I have fucking had it with: "Sanders, which could potentially force Hillary Clinton further left..."

[NYC_SKP]

First, context, Occupy Wall Street issued a statement: Awesome thread by Sabrina1, give it a K/R!

The article, by ATTN, includes this statement:

The endorsement, then, not only shows there is some grassroots support for Sanders, which could potentially force Hillary Clinton further left, but it is also marks a shift in Occupy to a more organized progressive movement.

"...which could potentially force Hillary Clinton further left"???

I'm so fucking sick and tired of this meme about moving her to the left, it's wrong on three counts:

First, "further left" implies that she's left, which she clearly is not - she's centrist.

Second, she doesn't listen to anyone but the rich and her overpaid advisers, I sincerely doubt she can be moved to the left.

Finally, I don't support him to move Clinton to the left, I support him to win, to take the primary and go on to win the general.

Go Bernie!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. More infighting ...it will be a wonder if the Democratic party can come together

[KittyWampus]

4. IRONY ALERT

[NYC_SKP]

6. Not infighting, a false narrative that needs to just stop. "Push her to the left."

If anyone thinks that anyone can be pushed to the left or right, they're crazy.

All that can happen is that a candidate can challenge an opponent to respond to left or right issues that they might otherwise not address.

But once they're elected they will do whatever they are going to do.

[Buzz Clik]

39. Rush Limbaugh can be pushed "further to the left". You outrage is sounding contrived.

[1handclapn]

158. Rush Limbaugh got fired.... for being too Reich. nt

[passiveporcupine]

115. The problem with pushing her to the left

Is that it will not really do that, but it may push her campaign rhetoric to the left, and people will then vote for her because she finally says what they want to hear. She won't operate that way if she wins. It's all for votes.

And it may actually do that, so I worry that she will "pretend" to be more for the left than she really is. I already see this in her campaign issues.

The thing about Bernie that we need to focus on is that he's always been a man for the people. It's not a political game to him. He's the one we really need for President, not Hillary.

[NYC_SKP]

118. Exactly, good points.

The rhetoric will change and then the candidate, if elected, returns to whatever values they have.

[OregonBlue]

173. I love Bernie and will support him but if Hillary wins the primary I will support

her in every way I can. Yes, she's pretty centrist but when it comes to social issues she is a good dyed in the wool Dem. I'm voting Democrat and I really hope everyone here will not tear down the other person's candidates. It's one thing to promote your candidate but it's another to diss anyyone else's. We are still Democratic Underground.

There is not a single Dem that is running or considering running that wouldn't be 1000% better than Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Huckabee, Perry, Trump.........

[stage left]

230. +1000

I don't want a Republican as President. I also want fewer of them in the House and Senate. That's the bottom line for me.

[hifiguy]

147. Anything she may say that is vaguely progressive

will be disappeared the moment she wins anything. Bank on it. She's center to center-right, especially on economic issues.

[bvar22]

162. This effect has been visible over the last 2 weeks.

All of a sudden, Hillary is now a Populist.

[appalachiablue]

174. +5

[sendero]

176. Exactly

.... politicians do not feel the need to hew to the words of their campaigns. They say whatever it takes to get elected, then they do as their masters tell them.

HRC is already yammering a lot of crap that I simply cannot believe she really means based on her record.

[rhett o rick]

177. Well said. We don't need her to pretending to be progressive. nm

[zentrum]

178. Agreed

It's well known that during the primaries you talk "progressive" to activate the Dem base and then govern from the center right. Or just the right. But Bernie won't have any of that. He's always been who he is.

[Enthusiast]

142. Only the rhetoric can be massaged.

One is, or is not, left or right leaning in their ideology.

[NYC_SKP]

161. That is a fact. The implication in the OWS statement is that he can't win.

The sentiment is abundantly clear by the absence of any suggestion that he might win.

[arikara]

171. Of course, that will be the message blasted by media and HIllary's bunch

as if it is a given that he can't win. That's one of the tactics.

And her rhetoric will probably sound pretty good because of his campaign but as has been mentioned above, if she gets elected she'll do whatever she wants. Right of center. Screw the 99%, the donors have to be paid back.

[Enthusiast]

197. It is their major tactic. We must prove them wrong.

And we will!

[INdemo]

241. Yes but there are members here that are hell bent on arguing that

Hillary is a liberal. Hillary could declare "I'm a Republican campaigning for the Democratic nomination" and I believe there are Democrats here that would defend her move.

[Enthusiast]

195. The truth is, millions of Americans have realized that they are being abused.

Millions of Democrats, millions of independants and millions of Republicans are ready to listen. And Bernie's words will resonate with them.

If they do not kill Bernie (which is a distinct possibility) he will be elected to the presidency.

People are starving for honesty and integrity.

We shall steam roll them sunzabitches!

[sabrina 1]

211. That rubbed me the wrong way too NYC_SKP.

But was the from the article that was reporting on the OWS endorsement, or from OWS itself?

It's late and I'm falling asleep, so I will check it out tomorrow to be sure.

Either way, yes, this garbage needs to be nipped in the bud.

Bernie is in it to win, not to try to do the impossible, drag people to the Left who are clearly not there and won't be.

[NYC_SKP]

224. Sarah Gray at ATTN wrote the article, not OWS...

And I hope I didn't come down to hard on the OWS, which isn't organized in a way that they would have issued such a statement.

https://twitter.com/sarahhhgray

So I guess one has to vet the claims here:

Although he's not expected to win the nomination, Sen. Sanders is already drumming up support. Today, a group started by Occupy Wall Street founders made their first ever endorsement of a presidential candidate by lending their support to Sen. Sanders. They also announced the website PeopleForBernie.com and a partnership with Ready4Bernie.com.

http://www.peopleforbernie.com/

http://www.ready4bernie.com/

NB: It's "a group started by Occupy Wall Street founders", she writes, so even that is puzzling as the movement prides itself on anonymity.

IMO, you can't be both, an anonymous movement AND have founders who publicly announce what they are doing.



It's all good tho as long as it's sincere and supporting the right reforms.

[sabrina 1]

258. That's what I thought. In my OP I posted the statement from OWS Organizers, the original organizers

It's not difficult to understand. OWS was not started by the people who ended up participating in the movement.

It was the brain child of some pretty savvy, experienced organizers who worked for three months on the plans to put their idea into action.

They started a website so people could see them working on the plans.

Their reason was that they realized regular, one day protests did not have much effect, such as the War protests, no matter how big they were, because the media ignored them.

So they based their idea on other movements where protesters occupied public space and stayed there for a period of time.

They were fascinating to watch as they planned the whole thing, covering ever possible issue that might arise.

They assumed the media would ignore them, so planned to cover it themselves.

They were being observed during the planning stages by the police etc. And when they did a trial run to find out how the police would react, they were able to include in their plans how to deal with the anticipated arrests, legal representation etc, documentation of every arrest which served them will in the long court battles they had later thousands of which were thrown out.

These are the same original organizers now entering a new phase which this endorsement all the more important.

They are playing the same role they played when they kicked off the first phase.

So this does nothing to contradict the philosophy of OWS. Once in motion, the idea will be handled by OWS groups who will decide in General Assemblies for themselves.

I did not think they would say that Bernie 'won't win'. These are not the kind of people who get into something not believing they CAN win.

[NYC_SKP]

262. Thank you for the background, good to know.

And I agree,

I did not think they would say that Bernie 'won't win'. These are not the kind of people who get into something not believing they CAN win.

The words in the article were probably not particularly reflective of their views... They support Sanders, period.

[Buzz Clik]

38. Sanders is polling dead even with "no preference" and "margin of error"

Until that changes, this just a mini-drama.

[cui bono]

53. Sanders is polling almost the same as Obama was at this point in 2007.

Sanders can definitely win. He needs to win. Any Dem who doesn't vote for him should take a long hard look at what they are supporting rather than what he is constantly fighting for.

[Agschmid]

56. That's just not true.

Rasmussen Reports Poll
May 7–10, 2007

Hillary Clinton 35%, Barack Obama 33%, John Edwards 14%, Bill Richardson 3%

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2008_presidential_candidates

[cui bono]

59. That's what Thom Hartmann said on his radio show. n/t

[Agschmid]

60. People make shit up, to make the point they want to.

[cui bono]

71. Thom doesn't.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

82. Well, if he said Obama was polling the same as Sanders

is now, then he most certainly did make shit up. Or is just severely misinformed.

[cui bono]

94. As I mentioned to someone else who is being reasonable in this thread,

I may have misrepeated it. Go look for that post, but don't try to throw Thom Hartmann under the bus. He's the best thing on the radio for us so you might want to reword your post. Unless you'd like to tell us why you are against Hartmann.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

99. I don't listen to Thom Hartmann.

I avoid all talking heads and pundits. I don't want any bias in any reporting, whether it be right or left. I like to look at the big picture. Read multiple reports of an issue, look into the back story, et al.

Also, ANYONE associated with RT has zero-credibility in my book.

[cui bono]

105. So you don't listen to him but give him zero credibilty.

So much for looking at the big picture.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

110. If he worked for The Blaze, would you listen to him?

How about NewsMax? FOX News?

I avoid all of those outlets. I also avoid RT, as it is no different, IMHO.

[cui bono]

117. He doesn't work for RT. They air his show. And I judge people base on their actions and stances,

not solely their associations, especially when it's just an outlet that airs their show. You know, I look at the big picture before making up my mind.

[yuiyoshida]

186. Boom!

Head shot! love it.

