General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTIME Newsmaker Interview: Bernie Sanders Says He’d Make a Better President Than Hillary Clinton
TIME Newsmaker Interview: Bernie Sanders Says He’d Make a Better President Than Hillary Clinton
Jay Newton-Small / Washington @JNSmall
March 5, 2014
With his white hair in characteristic disarray, Sen. Bernie Sanders is slouching on the couch in his office on the third floor of the Senate Dirksen Office Building between two brass-eagle themed lamps. His left foot is propped on the coffee table in front of him. But the Vermont Independent, and self-described socialist, is no slouch. He’s a man who has achieved a series of improbable victories and who is setting his sights on the toughest yet victory of his long career: the White House.
“When I first ran for office statewide in Vermont, I got two percent of the vote. I ran again, I got 1 percent of the vote. So, last election I got 71 percent of the vote,” Sanders tells TIME in an exclusive interview. “We need candidates who are prepared to represent the working families of this country, who are prepared to stand up to the big money interests, who are prepared to support an aggressive agenda to expand the middle class. And I am prepared to be that candidate. If there are other candidates who come forward who can do it better than me, that’s fine. I don’t again wake up with a burning ambition to be President of the United States.”
Sanders, who is the longest-serving Independent in congressional history, would have to officially register as a Democrat before he could run in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. But he says he hasn’t yet made up his mind for sure if he’ll run, and he has time yet. One thing he is sure of: He’d make a better President than Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, he says, “is a very, very intelligent person, no question about it. But, I don’t know what her political future is, whether she’s going to run. I don’t know what she’s going to say. But, if you talk about the need for a political revolution in America, it’s fair to say that Secretary Clinton probably will not be one of the more active people.”
And a political revolution is exactly what Sanders believes this country is crying out for: “What we need is a political revolution in which grassroots America—and that is primarily working people who are fighting for their lives right now economically—have got to come together to make everybody understand that we are the majority of the American people and not the Koch brothers and not Sheldon Adelson, and not the other billionaires today who have huge influence over the economic and political life of the nation. And that’s not easily done. It’s easier to talk about it than do it.”
more...
http://time.com/13328/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-2016/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NightWatcher
(39,376 posts)No one is getting into any higher office today, or from now on, without being a part of the machine.
I'll vote for Hillary if she gets the nom, but I would be such a better Prez.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)be supporting him as he IS a Democrat who still supports Democratic policies. No way with that choice would it be possible for many Democrats NOT to support him. Otherwise they are simply putting their party before their country imo.
NightWatcher
(39,376 posts)The nomination process is where we fight it out, but when the party has a nominee and it's them or a repuke, we've got to vote Dem.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...then you presumably WANT him to be the nominee. In which case, how does a socialist who has never had a competitive election in a State with fewer voters than Washington DC win a national election?
aquart
(69,014 posts)General elections are about the party's choice. Never vote "electable" in the primary. You don't know who stands with you until you stand up.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)If you pick a candidate you believe can win the Primary, but you KNOW cannot win the General Election, you have chosen to increase the likelihood that the Republican will win instead. That is certainly you choice, but I'll take a candidate who agrees with me on 60% of my issues over a candidate who agrees with me on 100% but will achieve 0% by virtue of not getting elected.
aquart
(69,014 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)We're withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan; we have improved health care coverage and broader civil rights for gays; and taxes on the wealthy have gone up.
But I suppose we could have felt better by voting for Dennis Kucinich.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Eight more years of the same shit will see the ship sunk. So you vote the worse of evils and pat yourself on the back while the country sinks into plutocracy. Some use pragmatism as an excuse to not stand up for what they believe.
If HRC wins, she will probably make great strides for women's rights and other social issues. But I doubt she prevents another multi-trillion dollar bank bailout. How many bank bailouts will it take to push the middle class into poverty.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)has been acknowledged by Obama, but he has not suggested any remedy that will help right our course. That's why we need Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. We need a candidate who can speak to the serious economic divide in our country.
