Public’s Disgust With the Democratic Party Propels Sanders

[silvershadow]

Bernie Sanders is a fine politician, but that is not why he has emerged from obscurity to win so many Democratic primaries. The real story here is the breakdown of the ideology pursued for decades by the Democratic Party’s dominant faction.

The party gave up its historic mission to serve working people years ago and chose instead to represent the New Economy’s winners.
The Great Recession started in 2007, and for millions of average Americans no recovery has come. For most of the years since then, there has been a Democrat in the White House, and those Americans have a right to wonder why the eloquent hero they voted for has done so little to improve their situation. They see that banks, health insurance companies and Silicon Valley are doing extremely well; why, then, don’t their wages grow?

The answer, and the key to Sanders’s success, is staring us in the face: Because the Democratic Party gave up years ago on its historic mission of serving working people and chose instead to make itself into the party of professionals, of the New Economy’s winners, of a group they love to flatter with phrases like “symbolic analysts,” “wired workers” and the “creative class.”

This shifting allegiance is the fundamental reason that Democrats began to identify with Wall Street back in the 1990s (and then with Silicon Valley) but what makes this story so aggravating is the way Democrats keep choosing professionals over workers again and again. One class of Americans they reward with subsidies and forgiveness; the rest of us get discipline. The 1994 crime bill and the end of welfare were all brought to you, remember, by the same Democratic administration that rolled back the rules for banks and telecoms. The North American Free Trade Agreement and its many successors have brought, well, freedom to those who employ but anxiety and diminished lives to those who work. The present Democratic administration has hounded individuals who lied on mortgage applications, but it seems to find top bankers incapable of wrongdoing. And in these years of galloping industrial concentration and power grabs by Silicon Valley, antitrust enforcement has dropped off the agenda.
-----------------------
more: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/03/14/has-bernie-sanders-been-underestimated/publics-disgust-with-the-democratic-party-propels-sanders
-----------------------
JURY/MODs: This is an OPINION piece. It is not meant to disparage Democrats. I posted it so we can all see a variety of opinions and views that are out there. Please have some consideration and leave this, during a time when we should ALL be highly reflective. This election will quite literally determine the future of our party, and possibly its' survival. Let us not do as the Republicans appear to be doing...

[ladjf]

1. This is a constructive , thoughtful post. Thanks! nt

[Baobab]

53. In twenty years we will see this as a historic moment

An example of what Hillary Clinton represents is shown by the dishonesty wich she uses to hide the trade agenda put in place during her husband's term, which makes affordable health care impossible without changing the WTO. That can be seen in how entering the WTO meant that India had to give up its right to education last year. The Clintons are globally associated with the WTO.

[Go Vols]

172. I see Bernie

as the last hope of a "Democratic Party".

Obama self proclaimed he would be to the right of Raygun,Hillary is Obama 3.1?

uh...

[asuhornets]

2. Bernie Sanders has not been vetted. Period. n/t

[bklyncowgirl]

12. That's what primary campaigns are for, isn't it.

If Sanders has not been vetted, whose fault is that?

[asuhornets]

13. But he WILL be vetted. If he gets close to the nomination..

Right Clinton is still on track to win the nomination.

[Loudestlib]

16. Any day now he'll get vetted .......lol

Republicans said the same thing about Obama.

[Snarkoleptic]

73. "Right Clinton is still on track to win the nomination."

Which is exactly why I'm for Left Sanders.

Cinton has been moving rapidly to the left and coopting Sanders positions in attempt to blur the lines.
We cannot allow her to etch-a-sketch her way into the general election.

[asuhornets]

83. Really?

He took HER positions...

[Snarkoleptic]

87. Really? YES

Look at her than-and-now stances on such major issues as TPP and KXL.
Also consider the fact that she's never been a foe of Wall St, but her commercials attempt to rebrand her as an anti-Wall St crusader.
She's doing the classic bait and switch, run to the left in the primary and run to the right in the general.

[asuhornets]

94. What about

her excellent job as SOS. Her qualifications are impeccable. I'm not a one or two issue voter.

[Snarkoleptic]

111. Changing the subject already?

OK, I'll bite.
Clinton chalked up a superb performance as SOS. In terms of judgement, Bernie was one of the few who voted against Iraq wars 1&2. Both of which were arbuably promoted by special interests and sold to the public with a massive pack of lies.

Myself and other war-weary voters, however, may feel that she's too hawkish. Take Libya for example, where we behaved like the worlds police force, contributed to further instability and led to a massive, ongoing refugee crisis.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: The truth is, it is relatively easy for a powerful nation like America to overthrow a dictator, but it is very hard to predict the unintended consequences and the turmoil and the instability that follows after you overthrow that dictator. So, I think Secretary Clinton and I have a fundamental disagreement: I’m not quite the fan of regime change that I believe she is."

and the NYT on the completely avoidable Libya clusterf&@k.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0

Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. In fact, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a “51-49” decision, it was Mrs. Clinton’s support that put the ambivalent president over the line. This is the story of how a woman whose Senate vote for the Iraq war may have doomed her first presidential campaign nonetheless doubled down and pushed for military action in another Muslim country. As she once again seeks the White House, campaigning in part on her experience as the nation’s chief diplomat, an examination of the intervention she championed shows her at what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state. It is a working portrait rich with evidence of what kind of president she might be, and especially of her expansive approach to the signal foreign-policy conundrum of today: whether, when and how the United States should wield its military power in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East

[Fawke Em]

113. Excellent job at SoS?

If you call leaving a whole region of the world in shambles, "excellent," then please proceed. Her decisions on Iraq, Libya, Syria, Honduras and Haiti were simply WRONG.

Factor in the looming "arms for Clinton Foundation donations, pay-for-play" issue that WILL come out in spades during a general election and her term becomes an abject failure.

SOS is right: the international code for EXTREME DURESS.

[AlbertCat]

150. her excellent job as SOS

You mean that position that was handed to her.... and then she couldn't be bothered to keep classified material classified?

What acts of "excellence" did she do?

[SylviaD]

163. Oh, please. nt

[AlbertCat]

164. Please...oh please

I noticed you didn't list her amazing excellent accomplishments as SoS.

[elljay]

177. What, exactly, are those excellent accomplishments? n/t

[AlbertCat]

186. What, exactly, are those excellent accomplishments?

Should be an easy question....

[elljay]

188. Shouldn't it, now?

I'm looking forward to the answer.

