insurgency).

Time for us to pass the torch to a younger generation.

60 may be the new 50... but 80 is not the new 50.

Don't get me wrong, I love Hillary and Elizabeth and Joe and I even like Bernie... but it is now time for them to all step aside and become "elder states-people" of the party (well, Bernie would have to join the party, but yeah... )

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

12. Why the ageism?!

[Demsrule86]

24. I think 79 is too old myself.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. If someome who's older is showin signs of slowing down, like some candidates have in the past...

then, perhaps, you have a point.

[Uncle Joe]

32. I agree InAbLuEsTaTe,

people age differently.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

35. Yup, it's not like you see Bernie stumbling around like an old man.

[Demsrule86]

161. I have seen older members of my family very alert one day and in the the throes of dementia

in a matter of days or even hours. I think we dodged a bullet with Reagan who undoubtedly was suffering from Alzheimer's in his second term. I just don't think an 80 year old president is a good thing...and I have doubts whether such a person could be elected.

[lapfog_1]

44. Having now reached "late middle age" or "early old age" myself

I do not believe that anyone, no matter how "young at heart" they might be, should be in this position that requires 12 to 16 hour days, being present and attentive in many long meetings, getting woken up for that 3am phone call, etc.

Trump is proving my point, as did Reagan in his last 4 years.

Look at photos of ALL recent modern age Presidents as they entered office and as they left office... the job takes it out of you.

It is NOT ageism. There are some jobs that someone nearly 80 should not be doing. Not to mention that we need to appeal to all ages, not just college kids and old people.

[honest.abe]

99. We have lower age limits on candidates for POTUS..

we should also have higher age limits.

[ehrnst]

109. Not ageism - science

Individuals vary, but statistically, Seventy is about when age related health and cognitive issues begin to present.

Men usually present before women.

POTUS is a very stressful position - physically and mentally. Eighty hours a week if they are actually doing the job, with a lot of travel overseas.

That's why medical checkups are made public.

To call any concern with those very real issues "ageism" isn't very informed on aging and/or the job of POTUS.

[George II]

74. You folks keep saying things like that, but when asked can't be specific. Why?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

88. Huh? The first three lines from the article are but a few exemples...

"Democrats across the board are embracing the policies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Medicare for all, legal marijuana and free college"

[George II]

91. That sentence is not necessarily true. Many have embraced those policies long before Sanders....

....ever mentioned them.

You said "leading".

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

95. Tell that to the Washington Post...news to me that someone can't be a leader on an issue if others

embraced that issue sometime in the past. The things you learn here!!

[George II]

98. So you think he's "leading" on a policy that had already been introduced and discussed? So....

....how would you describe the person that preceded him?

[KPN]

156. Its not uncommon for good ideas to come

from individuals who are not leaders in virtually any arena. Leader does not equal being the first to pose an idea.

[ehrnst]

110. You stated that "results" were that others "embraced" their policies.

I think you leave out where Bernie "embraced" others' policies.

And a headline does not a "leader" make.

I recall that a drug importation amendment that Amy Klobuchar actually introduced became "Bernie Sanders' amendment" once he announced he had "embraced" it.

Does that mean he was "leading" Amy Klobuchar?

[ucrdem]

8. Which revolution?

The one that thought pulling out of the TPP was a great idea, or the one that refuses to acknowledge that the PPACA is a popular program that isn't going to vanish anytime soon?

[wonkwest]

9. He has a solid role to play in the conversation

Especially when we discuss who we are as a party and what kinds of policies we want to pursue in the future. Until we have legislative power and Republicans lose the presidency, much of what we'd like to do won't happen. But as long as we have politicians out there hammering our ideals and our intentions and goals, we have a much stronger foundation to work from and something concrete for voters to take with themselves into the booth.

Take, for instance, the number and kinds of Democratic senators who are now on record for single payer. Kamala Harris, a young front-runner for 2020 and no political dummy, is now on record for it. We have major, major presidential potentials pushing it.

This is a big deal.

And people like Sanders have been out there pushing hard for it. Bernie has used his spotlight well.