If we Democrats ignore that fissure, in 2020, we may see the growth of a popular movement that overtakes our party and replaces it. If not in 2020, then in 2024.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Now leave others to decide how they'll vote. We tire of the DLCers telling us how to be moderate, reasonable, adults who sit down and shut and take the "feel your pain" crumbs.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...I thought the notion of a political blog site was that we ALL shared our opinions, and sometimes they differed.
quakerboy
(14,866 posts)Can you say Kerry? McCain? Romney? They were all choices made primarily because they could "win the general election".
Electability is a myth. If they can win the primary, they can win the general. If they cant, then they are out till next time. fairly simple.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)And because he ran to the left of how he governs, we already know that a left-leaning politician IS electable!
Bernie's not a radical, by any stretch of the imagination.
Beacool
(30,517 posts)
quakerboy
(14,866 posts)You cant name a potential candidate that I cant paint as unelectable.
I think that "electability" is a myth.
I think that any candidate that the Democratic party comes together behind has a fair shot at winning a general election, putting aside voting irregularity and supreme court determined results.
Beacool
(30,517 posts)Sanders is a Socialist in his mid 70s. There's quite a difference, but if he wants to run he's welcome to give it a shot. As for the Democratic party, it won't rally behind Sanders. That's a pipe dream of the Left.
quakerboy
(14,866 posts)"What's the point of nominating someone who will in all likelihood not win next November? The Repugs are salivating at the thought of putting Obama through his paces. The "audacity of hope" and other platitudes are no match for the Republican machine.
...
I know that many on his board are very young and idealistic, but I want a Democrat to win the White House next November and I don't see Obama in the Oval office next year. Maybe in a few years when he's more seasoned and actually DOES have some gravitas."
You can use emoticons and indicate your disdain all you like. Fact is you were wrong then, and I fail to see any reason to believe your nearly identical predictions are suddenly foolproof now.
Bernie is a long shot for the nomination, that much I would agree with you on. Id rather he didn't run, myself. But I would certainly hope that the Democratic party would rally behind him if he gained the nomination.
Beacool
(30,517 posts)The point is that no party is going to choose as their nominee an avowed Socialist in his 70s.
I don't disdain him, but Obama was a historic candidate who caught the imagination of people and the media. I don't see that happening with Sanders.
quakerboy
(14,866 posts)the whole catching the imagination thing comes of being different, and if he were the nominee, he would ostensibly have the opportunity, and he certainly has the potential. Government as a tool for bettering people.. and not being afraid of that? Novel.
That said, I doubt the press would give him the opportunity.
But I dont see him as any worse a candidate than anyone else we have waiting in the wings. We really need some candidates to step up over the next couple years.
ReRe
(12,189 posts).... what makes you think he would be unelectable? He would make total mincemeat of every Democratic candidate in the pre-primary debates, and then any Republican in the general. IMHO 
Whisp
(24,096 posts)In every way.
I don't think Sanders has a real shot, but the Contrast between him and Hillary would be so stark another better player in the pool than Hillary could wedge in.
ReRe
(12,189 posts)... general election as a Democrat, as the "party bosses" would be sure he didn't. But then again, I didn't think PO could be elected in 2008 either and he did. Twice, now. (And I voted for him both times.)
Bernie would be a great President for the 99%. Damn, what a beautiful pipedream. 
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)poor people are being hurt by the immeasurable greed of a very tiny group of people in the US, by offering solutions that are consistent with the values of our country but that right the imbalance that is causing our economy to fall over and over.
ReasonableToo
(505 posts)I hope that does not come across as "agist". I'd worry about his health.
I would LOVE a younger Bernie Sanders as I consider myself a "Sanders Dem". I think the US is not worthy of Sanders.
Cheese4TheRat
(107 posts)RedstDem
(1,239 posts)the system likes your type.
go fetch!
BeyondGeography
(41,101 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)If that hasn't made his head explode, nothing will.
BeyondGeography
(41,101 posts)But you knew that. Bernie is a lovely man who is both too old and too principled for the White House.
cali
(114,904 posts)claim to know that Bernie's sheltered. I suspect he knows a fuckload more than you about it.
