To the Anti-Sanders folk: Who do you like?

[thesquanderer]

There are a number of people trashing the idea of Bernie Sanders running to become the Democratic candidate for President. What I'm curious about is, is there anyone you would like as a candidate, besides Hillary? In other words, is it that you're actually against Sanders in particular, or are you against anyone who may interfere with a Hillary campaign?

I like Sanders. There are also some other people I might like to vote for if they were to run, like Russ Feingold, Robert Reich, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown.

So to the anti-Sanders people I ask, do you really have an anti-Sanders sentiment, or is it more a matter of looking to find ways to put down anyone who isn't Hillary? Is there anyone else you might be willing to get behind? Who?

[CK_John]

1. He has been an IND since about 81 and don't believe he will switch to DEM, and

if he did it would cost him too much support of his progressive base.

[99Forever]

3. That is simply untrue.

Bernie is a man OF the people. His supporters aren't superficial enough to be lost because stupid party labels nonsense. Utterly absurd.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. I don't think such a switch would cost him any of his current support.

I imagine anyone who already supports him does so because of his longtime commitment to his positions, and not simpy because he's a Democratic Socialist. The real question would be whether enough of the current Dem party would be willing to embrace a socialist switching to run as a Dem. People who already vote for him vote for him because he's himself, not because of his party ID.

[thesquanderer]

8. I think his progressive base would support him regardless of the letter after his name

After all, who else would they prefer?

[JoePhilly]

2. I doubt there are any "anti-Sanders" folks here.

Back in 2008, many of us were pro-Obama and pro-Hillary, perhaps preferring one over the other, but ready to support either in the General election.

Similarly, one can be pro-Hillary and not anti-Sanders.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. I think they exist.

You're right that you can be one without being the other, but I think there are folks farther to the right who still self-ID as Dems who don't care for him. I've seen the word 'douchebag' pop up applied to Bernie on DU, and not by a new person.

[thesquanderer]

6. Of course you can be pro Hillary and not anti-Sanders

I'm asking about the reverse. Are the vocal anti-Sanders people here specifically pro Hillary? Or are there other candidates they'd like?

[wyldwolf]

7. I agree. I haven't see anyone here who dislikes Bernie Sanders

There are some here, like myself, who don't believe he has a chance to win the primaries or a general election - based mainly on the political implications of being a socialist. It's a political call to say 'he can't win.' It isn't based on personal dislike or even fundamental disagreements on policy.

[thesquanderer]

9. So, who would you like to see run?

[thesquanderer]

10. oh, and I wasn't talking about whether people liked or disliked him

but rather whether he should run. And people have posted all kinds of reason why he shouldn't. Not just "he can't win." Also "He's not a Democrat." "He once told someone to shut up." Whatever. What I'm wondering is whether there are any candidates these people would support, besides the obvious.

[wyldwolf]

11. I'm decidedly in Hillary's corner but welcome a Sanders run and would vote for him in a general.

I will not trash another Democrat or one who is a Democratic ally. I'll point out facts - no matter how inconvenient.

[Thinkingabout]

12. One thing which will halt his ability to become president his title of Independent Socialists.

It will be played over and over again, it will be his "I'm not a witch". He may be popular with some voters but it will not be enough to carry him over the threshold to victory. I hear some saying it will bring his issues into the primaries but platforms are determined elsewhere. He isn't popular enough, this is reality.

Now that you have ask your question, here is a question to you. Why are you Anti-Hillary and why does so many here trash her?

[thesquanderer]

13. There's are other threads about whether he can win...

...but do you want him to run? And if not, is there anyone you would like to see run, besides Hillary? Boy it's hard to keep a thread on-topic. But if you answer my question, I'll answer yours.

[Thinkingabout]

14. As I see it, if he should decide to run he will probably end up taking lots of heat as I stated on

the Socialists title he has given himself. If he has had a good career up to this point I would not think I would want to be mocked. He has to make an intelligent decision, if he wants his issues place on the Democrat platform he should work with the Democrat party to do so.

We have a large field of potential candidates, some still coming up, I like the Castro brothers though they need some more experience and they are getting that experience now. I like Joe Manchin, Tim Caine, Martin O'Malley, Deval Patrick to name a few.

