I don't give a shit if it's "naive". I believe a candidate has the obligation to

[cali]

take clear positions on issues and not talk up and down and all around them. I don't think it's asking too much. in fact, I think it's the floor, the bare minimum of what a candidate owes voters she or he is asking to vote for them.
And no, I don't think voters should have to wait on positions to issues until it's convenient for the politician running. You announce your candidacy, you fucking well should have enough respect for those whose votes you're soliciting, to tell them where you stand; whether you support or oppose specific legislation as well as what specific solutions you are offering.

[woo me with science]

1. Important post. Thank you.

It seems that with this Sanders candidacy we have begun a process of driving home how perverted into diversion and glossy PR our elections have become under corporate faux-democracy...

...and re-teaching people what a truly representative political process supposed to look like.

[Fairgo]

41. and it's beautiful!

democracy in action is a beautiful thing

[Enthusiast]

56. What an excellent post!

Corporate faux-democracy is exactly what is. Millions of us recognize this now. We have been abused for too long.

[cilla4progress]

106. Yes- I totally agree.

Wherever it ends up, his entrance into the campaign is a huge plus for giving credence to alternate views on the economy, our democracy, money in politics, and essentially every other important aspect about our politics and system here.

[L0oniX]

115. +++++++++

[Scuba]

2. "I think it's the floor, the bare minimum of what a candidate owes voters ..." Hear, hear!

[forthemiddle]

3. Which of the SEVEN questions

That Hillary has answered so far didn't you like?
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/here-are-all-seven-media-questions-hillary-clinton-has-answered-during-her-campaign-20150427

[woo me with science]

21. Good god, that's pathetic.

Here are all seven:


Question 1: "Secretary Clinton, your reaction please to these book allegations? Did foreign entities receive any special treatment for making any kind of donations to the foundation or your husband?"—ABC in Keene, New Hampshire, April 20
Clinton: "Well, we're back into the political season, and therefore we will be subjected to all kinds of distraction and attacks. And I'm ready for that. I know that that comes unfortunately with the territory. It is, I think, worth noting that the Republicans seem to be talking only about me. I don't know what they'd talk about if I weren't in the race. But I am in the race, and hopefully we'll get on to the issues, and I look forward to that."



Question 2: "...Regarding the play for pay allegations in the latest book, emails back in 2012."— WMUR, a local ABC affiliate in New Hampshire
Clinton: "You know, those issues are, in my view, distractions from what this campaign should be about, what I'm going to make this campaign about, and I'll let other people decide what they want to talk about. I'm going to talk about what's happening in the lives of the people of New Hampshire and across America. Thank you, all."



Question 3: WMUR also asked Clinton about her early preference for small-group meetings.
Clinton: WMUR reported that she responded: "I wasn't aware of the depth of feeling people had about the substance abuse issues. So here again I heard it in New Hampshire. So I want people to know that I'm listening, and I'm accessible, and I'm running a campaign that is about now, that is about the needs of the people of New Hampshire. That's the kind of campaign I want to run. And I'm excited to be back here."



Question 4: An MSNBC reporter asked Clinton on April 21 whether she had concerns about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement the Obama administration is in the process of negotiating.
Clinton: According to CBS: "Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security. We have to do our part in making sure we have the capabilities and the skills to be competitive. ... It's got to be really a partnership between our business, our government, our workforce, the intellectual property that comes out of our universities, and we have to get back to a much more focused effort in my opinion to try to produce those capacities here at home so that we can be competitive in a global economy."



Question 5: In an interview for print (no transcript has been made available), The Washington Post apparently asked a question about "her campaign finance agenda" April 14.
Clinton: "We do have a plan. We have a plan for my plan. ... I'm going to be rolling out a lot of my policies. ... Stay tuned."



Question 6: Also from the Post, when asked about the role of Priorities USA Action will play in the 2016 election:
Clinton: "I don't know."



Question 7: "Secretary Clinton, … hi, how are you, I'm Kristen with NBC News. You lost Iowa in 2008. How do you win this time? What's your strategy?" — NBC in LeClaire, Iowa, on April 14.
Clinton: "I'm having a great time, can't look forward any more than I am."



Other reporters had questions for Clinton that day. She told the assembled crowd: "We'll have lots of time to talk later."

[cantbeserious]

50. Evasion - Evasion - Evasion - Evasion - Evasion - Evasion - Evasion -- So Typically HRC

eom

[MissDeeds]

81. I hope voters will see through it

It's either deflect, evade, or wait to see which position is most politically advantageous before taking a position. So sick of this political posturing.

[A Simple Game]

99. It's obvious just from DU that many don't see through it, at least not yet. n/t

[merrily]

151. It is not really obvious to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6616083

[CoffeeCat]

146. It's insulting...

...is what it is.

I live in Iowa, and HRC has been here quite a bit. Her "big splash" into Iowa was to DRIVE HERSELF in a van (ohhhh, low tech! We're so impressed) and meet with small groups. The problems: the small groups were closed meetings with party loyalists and HRC fans.

I find myself getting irritated. She is more staged, fake, misguided and pathetic than any other candidate who has campaigned in our state. It's almost as if she hasnt a clue about how to communicate authentically with people.

Her campaign is all ready a farce and it's barely begun.

[merrily]

152. And not a platform to run on anyway.

[cali]

54. it's just painful- cringeworthy

[radiclib]

93. Her "answer" to the second question was quite Palinesque

Remember in her debate with Biden, Sarah declared that she was going to ignore the questions, and just talk about whatever she wanted? I'll even give Sarah more credit than Hillary. At least she came right out and said she wasn't going to answer the questions.

