Obama Privately Tells Donors That Time Is Coming to Unite Behind Hillary Clinton

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: The New York Times

In unusually candid remarks, President Obama privately told a group of Democratic donors last Friday that Senator Bernie Sanders is nearing the point where his campaign against Hillary Clinton will come to an end, and that the party must soon come together to back her.

Mr. Obama acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton is perceived to have weaknesses as a candidate, and that some Democrats did not view her as authentic.

But he played down the importance of authenticity, noting that President George W. Bush — whose record he ran aggressively against in 2008 — was once praised for his authenticity.

Mr. Obama made the remarks after reporters had left a fund-raising event in Austin, Tex., for the Democratic National Committee. The comments were described by three people in the room for the event, all of whom were granted anonymity to describe a candid moment with the president. The comments were later confirmed by a White House official.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/obama-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html?_r=1

[jalan48]

1. LOL-so all us $27 folks is who he's talking to?

[RATM435]

107. At 33k a plate obviously not working class people.

[noretreatnosurrender]

178. All Sources Anonymous

Not one person on the record here folks. The NYT is printing anonymous DNC sources and an anonymous White House official who may have a reason for planting this story (three guesses). This is unworthy of even discussing.

[jalan48]

179. Ok-I am interested in the three guesses though.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. Smart man.

[ViseGrip]

3. He needs to go back to working on his TPPee

[bbgrunt]

76. and nominating middle of the road (with unknown women's reproductive health rights positions)

justice for the supreme court.

[Orrex]

81. As opposed to the far-lefty who'd certainly be approved

[thesquanderer]

4. News flash: George W. Bush won both his campaigns.

So if he's trying to show that the perception of authenticity is not so important, that might not be the best example.

[elleng]

50. Right.

[Mike Nelson]

112. The word "won" is...

...debatable, although I don't that makes Obama's point.

[markj757]

139. give me a break....

he wasn't talking about winning the general election, he was talking about Bush's incompetent governance and poor stewardship of the country, even though he may have seemed to be more authentic and someone you may want to have a beer with.....his policies cost this country thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, and damaged our image and reputation around the world. His point was that the appearance of having more authenticity may help you run for President, but actually being President is a completely different thing.

[thesquanderer]

150. I understand his point, that authenticity doesn't automatically make you a good chief executive.

But you have to get elected first. And authenticity can be a big factor in getting you elected. So his argument that authenticity wouldn't necessarily make Bernie a better president has to be considered along with the fact that it does give him an edge in becoming president in the first place. Reagan and W both benefited from crossover votes largely because they were perceived as authentic. Yeah, Bush was a bad president despite being seen as authentic, but he *won*.

So yeah, I understand why he wanted to bring it up, but it's not really a topic that serves Hillary well, despite his intentions. It's just a reminder of what a difficult general campaign she'd be in for.

[elljay]

160. Agreed

While it is a plus to have an authentic politician, I do believe that most of us understand that the very nature of the politics promotes inauthentic people with big egos. We ignore this in most politicians as long as they support the issues as promised to us. What Obama is ignoring is that those of us who do not support Hillary are not necessarily doing so because we find her inauthentic. We are doing so because we disagree with her positions on the issues and are not confident that she will follow through on those issues with which we do agree.

[markj757]

168. I posted this response....

to a thread a few days ago, but it goes to the heart of how I believe Bernie has changed how Clinton will run in the general if she wins the primary, but more importantly, how she will govern if she wins the general.

There is a good chance Hillary is on the verge of becoming the presumptive democratic nominee after the other night. Although I support her candidacy with some reluctance about her shady political machine, I think she will do a good job as President except on issues regarding the Palestinian crisis. I will say this about Bernie, that the liberal wing of the Democratic party could not have a stronger champion, and a louder voice for the issues and policies they care about most. There was a reason SNL did a skit morphing Hillary into Bernie during the primary. Not only will she not forget as she runs in the general, but she also won't forget if she wins, that she was on the razors edge of loosing a sure fire primary victory, against a Socialist Democrat and the most liberal man in national politics. And I think she will do her best to make sure those liberal ideas are reflected in her policies and how she governs. Because honestly, I don't think she would have been so quick to embrace such a liberal agenda, if not for Bernie Sanders. She would have ran as a moderate to conservative Democrat looking to the general election and never looked back. And to me, that makes Bernie's candidacy win or loose, a tremendous success for the Democratic party.

[elljay]

173. I do hope you are correct

but still have concerns. She has not rejected the TPP, for example, but the current draft of the TPP. This subtlety may get past the media, but I am an attorney trained to parse language for hidden meanings and I see it. I fully expect her to support a slightly redrafted TPP and claim that she has not reneged on her campaign promise, which would technically be correct.

[ellennelle]

152. um, no

W most certainly did NOT win both campaigns, and in fact the pervasive evidence is that he did not win either one.

i'm suspicious of this report; i thought obama said he wanted to remain neutral. to let this leak suggests they're nervous enough to "put a thumb on the scales."

[Blue State Bandit]

5. Great job. Compare Bernie to Bush.

That will win votes.

[Amimnoch]

6. I couldn't agree more.

I'm so going to miss him and his family in the White House. These last 8 years, while not perfect has seen some GREAT advances in Progressive and liberal causes.

I look forward to our candidate continuing the journey down the correct road.

[SunSeeker]

48. +1

[ColesCountyDem]

7. Anonymous sources, confirmed by yet another anonymous source?

That has just TONS of credibility!

[840high]

23. NYT - haahaa -

[ColesCountyDem]

29. Their previous hit piece on Sen. Sanders was a work of art. n/t

[yellowcanine]

63. Yeah I noticed that also but then I asked my neighbor and he said it happened that way!

[ColesCountyDem]

115. My sister-in-law's hairdresser's cousin's next-door neighbor confirmed it, too.

[YOHABLO]

159. You know the NYT is pathetic, now I'm completely jaded with these rags NYT, WPO, etc.

[SusanaMontana41]

170. Corporate America and governments —at all levels — hate them more than you do,

because anonymous sources spill the beans on what's behind the scenes.

