Nasty Hit: Top Sanders Advisor Questions Hillary's Capacity to Appoint Scalia Replacement

[Cary]

http://bluenationreview.com/nasty-hit-against-hillary-from-sanders-aide/


In a story in Sunday’s New York Times, Bernie Sanders’ top adviser, Tad Devine, took a very nasty shot at Hillary Clinton:

“She cannot be trusted to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who will take the issue of campaign finance seriously,” he said.

This is unacceptable. Democrats do not question other Democrats’ fitness to appoint Supreme Court justices. Period.

While Bernie keeps insisting he likes Hillary, he is presiding over a campaign of personal destruction against her. He has repeatedly questioned the dedication of her supporters. And his campaign is aided and abetted by a mob of trolls who bash Hillary incessantly and try to intimidate and silence her supporters.

[AgingAmerican]

1. "Democrats do not question other Democrats’ fitness to appoint Supreme Court justices. Period."

Why not? Are Democrats infallible?

And your last paragraph is a whole lotta projection

[bigtree]

2. it's a low blow, and unsupported by the facts

NYT:

Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders, pointed to Mrs. Clinton’s support from a “super PAC” and her acceptance of donations from Wall Street executives.

“She cannot be trusted to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who will take the issue of campaign finance seriously,” he said.

...suggesting that she's against appointing justices to the Supreme Court opposed to the 'Citizens United' law is some novel horseshit. Citizens United was a case about a PAC attack on Hillary.

Citizens United sued to air "Hillary: The Movie" right before the election with the SC expanding their ruling to grant corporations, unions and politically active nonprofits the ability to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates.

Interestingly, the person most impacted by PAC money in this primary is Hillary Clinton. In addition to the money spent by Bernie supporters in the nursing union, there's unlimited cash directed against Hillary in this primary from conservative groups like American Crossroads.


Karl Rove's American Crossroads Super PAC Assist to Bernie Sanders in Nevada


What's significant is how little of the money Hillary's raised has been spent in this Dem primary against her Democratic opponents. Also significant is the way the Sanders campaign has benefited from the republican expenditures against Hillary which, in some cases, match Bernie's own attack narrative.

NYT:

One recent online ad from the Republican super PAC American Crossroads has assailed Mrs. Clinton for her Wall Street speaking fees — echoing an argument Mr. Sanders often makes against her. Another conservative group, Ending Spending, bankrolled by the Wyoming billionaire Joe Ricketts, has begun a $600,000 campaign in Iowa highlighting Mr. Sanders’s promises to raise taxes on the rich and provide free public college tuition, calling him “too liberal for Iowa.” But the ad’s language and imagery, including a contented-looking superrich couple hugging in front of a mansion and expensive cars, has led some Democrats to believe it is actually meant to bolster Mr. Sanders...

In fact, more super PAC money has been spent so far in express support of Mr. Sanders than for either of his Democratic rivals, including Hillary Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission records.

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html?_r=3

The Sanders campaign needs to focus on promoting their candidate and directing their political attacks to the republican opposition.

[Cary]

6. "The Sanders campaign needs to focus on promoting their candidate ..."

Of course, unless they have another agenda altogether.

[Cary]

3. No reason in particular

"Why not? Are Democrats infallible?"

Nice straw man. Does the article claim "Democrats are infallible?" I seriously have to explain this to you?

I don't want to see a Republican in the White House, how can you not understand that?

"And your last paragraph is a whole lotta projection"

Always, always, alway a BS supporter has to attack me personally. Why is that?

[AgingAmerican]

7. So Democrats are fallible?

So if they are fallible why would we never question them?

[Cary]

8. Do you have a relevant point to make?

[AgingAmerican]

29. Yes, and that point is:

Nobody is above criticism, even if they have a 'D' by their name.

[Cary]

32. So you advocate a scorched earth approach to the Democratic nomination

Good thinking.

[AgingAmerican]

37. So any critique whatsoever is scorched earth?

Ever listened to the things Hillary supporters have been saying the last couple days?

[Cary]

43. As I said below I can draw the line between character assissination and constructive debate

Can you?

It's not that difficult. I may be wrong but I think you could raise your game a few notches. But having given you that credit I must admit that I have no confidence that you will so maybe you will surprise me?

