If Bernie runs, Hillary won't

[MannyGoldstein]

That's my guess.

There's a good chance she doesn't run anyway, she's smart enough to know that America's temperment is no longer for Third-Way shenanigans.

But if Bernie runs... If he gets media attention, he'll unrelentingly go after her record, her years of service to Wall Street and the millions they've showered upon her, her (still-unapologetic) vote to attack Iraq, her standing against same-sex marriage for almost a decade after it became legal in Massachusetts, and the rest.

Unrelentingly.

And I think Bernie *will* get media attention because America's searching for a different voice, and Bernie *is* a different voice, yet one with authority.

I still think Elizabeth will run, but I think Bernie's rarin' to go and will hop in sooner. And once he does and gets a little traction, Hillary will bow out. She wants to go out with people thinking she coulda been a contender rather then out for the count*.


*Attention nitwits: "out for the count" is a metaphor. It will not help one bit if you start posting nonsense about my wanting Bernie to actually strike Hillary in any way. I don't. At all. Don't do it.

[hrmjustin]

1. If she doesn't run it is because she doesn't want to do it. Nothing else matters.

[krawhitham]

94. never has

[dionysus]

2. !

[OilemFirchen]

10. ^^^

[dionysus]

15. i'm not even a big fan of the Clintons, but damn this shit is getting delusional....

[OilemFirchen]

29. Nor I.

Of course, I'm still holding out for Pat Paulsen. I know he's dead and everything, but I think 2016 will finally be his year.

[Ned Fenwick]

133. Paulsen status....

I like to think of it as "He's in a post-life situation right now."

[OilemFirchen]

138. That's a good take.

Has anyone heard him say he is not running? That's a pretty clear sign his hat's in the ring.

And he can mumble circles around "Bernie", as impossible as that sounds.

[awoke_in_2003]

151. maybe he is doing like Hotblack Desiato...

and just spending the year dead for tax reasons

[chuckstevens]

135. Spot On!

[Scuba]

3. Bernie would take Hillary's lunch money in a debate. As a corporate Dem she would be fodder...

... for the truth Bernie would bring.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. It would end with Hillary at the bottom of a smoking crater

That would be one for the ages.

[former9thward]

57. The debates are not set up that way.

The format and questions control the debate. They turn it into 30 second soundbites but that is all that is allowed.

[dionysus]

17. just like Dennis did the last two times?

[Aerows]

53. More like

Joe Biden against Paul Ryan.

[MannyGoldstein]

54. ^^^^ T H I S ^^^^

[Scootaloo]

128. I actually felt bad for Ryan that night... almost

[Aerows]

134. I thought Ryan was going to have to

either bust a gut or go into full blown water intoxication.

[Scootaloo]

141. It could have been MORE awkward

[Aerows]

146. Or like that guy from Freedom Industries

that caused the pollution and shut off the water of 300,000 people and slurped up bottled water on camera while explaining why the residents couldn't drink there's, and why they laid down anhydrous materials and sand bags to keep it from flowing out, long before the EPA got there.

[laundry_queen]

198. What is it with crooked conservatives and water?

Must be some kind of unconscious desire to cleanse all the crap out or something.

[7962]

158. Do you think they'd ALLOW him in the debates? nt

[winter is coming]

160. If he runs as a Dem, they'd have a hard time keeping him out. n/t

[WinkyDink]

209. So you think Bernie will simply become a sudden Democrat without affecting his credibility?! Bwah!

[Enthusiast]

212. He could start a new trend, the "credible Democrat".

[L0oniX]

233. Becoming a Dem would diminish his credibility? Wow

Why do you hate Obama?

[WinkyDink]

255. Duh. An avowed Independent changes Party and you think he won't be looked upon as an opportunist?

You seem to have missed my point. It isn't about BEING a Democrat.

[L0oniX]

261. Duh. Dems will vote for a Dem. Call it being an opportunist? I call it running for POTUS.

[winter is coming]

247. He's caucused with Dems for years. Which policies do you think he holds contrary to Dem positions?

Given a choice between a candidate who's just switched to our Party, yet has a history of supporting the things I believe Dems should and a candidate who's been with the Party for years but is unlikely to pay more than lip service to those ideas, I'll choose the former. Hands down, every time.

[WinkyDink]

256. My point wasn't about our individual micro-choices; I'd like Bernie, too.

[winter is coming]

260. But that's what an election is: millions of micro-choices.

There will probably be some primary voters who won't want to vote for Bernie because he hasn't been part of their "club" for what they consider an appropriate amount of time, but IMO there will be far more voters who will find themselves agreeing with his positions and not caring about the rest.

[L0oniX]

262. Bwahahah so yeah you're so concerned for his credibillity and you know an independant can't win...

but you'd like him. Ok whatever

[WinkyDink]

208. And what debate would this be, where an Independent debates?

[Scuba]

211. Bernie caucuses with the Dems now, and rank-and-file Dems will welcome him with open arms.

Third Way Dems, of course, will do everything they can to keep him from having any influence on the election whatsoever.

[WinkyDink]

257. I'm a Union kind o'gal, so perhaps you are correct. But money talks, and the OP's claim is absurd.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. i think this is wishful thinking on your part. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

8. You might be right.

I think it's not, but...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. I don't think hillary should run, but for different reasons

but i think she will run.

[dlwickham]

82. delusional is more like it

[BainsBane]

6. You cannot possibly believe that

Nor will anyone else. Warren has said she won't run. Cut the nonsense.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Hillary's said she's not running, repeatedly

Why don't you take her word for it?

[BainsBane]

14. No, she hasn't

She's said she hasn't decided, which you are well aware of. Come on. This is below your usual standards.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. I'm not sure why you do these things

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/hillary-clintons-quotes-on-2016-86804.html

I think Hillary's decision should be respected.

[BainsBane]

24. If that's the case

Why have you posted dozens of threads about the dangers of her as a Presidential candidate, and why did you mention her in this one? If she's not running, you have nothing to worry about, which makes these and about eighty percent of the other threads you've posted moot.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Whoa. One step at a time.

So you agree that Hillary's said - repeatedly - that she's not running?

[BainsBane]

31. Hey, this is about what you think. Not me.

You're the one obsessed with Clinton. I myself plan on waiting until candidates start announcing before worrying about any of that.
Clearly you don't believe what you just said, or you wouldn't have posted countless threads about Clinton.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. You said mean things to me.

You told me to cut the nonsense, and that this was below my usual standards, or some such thing, did you not?

That's pretty hurtful.

I want to understand why you feel so poorly towards me. Isn't that fair?

[BainsBane]

41. Mean things?

This post is not up to your usual standards. You usually are quite good at what you do. This one less so. That you have to now change the subject to me shows that the content of your OP doesn't hold up, while your contention that Clinton isn't running entirely contradicts much of what you've posted over the last year, including this OP. You didn't think this one through, coach. A bad day. Everyone has them.

