Sen. Gillibrand said Bernie when she was asked who was the leader of the Democratic Party

[berni_mccoy]

Last edited Mon Sep 18, 2017, 01:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Just now on CNN while discussing Hillary, her book and the election. She also mentioned Sen. Warren, but she talked about Bernie's leadership first.

Update: Video embedded here:

The question of topic at 7:42 in the video.

[Renew Deal]

1. Funny thing is that it will probably be Sen. Gillibrand soon

Right around the spring of 2019.

[berni_mccoy]

3. Maybe

I think she has a great deal of potential.

[KPN]

48. Maybe so ...

if she's for Bernie's views, she may well become that leader.

[samnsara]

2. im just not feeling that....maybe if youre a bernie supporter, but really..

....hes not a Dem...and hes not the 'head' of the Dem party. There are plenty of other real Dems in the party that are rising stars.

[ProfessorPlum]

7. he's not a Democrat, you say?

that's news to everyone around here, by golly.

[Paladin]

8. Trust me, there are plenty of us who are aware of his non-party status.

If Bernie ever does the right thing and joins the Democratic Party, I may consider him to be something more than a harmful agent provocateur. But not until then.

(Apologies if you were attempting sarcasm.)

[ProfessorPlum]

11. apologies if you were attempting to get the sarcasm

who gives a shit what he calls himself if he is making life better for Americans?

just something to ponder.

[beastie boy]

15. Everyone should give a shit!

If he is not a member of the Democratic Party, he is not bound by the Democratic Party platform. Nor is he under any obligation to support other Democrats.

Can you really call someone like this a Party leader?

BTW, his dubious ties to the Democratic Party have nothing to do with your perception of him making life better for Americans, which is in itself a dubious statement. What has he done since before the Primaries that made your life materially better?

[thesquanderer]

20. No Democrats are bound by the Democratic Party platform, either. (n/t)

[beastie boy]

25. Will you accept "governed" instead of "bound"?

From www.democrats.org/party-platform

THE 2016 DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM

Every four years, the Democratic Party puts together our party platform, the ideas and beliefs that govern our party as a whole.

[thesquanderer]

39. Semantics as to whether they govern "the party" or "the party members"...

...but either way, even as an Independent, Sanders is as in sync with the 2016 platform as the Democrats are themselves. After all, he had input into writing it...

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-bernie-sanders-delivered-the-most-progressive-platform-in-democratic-party-history/

[beastie boy]

115. How can a party be governed by certain principles and the party members not?

Semantics indeed. But even if Bernie were to write the entire Democratic Party platform, as an Independent he remains free to commit to it or not, or committing to portions thereof, or opposing it entirely, whatever suits him best at the moment. And he keeps exercising his options, sometimes to the detriment of the Democratic Party. This makes his "sync" incidental and unreliable, and therefore makes him poorly suited to lead the party.

[thesquanderer]

123. Answering your question...

Yes, an organization can be governed by certain principles, without every member of the organization agreeing to every one of those principles. If you must have an example... Susan Collins is a Republican, the party platform is pro-life, she's pro-choice. But it's kind of self evident. Do you really think that EVERY member of the Dem and Republican parties supports EVERY plank in their platforms? If anything, Sanders probably agrees with the Dem platform more than most Dems, because unlike most, he had the power to actually influence it.

re: "{Sanders} remains free to commit to it or not, or committing to portions thereof, or opposing it entirely, whatever suits him best at the moment."
Technically, every Dem has that same freedom. Nobody gets evicted from the party, even if their votes don't always tow the party line.

Meanwhile, I'd say Sanders has supported "proper" Dem positions to a greater extent than some "DINOs" have.

[beastie boy]

136. Point well taken. Still...

Using your example of Susan Collins, imagine her being an Independent caucusing with Republicans 90% of the time. Even without imagining this, based on her pro-choice position alone, how laughable do you think Republicans would find the idea of her being the leader of Republican Party?