[INdemo]

229. Is your book available on Amazon?

[cui bono]

234. My book?

[INdemo]

240. Dont know what happen but I must have clicked on obviously the wrong post

intended for that reply...
But where did you find the "Sanders for President" for
signature line

[cui bono]

249. I stole it from someone else.

If you right click on it and select "view image" you will have it in the url where it lives.

[JaneyVee]

84. Apparently he did.

[cui bono]

91. No, he didn't. But I might have misrepeated something. Check my other posts.

And if Thom misspoke, he will correct it.

I'm curious, do you have a problem with Thom Hartmann?

[sabrina 1]

213. Yes, they do. Bernie just entered the race. We'll see where the polling is a month from now.

Thom Harmann doesn 'make shit up' btw.

I was an Obama supporter at that time. Hardly anyone I knew had ever heard of him.

Hillary was 'inevitable'. I have no doubt, because I remember, that even people who found him interesting, didn't believe he had a chance.

I remember trying to convince my MIL and FIL who were supporting the 'inevitable Hillary' that he did have a chance.

A year later they believed me and both ended up voting for him.

Hartmann is correct

I see a lot of 'he's wrong' but not a single link to prove him wrong.

And at this time in that campaign the inevitability of Hillary was so strongly believed that we didn't even think she needed to do much in the way of campaigning.

But those of us who did not want to end up supporting someone who supported Bush's war, remained hopeful that once people got to hear Obama, they would support him.

I am getting a sense of Deja Vu for some reason.

[Agschmid]

220. The link was a few posts up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6608539

[workinclasszero]

58. Hey he might surge to....

3% by the primary!

[sufrommich]

64. Obama was polling at 30% in May of 2007.

Overall, 45 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents support Clinton to be the party's nominee, with Obama second at 30 percent. Edwards, whose hopes for winning depend heavily on a victory in the Iowa caucuses in January, is at 12 percent. Clinton's margin over Obama has been generally steady since February, just after the two candidates launched their presidential bids.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/22/AR2007072201135.html

[cui bono]

73. Maybe it was earlier in the year then, because he had Edwards higher than Obama I think.

And I was listening at work, so I probably left something like that out. But he said Sanders had a chance at winning because the numbers were almost what Obama's were.

[Agschmid]

77. Sanders absolutely has a chance, but he isn't polling where Obama was.

That being said Obama had announced his candidacy and had time to build traction.

[sufrommich]

89. I'm not trying to take away from Sanders,of course he's got a

chance of winning the primaries,it's very early. I'm pointing out that Obama hit the ground running and never lost ground. Frankly, there are very few primary campaigns that are going to resemble Obama's campaign,nobody is going to look favorable by comparison.

[Number23]

259. Excellent point. When minorities got over their fears that white people would not vote for him

and realized that he was a viable candidate, he took off. And kept going.

[Buzz Clik]

156. No.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/07/schneider.2008.polls/index.html

But that was an interesting fantasy

[HERVEPA]

129. Everr hear of a little thing in politics called name-recognition.

Last edited Sat May 2, 2015, 03:13 PM - Edit history (1)

And how when that increases, which it will, poll results change.

[Buzz Clik]

157. First time I've heard of it. Ever.

And what is your name?

[Enthusiast]

198. Without the nay sayers like you progress would be better.

We know about you.

[Buzz Clik]

203. I'm not standing in your way.

Best of luck with the socialist agenda.

[Enthusiast]

204. The agenda of most American citizens you mean.

Lying used to work. But, like the little boy that cried wolf, it is only effective for so long. But keep tying. I'm sure the money is good. The American people know they have been lied to for decades. We are tired of it.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[davidpdx]

208. BAWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

That was epic.

[SusanCalvin]

98. One person's infighting = another person's primary process

You know, the way it is supposed to work. Saying Hillary is not left is not infighting - it is the truth.

[JaneyVee]

2. 9th most liberal senator of her time.

But carry on.

[okaawhatever]

8. Yes and Elizabeth Warren was what, 8th? Ignore all the facts, though. The Sanders

crowd thinks they can make up in repeat posts what they lack in facts.

[JaneyVee]

57. Obama was actually 8th.

[leveymg]

21. I would like to see the metrics for that determination. It's not apparent that she's much other

than a committed centrist from the bills she introduced.

Hillary bounced around a lot - many of her bills were renaming US Post Office branches, and the like - it's not at all clear from the bills she introduced exactly what she thinks is important.

HRC: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=400357#sponsor=300022

Bernie: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=400357

Would like to hear what others think about this comparison.

[workinclasszero]

54. 9th most liberal senator of her time.

9th most liberal senator of her time.9th most liberal senator of her time.9th most liberal senator of her time.
9th most liberal senator of her time.9th most liberal senator of her time.9th most liberal senator of her time.
9th most liberal senator of her time.9th most liberal senator of her time.9th most liberal senator of her time.
9th most liberal senator of her time.9th most liberal senator of her time.9th most liberal senator of her time.

Think the purists will get that?

[cui bono]

88. I got something out of your post, but it had nothing to do with Hillary.

More to do with you.

And btw... when you say "purists" all you are doing is slighting yourself. If you are fine with Hillary then you are fine with a moderate Republican. She's going to be the same as Obama and even he knows he is a moderate Republican when it comes to policy.

And what do you think a real democracy is about? Settling from the get go? Of course people fight for everything we want, that's the whole point. You always keep fighting for what you want. So when you say "purist" and think you are insulting someone, you are actually complimenting them. I'd rather fight for what I really believe in than settle for a centrist.

Those of us who want our party back from the corporatist wing of the party stand with Bernie. He gets it. He is a true Democrat even if he wasn't an actual member of the party. He's the one who stands for and fights for true Democratic principles. He is the working class Hero.

[workinclasszero]

104. whatever

This board in no way represents most democratic voters in this country.

Just a tiny fraction.

You know it and I know it.

See you in the primaries.

[cui bono]

106. What does that have to do with anything I said? n/t

[LondonReign2]

179. Please remember that we are just a tiny minority when your preferred

conservative candidate gets drubbed again. That way, we can avoid all that scapegoating that typically follows the "pragmatic centrists" losses.

[TBF]

140. "Think the purists will get that?"

Way to alienate right out of the gate. Is that your purpose on this site? Rhetorical question.

[workinclasszero]

141. Hillary has been attacked on this board since before

she announced by Bernie/Warren fans.

And this post by the OP is yet again, another attack/smear against Hillary.

You believe in self defense, no?

Or should Hillary supporters just shut up and take abuse from Bernie fanatics till Hillary wins the nomination??

[TBF]

146. Go back through my posts -

at one point I got eviscerated for suggesting that a lot of the bad-mouthing is coming from republican sources (http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5211593).

I am obviously supporting Bernie now that he is running (and I view him as most leftist of the candidates who have announced), but that doesn't mean I hate all other dems. I still stand by my opinion that we shouldn't have to trash each other. Bernie seems to feel the same way since he said he will not engage in negative campaigning.

[workinclasszero]

148. Good for Bernie

Hillary is not attacking him either.

However Bernie fans on this board have been on the attack against Hillary well before she announced using bogus republican talking points like the debunked "Clinton Cash" screed from a Palin employee and Fox news fav!

[TBF]

160. I think what I wrote in my OP is still true -

I think you have many honest Bernie/Liz fans here who are not convinced Hillary Clinton understands what it is really like to be poor (she's from the suburbs of Chicago, attended Wellesley & Yale, etc). Personally as the daughter of a union member who grew up in a rural area of the midwest I don't think she quite does either. However, I would rather have her than Scott Walker when push comes to shove. There are others who come to these forums just to disrupt, however, and I think we will see them posing as both Hillary and Bernie fans in an attempt to wreak havoc. Please don't categorize all Bernie/Liz fans with that broad brush. I know many folks from MIRT who are Hillary supporters and I'm not about to trash them or call them names. I expect the same in return.

[juajen]

210. Why don't you read her biography before you pretend to know how she grew up.

She actually worked in a fish cannery in Alaska during the summer to raise money for college. The Clintons did not have a home when they took the White House. That is why the kennedys invited them to Martha's Vinyard for their vacations. Her father was a merchant, I believe in some kind of fabric, maybe upholstory. She was not a spoiled rich kid. Wellesly was on a scholarship. I believe you should do some research before you embarrass hyourself. Wikipedia has this info, if you don't want to buy a book.

[TBF]

216. Oh please - this is getting ridiculous.

Hillary grew up in Park Ridge, Illinois & served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans.

http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/HILLARY_Bio.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

I tried to reach out and find some common ground here, but you're determined to be cantankerous and push your centrist (at best) candidate. Good luck.

[cui bono]

75. All that shows is how far right the entire elected politicians of both parties have moved.

Time to change that.

[BrotherIvan]

92. !!!!!!!!!!!!

[JaneyVee]

97. This metric is based on voting records. Spectrums don't change.

[cui bono]

103. Yeah, voting records of hers against the other elected officials. So what I said stands.

We need actual liberals elected to compare against. There's not many in there. Hillary certainly isn't liberal. So if she's the 9th most liberal in the Senate then the Senate as a whole isn't very liberal.

[candelista]

164. Really? Spectrums don't change?

As Cornell West rightly said, Obama has the politics of a Nelson Rockefeller Republican. The entire political continuum, viewed empirically, has shifted to the right since those days.

[cui bono]

200. And even if you don't think the spectrum itself changes, where one lands on it certainly does.

Obama himself describes himself as a moderate Republican due to his policies.

[KittyWampus]

3. Another outburst from a Sanders supporter? LOL. I support him to move Hillary left

He has next to ZERO chance of getting the nomination.

He knows it, I'm sure.