[Bjorn Against]

102. My favorite...

Question 5: In an interview for print (no transcript has been made available), The Washington Post apparently asked a question about "her campaign finance agenda" April 14.

Clinton: "We do have a plan. We have a plan for my plan. ... I'm going to be rolling out a lot of my policies. ... Stay tuned."

[Ken Burch]

189. "We have a plan for my plan"?

[zeemike]

34. Well this one is the classic non answer.

That politicians give out with regularity.

Question 4: An MSNBC reporter asked Clinton on April 21 whether she had concerns about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement the Obama administration is in the process of negotiating.
Clinton: According to CBS: "Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security. We have to do our part in making sure we have the capabilities and the skills to be competitive. ... It's got to be really a partnership between our business, our government, our workforce, the intellectual property that comes out of our universities, and we have to get back to a much more focused effort in my opinion to try to produce those capacities here at home so that we can be competitive in a global economy."

[forthemiddle]

40. And reading all of the questions

That is the only one she even attempts to answer. All the rest are either straight out non answers (Right Wing Conspiracy) or you will see our policies in the future.
I think she can get away with it until at least after the summer, when historically no one is paying attention, but I can't imagine she can forever.
We will see how much of a contrast there is between her and Bernie, and any other candidate that may get into the race, because if everyone else is answering policy questions, or if the ethical questions start coming from within that party and not just the Republicans I can't see the main stream media letting her get away with it.

[sabrina 1]

117. Bad reporter also. Maybe s/he did this, but the reporter should have followed up with the real

question politicians need to answer re the TPP.

Reporter: Thank you, but how can any of this be accomplished if Fast Track is passed?

If she hedged on that 'look, it hasn't passed yet and I'm waiting to see what happens'.

Reporter: If it passes Secretary Clinton you know that nothing can be done, as Congress will no longer have the ability to 'fix' anything in the bill, add amendments etc. So, knowing that, do you support Fast Track?

[zeemike]

118. That kind of reporting is dead.

It died a slow death when news became a profit stream and entertainment.
Now they just take dictation of what was said and print it.

[merrily]

153. Maybe we'll see it resurrected when they question Sanders.

Tim Russert had the use of follow up questions--or not--down to a science.

Everyone supposedly got asked "the tough questions." For Republicans, the "tough" questions were an opening to tell America their side of the story on the issues they had been getting hammered on by media, often with Tim nodding.

For Democrats, especially liberals, Russert hammered and hectored with one follow up question after another, often interrupting the Democrat in mid answer, raising his (Russert's) voice, etc., making his impatience and disbelief very obvious.

I especially remember his first interview with Obama and one of his last interviews with Ted Kennedy. But, he'd show those clips of the initial questions whenever it suited him and claim that both sides got the tough questions, he favored neither side, etc.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see if the msm miraculously finds its journalistic chops again when questioning Sanders.

[merrily]

158. Any trade deal "has" to do those things? Which ones actually have?

[merrily]

150. "Quality" of her answers aside, how are those "media" questions even relevant to the platform she is

running for President on?

[Warren DeMontague]

155. I said repeatedly my fear was, she'd run on shit like "my most inspirational bible verse"

Once again it seems my nostradamus-like powers of prediction may be spot on.

[boston bean]

4. I see nothing on his presidential website but a donate button.....

[cali]

5. go to his Senate web site. It's specific as all get out.

he also answers questions from the press every day, from regular unscreened people, and hey, he's on This Week, coming right up.

[TM99]

7. Just for you....

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

Start there and follow the other links at the bottom.

[boston bean]

8. That link takes me no where.

[cali]

10. you can play coy all you like but everyone knows

or can easily know, where he stands on every issue and what he proposes

[boston bean]

12. Pretty much the same with Clinton. She has a long record.

But that doesn't stop others from making criticisms... including you I believe who feigns ignorance on her positions by criticizing her at every turn for not being more open. Which I think is absolutely ridiculous.

[Fuddnik]

17. Thats the problem.

Clinton has a long record, and she's trying to hide from it.

[boston bean]

18. No, I don't think so. Her record is strong and liberal and not far off from Bernies...

In fact her experience and record surpass Bernies. But you would have to shed the contempt one has of the woman to see it.

[rhett o rick]

29. They may close on social issues but miles apart on foreign policy,

fracking, Free Trade, NSA/CIA Security State, Wall Street regulation, banking regulations, Middle East wars, Patriot Act, and it's not clear where she stands on a number of other important issues.

Sen Sanders has always been very clear on his stands on issues.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12802150

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026612390

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026610570

[Ned Flanders]

101. Play the Misogyny Card Often?

I have contempt for anyone that starts name-calling instead of addressing the issues.

Edit to add: Or maybe not. Not reading well this morning so read "the woman" as "women."

[bread_and_roses]

127. Got it in one (n/t)

[cali]

19. baloney

Does she support or oppose the tpp? Keystone? What does she think the minimum wage should be raised to? What is her plan for social security? Does she think the cap should be raised? Bernie is specific regarding all of these issues and many more.
Hillary? Nothing but obfuscation, dodging and weasel words.

[BlueJazz]

76. You said it. I've read a lot of interviews with HRC and all I can say is>

"Hi Bob, I heard you bought a new car...tell me about it.
"Well...Bluejazz, I'll get to that. It does have an engine and my team is working hard to find out the type of fuel it will be using but my position on that will be for future debate.