Prominent people on our side out there pushing for the things we have long desired? I'm all for that. I'm delighted that, after a long, gradual slump to the right, our party is now being tugged to the left once again. I don't care who or what or why. Just as long as it's happening.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

14. How dare you say anything positive about Bernie?! /sarcasm

[LanternWaste]

43. The pretense of oppression is fetching.

The pretense of oppression is fetching, yet without merit.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

53. Riiight

[QC]

56. Posting something twice doesn't make it true or interesting.

Posting something twice doesn't make it true or interesting.

[Demsrule86]

27. That doesn't matter. In order to get Medicare for all ...you need a 60 majority...we

are likely decades away from this...you can pass a public option with 51 votes. Let's shore up the ACA and add a public option...we will eventually arrive at universal healthcare. The same reason the Clinton healthcare bill failed is why we won't get medicare for all any time soon...too many people still get insurance through work. Also, it would require a huge tax increase. Americans hate taxes. We can fund a public option for those in states that can't get the medicaid expansion or may those over 55 by raising SS limits. Sen. Sanders ideas are grand no doubt but not doable as things stand today and not in the near future.

[wonkwest]

41. There's nothing wrong with articulating our goals

I don't think we should be afraid of expressing where we'd like to eventually be. Of course I don't expect Medicare for all in the near future. We're probably at least a decade out from it, if not more. But if we don't say "We're the party who believes medical care is a human right," then who will be?

It's like JFK and the Moon. He said, "We need to go there." It was a daring proposal. It was a commitment he and NASA made to the American people. It took time, it took steps, it took detours. But we did get there, and all the while politicians were out there pushing for us to get there.

JFK didn't go, "Let's just do some satellites for now. It's all we can manage in the next four years."

It's so defeating to think that way. It doesn't inspire anyone. It doesn't invest anyone. It doesn't ask anyone to join us in a great endeavor.

It lacks vision.

We need some vision. Especially in this dark Trumpian age.

[Demsrule86]

159. I say we push for something that can actually happen...overpromising is a problem.

A public option and an improved ACA is attainable...medicare for all is not for sometime to come.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Sanders supported a "public option" as part of Obamacare.

He even voted for Obamacare without it. Right now we need Democrats advocating for what we really believe in in order for the public to really believe in Democrats. When it gets down to horse trading and counting votes, that is when adjustments are made to get needed reforms across the finish line.

Many Democrats, including some in Congress who supported Hillary over Bernie, are embracing "Medicare for all" right now because (among other things) it is an increasingly popular position to take with the general public. This type of advocacy in a necessary preliminary step, laying the groundwork for a day when it will politically be possible. That day can be sooner than you think. The Right in America long ago realized that voices crying out in the wilderness one decade can be implementing their prior "fringe" policies the next decade if they cry often, loud, and convincingly enough. Meanwhile by Democrats moving the margin for acceptable debate further to the "left" on health care, I think that makes it more, not less, likely that a public option can become a short term bridge to obtaining full single payer.

[Demsrule86]

160. We waited over a 100 years for health care...lets secure the ACA and improve it by adding a public

option. It isn't about fringe or non-fringe...it is about what is possible. I consider it something of a miracle that we got the ACA in the first place (thanks Nancy Pelosi) and that thus far we have saved it ...the ACA should be the issue to run on in 18.

[Uncle Joe]

34. Good post wonkwest

[Orsino]

107. When any Dems get too comfortable with big-ass donors...

...any voices willing to say, "Remember, thou art mortal" are welcome. It doesn't mean that these voices have to lead us, and it doesn't mean that Sanders has to be The One. What he and his supporters, of whom I was one, accomplished in 2016 was healthy for the party, nation and world.

But Sanders didn't want to stay a Democrat, and shouldn't be allowed into our primaries again.

[KPN]

157. Well said. With you 1000% on all of that.

[msongs]

15. there needs to be a real democrat running for sander's senate seat nt

[sunRISEnow]

16. That would be ironic. Run another party that will pull votes and Bernie likely losing his seat.

Certainly would send the message of might to Bernie, anyway. He has been holding the party hostage doing exactly this, with out nationwide primaries. A little tit for tat. That might be the answer since Bernie does not seem to want to play nice.

[disillusioned73]

114. Yeah..

remember this guy..

