2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBill Clinton Says Bernie Sanders Supporters Are Like The Left-Wing Tea Party, Warns Not To "Reward"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/16/bill_clinton_says_bernie_sanders_supporters_are_the_left-wing_tea_party_warns_not_to_reward_them.htmlBill Clinton warns the Democratic Party against following in the footsteps of the GOP, by telling people "what they want to hear" and adding to political polarization. "Then that's going on now in our own party," he says, obliquely referencing his wife's only remaining primary opponent.
"If you don't deal with the fact that we are too politically polarized and we keep rewarding people who tell us things we know they can't do because it pushes our hot button, we can't go forward together."
With surrogates making the statements they've been making, Hillary isn't likely to make it to the WH. Constantly insulting the very people you're going to need does not get you votes. But that's how these elitist think, we're to be berated, shamed and threatened for not falling in line.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)They must accept what they don't want! That's good politics!
Xipe Totec
(44,557 posts)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)i'd say about 20% are influenced by all the "bernie can't win the GE" scaremongering stories we're hearing these days.
ever talked to an independent. they'll elect trump just to keep the clintons out. this isn't absention, this is ~defection~.
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)Not smart from sleazy Bill Clinton.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)They want to go places I have no interest in going. If Hillary wants to 'go forward together' with them, she should just admit she's a Republican and run as one.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They obviously don't want or need our votes.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Rahm was quite blunt about it.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
6chars
(3,967 posts)and short sighted.
left wing tea party? really?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Instead of acknowledging that we have every reason to be angry they insult and marginalize us further.
I don't want to hear any crying if left of center Dems don't show up in November.
The blame is on them.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Bill's not the first to say it. Many political analysts already have the first several chapters of their next book on this phenomenon in the cloud. Bernie's supporters are proud of themselves and him, so why should they mind scrutiny? They're far better than tea-partiers, but some resemblances are very, very strong.
I must admit Bill seems to not be doing so well riding shotgun, given that every shot draws a fusillade of heavy fire from the extremely well organized and funded right wing machine at work defeating his wife. But even missed shots have value if they cause people to take notice. So, hopefully people will talk about this a lot. After all, we really should understand who our political players and factions are. It's our duty, and some would discover that they belonged with Bernie if they understood he really wasn't just a slightly different sort of Democrat.
Again, it's not that Bernie's followers are just like tea-partiers (mercifully), but: Both groups are toward the fringe of their respective more mainstream left and right ideologies. For both groups anti-establishment fervor is a very strong common thread. Both groups want revolution, i.e., prefer burning the old barn down to trying to fix it.
Very interestingly, analysts have found that people of the two groups have many personality characteristics in common, particularly extreme righteousness and belief in their way or the highway, no middle ground acceptable. They are both also very prone to denying facts that contradict their beliefs and to view opposition with hostility and aggression, but that last stronger on the right. Both groups are more like each other in many ways than either are like left or right moderates.
There are at least a couple of critical differences identified, though. Clue: Far-lefters aren't driven by hostility toward others for being different; i.e., Bernie's people aren't rabid right-wing bigots. I say right-wing because extreme racial and religious bigotry is a social conservative phenomenon. People like Bernie tend to focus on "universal principles" that should apply to all men; what differentiation they do is mostly by who's with them in their great crusade for whatever, and who's not.
Tea-partiers not only do not believe, in their guts, in the equality of all men, but most are usually more comfortable with an authoritarian class system, with more and more special privileges "deserved" as one moves up the ladder, and lower rungs proof of unworthiness. We don't have anything like that on the left.
navarth
(5,927 posts)Thanks for your wonderful post. meh.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)to people out left of the liberal block in general. And "fringe" is a non-scholarly but commonly used term. Note that I left out anti-liberal, but it is used a lot by political writers in discussing what's happening to the left of the Democratic Party.
I know a lot of Bernie's far-left like the label "progressives," but since over half of all Americans are, in fact, of progressive ideology, even accidentally socialist!, in their wish to use government to advance society and fix problems, only disagreeing on how much, that just won't do in this discussion.
So, since we're discussing personality more than anything, "far left" is most appropriate. I don't blame anyone who might want a less vague and more specific term. I don't like it either, and hopefully Bernie will get you one, but the far left has morphed so much over the decades that the various labels used by various groups haven't stuck well. And this current Bernie movement is too new so far. Plus, he's running as a Democrat-but-not-a-Democrat, again undesirably vague. (DBNAD?)
As for those planning to rename the party the "Neodemocratic Party" after the old Democrats run off or convert or something, well, sure, feel free to give it a shot, but that'd be for the future.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)"far left" is. Hint: it ain't Bernie Sanders.
navarth
(5,927 posts)'far-left' and 'fringe' are nothing but ad hominem. I'll have no part of it.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)
zalinda
(5,621 posts)The traditional Republican party was middle of the road, with the Democrats on the left. You can see this in Eisenhower. The Democratic party was like FDR. The Tea party moved the party more to the right than they were originally. The Bernie supporters are not moving the Democratic party left of where they were originally, but trying to move it back to where it WAS originally. That is a big difference.
And, by moving the Democratic party back to where they were originally, maybe the Republican party will also slingshot back to where they were originally. It's worth a try isn't it?
Z
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Heritage Foundation, and dozens of philanthropic organizations fronting for subversive activities, grabbed a nation already moving right in reaction to all the left-ward changes of the 1960s and used the momentum to yank it hard right. They organized very carefully and initially made extreme conservative ideas that were previously unacceptable seem normal and respectable by using advertising techniques developed during the Mad Men era.
As for the traditional conservatives, they resisted change so they had to be converted to people who embraced ultraconservative changes through destruction of government as a way of saving the nation from liberalism. Traditional conservative is also a personality type and they're very much around, but these days conservative scholars consider traditional conservatism effectively dead, smothered by the Kochs et ilk. We should be trying to resuscitate them to work with us, as they did during the FDR era.
But, ITM, social conservatives, who made such great and for a long time very directable, attack dogs, were fed all the red-meat lies about Democrats that they could swallow, which is to say all of them. And, of course, racism and the abortion issue were and are still reliable rings in their noses, although some are finally noticing that in four decades, their leaders never got behind them on either. And they're "mad as hell" and busy trying to elect The Donald out of spite. 