BeyondGeography
(41,101 posts)Later.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)many of our not-that-much-younger-actually leaders. I wonder about those who are supporting Bush's policies, I assumed anyone who supported his egregious policies was too out of it to be in positions of power and still do. Bernie's head appears to be very clear on what is GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY. I hope he does run.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)We need candidates who are willing to talk about the right ideas, not candidates who will massage their talking points to make it sound as if they've addressed pressing issues when all they've really done is side-step them.
The country needs someone willing to do service, not lip service.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)BG is saying that the life of a Representative or Senator is that of a "specialist" where he/she can pick and choose the issue that he/she wishes to address, or even focus on; whereas, that is not the life of a President.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)"too old"
and
"the life of a sheltered child"
So he's simultaneously too old and a child!
You've managed to be condescending, paternalistic and ageist in the same post!
dotymed
(5,610 posts)Truman was a butcher.
Ike was a General.
You say that the very best person in America for the job of POTUS has "lead the life of a sheltered child?" Perhaps that is a mirror, not the future you are looking in.
I have watched Senator Sanders fight for Americans for 30+ years. He is the most qualified, battle hardened, people first person that we could ever have as POTUS.
Rockyj
(538 posts)I will never vote for Hillary...
Samantha
(9,314 posts)but it is important to have a vice president who is extremely qualified to take over should that be necessary. Well, actually, that is important with each election, isn't it?
Sam
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And Bernie has been around far longer and fought many more fights and understands the issues much more than Obama when he became president. No one knows what they're really in for until they get there.
BeyondGeography
(41,101 posts)I was responding to a post that suggested being in Congress says something about being able to handle the stress of the presidency. It doesn't.
Obama's evident character and temperament gave many people the comfort level that he could handle the pressures of White House, much more than the fact that he had served in the Senate. On that score, you have to give his supporters high marks for prescience. Obama had also been through the ringer of Illinois state politics, which obviously prepared him (some might say over-prepared) to not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Sanders has all the integrity in the world and is no shrinking violet when criticized, but I don't look at him as someone who would naturally reconcile himself to dealing with the nihilistic opposition he would face as President, not to mention the back stabbing he would receive from his own party, who would stick it to the old socialist from Vermont from the get-go. Not many people could, in fact. On that score, I would give battle-hardened/scarred Hillary the edge. A big edge, in fact, especially when you consider the forces she could marshall in her favor, compared with someone whose national constituency doesn't reach far beyond these keyboards we are pounding away at.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Bernie has dealt with being a member of the small minority of rational Americans in the Senate.
He could handle the obstructionists from all parties quite well. He has been doing it for years. He has proved in the Senate that he can compromise with others.
Actually, Hillary is the one who has difficulty dealing with the fact that others do not always agree with her. She has quite a temper. Bernie has quite a sense of humor. I think Bernie is the best candidate on that character trait.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)prior to the 08 election as well? He was a sheltered child and we elected him, is this what you are pitching here. Obama was barely in the Senate, but before that he was in a State Senate, which would have to be like a Chuck E Cheese Playhouse version of the life of a sheltered child in the US Senate....
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Like the illegal shadow government. Like the expensive, massive surveillance and propaganda that we are subjected to 24-7-365.
LonePirate
(14,367 posts)
woodsprite
(12,582 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)no doubt; but that is but one area that Presidents must attend to.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I suspect that those burning the mid-night oil over Iraq, Afghanistan, the Ukraine, Korea, Iran, China, and all the other hotspots in the world, and/or are charged with this nation's peoples security would think differently.
And if you were honest, so would you.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)we have nothing much to go on.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)No reason that he couldn't use those traits to deal with any situation.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But recent presidents have involved themselves too much in foreign policy and ignored the terrible injustices here at home.
We just cannot continue with such class divisions, so much disparity in incomes between the richest and the poorest, between the Kochs and the homeless whose numbers seem to grow steadily year after year.