[tonedevil]

17. Good luck with that...

in the past Senator Sanders has won the Democratic primary and declined the nomination. Then he runs as an Independent and when he wins he caucuses with the Senate Democrats. I doubt there will be much change in that scenario, I hope that meets with your approval.

[sunRISEnow]

18. 1991 the Democratic Party and Bernie agreed the Democratic Party would not run a viable candidate

against him and he would caucus with the Democrats. It is a matter of the Democratic Party no longer honoring that agreement.

[tonedevil]

19. Then I'm sure...

you are correct and he will never be able to win the seat for another term.

[sunRISEnow]

20. I am correct about the agreement the Democratic Party and Bernie came to in 1991.

That is well documented. As far as the rest, I do not get your point. But, we have read plenty about Bernie asking the Democratic Party to not run a viable candidate against him, and he would in turn, vote with Democratic leadership.

[tonedevil]

21. Great...

he is going to continue to be the junior Senator from Vermont.

[sunRISEnow]

22. Fine. So?

[tonedevil]

23. You seem to think...

there is a chance it will go otherwise. Or maybe I misread the part about the Democratic party no longer honoring the agreement to hold back their candidate in exchange for Senator Sanders caucusing with them.

[sunRISEnow]

25. I think the senate run would be affected if an effort was put forth to run against Bernie. Yes.

[tonedevil]

28. You may well be correct...

although I would say it is more likely that you and I will get hit simultaneously by lightening. Regardless your anger the Democratic leadership doesn't show the aversion to Senator Sanders that you and many here on this board do. I like him as a Senator, but my opinion on that isn't particularly valuable as I vote in California.

[sunRISEnow]

30. Anger? Would this be gas-lighting?

[tonedevil]

33. How so? /nt

[R B Garr]

26. I'm still wondering why the hell Bernie thought he had to malign

MY Senator, Dianne Feinstein by saying he wouldn't endorse her. Who cares! He's in Vermont, clear across the country in a tiny little state. Who does he think he is attacking Democrats. It's gotten way out of hand. So what if someone challenges his seat. If a Democrat is elected in Vermont, they can caucus with Democrats, too.

[tonedevil]

31. So what indeed...

if someone challenges him for the seat I'm pretty sure he will still prevail and caucus with the Democrats in the Senate. While you may not find him to be your cup of tea he seems to be in pretty tight with Democratic leadership.

[R B Garr]

38. He doesn't get to hold Democrats hostage and attack them just

because 200,000 people who vote in Vermont like him. Dianne Feinstein is supported by literally tens of millions in California and has been for decades. Imagine if Democratic Senators openly called for Bernie to be voted out. Just imagine...

[tonedevil]

40. OK

[George II]

47. In 2012:

Sanders got 207,000 votes
Feinstein got 7,864,624 votes

[wonkwest]

57. To be fair, the California Democratic Party didn't endorse her either

And De Leon got more votes at the convention.

So is the entire party maligning her or just Sanders?

Full disclosure: I'm voting for De Leon in the primary. He's closer to my views and values, and he could easily win in November. Also, I just get weirded out when politicians hold on to power for so long in a democracy. After awhile, the politician owes so many people so many favors, it feels like constituent concerns get lost in the process along the way. All you need observe is the massive war chests incumbents build up for their campaigns. That money doesn't come without strings. And that money is meant to intimidate and eliminate challengers to the donors' interest in the politician.

But, that's just me. Other people may feel differently.

If it's Feinstein vs. a Republican, then of course Feinstein.

[R B Garr]

97. No. Bernie is her peer. How totally arrogant and out of touch

to think he has any stake in telling California voters to turn on a Democratic Senator they voted for just so he can have something for the Revolution to crow about. I can't even imagine if Feinstein treated him the same way -- actually, I hope that she would, but she is too distinguished for that. Imagine Feinstein or another senior Senator telling Bernie it's time for him to go retire. Just absolutely disgusting and a huge insight into his character and his self-serving double standards.

We all know about that business with the California Democratic party. Most of those "votes" were the Revolution types -- remember their candidate LOST the voting for control of the party, so who cares about their sour grapes.