[ellennelle]

151. the more i learn

about hillary as SoS, the less i want her as prez. here's why.

she lobbied for intervention in libya's; look at it now.

she lobbied for intervention in syria; look at it now.

she lobbied for intervention in ukraine; look at it now.

she saw to it that US (corporate) puppets were in place in haiti and honduras; look there now.

she lobbied heavy for TPP and other trade deals around the world that would strip all countries, states, and even cities of their sovereignty and set up tribunals run by corporate lawyers, not to mention giving mega pharm, big energy, and the monsanto of the world ultimate power over all of us. and oh yeah, intensifies the slave labor market that sucks all the jobs out of this country.

just for starters; you get the idea.

or not.

if you have not investigated any of those items yet, gawd help you. and all of us.

i highly recommend you start with amy goodman's coverage of each and all these issues. i'd list them for you myself, but because i doubt you'll follow up on them, i'll spare myself the trouble.

seriously, tho; the archive search at democracynow! is awesome; you can find excellent real journalism on each of these stories there, and more. once upon a time, everyone on this site agreed amy was the go-to newsperson on such matters. what has happened with that?

[Ed Suspicious]

157. Neocons is as neocons does.

[ljm2002]

119. Link please. n/t

[Gore1FL]

147. When? n/t

[ellennelle]

152. so sorry

no intent to pick on you here, but seriously? she held hardly a single one of her current positions 8 months ago; her has literally ripped off explicit lines verbatim from his talking points. the whole reason she's on the defensive about wall street is bernie's had so much traction - along with liz warren - on that hot topic issue for years.

i don't know where you're getting your info, but if you can show a timeline where hillary was for bernie's policies, point by point, before he was, do share.

thx in advance.

but, good luck with that.

[passiveporcupine]

178. OMG, I can't believe you just said that.

I was choking and laughing and wondering if you really meant it...and then I realized Yeah,you really meant it.

I am so sorry for you. You don't know what your candidate has done and what she will undo if she becomes POTUS.

It will be a harsh awakening.

[imagine2015]

118. EXPOSE! Sanders is a democratic socialist! What a shocker! Wait till people get wind of that!

OK. Now that's been vetted.

Anything else?

[Herman4747]

17. Vetted more than Obama was in 2008, when he went on...

to beat your beloved and win the presidency!

[Gwhittey]

41. Obama did not beat Hillary

Hillary beat Hillary because she forgot she was posing as a Democrat and tried to race bait whites Democrats into voting for her because you know other guy was not like us "hard working white people". She is has done same thing this time around and is making it easier for Sanders to win. Tomorrow should of been a Hillary day but it is going to turn into a Sanders day. And after that no more Hillary days at all.

[closeupready]

108. During this primary, Bernie has outperformed EVERY prediction against him.

I think tomorrow, logically, will be the same.

[Gore1FL]

149. I don't know if that is logic or not, but I hope you are right! n/t

[dchill]

35. I have a feeling that the vetting has been intense and deep.

And that there's no there there.

[KPN]

51. +1!

[boobooday]

104. Exactly

He's been a public servant all his life, has not enriched himself, nor has he been involved in any scandals. They've got nothing on him and they hate that.

[dchill]

106. They even have to lie about his voting record.

[bklyncowgirl]

116. The Clintons have never been shy about using anything and everything to win.

Anyone who thinks they haven't tried to dig up dirt on Sanders is frankly naïve.

[tblue37]

182. If HRC's oppo research and David Brock had found any real dirt on Bernie, we

would not be seeing the absurd swiftboating attacks they have been trying out.

[dchill]

183. Yes.

[snort]

39. I sure hope they don't.

They'll find out that he has taken millions from the Banksters while saying he's going to regulate and dismantle them! That will destroy his fan base for sure!

[ljm2002]

120. Link please. n/t

[wordpix]

45. he's being vetted right now and worst that's been found is

he voted against a gun control bill b/c, he says, it blamed gun manufacturers in the deaths of innocents, and if it passed it could have prevented all guns from being bought/sold/used. I see his point but don't agree with it; however, if this is the worst that Hillary can find against Bernie, I am still all for him. She can't find anything else except he "voted against the auto bailout," which he's explained was a vote against the Wall St. bailout, and when the auto bailout was on the table alone and not rolled into a bill bailing out the banksters, he voted for it.

Basically, the vetting is in process and poor Hillary can find almost nothing. Meanwhile, she won't release her transcripts to Goldman Sachs speech @ $225K, is being investigated for her private emails, and her judgment on important items like War in Iraq and TPP is lousy.

[bvar22]

139. Bernie's Gun Vote was the correct position.

Would you hold a kitchen knife manufacturer responsible and liable when someone uses one of their knives to harm another? That happens a lot in domestic violence.

If someone runs over you with a Ford, should you be able to sue Ford?

Is the Budweiser responsible for drunk drivers?

Bernie's vote was the correct one. He wasn't protecting the gun makers.
He was protecting every manufacturer, and our economy.

[KPN]

48. Hillary has -- fully!

She has proven herself time and again. And that explains a good share of Bernie's success against her. She simply strains people's trust.

[Lorien]

129. True. Here are some of her "accomplishments":

Last edited Mon Mar 14, 2016, 11:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Iraq vote
TPP support
KXL support
Pro arctic drilling
Pro for Profit Prisons
Pro Monsanto
Bankruptcy bill
Voting for a border fence
Saying child migrants should be sent home
Using her position as SoS to push fracking on the rest of the world
Wall Street donations
Six digit speaking fees
Taking money from weapons deals
Honduras
Comments about nuking Iran
Voted to raise credit card interest rates
NAFTA
DOMA
DADT
Opposing gay marriage in New York State
Brownbeck Amendments
Glass-Steagall
No living wage
No free college
No universal health care (ACA coverage gap....ACA will never provide UHC)
No medical Marijuana
Supports mandatory sentencing
Says that she's "proud of" the way Walmart does business
Libya
Yemen
Syria
Egypt
United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Free trade - Oman agreement
Voted FOR Gitmo. --- Hillary voted against the Byrd ammendment and against a large majority of democrats to reduce Guatanamo funding by $36,000,000. She joined the republican majority against the majority of democrats in supporting Guantanamo.
Pro death penalty
Pro cluster bombing
Pro increased carcinogens in drinking water
Clinton policies lead to the largest mass incarceration of human beings in the history of the world
and the list goes on...

[restorefreedom]

145. wow. sadly, i bet this list did not take you a lot of time

to come up with.....