[AgingAmerican]

46. lol@ "Constructive debate"

[Cary]

64. Not surprised that you take that as a joke.

[pangaia]

128. Uh....maybe you shouldn't get into the topic of character assassination...

[Cary]

130. i shouldn't?

Good thing I have radical leftists to advise me.

I mean the radical left has achieved so much since President McGovern.

[liberal N proud]

76. I still question if BS is a Democrat at all

He spent his entire life blasting Democrats and republicans alike, suddenly he wants to run for President. Poof, he is the role model for Democrats? NOT!

[beedle]

79. You say that like it's a bad thing.

The frat houses of both parties as they currently stand need a good house-cleaning ... you can't get in the frat house to clean unless you pretend to be a 'frat boy' ... those are the rules ... you rig the game so only the privileged 99 percenter and their allies are allowed to play, then complain about unfairness when a "1 percenter" gets around your dumb rules.

[liberal N proud]

83. Bashing someone then expecting them to let you into their group is a BAD THING!

[beedle]

99. That's why no one is asking anymore ...

... too many stupid rules from the '3rd way' ... you can only be a 'Democrat' if you follow 'establishment' rules.

[Hekate]

124. So you're saying BS LIED to get into the Democratic Party at the last minute? Wow, just wow.

Also, your sentence structure is confusing. Usually people refer to "1 percenters" as being the oligarchs, not the other way around. Furthermore, when you say "your dumb rules" in reference to the Party, is that because you yourself are not a Democrat?

JURY:
This is the post I responded to, in which the poster said "you can't get in the frat house to clean unless you pretend to be a 'frat boy'"

FULL QUOTE:
79. You say that like it's a bad thing.
The frat houses of both parties as they currently stand need a good house-cleaning ... you can't get in the frat house to clean unless you pretend to be a 'frat boy' ... those are the rules ... you rig the game so only the privileged 99 percenter and their allies are allowed to play, then complain about unfairness when a "1 percenter" gets around your dumb rules.

[beedle]

141. Define "lied" when you're talking about politics.

One could argue that the whole Democratic party is a lie. They all take the vast majority of their funding from corporations, and spend most of their time fund raising from those same corporations ... all the while pretending to be representing the people.

They used to be able to pretend that this was forced on them by the way the system worked, but now we know, because of Sanders, that all the other politicians were wrong, and can no longer use that excuse.

If there is some set of 'Democratic' rules, stating that in order to be a member of the Democratic party you need to be and do specific things, and Bernie has violated that set of rules, then by all means, expose Bernie's "lies' where he is just 'pretending' to follow the "rules'.

The Democratic party never complained about him not being an official Democratic party member when he caucused with them .. were they lying to Sanders when they accepted him into their Caucus?

If the game is rigged so that one has to call themselves a Democrat or Republican in order to be allowed to present their platform, then the only way to get a fair hearing on your platform is to do as they demand and "pretend" (like all the other politicians who call themselves Democrats or Republicans) to have a party affiliation.


P.S. You are correct, I messed up the 1% / 99% order, but the point still stands.

[pangaia]

131. Do you understand the differences between, Democrat, Democrat, democrat and democrat?

[liberal N proud]

140. I am sure you can enlighten the world

[NCTraveler]

4. Really fucking shady on their part.

Similar to when multi-millionaire Weaver was accusing people of election fraud in Iowa and in the same breath admitted he wasn't aware of the caucus rules.

[riversedge]

5. It was petty and un-called for. Sanders camp demonstrates a passive-aggressive

image and behavior which I do not like.

[uponit7771]

9. That's all they got these days

[jillan]

10. That's a hit? LOL! If that is too nasty for Hillary than she has no business running for President.

Waaaaah!!!

[Cary]

15. Great point!!!

Oh wait.

What is your point?

[jillan]

27. The point is SO WHAT if someone questioned her. It's not a hit, it's a question.

Why is this a big deal?

Do you seriously think that if she is President that she won't be questioned non-stop by both political parties on everything she does?

She is not above being questioned. No politician is. And to call it a hit reeks of weakness.

[CajunBlazer]

33. He didn't "question" her, he made a flat out statement statement

Back to high school English class.... not, wait..... we learned the difference much earlier than that.

[AgingAmerican]

38. Why are those who attack Sanders the most, also the most thin skinned

When it comes to criticism of their own candidate?