Investigative journalists frequently use (and must protect) their confidential sources because sometimes it's the only way to get information without exposing the source to danger.

A few famous leakers: *Mark Felt ("Deep Throat&quot *Edward Snowden *Daniel Ellsberg *Karen Silkwood *Jeffery Wigand (Big Tobacco) Sherron Watkins (Enron)

http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Leaks-and-whistleblowers-4593089.php#item-38491


The flip side:
A few infamous leakers: *Scooter Libby *Robert Novak *"Curveball"

On the whole, though, we need leakers. Without them, we'd know nothing about what really is going on in boardrooms and government offices.

[Baitball Blogger]

8. Who praised GWB for his authenticity?

Certainly not the left. It might have come from the Centrists.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

37. Well, he was an authentic moron.

[SusanaMontana41]

92. Stop complimenting the guy.

[Nitram]

90. Yeah, those damned Centrists!

Never know what evil they'll be up to!

[snort]

110. Tweety

[TexasBushwhacker]

154. People wanted to have a beer with him, remember? n/t

[mac56]

9. "He played down the importance of authenticity"

Yeah, that authenticity. Once you learn to fake that, you got it made.

[Skwmom]

22. Oh the irony ...

[pandr32]

24. He was so publicly simplistic that he was sold as real--as authentic

...a "tell it like it is" kind of guy...off the cuff. On the opposite side was Gore, a very intelligent man, who was being branded as part of the "Clinton machine."

[Baitball Blogger]

165. Exactly. Why waste time with justice, when you only need the appearance of justice.

[ViseGrip]

10. PS, what did Obama do to stop the media corruption in this process.

Just move along now? Mr. Keystone, Fracker, TPP, appeasing republicans every chance they might wine, I just don't listen to him anymore, I'm tired of his presidency. I know the obstructionists are to blame as well. But I'm tired of it. We will have more of this, so a candidate from the past, will make this really hard and stale, with another 8 yrs. of the Clintons. I'm tired of her already. She made her negativity go up, the last bunch were activists, not just voters polled.

She never seems to learn from her mistakes on or off the field. This is another reason, along with her record I do not support her. Her campaign behavior has been less worthy of ignoring her mighty faults.
She blew it with me.

[Duval]

141. Blew it big time with me. nt

[scheming daemons]

11. Obama is correct

Deep down, Bernie knows it too.

[chervilant]

57. So, you speak for Bernie Sanders?

Ironically, Obama was in much the same position at this point in his initial campaign for POTUS, and he went on to win the nomination AND the election.

How short-sighted is it to cling to Hi11ary as the "presumptive nominee," when almost all survey responses indicate that Trump wins if she's the nominee?

And, that's "presuming" she isn't indicted this summer.


SMDH...

[fullautohotdog]

66. Actaully...

Obama had a lead this point in 2008...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008#March

[chervilant]

129. I'm sure you meant

"actually."



And, thanks for "presuming" that I was not aware of Obama's lead at this point in 2008, hence my use of the phrase "much the same." Actually, I used that phrase primarily with regards to Hi11ary's supporters making derisive, disparaging remarks about Bernie's candidacy, just as they were doing with Obama.

[CreekDog]

158. she's further ahead after the same states now, as Obama was in 2008

based on the states that have already voted this time around, she's up 314.

back in 2008, if you look at these same states, he was up by 111.

it's a fairly substantial difference.

[CreekDog]

167. He had more 127 delegates more than Clinton in 2008

He had a 52.0% to 48.0% lead in pledged delegates. You make it sound like a trivial lead, and though it wasn't sweeping, it's not a nailbiter. And you're kind of glossing over something...

Anyway, comparing the states than have voted in 2008 and 2016, She leads 58.0% to 42.0% at this point, whereas in 2008, Obama led 52.7%-46.0% back then. She has a 16 point lead now, at this point then, she trailed 6.7 points back then at this point.

[CreekDog]

174. the caucuses are not the "popular vote" or are you trying to say an apple is an orange?

[chervilant]

169. Yeah, it is.

But Bernie Sanders and his supporters are NOT quitters. We have a lot of delegates out there, and a significant number of them will be Bernie's.

Furthermore, you have my deepest sympathies if you're a Hi11ary supporter. Ethically and morally, I cannot recommend her.

[CreekDog]

175. Stuff your "deepest sympathies"

if you don't have the courage to communicate directly your disagreement with me, then you aren't very helpful to your candidate.

as for me, I don't need sympathy, I'm not ashamed, since you couldn't state what you thought directly, perhaps you are.

[chervilant]

183. My response

WAS to you.

And, you still have my deepest sympathies, for more than your stance on Hi11ary.

[scheming daemons]

69. No... Obama was ahead in pledged delegates at this point in 2008

He wasn't 300+ behind like Bernie is.

[tabasco]

130. Aaaaaaand.... H. Clinton did not end her campaign until JUNE 7.

Hillary did not end her 2008 campaign until Obama had CLINCHED the nomination.

[scheming daemons]

181. Aaaaaaand... Bernie shouldn't end his campaign until the June 7th primaries either

[chervilant]

132. IIRC, Obama got a great deal

more media coverage than Bernie has gotten. Plus, he seemed to be the corporate megalomaniacs' favored candidate.

There are other issues, but the fact remains that Bernie is a much more popular candidate among the Hoi Polloi for substantial reasons, instead of being the "presumptive" nominee because of name recognition, dirty tricks, and DWS's shenanigans.

I shudder to think where this country will be if we have to tolerate a Trump presidency because the Dems are so invested in Hi11ary.

[ladjf]

91. I seriously doubt that you know what Bernie is thinking. nt

[grasswire]

12. source: three un-named people at the donor event.

OK.

Sure.