Bernie has held on to power, too, so you must not be supporting him this election since he's held on too long. Let's not be hypocrites.

Let's not be hypocrites about money/elections/transparency, either. Let Bernie show his taxes and reconcile his own campaign war chest, including a Vermont paper's revelations about the source of his own donations before he accuses anyone else.

[wonkwest]

100. I see where you're coming from

It feels a bit like you're referencing a certain article or sentiment, so I tried googling a bit more about Sanders and Feinstein. I came up with this article, but it's the Hill, so you know, salt mines and whatnot:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/377619-sanders-wont-endorse-feinstein

I will note, Sanders' comments and lack of endorsement came after the state party also didn't endorse her. So, he wasn't speaking prematurely and out of turn. He was going along with what the state party had already determined. And remember, Feinstein didn't just kind of lose the convention's endorsement. The vote was 54-37% in favor of de Leon. Given that, is his lack of endorsement really a radical, Revolutionary thing? He went along with the California Democratic Party's decision. He literally said, “It’s an issue for the people of California." So I don't quite get the vitriol. Did he say something else? I'm genuinely asking here.

However, where you and I agree is - who really cares what someone out of state thinks? I like Sanders, but his opinion has zero bearing on my choices here. I'm going to vote for whoever I feel best represents my, my family's, my community's, and my state's interests.

It would actually be really funny if Our Revolution endorsed de Leon. The guy isn't exactly anti-establishment. He's the most powerful person in the state senate for pete's sake. If they do endorse him over Feinstein, then you'd know they're just flinging shit just because.

Power too long. Bernie's running for his third term probably. Feinstein has already served four and a half terms. If left to my own devices, we'd limit senators to two terms. 12 years is quite enough of power. I can see and argue about three, but three would be about my limit. I would not exempt Sanders from that. Even though I like him, I have zero interest in him running for president in 2020, very much based on those grounds. Give me more Harrises, damnit. I want some O'Malleys up in here. We need overturn. Calcification of power is the bane of democracy.

By the way, I agree with you about his taxes. I find the lack of disclosure frankly weird. For all of his rhetoric - and I do think he's genuine - his lack of disclosure is just dissonant with his message. I keep wondering what's going on there. Another reason I'd rather he'd not in 2020.

But I'm a Kamalite (hee! sounds like a species of nun!)

[R B Garr]

104. Spare me. Sorry, but this is just more dressed up double-speak

meant to downplay the already known goals of his Revolution. Who cares if the California Democratic Party that his been infiltrated by his fans want to perpetuate some stale talking points about longevity in office as if that automatically means only Dianne Feinstein has been corrupted and not Bernie. Really? California is literally MILLIONS ahead in population and every which way.

Bernie is her peer. He lost California two years ago. It certainly was out of turn for him to say he won't endorse her. What an arrogant position for him to take. Quit trying to pretend that people can't see and hear what he says. We don't need any decoder rings to figure out that he is trying to advance his image for his revolution.

Again, she is a California Senator, not a Senator of a few people in the California Democratic Party, so who cares that they have sour grapes that his revolution people lost in their own internal election.

Bernie has been in power for decades and his whole career as an adult has been in government, so he's had enough power, too. Imagine if California Senators told him to go away and retire. He seems to like the power, though, as he's not happy staying in his lane in Vermont. He wants to tell California Senators they are too old. It's really arrogant.

[wonkwest]

105. I think your animosity precludes further discussion

So, I'll simply say - I disagree with you. You reeeeeeally dislike the man on a visceral level. I'm more positive/neutral. I don't want him to run for President.

But I'll not agree with the characterizations you're laying down here. So, assuming de Leon and Feinstein are our two in November, best of luck. Either way, we're not Republicans =)

[R B Garr]

106. LOL, this works both ways. It is obvious the pattern

is to make it personal about the poster rather than any acknowledgement on your part that these are Bernie’s failed talking points and people have this all figured out and don’t like being manipulated.

Look how the adversarial competition between de Leon and Feinstein is being set up here already — you are the one with the animosity.

Look at the double standards — Dianne Feinstein is too old and corrupt simply because she has been in office, but Bernie is not too old or corrupt and he’s been in government his whole life. It’s a shame this divisiveness is fostered by the Revolution.