[MannyGoldstein]

47. So has Hillary said she's not running? Or not?

I think it's pretty clear she's said she's not.

But for some reason, you don't believe Hillary, but do believe Elizabeth.

Is that correct? Or did I miss something.

And telling me to stop the nonsense was pretty mean.

[BainsBane]

59. Okay, she's not running.

Better edit your OP to reflect that. That should mean we won't be seeing more threads from your about her presidential candidacy.

[MannyGoldstein]

60. Hmmm...

Is that what you *really* believe?

Or do you believe that Hillary's fibbing?

[BainsBane]

63. I'm agnostic

I don't do fantasy presidential politics. That's your thing. I'm happy to wait until the actual election. It seems, however, that you must not believe what you yourself write, since you have just contradicted the bulk of your posting over the past months.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. So you called my OP "nonsense"

Why?

I feel hurt by it, and I still don't understand it.

[BainsBane]

72. Oh, dear. I'm sure you're devastated.

Well, it really comes down to this. Of all the things I have thought about you, stupid has never been among them. Therefore I have trouble believing you actually think the Bernie Sanders' running would somehow keep Clinton from seeking the nomination. He is unlikely to attract a lot of money from party donors. Nor is it probable that he will have mainstream appeal as a candidate and therefore doesn't attract the same voter base that Clinton does. Her decision will be based on whether she thinks she is up for the campaign and the job of being President. You know all of this. Therefore your OP doesn't ring true. Better luck next time.

[MannyGoldstein]

74. So now I'm stupid, too.

Do you really think that you have the right to fling insults like that, treating people that way?

[BainsBane]

77. Try rereading

I specifically said you were not stupid.

[MannyGoldstein]

84. "Therefore I have trouble believing you ..."

So if I believe my OP - which I do, although it's only a guess, of course - then I'm stupid? That's what I took away from your post, forgive me if I misunderstood.

[BainsBane]

89. No, I don't believe you really believe your own OP

I was very clear.

[MannyGoldstein]

96. So I'm a prevaricator, but not stupid.

Very hurtful language.

I think you're better than this.

[MyNameGoesHere]

131. Wow you play victim better than my kids

And I thought they were champions at it.

[RC]

147. Well played.

You have it down pat... err, ah, Manny

[Fumesucker]

97. Whew!

[sabrina 1]

189. That would be part of why people would support him 'He is unlikely to attract a lot of money from

party donors'. People want candidates now who are not receiving donations from Corporations.

However, he WOULD receive donations from Unions and from other large Advocacy Organizations, SS Advocacy group eg, Civil Rights Groups, and many others, who before the last election formed a coalition warning the Dem Party that this would be the last time they could count on their support unless there were big changes regarding policies that affected the people they represented.

In fact airc, that coalition which has traditionally formed the largest donating group other than Corporations, held a meeting at which they collected millions of dollars.

I would think that coalition would jump at the chance to get behind someone who is not Corporate owned.

So if Bernie needs money, HOPEFULLY, he won't have to take it from the 'party donors' because that is the problem we've had for so long and why politicians vote the way they do, rarely these days in the interests of the people.

[7962]

164. Hillary has said she wont, but so has Warren. Never believe a politician who says no. Means nothing

So far the only one I've really seen sniffing around is the Montana gov. Schweitzer, I think?

[MannyGoldstein]

167. Agreed. But it's funny how some people believe Warren, but not Hillary. nt

[BainsBane]

169. Because we know politician speak

Warren has come out and said she's not running. Clinton does the pol thing of saying she doesn't have plans at this time to run. That always means they will likely run. You know this as well as anyone.

[MannyGoldstein]

174. "I have ruled it out."

-Hillary Clinton, Oct. 25, 2012

Or how about:

"I’ve ruled it out"
Nov. 11, 2012

Those sound pretty firm to me. Not to you?

[BainsBane]

186. Okay, then you're right

So why have you been wasting your time posting about what an awful president she would be?

[MannyGoldstein]

224. I think you're trying to reframe what's going on:

Hillary and Elizabeth have both said they're not running for President in 2016. You believe Elizabeth but not Hillary. I don't believe either of them.

First off, I'm curious as to why these two receive different treatment from you?

Second, why have you publicly excoriated me for treating the two the same?

[Whisp]

179. It's still too early for anyone to say the big Yes. We should all know that. n/t

[lumpy]

46. Hilary wouldn't be the first to decide to run because public pressure to do so.

[MannyGoldstein]

48. But Elizabeth would be the first?

That's my point.

[brooklynite]

104. When Hillary signs a letter asking Elizabeth Warren to run, get back to us...

[MannyGoldstein]

108. Oh, so you found the letter?

Great!

Can we have the link? Thanks!

[brooklynite]

112. Seriously Manny? THAT's the position you want to go to?

Elizabeth Warren DIDN'T sign a letter asking Hillary Clinton to run?

And when the fake report that she did sign one came out, she was too chicken to deny it?

Well, whatever helps you get out of bed in the morning...

[MannyGoldstein]

114. So... Where's the letter? Is it a *secret* letter?

Why would it be secret?

National security? Don't want the Russkies to know?

What could be in it that's so secret? Barbara Boxer's hash brownie recipe?

Do you have any theories as to why it's a secret?

[brooklynite]

126. Just a guess...it was a PRIVATE letter.

...which doesn't mean it doesn't leak out in some form.

[OilemFirchen]

132. Don't believe the "secret letter" gambit.

It was obviously a publicity stunt - one which Warren has absentmindedly failed to debunk.

Rather, peruse this 1/25/14 poll, a side piece to an article from The Hill which stated:

Fifty-nine Democratic lawmakers say they would endorse Hillary Clinton for president if she launches a 2016 White House bid, according to a survey conducted by The Hill.

[Whisp]

185. gawd Manny, it really, really disturbs me that I like this post of yours so much. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

195. As it should.

Is it Boxer's brownies? They're totally killer, I got the recipe from the NSA, I'm told they're Clapper's absolute faves. He scarfs them down and fires up Kubrick's 2001: a Space Odyssey and they kick in just before the crazy color stuff happens.

[Whisp]

235. wait, I think I changed my mind. n/t

[ReRe]

92. Oh... you know how they are Manny....

... the winger lites retain the trait of saying one thing and doing another. You don't really believe she means no when she says no, do you?

[WinkyDink]

206. Apparently it doesn't matter that Hillary never said such a thing, either.

[joshcryer]

127. She said she would decide this year.

[7962]

161. She HAS said no. Not that it means anything....

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/03/17/hillary-clinton-popular-with-public-but-finished-with-government/

"Do you want to be president?" "No".

[WinkyDink]

205. I'll have what you're smoking.

[Scuba]

11. I'm not aware that Warren has said she will not run. Can you provide a link for that?

[BainsBane]

12. There have been multiple threads on DU about it

and that she in fact encouraged Clinton to run. You can find them as easily as I can.

[Scuba]

33. So, no. She's said she is not running. She has not said she will not run.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. She did, she got ambushed and had to say something

She's not very good at being evasive.