[thesquanderer]

16. Okay then to answer your question...

Mostly, Hillary is too hawkish for me. And yeah, a bit too Wall street-friendly, too. I guess really your question is answered pretty well in the thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025548983

I voted for Bill twice, and Al, and John, and Barack... but I wasn't terribly enthusiastic about any of them. And I expect, if she's the nominee, I'll be saying the same about Hillary.

[Thinkingabout]

18. I hear a lot about Hillary being too Wall Street friendly, yes she gives speeches to Wall Street

Companies but she has a good record on voting on issues concerning Wall Street Companies.

•Take back $55B in Bush’s industry give-aways. (Apr 2008)
•FactCheck: Pushed Wal-Mart for women managers & environment. (Jan 2008)
•World Bank should impose rules on sovereign wealth funds. (Jan 2008)
•Bush defanged the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (Dec 2007)
•FactCheck: Yes, Bush shrunk CPSC; but it shrank before Bush. (Dec 2007)
•Outraged at CEO compensation. (Oct 2007)
•Stop bankruptcies to get rid of pension responsibilities. (Aug 2007)
•Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007)
•Close lobbyists’ revolving door; end no-bid contracts. (Jun 2007)
•1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)
•Corporate lawyer at Rose Law while Bill was Attorney General. (Jun 2007)
•Corporate elite treat working-class America as invisible. (Apr 2007)
•Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging. (Mar 2007)
•1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program. (Jun 2004)
•1970s: Potential conflict of interest when GM sued Arkansas. (Nov 1997)
•Businesses play social role in US; gov’t oversight required. (Sep 1996)
•Family-friendly work policies are good for business. (Sep 1996)
•Angry at unacceptable acquiescence to greed in the 1980s. (Jun 1994)
•Serving on boards provides ties but requires defending too. (Aug 1993)
•Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
•Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
•Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)

Yes she was on Walmart Board of Directors and while there she pushed for promotions to women and she also pushed Buy America. Since she is not on the board any longer we know Walmart has gone mostly to China and other countries other than USA for goods.

Do I like war, no, I pray for peace all the time but I also realize sometimes we are placed in positions where action has to be taken in order to protect our nation and our facilities.

[freshwest]

32. I agree... Can you give me a link so I can post this without a fuss? I don't think the media has

ever given her anything but a hostile reception since she was First Lady.

I don't believe she has the communication skills needed to get out the vote in sound bytes. Like Obama, she is better in person, although he has the ability to connect with voters on media as well, but they keep on talking over him, trolling him and editing what he has to say.

The media is incredibly biased towards the right, it's like swimming up a waterfall, not a river, to get a word in edgewise. I'll gladly vote for HRC, but it's going to be hard to get enthusiasm when she's been so shut out and demonized for an entire generation.

We need someone to keep on track with healthcare, minority and women's rights. The major attack on her has always been gay and women's issues; and of course the savage hatred when she tried as First Lady to get Congress to consider UHC.

She's kept on with that and it was one of the things she argued when the ACA came up, but the votes for UHC were not there. So Obama made the first move to get Americans to think and expect more justice in healthcare.

I expect to see with Democratic wins a move to UHC, which the ACA has as one of its choices, such as VT and now CA may do. Without thse wins, we're going to lose the rest of the New Deal, and UHC will be tossed in the trash. Along with many other things. It is a reality most don't accept, they think someone else is going to magically save the day while they stay home and don't vote.

[Thinkingabout]

39. Be glad to, I see her connection to Walmart and Goldmann Sachs posted with what appears to

be a misunderstanding of the actual facts. Many can rant about corporations and banks and will be the same ones who will need corporations and banks in their future.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[freshwest]

40. WOW! I will be using that here for what it's worth. But will this get to women, in particular?

I don't expect Obama to leave us at war when he leaves office, either, so it will be time to focus on these issues more.

I'm pleasantly surprised at the list. She didn't get much coverage in 2007 or 2008. While I'll vote for her, she's not going to be as good as Obama, at anything.

He's been a once in a lifetime chance for Americans to reverse the direction we've been going in for so long. And I'd say the voters let him and us down.