As for the Tea Party's organization, although its earliest manifestations seem to have been encouraged by the embattled tobacco executives, it was the Kochs et ilk, acting through various front groups, who organized, funded and directed frustrated "populists" from a wannbe grass-roots to Astroturf movement that eventually distilled into a modern-day home for the type of people who were once John Birch Society sympathizers.
The backing of very powerful men, so wealthy they could buy hundreds of "tea-partiers" into offices at all levels of government, is how it became briefly so powerful. It was allowed to collapse when it broke the leash and turned on its creators by trying to shut down the government without considering what that would do to their profits.
Back to FDR -- those progressive changes only happened by liberals and conservatives working across the aisle to fix the country. I'm sure there were some far left in there, too, but FDR was pretty mainstream and managed to anger many on the far left for not going far enough to suit them. They wanted revolution. He wanted to repair and advance what we had.
Anyway, that's the version of history I believe.
"Back to FDR -- those progressive changes only happened by liberals and conservatives working across the aisle to fix the country."
That is an astounding ignorance of historical reality. Any gains that were made were the result of militant labor, the "reds", and organized leftist and working class movements ("the old left"
working outside the electoral process that scared the shit out of the capitalist ruling class and FDR. Roosevelt knew that to avoid massive social unrest and revolution concessions would have to be made to the working class.
What you believe is far from historical reality.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 16, 2016, 09:00 PM - Edit history (1)
change. But mainstream middle class and working classes in trouble were a far larger factor than radicals, and mostly they wanted restoratation of stability and were ready to support a redistribution of income.
When I said libs and cons worked across the aisle I was thinking of those who worked from inside government. Of course the people you add in played a role, but it was mostly from outside, and, frankly, FDR was not fond of them.
Frances Perkins was a MAJOR, MAJOR iconoclast, but FDR's kind -- very much part of the "establishment.". Bernie's revolutionaries would love her if they knew her. But in those days I think they might have hated her instead. She socialized, shook hands and made deals with all the businessmen she could bring in. She wasn't wealthy but put on a good, affluent show when so many were in trouble. Much too cozy, they would have seen her in pictures with them, likely would have believed all the angry stories about how wealthy old-money FDR was caving, betraying, in business's pocket, etc. And in the end establishment of Social Security, welfare for the very poor, unemployment insurance, minimum wage laws, 40-hour work week, overtime pay, and many other things might well have left disappointed people who had wanted much more than these provided initially.
AOR
(692 posts)On Progressive “Red-Baiting”
--by Tamara K. Nopper
(Snip)
"Red-baiting of course is not new and today many people throw the word leftist as well as radical, revolutionary, Socialist, Communist, or Anarchist, around like they are accusations rather than oppositional, albeit diverging, positions against capitalism, the state, and for some of us, white supremacy. Most of the people who are the most vociferous in publicly denouncing leftists are white conservatives, including corporate news personalities and members of the inherently racist and white nationalist Tea Party. Yet progressives critical of racism, poverty, corporations, and government officials have their own ways of red-baiting."
(Snip)
" Not all of the targets of this red-baiting of which I speak are associated with Marxist organizations or have specific organizational affiliations. Nor do most progressives publicly use pejoratives such as “Commie” or “Pinko.” Yet some will easily use terms such as “authoritarian leftist,” “radicals” or “revolutionaries” when trying to deflect questions posed by people unimpressed with their political positions but whose opposition cannot easily be dismissed as driven by white supremacy or conservatism. In the process, these progressives often avoid having to explain why they are committed to the positions they take by calling their critics “radicals” or “revolutionaries,” thus situating their positions as logical or natural as opposed to ideological. Such gestures are consistent with red-baiting; individuals can simply shut down inquiry or interrogation of their political positions by using labels that are unpopular among a general public trained to hate such terms due to the aggressive campaigns by the mainstream press, most academics, and the state to demonize and criminalize stances that are too oppositional."
(Snip)
There are of course important ideological and analytical differences and sources of contention among all of those thrown under the bus by these progressives, with some not necessarily having a particular organizational affiliation or having to critically engage limitations within the organizations we are a part of, especially around issues of racism, patriarchy, sexism, homophobia, and gender politics. And critical engagement and reflection among the left is important and sorely needed. Whatever the case, terms such as “authoritarian leftist,” “radical,” or “revolutionary,” while perhaps confusing to some, are basically code for being too oppositional against capitalism and white supremacy or being Communist, Socialist, or Anarchist. The term is also a code for being dogmatic, too aggressive, socially inept, unwilling to listen to ideas, and having a difficulty integrating useful nuances into, or dealing with contradictions in our ideological frameworks. While yes, I have met leftists of all stripes who possess all of these tendencies—and I could easily be accused of the same—I have also met and seen and read and heard thousands upon thousands of capitalists, pro-capitalists, and progressive democrats who also possess these traits.
(Snip)
" Yet for some reason, perhaps because it is more compatible with the capitalist party line and more appeasing to whites, being an authoritarian progressive who is anti-leftist or anti-radical or anti-revolutionary is not considered by many as a form of dogmatism, but rather political “common sense” and purportedly more humanistic than, let’s say, openly confronting or naming the sources of millions of people’s misery. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Legacy of McCarthyism
--by Ellen Schrecker
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/mccarthy/schrecker6.htm
(Snips)
"Quantification aside, it may be helpful to look at the specific sectors of American society that McCarthyism touched. Such an appraisal, tentative though it must be, may offer some insight into the extent of the damage and into the ways in which the anti-Communist crusade influenced American society, politics, and culture. We should keep in mind, however, that McCarthyism's main impact may well have been in what did not happen rather than in what did the social reforms that were never adopted, the diplomatic initiatives that were not pursued, the workers who were not organized into unions, the books that were not written, and the movies that were never filmed."
"The most obvious casualty was the American left. The institutional toll is clear. The Communist party, already damaged by internal problems, dwindled into insignificance and all the organizations associated with it disappeared. The destruction of the front groups and the left-led unions may well have had a more deleterious impact on American politics than the decline of the party itself. With their demise, the nation lost the institutional network that had created a public space where serious alternatives to the status quo could be presented. Moreover, with the disappearance of a vigorous movement on their left, moderate reform groups were more exposed to right-wing attacks and thus rendered less effective."