[woo me with science]

26. What utter nonsense.

Hillary's record is that of a Third Way, corporate-purchased politician. It promises more looting and exploitation of the 99 percent, more bloody warmongering for profit, and more defense of an increasingly authoritarian, undemocratic police and surveillance state, where whistleblowers are not safe.

It is the civic duty of American citizens to speak honestly about the monied corruption in our system and to advocate against purchased candidates and for actual representatives of the people. We can't afford four more years of corporate predation.

The Clinton Dynasty's Horrific Legacy: More Drug War, More Prisons
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/clinton-dynasty-horrific-legacy-more-drug-war-more-prisons

Hillary Clinton's leading role in drafting the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

Hillary's TPP will mean a pay cut for 90 percent of American workers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805

Hillary pushes for increases in H1B visas and outsourcing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6405669

Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101761

Hillary Clinton Cheerleads for Biotech and GMOs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112772326

Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519

NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645

Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876898

More from Hillary Clinton's State Department: The fascistic TISA (Trade in Services Agreement)
http://m.thenation.com/blog/180572-grassroots-labor-uprising-your-bank

How Hillary Clinton's State Department sold fracking to the world
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251376647

Hillary Clinton Sides with NSA over Snowden Disclosures
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101695441

On the NSA, Hillary Clinton Is Either a Fool or a Liar
http://m.thenation.com/article/180564-nsa-hillary-clinton-either-fool-or-liar

Corporate Warfare: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025601610#post29

The Bill and Hillary Clinton Money Machine Taps Corporate Cash
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189257

Hillary's Privatization Plan: TISA kept more secret than the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014829628

Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014867136

Some of Hillary Clinton's statements on Social Security.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024379279

Hillary Clinton's GOLDMAN SACHS PROBLEM.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025049343

Ring of Fire: Hillary Clinton - The Perfect Republican Candidate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209285

How Americans Need Answers From Hillary Clinton On TPP, KXL, Wall St & More
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017181611

Hillary Clinton Left Out By Liberal Donor Club
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025809071

Why Wall Street Loves Hillary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016106575

Hillary Clinton: Neocon-lite
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101684986

Interactive graphic of Hillary Clinton's connections to the Forbes top 400 (Follow link in post)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025824981#post9

The Warmongering Record of Hillary Clinton "I urged him to bomb..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026219783

Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014867136

Hillary defends Israel on Gaza carpet bombing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025274041

Hillary tacks right of Obama on foreign policy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024707589

Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519

NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645

Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876898

Hillary Clinton Praises George W. Bush and the Art of Compromise
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026394878

Hillary Clinton's role in right-wing Honduran coup and aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025601610#post29

Hillary Clinton's Horrifying Iraq War Vote Still Matters.
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/hillary-clintons-iraq-war-vote-still-matters-9737

Secret recordings show US military and a Democratic congressman distrusted Hillary Clinton on Libya (lying, manipulating intelligence)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026157088

Hillary Clinton Blasts ‘Unfair’ World Reaction Over Gaza, Cites Anti-Semitism As Factor
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025364869

Obama didn't go as far as Hillary now says she wanted to go in smashing Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251375376

Hand in Hand With Kissinger: A Review of Hillary Clinton’s Review
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016102317

Hillary Clinton Serves Us KISSINGER KOOL-AID
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025504036

MJ - Hillary Clinton Praises a Guy With Lots of Blood on His Hands
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025493748

[rbnyc]

135. +1

[MaggieD]

75. [phone]

[TM99]

11. Then something is wrong with your browser.

Try this link without https - http://berniesanders.com/issues/

Otherwise, truly, there is something wrong on your end because the site is much more than just a donation button.

[boston bean]

13. nope, still doesn't work.. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Works for me. nt

[rhett o rick]

31. Works on FireFox and Opera. nm

[Plucketeer]

44. Works fine here

Maybe you need to call the Geek Squad.

[They_Live]

46. I had to right click on the link and "open in new tab"

and then it worked. It wouldn't work for me just clicking through for some reason. I'm using firefox.

[Iggo]

57. I tried this and it worked.

1. Open eyes
2. Take hands off ears
3. Stop going "la la la la la la..."

Worked like a charm.

[BrotherIvan]

88. !!!!!!!!!!!!

That is the perfect prescription around here.

[LondonReign2]

61. Try clicking the LEFT mouse button

Clicking further and further on the RIGHT takes you no where

[Nay]

63. Works for me, too. nt

[OneCrazyDiamond]

71. It doesn't work for me either.

Old firefox

If you really want to see it:

I did a google search for berniesanders.com/issues/
on the search results I just looked at the cached copy, and that worked. He does have his points up.

[TM99]

123. Update your Firefox.

It is the Flash and javascript then for you. Those updates will not work on older versions of Firefox.

I am surprised you can view most sites. I had to switch over from IceDragon to regular Firefox because IceDragon got stuck at an old version. I could no longer access my bank sites, YouTube, etc.

[L0oniX]

94. It blocks Hillary supporters automatically.

[AgingAmerican]

97. It works perfectly.

For everyone but you!

[City Lights]

187. Still works for me. nt

[Bonobo]

14. Doesn't seem to work on Safari. nt

[LiberalArkie]

20. There is a problem with Safari try just berniesanders.com/issues/

I guess that is the difference between having the people to do IT for you and your home and not having your own IT dept.

[Raine1967]

47. I use safari, it works for me. eom

[lob1]

111. Me, too.

[davidpdx]

164. Way OT

My students use a website for class and the ones that use Safari have all kinds of problem. It doesn't help that I'm not familiar with it as I primarily use Chrome.