It only takes an opposition leader to influence party platform. It takes a whole different kind of leadership to keep a party unified. I can see Bernie leading a movement. I can even see Bernie leading a wing of the Democratic Party. I can't see him provide effective leadership to hold the entire Democratic Party together.

[Warren DeMontague]

148. So Debbie Wasserman Schultz now supports a "pathway to future legalization" on cannabis, then?

as per our 2016 platform?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/09/democrats-call-for-pathway-to-marijuana-legalization/?utm_term=.89873625bf69

Boy, That's fucking GREAT news! About time.

[beastie boy]

149. Apparently she does!

https://www.marijuana.com/news/2016/05/medical-marijuana-evolution-for-dnc-chair-wasserman-schultz/

And apparently she did even before the platform was adopted! Hey, you think she is the one who proposed it?

[Warren DeMontague]

150. Uh, correcting her prior votes to send sick people to prison for using medical marijuana

while certainly overdue and commendable, is not the same thing.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/on-medical-marijuana-debbie-wasserman-schultz-sounds-like-a-republican-6544176

[beastie boy]

152. Don't take it as me defending DWS in any way,

but it her vote, especially given her prior opposition, appears to be exactly the same thing as a step towards "a reasoned pathway for future legalization" of pot.

[Warren DeMontague]

157. gradually getting the memo

I agree.

[George II]

24. It's like calling Roger Goodell the leader of Major League Baseball.

[MLAA]

100. Good one

[PatrickforO]

36. Bernie and his supporters helped create the current platform.

You'll not admit it, doubtless, perhaps because of hurt feelings or anger, but Bernie has in fact exerted the leadership necessary to get everyone talking about Medicare for all Americans and affordable college. Those are kitchen table issues because they are issues people worry about. What if I get laid off and lose my healthcare? or Why is college so expensive? How can my kid go without getting into a mountain of debt? How come it is so hard to make ends meet? I get raises but prices go up faster and I can't ever seem to get ahead.

That's what people think about and if we want to start winning elections then that's what we need to start talking about.

Not whether someone is or isn't an official member of the party. Most voters are independent anyway. They sure outnumber both Dems and Republicans.

[mountain grammy]

38. +1

[beastie boy]

43. Good for Bernie! But he appears to be governed only by the parts of the Platform he helped create.

Not the entire platform. Which leaves the majority of the platform outside of Bernie's concerns.

And I sincerely hope his Medicare for All efforts yield some legislative results before they destroy Obamacare and leave nothing behind. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[KPN]

59. Governed by only the parts he helped create? How so?

BTW, there are plenty of roads to hell. Not all are paved with good intentions, and many -- if not most -- good intentions follow an entirely different path. Remember, it's about the journey and not the destination.

[bettyellen]

89. There were lots of issues he recommended literally "setting aside" ... funny how people forget that

And then they, set them aside themselves.

[KPN]

57. +1

Exactly ... great post.

[LanternWaste]

90. What are the specific items in the platform he helped create that did not exist prior to his involve

"Bernie and his supporters helped create the current platform..."

What are the specific items in the platform he helped create that did not exist prior to his involvement, and what objective sources do you cite to support that premise?

[PatrickforO]

114. We put single payer BACK on the platform. It would not have been had it not been for us.

Basically, Bernie and his supporters drove the conversation left a little, but toward the kitchen table.

[KPN]

56. Huh?

I didn't know that elected Democrats are actually "bound" by the party platform. Good to know that. All along, based on my obviously mis-informed perceptions, I'd been thinking the opposite.

Bernie is obviously the leader of the Democratic Party today.

[beastie boy]

117. Please refer to Reply #25

And Bernie is NOT an elected Democrat. So regardless of your perception, informed or otherwise, you have no argument, and your conclusion is as far from obvious as Berni is from being the leader of the Democratic Party.

[lunamagica]

94. Let me reply that he has done nothing to make my life better.

[bahrbearian]

16. I've been told he is not even American,,

just a crazy communist,
A Russian plant even.

[Me.]

58. Well He Did Honeymoon In Russia

[ehrnst]

17. People give a shit that he's trying to determine Democratic party policy

after years of trashing the party, up to and including the present day.