Welcome to DU.

[underthematrix]

128. I'm in California too and I'm voting for Feinstein. Years ago, I met Senator Feinstein

at several events. They were not political. I don't care who gives her money. She really is an old time straight arrow Democrat. She doesn't bribery and corruption. DeLeon is an excellent candidate too.

[Ace Rothstein]

36. Nah, it would be a waste of money and resources.

[JCanete]

49. and wouldn't we be so much better off....good god. Its really too bad all of our democratic

Presidential hopefuls are finally promoting big progressive changes as part of their platforms...if we could only roll things back to a simpler time.

[sunRISEnow]

52. They already were. Now, a small faction is taking ownership of it.

[ehrnst]

69. Yep. Hillary's platform seems to have been forgotten. Or willfully ignored. (nt)

[JCanete]

94. I could point to plenty of obvious examples that have all arisen post 2016 of

positions taken by Booker, Harris, Gillibrand, etc.

[sunRISEnow]

118. I have perused the thread and see plenty have supplied facts for you.

[R B Garr]

133. It's always that way. nt

[disillusioned73]

113. lol.. go for it

[ismnotwasm]

37. "His ideas "

[George II]

48. ...

[JCanete]

50. He was at the forefront of pushing for them when it was deemed politically dangerous for others to

do so...so he gets some credit here.

[Blue_true]

76. Wrong. Universal healthcare and low tuition college have been around since the sixties.

When the Clintons came to Washington in 1992, they tried for universal healthcare and got beaten up by pundits and republicans. They also pushed for free or affordable college that was delivered in proportion to a family's level of wealth (poorer kids got free or low tuition, rich kids had to pay more of their way). The revision that I see from some is both blinding and enraging.

[JCanete]

82. and where has it been for the last 15 years.

[Blue_true]

86. People have been working to get it.

The ideas are not new and we're here before Bernie.

[JCanete]

93. You can't simply work to get these things behind the scenes. When you do that, then somebody

comes out and advocates for it and HALF of the people here at progressive DU say "UNICORNS!". You have to make it part of the platform. You have to run on it...or wait for others to run on it I guess. It has to be part of the public discourse. The only way something is seen as politically feasible is if politicians are actually doing this. Otherwise it really is just a fantasy.

[sheshe2]

77. No you are giving him all the credit.

50. He was at the forefront of pushing for them when it was deemed politically dangerous for others to


do so...so he gets some credit here.

You are saying two different things here....That he was at the forefront of pushing for them...then say so he gets some credit here.

No other member matters, just Bernie. BS supporters always list BS in the titles of threads where a dozen or more DEMOCRATS are doing the same thing and mentioned as an after thought.

…………………………………….

I for one hate to see my late Senator Teddy given a last row seat over Bernie.

The Top 10 Ted Kennedy Legislations


Edward M. Kennedy's legacy. The major votes he participated in, bills Ted Kennedy passed and more. This is my tribute to the lion of the Senate. This memorial for Ted Kennedy can't even begin to do his legislative legacy justice, but as talk begins to turn to who will replace Senator Kennedy, I hope this helps serve as a guide to what he and his seat came to stand for.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

The State Children's Health Insurance Program

The Mental Health Parity Act

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

The Civil Rights Act of 1991

The Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971

National Cancer Act of 1971

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

https://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-ted-kennedy-legislations/litgoddess


....................................

Please show me a progressive agena and ACCOMPLISHMENTS and not just promises that Bernie has done that will come close to what Teddy did.

[Blue_true]

87. There is no answer for your post.

They act like the sun rises and sets with Bernie, when in fact most of the stuff he talks about, people have been ACTUALLY working on for more than 40 years.

[sheshe2]

154. Thanks, Blue_true.

[JCanete]

90. why would you put no child left behind on there? That was pretty unfortunate.

And lets be clear, I'm not talking about the Democratic party historically. I'm mostly talking about the last 15 years. So many people deserve credit for moving us forward or trying, but the lesson Clinton learned from taking the first hit for advocating for single payer was to back away from it and I can't think of something she's really stuck her neck out on, policy wise, since. She still gets massive credit from me for doing that initially. Michael Moore's Sicko had a huge impact on the discourse later...etc. etc.