[GeorgeGist]

16. Chrome comes up with a blank page.

[uponit7771]

84. +1

[TM99]

124. I am on Chrome.

It works perfectly.

If you have any adblockers, script blockers, flash blockers, etc., try disabling them for the site.

[zeemike]

49. Thanks it worked for me when I refreshed it.

and was finally able to make my donation...although I am still waiting for it to take.
They must still be busy

[RoccoR5955]

77. Try this one

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom

[MattSh]

108. Stop trying to open it in iTunes.

Or were you trying it in Skype?



Use a browser.

[City Lights]

186. It works fine for me. I'm using Firefox. nt

[dgibby]

67. Thanks for the link.

I just donated through ACTBLUE. I'll vote for the Dem who wins the primary, but my heart's with Bernie. Hope he wins and picks Elizabeth Warren as his VP.

[City Lights]

185. Thanks, TM99. Link works fine. nt

[A Simple Game]

100. So how much did you give? n/t

[tazkcmo]

130. Try Brunch With Bernie

Weekly call in show he will continue to do during the campaign.

[Ms. Toad]

6. But if you take clear positions, then you can't change as easily with the political winds

in order to hold the right position to make you electable.

[woo me with science]

30. +100000 Hence the striving to avoid any position at all.

It's an impossible situation:

(1)
They can embrace and run on their candidates' predatory, corporate, warmongering, antidemocratic policy agenda. But if they do that, they alienate the 99 percent, who are sick of looting, murderous, predatory corporate exploitation.

OR

(2)
They can LIE about and deny their candidates' true agenda, and pretend to be populists. But if they do that, they alienate the 99 percent, who are sick of obvious manipulative lies from corrupt, corporate politicians.

OR

(3)
They can focus on trying to slime the opposition, in which case they alienate the 99 percent, who are sick of dirty, diversionary, dishonest politics.


They can't win, because they are corrupt. And now that we have a genuinely honest candidate in the race, their corruption is glaring by contrast. It's good to see the Third Way finally exposed for what they really are.

[HereSince1628]

9. When people are paying attention it's not good to look like you reverse yourself...

Last edited Sun May 3, 2015, 07:50 PM - Edit history (1)

This is a balancing problem of both traditional politics and more contemptible triangulation

Entering into the primary season early means having to start responding to off-message news events, which are associated with well embedded cultural expectations...so non-committal, vague references that aren't controversial is a way the handlers push candidates.

What the candidate's campaign manager wants to control is the definition of 'significant issues', not just for their candidate but for all other candidates. That allows them to choose the battlefield best for their candidate. But they rarely can over the course of the primary and the general election campaigns.

IMO, what's going to happen as the field grows, is the new candidates introduce the missing issues, often issues with popular traction. Because they're popular, the issues can't be ignored. These off-campaign messages force the earlier candidates to come to adjust ambiguous positions with more definitive statements, degrees-of-freedom reducing statements, which peg the candidate to where the popular traction seems to be at that moment. If there were strong early positions this would be obvious vote-chasing changes in rhetoric.

People understand this phenomenon even if they talk about it differently. It is what underlies the broad presumption that Clinton's messaging will move to more clearly stated populist positions as candidates emerge around her. The 'Me too' tactic of triangulation will be in play. People who think this is disingenuous will call her on a shifting position, others will claim it shows she's responsive to the people...

[PosterChild]

126. Thanks, good analysis and informative / nt/

[tblue37]

22. Of course, Walter Mondale did try telling the truth, but too many US

voters just "can't handle the truth!" {/Jack Nicholson}

[skepticscott]

28. You beat me to it by two minutes

And goodness knows, nobody wanted to listen to Jimmy Carter:

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/i-got-what-america-needs-right-here-11356

[tblue37]

53. Yep. One thing I fear is that even if we manage to elect Bernie, the entrenched weasels (in both

parties) will kneecap him the way they did to Carter, who was as decent a man as we could have put into the position. When asked after he left the WH what most surprised him while he was in office, his response was that he was surprised at how little power the president really has. The Beltway weasels, including Repubs, a lot of Dems, and the press did everything they could to undermine him, ridicule him, and block his attempts to institute sane policies. Just think of that petty, stupid decision by the Reagan crew to remove the solar panels Carter had had installed, just because of Democratic president cooties.

Obama is also swimming against the current, but he is more sly and his capacity for realism is less hobbled by idealism than Carter's was, though even he took a while (too long!) to become as cynical as he needed to be about how completely intransigent and willing to destroy everything the Repubs were. But Obama also has at least some allies in DC, and the press does not despise him the way they did Carter. Yes, the corporate media are in Repub and big money pockets, but individual reporters seem unable to quite suppress or disguise the fact that they really *like* the guy.

When the Carters brought their decent, ordinary middle class lifestyle to DC, the party-hearty regulars there were furious that the glamorous night life of the Reagan administration was no longer available, and they retaliated savagely. The establishment press deliberately set out to mock Carter and make a national joke of him, just as they did to Gore in the 2000 campaign. The Dems in Congress were almost as bad as the Repubs about undermining him. He was an outsider, and they treated him like the kid in school who is bullied and ostracized and who is always forced to sit alone in the cafeteria.

There was a certain amount of that even with the Clintons. Remember when Ms. High and Mighty Sally Quinn sniffed that the Clintons (whom the insiders considered outsiders and rubes, as they did the Carters) had "trashed the town, and it isn't their town"! Yep, she actually spewed that comment right in front of God and everybody.