[KPN]

60. Hey, I'm a registered Democrat for the past 45 years ... and I guess by this standard

I've also been "trashing" the party for at least the past 25 or 30 years.

Bernie's right on. The party deserves the criticism he is giving it in my view. I'm with him ... Gillibrand and a growing number of others.

[George II]

23. In his roughly 30 years in Congress and the Senate, what specifically has he done....

....to "make life better for Americans"?

[R B Garr]

40. Good question! This should be interesting... nt

[KPN]

65. Google it.

It's impressive.

[George II]

79. No thanks. Not going on a wild goose chase.

[LanternWaste]

91. We can also google how to create an operational deathstar.

We can also google how to create an operational deathstar. That's pretty impressive as well...

[Me.]

41. Is He?

In what actual, successful, way?

[DarleenMB]

44. Funny, but

everyone seems to forget that it was Hillary Rodham Clinton who was passionately arguing for universal health insurance in 1993. And Bernie was ????

[ProfessorPlum]

64. did you know that only one person can have an idea about healthcare at a time?

It's passed back and forth, like a hot potato.

[Donkees]

67. Photo:

[aidbo]

71. LOL

[beam me up scottie]

139. ...

[R B Garr]

76. WOW, a 1993 picture of a Democrat who fought for health care for all Americans!

[beam me up scottie]

138. Well played! Nice picture of the former first lady and Bernie.

Bernie was speaking out about universal health care in 1988 when he was mayor of Burlington:

And here he is as a newly elected congressman speaking about it on the house floor in 1991:

[KPN]

70. Standing right behind her.

[KPN]

55. Exactly!

The label seems more important than the policy to many around here. Seems a small point to hang up on. .... I guess I could understand if the party was actually controlling the House, Senate, White House, 2/3rds of the Governorships and State legislatures, etc.; if the party were actually growing as far as percent of total population.

We've lost our way methinks. But I am willing to do my bit to get us back on track.

[pangaia]

19. You are never going to win this argument.

It's useless to even try.

Sometimes 'facts' simply do not describe reality.

[snort]

30. Listen, theres Dems

and then there are Real Dems. It takes an expert in the field to identify the different species. Its kinda like the difference between a red breasted warbler and a brown breasted warbler, you gotta flip 'em over and have a good look see. Peel the wings back and poke around in there and such. (Full disclosure: I am not an Ornithologist).

[ProfessorPlum]

61. keep flogging that distinction without a difference

I'm sure someone out there wants us to care

[bettyellen]

87. His choice not to call himself a Dem, not sure why anyone calls him one. He's distanced himself for

his own reasons. I think it's bizarre people try to claim it for him when he refuses to.

[Bluepinky]

92. As I said in an earlier post, Bernie is more of a Democrat than many of the Democrats.

And he calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Whatever he calls himself, I love his ideas. And a lot of other people do too.

[Demsrule86]

137. Is she running for president? Dem leaders must be Democrats.

[JHan]

4. maybe he'll join the party now!

"She also mentioned Sen. Warren, but she talked about Bernie's leadership first."

lol.

[Ligyron]

9. I think if he did join that the haters would still hate.

Might even increase their venom level.

[pangaia]

21. THAT is an interesting observation.

"Now, he "joins"
"Well, if he really IS a Democrat,why didn't he 'join' before."
"Too late to the "party."
"He wants something."

[ehrnst]

22. He'll join right back up on when he wants to run for POTUS in 2020

because one needs the establishment cred and infrastructure of a major party to have a chance at winning the GE.

Even Ralph Nader said as much:

“By running as a Democrat, Sanders declined to become a complete political masochist, and he avoided exposing his campaign to immediate annihilation by partisan hacks,” Nader wrote in a March Washington Post piece, “Why Bernie Sanders was right to run as a Democrat.” “Because if he had run as an independent, he would have faced only one question daily in the media, as I did: ‘Do you see yourself as a spoiler?’ ”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_next_20/2016/09/ralph_nader_and_the_tragedy_of_voter_as_consumer_politics.html

[Ligyron]

26. I could see them requiring Sanders to formally join before supporting him.

Of course, that could have some unintended consequences.