[joshcryer]

130. She pledged not to run.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/12/elizabeth_warren_pledges_not_to_run_for_president_in_2016.html

[cstanleytech]

156. Which is to bad as she would be a good choice imo. nt

[Aerows]

154. Me either. Need a link.

The second Elizabeth Warren runs for President, or even Vice President, I will work for her campaign like charging wolves.

[adirondacker]

7. LMAO!

[bigwillq]

16. I hope they both run and Bernie gets the nomination.

But really don't see that happening. The Machine won't let it.

[lumpy]

49. Perhaps 3/4 of voters have no idea who Bernie is.

[bigwillq]

50. This, too.

[lunasun]

99. like Obama in 2006

[lumpy]

150. Obviously Obama drew attention because he was a first in a the presidential race. People learned

quickly he was worth listening to.

[Doctor_J]

241. Everyone knew who Obama was after his speech at the 2004 convention

don't change history.

And Bernie doesn't have a prayer.

[sabrina 1]

190. That would probably be in his favor since polls show that politicians, especially those who are know

are less popular than Satan. An unknown politician might just be what the people go for.

[Le Taz Hot]

214. Which will work in his favor because EVERYBODY

knows who and what Hillary is.

[winter is coming]

19. No, it's far more likely that we'll see a well-funded effort to try to "Dean scream" Bernie

long before Hillary has to announce. A lot of people with deep pockets won't want to see Bernie run, because they can't afford to have the peasants start thinking that their country should be run differently.

[frwrfpos]

20. it will be a choice between Corporate Hillary and Corporate Christie or Jeb

and you will clap hard and vote for the Corporate candidate on unverifiable electronic voting machines owned by the very right wing elements that love Corporatism.

If you dont vote or support or Corporate Democratic candidate then the other Corporate candidate will win!!!11!!1!1

and we cant have that..

So just go along and DONT QUESTION and VOTE for the Corporate Candidate and be happy.

After all, we need to fully support Capitalism, free trade, and drone bombing, or else

[LuvNewcastle]

87. Well, when you put it that way...

[temporary311]

22. It's a nice thought,

but I'm sure Hillary has noticed that it's possible to campaign from the left and govern from the right, especially when it comes to economic matters.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. She has a record.

And it ain't pretty.

[temporary311]

27. So did Bush,

and he got close enough to steal it. Hers isn't near as bad.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. Hillary's is far, far worse relative to where Americans are today

Someone who's latched onto Wall Street's teat with a record of voting for insane war and losing every political battle she's ever fought is not a winning combo these days.

[temporary311]

32. I hope so.

[demwing]

36. And whatever she might not've known about that subject in 2008

I'm sure she has picked up since then. She's had great role models.

[Fumesucker]

25. I don't think Bernie will get media attention to the extent Hillary would

The M$M doesn't give a damn what Americans think, they get their marching orders from the ones who own them and the owners are definitely not Bernie friendly.

Not to mention Bernie would force the M$M to talk about policy and the talking heads utterly despise talking policy, they are far more comfortable with the horse race coverage we have all come to know and loathe.

[Ishoutandscream2]

183. Plus 1

[enigmatic]

188. Social media has been used to great effect

to mobilize supporters in political campaigns up here, and especially in Alberta with the 2 Mayors of Calgary and Edmonton. Both used it to run away w/ elections that they (Don Iveson of Edmonton and Naheed Nenshi of Calgary) seemingly had no business in winning.

I could easily see Bernie Sanders having that kind of a backing mobilized through social media; he may not win b/c the money gap is too much to overcome, but he could be a major game player and get his message across in ways that other candidates never could.

[Boom Sound 416]

28. I think it's the other way around.

[Cali_Democrat]

35. Why should we believe that you actually even want Warren to run or even win?

I think you're playing us.

If your past statements are any indication, you don't want the Democratic candidate to even win the Presidency.

[MannyGoldstein]

37. I'm actually Tagg Romney

Let's keep it our little secret, Ok? Just the two of us.

[Cali_Democrat]

39. You said you'd rather overturn the election of Obama than the election of Reagan in 1980

My first post in this thread still stands.

[MannyGoldstein]

43. Maybe you should link to that post, for context

Or would that be unpleasant vis-a-vis your narrative?

Would it even bludgeon your narrative?

[Cali_Democrat]

45. Context?

LOL...

No Dem would rather overturn the 2008 election than the 1980 election.

Yet, that's what you said.

[MannyGoldstein]

51. Afraid to link to the post?

Afraid it will bludgeon your narrative?

[Cali_Democrat]

58. Manny....

You'd rather the Reagan election stand than the Obama election. It says a lot about you.

You know you said it. I know you said it and a number of DUers know you said it.

I could google and look for it, but I'd be wasting my time because you're acknowledging right now that you'd rather have the election of Obama overturned than the election of Reagan overturned.

Sad.

[MannyGoldstein]

61. I think you're scared to link to it.

Is it because I use metaphors like brass knuckles?

[Cali_Democrat]

62. You're still admiting that you'd rather overturn the Obama election than the Reagan election

Considering how much damage Reagan did, I'm blown away that's you still stand by that statement.

Actually...nevermind. I'm not blown away.

At this point, it's expected.

[MannyGoldstein]

64. You're a chicken, an obfuscator, and have difficulty navigating metaphors.

I, on the other hand, am fat, drunk and stupid. Ain't great, but not as bad as some make it out to be,.

[OilemFirchen]

76. Here ya go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=761367&mesg_id=761480

Caveat: I've never responded to a Mannyruption, to the best of my knowledge, and I'm a bit embarrassed to have been drawn into this one. OTOH, a tweak's as good as a flick in my book.

[MannyGoldstein]

81. Thank you. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

93. hahahaha

Not only did you basically say that you'd rather overturn Obama's election than Reagan's, but you also said McCain's policies wouldn't be different than Obama's.

The same CAZY McCain that wants to start a war with Russia.

[BainsBane]

85. That's pretty blatant

I didn't realize he had been so forthcoming.

[MannyGoldstein]

88. Do you disagree?

If so, with what?

[BainsBane]

95. Yes, I disagree that McCain should have been President

Or that there is no difference between Obama and McCain. I didn't realize how long you had this shtick going. Is there any point at which you claimed to like President Obama?

[MannyGoldstein]

98. I usually do, too. Sometimes not.

Obama's total disconnect from his campaign promises is extraordinarily disappointing.

I supported Obama when he was a candidate, before the primaries started.

[BainsBane]

100. But not after innauguration?

[MannyGoldstein]

107. I started getting concerned about a month before inauguration

when Obama started using the standard Right Wing dog whistle words for cutting Social Security.

Then came Rahm Emanuel, then Larry Summers. One doesn't appoint those two if their priority is the 99%. I was very concerned.

Then the rest of the Clinton crowd. Warning, Will Robinson!

The Catfood Commission sealed it, I think.