I believe it now. :eyeroll:

[Fast Walker 52]

74. so you think they are lying?

Note, I'm a Bernie supporter...

[imagine2015]

83. Not at all. Everyone knows that rich people don't lie!

[Old Codger]

98. We also know

That obama wants hillary to win in order to carry on the third way, corporate legacy...

[Cassiopeia]

134. He needs her to protect the TPP and get the TPIP through.

His future wealth relies on it.

[tomg2]

146. And don't forget TiSA (Trade in

Services Agreement).

[TexasBushwhacker]

155. From what I gather TiSA is worse than TPP n/t

[MADem]

13. NYT had this story BEFORE the Five For Five Rout, apparently.

Just as well that they waited to publish it.

Mr. Obama chose his words carefully, and did not explicitly call on Mr. Sanders to depart the race, according to those in the room. Still, those in attendance said in interviews that they took his comments as a signal to Mr. Sanders that perpetuating his campaign, which is now an uphill climb, could only help the Republicans recapture the White House.

Mr. Obama’s message came at a critical juncture for Mr. Sanders, who had just upset Mrs. Clinton in the Michigan primary and has been trying to convince Democrats that his campaign is not over, despite Mrs. Clinton’s formidable lead in the delegate tally.

Mr. Obama has been careful in public to avoid disparaging Mr. Sanders, given his deeper history and relationship with Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Obama also does not want to alienate the liberal voters who have flocked to Mr. Sanders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/obama-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html?_r=2

[thesquanderer]

26. Yes, this was after Michigan, and BEFORE anyone knew how this Tuesday was going to turn out.

I don't know if the Times necessarily HAD the story then (as you suggest), or if they had yet gotten the confirmation from the WH official that they mentioned, but that is when the event happened.

I kind of suspect that if they had the story and the confirmation before Tuesday, they would have published it then, but who knows.

I do think it's interesting that Obama chose to have this meeting even before knowing how Tuesday was going to turn out. Maybe it was pre-emptive in that respect. If Tuesday went Hillary's way, the timing would make no difference. But if by some chance Tuesday went Bernie's way, this might have been a more controversial argument for him to make afterwards.

[MADem]

97. I think they didn't want to publish anything helpful to Clinton, so they held it.

Remember how they screwed McCain with the false story about the hot looking lobbyist (the one who produced dozens of hilarious photoshops, poor thing)?

If anything, they'd want to publish a scandal piece on Clinton--front page. They're a dying concern, and they need to sell overpriced papers to keep afloat. Inevitable candidates don't sell papers--presumptive nominees on the rocks, being challenged by upstarts--that's where the money lies.

HRC was going to win The Big Prize, FL, anyway. She had NC in the bag, too. One could take those--and the delegates therefrom--and still call it a draw...a rough, bloody draw, but a draw.

OH/IL/MO were the iffy ones. The fact that she ran the table was a real BOOM-GOES-THE-DYNAMITE event in this scenario. It changed the atmosphere completely.

I was prepared for just FL and NC. I was hoping for FL-NC-IL, but wasn't confident. The way people were talking, BS was supposed to run away with OH and MO, and that didn't happen at all. He had a shitty night, and he's got to see that the only thing he's doing if he presses on is delaying the inevitable.

If he has a lot of bills to pay, he might need a few more of those twenty seven buck donations to get the books in line. I wouldn't be surprised if you see some tell-tale "economies" happening in his campaign that are a harbinger of things to come.

[thesquanderer]

109. I don't think they have an aversion to publishing things that are helpful to Clinton.

I assume you are aware of how a Sanders piece was edited to be far less favorable to him?

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/?ref=topics&_r=0

Honestly, I think the Times has, at times, treated both of them unfairly. For all the talk of their being a liberal paper, they seem kinder, in general, to the Republicans! Maybe because they feel they have to bend over backwards to not be so perceived as a liberal paper. Or maybe because, at the heart of it, they see that as where their bread is buttered.

I agree it's mostly about selling papers, though.

Back to timing... prior to last Friday, there was no talk of Sanders being competitive in Illinois. There was a chance he could make a run at Ohio, though the polls were still heavily against him. Expectations did get raised between Friday and Tuesday, but in the end, he performed about as had been expected up until that point. 538 did not have him favored to win any state, as I recall. Though of course, with proportional allocation, that doesn't tell the whole story, since winning or losing is not necessarily as important as how much you win or lose by.

[MADem]

118. My point is, that they didn't want to make her path easy ahead of the 5 state primary contests.

They love a horse race, because a horse race sells papers. They do enjoy lifting candidates up, only to slam them down--I guess they think this proves their lack of bias, or something.

That said, I completely agree with both your observations about how they treat the GOP, as well as this portion of your link:

Update: A number of readers have made a point that I should have made earlier. The Sanders article was not a breaking news story, but rather a look back at his legislative record. Given its sensitivity and importance (it ended up on the front page on the morning of major primaries), why didn’t senior editors vet the story and make all the editing changes before it went online? Digital platforms, after all, are not a test run, and non-urgent stories don’t need to be pushed out as quickly as this one apparently was. I would also observe that the “context” added here looked a lot like plain-old opinion to this reader, and quite a few others.

They are so eager for "content" that they slap it up without talking about it first. I do think online material should be corrected for things like spelling, reporter error, or a change in what were previously believed to be "facts," but tone-shading? That needs to be established at the git-go--and frankly, the "tone" in the best publications is as neutral as possible.

I was hearing "lowered expectations" for IL long before Friday, but I do try to keep my ear to the ground. I go to 538 when I want to see things that cheer me up, but after MI I don't put all my eggs in their basket (!) -- they are only as good as the polls, which, as we've learned, ain't always 'en pointe!'

[Skwmom]

34. Not disparage. Nothing like comparing Bernie to Bush. n/t

[MADem]

99. ?

Mr. Obama has been careful in public to avoid disparaging Mr. Sanders....