[ehrnst]

51. The party would be castigated for requiring Dem nominees to

be Democrats and have shown an actual interest in the party, let alone not having trashed the party for years.

That would make them "ESTABLISHMENT."

Which is exactly why someone would want their cred to run in the first place..

[JHan]

35. Yep +++++

[Me.]

42. I Think If The Party

allows the farce of 2016 a repeat performance there will be hell to pay. Especially as they would be backing someone who's bound to lose.

[ehrnst]

52. Yep. (nt)

[R B Garr]

47. Wow, that's interesting that Nader's main concern is Bernie being asked if he's

running as a spoiler. I thought Independent was the all the rage.

It is curious why they complained about "establishment', but obviously knew they needed the Democrat's campaign infrastructure to advance themselves. Double standards.

[JHan]

34. the longer he takes, the more irritated they will be I think.

that's really on him.

[Warren DeMontague]

143. You know, when people walk around in a 24-7 perpetual state of maximum irritation

Threatening that they may take it to a higher level doesnt carry a ton of weight

[JHan]

155. Cause and effect Warren, cause and effect.

Maybe you should offer some more persuasive arguments to help them since you're concerned? Maybe explain to them how unrealistic it is to expect a man who wants to influence the direction of a political organization, to join that organization after he participated in their primary?

[Warren DeMontague]

159. Naw, I'm not concerned.

I deal in reality. I don't spend a whole bunch of time standing on the beach lecturing the tides on how they really ought to behave.

Sen. Gillibrand seems to understand this, here.

[JHan]

162. lol. okay.

[Orrex]

50. It would depend why he did it

If he did it as an opportunistic trick of convenience, as when he magically became a Democrat in order to run in the primaries, then it would be correctly recognized as a cynical ploy. Especially considering how he magically became Independent again when it suited his convenience.

Yes, yes, I know. He did it for pure reasons of principle and was motivated only by the most noble of purposes.


Still, it looks rather calculated to observers on the outside, and those are the ones he'd need to convince that he's serious--not those who already support him.

[delisen]

69. Sanders has a valuable mail list, Warren not so much.

[George II]

5. What exactly did she say? You say two things there without context.

Was she asked simply "who is the leader of the Democratic Party?" You don't have any direct quotes but are essentially paraphrasing something she said in response to something said to her. Nothing specific.

[berni_mccoy]

6. Yes, it was a direct question to her.

She answered first with Bernie Sanders, what he has done and accomplished and how the party is taking his ideas. She also mentioned the work of Sen. Warren.

[George II]

31. So you're saying that she was asked "who is the leader of the Democratic Party?", and she answered..

..."Bernie Sanders"?

[berni_mccoy]

88. Yes. She went into his platform ideas and what he's doing on Healthcare.

[George II]

95. Sorry, I'd have to see the video of that one.

[berni_mccoy]

98. It's fair. I understand the mistrust

And needing to verify something that was heard from TV.

[berni_mccoy]

111. Updated.

[stonecutter357]

10. lol.

[PubliusEnigma]

12. Too bad he has never been a Democrat and never will be.

[ProfessorPlum]

62. people who keep bringing up this supposedly divisive point

act as if someone gives a crap. It's fascinating.

[R B Garr]

72. What's even more fascinating is people pretending that being

a Democrat doesn't have value. It obviously did for Bernie when he needed our resources for exposure.

[ProfessorPlum]

78. and Sanders generated a ton of interest in the Democratic party

a win-win!

[R B Garr]

83. Wait, where is the win part??

There's a DNC lawsuit, Trump, and lots of accusations.

[Bluepinky]

93. Bernie Sanders won the 2016 Presidential primary in New Hampshire.

The first in the nation primary, so his ideas got a lot of exposure. He helped shape the Democratic platform during the presidential election and, with his enthusiasm and populist approach, brought young people and new voters into the Democratic Party. I'm proud to live in NH, a state that went strongly for Bernie Sanders.