[CajunBlazer]

48. Why is it that such a nice guy like Sanders has attracted so many people...

... of opposite character. Certainly not all of his supporters, but too many don't represent him well at all. I don't think Bernie approves of their tactics and has come and said exactly that. That said, surely he can control people of leadership in his own campaign.

[AgingAmerican]

51. Case in point

[Cary]

59. Excellent question

To try to answer it I have to take a step back and not assume that "all of his 'supporters'" are intent upon representing him well. Clearly some have other things on their agenda, like sowing discord and discontent. Why they need to do this varies, I assume. Some are not whom they claim to be, no doubt.

But you're right, I don't find Bernie Sanders to be malicious.

[Cary]

40. So you see no distinction between character assassination and discussing issues

One could question the background of the Bernie advisor responsible for this attack. Just sayin, because I do make that distinction and the fact that you don't is wholly unimpressive.

[jillan]

49. If you think this is a hit - you guys better toughen up.

[Cary]

53. "You guys?"

Whom are you referring to?

I'm a private citizen. I'm a voter. I am entitled to have my opinion and your opinion as to how tough I am or am not means absolutely nothing. Since you don't know me at all, your comment says way more about your issues than it says about me.

This is the problem here. If you can't have some discipline and address the actual issues then you aren't fit to comment.

[Robbins]

11. real rich

comng from clinton supporter.let's see how much her,her family,and supporters have attacked bernie and his supporters.Bill CLinton compared bernie supporters to tea party.

[Cary]

12. Excuse me while I interrupt your red herring...

I have never said anything bad about Bernie.

Bernie supporters, however, seem to be in love with logical fallacies like "two wrongs make a right." What's that about? You can't make your point without resorting to crap like that?

I always believed Democrats were better than that. I always thought it was "conservatives" who resorted to things like ad hominems and red herrings and emotional b.s.

What a disappointment some of my "fellow Democrats" are.

[CajunBlazer]

36. Ever hear of the "Horseshoe Principal" of political science

You can always Google it.

[nichomachus]

13. Well, you kind of twisted what he said, but that seems to be the Clinton tactic these days.

He didn't say she couldn't be trusted to appoint someone in general, but only someone who might rule against her handlers on Wall Street. Even Hillary won't bite the hand that writes million-dollar checks for her slush funds.

[zalinda]

14. Look at the source.

Sale Of Blue Nation Review Gives Hillary Clinton Camp Its Very Own Media Outlet

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton ally David Brock is acquiring a media outlet, sources involved in the negotiation and sale of the site tell The Huffington Post.

True Blue Media, a newly formed company incorporated by Brock, has acquired progressive news website Blue Nation Review. BNR's previous owner, MOKO Social Media Limited, will retain a 20 percent stake in the new entity while Brock will hold the remaining 80 percent equity balance. The sale was finalized Monday night.

Peter Daou, digital media strategist for Clinton's 2008 campaign, will serve as the new CEO of True Blue Media.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-brock-blue-nation-review_us_564f0f3de4b0879a5b0a7bc5


Z

[Cary]

20. You left off your refutation of the substance.

Of course you can refute the substance. I know you can. You wouldn't just be making an ad hominem.

Would you?

[newthinking]

21. David Brock's media outlet. Imagine that...

[beam me up scottie]

88. Yep, Hillary's own propaganda outlet. Not to mention we don't trust Hillary.

This is just the poutrage du jour.

They'll have to get over it because this is nothing compared to what the right wing will do.

[Kittycat]

16. Re-post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511240336
For the larger discussion

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

17. Oh, goodie. Another whining Brock hit piece for

camp Hillarity.

[Orsino]

18. A candidate beholden to Big Money can't be fully trusted to regulate Big Money.

"Trust" is an overused word, however. Sometimes it seems to imply that we won't or can't influence a candidate after an election.

I think campaign finance reform is needed in part because we shouldn't blindly trust anyone in office. We have a responsibility to lobby our politicians on our own behalf, in part because no one else will.

Sanders has hamstrung his campIgn by not taking the easy money. That speaks of more integrity on the subject of campaign finance, IMO, but if he is elected, we must still hold his feet to the figurative fire.

[NurseJackie]

19. That's the smell of desperation and fear.

[NowSam]

22. I question Hillary's democratic party loyalty based

on her history. We can be good Democrats and question things. We aren't ditto heads like the other side. The Nazis didn't question things either.

[shenmue]

100. Godwin

You win the Pathetic Crap award.