I knew many Democrats who voted for him in 2008 and they literally abandoned political activity totally, although Obama said he could not accomplish all our goals without us. He begged is again after re-election in 2012 and the electorate went on holiday again.

We are shut out of main stream media. How to get the word out about the policies on that list other than online?

I still want Sanders and others to face her in the primary. She can then explain her positions. I think she and Sanders want the same outcomes just with different means.

So does Warren, or she would not have endorsed HRC and told those who are trying to draft her to focus on 2014. If she wins, her time in office will be just as bad as Obama's with the GOP Teas obstructing things.

[nomorenomore08]

21. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm "anti-Hillary" but I do find many of her positions - especially

on economic issues - rather too conservative for my taste. To be frank, I would prefer someone like Sanders or Warren, but I'll still vote Clinton if she's the nominee.

[Boreal]

29. I like him and can't stand her

I think she's a snake, a liar, and a criminal.

I was just reading the Sheryl Attkison piece on the Bengazi stuff and the first thing that came to mind, for me, was Hillary shredding documents 20 years ago. She's still doing the same shit, today, and it's obstruction of justice.

This is a Democrat and 20+ year State Dept employee outing her and he got put on suspension for nothing. When he protested he got this:

“She told me, ‘You are taking this all too personally, Raymond. It is not about you,’ ” Maxwell recalls.

“I told her that ‘My name is on TV and I’m on administrative leave, it seems like it’s about me.’ Then she said, ‘You’re not harmed, you’re still getting paid. Don’t watch TV. Take your wife on a cruise. It’s not about you; it’s about Hillary and 2016.’ ”

http://dailysignal.com/print/?post_id=157483

What's more, Bernie Sanders was a huge critic of hers back in 1994 because of the destruction of evidence.

Bernie Sanders, as far as I know, is clean as a whistle and that's what I want in a candidate. Hillary is dirty and should be charged for the shit she's pulled.

Yes, I sure as hell would vote for Bernie. If she's the nominee, I'll vote third party.

[freshwest]

33. Interesting source material:

Last edited Thu Sep 18, 2014, 05:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Googling takes one back to your source instead of the print ready page:

The Daily Signal: Policy News, Conservative Analysis and Opinion

Conservatives and GOP talking points don't usually play well at DU:

http://dailysignal.com/

Top stories including the GOP hit piece on Hillary:

6 Takeaways From the Benghazi Panel’s First Hearing on Security Failures

The House special committee investigating the Benghazi terrorist attacks today convened its first public hearing, examining progress in implementing security improvements at U.S. embassies and…


Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., at today's hearing . (Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

Mr. Gowdy has been savaged repeatedly at DU, as he continued his Benghazi obsession. He says he will continue the hearings through 2016 and all the way to 2024 if HRC is elected. And that he intends to impeach both Obama and Biden. So, your source is not fondly regarded here. And he keeps on going after the House decided nothing was wrong:

Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi setback: New humiliation for GOP’s scandal hunter

As the GOP's Benghazi committee schedules its first hearing, another committee finds no evidence of a conspiracy

SIMON MALOY

In case you were at all concerned that the relative lack of Benghazi news of late meant that the issue was finally receding after nearly two years of intensive and fruitless investigation, fear not: in just a few short weeks, Benghazi-mania will live and breathe again. Rep. Trey Gowdy, chair of the House select committee tasked with beating whatever Benghazi bushes and dead horses remain, announced on July 30 that his committee’s first hearings will take place in September. If past is prologue, then Gowdy’s people will likely take advantage of the slow August news cycles and leak a few stripped-of-context tidbits to some bored and easily misled reporters. With the midterms bearing down, you’ll have all the necessary ingredients for yet more obsessive Benghazi “scandal” coverage.

It’s still not clear, though, what exactly anyone hopes to learn from Gowdy’s investigation, given that Benghazi has already been scrutinized several times over by several different congressional committees, all of which concluded that Benghazi was a tragedy, but there was no administration conspiracy, and no cover-up. And the day after Gowdy announced when his first hearings would be held, yet another committee reached the same conclusion.