Bernie has a lot more Washington awareness and experience than Carter did, but despite his long experience and unquestioned savvy, he has been a lone voice crying in the wilderness. Repubs reject everything he stands for, as is to be expected, but Dems don't exactly rally around to support his attempts to represent the ordinary citizens of the US or to pass legislation that reflects the ostensible values of the Dem Party.

As much as I love Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, I suspect they would be hobbled as president by *both* parties, and I think that we need them in Congress where they can spotlight the corruption of those who supposedly represent the citizens of this country. I am thrilled that his primary run will force discussion of the real issues and push Hillary to the left, and I *will* vote for him in the primary, but I rather doubt he will win the nomination or that the entrenched DC powers would permit him to accomplish much even if he became president. They have a history of successfully undermining presidents who don't kowtow to them and their corporate masters.

[LondonReign2]

62. I don't think this is correct

When the Carters brought their decent, ordinary middle class lifestyle to DC, the party-hearty regulars there were furious that the glamorous night life of the Reagan administration was no longer available, and they retaliated savagely.

Did you mean Nixon? Ford certainly didn't have a glamorous night life, and of course Carter preceded Reagan.

[tblue37]

69. You are right, if course. Haven't quite awakened yet. But the Beltway mouths really

did make a lot of noise about how the Carters went to bed at 9:00 and sapped the fun out of DC night life. They hated him for many reasons, but that was one of them, and they complained about it.

[1939]

92. The three most qualified (by ability) presidents in our history

John Quincy Adams, Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter

Were all three considered to be decent and honest, yet historians will considers them as having "failed" presidencies.

The three individuals, as ex-presidents, made massive contributions to the public weal after their presidencies which stand out in sharp contrast to all other ex-presidents.

[Duppers]

98. nor to Al Gore

Put s/s in a metaphorical lockbox, fix decaying infrastructure which would create jobs, take major actions to control climate change, etc. Those issues sank like the proverbial lead balloon with the public.

[merrily]

156. For many reasons, having zero to do with Mondale's answers, Reagan was unbeatable.

[skepticscott]

23. How nice it would be

if this country elected only people who told us what we needed to hear, rather than what we wanted to hear. But being told what you need to hear creates obligations that interfere with watching American Idol, so those who tell less than the full, unvarnished truth are favored.

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. Just admit that there is NOTHING ...

HRC can say and NO position she could take that you wouldn't criticize or disbelieve.

[cali]

27. nope. I would applaud her if she opposed the tpp

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. Yeah ... Okay. n/t

[betsuni]

32. +1

And so vulgar.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. I don't have a problem with the vulgarity ...

It's the daily swipes at a Democratic candidate ... If you support another candidate; fine, support that candidate.

Clearly, she is doing what, Bernie says he won't do ... go negative. That gives Bernie major integrity points with me.

[betsuni]

43. Yes.

Bernie would never go negative, wouldn't even consider it. I guess I think it's unfair that some people get posts hidden because of those words and others don't. Snot fair.

[cali]

48. what a load. I don't even mention anyone in the o

and yet you whinge away about how I'm attacking yr candidate. Fucking ridiculous o us

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. LOL ...

TRANSPARENCY.

BTW, I do not have a candidate, yet.

I do have a couple candidates that I will not support, e.g., Webb and Chaffee, and I have been vocal about my non-support (yet, I do not feel the need to post daily "I hate them" updates).

[cali]

55. ok. you don't have a candidate. and sorry, this is not an atack on

HRC. If you think of her when you read it, that says it all.

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. Really? ...

Come on, Cali.

[L0oniX]

95. ^^^THIS^^^

If you think of her when you read it, that says it all.

[djean111]

36. Since it has been very condescendingly been explained to me that the only important

thing here is winning at all costs and while saying anything that 200 advisers feel will corral voters - and then just bend over and take the results because you voted for that! - I now look at the Clinton campaign as being like that old tale where the scorpion asks for a ride across the river, and promises the fox it won't sting. When it does, the scorpion tells the fox - you knew I was a scorpion. That is the sorry state of most politics today. Except the scorpion gets rescued by a yacht, while the fox drowns.

[woo me with science]

37. Bullhockey. She should oppose predatory policies

and back policies that help the 99 percent.

It's called representation. Bernie is opposing the TPP. It's not that hard.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. And that has nothing to do with what I posted ...

which, BTW, applies to you, as well.

There is NOTHING Candidate Clinton can say or do that you will not criticize or disbelieve.

[Jester Messiah]

116. Because she's not trustworthy and her words contradict her record. [nt]

[1StrongBlackMan]

120. Okay. That's fine ...

But people should stop with the "If only she would say/do ..." pretending B.S.

[bread_and_roses]

128. I say loud and clear there is NOTHING HC could say/do that would make me vote for her

And I mean in the general - not being a Democrat, I have no vote in the primary.

I consider her a militarist and an apologist and lackey for the 1%

[1StrongBlackMan]

136. That is fine ...

so long as you don't called yourself a member of the Democratic base.

[Jester Messiah]

141. Except that many of us who find Hillary unacceptable do just that.

Who are you to say who is in "the base" and who isn't? Isn't being "the base" more a matter of shared principles and ideals, ideals which Hillary offends?

[1StrongBlackMan]

169. I am saying the person that I responded to is not a member of the base ...

and if you read what he/she wrote, you would likely come to the same conclusion.