Only if we have justice at home, economic opportunity and a working safety net for all, only if we reduce the percentage of Americans who are incarcerated and deal with serious social conflicts, can we be really effective in our foreign policy. Obama understands what needs to be done in other countries, but, with the exception of the ACA (which still has a lot of problems), he has not been successful in changing the political culture at home. He has courted the rich, the Wall Street crooks, but not the working people.
And that is a shame, because Obama has the best personality of any president we have had since JFK. People love Obama as they loved JFK.
The areas in which Obama has excelled are working for equal rights for GLBT, attempting to make peace in troubled areas of the world and the ACA.
One criticism I have of Obama and Congress is what has been done to senior citizens. They threatened to reduce our Social Security. In fact, they have done it indirectly. The co-pays for Medicare have increased, especially for hospital stays. That is how the Obama administration and the Congress have put their hands in the pockets of seniors who rely for their income on Social Security. It's a shame when a democratic president backs policies that hurt the poorest amongst us.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)when he asked to be considered for the office he now holds. Was in the Senate for what, 2 years? Never in the House. Never in a post in the Executive Branch.
If the current President was qualified to run, Bernie is as well.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 6, 2014, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)
Who you had foreign policy concerns with as well.
That being said ... I would welcome a Sanders primary run, then I could hear his policy positions on the other ~70% of the job of President (just like I had to wait for the primaries to hear candidate Obama's positions.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He is a Senator, you know.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'm to vet a candidacy via visiting a website? As opposed to hear his policy positions ... from his mouth ... during the adversarial process of a primary?
Yeah ... Okay. That's how I buy my cars, too ... from the commercials on TV!
frylock
(34,825 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Who you had foreign policy concerns with as well.
That being said ... I would welcome a Sanders primary run, then I could hear his policy positions on the other ~70% of the job of President (just like I had to wait for the primaries to hear candidate Obama's positions.)
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)his Independent status. Given he's a Socialist, it would be interesting to see how many Dem elected officials would endorse him. I'm willing to bet there would be way, way too much red baiting and we would think we were back in the 50's.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Obama came into the presidency with significant policy differences, but until you are president you don't know where policy was heading before you got there and how long it has been going on.
A Sanders presidency would have surprising foreign policy shifts.
I do think he would shift down the MIC.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Bill Clinton and GW Bush were just governors when they became president. Obama was a less than one-term Senator.
Why do you automatically assume Sanders isn't also capable of growing into the job?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and I'm not.
As I have said, I would welcome Sanders as a primary candidate for the Democratic nomination so that I can hear his positions on the other ~70% of the job of the President.
That said ... I would, as a Democrat, have major issues, if Sanders were to pose a 3rd-Party run, as it would ensure a 2016 republican presidency ... and the world cannot afford that.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
neverforget
(9,513 posts)I'll plug my nose and vote for Hillary in the general if she were the nominee.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But he'll never get elected.
JAbuchan08
(3,046 posts)It comes true?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)disheveled old white guys with a strong New England accent don't win national elections.
It's not right, but it IS reality. I wish it weren't.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)So make up another excuse and back to us.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... And thanks for the clarification. Not that a Brooklyn accent is gonna go over any better.
But I stand by my assessment. If he runs and wins, I'll fly to wherever you are, buy you dinner and personally apologize.
If he manages to get the nomination, I will work very hard for him.
frylock
(34,825 posts)in national politics don't win national elections either, but here we are.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)and America, then you would support, work for and do everything possible to promote him, dispel all the smears that will take place.
IMO, all people who want a progressive America will.
I have waited a lifetime to vote for Senator Sanders and anyone who has proven themselves to be ALL IN for real Americans.
If we say "he can't", then .. he can't", it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy due to our lack of whole hearted support.
Please, if you "love Bernie" then fight like hell for him. This could very well be our last shot at making America what it should be.
This is how strongly I believe, due to his proven dedication to average Americans. I really cannot apologize for my tone. I am very passionate about a man who has worked so hard for real Americans. This is my reality.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But I call them as I see them. I don't think he can win a general.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)On the positions Bernie is right in line with a majority of the American people. On every issue. On the other hand, Hillary is to the right of the American people on every issue.