"In the realm of social policy, for example, McCarthyism may have aborted much-needed reforms. As the nation's politics swung to the right after World War II, the federal government abandoned the unfinished agenda of the New Deal. Measures like national health insurance, a social reform embraced by the rest of the industrialized world, simply fell by the wayside. The left liberal political coalition that might have supported health reforms and similar projects was torn apart by the anti-Communist crusade. Moderates feared being identified with anything that seemed too radical, and people to the left of them were either unheard or under attack. McCarthyism further contributed to the attenuation of the reform impulse by helping to divert the attention of the labor movement, the strongest institution within the old New Deal coalition, from external organizing to internal politicking."
"The nation's cultural and intellectual life suffered as well. While there were other reasons that TV offered a bland menu of quiz shows and westerns during the late 1950s, McCarthy-era anxieties clearly played a role. Similarly, the blacklist contributed to the reluctance of the film industry to grapple with controversial social or political issues. In the intellectual world, cold war liberals also avoided controversy. They celebrated the "end of ideology," claiming that the United States' uniquely pragmatic approach to politics made the problems that had once concerned left- wing ideologists irrelevant. Consensus historians pushed that formulation into the past and described a nation that had supposedly never experienced serious internal conflict. It took the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War to end this complacency and bring reality back in. "
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I've never heard of any. But we're not talking about communism.
Millions of Americans have far-left ideologies. Bernie is counting on as many as he can muster to support him. If merely mentioning their existence is taken as an insult by any of his supporters, I suggest sitting down and thoughtfully considering why you think being described as far left is a de facto insult. Bernie does not.
Here's my take: Some of Bernie's followers want him to be seen as just a normal sort of regular-left guy, only with better answers; like just a regular Democrat or a regular liberal, but just...a lot better than most. That is why they don't want this subject raised and pretend the topic is a slur so they can quash it.
Using pretend "political correctness" to suppress disagreement and unwanted innformation is actually a classic tactic used extensively by the far left in the 1960s and 1970s, and many articles are on line about the far left's extensive use of it once again these days, as we are occasionally seeing right here on DU through misuse of the jury system.
Instead of standing proud with Bernie, they want to hide the fact that he is farther left and not of the Democratic Party, that he has always rejected and despised Democrats and despised liberals who support the Democratic Party. He is a fine man in many ways, and we accept him on our ballot, but he does not want to be one of us, has never been one of us, and is glad he is not one of us.
So who is this man running for president? We all have a duty, not just a right, to know him.
And what his supporters want. "Revolution" and "your time is over" are themes often expressed on this board. "Neodemocrats" is new to me. Apparently that person thinks he''ll be calling himself that once the old Democrats are gone from the Democratic Party. It is understandable if some feel it's better if mainstream Democratic voters don't know about this stuff.
oasis
(53,666 posts)
musiclawyer
(2,335 posts)That's what Bernie and the left have agreed upon. You can't fix Wall Street regulating treasury. It has to be treasury regulating all street the other way around. You can't fix the money in politics problem by taking Wall Street money.
You can't serve two masters -- the corporations or the people with equal fervor. Bernie and the left accept all of the above premises. If you disagree fine. But rather than saying you are part of the problem, I will say your camp will be proven incorrect one way or the other within the next few election cycles .....
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Bernie supporters are no more "fringe" than is Bernie. The policies that they support and that Bernie espouses are traditional Democratic Party values and prinicples. They are designed to get us back to a proper democracy which our Founding Fathers envisioned (albeit with a limited vision due to the times). They are formulated to restore the Constitution as a document that protects the PEOPLE, not corporations.
Wanting health care for everyone is not "fringe".
Wanting equality for all is not "fringe".
This latest smear is nothing more than to try to keep the party at the center and an attempt to justify and rationalize the Clinton's having moved the party to the right, away from the BASE.
It's trying to justify Hillary losing so much ground to another candidate. They must be looneytunes if they aren't for Hillary! Sure, they're just like Teabaggers! Even though nothing about us is like them.
Very interestingly, analysts have found that people of the two groups have many personality characteristics in common, particularly extreme righteousness and belief in their way or the highway, no middle ground acceptable. They are both also very prone to denying facts that contradict their beliefs and to view opposition with hostility and aggression, but that last stronger on the right. Both groups are more like each other in many ways than either are like left or right moderates.
You say the above as if you've conducted some sort of sociological study. May I see that please? I'd like to see something that backs this up. In fact, Bernie supporters on DU provide a multitude of fact based articles and attempt to discuss policy and issues on an hourly basis. We get no real policy discussion back from Hillary supporters. I would venture to say that 90% of the criticisms by Hillary supporters of Bernie are lies and smears.
It is the Hillary campaign and its supporters who use Rovian tactics to try to bring down Bernie.
So, please, proceed. Let's see studies/evidence that backs up your condescending paragraph above.
Because in reality, if we HAD to liken one group of supporters to the Tea Partiers, the Hillary supporters would get that honor without a doubt. Smear campaigns using Rovian tactics, creating TWO other websited devoted to hating and ridiculing DUers and Bernie, justifying their candidate being beholden to corporations, lying about Bernie's issues over and over no matter how many times it is proven to be a lie, unwilling to discuss policy, many wanting her as POTUS only because she is a woman (was told that having a woman as POTUS was enough change), etc... etc... etc...
Here is a great and succinct post that shows who really resembles the Tea Party. Please, please read it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1250409
.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)not Karl Marx. What the eff about that is "fringe?"
The Democratic Party has been pulled so far to the right by the Clintons, their DLC and DINO buddies and the people they sold the party to it sounds just like the pre-Raygin Repigs. Anyone who can't see that much is so goddam blind they couldn't see a bear in a phone booth.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)"Both groups are toward the fringe of their respective more mainstream left and right ideologies"
What passes for "mainstream left" is extremely far right by traditional standards of human fairness. That's what this is, you know, a basic scale of what people deem to be economically fair.
Don't believe me? Look at the Nordic socialism (aka democratic socialism) in other advanced countries. We are an economically 'hard right' nation since Reagan. So please don't base your view of what people want their government to do by the anomalous state of affairs that now exists in this soon to be 3rd world economy. If we don't soon take back the economic power that was intended to go along with the idea of democracy we will lose the chance.
Unless you are the 1%, Hillary is not your friend.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)If you can't see that I pity you.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Marie Antoinette probably didn't precisely say that famous line either, but it stuck because it captured the tone-deafness of the policy regime to which she was dedicated.