[KPN]

156. That's incredible!!!

That list (Hillary's Accomplishments) ought to be posted as its own thread and on social media! Please do it!

[Lorien]

168. Feel free. I borrowed many from another DUer (whose name escapes me)

I forgot to add that she's open to limiting abortion in all cases except when the woman's life is in danger, and she did not oppose pay inequality for women when on the board of Walmart.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

166. it's powerful seeing them listed

I knew there was a lot but thats huuuuge

[Lorien]

170. A partial list of why I won't vote for Hillary, but will vote for Bernie:

Why the media and party elite are rushing to nominate the weakest candidate: http://www.salon.com/2016/03/08/hillarys_inevitability_lie_why_the_media_and_party_elites_are_rushing_to_nominate_the_weakest_candidate/

Hillary wants to attack Iran: http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-if-im-president-we-will-attack-iran/5460484

Hillary pushed Fracking on the rest of the planet: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

Hillary and childhood poverty: http://www.salon.com/2015/10/15/the_worst_thing_hillary_clinton_has_ever_done/

What Hillary calls "feminism" : https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-feminism/

How women workers faired at Walmart when Hillary was on it's board:

Hillary's campaign had a gender pay gap: http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clintons-campaign-has-a-gender-pay-problem/

Hillary takes millions in campaign cash from her "enemies": http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/14/hillary-takes-millions-in-campaign-cash-from-enemies

Hillary on Gay marriage in 2004:

&feature=youtu.be

Hillary open to raising the retirement age and reducing SS benefits: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/hillary-clinton-indicates-she-is-open-to-raising-the-retirement-age.html

Bernie has a MUCH better record of accomplishments as Senator than Hillary does: https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/fact-bernie-sanders-got-more-done-in-the-senate-than-hillary-clinton/

When you ask me to vote for Hillary: https://medium.com/@Lookingforrobyn/when-you-ask-me-to-vote-for-hillary-174becdb5ccc#.2ixs3cg5o

Hillary's legacy of pushing the party to the right: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33869-hillary-clinton-s-ghosts-a-legacy-of-pushing-the-democratic-party-to-the-right

Chomsky: Democrats are now moderate Republicans:http://trofire.com/2015/09/23/noam-chomsky-dems-are-now-moderate-repugs-republicans-are-now-off-the-spectrum-of-reality/

The political compass finds Bernie to be the most centrist candidate, Hillary falls into the right wing Authoritarian spectrum:: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

Bernie rejects big fundraising events: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2015-03-26/bernie-sanders-hates-money-in-politics-the-very-thing-he-ll-need-to-beat-clinton

Debunking the "Bernie has a Super PAC" lie: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/debunking-the-big-bernie-sanders-has-a-superpac-lie/

Elizabeth Warren on Hillary Clinton: https://www.facebook.com/shaunking/videos/986305904741661/

A comparison of bills put forth by Bernie and Hillary: http://giphy.com/gifs/clinton-vs-sanders-bills-passed-according-to-congressgov-3o6gaQaIZcGAW7hCfu

Hillary helps a bank, which then funnels millions to the Clintons: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

Under Sanders, incomes and jobs would soar:http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/

Electing Bernie would usher a wave of "Bernie Democrats" into Congress: https://newrepublic.com/article/129047/bernies-army-running-congress

Bernie vows to stop disastrous TPP deal: http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/05/sanders-stop-tpp-deal/

Bernie's foreign policy positions are solid and through: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-foreign-poicy-213619

Hillary's foreign policy record is dismal: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-ritter/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-record_b_9221284.html

Bernie has plenty of foreign policy knowledge: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-foreign-poicy-213619

Hillary's foreign policy record is a disaster: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-ritter/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-record_b_9221284.html

Top economist, UN advisor and climate activist: "Clinton is a danger to world peace" http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/15/1485382/-Top-economist-UN-advisor-and-climate-activist-Clinton-is-a-danger-to-world-peace

The pragmatic case for Bernie Sanders: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-pragmatic-case-for-bernie-sanders/462720/

Who could beat Trump? Bernie by a wide margin, while Hillary could lose against him: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-destroys-donald-trump-by-13-points-6-more-than-clinton-_b_8936840.html

Bernie Sanders would beat Donald Trump 51-38 in a general-election: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/poll-against-bernie-sanders-donald-trump-would-get-schlonged-20151223#ixzz3zvCwk44J

Poll shows that Hillary could easily lose to Trump in the General election: http://www.inquisitr.com/2667052/poll-shows-hillary-clinton-could-easily-lose-to-donald-trump-in-general-election/

Hillary voted to allow more carcinogens in drinking water: http://usuncut.com/news/hillary-clinton-groundwater-pollution/

In Europe, Sanders would be Center-Right: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-19/in-europe-sanders-would-be-center-right

Republicans like and respect Bernie: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/bernie-sanders-is-a-loud-stubborn-socialist-republicans-like-him-anyway/450597/

[LittleGirl]

181. Thank you for that list!

That's brutally honest. Cheers!

[NurseJackie]

52. You're on to something there!

Bernie's fans complain loudly whenever there's any article that's critical of him ... well, they ain't seen nothin' yet. Stand by. More to come.

[asuhornets]

69. Yes. I was alerted for my post...

Who knew???

[NurseJackie]

75. It's difficult for me to understand ...

... why a rational person would do that. I've served on many juries, and I'd estimate that about 95% of the alerts that I've been asked to rule on are alerts that are against Hillary supporters. Of those, another 95% of them are for trivial reasons with specious justifications. It's as if some of them are not even trying to justify the alert, and instead hoping for a friendly jury that (perhaps) makes their decision after viewing the OP's avatar.

Even Skinner himself has acknowledged that the jury system is being abused and is (in effect) broken due to the ratio of Bernie supporters to Hillary supporters (currently 6-to-1 ratio based on his estimate, not mine).

Oh well. This will be over soon. Sit tight and be patient.

-----

Note to Jury: These are my observations and opinions. Elsewhere in this post, I am quoting (paraphrasing) this site's owner who has already posted his opinions and statistics and ratios about the jury system. The alerter may have a different opinion, but it's not against the rules to disagree with the majority. No candidate was smeared in this post. No specific person was smeared in this post. No entire group was smeared in this post.

[tecelote]

71. So, Hillary has not vetted Bernie?

The media gives him a pass?

Or, maybe honesty and integrity do not make news like scandals and lies do.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

85. Bernie's supporters "complain loudly" about LIES about him.

Learn the difference. And there's no better place than DU for the lies to be shot down... LOVE this site!