[sabrina 1]

145. Members of the Democratic Base do not support Bush/Republican/Heritage Foundation policies.

It's amazing how the Big Tent becomes so small it has little room for actual Democrats but has plenty of room for right of center Third Way/Wall St Investors.

You would think it would be the other way around.

And your comment epitomizes why so many Democrats who helped win the House, the Senate and the WH for their party, have now left the party.

And the reason why the current leadership, who appears to share your opinion of who the base is, lost the House and Senate after they drove out such a large part of the base with such sentiments.

And their losses prove that they cannot win without the base.

Bernie will most likely bring back the base because he epitomizes what the Dem Party is supposed to be about, the PEOPLE, not Wall St.

[1StrongBlackMan]

170. Okay. n/t

[bvar22]

131. After 25 years of Clintons,

can you really blame anyone?

[1StrongBlackMan]

137. Yes. n/t

[Enthusiast]

58. I would thrilled to hear Hillary adopt real FDR principles like Bernie.

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. And when she has spoken to ...

those "real FDR principles", there has been post after post of (some) DUers' disbelief.

[jeff47]

89. Because she also has a track record.

Supposedly, this long track record is a benefit. But when she now speaks about an issue but her track record shows doing nothing or supporting the opposite, that's a contradiction.

Now, she could say something to the effect of she changed her mind either on the subject or on tactics to achieve it. But so far she hasn't addressed the contradictions. For example, her milquetoast opposition to one element of the TPP versus her job negotiating that very agreement for 4 years. Or her claims of "leadership" on some issues, but not proposing any legislation to advance those issues while in the Senate.

Obama in 2008 had the advantage of virtually no track record, so he could run just on his speeches. Clinton is not in that position.

[merrily]

159. "real" being the key word. She is not a newcomer to public life. We've seen

her on the WalMart board. We've seen how she conducted herself on the WalMart board. We've seen her advocate for the Iraq War. We've seen her trying to spreadi the Third Way gospel in Europe. We've seen her in a lot of situations. Rhetoric tailored to take Obama's fans in 2008-09 or take Warren's or Sander's fans in 2012 is not going to cut it.

We've also seen how Sanders has conducted himself for years.

[Oilwellian]

104. Hillary is a liar

I won't believe her when she plays populist in this campaign. And you know it's coming.

Gotta go! Sniper fire to my right!

[magical thyme]

82. the OP is about Sanders vs all other candidates. But on the topic of Clinton...

can you explain her answer to #1 posted above? Because my reading of it is she was asked a yes/no question, with the obvious (safe) answer being 'no,' which could then be followed by a short statement about the book having zero credibility, and then change the topic.

I see a paragraph long 'answer that never answers the question. It leaves me to wonder if she's afraid that if she says 'no' her nose will start to grow. Or that she is so accustomed to deflecting that she may never give a straight answer to anything.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. Okay. n/t

[merrily]

157. Sure. It all comes down to DUers who criticize Hillary. LOL!

[1StrongBlackMan]

171. yeah. Okay. n/t

[fadedrose]

25. Wet finger policies

Some suck their finger and stick it up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. The stronger the wind, the stronger the opposition to whatever the wind is blowing at.

[Buns_of_Fire]

70. "There go the people. I must follow them for I am their leader." nt

[treestar]

35. The voters as a whole decide

Who best met the obligation

[ibewlu606]

38. Kicked!

Wow, just wow! I can't get over how HRC supporters are so willfully ignorant of the facts. Remember how we used to make fun of Teabaggers for acting in the exact same way?

[RiverNoord]

45. It's not naive. It's the way things were supposed to be.

Republican democracy can't succeed without it.

[GoneFishin]

51. Yes. Have you ever expressed disappointment that BO didn't fullfill some campaign promise only

to have some defender tell you that "he didn't actually promise that explicitly, if you had listened carefully you would know that. You assumed that is a position he held". (paraphrasing)

[Gothmog]

59. That is not how large mass media campaigns are done now days

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. That doesn't matter ...

and the real world has very little spill over into DU.

[Gothmog]

80. That is not lost on me

[Oilwellian]

109. Yes, in the real world...

she lost to a virtual unknown in 2008 for a reason.

[raindaddy]

60. Voter's should also be smart enough to realize ....

if a candidate turns from supporting to skirting a major issue, "you already know" the answer... As for this voter the TPP is kind of a litmus test, it tells me enough about a candidate to know whether to support them. If they're not passionately and adamantly against it they won't get my vote or support...

[LondonReign2]

64. Hold on, are there some people arguing *against* taking clear positions?

[cali]

66. sure, or rather they're defending not doing so.

[MaggieD]

73. I'm starting to think you have...

.... A daily strawman policy. Gotta make one strawman OP per day, minimum.

[cali]

78. please point out the strawman

are you actually going to claim that a lot of pols don't obfuscate when asked a question?

I know you don't have a clue as to what a strawman is.

[MaggieD]

86. LOL - your posts always give me a laugh

On the other hand I often feel sorry for you. It seems you need someone to be pissed off at 24/7. What an awful way to live a life, IMO. MAYBE just once in awhile you should look for the good in people instead of simply assuming the bad.

In any case, yes, of course it's frustrating when politicians obfuscate. But every issue is not simply black or white. It seems to me you lump the two together far too often, imagining obfuscation when the reality is that there are pros and cons to some issues.

[Ed Suspicious]

122. That's really condescending. Do you actually hear yourself?

[jeff47]

90. A far more effective tactic than screaming "strawman!!!!"

would be to actually demonstrate it is a strawman argument. Say, by providing links to clear and unequivocal answers to questions about political positions.