So not all Sanders' supporters agree with you and the content of your outburst.

[sabrina 1]

36. Bernie can win. I support him to WIN. You can't drag anyone to the Left, so that's just

ridiculous. And if someone who is clearly not there, begins to talk as if they are during campaign season, you keep looking at the record and ignore what they say.

The OP is correct, Bernie and his supporters, growing by the hour, are in it to win, because he doesn't need to be 'dragged to the Left' and his record is all we need to know that.

[woo me with science]

43. [phone]

[KittyWampus]

131. He almost certainly cannot win the primary. He has not participated in Democratic party politics.

suggesting otherwise is ludicrous.

[lordsummerisle]

187. ^^^

[Caretha]

191. Draw me a map

then I can be sure

[seabeyond]

5. i have always seens sanders run as individual and an opportunity. not an extension of clinton.

not a tough one, and appears to be proving out.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

7. Call out threads like this with slams against Hillary do nothing but drive us further apart

and make it harder for us to come together given what the alternative from the right is.

[NYC_SKP]

12. With this OP I'm calling out the media and OWS, not Clinton.

Clinton is Clinton, she is what she is and this is the primary season, go for the candidate you love and against the one you think will lose.

[seabeyond]

13. you betcha. when i state, as a feminist, social is my priority, as i support sanders....

i would expect us as a party to get that. just a few days in, and clearly

economic populist candidacy is the one and only direction.

i do not care how we tell the american people that sanders is not about white and men, when it presents itself white, men.

so many ways, the message is, social takes a back seat and i do not care that he voted every democratic vote. i expect him to. or i would not vote for him. as does clinton. as does obama. great voice for our rights

i am not seeing an advocate.

i am seeing an advocate for the economic populist position.

[sabrina 1]

44. Then why on earth would you say you support him? I support him because I DO see what you

say you don't see. But then I've followed him for a long time so maybe I know more about him.

What you say you don't see in Bernie, I don't see in Hillary. I see someone who says one thing, then supports the opposite with her votes and her support for the opposite.

Bernie's words match his actions, on minorities on women on equality and on most of those issues which are important to the PEOPLE, young, old and on every minority issue that is important to a country that claims to be a democracy.

Why don't you support Hillary? What about her do you object to?

[seabeyond]

50. there is not a chance in hell i would try to clear the air with you. you have zero

credibility of actually listening ot what i have to say.

[sabrina 1]

63. I am more than willing to 'clear the air' with anyone because I am confident enough

in the choice of candidate I have made to be able to do so.

Which is another reason why I support Bernie. He makes it easy to destroy the negative campaigning that has already begun, against him.

Because of his record.

[seabeyond]

68. first sentence to me "Then why on earth would you say you support him? "

if that is what you got from my post, it is clear that you have no desire what so ever to do ... shit.

[sabrina 1]

76. It is what I got from your post. That you have some serious issues with the candidate

you support. That doesn't make sense to me. I have some serious issues with Hillary, so I am supporting a candidate with whom I do not have such serious issues.

As I said, his record on women, on minorities, on all the important issues facing this country is excellent. Making it easy to take on the negative smear campaigns that have already begun.

[seabeyond]

78. of course it doesnt make sense, because you made my post what you wanted to make it.

[sabrina 1]

100. Then feel free to correct me.

It's up to you, when someone misunderstands anything I write, I have no problem explaining why they are wrong.

Bernie is great on women's issues, on minorities, on Civil Rights which are denied to minorities in this country. And which is why we need someone like him to fix that once and for all.

And that is why I support him. I believe he will fight for those rights when he wins.

Not just talk about them.

[seabeyond]

119. yes you make it up to me. but you change what i say to your argument. so it really does not matter

how often i say it, you will remain unclear. hence, no way in hell i would put forth the effort. i will leave it for those that are truly interested.

[sabrina 1]

149. Then I have to assume that my interpretation is correct.

Bernie is my candidate because of his record on issues that matter to women, minorities, old, young, the disabled, the working class, the poor and his years long dedication to these issues, despite the odds against anyone who stands up for ALL the people, is remarkable.

[seabeyond]

150. of course. assume your INTERPRETATION is correct even though the words i posted and me telling

you otherwise, what is right there in front of your face. HENCE...

me not bothering having a conversation with you. it is a waste of time. fug

you maek it up and say, that is your right and makes you right. woozers, and easy win, right sabrina? when you get to dismiss whatever i say to make your own story?

[Dragonfli]

183. With all due respect, your post is very unclear, I honestly do not understand what you are saying

I would like to, is there any way you can clarify it? It would help people understand and perhaps agree with you. As it stands, I don't know what it is you are trying to say.

[BrotherIvan]

61. In an effort to derail

Some "supporters" are using backhanded concern-trolling and picking fights. In thread after thread. A poster actually wrote, "Well I was going to support Sanders, but his supporters are being mean to so now I'm not." Yesterday! So this tatic is just shit stirring. Look at the voting and threads on DU of Sanders supporters, a HUGE majority. And yet the scolding continues...

[seabeyond]

65. how about the tactic of you telling me we do not have a place in the campaign? brilliant strategy.

[BrotherIvan]

69. What on earth are you talking about

[seabeyond]

70. you replied to sabrina who replied to me. you stated it was about derailing dismissing what i said.

correct?

[BrotherIvan]

102. You are all over this thread trying to derail it

And if you're trying to say that Bernie isn't good for women, you are dead wrong. Pay Equity for Women Workers is part of his 12 point economic platform. *Stated specifically*. He has a 100% rating by NARAL

Here are his positions on reproductive rights.

Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (Mar 2009)
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Emergency contraception for rape victims at all hospitals. (Sep 2006)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
Require pharmacies to fulfill contraceptive prescriptions. (Jul 2011)
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services. (Nov 2013)
Protect the reproductive rights of women. (Jan 1993)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception. (Jan 2009)

So he has and does address reproductive rights and equality throughout his career. And he has always been consistent.

[seabeyond]

122. all over? no hyperbole or dishonest there. i made one comment. some people replied and we had a

discussion.

really. i stop at the first incorrect statement. that would be i am all over this thread to derail

yet, when i made a comment about your accusation initially, you acted like you were clueless what i was talking about. amazing that.

[BrotherIvan]

128. You were presented with an answer to your concerns

And you're still trying to pick a fight. It really is so transparent and I'm not gonna play anymore. Looks like no one else is buying it either.

[seabeyond]

130. it was the economic populists answer. and it was an incorrect answer full of irony,

contradiction in action and obviously didnt satisfy nor appease me.

not sanders but the populist group making this a economic populist campaign. me? i am supporting sanders and know or hope anyway, he is beyond this little battles that has been going on for a while on du.

[BrotherIvan]

135. Wow

[seabeyond]

137. i just do not toe your line, do i? mind boggling.

[ucrdem]

212. LOL, +1 to the billionth.

seabeyond I am loving your responses in these mind-minder threads so don't go changin'!

[sabrina 1]

66. Well, it isn't working!

As I just said, the negative campaign tactics that have already begun, are easily destroyed because Bernie is such a great candidate.

It's nice having a candidate you don't have defend all the time, whose record is the best weapon against attempts to smear him.

[BrotherIvan]

107. Saying that Sanders thinks social issues need to take a back seat to economic ones

and only cares about white males is the most disingenuous thing I have read today. I'm sure it won't be the worst.

[seabeyond]

125. SAYING... running the campaign as an economic populist campaign, and all kinds of dismissal when i

talk about social issues, telling me i am derailing and sabotaging sanders run, is very much telling me my issues take a fuckin back seat. this really is not rocket science, people.

[BrotherIvan]

132. It is not Sanders that is is dismissing your concerns as shown abundantly to you in this thread

*I* am dismissing your tactics.

[seabeyond]

136. yes. you are dismissing my concerns. we agree on that. as i stated initially and thru out. no mo

[Caretha]

192. Seabeyond

you really, I mean really need to study the recent political history and get with the program.

See you at the next Democratic meeting in Amarillo!...Oh have never seen you there...well we are a very welcoming bunch.

[Bonobo]

184. Keeps repeating "white" and "men" and "populist"

It is becoming clear that the steps are:

1. There is no 99%
2. The OWS is basically the Tea Party, filled with white men.
3. White men suck.
4. Populists are Tea Partiers.
5. etc.

You get the picture.

[BrotherIvan]

185. Actually all I hear is

me me me me me me me!

[cui bono]

114. Are you saying that because Bernie is a white male that he is going to be fighting only for white

males?

i do not care how we tell the american people that sanders is not about white and men, when it presents itself white, men.

Bernie fights for everything. Both social and economic justice. Where have you gotten the idea that he's going to put social issues on the back seat?

[seabeyond]

126. if his campaign is, economic populist, then yes. he is advocating for white and male. nt

[cui bono]

139. Is that how he defines his campaign?

And if he is for economic justice, how is that a white male thing?

[seabeyond]

145. that is how his campaign is being defined. two days in, i do not know how he is defining.

that is a wait and see.

how is economic justice white and male?

it is addressing wallstreet/corporation.

that is middle class/upper middle class issues.

that is white and male

that is trickle down.

[cui bono]

201. You don't think his record is proof enough? He's been in the public eye a long time now.

He's railed against economic and social injustices on both the Senate and House floors.

You are leaving out all the people in this country who are not white and male yourself by your description. I don't know how you can do that. Why do you think that economic justice doesn't include women and minorities? I can't wrap my head around that. Justice means it would be fair to everyone. How does it leave out swaths of people? That's what we have now and it is anything but economic justice.