[Skwmom]

119. It was stated in the article.

"But he played down the importance of authenticity, noting that President George W. Bush — whose record he ran aggressively against in 2008 — was once praised for his authenticity. "

[MADem]

138. How you took THAT leap, I've no idea.

The point he was making is that CLINTON IS CRITICIZED FOR NOT BEING SUFFICIENTLY AUTHENTIC.

Bush, by contrast, was HAILED for being "AUTHENTIC."

His point was that Bush is an asshole, and Clinton is not. People who are touted as "authentic" are not "all that."

Good grief--you had to run a country mile to take offense, there!

It wasn't about Bernie at all--not every comparison is "about" him.

smh.

[Fast Walker 52]

79. Rout? It's not winner take all, I assume you know.

The wins don't mean much when the % is close.

[MADem]

87. It was supposed to be Two For Her, Three For Him, the way I read it.

And if I read DU, it was supposed to be four for him, one (barely) for her.

Five for Five was an ASS whipping.

The wins mean everything when the math starts looking impossible. Why in the world would anyone think that Sanders will start winning two-to-one for the rest of the contests, when he lost states like MO that have a demographic makeup that is favorable to him?

He spent a FORTUNE in OH and IL. Karl Rove spent a fortune on Bernie's behalf, trashing his opponent.

He got NO JOY for his (or Karl's) money.

There comes a time when you start to realize those scrawls on the wall are the WRITING--and it's coming near to the time to read it and grasp that there is no path.

Take as long as you'd like, but the outcome is not going to change.

[Blue State Bandit]

14. Bernie supporters publicly tell party

...step the ef back.

[liberal from boston]

124. Go Bernie

Wow--please stop demanding that Bernie step down. Glad that President Obama admitted that Hillary has problems--believe me she does. Senator Sanders will be in the Presidential Campaign to the convention. His message is resonating with Americans. Powers to be are threatened by Senator Sanders & I am disappointed that President Obama is leaking this out. Clinton is not the Presidential Candidate needed. If she is elected it will be business as usual & her hawkish views should worry everyone. Robert Reich on Senator Sanders: In his post, Reich referred to Bernie as a “political activist who tells it like it is, who has lived by his convictions for fifty years, who won’t take a dime of money from big corporations or Wall Street or the very rich, and who is leading a grass-roots ‘political revolution’ to regain control over our democracy and economy.”

[Kip Humphrey]

15. so?

[Gene Debs]

16. Says the guy who was in the same position this time in 2008 as Bernie Sanders is in now. O,

the irony.

[Hiraeth]

18. ^^^^^^^^^^ yep ^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Roland99]

27. Bingo!!

[pnwmom]

59. No. He was in exactly the OPPOSITE position as Bernie -- Obama was AHEAD

of Hillary at this point.

And now, Hillary's lead over Bernie is twice as big as Obama's lead over Hillary -- a lead that proved insurmountable.

[Cali_Democrat]

61. Wrong.

Obama was leading Hillary in pledged delegates at this time in 2008.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

94. Nope.

Hillary was in Bernie's position this time 2008. Obama was ahead. The Bernie is like Obama 2008 meme has now officially expired.

[geek tragedy]

103. that is precisely false, he was in the position Clinton is in now, leading in pledged delegates

except that Clinton has a much bigger lead than he did back then

[BeyondGeography]

108. Dude...

[Hiraeth]

17. with all due respect Mr. President,

It ain't over til Bernie says its over.

Signed,
Still waiting for the Fat Lady to sing.

[ladjf]

93. I am in Bernie's army until he tells me that he no longer needs me. nt

[Duval]

128. +1 with enthusiasm! nt

[chapdrum]

19. The Wise Man speaks.

[appalachiablue]

20. I'd prefer the President start work on ridding this problem...

[KansDem]

25. Thanks for the statistics...

I knew she was trouble but didn't realize she was that toxic.

[HubertHeaver]

38. Simply the most successful RNC chair of all time.

[LibDemAlways]

78. This ^^^^

She's done a bang up job of getting Republicans elected, and no one in the Democratic party establishment seems to think that's a bad thing. So, yep, you're correct.

[appalachiablue]

39. SHE'S (R)ADIOACTIVE TOXIC!!

[yallerdawg]

42. Coincidentally, this occurred on Obama's watch -as we well know!

But let's blame the woman, shall we?

[appalachiablue]

45. It is what it is, her record that is. Gender has nix to do with it...

[yallerdawg]

54. Between the man and the woman...

you choose the woman.

And even though we know this was directly associated to the Democratic Party electing President Obama, you want to blame the woman - chosen by that same man.

Men and women are equal - until you look at the outcomes.

[dorkzilla]

67. Um, Obama has another job to do. He has to do her job, too?

This has nothing to do with gender. She's incompetent. He's to blame for not canning her ass but her performance is down to her.

Unless you are insinuating that he should take the blame because he's a man. Either way, that is some major contortion.

[yallerdawg]

70. That's right, don't blame the man...

when you have a woman to fall back on.

Good idea he could fix her if he wasn't so busy. Wow!

[dorkzilla]

75. Blame whose job it is.

Not a difficult concept. NOTHING to do with GENDER at all.

[juxtaposed]

104. Hillary, Is that you?

[earthshine]

71. DWS is the queen in his three-dimensional chess game.

I hold Obama fully responsible for the actions of DWS. Everything she does has his implicit approval.

900+ State legislators, 12 governors, 69 congresspersons, 12 senators

These were the pawns in his game. In chess, the only thing that matters at the end is if your king is still standing with just enough supporting material to defeat the other king.

I actually hate that metaphor. Three-dimensional chess is from Star Trek -- a groundbreaking, fantastically progressive television show from the 60s portending an egalitarian and anti-war future.

Our modern-day starship captains (Obama, Clinton, Harry Reid, others) will not bring us to that future.