We don't want more of the same corporatist bullshit that we have right now.
quakerboy
(14,866 posts)Bush came within a stones throw of winning a general election
so did Palin
so did Romney.
Obama did win a general election. and a second one, as well.
What makes any of them any more GE friendly? The main thing that would block him from winning a GE is Democrats, in my opinion. The R's will unite to oppose our nominee, whether it be Hillary, Bernie, or anyone. They wouldn't care if we chose one of their tea nuts as our nominee, they would oppose him or her.
cali
(114,904 posts)Really, a debate with Bernie would be a nightmare for Hillary.
I'd love it.
lostincalifornia
(5,356 posts)play on that along with our superficial sorry excuse we have for a media.
Where the media should be discussing the issues, they would instead focus that Bernie is a "Socialist", which equates to "communist", etc, etc, etc.
The country really needs more people like Bernie, but it will be a long time before they realize that
cali
(114,904 posts)and bernie's been around D.C. for so long that the "socialist" label really wouldn't make much of a difference. Furthermore, bernie has avoided being marginalized the way Dennis was.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... I think we're probably beyond that. At least, I hope we are.
But he's not the kind of candidate you can get low-information "independent" voters to vote for.
But if he runs, we'll see how he does. I'd throw some money his way...
lostincalifornia
(5,356 posts)either. How can a socialist go to the bible belt and make his case? They have been brainwashed for decades
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It's high time that we get rid of the corporatist influence in the Democratic Party. The last thing we want is the status quo.
lostincalifornia
(5,356 posts)where Bernie will have trouble because in their view he is "too liberal"
Hillary does not have that issue
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Hillary is too far right if the truth were known.
I will not vote for her considering the damage Bill Clinton did to the nation with NAFTA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the Telecommunications Act.
This is damage we might never recover from.
lostincalifornia
(5,356 posts)Insure it just like Howard Deans scream, they will insure the perception the corporations want
I am pretty cynical.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)But the claim that someone is too liberal won't play like it did in the 1980s. Hard as they might try to change it, the nations people, if not the institutions, have moved left.
lostincalifornia
(5,356 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)women vote for women just cuz woman! I think that's pretty insulting.
You are right about Clinton not being too liberal. 
lostincalifornia
(5,356 posts)those states, including women, who tend to be more conservative than in say California. Wrong of me to stereotype, and definitely it is insulting to imply women vote for women just because they are women. That isn't what I meant, but I see how it came across that way.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)The people you refer to reflexively hate them some Clinton, any Clinton. The candidate those people could relate to would be Warren, not Clinton, IMO.
But Sanders, not Warren, is the one who has stuck his neck out as willing to do this thing. I strongly support him and really really hope he runs, as a Democrat.
He would have an uphill fight, but if he could win the primary it would mean that he put his message out there and it caught fire. A message that catches fire can go all the way. This country is ripe for a truth-teller who can be a game-changer, way overdue.
Go Bernie!
lostincalifornia
(5,356 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The entire nation would rally behind him/her. Because the nation has had enough of these lies, more than 20 years of nothing but lies.
lostincalifornia
(5,356 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Though they'll need to be tough enough to hold up to the backlash from TPTB. But a truth-teller who can articulate the actual situation and the needed changes, people will respond to such, it will gain its own momentum, people are ready.
lostincalifornia
(5,356 posts)for whoever the Democratic candidate is
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)lostincalifornia
(5,356 posts)would apply with any demographic
lostincalifornia
(5,356 posts)course on DU that does not represent the actual sentiment in the country, and the word "socialist" has been demonized so much that it would be very difficult to overcome that, especially in 2016
I look at Wisconsin as an example where they keep voting for these right wingers, even during recalls, and I do not see that changing quickly.
but forget the actual presidential race, how in the heck could Bernie even secure the nomination within the party system?
daleanime
(17,796 posts)this nation has been spun enough that democratic is just as 'demonized' as socialist.
lostincalifornia
(5,356 posts)Bill Clinton did was the Telecommuncations Act which deregulated the whole industry. What Raygun started, clinton sealed.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)by focusing on actual policies.