[R B Garr]

110. So no win, then. But a lot of people got to feel good, so there's that.

And his ideas got a lot of exposure because he used the Democratic party's "establishment," obviously because running as an Independent would not have given him the same exposure. Democrats were a huge value for him.

[Bluepinky]

116. He did have a win, the presidential primary in NH.

And he called himself a Democratic Socialist. He has been an asset to the Democratic Party, and because he's such a strong leader, other Democrats are able to name him as a leader of the party (despite what you and others say).

If you don't see his winning the NH primary as a win because he lost the primary on a national level, then you can't claim a win for Hillary, who won in the national primary but lost in the presidential election.

A win is a win, even if there's a loss later on.

[R B Garr]

131. So, no win. If the only standard is that he won your home state, then he

lost because he lost California, and that's where I am, LOL. Way too absurd to think about it that way. And Trump is in the White House, so how you got your to your conclusions is way too byzantine for me, thank you, though.

Hey, but at least the Democratic leadership is okay again! Nice to see Democrats not being attacked.

[Bluepinky]

140. Actually, he had 22 wins, as he won the primaries in 22 states.

So nobody can say he had no wins. Just like nobody can say Hillary had no wins in the general election, as she beat Trump in many of the states (and also won the popular vote). She too has had many wins.

We can celebrate both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. We don't have to knock either one down. Think of Hillary's campaign slogan, "stronger together."

We're all on the same side, right?

[R B Garr]

141. So, no win. I love how the goalposts are always moved, but none of them

match reality. The talking points always have to match reality at some point. You can tell it's not a win because the second place candidate does not advance. We saw who advanced and who ran for President. Losses happen; it's like that every election all over the country. No need to alter reality to accommodate egos and such.

I'm happy to support the Democrat who is proud to be a Democrat!

[Bluepinky]

153. It depends on what you call a win.

You can't deny that Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 22 states, so he WON those states in the primary. You said Bernie has had no wins, which is untrue. And he's a US Senator, so he obviously won that election, as well as Vermont Governor and a bunch of state and local offices in the past as well.

And I'm happy and proud to support the best candidate to represent me and my country, whether that person is a Democrat or a Democrat Socialist. Remember what Hillary said, "Stronger Together".

[R B Garr]

156. So, no win. We all saw who advanced to the Presidential campaign. I don't

spend a lot of time on Senators from small Northeastern states since I live in California. It's just sour grapes to keep harassing people about some long ago primary states that obviously didn't decide anything. You can continue to celebrate whatever you want, but it didn't advance him to another contest so it's all moot now. Reality is a thing.

I'm so happy to see Hillary Clinton's new book. I'm glad she is proud to be a Democrat. Democrats obviously have a lot of value because Sanders needed the platform for name recognition.

[Bluepinky]

160. You were wrong, you said Bernie Sanders didn't have a win, and that is flat out wrong.

That's nice that you consider California to be so important and that the small Northeastern states aren't. As the first state in the nation to hold presidential primary elections every 4 years, New Hampshire is small but powerful.

It sounds like you aren't embracing Hillary's message, "Stronger Together". I'm not going to keep responding to these messages.

[R B Garr]

161. Reality is reality, so no need to go over the facts we all saw play out over 2 years.

Bernie didn't advance to the Presidential campaign, and I don't really care what states he won at this point. He didn't win MY home state, so by your standards then he lost. You were the one who placed New Hampshire as some big win, and it really wasn't a win because he LOST the primary, and he did lose other states. No need to keep making some childish contest over something we ALL SAW -- no win in the primary. Reality! Thanks.

First you have to acknowledge reality, so you really aren't one to judge what messages people get.

[IronLionZion]

13. He has the highest approval rating maybe

No one asked me but I would say Nancy Pelosi is our fearless leader. Make Pelosi Speaker Again

[ehrnst]

18. Pelosi is getting work done. That is leadership. (nt)

[riderinthestorm]

14. This should be a fun thread

[grantcart]

46. not really. I think many will spend a little less time here every day

threads like this dominate DU.