[BainsBane]

110. That doesn't surprise me

at all.

[DCBob]

91. Here's a Manny duzy from that post.. "Would McCain's policies be much different? I don't see how."

[OilemFirchen]

102. That's a shocker.

BTW, what's with all the perceived intimacy with this cult? Bernie, Elizabeth, Dennis...

Did the OP and his groupies grow up listening to Tiffany at the mall?

[Marr]

168. Really?

You sure that's the angle you want to go with?

[OilemFirchen]

175. Hillary became mononymous during her Senate campaign.

Sometimes it takes, sometimes it doesn't. For example, her husband was typically referenced by his last name. Obama, by and large, is also referred to by his last name, as evidenced by chants at his rallies.

I've never known any of the others I mentioned to be commonly addressed by a mononym. I find it childish (and rude) to refer to individuals by their first name, unless they indicate a preference accordingly, or are peers (or children). And in this context it strikes me as cloying adoration.

[Marr]

176. Oh, that makes sense. It's cloying when done by people you don't like, and totally

normal when you do it.

Gotcha.

[OilemFirchen]

178. Almost.

As I stated, I don't do it. So it's not normal.

Otherwise, you're correct. I'll even add that it's cloying when done by people I do like.

[CJCRANE]

201. Plus normally politicians are referred to by their surnames. But there are two famous Clintons

and Bill Clinton rose to office first so "Hillary" was used to distinguish her.

It's the same with "Jeb" and "Bush" (or it would be if he ran for office again).

[CJCRANE]

199. Yes, I noticed that too! nt

[Autumn]

246. Don't worry about intimacy till Manny posts picture thread after

picture thread.

[CJCRANE]

200. That wouldn't surprise me.

I think there are actually relatives or staffers of famous Repubs who post here.

That's just my hunch...but only the NSA knows for sure!

[demwing]

38. You lost me when you said

"I think..."

You so don't.

[neverforget]

165. So you were alerted on

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Sat Mar 8, 2014, 10:38 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You lost me when you said
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4632197

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

A personal insult accusing Cali Democrat of not thinking, essentially being stupid.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 8, 2014, 10:42 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Odd to alert on such a benign little jab, when the other poster is fairly openly accusing the OP of being a mole.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Fair enough. Nothing personal delrem but this kind of personal shaming is getting out of hand.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not even close to alert worthy, grow a thicker skin or stay out of the discussion.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

-------

I voted to leave it alone.

[Cali_Democrat]

181. Interesting...juror #6 thinks I alerted

Well I didn't.

[demwing]

184. thanks for the post

I only just realized that my alerted comment sounded like I was saying Cali was thoughtless. Didn't mean that at all. What I did mean was that I didn't believe Cali gave an honest response.

Cali wrote to Manny and said: "I think you're playing us. If your past statements are any indication, you don't want the Democratic candidate to even win the Presidency

I don't believe Cali truly thinks Manny is a mole. I think Cali is trying to get Manny aggravated. Simple message board politics, that's all.

[Capt. Obvious]

259. THIS IS WHY WE NEED 7 JURORS

[seattledo]

40. I'm sorry, I've been traveling a lot lately...

Bernie who?

[Nye Bevan]

42. I fully agree with you.

Assuming, of course, that her polling supports your theories. If you are correct Bernie's support in the opinion polls will blow Hillary away (given her awful record and all) and she will, indeed, gracefully bow out.

[elfin]

44. Someone else HAS to run to show Dems have a "bench"

If something gawdawful happens to Hillary, we must have a lineup.

Yes, Hillary is a corporatist and needs to be challenged on that and drawn more left. But a true leftie will NOT win in today's reality IMO.

My worry is a third element emerging as an even more "progressive corporatist" ( if there is such a thing) ala Bloomberg that will siphon votes more from Dems than Repugs, giving us the ultimate Koch/Fundie World such as Cruz or Ryan or Weasel Walker.

[DJ13]

157. Yes, Hillary is a corporatist and needs to be challenged on that and drawn more left.

The problem with that narrative is after the candidate wins and they are then free to move hard right without any concern about the people who voted for them based on the left leaning principles they won on.

It seems in several recent elections every winner has lied about the positions they really stand for.

That goes all the way back to Reagan.

[Aerows]

52. I could give two shit who runs and who doesn't

The most liberal progressive candidate will get my vote. Sanders, in a heartbeat. Warren, in a heartbeat. O'Malley in a heartbeat.

LOL at the "this is a metaphor"

[Aerows]

55. I'm not ready for Hillary

I haven't stocked up on enough candles, bottles of water, tents and MREs.

How many of these items should I stockpile to be "Ready for Hillary"?

[bigwillq]

66. I'm ready.

I have a borderline "prepper" addiction. Just found out that's the name they give people who horde supply items. lol Stumbled upon a vid on you tube and found out I am kind of a prepper, but not as crazy as some of the videos on-line.

I don't trust the government nor the weather. I like being prepared.

[Aerows]

68. If you don't have Hillary

campaign flyers in your backpack along with your survival equipment, you aren't ready for Hillary.

[bigwillq]

73. Damn.

I'm not ready for Hillary.

[Aerows]

152. I'm not sure about sleeping bags, yet

and I don't have those fliers, so I'm probably not ready for Hillary.

[jsr]

204. Oh, there will be total obliteration.

[lostincalifornia]

56. No way. The only way I will vote for Bernie is if he runs as a Democratic. I will vote for him in

the Democratic primaries. If he wins the primaries I will vote for him. If Hillary runs and wins the primary I will vote for her.

Hey, I will vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is

[Aerows]

65. I don't advocate third parties

but Bernie Sanders caucuses with Democrats.

He is a Democrat in everything except the letter behind his name. If anyone begrudges a person like Sanders, who votes and advocates for the party that most embodies the Democratic Party? I'll leave that to your conscience and the voting booth.

I'm not on the "anybody but Hillary" train. I'm on the "anybody but corporate sellouts" train.

[lostincalifornia]

69. and no matter how Democratic he is, if he runs under a separate party, I will NOT split the vote.

That is a sure way to hand control over to the rethugs

What would Bernie running as an independent do?

It is obvious. You would have a Democratic candidate, an Independent candidate, and a republican candidate. Now lets make things even more interesting, assume that the tea party decide to run their own third party so we have four candidates. and the odds increase that not one candidate would get enough votes for an electoral college win.

The election would then go to the house, and whichever party controls the house, that is who determines who would be president.

Let me see, which party controls the house.......

[Aerows]

90. Cart before the horse, IMHO

She hasn't even announced that she is running, and she certainly hasn't won the nomination. I'll vote for the most progressive candidate available in the primary. Will my vote do nothing in the primaries? Maybe, but at least I have a chance of a candidate that views things the way that I do could seal that nomination.

[lostincalifornia]

103. So will I,as long as it is in the Democratic primary, and if Bernie runs as a Democrat in the

Democratic primary, I will vote for him.