Bernie Sanders' agenda is a hell of a lot closer to the agenda of a traditional Democrat than to the corporate nightmare that is being inflicted on people today.
Corporate Democrats will do *anything* to divert the rhetoric and national focus onto labels, smears, and social wedge issues. A candidate who keeps a laser focus on the actual policies that will help Americans (and can contrast them with the corporate candidates' con game of claiming to care about the environment or inequality or the Constitution while simultaneously supporting monstrous assaults like the TPP and the surveillance state)...
...That sort of candidate could change the narrative very quickly.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)lostincalifornia
(5,356 posts)areas will actually listen. I look at states like Wisconsin where they have been voting for the most corporate candidates.
Sure, present candidates that do that. Bernie Sanders does it without question.
For that matter so did Ralph Nader, and that didn't work out too well for Nader or the Democrats from what I recall
Samantha
(9,314 posts)I would vote for him in a heartbeat. He believes there are basic rights that all people should be guaranteed, for instance, health care, education, food, Social Security - I am sure you know the list.
Sam
lostincalifornia
(5,356 posts)has shown time and again that third party candidates are spoilers
However, everyone is entitled to their own assessment
merrily
(45,251 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)People would then hear a sensible point of view and realize that Bernie is on our side, while other candidates are not.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)until the debate turned to just about any topic beyond domestic economics.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)
panader0
(25,816 posts)At the minimum, his candidacy would pull Clinton to the left.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)actual discussions instead of "how can I wedge my canned remarks into an answer to that question?" contest.
Beacool
(30,517 posts) lostincalifornia
(5,356 posts)country has moved too much to the right.
I really wish it were different
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)And that's why he can't win. This country is doomed to third world status because we've allowed the oligarchs to buy the government. Make no mistake, the People allowed this to happen, welcomed it even, because of their ignorance, prejudice, greed and envy. They allowed these sons of bitches with the worst intentions to play upon their base emotions and manipulate them into voting against themselves. And it's worse than ever. Just watch what happens in November.
We are so fucked.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)where we are today, unfortunately.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)I know-- two liberal New Englanders-- ain't gonna happen. But that's a ticket I could really get buzzed about.
woodsprite
(12,582 posts)Let's stretch out our best people and buy as much recovery time as we can for our country.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)a qualified individual in the Oval Office. But, Hillary is no "slouch". She would be the best President we've had in years.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The Republicans are pretty clear about in general making sure that Democrats, the Democratic leadership here, Obama does not accomplish much… And so you see this Congress is not doing anything. Vote for Republicans. Their obstructionism has been unprecedented, and I think we saw that again in this legislation. I’m glad that we got two people who are members of my committee by the way on the Veterans Committee, and I think we can get some others. I had hoped very much that at least on an issue of the needs of our veterans, where historically there has been bipartisan support, that we could have that support. So I was disappointed, but we are certainly not giving up, and I hope to get the three votes that I need.
I’m going to look at the issue. It’s not that I support it or don’t support it. To me it is not one of the major issues facing this country. I’ll look at it. I think it has a lot of support and I’ll be talking to young people and others about the issues. But there are two sides to a story.
Q. Have you ever smoked pot?
A couple of times when I was young.
I have known Obama for a number of years, served with him here in the Senate a little bit, and he was kind enough to come to Vermont to campaign for me, which I’ve always appreciated. And I think what you got in Barack Obama is, a guy who is incredibly smart. I’m always amazed, and I’ve had a chance to hear him in small groups and large groups, and he is very, very smart. And needless to say, very, very articulate.
If you asked him straight to his face, I think he made a statement a couple of years ago. It was on television … he said something to the effect, he said, ‘You know, people think I’m a Socialist. People think I’m radical. Actually my economic policies are probably like a moderate Republican of, what, the 1980s’ or something. His economic policies (are) I’d say moderate Democrat. They’re not conservative. And on some issues I think he’s been strong. I’ve been working very hard on the community health centers, primary health care. He’s been very, very good in that.