[cui bono]

250. You didn't respond to my other post so here are a couple more thoughts I missed...

Can you please explain this:

how is economic justice white and male?

it is addressing wallstreet/corporation.

that is middle class/upper middle class issues.

that is white and male

that is trickle down.

I do not understand how that is economic justice and what you think economic justice is. What exactly do you mean by "addressing wallstreet/corporation"? You then say that it's "middle class/upper middle class issues"... I don't get it. He wants Wall Street regulated and under control. He wants the banksters to not be allowed to play with our money and be predator lenders. He wants people to stay in their homes rather than the banksters getting the money and then stealing people's houses from them.

How is that not addressing working people? How is that not addressing ALL working people regardless of race/gender? How is that trickle down???

[BrotherIvan]

143. Do you think ANYONE is buying this crap?

Guess what: I'M NOT WHITE. And if you look all over his supporters posts, they aren't all men.

[seabeyond]

144. two statements you are addressing. please be specific what is false, or as you say... crap?

[cui bono]

96. I'm curious, are you really a Bernie supporter?

I ask because I've seen many posts by you that seem odd with your Bernie logo in them.

[seabeyond]

127. he was a supporter well before many of the people in this very thread jumped on board. as was i.

he merely has an open mind and it does not hurt him to look at facts.

[cui bono]

138. Okay, thanks. n/t

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

182. Only odd if calling for party unity is odd or supporting Bernie is odd or for supporting Hillary IF

she ends up being the candidate.

But yes, I dont go out of my way to support one candidate while intentionally polarizing those who dont, so if that is odd, you got me

I will chastise and even attack anyone who says they wont vote for the democrat...

[cui bono]

199. That's good. I just had to ask to satisfy my curiosity. Thanks for your answer.

I appreciate it.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

227. He needs money, I have donated a little and signed up to volunteer, but we need to get his name

out there and get him money at this stage, not sure how.

[cui bono]

233. I work with someone who overheard me exclaim delight when I saw Bernie was running.

He walked into my room and asked me about him. I told him some of what he supports, SS, regulating Wall Street/banks, health care for everyone... He said tell me more, get me to not vote Republican for the first time.

He has told me before he's neither party. He hears me always blaming Republicans and just a few days before asking be about Bernie said "you and Republicans" when I said something was their fault. But maybe I'm getting to him. I do always tell him the facts about why it is the Republicans' fault regarding whatever subject we're talking about.

So I think I got one. So far.

We certainly can't count on corporate media to get him out there. They're going to try to Howard Dean him when he gets traction. I think just word of mouth. Some of the best material on him is videos of him angry on the Senate floor. I think that's what the people want and need to see to really get riled up and get behind someone. They will see he makes sense and that he's as sick of the status quo as the people.

[NYC_SKP]

9. My problem in this case is entirely with the media and with OWS for parroting the MSM meme.

I think as time passes we will hear less and less about moving Clinton to the left and more about Sanders for Sanders sake.

[seabeyond]

17. i do not watch msm. and though i think it is really important to be informed, to the extent of

watching msm. i cant, lol

so if i trip up because of media, my bad. i am just uninformed.

[NYC_SKP]

27. LOL, was just talking to a friend of mine, who is a delegate this year....

And they couldn't stand it. He's worried because this is his first convention and he wants to be informed, not just factual information but also opposition research, which means all the cable news shows.

He said there wasn't a single report that didn't mock him or try to smear him, even making fun of his name, "Bernie".

I calmed him down and said that I think Bernie's positions are going to speak more loudly than any of the smears.

And, that anyone who is influenced by this crap wasn't going to vote for him anyway and that an awful lot of people, even Republicans, will like what they hear.

Me, I used to watch Keith and Maddow and then less, and less, and less, and now no cable news at all.

[seabeyond]

29. people are influenced though. can use it to advantage, and can defuse also. with kids... our youth

vote. i go to bernie. for the name alone. (it really is easy). weekend at bernies. my first time voters love the movie, and get giggle associating his name with that.

i use sanders. that brings it to adult conversation. serious. let go of the fun in the first name and the uncoiffed hair, and lets talk and listen.

[NYC_SKP]

33. Love the hair!

Einstein had some crazy hair, too!

[seabeyond]

37. exactly. einstein. unbeknown to many, that is the youth we address. it will "play"

to our young. have you seen the sprayed to extreme on men in politics? that represents tight ass.

see

it is just finding the angle.

[HappyMe]

10. I'm supporting him

because of who he is and what he stands for. Hillary doesn't even enter into it.

[NYC_SKP]

16. "I support him to win, to take the primary and go on to win the general."

You and me both!

[HappyMe]

24. Yup.

I'm all signed up at his website for updates, and will make calls as to local efforts and how I can help. I will make a contribution to his campaign on Monday.
I'm ready for Bernie.

[NYC_SKP]

28. Thanks! I contributed a little bit on Thursday but last year had tons of medical costs.

This year, too, so I'm being a little thrifty, hope to donate more later in the year or next year when the medical stuff is behind me.

[HappyMe]

31. Mine won't be huge contributions by any means.

I will space donations out as I can afford them.

[historylovr]

19. Same here.

[HappyMe]

25. Good!

The more, the merrier!

[BrotherIvan]

34. This^^^

It bothers me that they are trying to marginalize Sanders from the start. I hope that his popularity will make them stop and take notice. We need to focus on getting the word out about Sanders and his positions instead. Stop worrying about Hillary completely.

[HappyMe]

47. There is no need to think of Bernie

in relation to Hillary. She isn't part of his campaign, and has nothing to do with his position on the issues.

They can try to marginalize all they want. In the end, it's issues that matter. He doesn't pull any punches when he speaks out.

[BrotherIvan]

67. I agree

that's why I think he can win. He's what a coach told me in track: "Run in your own lane." What he meant was, don't be worrying about the other guy, you run your race. And it's true, if you don't take valuable seconds more than eye-checking where the other guy is, you run much faster. That was the advice I needed to start winning races because I could run my own race. We need to focus and work.

If he wins the primary, he wins the general

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12801719

[leveymg]

11. Anything to the Left of Hillary as we've known her is pure campaign positioning.

Her record of bills she introduced as Senator tells you what she really stands for. What she really is other than a centrist isn't really apparent.

Here's the bills she introduced as Senator. Compare them to Bernie's. The difference is clear.

Hillary bounced around a lot - many of her bills were renaming US Post Office branches, and the like - it's not at all clear from the bills she introduced exactly what she thinks is important.

HRC: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=400357#sponsor=300022

Bernie: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=400357

Would like to hear what others think about this comparison.

[Agschmid]

23. I'd be interested to see how many bills sponsored, actually passed.

[Populist_Prole]

111. Pretty much. Given the rightward movement of overton's wndow, it's not surprising

Senator Sander's effect on the narrative notwithstanding, HRC will tell populists/progressives what they want to hear up to and through election day. Then it's back to the regularly scheduled corporatist/third-way policies already in progress.

[still_one]

14. Someone gives a point of view, you disagree with that view, and now you

Have had it. Had what?

You have your view, they have another view, nothing more or less

[marym625]

15. K&R!

I would add, "moving her further left" would just be more rhetoric. It wouldn't change what she truly believes and, therefore, would do.

[chillfactor]

18. and I am sick and tired of the in-fighting between...

Hillary and Bernie supporters...we Democrats are so very good at destroying our own party from within....keep at it guys....and bring us down again...

[NYC_SKP]

40. Read the OP. This is a commentary about the media meme.

I love my friends who are Clinton supporters.

My beef is clearly with OWS and the MSM memes, not with Clinton supporters.

[Maedhros]

133. I do not like Hillary's position on key policies, and I don't want her to be President.

I love Bernie's position on pretty much every policy.

So, no, I won't lay off the criticism of Hillary's policies just so party apparatchiks feel better.

[sadoldgirl]

20. The problem is that people will

believe it when she now speaks more to the left.

Primary promises and "opinions" are just propaganda.
I have listened to Bernie for years, and he has always
been consistent. He speaks now as he has before, and
that is important!

[Go Vols]

26. +1

[NYC_SKP]

30. Good point, I think you're right.

I have faith, however, that a lot of people can tell instinctively how sincere a speaker is.

Put Sanders up saying something and another candidate saying the same things but who isn't invested in them, and people can pick out the genuine article and look sideways at the other one.

[sabrina 1]

52. I think Bernie will be able to point that out, in debates. Which is why it is so good to

have someone in the race who is so knowledgeable on the issues that matter and who can be trusted to handle debates on the issues.

[woo me with science]

22. It's a corporate talking point, and a ridiculous one at that.

meant to suggest some sort of inevitability for the candidate who has *already* lost one presidential primary and comes with a long, consistent record of alliance with Wall Street over the 99 percent.

Campaign rhetoric won't change her fundamental alliance with Wall Street. That's just absurd.

Amen for your OP exposing the absurdity.

[TerrapinFlyer]

32. The Tea Party has moved the Republican Party to the right...

And considering Hillary is a Centrist, any candidate from the Dem side will obviously pull her to the Left.

Is DU starting to unravel?

Political Analysis 101.

If we lose this election, it is because we are stumbling over each other in order to argue.

Here are my picks for President:

1. Elizabeth Warren... this would be my first pick
2. Bernie Sanders.. oh how I would love for him to be elected
3. Hillary Clinton... of course I am going to vote for her if she wins the Primary

[NYC_SKP]

35. And Clintons have also moved the party to the right. Sanders will move it to the left.

The article spoke about moving Hillary Clinton to the left.

Moving the party is an entirely different conversation.

Yes, Sanders can and will move the party, but he won't move the candidate.