OCTOBER 24, 2012 By History.com Staff
It’s one of the most famous quotes in history. At some point around 1789, when being told that her French subjects had no bread, Marie-Antoinette (bride of France’s King Louis XVI) supposedly sniffed, “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”—“Let them eat cake.” With that callous remark, the queen became a hated symbol of the decadent monarchy and fueled the revolution that would cause her to (literally) lose her head several years later. But did Marie-Antoinette really say those infuriating words? Not according to historians. Lady Antonia Fraser, author of a biography of the French queen, believes the quote would have been highly uncharacteristic of Marie-Antoinette, an intelligent woman who donated generously to charitable causes and, despite her own undeniably lavish lifestyle, displayed sensitivity towards the poor population of France.
That aside, what’s even more convincing is the fact that the “Let them eat cake” story had been floating around for years before 1789. It was first told in a slightly different form about Marie-Thérèse, the Spanish princess who married King Louis XIV in 1660. She allegedly suggested that the French people eat “la croûte de pâté” (or the crust of the pâté). Over the next century, several other 18th-century royals were also blamed for the remark, including two aunts of Louis XVI. Most famously, the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau included the pâté story in his “Confessions” in 1766, attributing the words to “a great princess” (probably Marie-Thérèse). Whoever uttered those unforgettable words, it was almost certainly not Marie-Antoinette, who at the time Rousseau was writing was only 10 years old—three years away from marrying the French prince and eight years from becoming queen.
Docreed2003
(18,714 posts)Bernie supporters will be the new Nader. It's already been thrown around here for months. Insulting and marginalizing the only enthusiastic portion of the electorate is extraordinarily stupid, but they continue to do it. The Clinton campaign seems to have decided that attacking Sander's supporters is easier than attacking the man. That line of thinking will do nothing but hurt Sec Clinton's chance in the general should she get the nomination.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I think we all have enough to make us anxious this election season without making up imaginary stressors that can never come about.
What will happen is that either Bernie or Hillary will become our nominee, and the other will rhen get to work electing our nominee to the presidency, as well as our other candidates.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)...they don't want or need me, well except for that damn dollar. I get three emails a day asking for a dollar.
I'd also like to know how they got my email address.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Instead of going: whoa, that's a lot of disenfranchised voters! They should be asking where did we go wrong/what can we change but instead they double down on the insults.
Great strategy, Bill.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)then piss on you, at least until we need more money to finance our Repig-lite campaign.
Fuck 'em. In the ear. With a fireplace poker.
Jackilope
(819 posts)Honestly. Too many wondering how or why they are getting email from Hillary.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)stop Americans from taking steps to get themselves out of the "oligarchical yoke" and I think you know better.
So long Bill, don't count on me any longer.
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)
CBHagman
(17,491 posts)...by certain Sanders supporters who question not only the progressive bona fides but the morality and decency of Clinton backers, including those whose work for social justice extends over decades. Only one person can win the nomination, and so supporters had better have a Plan B involving working with the eventual nominee's team.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
Beowulf
(761 posts)He's the epitome of the guy who pees on your shoes and tells you it's raining.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)That ought to be worth another mil or two and several thousands votes. Keep talkin'.
kath
(10,565 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)He is the biggest reason that my nose-holding days are over.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)door of his 'charity' and then tells us we're equal to the tea party? F off bill. I defended you when you were 'having sex with that woman' and lost good friends and my brother's company. I don't owe you or your wife dick. Leave soon. You're a colossal embarrassment.
Autumn
(48,954 posts)Bill, I don't love you anymore so I'm ending it now. I have a new party and a new guy.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Every single news article I see coming up about Hillary/Bill, I end up thinking 'Please proceed'.
Every. Single. One.
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)He seems to be doing his utmost in a passive/aggressive manner to sabotage Hill's ascendancy.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Rybak187
(105 posts)
Meshuga
(6,182 posts)...if she wins the nomination, of course.
Running a campaign against voters, by insulting them, is not really the smartest thing to do.
6chars
(3,967 posts)PWPippin
(213 posts)Is Bill undermining Hillary (unconsciously?) because he really doesn't want her to be President? He's marked the territory as his and he may fear she'd outshine him. As first FPOTUS, she'd certainly garner more attention. And what is he to do in the back rooms of the WH? Don't even go there.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)their more successful wives' careers, and this was back in the 70's. Just googled and found more recent articles:
http://www.elle.com/life-love/sex-relationships/advice/a9816/career-advice-sabotaging-husbands-314965/
Career Advice: Sabotaging Husbands
The ugly truth about how some men act when your career success tops his
When I began my career as a journalist, one of my best friends was a fledgling prosecutor and the other was finishing medical school. A strange pattern soon emerged. The lawyer's boyfriend invariably started a huge fight the night before she had an important case to try; the doctor's boyfriend kept her up all night before every major exam. Needless to say, neither woman's work performance was enhanced by emotional angst or lack of sleep.
Both eventually realized their boyfriends would not make ideal future mates, broke up with them, and married more supportive partners. But what happens when you're already committed to a man and professional jealousy becomes an issue in your relationship?
http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/13/0929_FLEW087.html
The Sabotaging Husband
A woman with a top-tier advertising job in New York has a major presentation to make. The night before, her husband insists that she needs to relax and takes her out to dinner, where he plies her with drinks. The next morning, she stumbles through her big event.
A second woman, who has a high-level position at a Chicago mortgage and banking operation, travels east for an important dinner meeting. During the appetizer course, her cell phone rings. It’s her husband. He asks her to help him choose the bedtime story he’s about to read to their kids. She fields the call and comes back to the table. The phone rings again. And again. Two more rounds of questions from her husband, who says one of the kids has a toothache, and then that he can’t get them to sleep. The woman turns off her phone. Ten minutes later, the maître d’ comes to the table to tell her she has a call. It’s her husband, angry that he couldn’t reach her on her cell. The woman gets through the dinner, but her concentration is broken, and she feels like she has left an unprofessional impression.
Almost by definition, married women who reach the business world’s upper ranks ask their husbands to sail with them into relatively uncharted waters. Some of those mates respond by consistently supporting their wives in the small and large ways that women have long supported their high-achieving husbands–by listening and brainstorming at the end of a long day at the office, by helping the kids with their homework. But alongside the examples of cheerful role-reversal is another, darker current: Husbands who, as their wives ascend the career ladder, contrive to pull them back down. “Certainly, I’ve encountered this a lot,” Margaret Heffernan, author of The Naked Truth: A Working Woman’s Manifesto on Business and What Really Matters (Jossey-Bass), says of the problem of husband-saboteurs.