[NowSam]

122. I just call it like I see it.

So please keep your award. Maybe you can give it to your candidate.

[Red Oak]

23. It is a totally acceptable comment and question

Hillary has proven to change her views given enough money.

She is in the pocket of the big banks.

She won't release her speech transcripts because of the blowback it would cause

It's pretty obvious that if Goldman wanted a certain corporatist justice on the bench, that Hillary would oblige and then accept a few more mil in speaking fees.

A blind dog could see it. Certainly smell it.

[bigtree]

24. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer

...two outstanding Clinton appointees.

[Matt_in_STL]

26. Oh, I missed when Hillary appointed them. How'd she do that?

[Red Oak]

31. Larry Summers and Alan Greenspan

Two absolutely horrible appointees.

[PyaarRevolution]

73. I've heard that Greenspan.

Use to hold economic values contrary to the way Fed does monetary policy till he sold out to get some nice bank I assume. Then he perpetuated the same broken policies the Fed almost always pushes most of the time.

[IdaBriggs]

25. Telling the truth is "nasty"? No, a legitimate concern was voiced.

I share it. A Bernie surrogate voiced it.

Please have Hillary address it. On what basis should I believe she thinks campaign finance reform is an important issue, especially with "corporations are people, too" as existing?

[yodermon]

28. weak. Why can't he campaign on supreme court appointments? n/t

[Skwmom]

30. She will appoint a corporatist judge. n/t

[Catbird]

34. Obama will appoint Scalia replacement

Not Clinton. Not Sanders.

[CajunBlazer]

39. Don't hold your breath

[Cary]

66. Correct

And PBO is the master of turning this kind of behavior against Republicans. They will pay a price.

[libdem4life]

35. One cannot fix a problem with the same mentality that created it in the first place.

Paraphrased, forgot who said it, but it's true...and inconvenient in this case. All she can appoint is a Third Wayer, thus a corporatist.

“She cannot be trusted to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who will take the issue of campaign finance seriously,” he said.

How could she?

[Cary]

41. Blah blah

Same old tired, "conservative"-like schtick.

How about addressing issues? I know that doesn't sit well with you, but if you're really about integrity and all that you need to walk the walk for a change.

[libdem4life]

44. Starting at the "blah blah", have no idea what you're trying to say. Feel free to try again.

[Cary]

50. I'm sure you don't have any idea.

We agree.

[libdem4life]

54. Great. I just couldn't tell...thanks for clearing it up.

[Autumn]

42. I share Bernies concern. I do not see Bernie or Hillary supporters as trolls,

I do think that Bernie would chose someone that would take the correct stand on that important issue. But this is a moot point. Obama will appoint Scalia's replacement

[Cary]

45. "I do Bernie would chose someone that would take the correct stand on that important issue."

Plain English?

[Autumn]

55. I left out the word "think". I have edited my post. Thank you for your deep concern.

However anyone who has critical thinking skills would have known I was typing in English even though I'm Hispanic and inadvertently left out the word "think". But reading your responses to other posters in this thread who attempted to have a dialog about your OP, rudeness is your problem not critical thinking. I will make sure to avoid your thread in the future. Have a nice day.

[Cary]

56. Anyone who has critical thinking skills...

...knows how critical it is for Democrats to win the White House in November, and anything else we can get. "Conservatism" is the enemy, and by that I mean the real thing not the nonsense being pushed about here by people ready to cut their noses off to spite their faces.

I don't detect any such thing emanating from you. All I see from you is an all too familiar cult of personality.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

58. RBG may need to be replaced within the next 4-8 years though

Even more reason to be sure we win the WH this year!

[GreatGazoo]

47. Sanders' Advisor Questions Hillary's Capacity to Appoint SC Justice who will take the issue of

Campaign Finance Seriously.

It is a real issue that she seems to want to deflect just as is done in the original headline. HRC will likely need a Super PAC or two again in the 2020 race if thy get her through this one, so why would she want Citizens United overturned now?