The much-maligned stimulus package was an enormously important and successful piece of legislation that created two-to-three million jobs when we needed them the most. And the priorities established in that stimulus package of infrastructure, of needs of our kids, of the needs of the elderly, of energy. In Vermont as a result of that we were able to bring millions of dollars to weatherize homes and to establish solar projects and so forth and so on. It could have been better — bigger. But it was very significant.
<...>
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Clearly, Bernie didn't get the DU memo!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)They were LaRouchies and wanted Dennis to work to impeach Obama because the troops had not yet come back from Iraq. He informed them the POTUS has intelligence that Congressmen don't know about, and his job is much different than the job of a Congressman.
He had talked to Obama in the White House, and while there he realized that from the point of view of his position, he respected his decision. At times a member of Congress must make a case opposing a POTUS of his own party, because it is what his voters want. At least Democrats have that leeway, Republicans never criticize their POTUS openly.
Bernie has also no doubt had talks with Obama in private, and his report on him is like others who have talked to him in the White House, without the media there to skew his words. He is a progressive and liberal who is being obstructed like no other president since Lincoln, treading a dangerous path to get anything done.
Those in the media who make out that any Democrats who criticize the president really don't approve of him, is just an attempt to divide the party by using B&W reasoning. Some people will fall for it and think there is blood in the water, which is pathetic. It's also why they're worthless in making changes in real life.
Note that Bernie did not go after Clinton as some are dying for him to do. She is very intelligent, but not as savvy as Obama. It will require a great deal of voter enthusiasm to overcome GOP shenanigans. They intend no less than to topple the federal government while carving out fiefdoms for the Koches.
It will take a united party to stop them and they will use media to stoke divisions that are not there. A look at the videos I posted of Hillary supporting Obama in 2008, shows she did not make a mealy mouthed or insincere endorsement. They showed the style difference, though.
She sounds just like Bill, her cadence is the same and even her head motions and expressions remind one of Bill Clinton. After all, being married to the same person for years has that effect.
I will add that, in her speech on the stump for Obama, she warned the PUMAs to not jump ship. So those that did, and continued to criticize Obama, did not do her will, and not her responsibility.
She's been unfairly maligned to the point of being dishonest for many things by far right and far left who have met on the outside and decided to hate the Democratic Party as one entity, just about. The GOP, because they know that Democrats will push liberal agendas when they have the numbers to do so, and the far left because libertarian views are not going to be enacted.
Bernie respects both Obama and Clinton. There is no feud.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You mean to tell me a Congressman understands things DUers don't? I wonder if that applies to Senators?
Bernie respects both Obama and Clinton. There is no feud.
Say it again ...
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)that there was no feud between Obama and Sanders. Or Sanders and Clinton. Or Obama and Warren. And, and, and...
We are lucky to have all of these folks.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)He's just playing politics and won't actually commit to it like Obama has.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)
LittleGirl
(8,999 posts)and agree he would be better for this country than Hillary, by a long shot. I do think he would serve for the best of the country.
I will not vote for Hillary. I can promise you that. Nope, no way, no how either. I just won't.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)
Sanders for President!!!
mopinko
(73,726 posts)he does a great job of keeping issues in focus. he is also not the sort of idiot that would tear hillary down just to move himself up. the 2 of them would put on a clinic on what matters and what doesn't.
i don't suppose he would win. but the campaign would be a great one for america.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)IMHO.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I would make a better quarterback than Peyton Manning ... so long as I didn't have to play the role of quarterback.
Run Bernie, Run ... or stop playing "I would ..."
heaven05
(18,124 posts)I suspect Dr. Warren would be a effective POTUS also. Someone down thread said, "bernie for 4 or 8 and then Senator Warren for 8 to stretch things out for awhile. I could deal with that.
mountain grammy
(29,035 posts)are educating Americans who've been lied to and suckered in to the right wing fantasy free market land that the billionaires have been shoving at us for the last 30+ years via the mythical liberal media.