[TerrapinFlyer]

46. If the Party moves to the Left, so will all the candidates

Do you think Hillary is going to go against a populist movement? Do you think any candidate would?

I have always been a Sanders fan. And Warren too. I agree with their positions more than Hillary. But I am a realist.
Any Dem in the Whitehouse is better than any Repug.

In order to make any change in government, you need more than the Whitehouse. The House and Senate can stall any President.

And Governors now have become increasing important for controlling State budgets.

Start thinking about winning across the board!

[SusanCalvin]

109. No, I don't think she will blow against the wind.

Verbally.

[TerrapinFlyer]

152. Show us your crystal ball

You seem to know more than everyone.

[SusanCalvin]

168. I have no crystal ball.

Just observing same as anyone can. Not sure why you think that means I "know more than everyone." Whatever.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. Why would anybody vote for somebody who has to be "forced left" over

somebody who is already "left"?

[TerrapinFlyer]

51. Is this a serious qestion? How about a simple answer.

Because the candidate "forced left" is better than any Repug.

Why are DUers so confused as to how our voting works?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. I'll take my chances with the one that doesn't have to be forced left.

I don't believe in forced marriages either.

[TerrapinFlyer]

81. "Chances"... What if your candidate doesn't win the Primary?

I am astounded at how many people do not understand how elections work.

Are you going to "take your ball home" if your candidate doesn't win the Primary?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. I always vote.

I'm a Democrat but not married to the party. There are other options besides "taking my ball home".

[840high]

181. Let me tell you - I'm

through holding my nose.

[NYC Liberal]

153. FDR was "forced left."

In 1932, he ran on balancing the budget and attacked Hoover for how much he was spending.

"I regard reduction in Federal spending as one of the most important issues of this campaign. In my opinion it is the most direct and effective contribution that Government can make to business." — FDR

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

155. And...?

Why not vote for someone who doesn't have to be "forced left" if there's someone running who's already "left"?

[NYC Liberal]

165. Hillary Clinton already is left.

If you disagree then absolutely vote for the candidate you feel better represents your views.

That's why having a competitive primary — something I support wholeheartedly — is a good thing. Every candidate should be questioned and vetted.

[NorthCarolina]

217. The candidate "forced left" would not REMAIN LEFT post election.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom why someone seeking a truly populist candidate would even remotely consider a candidate who is "forced" to campaign to the left of their long held held personal beliefs and record, over a candidate who has a long and VERIFIABLE populist history. Just makes no sense to me. For my money, I'll go with the real deal populist over any candidate that is "forced" to campaign as a populist in stark contrast to their long history as an elected, or appointed, public official.

[libdem4life]

42. I don't think it's infighting...we now have TWO candidates who must be held and judged by

their records, not so much what they say now. Bernie's not going to go negative and I believe him. The MSM might, however. He will show that one can win without Goldman Sachs and lying and trashing the opponent. I believe that this may be the first election with a True Choice.

I think a main portion of the Middle/Liberal Democrats should be just a continual comparison...bullet points only...of what they have voted for and supported. That, in itself, is powerful and can in no way be considered negative.

And yes, certainly during the run-up to the Primary, people will also notice that and feel relieved. He feels like a gentle but feisty grandfather...a Leader. He has superior charisma and campaigning skills and no baggage that we know of. Finally a clean candidate. Yes he can win once people get to know him. Happened to me but then I read DU.

[99Forever]

45. I'm with you 100%.

Campaigning "to the left" means jack. Doing from the left is what counts.

One talks.

The other does.

The one that does, gets my support and vote.

Today I made the single largest campaign contribution of my entire life. Wanna guess who got it?

[WDIM]

48. Just because you change a candidates rhetoric

Doesn't mean you change their actions in office.

Hillary is pretty set in her political ways.

If anything Bernie will pull the whole presidential field left because he will be talking about workers rights. He will be talking big capitalism and the obvious corruption and exploitation that is done to every day people in the pursuit of higher profits.

It is pure corruption on Wall Street with their monopoly money and Bernie is not affraid to call them on it. I have never seen a more honest political candidate that Bernie Sanders.

[BeanMusical]

49. "In Just 24 Hours Bernie Sanders Outraises Rand Paul, Marco Rubio AND Ted Cruz"

Still think we shouldn’t take Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign seriously because he lacks big money donors? Guess what? Within 24 hours of Sanders’ announcement, the Democratic Socialist senator from Vermont raised a whopping $1.5 million in small donations.
...

And in case you think — as many people do — that Sanders is just running to push Hillary Clinton further to the left, he also let his Facebook followers know he’s dead serious.

I am running for President of the United States because America needs a political revolution. We need a government which represents all of us, and not just a handful of billionaires. In this campaign we won’t have the support of the big-money interests, Wall Street or the military-industrial complex. That’s why I need you to join me in an unprecedented grass-roots effort. Sign up at my new website

http://reverbpress.com/politics/sanders-outraises-gop-front-runners-24-hours/

[AtheistCrusader]

55. You're saying Hillary can't be moved to the left.

That's patently absurd. Of course she can, on a great number of issues.
I like Bernie and I'm thrilled his voice is joining the conversation. Not more likely to win than Kucinich was though, and that's the reality of it. Sorry.

If Sanders is the forge by which H's Democratic positions are refined, cool beans with me.

We could also be talking about Hillary's future running mate.

[woo me with science]

108. No core principles. Unlike Sanders, whose representation of the 99 percent is consistent

and longstanding.

Americans are sick of pandering, PR-focused politicians who will say whatever is convenient to get elected.

Me, I'll pass on the one who mouths caring about inequality while schmoozing with Wall Street, pushing H1B visas, and helping to author "trade" agreements that will cut the wages of 90 percent of American employees.

[AtheistCrusader]

121. I do not presume to speak for 'americans'.

So, we will see what we will see.

[hootinholler]

62. I can't support anyone who changes their rhetoric in response to political wind shifts

Who was it, Borrowitz last Thursday, that said Hillary will adopt Sanders' positions by noon?

I finally have someone I can vote for instead of voting against the greater evil.

Bernie is trustworthy because Bernie has been consistent in what he does along with what he's done. He also has the rare quality in an ability to explain the root causes of our problems in plain terms that anyone can understand.

That is why Bernie will win. That is why Bernie will draw people who do not vote to the polls. That is why there will be Sanders Republicans.

I hope he has long enough coattails to have a congress friendly to his programs.

[KoKo]

80. ...!

[NYC_SKP]

83. Yes, that was Borrowitz. Hilarious!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026608470

We agree, Warren and Sanders both have something that cannot be bought or taught: the very fact that they know what they want to say and they say it.

It's not filtered or staged or developed by others for public consumption.

I call it "honesty".

What a concept!

[oberliner]

72. Everything you've written here is wrong

Further left doesn't imply that she's left. A centrist can be moved further left (or further right).

To say that HRC "doesn't listen to anyone but the rich and her overpaid advisers" is ridiculous.

It is possible to both support him to win and hope that he moves Clinton to the left.

One would think moving centrists to the left would be a good thing.

[NYC_SKP]

90. I have a reputation of wrongness to maintain here.

And I'll admit that the line about who she listens to was hyperbole.

I don't, however, think that she will truly move left except in her presentation of herself, I don't think that most seasoned politicians are "teachable" that way.

She is what she is, liberal on social issues but very friendly to the rich and to the concept of a global economy.

I think it's the electorate that needs to be moved to the left, and the party.

Thanks for the feedback.

[lewebley3]

79. Hillary is not a centrist, she is liberal Dem: Its only Sanders people claim centrist

Hillary supports the Dem party, and has done so for years:
if she has made mistakes it is when she went too far left to soon
on issues (like health care).

If you want to support Bernie go head, but we loyal Dem's are not
going to let you get always ling about Hillary liberal credentials

If Bernie were to win the primary, the GOP will take the WhiteHouse ,
the Koch brothers have already installed the to GOP in to house and Senate.

Bernie is like Nadler for the right: they will use him to bash Hillary, it worked
very well against Gore. (ideologues joined in on the bashing, they got us Bush)

And as listening rich people, Bernie is way of head of her in that department,
his work mates , some of them are riches people in country,
they work for the most powerful billions of the GOP:

Bernie is the one talking to rich people all day: Bernie's net worth is of 500,000.
and lives in a small state. (not that there is anything wrong with it)
Bernie supporters always bashing Hillary bout money!

[TerrapinFlyer]

87. I agree with all your statement except Bernie is not Nader

Bernie will not be on the ballot if he doesn't win the Dem Primary.

He is smart enough to know that if he can't win the Primary, then he just becomes a spoiler.

[cui bono]

202. No, not at all. No way is Hillary liberal. Not at all.

She is centrist. She is for big business, cozies up to Wall Street. The Dem Party as a whole is pretty centrist now.

How similar do you think she is to Obama?

As to Bernie, he would wipe the street with any one of the Republicans. The only reason he would lose is if the corporate media decides to try to smear him.

Nader has nothing to do with anything. Go back and study what happened in 2000. Nader did not make Gore lose, Gore won. So try something else. Nader wasn't even in the Dem primary. Sheesh.

What the hell are you going on about here:

And as listening rich people, Bernie is way of head of her in that department,
his work mates , some of them are riches people in country,
they work for the most powerful billions of the GOP:

Bernie is the one talking to rich people all day: Bernie's net worth is of 500,000.
and lives in a small state. (not that there is anything wrong with it)
Bernie supporters always bashing Hillary bout money!

That needs some explanation and citations. No idea what you are talking about.