[caraher]

53. I agree

barbtries had a nice post recently about how the Bernie vs. Hillary stuff is disheartening. Both have a lot to like, both have flaws, but how does it serve anything we care about to beat each other up with purity tests over them?

What I take from Gillibrand's words is not that we all must fall in line behind Bernie but that she sees him doing good work. She was all in for Hillary during the primaries, we should recall. At the moment Hillary isn't leading anything, she is talking about her experience and taking a well-deserved break in a lot of ways. That's no repudiation of her past leadership.

I'd be excited for Warren or Gillibrand in 2020. I was a big Bernie supporter in the primaries but am not sure that he is the answer in 2020. Meanwhile there's a lot of other work to do before then and we should focus on the issues

[KPN]

73. It already is!

[leftofcool]

27. He can have it

[bucolic_frolic]

28. A real populist would run well against the #FakePopulist in the White House

that case can be made

Could voters be duped twice in a row?

[Not Ruth]

33. How long will we have a 2 party system?

Independents outnumber either party

[KPN]

75. Depends on how 2018 and 2020 go.

I'm thinking not long if this discussion is any indicator.

[Not Ruth]

32. He is definitely the leader of the Independents

GOP for the trifecta

[SharonClark]

37. The progessive independents, not the rest of them

[Not Ruth]

49. One might think that as a white male, he could gather the rest with more ease

http://www.progressivepolicy.org/blog/how-to-win-back-the-“independents”/


By Lee Drutman / 11.3.2010

In the next few days, we’re going to be hearing a lot about how the Democrats lost “independents,” who, after breaking for Democrats in both 2006 and 2008, broke hard this time for Republicans, and for the third straight cycle, voted against the party in power.
And while it’s clear that “independents”, who now make up 37 percent of the electorate (as compared to 34 percent for registered Democrats and 29 percent for registered Republicans) hold the balance of power in American politics, understanding how to win them or even who they are and what they want is less clear.
In short, the best way to win back “independents” is this: Obama and the Dems need a little bit of patience, a lot of attention to pragmatic problem-solving, and the ability to resist the temptation to hunker down and move to the left.
But before getting to details of the political prescriptions, any discussion about the mood independents needs to begin with the observation that “independents” is a much more varied category than almost all pundits make it out to be. Many independents are actually shadow partisans, and a good number even see themselves are too far left or right for the two parties.
According to Gallup, only 43 percent of independents indentify themselves as “moderate,” while 35 percent say they are “conservative “and 18 percent say they are “liberal”. By comparison, 39 percent of Democrats and 24 percent of Republicans identify themselves as “moderate.” In other words, independents are hardly more “moderate” than Democrats.
In a recent survey, Pew broke independents down into five categories: “Shadow Republicans” (26 percent of independents); “Disaffected Republicans” (16 percent); “Shadow Democrats” (21 percent); “Doubting Democrats” (20 percent); and “Disengaged” (17 percent). As the names suggest, the shadow partisans vote somewhat predictably as partisans, while the Disaffected/Doubting class are slightly less reliably partisan, and the “Disengaged”, while most likely to be true independents, are also the least likely to vote – only 21 percent told Pew they were planning to vote this November.

[Lil Missy]

45. bernie is not a democrat. and fortunately the minority doesn't get the last word.

[ProfessorPlum]

66. WHAT? He's not a Democrat!????111111

[leftynyc]

54. Why should I consider someone

who only used the party and never joined the leader of the Democratic party?

[ProfessorPlum]

63. this post helps Russia

[LexVegas]

68. ...

[leftynyc]

85. Yawwwwwnnnnnnn

[tonedevil]

97. You should ask...

Senator Gillibrand, D-NY. The Democratic Senators Warren, Harris, Booker, and Franken could probably tell you as well.

[leftynyc]

103. I already have

She's my senator which is why I even paid attention to this.

[tonedevil]

104. What did she...

have to say?

[leftynyc]

106. Sent an email

and left a message. I'll let you know.