On July 31, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence voted in favor of releasing a declassified version of its findings from its investigation into Benghazi. Almost immediately, the top-ranking Democrats on the committee started broadcasting the report’s conclusions. Ranking member Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger released a statement saying:

The report also shows that the process used to develop the talking points was flawed, but that the talking points reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis. Finally, the report demonstrates that there was no illegal activity or illegal arms sales occurring at U.S. facilities in Benghazi. And there was absolutely no evidence, in documents or testimony, that the Intelligence Community’s assessments were politically motivated in any way...

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/04/trey_gowdys_benghazi_setback_new_humiliation_for_gops_scandal_hunter/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025335862

The Left’s Political Network, Exposed in One Chart

It quotes RWNJ Ted Cruz, also not beloved at DU:

http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/17/183-organizations-lefts-political-network-exposed-one-chart/

Did You Know? An Illegal Immigrant Lives in U.S. for 12.7 Years… and Other Interesting Factoids

This is not a Democratic Party position piece:

http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/17/know-illegal-immigrant-lives-u-s-12-7-years-interesting-factoids/

Bobby Jindal: How the ‘Radical Left’ Uses Energy Costs to Control Americans


Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal speaking at The Heritage Foundation to a group of reporters about his new energy plan.

Neither Jindal nor the Heritage Foundation are considered worthy here:

http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/17/bobby-jindal-radical-left-uses-energy-control-americans/

5 Key Points Marco Rubio Made in His Big Defense Speech Today

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., outlined his views on the role of America in the world, why we need American power, and his position on what…

Marco Rubio is likewise unpopular, like Gowdy. Except more so.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/17/5-key-points-marco-rubio-made-big-defense-speech-today/

Please give me a link about HRC shredding documents twenty years ago. You say you're going to vote for someone else if HRC is nominated. But this is 2014. Any picks for this year?

EDIT: I may have found your Bernie and Hillary reference. It doesn't say documents being shredded in 1994, but definitely doesn't invite anyone to vote Democratic:

http://my.firedoglake.com/ohiogringo/2013/11/13/the-impending-destruction-of-the-democratic-party/

To find that shredding in 1994 reference, I went to:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/01301996.html

The interview is a wash, not a whitewash, but nothing is decided, despite the number of GOPers asking questions. But it has been a GOP boiler plate for twenty years now.

I want Bernie to run in the primaries to make other candidates take a stand one way or the other. I don't expect him to win, because of his age and disposition. Unfortunately, that is the case in American politics now.

I have trouble with believing Hillary will win, unless she has a ground game we don't see here. I don't even know if she will run. Bernie said on MTP that he would likely run as a Democrat in order to make use of their fifty state organization. I also doubt he can win.

Sherrod Brown is unknown, but might get Democratic Party support. Meanwhile, we have an election to win in less than two months. We are finishing the primaries in the Senate, HoR and state house races.

[gwheezie]

15. I will vote for Hillary

In my primary if she runs. I welcome sanders but he would have to be a dem to run in the dem primary. If he does win the dem primary I of course will vote for him

[gwheezie]

17. If not Hillary

I like mccaskill klobuchar gillibrand

[Agschmid]

19. You are aware he is an independent correct?

I feel like many forget this.

[thesquanderer]

24. If he wants the D after his name to be able to run as a D, it's easy to do.

And he has said that he's considering it.

Politically, he has been a de facto Democrat, caucusing on their side all along. In principles, he is closer to what many of us view as Democrats than many actual Democrats are (i.e. blue dogs).

Whether he runs as I or D in any given election is little more than a matter of paperwork.

[gwheezie]

26. I think it makes a difference

If he remains an indie he won't be in any of the dem primaries and I doubt any debates.
If he runs as a dem he has a better chance of presenting his position to a wider audience and challenging the position of other dems.

[thesquanderer]

27. I completely agree, it does make a difference.

And I would bet money that, if he chooses to run, it will be as a Democrat.

[gwheezie]

28. I hope he does

I think it would be good for the eventual nominee whoever it is to have him in the primaries and if he gets the nomination I will volunteer for him and vote for him

[baldguy]

20. Pointing out that Sanders is unlikely to win,

and will only harm the chances of victory for the eventual nominee, is in no way being "anti-Sanders". Far from it. What it is, is being realistic.

Convince me that he can win the primaries. Then convince me he can win the general.