Taking back our country starts at the bottom.. we have many candidates, including myself, for various local boards governing taxing districts, when just a few years ago there was no interest.
I wouldn't mind seeing Bernie run for president, but, realistically, he's more effective where he is.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)"I wouldn't mind seeing Bernie run for president, but, realistically, he's more effective where he is."
To me, people like him who are more ideological have more of a chance and make more of an impact on state and local levels, like you said. For example, Seattle was recently able to elect an actual Socialist to one of their city positions. It was possible electing someone like that, considering Seattle is a pretty progressive city. Same thing with Vermont; that state is overwhelmingly progressive, so Bernie Sanders campaigning for a seat there is like a cakewalk. But the problems arise when you start including the entire country, with more conservative-leaning voters who may live outside of urban areas.
toby jo
(1,269 posts)He'd be a shoe-in on the left.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)But then we'd lose out on extra Wall St bonuses and increased fracking.
Just depends on what your concerns are.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Bernie speaks an inalterable truth.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)if only to keep the national dialogue to the left, cause that's what Hillary would right? Keep the national dialogue to the left or should we not bother because the country's more right leaning than that. As some would have you assume in this thread.
-p
Ino
(3,366 posts)are the only candidates I could get excited about. Do it, Bernie!
gopiscrap
(24,733 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)I get old ones for free at a book/magazine exchange, and I put them in the crapper aka "reading room."
The other day I was reading about everything that Mitt RMoney was going to do when he got elected, and how Obama was "on the ropes"--this was a story written well before the last election.
They love to go for the Gotcha quote and raise a little hell.
I will be President before Bernie. And I'm never gonna be President.
That is all.
Iggo
(49,927 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
JEB
(4,748 posts)Absolutely correct as usual.
100000%
-p
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Unbelievable.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I'd certainly prefer him over Clinton.
-Laelth
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)I have never voted for anyone who claimed to be a Republican (although I am convinced that I have voted for Republicans in the past). Bill Clinton comes to mind. I still refer to him as the best Republican President since Eisenhower. LOL.
Hillary, if elected, will go whichever way the wind is blowing, I think. So long as we can insure that the wind is blowing to the left, she'll be fine. Sanders, on the other hand, will be a liberal no matter which way the wind is blowing. That's why I prefer him over Clinton.
-Laelth
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and most liberals and the few pragmatic progressive.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)
C0RYH0FFMAN
(20 posts)Bernie Sanders would almost assuredly be a better President than Hillary Clinton and we need him to influence her. But Hillary Clinton would be a better president than Ted Cruz or whoever else the GOP puts out there...
It is more important that we start putting progressives into Congress. If we have progressives in Congress they will take Hillary Clinton as far to the left as we want her to go!
CoryHoffmanForCongress.com
twitter.com/C0RYH0FFMAN
www.facebook.com/CoryHoffmanForCongress
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
Rider3
(919 posts)I'd vote for him.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Beacool
(30,517 posts)Yeah, that's a winning ticket.........in France. Here in the good old USA, he has as much of a chance of being elected as did Nader or Ron Paul.
ecstatic
(35,075 posts)The first step in getting far in the democratic primaries is to show respect to potential democratic opponents and their supporters. Failure to do so is what lead to Hillary's defeat in 2008. Just saying.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Whether or not that's perceived as "tacky" depends on how they say it.
mucifer
(25,667 posts)I can dream, can't I?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)What's more, i will volunteer for his campaign if he runs as a Democrat.
merrily
(45,251 posts)There was a lot of good stuff in that interview, but the headline was chosen cynically, knowing fully that studies suggest many people read only headlines.
Journalists do "he said, she said" trivial reporting, rather than focus on substance.
I don't think Bernie has any intention of running. And if he does run, he knows he'll never win. I think he is trying his best to pull the country left. If so, i applaud him for that.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)so my vote for President is irrelevant. All of "my" electoral votes will go to the GOP. So even if he runs third party I will likely vote for him. If I lived in a purple state, then I would think about my POTUS vote more deeply.