"Nasty" is having your surrogates change the caption on 45 year old photos:

What is at issue is Clinton's ratf**kers' craven use of a photograph to tarnish Sanders' integrity. For a candidate who garnered just 8 percent of New Hampshire Democratic voters who said the most important trait for a candidate was that he or she be “honest,” the least Clinton and her campaign could do is come clean about how they disgustingly used some University of Chicago alumni, a Clinton pool reporter, and the life partner of Clinton campaign staffer to swiftboat a lifelong civil rights activist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511216872

[Go Vols]

84. +1

[KingCharlemagne]

52. Quick! Call the whaaambulance! If Hillary can't stand the heat . . . - nt

[Cary]

60. I truly wonder what you think you accomplish with a comment like that.

You do realize that I am a Democrat. Don't you?

I have voted for one Republican in my life, and he was a personal friend of mine. I vote Democratic because I support Democratic policies. The friend, well, I guess that was emotional. He was the better candidate though. He lasted one term in the Senate because he didn't need the Republicans' money. They hated him.

There is a certain maliciousness in your tone. I really wonder what that is about.

[KingCharlemagne]

71. You're the one who alleged that Sanders is waging a 'war of personal destruction against

Hillary" without providing one shred of evidence for your allegation. IOW, a giant Whaaaah!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

57. One of the main problems I have with Bernie

Last edited Tue Feb 16, 2016, 03:50 PM - Edit history (1)

is that he is NOT technically a Democrat. Yes, he caucuses with the Democrats, voted pretty much the same as Hillary did when she was in the Senate, and is duly registered to run in the Democratic Primary but he is ultimately an independent and, like many of his supporters, seems to believe that elected Democrats are, in at least a lot of cases, pretty much just as bad as Republicans. I'll certainly support him if he's the Democratic nominee but he and his supporters won't do any favors for the Democratic Party now or in the GE by questioning the probable quality of Hillary's SCOTUS nominees (among other things). If Hillary ends up winning the primary fair and square, then Bernie and his supporters will need to unify around her against the GOP if they don't want the GOP in the WH. It IS a primary, of course, and there will be attacks back and forth but both sides need to avoid engaging in "scorched earth" tactics that will make achieving party unity more difficult once the primary is decided. Our biggest enemy is the GOP, not each other.

[Cary]

61. I don't have a problem with Bernie

The smears against Hillary are nonsense and atrocious, and when you discard the garbage she is clearly more qualified.

I like Bernie but let's be real here. He's not that different from Hillary and both will be constrained just like President Obama has been constrained. We will move forward incrementally, regardless, so all of the hyperbolic rhetoric will mean absolutely nothing if we win.

All it does is embolden "conservatives."

[JackRiddler]

62. Sorry, do you mind linking this story from a non-trash site?

The right-wing operative David Brock's daily attack vehicle can be no more considered a source than Glenn Beck's Blaze or Alex Jones' Infowars. There is no reason to think any story from it is not a fabrication. Of course this story may be true, but can you show where it is reported by anything like an actual news site, or from the source itself? Thanks.

[Cary]

67. Is it okay with you that I don't buy your assumptions?

You aren't "an actual news site" are you?

[JackRiddler]

72. I'm not a paid liar, for starters.

I assume you are not either, but you have linked to one.

[beam me up scottie]

89. ^^^THIS^^^

[Cary]

92. Wrong

I have linked to someone you don't like because you ate something sour this morning.

[Puglover]

101. Beautifully said!

[morningfog]

63. It's true, she can't be trusted on this issue. She is violating the current campaign finance laws

and benefiting from Citizen's United. Why should she be trusted?

[Cary]

65. "...benefiting from Citizen's United."

Do you have to see it that way?

Nothing in life is 100%. There is a counter-argument to that and I'm sure you could find it within yourself to show some balance and at least acknowledge it.

I don't see the efficacy in that kind of extremism and that rhetoric. This is politics, the art of the possible.

[morningfog]

69. No, even worse is that she violates the spirit of the law as well.

[Cary]

70. I see

You are stuck in your own rhetorical vortex.

That's unfortunate but donit goes.

[morningfog]

77. Are you saying it is not illegal for a campaign to coordinate directly with a SuperPAC?

[GuardianOne]

68. oh?

So how is she going to handle the nasty hits from the gop? If she considers that a nasty hit maybe she ought to stay out of the White House. You think the oval office is all strawberries and cream? How do you claim she's tough, but this statement is a nasty hit? How about trying to take away Bernie's experience in black rights by claiming a photo wasn't him? Whoops, the photographer ruined that little nasty hit. Bernie knows damn well what Hilary's minions will do. Kitchen sink my butt, she'll throw the whole kitchen at him, so will the GOP. He's learning how to handle it.
As to your belief that Sanders supporters are all trolls, does that mean you know all of us and are competent to judge us? Gosh didn't know all those who support Miss Hilarious had the ability to know all of us. ESP, huh? Got any winning lottery numbers?