As far as you points, I understand them, and definitely am not criticizing them, just expressing the way I see it.

Frankly, I believe if Bernie ran as a Democrat in the Democratic primary he could nab the nomination, in spite of the money that would go to the other potential Democratic candidates. I base that on Howard Dean's grass roots efforts, though Howard wasn't able to fight the establishment control in the party, Obama was able to, and Bernie could do the same, especially if he is able to get his message out. I could see independents and nonpartisans changing parties to Democratic and voting for him, and thus winning the Democratic primary

[7962]

172. Which is why the GOP will lose. They will NOT unite behind whoever gets the nod.

It'll just be more bitching about "RINOs" and "not conservative enough", etc.

[bvar22]

70. If Hillary runs, it will tear the Democratic Party apart.

It is time for the
Reagan Democrats and other Conservative, 3rd Way Democrats to realize that
they have to compromise too.

They will have to sacrifice, and abandon Hillary,
and take a step back to The Left for the first time in 30 years
in order to accommodate The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

The Conservative Anti-LABOR Clinton Administration created Ralph Nader.
There is an even bigger vacuum on The Left today.
If the Democratic Party does NOT step to The Left to cover their FDR Democratic Left Flank,
someone else will.

Time to run a real FDR/LBJ Pro-Working Class Democrat that will unify The Party,
and say GoodBye to Koch Brothers DLC 3rd Way Money.

The Time is NOW.
The opportunity is here.
Time for some Old Fashioned Working Class Democratic Party magic.

Can I get an AMEN Brother!!! ?



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[MannyGoldstein]

79. AMEN, brother!

Indeed!

[dlwickham]

83. how about "what utter bullshit" instead of an amen

[BainsBane]

105. +1

[bvar22]

115. Love your in depth, insightful political analysis of the suituation.

Why is it always the conservative Reagan Democrats demanding that the Democratic Wing of the Party give up OUR values to accommodate them?

According to you guys, the FDR Left is always insignificant, until we lose,
then its ALL our fault.
Time for YOU to take a step BACK to where the Democratic Party used to be.
Those are the values and policies that built the largest, wealthiest, and most upwardly mobile Working Class the World had ever seen.

25 years of 3rd Way Conservative Democrats?
THIS is what the Anti-LABOR, deregulating, privatizing, Invisible Hand Free Trading "Democrats" have give us:

65 percent of working families are living from paycheck to paycheck.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/10/why-conservatives-old-divide-and-conquer-strategy-%E2%80%94-setting-working-class-against-the-poor-%E2%80%94-is-backfiring/

95 percent of the economy’s gains have gone to the top 1 percent
http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/10/why-conservatives-old-divide-and-conquer-strategy-%E2%80%94-setting-working-class-against-the-poor-%E2%80%94-is-backfiring/

Billionaire wealth doubles since financial crisis
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/11/12/Billionaire-wealth-doubles-since-financial-crisis/5011384268135/?spt=hts&or=12

The Top .01 Percent Reach New Heights
http://www.demos.org/blog/9/13/13/top-01-percent-reach-new-heights

Rates of unemployment for families earning less than $20,000 - have topped 21 percent
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_JOBS_GAP_RICH_AND_POOR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-16-08-11-23

Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html

The Totally Unfair And Bitterly Uneven 'Recovery,' In 12 Charts – HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662029

Wall Street will get away with massive wave of criminality of 2008 - Statute of Limitations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022516719

Income gap widest ever: 95 Percent of Recovery Income Gains Have Gone to the Top 1 Percent
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/10/one_percent_recovery_95_percent_of_gains_have_gone_to_the_top_one_percent.html

Older Workers:.Set Back by Recession, and Shut Out of Rebound
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/booming/for-laid-off-older-workers-age-bias-is-pervasive.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3&

YUM.
Who wants some MORE of THAT!!!!
Not this old FDR/LBJ Democrat.
I KNOW why I'm a Democrat.

---bvar22

[MannyGoldstein]

119. That's why they stick to insults, not facts

Because facts are inconvenient.

Masterful post, BTW.

[rhett o rick]

228. Absolutely. But at some point we need to cut them adrift, run them out of our party.

The Democratic Party isnt the "Conservative" Party. Run them back to the R's. Some here welcomed the Repugs as they fled the Crazy Party, but I dont. They brought their ideologies and corporatism with them.

As bvar22 said, the Left has to take a stand and stop accepting the "best of evils" meme. We cant afford 8 more years of Conservative rule. The Powers To Be are in the drivers seat. They will back Clinton-Sachs and some Wacko from the R party, then sit back and laugh at the Left.

[dlwickham]

143. thank you

as much as I respect the good senator from Vermont, he has as much chance of winning as my cat does and my cat is a lot cuter

[Enthusiast]

220. PLUS A BRAZILLION!

[MannyGoldstein]

116. One side uses argument, the other insult.

I guess we each go with the best thing we got.

[dlwickham]

144. who did I insult

[MannyGoldstein]

155. My bad, sorry. I forgot that

Last edited Sun Mar 9, 2014, 09:04 AM - Edit history (1)

you speak a different dialect where "what utter bullshit" is a term of endearment.

[dlwickham]

244. so who did I insult

I didn't say he's full of shit

but if the shoe fits...

[ReRe]

109. Amen and Amen!

[lostincalifornia]

111. no it won't. I would hope Bernie would run as a Democratic in the Democratic primary. Folks were

saying the same things about Howard Dean and Barrack Obama. Howard was screwed by the Democratic party establishment, but Obama learned, and was able to mobilize folks to vote. Bernie can do the same thing, even more so because not only would he get the youth vote, but other demographics, plus independents could register as Democrats in the primaries which would give him the nomination.

Regardless, it won't tear the party apart. People said the Hillary/Obama adversarial fight in 2008 would do the same thing, but it didn't.

The reason it didn't is because from the Democratic perspective, when they saw what the republicans had done to the country under bush, and the extremism of the republicans, they were not going to let that happen, and it won't happen again whoever is the nominee

and if that nominee is Hillary, the vast majority of Democrats will support her.

[brooklynite]

113. Sort of like it tore the Party apart in 2008?

When the 17 million people who voted for Hillary didn't end up voting for Barack Obama?

[Caretha]

124. Amen

[a2liberal]

129. AMEN! (n/t)

[Le Taz Hot]

215. I say AMEN!

***passing the collections plate*****

[Enthusiast]

219. AMEN Brother!!!

[rhett o rick]

237. I so agree. The Left has to take a stand against the Conservative run Democratic Party.

We can not afford to launch a new party but must retake control of our party. Kick the conservative/centrist/corporatists out and back where they belong.

The American people are starting to wake up. There are demonstrations for one thing or the other every week. They need political leaders that will represent them and not Goldman-Sachs. The Clinton-Sachs-Joe Lieberman Wing of the Democratic Party wont do. We must show that the Left Wing of the party will represent the American people.