I welcome Corporate Media garbage, the Nancy-what's-her-name Crap Blog posts... makes us better prepared for the GE. Get to gutter level, Camp Weathervane, we learn from it.

[ladjf]

59. What types of vetting did you have in mind that should be

applied to Sanders?

[asuhornets]

70. Everything...n/t

[ladjf]

72. "Everything" is a very long list. Would you be willing to narrow

it down to a few items that you have in mind?

[asuhornets]

76. Here ya go:

His proposed policies on healthcare and free college---his planned is not detailed.

Explain how he can win the general election by running on higher taxes for the middle class.

His foreign policy is non existent. He rarely speaks about foreign policy, only if asked about it. And it is vague.

Why is his political revolution so non-diverse? Why is he not reaching POC and women?

[Snarkoleptic]

100. Bernie has a detailed plan to pay for healthcare expansion and free tuition.

On foreign policy, judgement is relevant as experience. He's running for President, not SOS.

As for diversity, Clinton has greater recognition, although the near-blackout in the media has been steadily breaking down.
While Clinton was and admitted Goldwater Girl, Sanders was in the streets taking direct action on racial inequality.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/bernie-sanders-core-university-chicago

[asuhornets]

102. There is one photo of him during the 60's

where was he the rest of the time?

[Snarkoleptic]

112. I presented an article, which you obviously chose not to read.

Goodbye.

[ellennelle]

160. stunning

your thin and biased perspective on these matters is simply stunning.

please, i mean no disrespect, but if you're going to present your opinions as fact here, you would be wise to actually arm yourself with real facts instead of talking points.

there is not one photo; there are several. from more than one date and incident. moreover, there is actual film footage of his getting arrested for the protest against segregated student housing.

meanwhile, hillary was a goldwater girl.

i feel bad that you're getting dumped on the way you are, but honestly, you're asking for it by relying on ...well, not the truth.

i'll leave it at that.

[Peace Patriot]

161. Oh, now that THAT photo has been verified by the photographer,

now your line is "only one photo of him during the 60s."

Lol!

Photo of him being arrested. Photo of him chained to a young black woman with Chicago cops hovering over them. Video of him being arrested. Photo of him speaking to CORE Chicago group. Newspaper article naming him, saying he was arrested because he was one of four leaders of the protest action. And more.

You are uninformed! Please take your snark elsewhere. Go bother Trump!

[tblue37]

184. There are several photos. nt

[AllyCat]

185. I would gladly pay a higher tax for healthcare if

It meant a quarter of my monthly pay wasn't going for healthcare premiums and meted out, expensive care with lots of hidden costs.

[LondonReign2]

79. Which has zero to do with the OP

But your attempt to distract and derail is noted.

[Arugula Latte]

80. The guy's been in Congress for 35 + years.

It's not like he's been holed up in his secret lair somewhere.

[asuhornets]

81. That's exactly what it seems like...n/t

[Arugula Latte]

84. Why? His actions are public.

He was basically dealing with legislation -- not speaking privately for Goldman Sachs and collecting massive fees and the like.

[asuhornets]

91. No one has any idea

how Bernie will govern if he is President. No only that if he runs against Trump, how will he react to all the negatives they going to throw at him. Too many unknowns

[Arugula Latte]

93. No one has any idea how anyone will govern as president.

"Too many unknowns." He's not hiding jack -- unlike Hillary. And she already has a boatload of negatives, like her secrecy, email shit, sniper fire lies, speaking fees, support for TPP and fracking, pro-death penalty stance, and on and on.

[asuhornets]

95. Yea but

Hillary has weathered the storm of everything you mentioned. That's why people LIKE her.

[farleftlib]

96. That's why people overwhelmingly

DON'T TRUST her.

[asuhornets]

99. Bernie

supporter's keep bring up the trust issue. No one trusts a politician 100% of the time. If you do then you are in for a heartache. She is still winning so plenty people trusts her.

[timmymoff]

155. I assure you

That I trust Bernie 99 and 44/100ths more than Hillary. He hasn't been on every side of every issue. He hasn't been coopting Hillary's campaign. He hasn't spoke to Wall St. Big Pharma, wal- mart, the private prison lobby.. she has and as recently as six months ago was accepting money from every group I mentioned.

[Arugula Latte]

97. She hasn't weathered the storm. And millions and millions of people DON'T like her,

including a big chunk of her own party. There's little enthusiasm for her, and A LOT of negative feeling toward her -- and not because she's a woman (yes there is sexism out there, but a lot of us women would love a female president, so it is telling about how bad a candidate she is that there's not more support for her). And this ain't good for our team going in to a presidential election.

[asuhornets]

101. Hillary

is absolutely good for Democrats. All this negative feeling about her? Then why is she still winning. Now Bernie may win 3 of 5 on Tuesday, but they will be close therefore her delegate lead will continue to rise.

[rynestonecowboy]

179. Do you not understand

that if Hillary doesn't blow him out on Tuesday that the writing is on on the wall for her? She has won the south handily but the fact that if he is even close to her after Tuesday she will be in serious trouble because most of the remaining 50% of the country that has yet to vote is much more liberal and Bernie has a distinct advantage in those states because he is a true liberal? Don't tell my wife but I have predicted Hillary's downfall 6 months ago when Senator Sanders started to gain traction with his massive rallies and his unprecedented grassroots support that Hillary has yet to see. Have you noticed that a tiny sub reddit has placed more than 100,000 phone bank calls by themselves in the past three three days? This campaign is the Obama grassroots movement on steroids and we all know how that ended up for Hillary in 08'.

[beedle]

138. Weathered the storm?

When?

Senator of NY? The safest state she could possibly run in? Even there she wilted under that vetting process ... Okay, for the sake of argument let's give her that one, but if we give her this, then Bernie has multiple times more 'vetting' in his house and senate races.

The Presidential race? She didn't stand up well to the vetting process in that one ... and she seems to be wilting a bit in this one as well. Sanders seems to be holding up pretty well under the intense 'vetting process' (SIC) of the Clinton campaign.

"people LIKE her"? Is 'LIKE' an acronym for something?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

92. Only to someone who hasn't been paying attention.

Were you not paying attention during Hillary's healthcare push back in the early '90s, with Bernie standing by her side? How about during Sanders' opposition to the Iraq War? Surely you didn't miss that. How about Sanders' 8.5 hour filibuster of the Bush tax cuts extension... missed that one, too?

Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks for 8 hours against tax cuts, while Congressional Black Caucus joins opposition
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121005431_2.html?sid=ST2011012302837

Goodness. What have you been doing all this time?!

[asuhornets]

103. I pay attention

to politics just like you. I also remember when Sanders wanted to primary Obama. Who does that against their own party?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

105. Back-tracking your lair comment now?

Cute.

[Ferd Berfel]

122. Hillary has a ton of baggage, Bernie nope

The baggage Hillary is carrying, that we already know, will kill any possibility of winning GE just be the Reich rehashing. Not to mention the major lack of enthusiasm she will produce in the base.

Bernie has the main stream positions and is the populist. That's a winning combo this go-round.

[Lorien]

128. HELL YES he has! More so than Hillary!

: https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/fact-bernie-sanders-got-more-done-in-the-senate-than-hillary-clinton/


SHE is the "new kid on the block".

[asuhornets]

131. yea right...n/t

[rhett o rick]

148. And Clinton has been vetted and found to betray her Party for 1. War in Iraq

2. Environmental damage, fracking, oil pipelines, and drilling in the artic. 3. Favoring the relaxation of regulations on banks which rip off the lower classes $5 fucking trillion dollars. She like war, she likes wealth and power.

[ellennelle]

158. in public office 30 years

25 of those in congress.

not vetted?

really? this is all you got?

[Peace Patriot]

174. Sanders has been thoroughly vetted, & then some, by Clinton's machine.

You are incredibly naive to think he hasn't been.

And there is, literally, nothing there. Sanders has been a clean politician--almost unheard of in this country--for his entire career.

Which is why David Brock has resorted to dirty tricks--trying to CHANGE history--in an effort to sully him in some way.

Dirty, dirty players! I've rarely seen anything as dirty as the "photo/John Lewis" set up. Disgusting!

But so revealing as to Clinton's/Brock's inability to find anything to sully him with, and their desperation.

[eridani]

180. Voting for the Iraq war is anti-vetting, so to speak n/t

[m-lekktor]

3. I look forward to reading Thomas Frank's new book which comes out tomorrow! nt

[mythology]

4. The argument is far more convincing on the Republican side

where the primary leader is an outsider. With Democrats, the political outsider is 2nd in a 2 person race. It's hard to say that it's disgust with the Democratic party when the leader of the primary is in fact a long time Democrat.

[silvershadow]

5. Well, she thinks she is anyway...

The actual front-runner is Sanders.

[daleanime]

47. With long time democratic values?

Thanks, it's always nice to start the day with a good laugh.

[KPN]

63. I disagree.

Bernie's popularity and success today are a reflection of people's disgust with corruption and cronie capitalism in our governance. That disgust crosses the aisle for sure, but on the Democratic side, it results from straying from the core democratic principles of our party. Were it not for repeal of Glass-Steagall, welfare reform and NAFTA under the Clinton administration, and Obama's failure to prosecute banksters, promotion of TPP, toying with chained CPI, Cabinet selections for Treasury and economic policy, etc., the "establishment" issue wouldn't exist. The establishment issue is all about the politics of today's insiders, including those on the Democratic Party side. It's about favoring corporations over people, i.e., neo-liberalism, 3rd Way. Bernie's clearly an outsider in this powerful circle -- and the people are rallying behind him.

[dchill]

110. Actually not hard to say at all.

[floppyboo]

6. This is an important discussion

and may very likely be the big story of this election years down the road.
I was wondering about this earlier this morning - on a forum for democrats or Democrats - will this kind of discussion be allowed or deemed traitorous. And who are the traitors?

[silvershadow]

8. Traitors would be the intransigent Republicans who did their best to nullify an entire Presidency.nt

[floppyboo]

11. No doubt.

Traitorous is probably too strong a word for those who erode an unelected idea. 'Underminers'?

[wordpix]

46. +10000, thanks

[RiverLover]

7. "NAFTA & its many successors have brought freedom to those who employ but

anxiety and diminished lives to those who work."

But bring on more & make it worse for workers in the US! Woo! At least its the blue team screwing us over. They talk nicer to us! They use words & phrases that make us feel good.

Go anointed one! Go Hillary!

[DhhD]

24. I can see it now; Repubicans can move the entire fiasco of the millions of jobs lost to trade deals

by the Clinton's, after the D-convention, but only if Hillary is the nominee. Republicans will be reminding, We the People, that they stopped Obama from chaining Social Security. Republicans can then say that Obama and Clinton's are responsible for the 14% approval Congressional approval rating. There goes the possible new Democratic seats in the Senate (if the delegates elect Clinton to be the nominee). The Democratic Party needs to wake up FAST.

[revbones]

50. All excellent points

I'm not sure Trump is the one to go that deep into policy (chaining of Soc Sec), but he can easily point to NAFTA effects, etc... Other Republican candidates could easily use all you said and more.

[Bonobo]

9. One big motherfucking kick and recommendation!

"Because the Democratic Party gave up years ago on its historic mission of serving working people"

The rest is window dressing. THAT is what is driving this movement.

In fact, in many many ways, Sanders IS a weak candidate. I admit this. But it is largely made irrelevant by the fact that he is one of the few people on our side that has integrity and an internal and consistent set of moral standards that still reflect the best of the Democratic Party.

[silvershadow]

10. You got it! nt

[RiverLover]

15. 100% agree. /nt

[Punkingal]

60. Absolutely!

[mariawr]

121. Moses didn't think he was worthy either, but he went on and led.

Sanders may not be the most eloquent speaker, however, his straight answer persona is perfect for doing his bit to keep hope to the progressives in this country.

[cantbeserious]

14. This Revolt Has Been Building For Years - The DWS, DNC, DLC, Third-Way Has Only Themselves To Blame

eom

[floppyboo]

18. The internet may yet roll back the damage of the Tellecommunications Act.

They've lost control of the message. FIFA and PIPA both shut by the targeted medium. off topic, but part of the picture

[Trust Buster]

19. We live with a representative government.

To blame the President for not achieving progressive goals is tantamount to giving comfort to Republicans. HE DID NOT HAVE THE VOTES. He hasn't had the House in his corner since 2010. He hasn't had the Senate since 2012.

The far Right tried this "rule with an iron fist" strategy despite not having the votes. That just led to Congressional paralysis and the shutting down of our government as well as a Party meltdown. Now Sanders and his followers wish to institute their own 'rule with an iron fist" strategy without having the numbers in Congress to achieve any of it. Good luck with that.