Also, Sanders promoting these policies is not him sticking his neck out...or not any more at least. He's entrenched. He's safe in Vermont. so I recognize that he has the privilege of remaining a seated Senator and promoting issues that are unpopular with the oligarchy. But because of that he hasn't shut up, nor been shut up about these issues, and so yes, he deserves credit for being the very public face of ushering a lot of these ideas into the public discourse in the current climate.

those Democrats who are now coming around because these issues are no longer foreign to the American voter and because there is enough of a counterbalance of public will on the progressive side for them to promote and craft some of these ideas into workable legislation also deserve a pat on the back for keeping this momentum going.

[Blue_true]

96. The way Kennedy wanted it structured, yes.

No Child Left Behind is a perfect example of what happens when republicans hold the most power. Kennedy regularly tutored underprivileged kids (yes he did, a US Senator took the time to sit with a kid and tutor that kid).

In No Child Left Behind as Kennedy envisioned it, the types of kids that he was tutoring would get involved teachers and modern classrooms with the federal government insuring uniform standards for all kids. Republicans had power and delivered a half shit sandwich, Kennedy had to choice to vote for a half shit sandwich or get an extra heavy shit sandwich (nothing AND reduced funding for some schools, mostly the ones that needed money). He took the half shit sandwich because that was the best he could get. HIW DID BERNIE VOTE ON NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND? He was in Congress when it was voted on.

What happened with NCLB is why we need to work to get rid of republicans instead of fight eachother. Once we have buried republicans, we can have a discussion about how far to go. Any other route insures constant setbacks.

[Blue_true]

71. That claim almost made me throw up also.

Any democrat worth his or her salt will approve universal healthcare and low tuition, affordable college in a heartbeat. Those ideas were here long before Bernie.

[luc mont]

39. I Most Certainly Hope HE DOES NOT

If being a Democrat is 'beneath' him, he can fuck off!

[Thekaspervote]

51. Agree! Bernie has great ideas, little or no ability to deliver on them

[QC]

54. Has anybody seen Wwcd around lately? n/t

[George II]

58. Yes. Why do you ask?

[sheshe2]

81. A swing and a miss.

Transparency is transparent, is it not George?


So clever, not.

Hey George, good to see you.

[mcar]

59. How nice of you to ask

[sheshe2]

60. I talk to her everyday.

What's up, you sound concerned. Did you think something happened to her? I assure you she is just fine and posting as always.

[George II]

67. I heard somewhere that she went out for a couple of drinks with KTM the other night.

[sheshe2]

78. dayum.

Wish I could have joined them. LOL~

[The Polack MSgt]

63. Is this intended as a threat to a new poster?

I doubt they know who WWCD is, so this is pretty cryptic.


If it is just intended as a victory strut, it is not cryptic enough

[sheshe2]

65. Boom!

[ehrnst]

66. +1000 (nt)

[George II]

72. Some people, eh?

[sheshe2]

64. Oh wait I understand now why you directed your response to a new poster.

I see what you did.


Not nice at all.

[Cha]

79. Yes, why?

[Me.]

103. Actually

Wwcd and I had a good about ....things

[Wwcd]

121. 😎

[The Polack MSgt]

124. Welcome Home Wwcd!

[Wwcd]

127. Well, hello to you too Polack MSgt !

[sheshe2]

150. Hey!

[Eliot Rosewater]

125. The GOOD people cant be kept down forever!

[Wwcd]

129. Yes Eliot, the good "Persist"

Thank you Hillary !

[R B Garr]

132. Awesome!!

Hello hello hello!

[Wwcd]

134. Hey RB! 🥂

I've been busy prioitizing my campaign donation list for this year. There a a lot of fine well organized groups out there.

Pools are open in my community now so that's always a plesant daily trip.

Been digging in to my twitter favs & keeping my gardens weeded & watered.

Will be revisiting our favorite Fla beach with family later in July.
This was last summer & happy to be heading back there this year again.


How ya doing..any summer plans yet?

Yaa Summer!