[lewebley3]

235. Sanders cozies up to Wall Street everyday! Dem's party is whole nothing!

Last edited Mon May 4, 2015, 06:49 PM - Edit history (1)

The Dem party is made up of all kinds of people and views,
it is basily anyone who is not a GOP member!

Some would say it Dem party is not really and organized party at all!
So the whole party is not one thing!

FDR was rich, and went against his class, if rich people were all unkind,
then we wouldn't have leaders that support the poor in congress.

[cui bono]

236. Links?

I would like to see some citations to back up your claim that "Sanders cozies up to Wall Street everyday".

Thanks.

[lewebley3]

238. Google picture of the Current Senate and House: You will Bernie with Rows of Rich people!

[cui bono]

239. You didn't answer my question. Your post means nothing.

I suspect you deserve a pizza.

[lewebley3]

269. Sanders sits in the Senate surrounded by former and future Wall Street people

I think the charge Sanders followers make against Clinton's is crazy ( and moot one).


Bernie know is share of rich people, they not naturally evil, as Sanders supporters think.


The GOP are different matter

[TM99]

260. Clinton is progressive in one arena alone

and that is on social issues. Sanders is exactly alike with her in that arena as well. Their track records are mostly on par there.

But all of her economic and foreign policy positions are anything but liberal or progressive. They are neo-liberal and neo-conservative, which means that they are center to center right.

This weird ass shit you are spewing about Sanders being the one talking to the rich is ludicrous. If you mean that because he is a Senator, he talks to them, newsflash, Hilary was one too!

If you think is net worth of $500,000 is any way comparable to the Clinton's, well you are smoking something hallucinatory.

We aren't bashing the Clintons for having money. We are bashing them because they govern for those with money. They surround themselves with Wall Street executives and receive large donations from the executive class in this country. They are beholden to money. That is how they campaign. That is how they have governed. That is how they will continue to govern.

[lewebley3]

265. Hillary's followers are not anti rich people: Sanders are!

Last edited Mon May 4, 2015, 05:52 PM - Edit history (3)

Sanders followers do bash the Clinton's for having gotten into the
fight for the American people:" for real"! ( it takes money)
I agree, that Sanders hanging out with his rich colleagues doesn't says much about Sanders,( and it is ludicrous) but Sanders followers keep charging that , Hillary's having rich friends doesn't makes her favorable to GOP policy's : nothing could be farther
from the truth! Hillary is symbol the GOP hatred towards the left.
(Sanders in Senate is also surrounded Wall Street executives, former and future) (very moot point)!
Sanders followers bash Hillary for being successful and ambitious:
which good things to be if you want to lead the country. (their comments insinuate
that she is uppity for seeking the nomination, even though she is one of most
qualified people to ever run).

Hillary has carried out Obama 's foreign policy, and gained experience that
Bernie's does not have, she worked with a Team of Dem's' charged with running the
country : She didn't have her own foreign policy neo-con or otherwise!

[TM99]

270. So many inaccuracies in this reply it isn't even funny.

We do not bash Clinton for making money. We rightly question the perceptions that are given when you surround yourself with the wealthy elite. When you take their money, there is an expectation of quid pro quo. It may be completely legal, but the question to ask is whether it is ethical. To ask that question is not to bash. After all, we are reminded daily that Sanders can not win because of the 'optics'. He is a 'socialist'. He has 'bad hair'. He doesn't 'look' presidential. How are those optics not in effect with Clinton?

Do you know anything about her actual time at State? She had no signature diplomatic breakthroughs or treatises. There were constant problems between Clinton at State and the Obama White House over foreign policy issues. She was far more hawkish than he was.

And yes, the foreign policy position of the Obama administration is a direct continuation of the Bush administration. The War on Terror is a neo-conservative position through and through. Research the Project of a New American Century. Then come back and talk to me about Clinton not being a neo-con.

[lewebley3]

271. Yes, Bernie supporters do bash Hillary for being successful! Read Sanders post!!

Again Bernie is surround by wealthy elites too, and Bernie's has had to raise money from
rich people. These are moot points: The Clinton's as far as ethical have got to be some of the cleanest
people in political history. The GOP spent 100'million looking for Clinton wrong doing and have found
none, they are still looking.

Hillary did sign treaties, that is lie, read her book, there are footnotes and lists of Doc's signed and
agreements many countries. (but I would credit Obama with some of these success,)

Obama administration did not continue the Bush administration policy

Project for a New American Century was GOP thing, nothing to with Dem's or Hillary

You and Sanders followers, keep trying visit the sins of the GOP on to Dem's and Hillary.

Hillary is symbol of the Dem liberal left, and she is smart fighter on the Dem party's
behalf, and the Dem's best hope of putting Dem's party agenda into law!

[TM99]

272. Again, factually incorrect.

The Clintons have baggage from decades of scandals and whispers of scandal. That is not something you can just put your fingers in your ears, go la la la la, and deny.

No Hilary had a rather unremarkable tenure at State. Those facts are not in dispute.

Yes, unfortunately he did. Gitmo remains open. NSA spying was expanded and never halted once made public. Executive kill lists are longer. More whistle-blowers have been prosecuted under Obama than any other administration. That is but a few examples.

No, PNAC was a bi-partisan group of advisors, diplomats, politicians, and retired military. Their stated goals have most certainly continued under Clinton at State and Obama as President.

Your last statement is just propaganda and hardly worth responding to.

[lewebley3]

273. The So called Clinton's scandals were manufactured by the GOP:

The so called scandals have to be whispers, because the don't have any merit!
If they had any merit, the GOP would spare no expensive in providing evidence:
Hillary's time at State was spectacular, Obama her boss made special appearance
on nation TV to Thank-her for her hard work and success for him! The only dispute
comes from the GOP and now suddenly from Sanders followers.
It was not Obama policy to keep Gitmo open, it was the congresses policy to vote to keep it open; He will have it
it closed likely by the times he leaves, there are only 55 prisoners left: he has been emptying
the prison, ( the pope has been helping Obama) Gitmo can't be Gitmo without prisoners,
Obama is out smarting the congress and the GOP. (Hardly a GOP policy). I am proud of
Obama working to keep this promise, not just because it was a promise but for
lives of men in prisoned with out trial or charges.

Obama did promise to protect and defend this country, the congress authorized the NSA spying they
don't want it stopped, and they believe right or wrongly that it is saving American lives. (now that is
in dispute). One person's whistle blower is another ones threat to the safety of American soldiers, and I
would agree Obama let the GOP bully him to much about leaker's.

Cheney would never included Hillary in his get rich scheme world domination plot the New Project:
She would have rated them out like Joe Wilson and V Plame. Three Cheers for Hillary and Obama!!!

[TM99]

275. Again more inaccuracies.

The scandals were able to be trumped up and given media exposure by the GOP because of the actions the Clintons have taken whether it is Bill & Monica in the White House or Hillary & the separate mail server as SoS.

At this point in time, Gitmo is yet another promise unfulfilled by President Obama. When and if he closes it, then we can discuss any faint praise for having taken so long to do so.

Ah, I see, you are one of those rah rah 'protect the USA' types that loves the same actions as the GOP President, which you would and likely have criticized, but found palatable and acceptable under a Dem one.

Therefore, you are on board with the neo-con agenda put forth by the PNAC.

[lewebley3]

279. Supporting Bernie, helps the GOP: I am sure Bernie's will be getting a check from the Koch's soon!

You the are real neo con supporter: Bernie's followers are doing the work for the
GOP: bashing Dem's party and its leadership:

I am sure Rush, will be happy to send a check to Bernie, too damage
Hillary and the Dem's chances: he hates women

The GOP can win only one way that is to Divide Dems, Bernies
followers are helping that effort.

That is how Gore lost!

[TM99]

280. This is where our conversation ends.

This is some crazy shit you are spewing here.

It is completely inaccurate FUD that makes Clinton supporters look like fools.

[lewebley3]

281. Review 2008 History: GOP sending people out to vote in the Dem primes

They tipped several states, and kept the 2008 primes going!

Whether you like it or not the GOP are out their and the Koch's

alone are going to spend over 100 million to destroy Hillary and

Dem's. Rubio only 3 donor's 3 billionaires. It would be in their

interest to have Sanders followers drive up the Dem's negs.

[tomsaiditagain]

86. Who cares anyway

Clinton is a bought and paid for shill for the plutocrats, or oligarchs whatever you want to call them. Hill is in it to push the world, not left, not center, but, towards more slavery. I sincerely doubt she is for the working people. Money is her game. I do not care if she is the other sex. Hill is MONEY!!

If she says otherwise, she is only appeasing the crowd.

[Jackpine Radical]

93. Well, Liz & Bernie have already moved her rhetoric further left.

I imagine Hillary's ideal world would include her being President with a Republican Congress to provide cover for all her gifts to the Overlords.

[NYC_SKP]

101. Yup, the rhetoric moves around quite a bit.

The candidate, I think most seasoned politicians are not "teachable".

Moving the party and the electorate, I'm in favor of that!

[EEO]

95. Well said.

The GOP is an extreme right party and its transition to that point does not change where the political center or left are.

[barbtries]

112. it really doesn't bother me.

i'm supporting bernie sanders. but clinton is more likely to win. so to my mind, it's all good that sanders has joined the race. he'll keep her honest. and yeah, i hope he does win, but i'm voting for the democrat that is definite, and it could be clinton. that's just reality. until then, who knows what can happen? i think it's great that bernie sanders is running and i support his candidacy. as i recall jimmy carter was a total dark horse when he took off running (correct me if my memory's failing). who actually thought barack obama had a chance early on?
but in the meantime, he'll keep her honest. she needs, NEEDS to move left if she wants to represent the american people, that's the bottom line to my mind. and she may win the nomination, she is a true contender. so yeah, although you perceive this as a maddening analysis, i see it as essentially the truth.