[yallerdawg]

95. Are you forgetting Kahn's Eugenics Wars?

Roddenberry never suggested we'd get there without many bumps in the road.

Sounds - what's that word? - incremental to me.

[earthshine]

142. The eugenics wars were not about corporate facism.

They were about what happens when people eat GMOs -- they become GMOs.

[ejbr]

21. Are these the same donors that gave us TPP?

Nah....they were already behind Clinton. Well, it certainly wasn't any of Bernie's $27 a shot donors, so the comment was meant to be leaked.

[Skwmom]

28. Attendees paid as much as $33,400 a ticket.

[ejbr]

49. of course

thanks for the information...

[phantom power]

30. "But he played down the importance of authenticity" - yeah because voters never respond to THAT.

WTF is wrong with these people?

[ejbr]

51. Yes

because Dubya was authentic and a lousy president, so the two must somehow be related

[LibDemAlways]

88. These people have a tremendous investment in

maintaining the status quo. In 2008 a fed up electorate voted Obama thinking he was something he was not. He played the phony authenticity card well. Now he apparently has reached the conclusion that even the illusion of bring authentic isn't important when you've got the big money and party machine behind you. Who gives a fuck about the ordinary citizen anyway?

I predict Obama will cash in big time when out of office. Don't look for him building houses with Habitat for Humanity. He'll be giving speeches for big bucks to the same corporate crooks Hillary is so fond of-- when he's not out on the links with them. Bank on it.

[Wibly]

31. I don't believe this

Anonymous sources supporting information provided by anonymous sources.
Sounds like more of Clinton's subversion to me.
Don't believe it for a moment.
However, if it is true, then shame on Barack Obama for becoming a Clinton toady.
It ain't over until Sanders and the people who are pouring money into his campaign say its over, and chances are, even if Sanders were to lose to Clinton, his supporters would want him to stay in.
Why?
Because he's the only candidate for President who is offering a real plan to combat the real problems in American society.

[brooklynite]

36. If this story is false, the White House will quickly disavow it.....right?

[Wibly]

85. Only if it is published beyond DU

If this story gets into the MSM perhaps, but as long as its localized to DU they'll ignore it.
I have no doubt that Obama and Co. are in league with Wasserman and the DNC, and privately support Clinton, but I doubt very much that Obama spoke openly about it.

[brooklynite]

102. This is from the New York Times...

[KoKo]

137. NYT that had to do a correction on a Bernie story that they published and then edited...

to make it seem less favorable than the original. The NYT Public Editor admitted that this was done.

So..Anonymous Sources quoted in this article could be real or not and the quotes could be exactly what Obama said, or not. We won't know until someone directly asks if the NYT article is quoting Obama until Josh Ernest is asked the question at a WH Presser. I prefer to believe that Obama would not have made any statement that would have favored Hillary over Bernie when only half of the US citizens have yet had a chance to vote.

[Raster]

180. This story just disavowed by The White House.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511519135

DID. NOT. HAPPEN.

[Gothmog]

32. President Obama has a great fundraising machine

This will help a great deal in the general election

[fredamae]

33. hahahahahaha

Isn't it Still up to Voters or do Donors Out number Us? The more crap like this is floated the more distance from the status quo I give.
I'm not alone.
If true-Obama JUST Defined the Fkg Problem....Money. In. Politics.
If We Really want Money Out?
Then STOP letting the Crap it buys influence your choices and ultimately - Your Vote.

[Skwmom]

35. They don't get how fed up people are. n.t

[fredamae]

40. Yep-Add to that- the Massive numbers

of voters who have Awakened since 2012.

When you believe you have Nothing to lose...........................

[Else You Are Mad]

41. He is just trying to protect his legacy the TPP

I believe, for whatever reason, Obama has decided his legacy will be with the TPP. He knows that his beloved TPP will be decimated after 2016 regardless of whether Sanders or Clinton wins the GE, so he is hedging his bets with Clinton because she will go much easier on his beloved TPP than Sanders.

[Cryptoad]

43. The Prez called Krugman

to count the beans ,,, and he told Obama,,,,,, "Aint no way for Bern"!

[global1]

44. I'm Thinking That During And After The Bush Presidency That The American People......

now have a very good idea as to how to spot an authentic candidate from one that is not. What was that expression by Bush?

Fool me once.....

[Old Codger]

100. Yup

bush was an authentic idiot, obama is a fake liberal...

[ChiciB1]

126. +10000! n/t

[onehandle]

46. Good. nt

[Viva_La_Revolution]

47. way to support democracy, Mr. President

[floriduck]

52. BINGO,! We have a winner!

"Mr. Obama acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton is perceived to have weaknesses as a candidate, and that some Democrats did not view her as authentic."

[calguy]

53. Looks like the BSers are still in denial

Gonna take a few more primary losses I guess. Bernie should win a few of the small western states next week but after that it's back to reality as they see no improvement in their delegate deficit.

[boomer55]

55. oh I thought this was a call to donate to her legal defense fund. ;)

[pengu]

56. Two things

1. Nobody on the left thought Dubya was "authentic".
2. There's a big difference between supporting someone you think is probably authentic, and supporting someone you know for a fact is inauthentic.

[bkkyosemite]

58. Billy boy was so mad that she lost last time that Obama probably said okay

I'll make her SOS and support her for President next time...so that he is...so I support Bernie Sanders.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. Time to call the WH to make sure Obama does not start pushing that filth about Nancy and Ron.

For me it is Bernie in the primary or I skip the entire national portion of my ballot, she will not have my vote as I am not a Reagan Democrat, Reagan was pure evil.

[RATM435]

62. Is DU censoring anti hillary posts.

[sulphurdunn]

64. I wonder how many $27 donors

were there?