[thesquanderer]

22. Convince you that he can win the primaries?

What odds do you think Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter were given before their first primaries? Interestingly, they were the ones who won the general. The ones who were more inside the beltway blessed--Mondale, Gore, Kerry--didn't. I think Dukakis is the only one who didn't fall into that pattern. For whatever it's worth.

[gwheezie]

23. 1st he has to be a dem nt

[thesquanderer]

25. See post 24 that I posted while you were posting 23. ;-)

[baldguy]

34. Except that each of them - including Dukakis - actually *DID* convince enough people.

That's what the primaries are all about. If Bernie can't do that then there's no way he can be considered a serious candidate, no matter how attractive he may be in some quarters. That's not being anti-Sanders, that's being realistic.

[thesquanderer]

41. I was talking about which ones won in the general election.

But sure, obviously, they all won their party's nomination. And if Sanders wants a shot at it, he's entitled to it.

[NanceGreggs]

30. Who here has expressed anything ...

... that can be construed as anti-Sanders?

Sanders is greatly admired, respected - I would go so far as saying "beloved".

However, there are many (myself included) who don't think he has a chance of being elected POTUS - and it has nothing to do with Hillary, or any other potential nominee.

This idea that if you recognize Sanders' vulnerabilities as a Dem nominee you are only doing so because "it may interfere with a Hillary campaign" is preposterous.

[thesquanderer]

36. Answering your question

Last edited Thu Sep 18, 2014, 11:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Your question: Who here has expressed anything that can be construed as anti-Sanders?

First, to be clear about what I meant by saying anti-Sanders: While the headline was made concise to fit, I explained in the first line of the OP that I was specifically talking about people who are "trashing the idea of Bernie Sanders running to become the Democratic candidate for President"

Examples of people expressing that POV would be VanillaRhapsody and Thinkingabout, whose comments I had responded to in other threads.

As for your comment that you believe he has no chance of being elected, I have two thoughts on that:

(a) it's awfully early to say that. A lot can happen in 2+ years. We don't know which Democrats he would be facing in a primary. (We don't know for certain that Hillary will run, and don't know who else may be in the mix.) We don't know what events may occur over the next 2+ years that shift public perceptions of people. We don't know who the Republicans will put up in 2016. etc. Related to that, as mentioned earlier, lots of people would have given Carter, Clinton, and Obama no chance if you were asking about them 2+ years before the election.

(b) even if you believe he has no chance of winning, I think there is value in having him (or someone with similar progressive positions) run for the nomination, because this country needs all the high profile conversation on these topics as it can get. And even if he trails during the whole process, maybe he does pull the front-runner to the left, and maybe having the conversations helps pull the country further that way as well.

So let me turn that around: What is a good reason that he should NOT run for the nomination?

I wasn't assuming that everyone who doesn't want Sanders to run was looking to protect Hillary, but it is obviously one likely rationale. But that's what led to this OP. Asking the question, whether there are other candidates who are supported by people who would prefer that Sanders didn't run. And yes, as you can see, people did list some.

[NanceGreggs]

42. Thank you for your civil ...

... and well-stated response. Sadly, they have become all too rare here.

I would be more than happy to see Sanders participate in the primaries. He is intelligent, extremely knowledgeable, and knows how to frame his positions with clarity and precision.

But I do not believe he is electable as POTUS, and here's why: As we have seen in election after election in this country, far more citizens vote on the basis of their perception of a candidate, rather than on the basis of said candidate's positions on important issues. That is a sad fact, but it is the reality of the situation.

We've certainly seen this with respect to the "disappointed with Obama" folks, who often express that they didn't get the man they thought they'd voted for. And in many, many instances, it becomes obvious that their perception of who Obama was, and how he was likely to govern, had no basis in reality. For many, Obama was some far-left mover-and-shaker, a cross between a miracle-worker who was going to change everything overnight and an avenger who was going to make life miserable for Republicans in payback for the misery we lived through under Dubya and his administration.

Had they actually listened to what the man said and watched how he conducted himself, they would have known just how off-base their perceptions were.