I dont think that a strong presence from the Left will influence Clinton-Sachs. First of all she has shown only disdain for the Left and any reversal will be obviously fake. Secondly, with the Powers To Be via Citizens United she can afford to scoff at the Left.

How ironic that Citizens United, which came about to disparage HRC, will be used to get her appointed as president.

[1StrongBlackMan]

239. No ...

HRC running will/would not tear apart the Democratic Party! It might, however, upset a bunch of DU "liberals/progressives" that like to believe they are the Democratic Party because they might (or might not) have voted for a Democrat.

[WinkyDink]

258. I don't think you are on trend, sadly.

[longship]

71. More 2016 fantasy football.

Hopefully that is enough.

[Jack Rabbit]

75. You could be right about "America's temperment is no longer for Third-Way shenanigans."

However, of the many things the Third Way and the Republicans have in common, one is the quality of tone deafness.

So, I expect it to be Hilary vs. a clown in the car to be named later.

Money doesn't talk; it screams. -- Bob Dylan

[Le Taz Hot]

216. *presses the Pause button*

LOVE that Dylan song (It's Alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding).

*presses Play*

[randome]

78. Finally! An outcome we can both hope for!

Not that I think it's true but...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Cheese4TheRat]

80. If Bernie runs, and I wish he would, he will be marginalized by the media

In the same way Kucinich was marginalized. I doubt Warren will run.

And nobody inside or outside the Democratic Party scares Hillary. And rightfully so.

That doesn't mean she will win the nomination, but she will run.

[Fumesucker]

86. Whatever M$M coverage he gets will be one long Dean Scream

The only real hope would be a social media campaign.

Our descendants will sing songs of the trolling a thousand years from now.

[Cheese4TheRat]

162. Hahahaha! So true.

[Le Taz Hot]

217. The problem with Kucinich is that the media knew he wasn't serious.

Kucinich did what Kucinich always did, enter the race to bring up topics representing the left, knowing full well that he's weenie out in the end and cast his support to the corporate Dem. Even HE knew he wasn't a serious candidate. I'd like to believe that if Sanders runs, he will be a serious candidate.

[Iggo]

101. lol...good one.

[Douglas Carpenter]

106. I think Hillary will run. If Sanders runs he will probably beat her in a few primaries and that

will really rattle their cages. Then Hillary's campaign will try to represent her as the REAL progressive who gets things done and can win.

[Historic NY]

117. How is he going to beat her when he isn't a registered Democrat.....

[Douglas Carpenter]

123. he has said publicly he might run. He is too much of a pragmatist to run as a third party candidate.

It would take very little time for him to change his registration if he does decide to run. If he makes that change - that would be the signal that he is seriously preparing to enter the race

[liberal N proud]

118. If Bernie runs, dems lose

If he runs as an independent, the republicans can run their worst of the worst and win.

I know all of you 3rd party hopefuls will jump on this and deny and chastise me for saying this but it will be proven if he runs.

[rhett o rick]

238. I doubt that he would run as an Independent. But even if he did

Clinton-Sachs would still have a good chance. Depends on who the Rethug's run. Mit might win, but if the Rethug's run one of the Tea Baggers, then Clinton-Sachs will win. The Powers To Be dont want the Tea Party to win. The Tea Party was used by TPTB like the Brown Shirts were. Now their usefulness is over and their masters dont like their independence and see them as uncontrollable. The Conservatives will be more than happy with Clinton-Sachs. Wall Street will back HRC over a Wacko.

If Sen Sanders runs as a Democrat he will get lots of chances to express his populist views. If he runs as an Independent he will be ignored by the media and probably wont get to participate in debates.

[SidDithers]

120. Bookmarking...nt

Sid

[ReRe]

121. You never give up, do you Manny?

... I so hope and pray you are right. He would speak truth to Corporate power, that's for sure, unless the debate moderator cuts him off short of answering questions. And he'll have to run as a Democrat, because if he runs as an Independent, they probably won't even let him in any debates. But what if the Democratic Party bosses (the DLC, evidently, since pre-1992) says he can't enter as a Democrat? I would definitely vote for Bernie in the primary if he runs and help his campaign in the run up to it. Bernie is the conscience of the real Democratic Party. He is unafraid and un-intimidated by any winger attack. He has Democratic conviction for the people, from his crazy hair right down to his toes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

122. The very good progressive vs the 3rd Way Not as Bad candidate. Go, Bernie!

[Aerows]

137. Amen in the crowd!

I would support Bernie Sanders for any public office, and for President? Canvass, man phones and don't get in my way when I cast my vote.

[reddread]

125. cannot underestimate ego, lust and mania

there will be stalking horse/filler candidates, DLC equivalents of Pat Buchanan. Like John Edwards, for instance.
People like Biden and Jerry Brown cant quench their thirst for the drivers seat, and God knows they have
done their part for the machine. But they have no real chance. Hillary will be no different in her desires.
Warren is definitely into it, and all those Pros and pushers who said otherwise, well at the very least, their word is
not worth much.
Either as liars or prognosticators, it would serve their victims well to remember how wrong they were as they did everything
they could to hype their candidate who "hasnt decided yet"
Hillary isnt about to step aside for Sanders.
I have my doubts about Sanders sincerity.
how many times do you have to see the same games replayed to stop ignoring those strategies when they do the most damage?
lets not be breathlessly optimistic about any potential candidate.
if we dont effectively fight the influence of money, there wont be anything to win.
Biden
Brown
Clinton
a few others,
would Kerry pull a Nixon and reup?
Warren for certain.
now how do we want to win in the primary?

Warren 2016
Bernie can shift the tenor of the debate, but he had better not throw it towards Hillary.
A real likelihood.

[JaneyVee]

136. Hillary Clinton IS most certainly running.

I know some people that know some people. Not to mention its blatantly obvious to anyone looking. The super PAC is already off and running, the websites and social media is up and running, donations are already being accepted, she's traveling and giving speeches and interviews, commenting on current affairs, etc. I think it all depends on what the midterm election will bring, but anything short of a Dem bloodbath and she's tossing her pant suit into the ring.

[Fumesucker]

149. I think you misspelled "mud pit"

[bvar22]

243. Ewwwww.

"she's tossing her pant suit into the ring"[/i ]

Not a good mental image.

[AAO]

139. If Bernie runs he has my vote regardless. He believes the same things that I do.

[Auntie Bush]

140. Is this honesty or wishful thinking?

Me thinks it's the latter!

[Katashi_itto]

142. THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!

I don't think it will happen. But either way it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for Clinton.

[Recursion]

145. *sputter*

But if Bernie runs... If he gets media attention, he'll unrelentingly go after her record



And, incidentally, that would be the biggest gift on the national stage Sanders could give her.

[quakerboy]

148. If he runs

I will vote for him.

But thinking that the media will do Bernie any favors is.. unrealistic.

Thinking the media will give any positive coverage to anything that might be deemed socialism, thats also unrealistic.