[tonedevil]

108. I'm interested...

because it seems to me a lot of solid Democratic Senators have been painted over with the broad brush of Senator Sanders hate since they threw in on Medical for All.

[leftynyc]

118. I don't hate Gillibrand

In fact, I'd love to see her run for higher office. SHE is someone I can get behind but I want an answer as to why she called someone who isn't a Democrat the leader of the party.

[ProfessorPlum]

99. the argument could be made that the Democratic party used Sanders, as well

and even now is continuing to benefit from this work

[leftynyc]

105. Bullshit

Both he and stein did a lot of damage that we're going to be living with until Mueller finishes his work.

[ProfessorPlum]

109. I respectfully disagree

and point out that it is madness to compare the two. Sanders was not on the general ballot, and endorsed and supported Clinton versus the orange one.

as far as damage, I submit that Sanders' primary run generated a lot of enthusiasm for the Democratic party, and also for the idea of defeating Trump. Many millions of people voted for both Sanders and Clinton.

But keep up the divisiveness, it's totally working.

[leftynyc]

120. Spare me the drama

queen bullshit. I usually stay off these threads so aim your ire on someone who takes up these battles daily. Far too many Bernie supporters stayed home or voted Stein. The damage will be felt for years. Sorry, I don't like Bernie and wont apologize to anyone for that.

[ProfessorPlum]

122. this post helps Russia

[leftynyc]

124. How many times are

you going to post that drivel? Do I really have to put you on ignore?

[ProfessorPlum]

125. how many times are people going to post things that help Russia?

the answer is blowing in the wind....

[Autumn]

121. He votes and caucuses with the Democratic party so yes they use and benefit from him.

He's more reliable than our DINO's.

[BainsBane]

74. Where's the clip or quote?

I'll believe it when I see it.

[George II]

80. I've asked a couple of times about what she specifically was asked and her answer.

All I got were paraphrases.

[BannonsLiver]

81. Very little on Twitter about it as well

Just a couple of people griping at Gilibrand for saying it. If she said on CNN you would think it would cause more of a ripple.

I suspect she did say some variation of that but the OP "crafted" it into something that will fit his/her narrative.

[berni_mccoy]

86. I'll post an update once one is available.

I saw a video online of the discussion Gillibrand had about the election just prior to the discussion about party leadership but it cut out just before.

[KPN]

77. Gillibrand is right.

Unfortunately, if Bernie were to be nominated in 2020, he would almost certainly lose because he's not a Democrat.

[Bad Thoughts]

82. What you do before running for the Presidency

I'm sure Gillibrand respects Sanders, and she is closer in terms of policy positions to Sanders than the rest of the congressional party leadership. However, it seems like she is "paying dues" in a way that will allow her to pursue the presidency as one of the more progressive members.

[Weekend Warrior]

84. Swoon...

Lining up an endorsement down the road. Lots of people positioning.

[delisen]

96. B Sanders has a mailing list and mailing lists

are valuable to candidates. He can sell it, rent it, or send mailings out promoting certain candidates

[Orsino]

101. I have to suspect some selective hearing.

If Gillibrand was listing Democratic leaders (or leaders who caucus with Dems) who are leading initiative she can get behind, who cares if she listed Sanders' name first. Politiicians don't always answer even the most direct of questions directly.

But I'm gonna guess she didn't say anything like "Bernie Sanders is the leader of the Democratic Party," because he isn't.

[berni_mccoy]

102. I'm sorry. I am unable to find video or transcript.

She was asked a direct question "Who's the leader of the Democratic Party right now." Her first name was Bernie Sanders and she went into his ideas. As I said she also mentioned Sen. Warren.

I do understand the need to verify this; MSNBC is much better about posting video's from their shows than CNN is. As soon as I find it, I will update the post.

[Pugster]

107. What were her exact words?

?

[berni_mccoy]

112. Updated to include video.

[haveahart]

113. OK but she doesn't speak for me.

[ananda]

119. I like Gillibrand.

She was very good in that interview.

I'd support her as a presidential candidate too.