[silvershadow]

20. Gerrymandering. nt

[Trust Buster]

22. In the House, yes. In the Senate, no.

Either way, President Obama has had to operate in the reality of divided government. That will be the case for the next President as well.

[silvershadow]

23. I don't agree with your thoughts about the next President. He will have a cooperative

House and Senate. This will be a huge upset election. It will be a wave.

[DhhD]

27. Agreed. And it will be an opposite situation from Obama. Sanders wiil have the last six years of

his Presidency with a Democratic Senate (possibly all 8 years), and House.

Just as Sanders knew that Obama needed to be Primaried in 2012, he will make sure that those working against We the People are Primaried as well. Democrats lost their way for a reason. Many believe that Hillary Clinton is an example of that loss.

[Gwhittey]

44. Well before Willy

We had Carter, who made peace in Middle East. He got screwed over because Iran crap. His stances on issues are origressive
Carter has been a driving force in many man humanitarian causes. His efforts have wiped out Guinea worm disease.

The other has made over 150 million in speaking fees to big donors.

[Trust Buster]

28. You think that Republicans will cooperate with a man they see as a Socialist ?

Wow, I want some of what you're having....LOL

[silvershadow]

29. I don't expect the Republicans will even retain the House at this point. nt

[Trust Buster]

31. You clearly don't understand re-districting and gerrymandering.

The Democrats have ZERO chance to retake the House before the 2020 census. The Democrats also will not have 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster. The Republicans whole strategy is to paralyze our Legislative Branch thereby making the Judicial Branch the de facto Legislative Branch. You seem very politically naive to me.

[highprincipleswork]

33. You seem without faith or hope. But get back to your numbers and the joy they bring or despair.

[Trust Buster]

40. Faith and Hope are tools for the religious and do not reflect political reality.

You would be wise not to ignore political reality. The Republicans will treat Sanders' proposals of trillions of dollars of new entitlement spending as "dead on arrival" and all of your faith and hope will not overcome that political reality.

[KPN]

68. Seems to me that "political reality" is over-rated.

It's what got us here in the first place. Time to take a stand.

[highprincipleswork]

78. No, they're necessary for pretty much any survival, but work with what ya got.

Just don't tell me what is reality. Your vision of "reality" is not worth living, as far as I'm concerned.

I suggests you read this. This reflects a more accurate version of reality to me than the one that most people attempt to promulgate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511487337

[KPN]

65. +1000!

Couldn't have said it better!

[anothergreenbus]

49. Why waste your time posting.

Last edited Wed Mar 16, 2016, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Go hide under a rock, comforted by your own despair.

[Trust Buster]

54. I have no intention of hiding under a rock with the makeup of the Supreme Court hanging in the

balance. Your rude attempt to define me will not be successful.

[silvershadow]

134. Ahh, yes, SCOTUS...Always the fall-back argument during triangulation. Resist triangulation! nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

167. +1000000.

[RiverLover]

55. I've read this in several places, and for a while now.

Its a sad fact the rethugs will hold the house for the foreseeable future.

[Trust Buster]

56. Agreed.

[KPN]

66. You sound like Hillary.

"We gotta settle for less!"

[LondonReign2]

90. But they'll cooperate with Hillary because the like her Republican ideas???

[Trust Buster]

98. Unlike Sanders, the Democrats will cooperate with Hillary's agenda.

[LondonReign2]

117. LOL. Awesome, Democrats wouldn't cooperate with the Democratic President

elected by Americans?? Pretty much confirms the OP then, doesn't it?

Your fantasy not withstanding, Clinton would require Republican support to get anything passed, just as Sanders would. So again, which things do Hillary and Republicans agree on that will get passed?

[Trust Buster]

124. Hillary worked with Republicans just fine when she was Senator.

Don't be naive, Democrats in purple states will not bow to Sanders and imperil their own re-election chances. President Obama and the Democrats had to use reconciliation and gifts to the states of two retiring Democratic Senators just to scrounge up 51 votes for the ACA. Sanders is asking for far far more.

[LondonReign2]

127. You can't seem to answer this simple question: What will Hillary get Republicans to vote with her

on? In order to get anything passed, a Democratic President will need Republican votes, unless you believe we'll somehow overcome gerrymandering in the house.

So what is it? What will Hillary work with Republicans on? Because either Hillary is willing to compromise with the insane Republicans on something Bernie won't, or your whine that "Bernie won't get anything done" is deceptive bullshit. Which is it?

[Trust Buster]

130. Hillary is going to reshape the Supreme Court and fill the backlog of Federal Judge positions

that the Republicans have denied the President. Hillary, through Elizabeth Warren, will pursue a much more attainable goal in significantly reducing the financing costs of college education. She will build onto the ACA to improve that legislation. She will work with Republicans to stabilize the current Social Security system.

Sanders and his free college, Medicare for all and expanded Social Security are the stuff of pure fantasy. Hillary has a track record in the Senate of working with Republicans. Sanders is a Socialist extremist who has no record of working with Republicans.

[LondonReign2]

132. So you are saying that Hillary will get judges appointed that Obama can't?

Now why would that be, pray tell? How will Hillary's nominations differ from Obama's that will make Republicans stop blocking them?

And you are saying Republicans will "build on" the ACA?? Do tell, what specific proposals will Republicans agree to?

And Hillary is going to propose "stabilizing" Social Security in a way Republicans will pass? Again, tell me specifically what Hillary has proposed in this regard that Republicans will agree to.

[elljay]

189. ^that!^

You won't get an answer. I'm still waiting for my request for a list of Hillary's great accomplishments as SOS. They make the claim, but never seem to back up their statements when challenged.

[LondonReign2]

190. They like to trot out their little "Bernie won't be able to get anything done" line

but they can never point to a single thing Hillary would get done, because they know to do so means proposing something that Republicans will vote for. It's a deceptive claim, which certainly fits Hillary to a T.

[elljay]

191. Thanks for challenging them!

These are the questions that the MSM should be asking, but of course is not.

I can see four options for Hillary to get something done:

- The Republicans need to change their policy of obstructing all Democratic legislation and policies. (I see no signs of this happening)
- Individual Republicans need to break with their Party and vote their conscience (considering the number of Republicans who have pledged to support Trump as nominee, this doesn't seem likely, either.)
- The Democrats need to take both houses (Possible in the Senate; impossible in the House until the next Census, assuming Democrats show up to vote in that mid-term)
- The Democrats need to propose Republican policies (This sometimes works, sometimes doesn't- the ACA being the example)

Number Four is the only one in President Hillary's control and, given her "flexibility" on the issues, the most plausible. I would like Hillary supporters to present cogent arguments to the contrary. not holding my breath, though.