I remember reading conservative message boards during the Obama/McCain campaigns. The vast majority of the posters actually believed that Sarah Palin was an intelligent, politically savvy woman, a straight-talkin' "maverick" whose lack of polish denoted down-home common sense. I remember how many of them said that if only the liberals/progressives really listened to what she had to say, they would vote for the GOP ticket. They were certain that voters would come around to seeing what they saw, and would come away with the same "perception" of her that they thought was so incredibly obvious. As we both know, their perception couldn't have been more wrong.

So coming back to Sanders, there is a perception of him out there among many that he is too radical, too far-left, too doggedly persistent in his views, too willing to embrace ideas and actions that strike many as dangerously unrealistic. The socialist label doesn't sit well with a lot of people; he is also of an age that many find unacceptable given the rigours of the presidency. He is also a Jew - which many people, unfortunately, still see as a basis for suspicion, i.e. "He's not a Christian; he's 'different', he's not one of 'us'." And our friends in the "librul" MSM will waste no time in driving home all of the above.

Again, perception, not reality, is a driver in political elections. What we on the left see as Sanders' persistence will be seen by many as hard-headedness, and an unwillingness to compromise, even when it is in the best interest of the citizenry. What many of us see as an admirable lack of patience with stupidity, others will see as arrogance. What many of us see as common-sense innovative ideas, others will see as too far out of mainstream thinking to be taken seriously.

Do I believe Sanders would make a great president, who would do great things? Absolutely. But realistically, I have to accept that my perception of the man is not shared by everyone. I also have to accept that what I see as Sanders' strengths would be perceived as his weaknesses by many - and again, one cannot discount the impact of the mainstream media, who would ensure that those strengths became vulnerabilities day after day, broadcast after broadcast.

It is a truly unfortunate state of affairs that one has to take all of the above into consideration - but political reality is what it is, and ignoring reality never accomplishes anything.

I apologize for jumping the gun, as it were, in assuming that you were taking the position that Hillary supporters were being "anti-Sanders". There have been too many OPs of late that express that view, and I was annoyed to see yet another one. I often forget how black-and-white thinking has taken over DU - where if one says "I like chocolate ice cream," they will be bombarded with accusations that they "HATE!!!" vanilla.

In the end, I will be voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is, whether I like him/her or not, or would have preferred someone else. I know there are those here who see that as having no principles in voting for the (D) over every other consideration. But in truth, the overwhelming
principle that guides my vote is ensuring that an (R) never sees the inside of the Oval Office again in my lifetime.

[thesquanderer]

43. I agree with most of what you said

I would only take some issue with this:

"So coming back to Sanders, there is a perception of him out there among many that he is too radical, too far-left, too doggedly persistent in his views," etc.

I think that most of the people in the country at this point probably have very little perception of him at all.

Now the question of what the media will be driving home is an interesting one. Absolutely, fox and talk radio would do exactly what you say, in a big way. The rest of the media will have to be, at the least, more subtle about it. But to say that a strong candidate can't get his message past all that is too depressing to think about. It would mean we can never have a truly progressive president.

[NanceGreggs]

44. Sadly ...

... it's not just FOX-News anymore. It's pretty much the entire MSM.

Anyone who doesn't believe how biased the mainstream media has become need only look back to the 2012 election. We all know that literally millions of Americans view Mormonism as a cult, rather than as a religion - and I include myself in sharing that view.

I was truly dazzled - though not at all surprised - by the way the news media, in conjunction with the GOP, tarted-up Romney's "religious beliefs" as being mainstream Christian, with much emphasis on charitable works, adherence to Jesus' teachings, etc.

While the MSM made ratings hay out of Reverend Wright and his off-the-wall religious fervor, not a single mainstream news outlet touched the core beliefs of the Mormon church with a ten-foot pole. Can you imagine anyone interviewing Mitt and asking if he believes he will one day rule his own planet in the afterlife, or what he thinks about post-mortem Mormon "baptisms" of people like Anne Frank?

Of course, any questions aimed at Romney re the inner workings of the Mormon church would have been met with obfuscation, and declarations that he can't discuss what goes on behind closed church doors - responses that would have put voters off in droves. But no one "went there" - ever.

That's just one example of how the MSM frames discussion to the detriment of Democrats, and to the advantage of Republicans.