But that would require there to actually be a strawman argument. A strawman is not just a topic you do not want to discuss.

[LordGlenconner]

105. It's not a strawman

It's more like this:

[JEB]

74. Come on, spill the beans.

It is really not amusing to have to try and guess a position from all the triangulation.

[phantom power]

79. Testify

[MissDeeds]

83. Well said

K&R

[NYC_SKP]

91. Can you whittle that down to 140 characters so I can Tweet it?

I hear that it's all the rage, Tweeting noncommittal feel-good statements is the new form of articulating your strategy and commitments.

[JDPriestly]

96. A candidate should think through his/her position on the issues well

before announcing a candidacy.

We Democrats need a candidate who is firm in his/her ideals and values. It isn't that hard to explain your views on the issues if you are deriving your stands from your values.

Of course, if you are deriving your stands from the poll numbers . . . . ?

[XemaSab]

103. Especially since she's had 35 years in the public eye to figure out where she stands

If she doesn't answer a question, it's not because she needs more time to research the issue, it's because she knows that we won't like her answer.

[nationalize the fed]

107. And Citizens should have the right to sue politicians

who "change their mind" and reverse positions they campaigned on.

Fraud: A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud.

[Maven]

110. To me, this is why Obama's claim to "post-partisanship" was such audacious bullshit

Don't pretend that failing to pick a side makes you more evolved. It just makes you a coward and an opportunist.

[Phlem]

112. absafuckinglutely! K&R!

[Paper Roses]

113. Here! Here! Now if everyone will pay attention......... n/t

[murielm99]

114. I voted for McGovern in my first

election. A fat lot of good that did the country.

I won't say anything against Bernie. But I won't support his Presidential run, either.

[Iggo]

121. Who should you have voted for instead?

[murielm99]

125. Humprhrey, Muskie, or

someone who could have won.

It is time to be realistic. Too much is at stake.

[Art_from_Ark]

140. Humphrey couldn't beat Nixon in '68

What makes you think he could have won in '72?

Muskie was a good man, but Nixon's Dirty Tricks Team torpedoed his campaign in the primaries

"Evidence later came to light during the Watergate scandal investigation that, during the 1972 presidential campaign, the Nixon campaign committee maintained a "dirty tricks" unit focused on discrediting Nixon's strongest challengers. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigators revealed that the Canuck Letter was a forged document as part of the dirty-tricks campaign against Democrats orchestrated by the Nixon campaign.[8]"

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

And the announcement by Nixon and Kissinger just before the election of the agreement to end American involvement in the Vietnam War took one of the biggest campaign issues away from the Democrats and attracted a large number of the newly-minted 18-to-20-year-old voters to the Nixon camp.

[morningfog]

119. 3 weeks since official announcement after years of planning,

not a link or tab or section on her site for positions or even issues. Nothing of substance on her site asking for money and support and volunteers. It's rather presumptuous of her, aloof and entitled even.

[Thinkingabout]

129. When you are only interested in a few issues it is easy to roll them out on the

First day. If there are many more areas then it takes longer.

[Dustlawyer]

132. Almost all of them have to wait until they know more about what their Donors think their

position should be. Bernie is not out to be bribed with campaign cash and other favors, like most of the others.

[Thespian2]

133. Well...

Of course...don't know why this is even a problem for a candidate...they damn well know what their positions are on major policy issues...anything else coming from them smells like a newly fertilized field...

[BlancheSplanchnik]

134. word! n/t

[True Blue Door]

138. If that's what you want from a presidential candidate, I suggest voting for a computer program.

Lays out in exact detail what it will do and when it will do it well in advance of executing on the plan. No dirty hyoo-mon autonomy, practicalities, or moral differences of opinion.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

139. Ever read the platform of the RNC?

Neither have the people who vote Republican.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

142. I don't recall you demanding the same when Obama was running.

It was a problem then too.

[cali]

149. You're right. fool me once....

[merrily]

160. Is the point of a post like that supposed to be that people have some obligation to keep

repeating the same mistakes they made in the past?

[7962]

143. Its NOT asking too much. So frustrating.

Its like they do when asked if they would consider taking the VP slot. Why not just say something like "I'm focused on my campaign right now and doing what it takes to win. i may consider it at some point, but thats not my focus right now"

[Lifelong Protester]

144. Democracy, that's where it's at.

[balenbalen]

147. what if u give him a shift

that is really an interesting post by you man...the candidates work is very important here guys......

[silvershadow]

148. She did. She saw the strong insurgency toward Bernie and immediately said

"What he said".

[Warren DeMontague]

154. Yes, heaven forfend leaders should actually, you know, LEAD.

I cant agree with this OP, enough.

This stupid overly cautious, poll-tested, equivocation and evasion shtick is bad enough from a moral standpoint, but the worst part?

ITS NOT EVEN GOOD POLITICS. it completely disregards where the voters are actually AT, today.

You think the beltway conventional wisdom crowd would have given permission to prominent voices to "evolve" on marriage equality if Millennials hadnt hit them over the head repeatedly with an unmistakeable sea change in public opinion? Fuck no, they'd still be peddling this shit about values voters and "defend traditional marriage" all the while clucking privately about whaf a shame it is, that "political reality" blahblahblah.

Some people really really really think it's still 1992.

GUESS WHAT. It is not 1992 anymore.