Then there are husbands who must always be the sun around whom the rest of the family revolves. That was the case with Amy Wilson (not her real name). Her spouse was the family breadwinner, with a lucrative insurance business. Although today she’s vice chair of a major fundraising organization, Wilson started out as a volunteer. When she took her first job, a modestly paying post, her husband “celebrated” by ordering an expensive appliance and telling her she had to be home to accept it. Such ongoing gamesmanship prompted Wilson to go back to volunteering, with its more flexible schedule. But when she eventually began to rise in the philanthropic ranks, she claims, her husband found that just as threatening. “There was this anger and competition,” says Wilson. “He would threaten to ruin every event.” They decided to get a divorce. During that time, she received a major award from an organization that planned a dinner in her honor with 1,000 guests. Wilson asked her husband not to come; he said she couldn’t tell him what to do, and spoke vaguely of showing up to tell everyone that she was getting the award only because he had written the organization so many generous checks. (In the end, he didn’t show.) Says Wilson: “Whatever I did, he would turn the attention to himself.”
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Because he's got some payback to make good on for his years of filandering ways, if you know what I mean.
DonCoquixote
(13,957 posts)Billy is making sure he is the only one called "the big dawg." Hillary, get ready to join the long list of people with knives in their back.
Uncle Joe
(65,103 posts)This is a prime example of how totally disconnected the Clintons have become from the people.
I would wager Bill never had the same concerns when telling the banksters and Wall Street what they wanted to hear when they shelled out well over a hundred million dollars to him and his wife for "speaking fees."
Thanks for the thread, Lazy Daisy.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)casperthegm
(643 posts)If Hillary does win the nomination, they are really making it tough for me to support her. All the mud at Sanders. And now at us as well, calling us radicals? What, because we should just accept things and learn that we need to settle?
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)
SamKnause
(14,892 posts)I am sick of the Bush family.
I am sick of the Clinton family.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)No more. We will take it no more. It ends now.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)All it does is reward them for their bad behavior and lets them repeat the cycle without end.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)like Nina Turner and James Clyburn. Ingrates.
To the jury: Bastards is Clinton's own word.
ToolsBoy
(6 posts)I can't believe I am validating these absurd remarks with a response, but to the extent that silence is a form of consent...
We, the people, are sorry that we are not capitulating to the poorly-constructed notion that Hillary Clinton was *entitled* to the Democratic nomination.
This fight is about the future of the Democratic Party. It is a fight between big ideas. The Tea Party is a reductionist, nihilist movement, whereas this fight is about the government's role in ensuring the well-being of a society. To compare these movements is asinine.
There is something else in these remarks that I am beginning to get. I think that the "Party Elites" have been shocked by Bernie's idealism-driven success and, perhaps, are reflecting on the direction that they have taken the party since the early 80's.
jillan
(39,451 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)sarge43
(29,173 posts)I would disagree on one point. I don't think they're reflecting at all. They're shocked and perhaps panicked; how else to explain Clinton's incredibly hostile and clumsy remark.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)I honestly don't believe Party Elites are shocked at all.
Bernie's campaign has illustrated perfectly that STRONGLY left/progressive candidates can win elections (even in Battleground states)!
Iowa and New Hampshire have residents that have become thoroughly acquainted with the political policies of all of the candidates running for President. And, Bernie wins over all of them. The biggest liberal in the Senate beats them all.
Not a surprise when you look at issues polling done in this country. On the issues, Americans are progressive. They want progressive policies implemented. We have had very, very few candidates running for national office in the Democratic Party that have been truly unabashed progressives. The recent Party Chairs (DWS and Tim Kaine) have recruited and funded "New Democrats" purposefully and specifically.
They keep lying to us telling us we have to settle for these New Democrats. Strong progressives can't win we're told. Well, thank you Bernie Sanders for completely exposing the utter falsity of their shameless lies.
Hopefully most all of us realize the truth now, and we can demand and actually vote for the stronger progressive in primaries now. Even in Battleground states. And, who knows, maybe even in solidly RED states. Shudder, Gasp!
jillan
(39,451 posts)I am not a millennial. And I am definitely NOT the same as a teabagger.
And the fact that she does not ever tell them to stop!! Even at the debate she was asked about Albright's statement & Hillary did not answer! She changed the subject.
All this rhetoric is doing is turning me off even more towards Hillary.
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)Liberals spent many years defending the Clintons from GOP/conservative attacks. I also think it's amusing that Bill undermines Hillary's claim that she is a Progressive by insulting Progressives. Just be honest with us. Admit you are a moderate Democrat that likes to do business with corporate America. You can even put a positive spin on this by saying corporate America creates jobs and it's important for the POTUS to have a good relationship with those businesses. But don't lie to us. Don't pretend to be something you are not.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Taking the party to the right for his high dollar sponsors.
yay NAFTA!, China WTO!, Wall Street Deregulation!, CEO pay linked to stock prices!, telecom companies monopolies!, mass incarceration!, Gutting Welfare!
The guy is charming. Does that really mean we have to like what he's done??? Has there been a better republican?
EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)We're not going to reward all your bullshit by giving your family another stint in the White House. I defended you against all the RW attacks for all those years and now you marginalize us by comparing the base of the Democratic party to the tea party just because we're not supporting your wife.
Shove it up your ass, Bill.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)
Champion Jack
(5,378 posts)vdogg
(1,385 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)when you and Chelsea talk.
Go Bernie
yodermon
(6,153 posts)
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)But y'all are gonna need us if Hillary wins the nomination; and I've seen what happens when Hillary wins the nomination. Another bailout for her corporate overlords, another war to line her pockets-- the 99% has nothing to celebrate about.
Might as well go to Canada when the defecation hits the oscillation.
lasttrip
(1,013 posts)Got it.
Peace.
LT
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)and their corporate owners hijacked the party with Bill and Hillary in the 90's....
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The Clintons SOLD themselves and the party to them for personal profit. Never forget that fact.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)No We can't!
No We can't!
No We can't!
No We can't!
No We can't!
No We can't!
No We can't!
No We can't!
No We can't!
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Huh. Shitting on the left won't actually help that. 