[R B Garr]

158. Beautiful plans, great pic, Wwcd!

One of these days, we'll have to go to Florida and check out the beaches there. We're on opposite coastlines, but we get around all over here. We just went last month and spent the night in San Diego for my hubby's B/Day. Went to a great steakhouse in La Jolla and then went whale watching. It was the end of the season and all we saw was a bunch of dolphins. Fun, though.

Probably this summer we'll at least do one of our trips up the California coastline. We take Amtrak from Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo and then rent a car and drive up to Monterey on Pacific Coast Highway. Gorgeous. One of the top 10 drives in the world according to a lot of travel sites. The only huge bummer is that the Bixby Bridge has been closed and the fires closed some roads indefinitely, and we haven't checked if they're reopened. It's been a few years since we went to the Monterey Aquarium, so we're due for another trip inside there. Usually we go up to San Francisco from there. One year we went to Bodega Bay where they filmed the movie, The Birds. Took a selfie picture with Alfred Hitchcock (a wax statue outside a store, lol).

Today I went to the dentist across town and went to a few shops over there that I like and then a 2-hour drive home in L.A. traffic.

So good to see you. Let us know about your campaign picks. Love your posts!

[ehrnst]

139. Hello!

[Wwcd]

143. ☺🥂

Hello!

[Gothmog]

140. Hi

[Wwcd]

144. Hello to you too 🥂

[NastyRiffraff]

146. Good to see you here, Wwcd!

I understand someone was concerned about you.

[Wwcd]

148. IKR! Ya know NR, its always nice to be so well thought of.

Thanks ALL of you for your kind 'thoughts & prayers'!

[NurseJackie]

122. Stand by...

[SidDithers]

123. Yer doin' it wrong...nt

Sid

[JustAnotherGen]

131. Yeah

Just this morning.

ETA - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10628976

Looks like they were just on. Send them a PM!

[NastyRiffraff]

145. Well, see there you go!

Ask and you shall receive, because you're special.

[ucrdem]

162. He's feeling the beefaroni

[NastyRiffraff]

163. Hooray!

[lapucelle]

164. Yes.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10631379

[NurseJackie]

75. Many people share your feelings.

[sheshe2]

80. Welcome to DU, luc.

I mean that sincerely. I am sorry for your rocky entrance to DU. This place can be cra...just take your time and have some fun, yeah you will have some fights too...however there are some very good people here and hell we have 2018 to fight for.

[Hortensis]

115. Chill and welcome. :) DEMOCRATS lead the "revolution,"

as Sanders calls his power-seeking attempts to peel support away instead of, you know, actually working together to achieve progressive goals.

There are True Believers out there, of course, but most of these sorts of articles push these themes because divisiveness and dramatization sell and authors have bills to pay just like everyone else.

Understand the market for this stuff has become very large and lucrative.

COUNTDOWN TO REGAINING POWER, STATES AND FEDERAL: 171 days.

[Wwcd]

135. K & R your post.

[Hortensis]

136. Oh, hi there. :)

[Wwcd]

137. ☺🍃

[disillusioned73]

111. So, there has been an affect..

buuuuutt... lol

honestly, this site can't have an honest conversation about this issue.. so why bother

[Blue_Tires]

138. Why would Sanders lead it?

In which weirdo alternate dimension would an *independent* get to lead a political party?

[PubliusEnigma]

151. It's clear that Sanders is not a Democrat.

[DFW]

152. This has never been and never will be "free" college

Unless someone knows a team of college professors, presidents, maintenance staff, booksellers, utilities, etc, who will donate their services for free, there is no such thing as free college. There is taxpayer-funded college and there is tuition-funded/donation-funded college. It is about as easy to provide free college as it it to grow food without water.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

153. HRC won.

If HRC doesn't run again, then Bernie can take a hike. He had his chance and he blew it. Not only that but he talks shit about D's. Whether he votes w us or not...Im Bernie Busted and good and fucking sick of hearing about him. Proven loser.
Eric Swalwell...Adam Schiff....Eliz Warren....Kamala Harris.....Tied of rehashing this stupid shit with Bernie or Busters. It didn't work last time, regardless of the cornucopia of great ideas. This is a DEMOCRATIC FORUM. Bernie needs to switch parties or stand away from from the Democratic National Support System.