[merrily]

161. Millennials? Not fundraisers and bundlers and lobbyists who were gays and or advocates for

that community? Obama's announcement was made as he was gearing up to run for re-election. You could be correct, but I'm going with "follow the money." I think something like 1 in 8 Democratic bundlers are gay, and that's not counting those who are advocates for equality.

[Warren DeMontague]

162. No. Widespread changes in public opinion which track generationally.

Pretty hard to ignore, actually, from a statistical standpoint.



Then take into account that Millennials- born after 1980- would have started hitting voting age in '98, but it wouldn't be until 2008-2012 that half or more would be able to vote in Pres. elections.

And you are talking about a generation that, size-wise, competes with Boomers and dwarfs Gen X.



Absolutely. And a lot of people - from homophobic dinosaurs to boomer conventional wisdom nabobs - still haven't caught up, and are likely to be rather shocked when they discover they actually ARE living in the 21st century.

[merrily]

163. Public opinion changed that much between 2009 and May, 2012?

For that matter, public opinion changed that much between December 2010 and May 2012? Or even between April 2012 and May 2012?

Cool.

[Warren DeMontague]

165. I'm not talking about when certain politicians decided it was okay to come out in favor.

The changes have been percolating in the demographic numbers, for a while. Like I said, a lot of conventional (boomer) wisdom types are fairly clueless to the whole thing. This is why pot legalization took so many by surprise.. "where did that come from?!?!?" Duh, it came from a generation that is as big as the boomers, that doesn't accept that things need to be the way they've always been. (Certainly, there have been plenty in my generation who feel that way, too, but we are a bantamweight, demographically, as that chart I posted indicates)


But yes, actually, public opinion around gay marriage has changed DRAMATICALLY in the space of a relatively short period of time. Some of that is cultural and some of it, like I said, demographics.

[merrily]

166. Boomers started these fights and pursued them for decades. Legalizaton of pot, equal rights for

everyone, including African Americans, gays, women, peace, no nukes, etc.

In any event, based on timing, I'm sticking with my theory about bundlers and lobbyists like the Human Rights campaign, although I am sure that change in public opinion factored in as well.

[Warren DeMontague]

167. And yet, the numbers don't lie.

I'm not laying blame or generalizing to all members of any generation. Certainly, there are individuals of all ages who are assholes, or absolutely wonderful forward-thinkers.


Probably not too many homophobic babies, and I suspect only a small number of centenarians on twitter, but beyond that.

[merrily]

168. First, numbers don't read Obama's mind, either. We've been discussing why he acted, not

whether the numbers are reliable. You want to leap from your chart to why Obama acted and why he acted when he acted.

Second, maybe you need to read my post again? One comment of mine was that changing opinion probably did factor in. So, to what comment in my post does "Yet, numbers don't lie pertain? Another comment related to timing. So, my reply covered both why he did it and why he did when he did. Or is "yet numbers don't lie supposed to say your chart contradicts that boomers were the ones who started these fights and fought them for decades? If so, no, your chart does not do that, either. And even if it did, the other evidence on that subject is way too monumental to be overcome by your chart. You are trying to make that one chart do way more work than it was designed to do.

Third, a very, very smart former partner of mine often said, "Figures lie and liars figure." I think he was probably closer to the truth.

[Warren DeMontague]

173. That poll is not an outlier, those results have been repeated many times over.

They are an accurate gauge of generational sentiment on the issue.

There's no point in getting defensive about it.

As far as what caused Obama to change his mind? Of course, all we can do is speculate. Some of it, also, I think was Obama being more willing going into a 2nd term, to embrace things he strongly believes in. But your assertion that it was donors and $- the donors likely didn't change that much, between 2004-2008-2012. The percentages of donors that you listed who are marriage equality activists or whatever, that probably stayed consistent.

So what actually DID change? Public opinion, and specifically (among other things) the members of the generation most favorable on the issue reaching voting age.

[merrily]

174. Where did I say the poll was an outlier?

Last edited Tue May 5, 2015, 03:53 AM - Edit history (1)

There's no point in getting defensive about it.

That is in your imagination. It would be nice, though, if you read my posts and responded to what they actually say.

[Warren DeMontague]

175. Ok

sure, fine, whatever.

[HoosierCowboy]

172. When the Spin Masters of the MSM are in Control....

....does it really matter what you may have said in reality? It will get twisted in the Media to the point that it will come out with the exact opposite meaning.
What needs to be questioned is the the corporate noise machine. It gets it's life support every 2 years from campaign commercials that absolutely no one would waste a second watching, unless you're brain dead in a hospital bed. Every four years it gets a major blood transfusion from the Presidential race, also from running campaign ads that no one watches.
Anyone would have to be suspicious that it's all some kind of game, and we are forced to play it.

[woo me with science]

177. This deserves to stay at the top. nt

[woo me with science]

178. kick This is important.

[Autumn]

179. Perfect OP cali. It sure as hell isn't "naive" to expect a candidate to do those things.

It is "naive" though, in fact down right idiotic for any candidate, especially a Democrat to pull this shit and expect my vote. I'm not about to vote for someone who doesn't have a stand on issues that are important to me and to the country at this difficult time when we are besieged by idiots doing their best to destroy this country. Fuck that. If she can't see it and step up and take a strong stand against it she won't get my vote.

[woo me with science]

181. [phone]

Outstanding!

[woo me with science]

180. Kick

[Barack_America]

182. Seems we're on the same side of this one.

+1

[cali]

188. hey, thanks.

[woo me with science]

183. Kick.

[City Lights]

184. We are in complete agreement.

Thank you for saying it.