Things are changing - but slowly. As more people use the internet as their go-to source for news and political analysis, the MSM will become less and less relevant - and less and less able to sway the minds of voters. However, we are still living in a world where voters, especially older voters, turn to the TV for information about candidates - voters who are still of the mindset that "I heard it on the TV, so it must be the way things really are."

It is truly sad that someone like Sanders - or Feingold, who I am a BIG fan of - can expect to be pilloried (in a subtle way, as you point out) for being non-Christians. But that is still, unfortunately, the way of the world.

As for your comment that most people in the country probably have very little perception of Sanders at this point, I concur. But that would prove to be a disadvantage, in that people's "perception" of him, should be decide to run, would be ripe for being shaped by the MSM in negative terms, because he is not widely known as who he actually is, as opposed to who he would be represented as. I think we both know how he would be introduced to the country at large: as a radical, out-of-the-mainstream, elderly socialist Jew, who hates democracy and everything "good Christians" hold dear.

That's the reality in our media-driven country - and it's not about to change between now and 2016.

[LynneSin]

38. I like what you said!

[Recursion]

31. I like both Schweitzer and O'Malley, personally (nt)

[justiceischeap]

35. I like Kirsten Gillibrand myself

and she seems to be making moves to indicate that she may be interested in higher office.

Here's some info from Wiki:

Gillibrand's views on many issues can be defined as an evolution based on constituent needs; some have characterized this progression as flip-flopping. In the House, she was known as a conservative liberal[1] or centrist,[74] serving at the will of a highly conservative electorate.[1] She was a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of fiscally conservative Democrats.[75] In the Senate, she is known more as a populist-leaning liberal, as she represents a heavily Democratic state. At the time of her appointment to the Senate, a Salon.com editorial said that Gillibrand's reputation in the House characterized her as "a hybrid politician who has remained conservative enough to keep her seat while appearing progressive enough to raise money downstate."[1]

On social issues, Gillibrand is generally liberal, supporting a pro-choice agenda,[76] legalization of same-sex marriage,[77] and health care reform with a public option.[78] She is a strong advocate for government transparency, being one of a few members of Congress that releases as much personal and scheduling information.[79] She is also a strong supporter of female equality and involvement, having begun the website offthesidelines.org in 2011. Although a supporter of gun rights while in the House, Gillibrand has since moved in the direction of gun control.[80] On economic issues, Gillibrand has been more fiscally conservative.[citation needed]

Gillibrand has received an 8% rating from the American Conservative Union,[81] 70% from Americans for Democratic Action,[82] and 90% from the American Civil Liberties Union.[83] OnTheIssues.org rates Gillibrand as a "populist-leaning liberal."[84]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsten_Gillibrand

And here she is on the issues:
http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Kirsten_Gillibrand.htm

She's proven in NY that she can win over conservatives and liberals alike. I like that she governs in a way that supports her constituency... it may drive many on DU mad that she does this but I approve, because that is actually the job of a representative--to represent their constituents (whether I like those constituents political views or not). You don't see that many politicians doing that these days.

[LynneSin]

37. My only issue with Sanders is age. If that makes me ageist then so be it

I love the guy but if he is elected he will be 75 years old which would make him 6 years older than Ronald Reagan was at Reagan's first inauguration. I have a hard time supporting a person knowing that he might not even finish out his first term although I would suspect that Sanders would pick someone good to be his Vice President.

I would rather put all my efforts behind someone like Elizabeth Warren who is much younger in age and is a Democrat so less likely to divide up the party. Her ideologies also mirror those of Bernie Sanders.

[LuvNewcastle]

45. I agree.

If he was 20 years younger, I'd be an enthusiastic supporter, whether he chose to run as a Democrat or as an Indy. But he isn't, and that makes all the difference.

Sherrod Brown seems like a logical choice. He's got a great record in the Senate and he's popular in his home state, which is an important swing state. I've heard that some people don't like his voice. As shallow as Americans are these days, that might hurt his chances.

I still might end up voting for Sanders, though. It all depends on how things stack up in the primaries.

[Jamaal510]

46. Regardless of who

the nominee is, it's important for more people to recognize the importance of also voting in Congressional elections so that the next Democrat won't end up like Obama has.

[MohRokTah]

47. I'm not anti-Sanders, I just do not believe he would be capable of winning the GE