[delrem]

153. Whatever.

Run/not-run, ..., campaign/not-campaign,... ,
Palin isn't the only one to discover the value of a BS-run for political $$$.
Whatever the future, run or not-run, both Hillary and Bill will continue to rake in the cash at an hourly rate that should stagger the mind, and straight from the pockets of the usual suspects. Serious cash it is - and hardly even remarked upon. Enough to put Palin to shame.

Not that the big cash corrupt politicians rake in, in their ping-pong from elected office to lobbyist office and back and forth, is anything even close to the kind of interest a multi-billionaire "earns" overnight as return on their capital. There's only one way money is flowing in this picture.

[whistler162]

159. Just what we need.......

another Republican President! Don't run H. Ross Sanders!

[Agnosticsherbet]

163. Well, according to Bernie he is prepared to run.

But he dones't know if he will run as an independent in order to build a movement or as a Democrat, because it will be easier to run from inside the party.

But I don't think he will scare away Hillary Clinton if she chooses to run.

[Marr]

166. If Bernie Sanders ran for president, our corporate media would attack him 24-7.

Every news outlet would look like Fox News. If they couldn't find something that stuck, they'd just make something up out of whole cloth or pull something like they did with Howard Dean's supposed "scream".

Not saying I don't want him to run-- he'd absolutely have my vote. But I don't think for a second that his presence would deter Hillary Clinton from running. She'd know very well that the whole corporate establishment would have her back.

[drexelhillbilly]

170. Hillary has too much baggage

In the spring of 2007, I was putting together my choices as to who I would support as the Democratic nominee for President. At that time Hillary and Joe Biden were the likely frontrunners. I could not support Hillary over Joe Biden. Hillary had too much baggage, too much of the wrong kind of history. That's before you open the can of worms that is in Bill Clinton's past!
Joe Biden had legislative experience in spades, plus foreign policy chops that we really needed to have in the White House at that time. Too bad he never got the support he deserved and his campaign sank.
In a primary, I would, still, take Biden over Hillary. I think Elizabeth Warren will do the smart thing and wait this one out. Of course, Hillary will win over Biden, again. Her support is too great. This thought weighs on my mind terribly. I was planning on holding my nose and voting for Hillary, praying that she will become the President and that the country survives the next few terms. An unhappy prospect.
I had never considered Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders could be a game-changer!
I love it!
Him and Rand Paul going at it. I want ringside!
Anyhoo, This is the first time I actually got a tingle in my politics bone regarding the 2016 election!

[FarCenter]

171. Running as an independent for President is really hard.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

173. Dumb. But everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Sounds more like fan fiction to me.

[Deep13]

177. My guess is that if Bernie runs, Hillary will bury him.

What was it that makes the world go around again. (Hint: that clinking clanking sound.)

[brooklynite]

180. Ran into a friend who knows a Republican politico (some of us do.....)

Even he thinks Hillary will run and, with her financial resources, will be unbeatable.

[MannyGoldstein]

182. Karl Rove had unlimited financial resources too.

In 2012.

How'd that work out?

Juggernauts are soooo 2004.

[aquart]

187. Bernie Madoff is in jail. He might have had a chance in his heyday.

The wonderful, magnificent Bernie Sanders has no chance whatsoever.

If he runs, it would be to provide the left outlier position, the one Kucinich used to take. It provides a correction for the tendency to lurch right.

[blue neen]

191. Hmmm.

From the OP:

"*Attention nitwits: "out for the count" is a metaphor. It will not help one bit if you start posting nonsense about my wanting Bernie to actually strike Hillary in any way. I don't. At all. Don't do it."

If you thought that the phrase "out for the count" was, perhaps, inappropriate, then why even bother posting it? That way you wouldn't need to tell us all "Don't do it" or, in other words, telling us what we could and could not say in response.

Furthermore, we're not "nitwits", and we don't need instruction from you on how we can reply.

...All eyes on the 2014 mid-terms.

[MannyGoldstein]

193. I don't think it's inappropriate at all.

Just because nitwits pretend to have the vapors over metaphors like that (then flee when sharp posters find that said nitwits have used similar metaphors), doesn't mean I'll stop using them. That would be pusillanimous.

[blue neen]

194. Hey,

you're the one who chose to include the clarification of your OP.

[MannyGoldstein]

196. To stave off the nitwits.

Here's the insane #%^* I have to put up with:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024620281

Don't want to go through that again because some are metaphor-challenged! Although, as you'll see, they weren't actually metaphor-challenged. They were just screwing with me.

[Beacool]

192. Manny, you should be a writer.

You write fiction quite well. LOL!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

197. Maybe... just maybe... I *am* a writer

But maybe not fiction. At least my readers don't *think* it's fiction. And I do my best to make sure it's not.

[Beacool]

250. It's delusion and wishful thinking.

I'll grant you the ability to capture their attention, though.

Carry on..........

[quaker bill]

202. To the contrary

I think Hillary is likely to run regardless, but I think Bernie in the race would be more likely to pull Hillary in than block her out. I think she would prefer to win an ideological battle, the more epic the better. Winning such a battle in 2008, while small on the ideological front, huge on the political front, did Barack a great deal of good.

A battle between Hillary and Bernie would be less over strategy, and more over ideas and connections to power. Hillary has to think she could win this, and is likely only thinking of how to play it. A knockout in the first rounds is fairly useless in the terms of free media. You want it to extend to Super Tuesday at least, with a slightly split decision then being even better. If it rolls to NY and CA, even better.

Something that would change my calculus: the country becomes sick of the t-party and the Dems take a solid majority in the House in 2014. In that case, Bernie has a solid chance. Unlikely, but possible.

[beachbum bob]

203. hopeful delusion at best

bernie has no chance, warren has no chance.....if you want to hand the presidency over to the GOp keep talking this nonsense.

There is one over powering candidate the democrats can run that makes it a cakewalk. Torpedoing her like what Nader and his people did to Gore in 2000 isn't something America can tolerate

[WinkyDink]

207. I can't grasp how silly the OP post is. Bernie Sanders isn't even a DEMOCRAT.

Hillary isn't dropping out of anything.

[msanthrope]

225. Using a Third Party candidate to divide Democrats--what does that sound like to you? nt

[MannyGoldstein]

227. Comrade!

Я нарушающими прислал Путина!

[msanthrope]

232. Hey Manny---I'm merely going to suggest you stop using google translate for

your posts, since it lacks idiomatic fluency and frankly, I don't think you meant to say what you wrote.

[Enthusiast]

210. Manny, why do you want Bernie to punch Hillary in the nose?

I thought better of you.

[Le Taz Hot]

213. I don't often disagree with you my Dear Manny

(I'm sounding like California Peggy here) but everything she's doing REEKS of "I DESERVE to be president." I think she surrounds herself with lap dogs that will tell her anything she wants to hear. One of her MANY flaws is that she doesn't listen to anyone else except those in her own inner circle. That was something I tried (ineptly) to say when she came out with that "rhinoceros hide" comment. The problem with rhinoceros hide is that it doesn't allow anything in, as in other opinions of POVs. She knows she's unpopular but she also knows she's got the backing of trillion-dollar Wall Street bankers as well as the entire Democratic Party machine who will drown out any challengers.