[truebluegreen]

67. Structurally representative

but not in fact. And hasn't been for some time. We are not just talking about Obama.

[Trust Buster]

109. Republicans control the Senate and the House.

Their constituents voted to put them there. It is foolhardy to believe that those Republican representatives would refuse to represent the interests of their constituents. They have obstructed the President for far less than what Sanders is promising his supporters. Sanders is not being honest about that.

[truebluegreen]

115. Um, they haven't been representing the INTERESTS of their constituents

for decades, unless you think their constituents are the wealthy and big business. Trump's rise is a clear indicator that the Republican base does not buy into Republican Party's policies, which the R establishment is chagrined to discover.

Nor has the Democratic leadership done much better in representing the rank-and-file. I'm surprised you haven't heard about this:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy

"...the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy. "


Study was based on data from 1980 to 2001, if I recall correctly, so the US being an oligarchy and not a democracy is not new, nor is it due to the intransigence of the current Congress.

[Trust Buster]

123. On that count, it doesn't matter what you think.

Enough people believe in them to the point that they control the Senate and the House. Everything is not about what your perception of the Republcanism happens to be.

As for Trump's rise, it's all about division and not economics in my mind. His supporters are the people that Nixon gave refuge in 1968. To the degree to which Trump appeals to Democrats, well it was high time to purge the racists that have built up in our Party since 1968. To them I say, good riddance.

[truebluegreen]

137. You're right: it does not matter a whit what I think,

or you think, or what the non-rich, non-connected think.

Republicans have been played by the elites for so long (dog-whistle racism and bigotry, fear, etc.) that they are finally realizing that they have been played and so Drumpf is appealing: he "tells it like it is", tells them what they want to hear, slams the people who have been claiming to represent them (along with everyone else), promises to make them "winners" instead of "losers"....without mentioning that everybody, outside the priviledged classes, has been losing lo, these last 40 years, at least.

[LondonReign2]

89. Which of Hillary's proposals are the Republicans to agree to?

"Oh Bernie, he won't be able to get anything done!"

So tell me, what specifically is Hillary going to get done with the support of Republicans?

[brentspeak]

107. That explains his administration's efforts on behalf of the TPP

and KORUS and his Justice Dept's complete inaction towards Wall St. criminality in what way?

How many Congressional votes does an administration require not to conduct business on behalf of Wall Street? Get back to us when you've figured that number out.

[pdsimdars]

21. Absolutely! That's the only word to describe your OP

[brooklynite]

25. Bearing in mind that the "dominant faction" took control of the Party...

...when the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" failed to win in 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988......

[silvershadow]

26. They triangulated their way into position. That said, they were placeholders.

Now that the public has overwhelming revulsion for the whole mess, Republicans and Third Wayers alike, I am certain this election will be a wave, against all of that.

[fredamae]

30. And the Root Cause & Expose'

of the DNC shenanigans IS Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
IF - 5 years ago when "we" started calling for her ouster she had been replaced I suggest "we" would still be grumbling about "something being off" but there would Not be this internal revolt.

And for the DSCC...Where the Hell is Jon Tester? Is he still around? What and Where is His advocacy for the party?

In retrospect-Al From, Bill Clinton...early 1990's is what happened to the Democratic Party and the Dem Wing of the Base (used to be the center of the party) have been being slowly evicted and shunned by corporatists party leaders.

[highprincipleswork]

32. Absolutely! And Bernie is still a great representative of our POV and our dissent.

[anothergreenbus]

34. Spot on!

[Paladin]

36. Further evidence that DU has devolved into a Sanders cheerleading site.

This article is featured not once but twice in the "Trending Now" section of the Home page. Once would have been more than adequate.....

[silvershadow]

37. two entirely different forums. Must have hit a nerve.

two entirely different forums. Must have hit a nerve. perhaps your own barometer is off?

[katmondoo]

38. I was blocked from Sanders for suggesting that DU was a Sanders site

I voted in early Florida for Sanders in spite of being blocked

[Divernan]

42. Thanks for voting for Bernie!

Sorry that a Bernie supporter got blocked from the Bernie group. In interpreting what someone says, a lot depends on the tone of voice - which is absent on a blog. You may have meant an observation or comment in a positive way, but it was interpreted as a criticism or complaint. That can happen a lot in this campaign.

When looking at this site in the context of number of supporters and posts, it is in fact a very pro-Bernie site - which is why I'm sticking around.

And the hosts who decide about blocking must get a bit shell-shocked at times. It's a job I wouldn't want to volunteer for.
Best regards,
Divernan

[liberal_at_heart]

136. I think the two groups have naturally separated. The majority of DU are Bernie supporters.

There have been polls that show that. Hillary supporters are still here. Some are still here on DU: P. Some are in the Hillary group. Plus they have moved to other sites where they are the majority and can ridicule us Bernie supporters without having their posts hidden or from being tombstoned. There are some very nasty things being said. I have a lot of Hillary supporters on ignore. And it's not like there aren't rules for Bernie supporters. I am an Independent and have decided not to disclose whom I will vote for in November because I know there are certain rules that if I break I will get tombstoned. Thank you for voting for Bernie.

[Trajan]

57. I love you Paladin ...but

Go Bernie!

I cannot cheer loud enough ...

[Arugula Latte]

82. It points to some painful truths about the party. We should be able to discuss these issues.

It also helps explain why there is little enthusiasm for Hillary, here and elsewhere.

[mathewsleep]

126. God forbid...

that liberals are cheer-leading the more liberal candidate.

[Major Hogwash]

171. Some people are using the ignore feature, and may not be able to see this OP.

Or the other OP, but thanks for counting them.

I didn't know there was more than one, but this ain't LBN either.

[PatrynXX]

43. really sucks when we have to put a disclaimer about it

about the obvious

[IndyV0te]

58. think independently

Rubio, Romney, Clinton, etc.,

They ARE the Machine. They ARE the Oligarchy. They ARE the Establishment. They ARE the Corruption.

Why in the He11 are we "The People" even considering keeping them in power?

There is no mystery behind the attraction for Trump and Sanders. It is anti-Establishment backlash.