[gwheezie]

113. I don't know anyone who supports bernie

In order to "move Hillary to the left". In real life they want him to win.
I most likely will vote for Hillary in my primary but I sure hope there's more than Hillary and Bernie showing up. I'd be fine with either one if them being the nominee but I'd like a more rounded out bunch to choose from. I really can only pick from the people who are actually running.

[PeaceNikki]

116. Well, it's only just begun. You're going to hear it a lot. I guess you can deal with it.

Or not.

[gollygee]

120. That's not how I've heard it

I've heard, "Even if he doesn't win, he might at least move her to the left." There's no doubt he's left of Hillary.

[H2O Man]

123. Recommended.

Thank you for this well-reasoned OP.

[rbnyc]

124. the other thing...

...is that they are only talking about rhetoric.

[Pooka Fey]

134. K&R

Yup. I support Bernie to win the Presidency.

[madokie]

151. I'm with you

GO BERNIE

[NYC_SKP]

163. Did you say "gutter-sniping asshole"? Well, you might want to read the damned OP again.

You'll see that my problem is with OWS who, by their failure to include mention of a possible win. strongly implies that all he's good for is pulling Hillary Clinton to the left.

The truth is that NO politician can be pulled one way or another.

AND, he can win this thing.

FYI, I think she's better than a Republican.

[rbnyc]

166. wow

That seems a little hypocritical. You're calling someone an asshole for engaging in personal attacks.

First, you can make the argument that saying someone is centrist-puppet-for-the-rich-third-way-stooge is about issues and not actually personal, just expressed colorfully.

But even if it is personal, it doesn't seem right to scold someone for speaking in personal terms while calling that person an asshole. And there just seems to be some agenda other than advocating for issues-based discussion when you question whether someone is a real or supposed Sanders supporter and accuse them of "shitting on Bernie."

And while unlike you, I don't pretend to know exactly what Bernie does and doesn't want, I'm pretty sure he's not looking to cast away supporters for being concerned about the impact of the framing the primary dynamic as the OP describe.

You're grinding some other axe.

[candelista]

167. What a vile, filthy, venomous post!

[PeoViejo]

159. 'Centrist' nowdays

is somewhere to the Right of Genghis Khan.

Bernie reminds me of the old school Eisenhower Republican.

[DirkGently]

169. I think "pushing HRC left" is a valid point.

A lot of these discussions / poo-flinging sessions, here on DU and elsewhere, revolve around tension between "electability" (money and insider support) and "principle," (actually being right about things).

In fact, we often worry that obtaining power, and then looking after the interests of those with less power, are in direct conflict. Monied interests are thought to be necessary for a candidate to win, but those same interests expect protection and favors when the election is over.

It's the oldest problem in politics -- or at least if you're looking for a democracy of some kind.

But one of the possible antidotes to that dynamic is popular pressure. Many of us recall Obama insisting that the people "hold his feet to the fire." LBJ is said to have told MLK to pressure his office on civil rights, implying that he wanted to do "the right thing," but needed outside support to make it happen. To provide what we sometimes call "political cover."

You generate "political cover" with debate.

We also hear a lot of argument based on the binary nature of a two-party system, e.g., "If you don't support X Democrat, you are effectively supporting Y Republican." That's tiresome and a little childish in my view, but there is an element of truth in it as well -- if you really only have two choices, and one is horrific, anyone "better than a Republican" will do. That kind of lowering the bar hurts everyone though.

Two Democrats helps with both of those situations. If Bernie gets traction talking about things like not letting Wall Street screw over Social Security or more effective banking regulation -- areas in which HRC is found wanting by some Democrats, but where she realistically may feel a little hemmed in given the support she's received from big banks and financial interests in the past, she may suddenly have the political cover to disappoint the banks and take stronger progressive positions. Positions she can be pressured to stick to later if she becomes President.

Likewise, the "Agree with HRC or you're asking for a Republican President," line of rhetoric is dead, at least for now. It's not a binary proposition again until the nominee is decided. But even if Hillary wins the nomination, IF part of winning means adopting more Sanders / Warren-esque stances on core Democratic principles, we could end up with a Hillary Clinton that people not so fond of her positions now might like much better.

Frankly, I think that's why at least part of why Bernie's running. I love his positions, and will support him as long as he is a candidate, but I think his calculation had as much to do with giving Democrats the space to create political pressure / cover for Hillary to move left where she needs to as with a desire to be President.

If HRC is smart -- and I think she is -- she'll actually count that as a plus as well.

[Gothmog]

170. How Bernie Sanders will help Hillary Clinton in the general election

I found this article to be interesting http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/04/bernie_sanders_running_for_president_helps_hillary_clinton_the_vermont_senator.html

If this continues to be the Vermont senator’s approach, Sanders will be more of a help to Clinton’s presidential chances than he will be to his own.

The first bonus that Sanders provides for Clinton, say her supporters, is that he becomes a foil. One of Clinton’s Democratic allies in Congress explained that with a country that prefers general election candidates closer to the middle, Sanders will always offer proof that Clinton is not really that far left. He does for Clinton what Howard Dean did for John Kerry in 2004.....

In 2012 Rep. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney had a symbiotic relationship in the Republican campaign. Paul elevated his own profile and gave his voters an outlet, but he never pointed out the yawning gaps between what he claimed to believe so deeply and the positions of the man who was on his way to being the party’s inevitable nominee. It’s way too early to see if Sanders will play the same role for Clinton, but it has started out that way.

Sanders is such a long shot that those who share his views might be OK with the consolation prize of imitation from Clinton. But if her move to the left is simply rhetorical, she can shed that rhetoric in the general election as candidates often do. This would be another reason for Sanders to press his case with more definition.

In 2014, Kerry did look very moderate compared to Howard Dean and Ron Paul did in effect work with Romney in 2012. I really think that having Sanders in the race will help HRC and get rid of the talking point that the primary process is a coronation. I remember the Ron Paul/Mitt Romney relationship in 2012 (Paul is from near my neck of the woods) and the two never directly attacked the other. Paul got increased exposure for his positions and Romney was made to look more reasonable.

[brewens]

172. Anyone know what Bernies full name is? I was just curious to see if it was anything the right

could hope to exploit, like those that loved to say Barack Hussein Obama.

[winter is coming]

175. Bernard Scary Socialist Sanders. n/t

[william cail]

180. Try living in the real world.

For the out of touch white privilege liberals. Bernie can't win in the general election. He will loose. Don't complain when a Republican gets elected if you choose to sit out if Bernie doesn't win the nomination.

[MrModerate]

188. Don't get hung up on "further" . . .

Clinton is a real force and if you had to predict today who will be the Democratic nominee, it'd be her. So if she moves "somewhat left," or moves "left of center," or gets closer to traditional Democratic values, these are all good things.

I find lots of things to admire in Sanders, and he's much closer to my own views. But views alone don't win national elections. Organization and strategy, and planning, and preparation, and money win national elections.

And on that front, Sanders has a lot of catching up to do.

I'll send him some of my money, and we'll see how things shake out in the next month or so.

[GoneFishin]

189. K & R

[Marr]

190. More like 'force Hillary Clinton's handlers to move the bullshit campaign rhetoric to the left'.

I understand this idea, either. A career politician isn't going to change their allegiances because of something like this. They'll just tweak the sales pitch, and go right back to their original state once in office.

[rbnyc]

193. Did you see this?

Many pundits and activists argue he’ll be good for Clinton. Like a batting practice pitcher, he’ll help her hone her stroke for the general election, and move her to the left. This is insulting to both Sanders and Clinton. She’s an experienced and sophisticated leader and candidate. She’s been moving to the left in part because the problems of the country leave little choice, and in part because that is where the voters are. She’s been in presidential politics for over a quarter century. She doesn’t need a practice run.

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/05/02/the-sanders-challenge/

[NYC_SKP]

194. You're right, it is insulting to both Sanders and to Clinton...

I hadn't thought about that!

[cheapdate]

196. I no longer have the energy to respond to these kinds of posts.

"Candidate "X" is an UTTER AND COMPLETE reptile - possessing not the smallest shred of integrity or decency! My guy is straight up!"

I get it. You don't believe that yours and Hillary Clinton's ethics have much in common and you disagree with her on various questions of governance and public policy. Bernie Sanders is the candidate you prefer.

DU is becoming less and less interesting.

[Logical]

206. Then I suggest you quit the DU, problem solved! Nt

[cheapdate]

207. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll give it all the consideration it's due!

[Logical]

205. +1000 nt

[davidpdx]

209. I agree NYC_SKP

I don't want Clinton dragged to the left because that's not what she'll do, she'll talk up the left and then when elected continue the work of the 1%. Sanders is much more progressive and doesn't have to pretend to be.

[ucrdem]

214. I dunno, sounds like one of those phrases tossed in to make the thing sound reasonable.

Parse it too closely and it falls apart. Basically he's in it to beat her and there's no way that's going to help her win anything, even if she survives, which worries me, and the move-left meme sort of disguises that.

[HoosierCowboy]

215. Sanders will make the Democratic Primaries...

....more interesting and media attention getting than anything in the GOP. The name of the game is attention. Rubio beats Cruz isn't news in the primaries. Sanders beats Clinton is a headliner.
I predict Hillary will get several black eyes in the early primaries, and the pertinent question at the Convention will be who will be whose VP choice when the smoke clears.
Ain't over yet.