[Fast Walker 52]

77. None, this was a $33,4000 a plate dinner.

[davidthegnome]

65. Hmm.

It is hard to take anything the NYT writes seriously these days. Giving the organization the benefit of a doubt in supposing, however, that this might be true... (disregard if determined to be false)

Mr. Obama, I believed you were a very authentic man when I supported your campaign in 2008 (and continued to support you in 2012) against the advice and opinions of pretty much my whole family, and many, many other democrats I had known and respected for many years. I voted for you Sir, for several reasons. You did not support the IWR. You were a decent human being who worked hard to get people desperately needed health insurance. You were (and are) a great speaker, with what, in any sane Country, would be broad appeal. In any sane Country, your diplomatic, generally inoffensive nature... should have appealed to even political opponents to such an extent that they would sit and work with you.

Ultimately Sir, we failed to accomplish many of the goals you intended from the start. In large part, this is because of the hate-filled ignorance, racism, bigotry, misogyny, cruelty, and malice of the hard right... today's republican party is not that of Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower... it does not resemble anything remotely reasonable or sane. What is frightening about this current election, Sir, is that the front runner on the other side is bringing all of the most despicable, most hateful elements in this Country out into the field.

Clinton, to some degree, reminds me much of you - with a few exceptions. One is that she, frankly, lacks your authenticity. Another is that she willingly campaigns for funds from some of the most despicable human beings and special interest groups on earth - on earth -. Her support for the IWR, for fracking, for the Patriot Act, and other policies and things that I find... frankly, unbelievable in the regard that any democrat, moderate or otherwise, would support them.

I wasn't thrilled with your administration, Mr. President, I believe you made some very bad choices - but I also think you made a number of good ones. In the race between you and Clinton, you were the outsider, the underdog, the man who I believed most closely represented my own principles. Indeed, my faith in you was so strong at one point that I was convinced we would really... truly have... health insurance for every American. The failure of this is not entirely your fault, nonetheless Sir... it is a failure - as my aching, damaged back can attest to... the fact that I have no health insurance, that I am disabled, that I have precious few options and none of them look good. I believed in you, Sir, in what you could do as President. I still believe you are a decent human being who tried his best.

I do not believe in Hillary Clinton. Many speak of Sanders in suggesting that he has forced her positions, her policies to the left... I would ask all of you... "Why were they not there to begin with?" In one who claims to be a progressive, how is it that she is often consistently against progressive policies and principles? In one who once supported health insurance for every American - how is it that when a fellow candidate suggests the same, he is mocked by her campaign as a one issue candidate... as a con artist promising everybody "free stuff"?

If we compare the history, in particular... the political history of Clinton and Sanders... I believe that most democrats and nearly all progressives will find their own views and desires far more in line with Mr. Sanders. I do find it very difficult to believe what Clinton has to say - in your case, I believed you would ATTEMPT to keep your campaign promises, in the case of Clinton... I have no such faith.

Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps Clinton will prove to be a better candidate and perhaps - if she wins - a better President than I believed possible. On the other hand, perhaps she will prove to be even worse.

We are sick and tired of the rule of the 1%. We, the 99% are sick and tired of the class warfare being successfully waged against us by the wealthy elite. We are tired of having no health insurance, of being buried in debt for the basic current economic necessities of higher education and healthcare. We are tired of the for profit prison industry, of the military industrial complex, of Monsanto, of many despicable special interest groups and others... and beyond being tired of it, we are now getting angry.

Should the nomination be decided, Mr. President, should Clinton win it beyond question, then and only then will I support her campaign. Until then, I will continue to contribute my faith, my pathetic little money, and my full support to the one person running for President who I believe is authentic, who I believe will at least TRY to keep their word.

You were once yourself, not an establishment candidate, Sir. I had high hopes for you, but sadly, your diplomacy is not what is needed in this political era. What we need, is a fire breathing, angry, liberal dragon... who speaks the truth, condemns our enemies and falsehoods, corruption, bribes, and outright lies... at every turn. Someone who has spent his life and his political career fighting for "the least of these" and the most of us.

I am no longer looking to be reasonable with people that hold me in contempt or betray their proclaimed principles and policies. I am looking to make a difference. Again, I am daring, for hope and change. In other words, Mr. President... in famous words... YES. WE. CAN.

That's all I have to say about that.

[reflection]

157. Stellar post. Please consider making it an OP. n/t

[SoapBox]

68. Get in line! Do as you are told! Vote for who we say!

Uh huh...

Isn't America great...I can do as I want to do! And I can vote for who I want to vote for!

[Fast Walker 52]

72. Jesus, please save us from corporate Democrats!!

Enough of this BS.

[imagine2015]

73. Obama addressed a fund raising dinner of Texas millionaires. Only $33,400 a ticket for the meal.

But, that included dessert!

The Austin event was hosted by Kirk Rudy, a Texas real estate tycoon, and raised money for the Democratic National Committee. Attendees paid as much as $33,400 a ticket.

[dorkzilla]

82. Good thing they don't need my money then!

Because the DNC is never getting one fucking thin dime from me ever again.

[imagine2015]

163. They don't need you. They have Wall Street and big business running the show.

[LoisB]

80. From this really small donor: No thank you, I'll stick with Bernie.

[Jopin Klobe]

84. I worked to get President Obama into office ... but ...

... this? ...

"But he played down the importance of authenticity, noting that President George W. Bush — whose record he ran aggressively against in 2008 — was once praised for his authenticity." ...

... that's right Mr. President, they lied about George W. Whatshisname and they are lying about Hillary ...

... if we are to take your explanation that "authenticity" can be misrepresented, then it works both ways ...

... oh, yeah ... "authenticity" was the reason I worked for you ... funny, hunh? ...

[Petrushka]

166. Authenticity ---> George & Hillary, best friends forever

[riderinthestorm]

86. A perfect example of everything that's wrong in politics nt

[ladjf]

105. I've become very inhibited when I write a DU post.

I've been a member since 2004. But, this is the first time I've ever felt that if I said exactly what I thought, I'd be kicked out. I've already had a post hidden which said, and I quote almost verbatim,
"In my opinion, (...name of a State...) is the least enlightened state in the Union."