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)This is where we're going; you, the ex-Goldwater-Girl and your honchos wouldn't be interested:
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)We stood by this fool for all these years and this is how he pays us back. Again, STFU Bill.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)GATT
WTO
Glass-Stegall
ending welfare as we know it
Telecommunications Act
Sold the Democratic Party to the Koch Bros (DLC)
Let's see.....how many of Bills programs has Hurt The Nation, Middle-Class and Poor and How many have Helped.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)and then Lied to the Nation about it.
Give that man a 'Cigar'
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)of is is, remember?
"It depends on what the definition of is is"
Asshole
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Bill's statement almost ranks up their with romney's 47%. He totally shitted on a big block of the Democratic base.
To equate anything on the left with the tea baggers is not only an insult, but it is frankly idiotic.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)say if you don't vote for us you will be responsible for a Republican winning the White House and a conservative being put on the SC. It never occurs to them that some of this is the fault of both the candidate and their surrogates. This election cycle is different. the reason Trump and Bernie are doing so well is because the electorate is giving Washington DC the middle finger. The voters are pissed at the government so for them to assume they have our vote is stupid and dangerous.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)So in that sense he's exactly right. But that's where the comparison ends.
I'm sure it worries him. And I say, good.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They feel there aren't enough of them to matter anyway.
The classic is, "Nader/Ron Paul had big crowds too."
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)That's bad for business.
rateyes
(17,460 posts)but, by God, this is the end.
Bye.
Marie Marie
(11,283 posts)I take offense to that and it is an insult to Liberals who just happen to prefer Bernie.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)It just ensures that staying home and not voting next November (if it comes to that) will be a completely guilt-free experience.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
SammyWinstonJack
(44,316 posts)
zentrum
(9,870 posts)Existed before the DLC was ever created. Never went away. Have been voting for Democrats in every election.
Guess being a 150milion Millionaire has finally flushed the Clintons out from hiding behind HRC's "I'm a progressive. Me too! Me too!".
Going out of his way to create NAFTA, break down Glass Steagall for the banksters, create media merger, and more—all that is not, to use his word, "polarizing"--- to the 99%?
I find Clinton's Mass Support for the 1% to be "worrying".
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)by these old school ex republicans, who diss everybody to their left. Burning bridges is not a strategy for a leader who believes in equality but one who is prepared to divide and conquer.
America is done with this old game of thrones, done conquering and being conquered, done being lied to, and done being courted and done with the bait and switch routine. People have lost waaaay too much--and clearly know the division is not right and left but haves and have nots---everyone knows we've been robbed. These old school tricks simply do not work anymore.
It's all about power and we're going to take it back, simple.
Oh and I've had the highest respect for the Clintons in the past but have become greatly disappointed on what low levels they are operating on these days.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Comparing mainstream views and those who support them with right wing extremism. Great campaign stuff, Mr. NAFTA! Or is it Mr. DOMA? Or Mr. DADT?
ejbr
(5,892 posts)is not the effect of crazy promises, Bill. It is the effect of being screwed by the 1% and them feeling no consequences because they pay people like you to keep us in line. I will be bold enough to speak for many of us when I say, we're done with this bullshit.
demwing
(16,916 posts)When I say the name Clinton, it leaves a bad taste behind...
Avalux
(35,015 posts)I'm really disgusted after reading that.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)This is so short sighted and foolish.
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)This left-wing crazy will vote for the down ticket Dems and leave the vote for President blank. Glad I moved from Illinois to Florida this month where I actually count....
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)But he did sign it, so...nah, I won't listen to him.
nxylas
(6,440 posts)Surely he meant to say "Politicians shouldn't tell people what they want to hear for anything less than a cool quarter-mill".
jwirr
(39,215 posts)has nothing else worth saying.
lobodons
(1,290 posts)It's the same comment that got me banned there!! (Ironically, they proved my point though)
Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)But for all the whining some people do for being banned from the Bernie group many, many more have been banned from the Hillary group for much, much less. The righteous indignation surprises me seeing as I was banned from the Hillary group for this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110737283#post16
Being tossed from the Hillary group was no big deal to me, but to see people complain they were tossed from the Bernie group is supposed to show we're somehow less than tolerant? That aggravates the hell out of me.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
Nanjeanne
(6,585 posts)party with the Trumps you can attend.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Highly expected from the Third Way corporate family.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)neoliberal 3rd way movement he helped ushered in...
And yea, Bernie's telling the people what they want to hear because that's who he represents!!
lobodons
(1,290 posts)Just proves Bill Clinton's point!!
dana_b
(11,546 posts)They've told us we're going to hell, that we are only in it for the boys, that we're like the teabaggers - how would YOU feel if you were called those things by Bernie or the few people that he has backing him (I don't mean us)?? And laughing it off and giving some sort of half-assed apology later won't cut it. No - they mean every damn word that they are spewing.
If she wins the nomination but loses the GE, it's her own damn fault for acting like this and then letting the insults come at us.
lobodons
(1,290 posts)I have my big boy pants on and will vote and campaign enthusiastically for the Dem nominee who ever it may be!! I can see the big picture. (Especially now the Scalia's death has highlighted the importance of the SCOTUS)
dana_b
(11,546 posts)on a daily basis by the party leaders and their allies. Insulted by Mr. Big Dawg, Madeline, Gloria, Krugman and more. Then IF she wins the nomination, these same vultures will expect us to fall in line. Forget that noise.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)geologic
(205 posts)against Bill Clinton.
When they wouldn't let Jerry Speak at The Convention,
I re-registered with the Green Party--
I re-registered Democratic last month...
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)That is really going to work well Bill.
If it comes down to Hillary V Donald, I'll write in Mr. Grey or Sir Lipton.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)If I'm being expected to swallow the lesser of two evils, why not jump the shark and go for full evil. Two years of either a Hillary or Republican presidency, most of which hopefully my knee will give our during, and then I can go to Canada.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)nice to meet you.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Court my tastes.
Or does that only work for the 1%?
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)xloadiex
(628 posts)in the White House, from some of the things I've been reading, I don't think Bill deserves to step a foot back in there either.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)it's high time the left had a tea party movement of its own.
and compromise, that's what the democrats do, amirite? time we elected someone who yells back.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Good luck getting anyone to turn out in the general, should you somehow make it that far.
montanacowboy
(6,712 posts)like some kind of cheap Cabana Boy
Go to Hell Bill
99Forever
(14,524 posts)This is the same man who did not have the self control to keep his pecker in his pants while in the office of POTUS or the integrity or honesty to own his infidelity when caught doing it.