Nasty hit, my behind. I've seen Hilary supporters on du that are far nastier. So would I say all of you are trolls? I'd say that some of you are misguided and uninformed. But trolls? Generalizations are stupid. Juvenile generalizations are worse.

That's my 2 per cent.

[Motown_Johnny]

74. I agree completely and have been saying so for months.

The money she receives from large financial institutions does influence her. She can say it doesn't but we all know better.


I don't trust her to appoint someone who will overturn the decision which she is exploiting to buy herself a place in history.

[beam me up scottie]

75. Brock thinks that's unacceptable? The guy who called Anita Hill "slutty"?

Thanks, man, I needed a laugh.

Brocknationreview is a slimy propaganda outlet run by one of the most despicable misogynists around.

[Cary]

80. Hilarious!

Great to know that you take this business of electing our next President so seriously.

I got it now.

[beam me up scottie]

82. What do you expect when you post a hit piece by a misogynist who helped destroy a victim?

And expect us to join in the fake outrage he's ginning up within the party?

He helped the right wing tear Anita Hill apart and now he's using those same tactics against a Democratic candidate.

Keep it up, keep insulting our intelligence by posting Brock's spewage and wonder what happened when left of center Dems don't show up in November.

[Cary]

85. What do I expect when I post logic and reason here?

I am no newbie. I expect to be swarmed and peppered with the usual logical fallacies and pettiness.

And what do I expect the end result to be? It will end the same way for extremist leftists as it always ends. I know it. You know it. You know that I know it.

If I were to search my posts from 8 years ago I would find similar words.

[beam me up scottie]

87. Brock the sleazy lying former right wing attack dog = logic and reason?

Thanks for the second laugh of the day.

I thought you were serious for a minute there.

[Cary]

90. I'm so happy for you.

Do you have anything relevant or of interest to say? You seem confused. You seem to think your emotions are of interest to someone.

[beam me up scottie]

93. About Brock? Nope, I'm all done. Sorry the truth hurts but you'll get over it.

Do you have anything relevant or of interest to say? You seem confused. You seem to think your emotions are of interest to someone.

Pot say HELLOOOOOO to kettle! I'll let you know when "your emotions are of interest" to me.

In the meantime I'll continue to post my opinions, I do not require your approval.

If you don't like what I have to say go post in a protected group, this is GDP, you post an op here and you get dissenting opinions, get used to it.

[Cary]

98. IOW you don't have anything relevant to say.

You just have cheap emotional ploys.

Got it.

[840high]

109. .+10

[Android3.14]

78. The truth hurts

Blaming Bernie for the demonstrable fact that Hillary is untrustworthy is like blaming the dentist for your cavities.

[Cary]

86. Is that supposed to be directed at me?

You think you know "truth?" You think you hurt me?

Hahahahahahaha!!!! Yeah, right.

[Android3.14]

91. Who is the candidate accepting corporate funding?

It is the fundamental weakness in her campaign that she is accepting corporate funding and bribes-as-speaking-fees and expecting people to believe that funding comes with no strings attached. I would much rather have someone who represents me picking the justices rather than Clinton or the GOP yucksters.

But in answer to your question, no. I wasn't directing it at you, but at the Clinton campaign. It is stupid how the campaign becomes upset when someone is stating actual facts. What you see as some sort of personally motivated attack on you is actually regular folks who are just tired of a Democratic Party leadership that screws us over and then expects us to vote for them.

people opposed to Clinton are far less concerned about insulting you than at confronting lies, unethical behavior and willful ignorance with truth.

[Cary]

95. You think "it is the fundamental weakness..."

I think they don't care what you think.

I think they're right to not care what you think.

[Android3.14]

104. With that post, you illustrate a fundamental flaw, not just a weakness

Hillary does not care what I, or you, or anyone else thinks.

As a Bernie supporter, I've observed that insults are unnecessary if your champion is righteous.

[Cary]

106. I haven't insulted anyone.

I asked a legitimate question. If there is no way to satisfy a group of people then why care if you don't satisfy them?

Can you answer the question, or are you going to do more of this righteous indignation schtick?