[Paka]

218. Bernie for the win.

Absolutely!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

219. "force Hillary Clinton further left" is code-speak for --

She has no inclination to do it on her own so she'll start pushing whatever rhetoric is necessary to sucker the proles for whom she would otherwise have nothing but contempt.

When I was in college I once had a date. The guy seemed to agree with everything I said or claimed to like. It started to seem so obvious and so phony. Before dessert was even served I felt he was just saying whatever he thought he needed to say to get his hand under my skirt. By the end of the meal I was claiming phony interests just to see if he would continue the façade.

He did.

He left the restaurant alone.

[NYC_SKP]

226. I love that you shared what happened with that college date.

And, yes, politicians get to be that way.

My tell: ask a yes or no question and see if you get a yes or no answer, and observe the calisthenics they perform to avoid answering with a yes or no answer.

[L0oniX]

221. The rec's for this op speaks for itself. Bonus: It's pissing off all the "right" people.

[turbinetree]

222. I am going to ask for

a T-Shirt that says who is BERNIE SANDERS and then, I will tell them--he is the man I want to be PRESIDENT because he wants to protect social security, the postal system, eliminate TPP, NAFTA, expand single payer health care, break up the banks, the list goes on, and he needs a Congress tat will protect his back----I have his back, that why I gave him money and will volunteer my time and yard (signs) for him.
No, Hillary, its about trust, and, I mean, its about trust

[RiverNoord]

223. Relax - this has only begun.

People will say what they will say. There will be a slow change as Bernie gains momentum. The corporate mass media will use the 'move Hillary to the left' smear until it doesn't make sense any more...

[AlbertCat]

225. First, "further left" implies that she's left,

Not really. You can be anywhere on the scale and move further left.


But, Hillary doesn't excite me as a candidate too much. Sanders sounds like a better idea at this point in time.


And of course, either of them are better than nutty, over religious, obstructionists ....or Republicans.

[Gothmog]

228. Sanders will make HRC a better general election candidate

[MrMickeysMom]

242. What are we really saying here???

Note to America - It's not a Broadway production ("yes! yes! It is!", say the power brokers behind candidates… "It's all perception through production of the best in show!&quot

We are past the point where they have to play up to the roll of what America wants and needs. We need a real leader.

You can practice looking like that leader, but you cannot BE a leader by practice.

Sanders is that leader. Clinton can practice her candidacy. In fact, she's had plenty of practice. That boat has sailed.

[Gothmog]

243. Sanders is not viable in a contested primary or in the general election

The primary process is about who can get elected in the general and Sanders is not a viable general election candidate. I doubt that Sanders will win any primary other than Vermont. However, Sanders can help HRC be a better general election candidate.

However, I am glad that he is in the race in that he will make HRC a stronger general election candidate. Ron Paul and Romney had a a similar relationship in 2012 where Paul made Romney look less extreme and Romney helped Paul gets his message out. The same dynamic will be in play this cycle in that Sanders has as much chance of being the nominee as Paul did in 2012 and HRC will not have to worry about the claims that the process is a coronation

[MrMickeysMom]

244. I don't see how you can make a statement like that...

… unless it's to see the degree with which Bernie Sanders reaches voters IN the primary.

At least you're glad he's in the race, and you can tell yourself what they reason is. What you cannot demonstrate knowledge of is why so many Democrats are responding to him the way we are. You might be glad about that, too.

[Gothmog]

246. You do realize that DU does not represent the entire Democratic party

I hate to break it to you but DU does not reflect the Democratic Party. Time will tell but without financial backing, I doubt that Sanders will do well in the primary process. In particular I do not see Sanders doing well in states that require a ground game like Iowa. Iowa takes a ground organization. At this stage in the 2008 cycle, Obama had 30+ field offices in Iowa. It takes that type of organization to win in a state like Iowa. The same people who ran Obama's operations in Iowa are now working for HRC.

Look, I like Bernie personally but I am going to vote and support the candidate who I think can win in the general election. Bernie will have to do a great deal to show me that he as the ability to be a general election candidate including raising some real money

[MrMickeysMom]

251. Yes, I understand statistical analysis, if that is what you mean...

Perhaps you believe the only thing I read watch and discuss is DU?

The nice thing about DU is that this thread can be archived. So, good luck with what you believe, based on whatever you used to assure you of your numbers.

The real news is that you aren't any more aware of the outcome than I am.

[Gothmog]

252. I look forward to revisiting this thread later after some primaries

I have yet to hear a good explanation as to how Sanders will be viable in either the primaries or the general election.

BTW, I was curious. Based on your username, I was wondering if you are WDW fan? Just curious in that my family has been to WDW more than a few times

[MrMickeysMom]

253. WDW?

Gotta run that by me out of the acronym.

Mr. Mickey is my cat!

[Gothmog]

255. Walt Disney World

[INdemo]

231. Look out..there are those that when they talk about Bernie Sanders

their opening statement is always "Bernie Cant Win"
How dare you believe he can win and go against Hillary like that.

[NYC_SKP]

232. Yep. "He can't win, but might push Clinton..."

And even when they leave out the "he can't win", that's the implication.

[Gothmog]

245. Sanders will make HRC a better general election candidate

That is an important role for Sanders to play. If the GOP win the White House in 2016, we will lose the SCOTUS for a generation

As for Sanders being viable, he is welcome to attempt to convince voters that he is viable. That will take money and I do not see Sanders being able to compete in Iowa or states where you need a political organization and a ground game. Time will tell and I could be wrong but at this stage in the 2008 cycle, Obama had 30+ field offices. The people who ran Obama's field operations in Iowa are not working for HRC

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

237. Hillary learned from Obama. Lot's of Dem suckers willing to

hear what they want to hear.

[Gothmog]

248. Learning to run a campaign from President Obama is not a bad thing

President Obama built two of the best political campaigns in the history of the Democratic Party.

We are in the primary process and a key issue is going with a candidate who can win in the general election. Right now, I am not convinced that Bernie is viable in the general election and from what I have seen Bernie will have trouble winning any of the primaries other than Vermont.

[NYC_SKP]

254. If Clinton wins the primary, she'll lose in the general election to the GOP. We need Sanders.

He'll appeal to a far larger number of voters, including more independents and republicans.

[MrMickeysMom]

256. Agreed...

That is in line with the same arguments heretofore made of Clinton, but more sound reasoning.

[Gothmog]

257. How is Sanders going to compete in a general election contest?

I have yet to hear a good explanation for this concept? Please do not try the magic Democratic Blue Wall advantage in the electoral college unless you can explain how Sanders will be able to run a well financed and viable campaign and unless you understand the demographic trends on which the blue wall analysis is based.

[fadedrose]

247. On one of the morning shows today

I also heard some woman commentator say that Warren and Bernie are pushing Hillary to the left, and it doesn't make me mad, but it bothers me.

Some people will believe the left stuff that will be forgotten the night of the election, and we may hear the winner say, "Gotcha," and put on a bright red outfit.

[Gothmog]

261. I have yet to hear a good explanation as to how Sanders will be a viable general election candidate

[NYC_SKP]

263. I'll just refer you back to 2007 and OFA, Obama's campaign, and toss in OWS and MoveOn.

Or you can just sit back and watch.

[Gothmog]

264. Thank you for the laughs

The OFA people who ran Obama's campaign are now working for Clinton. Occupy Wall Street has never participated in electoral politics and it will be interesting to see if OWS can make any impact in the real world.

Look, I like Bernie but I have seen nothing that convinces me that he is a viable candidate. I look forward to the primaries and the Iowa caucuses

[NYC_SKP]

266. People are jumping ship.

People are increasingly not wanting to be associated with the Clintons, and it's about time.

I was never aboard so never had to leave.

And those same people were with Obama against Clinton, so the logic of you reply isn't there.

[Gothmog]

268. Time will tell

Lets say that your explanation as to why Bernie will be a viable general election candidate is not going to convince anyone and I really do not believe that Bernie would be a viable general election candidate. You are welcomed to your belief as to the viability of Sanders but I will be supporting a candidate who can win the general election. One of the key criteria for selecting a nominee will be convincing voters that such candidate can win in the general election. In order to get the nomination, Bernie is going to need to convince voters that he is viable and I hope that he has better arguments than what I have seen so far.

If Bernie is the nominee, then I will support him. I just do not see any real chance that Bernie will be the nominee and if he is the nominee, then I fear that we will lose the White House and the SCOTUS for a generation

[Gothmog]

278. And yet she is still polling 81% among Democrats

You do know that Bernie needs atleast 15% in most states to get any delegates. The remaining 19% is split between people other than Sanders

Look, this is the primary process where people can vote for who they want and one critical issue for most people is that the general election candidate be viable. As I read things, Bernie's goal is to raise $50 million for both the primary and the general election (I really hope that this is not the case). If this is the case, then Sanders would be outmatched by any GOP nominee including Ben Carson

[PowerToThePeople]

276. do you think management wins the day or labor?

I was (still am) OFA, canvassed for Obama and donated many times to the OFA. I was "feet on the ground" for him you may say. I in no way endorse or work for Clinton.

[Gothmog]

277. And I was on the Obama voter protection team and also gave to OFA

Neither one of us are the people who ran OFA and who are now working for the Clinton Campaign

[stevenleser]

267. Hillary isn't going to take the caucuses for granted again. If she hadn't in 2008 she wins going

away despite how good of a speaker President Obama was and how he electrified the youth vote.

He had to do pretty much everything right and she had to make that specific mistake.

Hillary is already bulking up her staff in the Caucus states for 2016.