That was it, hidden. Didn't matter that I was born and raised there and had been an educator for 35 years, at all levels including the State University. What I said about my state was out of love, with an attempt to be constructive.

Anyway, Clinton has been appointed by at least the Democratic Establishment, if not the conglomerate of the super rich that might trust her to do their bidding more than any of the Republican clowns. It almost seemed that the Republican Power Brokers never were planning to install the Republican nominee. Now Trump, ever the opportunist for a deal, has jumped in and seized control of the Republican name is may win the President, in which neither Party will be in power. It may well become a dictatorship. (JFK warned us that a President could easily turn us into a dictatorship.)

Fellow, DU'er, I've deeply enjoyed participating on this lively political board. If I get "tombstoned", maybe we'll meet again on another board.

[riderinthestorm]

113. Agreed with everything you've said my friend.

Obama couldn't have done a more perfect event designed to rev up Bernie's base than this kind of big money, big donor party.

Fires us up to continue to keep Bernie's message out there til the convention (and beyond).

Personally the toxicity here compelled me to put daily volunteer hours into Bernie's Illinois primary campaign. Now that that's done, Internet politics is boring....

Scuba's excellent vacation pics in GD are compelling enough to have me exploring a similar adventure.

I'm over at Jackpineradicals.com. Despite the lies told here, there really isn't any discussion of DU or DUers there so it's focus is pretty pure on changing the political structure. Maybe I'll see you there!

Peace!

[MADem]

133. There's been a rule change that will make it easier for you to express yourself.

I've had four posts hidden for saying that Bernie Sanders isn't my first choice for POTUS, so I can understand your frustration. I didn't insult any DUers, call names, use profanity or vulgarity, I simply expressed a view that he wasn't the best candidate in my view, and that "earned" me swarm-hides.

So long as you don't go after individuals, with name calling and invective, you'll be OK, I think. No longer are the HIDES -- particularly the unfair ones, at any rate -- having the ability to silence people. It's a good thing.

Here--if you haven't seen this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=5098


That said, you have to be careful about how you talk about states or regions around here. Some people are proud of their home states, and know many "enlightened" people in them. If you insult their state, you insult them. You've got to use nuance, or caveats ("Present company excepted" might work). And given the increasingly mobile nature of society today (I have relatives in CA, NM, TX, GA, FL, PR, NY, NJ, ME, NC, SC and a few other states I'm sure I've forgotten about!!!!) you can't always assume that the person who LIVES in State X was RAISED in State X--or subscribes to the historical biases of that location. In your case, you lived and worked in the state--but did you make that clear in your post? There are so many new people here, who have signed up in the last six months, that they might not know you, understand where you are coming from, etc.

And in some cases, like I said, hides are partisan. But check that link above--that partisan bashing is going to be harder to sustain, here, because both alerters and juries are going to be judged in addition to posters.

[ladjf]

140. Oh yes, I got locked out of the hillary group for saying IMO clinton wasn't the best

candidate. Boom. I didn't even know what Clinton group meant at the time.

Thanks for the advice.

[MADem]

148. I got locked out of the Sanders group for giving people a link to a CNN video that showed

Bernie Sanders' announcement for POTUS.

That's ALL I did.


I didn't say "Bernie's not the best candidate" or anything of that nature--I knew I was in a protected group and I wasn't going to be rude or say a thing about their candidate that was negative.

Despite that, I was told by the Sanders host that since I wasn't a Bernie supporter, I didn't belong in the group. I got the BOOM, too.

That's THEIR choice, see? You might not like it, but you don't have a "right" to go into a group and act against their mission. And, as I demonstrated, even if you don't 'act against their mission' they can still throw you out if they don't like the cut of your jib. That's what happened to me. C'est la vie...! We just have to move on and get over it. There are plenty of spots here where we can express ourselves--we just can't tell cheerleaders that their cheering sucks.

I hope the admins change things so the group posts stay OFF the front page--that's where people get in trouble, I've found.

[ladjf]

149. Well, it seems like a bad trend. nt

[MADem]

153. I hope it will be part of the post-primary tweaks the admins make, to stop putting that stuff

on the main pages. There's no point in inciting anger.

If they don't make it disappear from the front page, maybe they could find a way to color code it (make protected groups purple, or something--with a hard banner that says "This is a protected group-read SOP before posting" or similar). In the AA group, we have seen many people come in, spoiling for a fight, only to be shown the door, too. And in some of the more esoteric groups, we've seen people hop into a conversation with a virulent opposition to the SOP without realizing they're in the wrong house!

Lotsa people get bagged by that "I came here from the front page" thing. Take heart in the realization that you're not alone. If the admins can fix that, it would put some oil on troubled waters!

[LiberalLovinLug]

89. Some endorsement

But he played down the importance of authenticity, noting that President George W. Bush — whose record he ran aggressively against in 2008 — was once praised for his authenticity.

So, let me get this straight. In other words...in retrospect GW Bush is now seen as duplicitous and a liar whose family and his fellow chicken hawks made millions, if not billions, on no bid reconstruction, private mercenary, and new oil contracts, while millions died or were irrevocably damaged, while a nation was bombed into the stone age and gave rise to the very type of terrorist activity that he lied about existing there in the first place.

But at the time....He was regarded as having "authenticity". So the fact the Hillary is seen by some as inauthentic, means that she will actually be the opposite once in office. Is this more of his three dimensional thinking?

[Kall]

101. The only electoral relevance of "authenticity" in this context

to a bunch of donors is that George W. Bush got elected twice, so who knows what the point was.

[surrealAmerican]

96. It seems pretty likely those Texas millionaires were already united for Clinton.

[LibDemAlways]

114. I think they like to spread it around between candidates

of both parties. They want to hedge their bets.

[PADemD]

106. My donations will continue until Bernie is the nominee.

Not one red cent to HRC or the DNC.