[Android3.14]

110. The fundamental flaw in your argument is the assumption

You assume there is no way to satisfy a group of people (by which you mean the people who see her as compromised financially and ethically). There is, however. She should return the unused portions of the corporate campaign funds, disavow the corporate PACs and demand that the ones working for her dissolve and she should return the "speaking fees".

She won't, however, because the money is gone and all she has is a receipt where her soul used to be.

By the way, an insult is "a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action.", which a reasonable observer would apply to your remarks.

Please, I'll refrain from treating you like an idiot if you will extend the same courtesy to me.

[Cary]

113. I have not insulted you. Period.

I'll believe that the radical left can be satisfied if and when I see it. I have been through this too many times.

Fool me once, shame on you.

In the meantime I have absolutely nothing to do with what you're complaining about and no power whatsoever to affect it. And also in the meantime there is nothing you can tell me to convince me that we would be better off with a Republican in the White House. I should not have to explain that to you.

[Android3.14]

114. What a bizarre response

You saw the radical left satisfied when Lincoln emancipated the slaves. You saw it when the Supreme Court outlawed institutional discrimination. You saw a satisfied radical left when we started opening public schools and when we gave women the same right to vote as men. the satisfaction was impermanent, but that is the nature of the human condition.

The shame does not go to me, but to those who accept the lesser of two evils rather than stand by their own carefully considered values.

Your last paragraph is such a poor reflection on the acceptance of forced impotence and cowardice that years of corporate servitude have poisoned so many, it saddens me to point it out. You do have the power, Cary, should you choose to accept the responsibility, of casting your vote for those who represent your values, advocating for real change and recognizing that nothing worth gaining is without risk.

[Cary]

117. I thought you said you were not going to insult me?

I am a mainstream contemporary Democrat, not a 19th Century Republican.

I'm tired of that "corporate blah blah" rhetoric. I was trained as a mainstream neoclassical synthesis, salt water economist. I have a pretty good idea about how things work and I don't go for ideological blather like that. Nor do I buy the "both sides do it" nonsense or any of the other "libertarian" stuff.

I am interested in policy, not bromides.

[Android3.14]

125. Noting something is bizarre is only an insult if you take it as one

Your inference is your responsibility.

Regardless.

What matters is the strength of your arguments, the courage to stand by your ethics and the genuine nature of your online personality. That third point seems to be your strong trait.

I do think the "mainstream neoclassical synthesis saltwater economist" is one impressive string of adjectives, but I'm sure the fallacy of appealing to authority makes up for the flawed arguments.

[beam me up scottie]

96. ^^^THIS TOO^^^

[Cary]

97. Explain to me why they should care about you?

Are you ever going to be satisfied? I don't think you will.

So if that's how you're going to be why would anyone in their right mind try to reach you?

[Cary]

107. Or you can answer the question.

You can answer questions, right?

Why should someone care about trying to satisfy you when no matter what they do you will not be satisfied?

[asuhornets]

81. K&R

Bernie been acting a lil shady lately..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

94. Where's the "nasty" part? He's questioning her capacity to do more than act liberal occasionally.

[Cary]

105. What's so horrible about the idea that we have 2 excellent candidates?

What's so great about uber-partisanship? Where is this going to get you?

I don't think it gets you anywhere. I think it's foolish. You have a positive contribution to make on issues that's great. Go for it.

I realize that means nothing to you. I realize that you can't grasp that concept. The pig never sings, it just gets mad at you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

111. I don't see 2 excellent candidates.

I see one very good candidate and another that's unfit to hold public office.

Opinions may differ.

[Cary]

112. So if you don't get what you want when you want it you take your ball and you go home

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

116. No. I always vote.

[Cary]

119. So if you don't get your way you will vote for Trump, Cruz, Rubio, ...

After all you can't vote for someone who is unfit for office. Right?

Or perhaps you will simply enable a teabagger?

Hey, do you remember when people here were going on and on about how they had so much in common with teabaggers, and how they were going to unite with them? I remember that, and I remember a lot of the same people who attacked me in pretty much the same the way as they attack me now.

Do you need to know why I don't respect the radical left?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

121. Fortunately, my ballot comes with more than two choices if that's what happens.

The Radical Left. Is that 3rd Way speak for Commies, Reds, Hippies, and other non-members of the hold-your-nose wing of the party?

Red bait much?

[Cary]

123. Yes, yes, ....

Same trash talk, different day.