[CharlotteVale]

61. K&R

[certainot]

62. remember though, when assessing the dem party and its

move to the right since the 90's

that's when ALECs success skyrocketed.

that's when R's took congress, reagan's crimes were excused, radical irrational R's started to win and 'moderate' Rs became more and more rare, and record partisanship began

that is also after reagan ended enforcement of the fairness doctrine in 87 and the GOP started putting limbaugh and others on a 1200 rw talk radio station- propaganda operation while the left looked the other way.

if a small business would pay $1000 /hr for a radio infomercial those 1200 radio stations averaging 15hrs/day are worth over $4BIL /year FREE pro republican anti-democratic propaganda every fucking year - IGNORED by the left for 30 fucking years.

there is no value in blaming other factors and ignoring this major one- ignoring it distorts all pollitical evaluations as to why the center has moved right and why this 'democracy' can't fix money in politics or wall st influence, or media deregulation.

[FlatBaroque]

64. The face of the party, does not help

[andym]

74. Promoting the common good, the benevolence of the federal government and usefulness of taxes

Reagan's "revolution" so pulled the country to the right economically that the Democratic Party was pulled along by the early 90s. Democrats are now to the right economically of liberal Republicans of the 70s-- even moderates such as Nixon are to the left of almost every Democrat in national office today. Historically, the trend toward conservatism economically actually began with President Carter who began to dismantle some government regulations.

One thing to keep in mind is that Reagan's revolution centered on distrust of the federal government. If the federal government can't be trusted, is corrupt and inefficient, so the argument goes, then government services should be dismantled. Remember Reagan's mantra: the scariest sentence is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Many progressives and liberals distrust the federal government as well-- government spying on citizens being only the most blatant example. The distrust of government feeds modern day conservatism through its libertarian roots.

How far to the right is the nation at the moment? Bernie Sanders "revolution" is not even as revolutionary as George McGovern's 1972 platform, at least some of which was borrowed and "triangulated" by Nixon.

The key to real progressive reform is to re-establish trust that there is a common good and that common good can be advanced by the actions of a benevolent effective federal government (not excluding private attempts as well). That is the minimum to convince a large swath of citizens that it is worth investing their personal money via taxes in the common good.

[vintx]

77. K&R

[Duval]

86. I agree with your very thoughtful post.

[Zorra]

88. Sad, but true. nt

[MisterP]

114. well, look at what the party's publicly come to stand for as opposed to say 1988

Wall Street, war, coups, deportation, Social-Security destruction, attacks on healthcare, outsourcing by the millions, loan sharking, locking up a third of black youth, DP, border fences ...

[Arkana]

125. This is why the idea of Bernie Sanders will last long after the man himself

Win or lose, he has done one very important thing: he has proven that there is an appetite for someone like himself when considering a Presidential candidate. Someone who is honest to a fault, not on the take, and who has a proven record of doing all the things liberals claim they support.

He has paved the way for future candidates to stand up and say "Maybe I don't have to be a massive bullshitter to be President. Maybe I can be principled after all. Maybe I don't have to kiss Wall Street ass to have a snowball's chance in hell. Maybe I don't need a SuperPAC to be competitive."

[silvershadow]

135. +1. nt

[KPN]

154. Absolutely!

Progressive principles have gained enormous cred because of Bernie's run. Win or lose -- that credibility has been established ... largely through awareness. A critical mass of people are using their own heads as opposed to listening to MSM and the talking heads.

[noiretextatique]

133. That's on a nutshell...And Bernie is proving them WRONG

You don't have to run as s centrist to win elections, and you cannot govern center-right and expect people to keep supporting you.

[Ivan Kaputski]

140. We need to get rid of the DNC and start the Democratic Socialist Committee - DSC

[Dont call me Shirley]

141. The Democratic Party has not helped the poor, working poor and middle class since Jimmy Carter.

[PatrickforO]

142. We didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left us.

Now, we appear to be the bad guys (in the eyes of the establishment) because we're insisting the Democratic Party move back to its core message and values.

[shadowmayor]

143. Seems kinda back to normal for a second

Nice long ranting replies and digressions and comebacks - without a block. Why I came to DU in the first place!

[bbgrunt]

144. great article! Big K and R!

[jwirr]

146. I think I agree with you but I need to ask one question.

When you say that we chose professionals over workers I am confused. I spent 8 years in college becoming a social worker - a professional. But I have never seen myself as anything except a worker during the times I was able to work.

Are you talking about professional politicians? Then I understand what you are saying. Who are the professionals you refer to?

[silvershadow]

153. Oh I did not author this piece. I just shared it. nt

[jwirr]

159. Well does anyone else know what the author is referring to

when they say professionals.

[PCPrincess]

176. My Understanding of what the OP Meant are

not 'professionals' in the sense of degree-holders, but those in the 'new economies', not just those with a C.S. degree, but the many start-ups and those making large sums of money in Silicon Valley, and other new technologies and those who were able to benefit handsomely from the new 'products and services' that have been created, to take the place of the 60,000 plus manufacturing jobs that disappeared.

In fact, we can no longer really be called a Capitalistic society in the original sense, because the principle of supply and demand was based on goods and services, and we have drifted away from goods and services. Corporations are now inventing new ways to continue to widen their profit margins, which is why we now all suffer from new, horrendous fees and lack of actual human beings in customer service. Banks provide fewer and fewer traditional business loans and now create and package securities and risks and deal with derivatives.

So, while the article was a little vague about what was meant by 'professionals', I get the sense that it is those people who have created and perfected the new ways to make a profit (excuse me, thinking about it all makes me nauseous).

[jwirr]

187. Thank you. Then I do agree with the author. Every time I

read about the idea of virtual money etc that really exist only on the internet it makes me sick and if that is what is driving politics today then we need to have regulations on the banksters even more.

[Wibly]

162. Off the mark, in my opinion

I think its off the mark. What's propelling Sanders is his platform, and his integrity as a person. That's the main driver.
There may be some build as a result of the dissatisfaction with the Dem party as a whole, but its not the major force behind Sanders.
If anything, the Occupy Movement has had more influence than any rejection on the Dem Party. Actually listen to Sanders and you will hear it. His platform addresses almost every issue that prompted Occupy.

[SammyWinstonJack]

165. KnR

[Major Hogwash]

169. After all of the triangulation of the DNC for the past 20 years, this article is a no-brainer.

And when Democrats started acting like Republicans, there is no difference between the 2 parties.
The malaise has set in.

We're trying to change that.

[BeanMusical]

173. Kick and R

[LiberalElite]

175. Kicking nt