[HeartoftheMidwest]

123. Ditto....

....here.

[liberal from boston]

136. Go Bernie

Donations going to Bernie--only Presidential Candidate that is not bought & owned by the 1%!!!

[frylock]

111. I remember when I believed that this guy was authentic.

[mahannah]

116. TNYT is not always reliable.

[Thespian2]

117. Give me a break!

Every time I read another screed about Bernie losing, I donate more money to him...Give me a break...I have very little money...

HRH is a terrible candidate...I see no way she can win a general election...Even the GREEDY Bastards won't be able to buy the election for her...

[Herman4747]

121. If Hillary needs money, she can get it from Goldman Sachs...

She's quite good at that.

She doesn't even have to let anyone know if she promised Goldman Sachs anything either!

[Billsmile]

122. President Obama Polls Better Against McCain in 2008

Obama's 2008 campaign pointed out that Obama "fares better than Senator Clinton against John McCain in poll after poll" as a reason Obama should not drop out of the presidential race.

Bernie Sanders polls better than Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump so similar reasoning would lead the president to back Sanders.



http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clinton-campaig.html

[ChiciB1]

125. WHAT??? In Two Small Paragraphs Talks Up Clinton About Authenticity, Then

he uses GEORGE W. BUSH as the person who was also perceived the same way and says we should get behind Clinton!!!

The comparison would comical if it wasn't SO SAD! OBVIOUSLY, there was NOTHING authentic about George W. Bush! This IS a proven fact! So how does this comparison make Hillary Clinton MORE authentic??? Obama... the man who's delivered some of the most eloquent speeches even IF many of them didn't deliver on what was said, just compared Clinton to Bush!

Not only does it offend me that he assumes WE SHOULD simply abandon who we genuinely support, but at the same time has THE AUDACITY to insinuate that Bush WAS/IS Authentic!

I guess THIS is more of how far to the right The Democratic Party is and how beholden even HE IS to Wall Street!

Pretty clear to me that we are now just minions or serfs! I won't say more than this really UPSETS ME!

[lastone]

127. F@#k that

No more corporate Dems, time to redouble there efforts to get a truly independent voice in the WH.

BERNIE SANDERS IN THE ONLY TRUE PROGRESSIVE IN THIS RACE!

[DownriverDem]

135. Bernie's Role

I know you don't seem to understand, but Bernie's role is to move Hillary left and give her a good challenge. We are building on the leftward movement that we all want. That's how it works. Our next nominee (not Bernie he'll be too old), will be a lot more left. Why? The country will have moved much more left by then.

I really need to know why you act like Hillary and Bernie are enemies? They like each other. Bernie is going to work big time to get her elected. This is how politics works. You don't always win, but you keep moving the ball left. Please stay focused on defeating Trump and getting a left leaning Supreme Court.

[lastone]

156. I've been hearing this same crap

All my life, the lesser of two bad choices is always the pitch. I said before I would vote for the nominee but with the absolute rat fuck tactics of hrc/dws/dnc I'm not so sure. And your banking on allot of what ifs to think another progressive is going to come forward and endure the bs and run. Now is the time, tomorrow is only a distant promise.

[Kall]

131. Well

I'm sure getting people at a $33,400/ticket event to unite behind Hillary Clinton must have been a Herculean task.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

143. With half the delegates still to be determined and donations pouring in to Bernie?

How about we just have a fair and square contest to the end?

[DownriverDem]

147. Closed Primaries

If I read the info right the next states are closed primaries. That means no independents or crossovers. That also means Hillary will do well. She has a 80%+ rating with registered Dems. Bernie does better with caucuses and open primaries. Politics is not an easy game. And before folks attack the DNC, states set up their primaries and rules.

[DownriverDem]

144. Good

Obama deals in reality. He has supported Hillary from the start. Bernie still needs to say in though. He is playing an important role. He is moving Hillary left and making her a better candidate. The revolution will continue. It is building and will keep on going if we all want it to be. Movements take time. The country is moving our way, but it is not yet where we all want it to be.

[magical thyme]

145. Sanders is nearing the point where his campaign against Hillary Clinton will come to an end?

Oh really? Last I heard, Bernie's in it to the convention. And unlike most politicians, Bernie is known to be tenacious, dogged, and as good as his word.


Senator Roger Wicker — Republican, Mississippi
“I learned early on not to be automatically dismissive of a Bernie Sanders initiative or amendment… He’s tenacious and dogged and he has determination, and he’s not to be underestimated.”


Senator John Mccain — Republican, Arizona
“, I found him to be honorable and good as his word.”

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/10/1482833/-8-Quotes-From-Congress-About-Bernie-Sanders

Or is somebody preparing to end his campaign for him. Donated more yesterday. Time to bite the bullet and phone bank.

[PatrynXX]

151. Sure has changed over the years

trying to figure out right now what compelled his security team to Deny Gerry Adams entry to the white house on st patricks day (first time in 20 yrs. ) last person to do it if Gerry is right is Bill Clinton oh this figures. Hillary probably told him to deny Gerry so we can start a warn with Ireland nice.

[greymouse]

171. this article is from the Clinton Times

which has thrown its journalistic integrity into the toilet during this campaign. We have no idea if there is even a grain of truth to it.

In any event, the President who hired Rham Emanuel does not tell me what to do.

[LiberalElite]

172. Time to send Bernie another donation nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

176. The White House, through Josh Earnest, has denied this.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/white-house-obama-still-neutral-democratic-primary-battle-n540966

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday pushed back on a New York Times report that said President Barack Obama privately told Democratic donors the party should begin to coalesce behind Hillary Clinton.

Earnest told reporters that Obama "did not indicate or specify a preference in the race."

[enlightenment]

182. You should make this an OP, if you haven't already.

The NYT needs to be thrown in with the Daily Fail and the National Enquirer as far as legitimacy goes.

[noretreatnosurrender]

177. All Sources Anonymous