You will never be satisfied. Never.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

129. Why should I be satisfied?

Are you satisfied with things as they are now?

[BlueMTexpat]

102. Isn't this the same Tad

Devine who knows all about the origin of Dem superdelegates and yet still sends surrogates out to scream about "unfairness" because he now is SBS's strategist?

In his own words: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89369899

Forked tongue indeed. But IOKIFYASBSOHS, I guess.

Hillary can do no right. Bernie can do no wrong.

[emulatorloo]

103. Pretty shady. Bernie's great. However Tad Devine is a shit-head IMHO

Never cared for Mr. Devine and never will.

[840high]

108. Why shouldn't Democrats

question other Democrats?

[Cary]

115. No one said Democrats shouldn't question other Democrats

But ultimately the enemy is "conservatives." I'm not seeking anyone's agreement or disagreement with me on that proposition. No one is going to convince me otherwise.

There are people here who say that they would rather have a Republican than Hillary Clinton. Anyone who says that is, in my opinion, an idiot. I'm sorry, but again no one is going to convince me otherwise.

So if our ultimate goal is to elect either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders than it behooves us to behave in a more civil way. And given your own proposition why should I not heap scorn upon "Democrats" who engage in character assassination, like a "conservative?" Why should I tolerate that kind of behavior?

Frankly I doubt that anyone who does that is a real Democrat. I imagine Democrats to be better than that. Real Democrats will vote for the nominee.

[840high]

118. A Real Dem party does not have

Debbie and others trying to control this election.

[Cary]

120. Nonsense

It's called a coalition. We have coalition parties in this country for a reason.

You don't get everything your way in a coalition. Our nation was founded on compromise, the big one being immoral and unethical.

[DesertRat]

126. Yes, a nasty low blow. n/t

[basselope]

127. I certainly question her ability to appoint someone re: campaign finance reform.

She may be good on choice and other issues, but she will appoint a corporatist.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

132. They love to use the "trust" word all the time.

It's like Tourette's.

Yes, I'm sure Hillary will re-animate Scalia and nominate him.

Then again, Tad probably doesn't "trust" Obama either.

[Cary]

133. No no no

Hillary will lose, you see? And then mainstream Democrats will finally see the light and we will elect their sparkly unicorn.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

135. It's all moot

Barack Obama has the choice of Fat Tony's replacement. Not Hillary, not Bernie.

Tad Devine is an asshole.

[frylock]

134. Poor, poor Hillary. The victim who would be President.

[thesquanderer]

136. What nonsense. Classic straw man argument.

He did NOT question her fitness to appoint Supreme Court justices. Therefore, he did not do the thing the author says is unacceptable.

Rather, he questioned whether she could be counted on to appoint a justice who would be eager to take on campaign finance.

I think that's a reasonable perspective. After all, she has not spoken out against the DNC's rollback of Obama's restrictions on lobbyist contributions, while Sanders has.

And unlike Sanders, she is embracing SuperPACS--even coordinating with one (Brock's), by taking advantage of a loophole that ostensibly makes it technically permissible, even though it is against the spirit of the SuperPAC rules.

Does anyone really think the "getting the money out of politics" is as big an issue for Clinton as it is for Sanders? I don't see this as an illegitimate concern.

If you disagree, and think Hillary would appoint someone just as tough on campaign finance as Sanders would, fine. Either way, there's no "nasty hit" here, except the author's strawman hit on Sanders.

(As for what Democrats do or do not question other Democrats about, I seem to remember a particular "Shame on you, Barack Obama" quote regarding health care...)

p.s. -- yes, this is the same reply as I posted last time someone posted this.

[MADem]

137. Yep--Top Sanders Advisor Should Be Fired By Sanders, IMO!

So much for the "No Attacks" policy.

Hillary Clinton is a LAWYER.

She has worked at the highest levels of government, serving in the "First Chair" in the Cabinet.

Some PUTZ is saying she's not qualified to pick a SCOTUS judge?

Fire that jerk. NOW.

[ecstatic]

138. Bernie doesn't have a legal background.

What are his qualifications for picking a nominee?

[krawhitham]

139. AND 4 good reason, since she willing to give away a woman's right to choose, god know who she'd pick

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html

Plus she is not willing litmus test for Citizens United on SCOTUS nominee
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511248971

Why would anyone trust her?