I think Sanders MIGHT run and if he does, I don't see Elizabeth Warren running. I love Bernie to death but I don't think young people will relate to him because of his age, no matter how progressive he is. I think they would relate to Warren much better.

I, of course, would be the happiest person on the planet if either Sanders or Warren runs. To be able to work for and cast a vote FOR an actual progressive would be the highlight of my political life.

[Skidmore]

218. I don't give a fig who runs in 2016. It won't

make a bit of difference if the legislative branch is full of the Teabagger Republicans and you have given away the vote to back your favorite horse so far ahead of that season.

[msanthrope]

221. Starting 2016 fights before 2014---FUD. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

222. Do you agree that presidential candidates who declare before the November election

are simply trying to tear our party apart?

[msanthrope]

223. Show me one who has, and I will answer the question specific to that candidate. Care to tell us

who has filed with the FEC?


Starting divisions among Democrats by using a Third-Party Candidate is FUD. Who are you campaigning for for 2014?

[MannyGoldstein]

226. So it will depend on which candidate files before the election?

Some are more equal than others? That doesn't seem right.

I'll campaign for whichever candidate has a shot at winning and most closely aligns with traditional Democratic values.

[msanthrope]

229. No--I won't have this discussion until someone does. And you are damn right some are more equal

than others, Manny, because this is Democratic Underground, and here, DEMOCRATS, not Third-Party candidates are our purpose.

Now...you live in Massachusetts, right? So the 2014 candidates are set.....who are you campaigning for?

[MannyGoldstein]

230. So if any Democrat jumps in for President before the election, then that

might not be to tear our party apart.

But simply discussing the 2016 election *is* about tearing our party apart.

Got it.

Berwick.

[msanthrope]

236. And again--you focus on the 2016s rather than your 2014 elections--seemingly in repsonse to this:

President Obama is telling Democrats to de-emphasize the 2016 presidential election — for now — and focus on the congressional elections coming up in November.

Referring back to big Republican wins in 2010, Obama told Democrats in Boston on Wednesday night that too often their voters don't get out in the mid-term congressional elections.

"People tune out, and because the electorate has changed, we get walloped," Obama said at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser. "It's happened before, and it could happen again if we do not fight on behalf of the things we care about in this election."

Republicans won control of the U.S. House in 2010, and are seeking control of the U.S. Senate in November.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/03/06/obama-2014-2016-elections-democrats-hillary-clinton/6113515/

[Pisces]

231. Why post drivel???????

[Beacool]

251. Because he has a captured audience that wants to hear this kind of stuff.

Lots of delusions and wishful thinking goes on over here.

[1StrongBlackMan]

234. Wishful thinking? ...

IF he changes party affiliation to run in the Democratic primaries, he might attack HRC on her "3rd-Way shenanigans"; but I doubt very much he will touch on the Iraq war issue ... his voting record couldn't support such an attack.

Sanders has been critical of the war on Iraq, but he has supported pro-war measures -- such as a March 21, 2003, resolution stating, �Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism. ... He also opposes immediate withdrawal from Iraq ...

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov06/Smith15.htm

�

And: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/03/31/bernie-sanders-hedging-his-bets/

But that said ...

IF he changes party affiliation to run in the Democratic primaries, I would welcome him in a primary race; but I doubt that his running would cause HRC not to run. Further, I would be firmly against Bernie mounting any form of 3rd-party run.

[Autumn]

240. I really don't think Hillary will run. Biden most certainly will IMO.

Bernie will have my support.

[winter is coming]

248. Ready for Hillary? A news article, at least three times a week for the past several months,

somehow or other pushing the idea of Hillary as a candidate (and usually as a formidable) candidate??

She's running.

[Beacool]

252. Biden and Sanders, two men in their mid 70s by 2016.

Neither one will win the nomination, regardless of whether Hillary runs or not.

It's like playing fantasy football, lots of wishful thinking.

[Autumn]

254. That's all it is Bea. I just don't see Hillary running.

I don't see an up side for her to have to take all the crap she will get. Biden as VP will have IMO more support from the powers that be, just like in 2008. I think Sanders is just using the talk of running as a carrot on a stick, but I sure do like Bernie.

[colsohlibgal]

242. What To Do?

How do we break the cycle? Corporate/Wall Street republican, corporate/Wall Street democrat. Over and over for 30 plus years. One or the other.

As a woman I think we're overdue for a female president but I'd much prefer a non third way one, like Elizabeth Warren.

Love Bernie Sanders, I agree with him on about every issue. I however also agree the MSM will do all in it's power to marginalize his candidacy. But Bernie might get more traction that Dennis the menace. If he does maybe he can drag Hillary to the left, at least some.

I don't know -I voted for Bill Clinton twice and Obama twice and have been chagrined at a lot of what each did and supported while in office. I voted for a democrat each time and got more of a republican lite. That does beat a real republican - the whole baseline has moved sharp right so they are still right of the democrats - but I and the nation need a real bona fide progressive.

So I may vote for whoever is most left on my ballot, whoever that is. Vote my conscience.

[Jim Lane]

245. If Hillary doesn't run, Cuomo will, and will be the favorite.

There might be debates that fill DU with threads about what a bang-up job Bernie did and how he really handed it to that corporatist Cuomo.

Meanwhile, outside DU, Cuomo will have more name recognition, waaaaaay more money, more endorsements, and more favorable treatment from the media. It won't even be close.

BTW, Manny, as to your repeatedly saying that it's inconsistent to look at expressions of intent not to run and believe Warren's while disbelieving Hillary's: It's not inconsistent because their situations are different. One of the two has a much longer involvement in politics, a demonstrated willingness to go through all you have to go through to make a serious run for the Presidency, and a bunch of factors that contribute to probability of success (including high national name recognition, high national approval rating, established relationships with many big-money donors and bundlers). All those make it more plausible that Hillary will decide to run than that Warren will.

On Warren's side, she has greater enthusiasm among the members of the Democratic Party's progressive wing -- a group that has neither the numbers nor the money to make a huge difference in a nomination battle.

I would love to see either Warren or Sanders as President. We're not there yet, though. The main advantage of such a progressive candidacy in 2016 would be to help get the ideas out there and make it more likely that we can vote for a good candidate in the general election in some future year.

ETA: I'm referring to the advantage of a progressive candidacy for the Democratic nomination. I'm absolutely against a third-party run by Sanders or Warren or anyone like that. A third-party run by Ted Cruz, on the other hand, would be a boon to the country.

[BrentWil]

249. Is this a plan to give the election to the GOP

Because Sanders as the nom would certainly do that.

[Beacool]

253. Shhhh, don't ruin their fantasy.

In their world, a Socialist in his mid 70s is a viable candidate who can win a general election.