And he thinks he's fit to judge others?
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)They shouldn't be rewarded, either.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)
wilt the stilt
(4,528 posts)so self righteous. you are like free republic in many ways. So angry and so condescending. here is Bernie's single issue. "I'm fucking pissed off" and that is your single issue deep down.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)corporate candidate. She isn't going to win the white house.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)If your lady wins the Dem primary, you won't have to listen to us anymore. It'll be quiet as a damned tomb around here. And when you're wondering if anyone's going to turn out on election day, that same silence will be your answer. Enjoy it pal, you earned it.
Logical
(22,457 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)
denbot
(9,950 posts)This is the first time on this board I have lashed out at the person formally known as Big Dawg.
Vinca
(53,960 posts)Keep it up, Bill. Bernie will love you for it . . . just like Obama did.
NCjack
(10,297 posts)wing tea party" to help out -- again. The source of Bill's problems is his own stupidity. Lots of luck in finding a winning majority to elect Hillary, especially with her downward "favorability" trend.
droidamus2
(1,719 posts)This is one of the things I do not like about the Clintons and DNC types. They are convinced that to govern they have to start in the middle and the compromise with those on the right. With the current Republican party that is the far right. If you do it that way anything you manage to pass is going to have a very rightwing tilt to it. I am a lifelong liberal, yes liberal not progressive, and as much as I would like to see the ideas I support enacted I do not demand my way or the highway. All I say is if the opposition is staking out the far right and we stake out at least a strong left position then when we compromise we get more moderate results. We can't start by giving up on our ideals and expect them to respect and deal with us. Negotiate from strength and work from there.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,682 posts)Now he is on his way to ruining his legacy with the Democratic base as well. Sad.
8 track mind
(1,638 posts)Up until today, I really respected you. I voted for you in 92 and 96. That all ended today thanks to your comment.
Fearless
(18,458 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)NoJacketRequired
(21 posts)Bernie cheerleaders are exactly like those tea party right wing nuts who scream Ted Cruz isn't conservative enough.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)And last week they insulted most of women 40 years old and younger.
Clinton for dummies.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If this doesn't answer for most of anyone who still happens to be on the fence, or giving the benefit of the doubt that Hillary won't run left and govern center like Bill did... no data point will.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)He just wants to pull the party further to the right, so that it is more in line with the ACTUAL teabagger party.
He was one of the best RepubliCON presidents we had.
Besides, it is Hillary who has been going to the left in response to the popularity of Bernie's agenda. It gets me sick when I hear Clinton come out with something that Bernie has already announced two weeks ago.
Then again, perhaps we should let Clinton get the nod. This way the RepubliCONs will win, and things will get worse. Perhaps that will wake people up, and Senator Warren can run against her in 2020. Then we can get back the House, and redistricting as well.
sarge43
(29,173 posts)If Hills isn't elected, then both of them are useless to the deep pockets. No more 100K speaking gigs, no more favors to exchange.
I once defended this man, even against my better judgment. *Sigh
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)telling people what they want to hear? is that what you did with all of your women?
what a clown.
RecoveringJournalist
(232 posts)Mr. Clinton is right about one thing. Bernie IS telling us what we want to hear: the truth.
That's what I've wanted to hear from a politician for years.
eom
INdemo
(7,024 posts)And in fact he is running his campaign as if it was 1990 all over again...
Volaris
(11,691 posts)Hillary is running the Last Campaign of the 20th century.
Bill, apparently, is 'helping'.
I'm voting for Bernie in the primary for sure, but won't knock the Clintons for knowing how to do what they're best at..because there's a very good chance we will need them out stumping for Bernie if he's the PARTY nominee.
Jeb!. Gets to trot out (LOL) Jr.
And we get--
Madame Secretary.
Big Dog (AKA Slick Willie Math--don't lie you know you smiled)
PRESIDENT Obama and (First) Lady Michelle.
Joe 'blue collar' Biden.
ELIZABETH FUCKING WARREN.
Bernie Sanders.
The GOP is fucked so bad, and they don't even see it coming. It's gonna be one for The Books, no matter which way this breaks. I'm going to enjoy the shit out of it no matter who our nominee is.=)
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Like all things Clinton, it would come with a price tag. Might not be one Bernie would want to pay.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)she will turn over in bed to consult with?? No way. I don't want that again.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)"We at the Third Way are losing our power and we don't like it."
There, I fixed it
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)big dog,pfft...
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)i was in my 30's.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Could have fooled me you were in your 30s.
Logical
(22,457 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I do not believe you were in your 30s.
Maybe 3 by the time he left office, but no way do I believe you about your age.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Act to the list of garbage. Since DOMA has already been mentioned. and the venal.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I. Don't. Believe. It.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)I have paying attention forva lot longer than you.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)guess again. If you worked in manufacturing, wages were flat and jobs were hard to find.
We got walloped in '94 when Bill sold out labor with NAFTA.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)which doesn't seem to be happening.
frylock
(34,825 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Or are you Lucianne Goldberg?
frylock
(34,825 posts)Surely you're not denying the existence of the blue dress, and that the blue dress has a spot on it?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Must be Linda Tripp.
frylock
(34,825 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I'll never understand the rightwing's obsession with the Clenis, but apparently you do.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I now feel that I need to live up to that characterization. That old man just opened a can of fucking worms that he is really going to regret. Know the game.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)or down, as the case may be.
frylock
(34,825 posts)if I didn't. Thanks for the recognition.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I saw it months and months ago.
frylock
(34,825 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)regardless of how many push the tea party of the left.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Sanders will drop out before the end of March.
frylock
(34,825 posts)it's gonna be a long-ass day for Hillary Supporter.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Are we going to pretend that Bill Clinton didn't receive felattio in the Oval Office? Is that what we're doing here?
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)An employee be had administrative control over
If you or.i did that the eeoc would call it workplace sexual harassment
frylock
(34,825 posts)I have to sit through bullshit compliance training every year because of assholes like Bill Clinton.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Honest question...did you feel lime that training was more geared toward teaching people.how to do or say the right things to not be a liability while not changi g behaviors? I always felt like they were tea hing me how to say egregious thi gs in a way so as to not cross the actual line
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)John Cleese as the French Knight.