[beam me up scottie]

126. Thanks for posting the video!

[George II]

127. Thanks for the video, it puts it all into perspective. With all due respect.....

....(I hate it when someone says that to me, it usually means I'm about to be slammed! But I'm not going to do so. The last time someone said that to me, face to face, he said "with all due respect you're full of shit"!)

Anyway, with all due respect, you may want to change the subject line of your OP.

"Sen. Gillibrand said Bernie when she was asked who was the leader of the Democratic Party"

That's not entirely correct, in response to the question she said, "I think you have your Congressional leaders, of course, Senator Sanders is out there talking about Medicare for all, you have Elizabeth Warren.....and for each of us who are running for reelection such as myself and 24 other Senate Democrats...."

So, first he wasn't the first mentioned as you said earlier today, she mentioned the Congressional leaders and then pretty much mentioned half the Democratic Senate caucus. She included Sanders in a group of dozens of others.

[berni_mccoy]

130. We'll have to disagree.

With all due respect (and I do respect you). She named all congressional leaders as a given point (I.e "you have the leaders of the party of course&quot . But Bernie was the first individual named and its obvious as to why. His platform has been adopted by the party.

Again, we all will see it our way. It's also why I tried to be careful with this post as I did not want to put in anything that wasn't there that I wanted to be there.

[George II]

132. Actually much of what he's getting credit for in the platform was already in it....

....the major difference was the addition of "$15" to the part where the minimum wage was discussed. Look up the 2012 platform, other than format and specific wording it was very similar to the 2016 platform.

[berni_mccoy]

134. That's another debate entirely and for the sake of moving forward

I will avoid that debate. I do not seek to divide us any further and my point in posting this was to show that even some of the staunchest Hillary supporters see him as a leader.

[George II]

135. I guess the debate is about what she actually said, she didn't single out Sanders in her comments...

....she actually mentioned Congressional leadership (first), Sanders, Warren, and even herself among 24 other Senators.

[berni_mccoy]

142. Round and round we go, this is why this shit never ends.

[George II]

144. You don't agree that your subject line is misleading?

Again, here it is:

"Sen. Gillibrand said Bernie when she was asked who was the leader of the Democratic Party [View all]

Just now on CNN while discussing Hillary, her book and the election. She also mentioned Sen. Warren, but she talked about Bernie's leadership first."

No mention of the Congressional leaders (who she mentioned first), no mention of any other Senators including herself. In fact she mentioned (either by name or group) about 30 Democrats, yet the implication is that she only spoke of two, Sanders and Warren.

This is why I asked for the video for context. But to your credit, you included the entire interview, unfortunately someone else here cut the video down to a mere 30 seconds.

[berni_mccoy]

145. I stand by what I posted.

Her comment about Congressional leaders was matter of fact. Bernie was the first individual mentioned.

[George II]

146. Then I'll echo your statement "Round and round we go, this is why this shit never ends."

[SaschaHM]

133. Thank you. The OP makes it sound like a definitive statement.

He was named in a list and then when asked to clarify, Sen. Gillibrand said "They're perceived that way".

[SaschaHM]

128. "I think that's how they're percieved.... but you won't really have a national leader Democrat until

you have a nominee"


Gillibrand mentioned Bernie in the midst if a list of Democrats that included Congressional Leaders, Warren, and the 20+ Senate Dems running for reelection.

Faint praise and acknowledgement in preparation for 2020.

[Blue_Tires]

129. He runs the whole show and isn't even a party member?

That's a sweet hustle if you can get it...

[Warren DeMontague]

147. I BET SHE LIKES SUSAN SARANDON MOVIES TOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

[tonedevil]

151. It's a little early in the afternoon, but rules are rules.

|

[berni_mccoy]

154. Lol

[Warren DeMontague]

158. L'Chiam!

[mvd]

163. I like her. I think she is one of the ones who could unite the party

Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown and possibly Kamala Harris are others.

Bernie's leadership is a great thing even if it takes thinking outside the box since he is not officially a Democrat. The party got away from its populist left message and got stale. I hope we can all come together despite many of the messages I see here.