Donkees
(33,691 posts)
awake
(3,226 posts)Bill you just sealed the deal for me, after this it is clear that Hillary is republican light and she will never get my vote I want a FDR Democrat!
dana_b
(11,546 posts)I've been going back and forth in my mind about Hillary but this just did it for me. And to those who say "it will be your fault if we get President Trump or Cruz!" - you and Bill can both jump in a lake. I do not take to insult after insult being thrown at me, I do not have Stockholm's syndrome, and the Clintons are proving themselves to be the dirtiest Republicans in the entire Presidential race!
EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)Bernie's supporters are either BernieBros or silly girls chasing BernieBros (the latter headed straight to hell) who are nothing more than a left wing Tea Party. Did I miss anything?
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)This is how you think you're going to win the election for HRC? Comparing Sanders supporters to bigots, rednecks, idiots, skinheads, far right nuts who want to eliminate the government?
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If the notion that we want (and maybe, eventually, can have) universal healthcare, free college tuition, paid maternity leave and other things makes us fringe, then shit, I guess I'm fringe. There's a reason we're polarized, Bill, it's because the republican party has morphed into a group of extremists that would make Hitler proud of their authoritarianism, "Nationalism", overall goals and philosophies.
Damn right we're polarized. Won't do much good to sit in the center when it keeps moving in such an ugly direction. Time to stand up for what we believe in - because it is the right thing to stand up for.
The left wing doesn't have a tea party, what it does have, are a lot of people who are sick of being ignored. What it does have are a lot of poor people - the sort that you and your ilk, Mr. Clinton, like to pretend do not exist. No, we don't expect rewards from your lot, we expect insults, ignorance, idiotic statements, apathy - and overall, a failure to act. I think we get what we expect there.
Seems like every time the Clintons say something, it pushes me further in Bernie's direction. I'm sick of this crap.
I am a shameless, proud, raging, angry liberal. I am the 99%.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)they are willing to alienate over this.
I think Hillary is toast. Not counting on it, but I hope I'm right.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Bill is like Donald Trump without the massive crowds behind him. He doesn't know what he's doing and he's really bad at it. Keep it up Bubba!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)We're driftin' back. Just a little correction.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)It was conceived, financed, and directed by the moneyed elite.
It's infestation of the republican party was planned out by well educated strategists. It was a project from Libertarians, those who want the smallest government possible. It is working beautifully. It is eating government from the inside like a cancer.
The Democratic revolution however self funds, self directs, and lacks the rabid hatred. Government is not the enemy, government is us. We work to improve it not dismantle it.
The third way/DLC/ reaganized wing of the Democratic Party is also a construct of the moneyed elite. It was conceived, financed, and directed by some of the very same people who would later build the tea party.
That popping sound we all heard was the Irony Fairy's head exploding when Bill Clinton warned the Democratic Party of an intrusive outside influence.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)and it not going to serve her well.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
Buns_of_Fire
(19,158 posts)Have two. Feel better? Good. Now go over there like a good boy and roll in that pile of cash and stop screwing up your wife's campaign.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Eat up fella, you're looking a little skinny.
TBF
(36,624 posts)just go away. nt
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)After all, its been very rewarding for his family so far.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)As a feminist, I've been done with Bill since he paid Paula Jones an $800,000 settlement. Or maybe it was the day Bill wagged his finger and lied to the entire country about his relationship with Lewinsky.
Never for an instant have I been OK with the idea of Bill returning to the White House in any capacity.
Go Bernie Go!
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)I'm not going anywhere with Bill and his little wifey.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I am going to have to ask my daughter when I see her next what was said to make her not like the Clintons anymore, she went on a mini rant. We were talking about other stuff that was a wee bit more important than politics so I let that one slide for the moment.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)I guess they don't need my vote ever.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)No one calls me a Teabagger and gets forgiven. Have fun losing the Primary too! You just insulted a majority who are the PROGRESSIVES in the party. You're toast. Enjoy your retirement.
He can't get to Bernie with the sleazy smears and lies, so he's moved on to the VOTERS. BRILLIANT! JUST A BRILLIANT STRATEGY!
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
pinebox
(5,761 posts)/end of BOOM!
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Every single one of them. Go away, Clintons. GO AWAY! lol
smiley
(1,432 posts) 
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)I guess he doesn't think it's polarizing to lump the Democratic supporters of Sanders in with the Tea Party.
It would be awfully funny if Sanders started getting support from the Tea Party too. A lot of the rank and file that self identify as Tea Party are anti-establishment independents. Some of them joined the Tea Party because that was the only place they could find that wasn't establishment (until it was co-opted). Not all of them agree with all the Tea Party issues they just know they don't like establishment Republicans and the Democrats weren't offering them much difference. There could very well be some of them that are attracted to Sanders on some of his issues. Maybe we should thank Bill. lol
marmar
(79,708 posts)...... my opinion of him has plummeted post-presidency
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)Chichiri
(4,667 posts). . . it was the Republicans who were using "elitist" as a smear.
How did that get here?
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Really?
Chichiri
(4,667 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Elsewhere it's going to come across as disconnected from where the actual voters are at.
TDale313
(7,822 posts)Always has been. He despises us- far more than he does Republicans. I do not want this couple anywhere near the White House again.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)It sure as hell doesn't sound like MY side!
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)Beacool
(30,514 posts)The Tea Party thinks that only Ted Cruz passes their purity test. On our side, it's not even a Democrat who makes the grade. Only Sanders seems to pass the Left's purity test. Same level of extremism, different party. Tea Party folks are talking about not voting for their party's nominee if it's Trump or one of the other "RINOs". Same thing as is being said here by some, if Sanders is not the nominee.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)I remember saying to myself, should I give him a chance as he seems to be so naive .... etc... when he won the election, there were lots of "dead head" parties around the town and I said, hey, that's cool, let him explore new ideas!!! ---- I was naive.... he turned into the exact things I hoped he would fight against....
anyway, we repeat again and again, hoping for a new progressive USA...
jfern
(5,204 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)for selling out African-Americans in the 1990s with their welfare reform and crime bills, and selling out progressives and anyone with a lick of sense with their neoconservative foreign policies.
Jeb Bush is already losing the Republican nomination. We shouldn't be voting for his policies in the Democratic primaries.