One of the most confounding things about the losing Sanders campaign

[bigtree]

...is how much talk there is from him and his supporters about the importance of their agenda being given recognition, and not one damn word from them about the agendas of the millions and millions more of those voters who chose to support Hillary in this primary.

I don't mean the invented nonsense about Wall St., or fracking, or warmongering. Those are obvious exaggerations which have no basis in fact or any place in Hillary's stated agenda.

I'm referring to the diverse millions of voters who basically comprise the legacy of the Obama coalition, and their needs and concerns expressed throughout this campaign. In fact, in an effort to denigrate those voters, the Sanders camp devised a strategy to dismiss them as 'conservative (a ridiculous description of the black and Latino voters who voted in overwhelming numbers for Hillary), "low-information," irrelevant to the general election, etc..

Yet, here we are, with their numbers dwarfing those of Sanders' self-proclaimed people's revolution; representing the only legitimate 'movement' of voters in this Democratic election. You never hear a Sanders supporter demand their voices are heard. What we get is a self-serving distortion of the Hillary voters which falsely asserts that they're corporatists; war-lovers; indifferent about the environment; in the Sanders camp's view, whatever invective or insult that can be lobbed against Hillary is supposed to define her supporters.

There isn't a big enough crock in the entire world that would hold that bullshit. Minorities, women, black Americans, Latino Americans, disabled Americans...all of these conservative? All of these, 'establishment' figures and enemies of progressiveness? Of course not.

So where is the 'outreach' to these groups and individuals who have been maligned with intensity and regularity throughout this campaign? Losers in a presidential election shouldn't be allowed to set the agenda for the party. So, it's high time we began asking these voters who have showed up at the polls in overwhelming numbers for Hillary what's on their agenda and what the party can do to commit itself to addressing those.

To listen to the talk coming from the Sanders camp, Hillary needs to draw their voters into exercising their responsibility to defeat the republican nominee; draw them into our coalition to defeat Trump.

However, before we do all of that, how about some indication that the Sanders folks have actually heard and appreciate the concerns raised by Hillary supporters in this campaign (again, not the nonsense rhetoric that flies around here). That would seem to me to be the most important consideration as we move forward.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. I am proud to be the first person to recommend your powerful post.

There are those who causally dismiss and will continue to dismiss those who vote for Hillary Clinton because they believe they are better than them. There is no other rational explanation.

[pangaia]

8. Powerful post?

I guess we will have to disagree because it is so full of holes, and nonsense I wouldn't know where to begin.

Oh, I do not think I am better than you. Where do you get that idea? I may think my opinions are better, but... you can think the same..

[onenote]

19. If you have responses, it shouldn't be that hard to find somewhere to begin

Generally speaking, saying "I wouldn't know where to begin" is a cover for someone who actually doesn't have anything to say.

[pangaia]

20. Well, you may think what you wish.

I just have no need to waste my time on yet another bunch of paragraphs on the same ole same ole..

[Codeine]

3. Well said!!!

[Silver_Witch]

4. Your voices are heard loud and clear!!!

And if and when Hillary Clinton wins your voice will be the only voice heard so stop pouting and tell us about what you believe in

P.S. you do know that people of color and woman can and are often conservative? Heck look around this board many are totally against free public education because taxes might increase - oh my heavens! I would be happy for my taxes to increase if free education were the result. But no war is mor important now! War on drugs. War on terrorist. War on freedom!

[Dawgs]

5. What is Hillary's or her supporters agenda?

Is there one?

[farleftlib]

16. to disenfranchise Bernie supporters

and install the most baggage-ridden and incompetent person in politics onto the throne while
pretending that the multitudes who showed up for Bernie never voted and therefore
his entire message has no validity.

[Blanks]

29. If one were really interested...

They would take 10 seconds out of their designated Hillary bashing time and simply google "Hillary's Agenda" they'd come up with a link like this:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

[TimPlo]

36. The second thing on her list is

"Campaign finance reform
Our democracy should work for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected. "

How can she claim this when she is taking millions from and she is directly expanding the corruption the DNC has engaged in this election by skirting around the laws in order to operate SuperPac correct the record and getting rid of rules about taking money from lobbyists during a election. If she was serious about Campaign finance reform she would stop doing it. It is like a drug user saying we need to make drug illegal and stop the drug trade. Do you really buy into that?

[bigtree]

38. most people understand that great sums are needed to compete against republican big money

...and that most Democratic candidates choose not to unilaterally disable their campaigns for a principle their rivals don't adhere to.

I have some sympathy for that argument. Change the law and behavior will change. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

[TimPlo]

41. But she is not going to change the laws.

Show me one tiny act she has done to even hint at her trying it? At start of the camping she said there was nothing wrong with the money in politics. Then she changed her mind when polls showed that she was wrong. All she has done was expand on the money in politics. Someone who has made 150 million dollars off corrupt revolving door corruption in DC is not going to change it. Most rational people know that money corrupts and only delusional fools think that getting a payment of millions of dollars is not going to sway you.

[bigtree]

45. that's a bit of a jumbled response

...light on facts, wrong on facts.


Hillary Clinton Announces Plan to Limit Money in Politics - Sept. 8, 2015

[Exilednight]

61. then how did Bernie run a competitive race against her without a super PAC?

[Blanks]

49. Historically, the candidate with the most money wins...

Therefore a candidate who wants to win has to take the funds in order for their voice to be heard.

It's not a good system, but thinking that you can win in that environment without taking the money is just kidding yourself.

Do I believe that she thinks something needs to be done about the problem: Yes.

[Dawgs]

48. Sorry. That's not how it works.

It's not up to me to decipher a candidate's agenda based on their issues.

It should be easy for any supporter or follower of the campaign to be able to recite it immediately without providing some link to a website.

[Blanks]

53. It's up to each individual to decide...

'How it works'.

Although it's interesting that you feel like you get to decide how we follow our own candidate.

[Dawgs]

55. Where did I say you have to "decide" anything?

All I'm asking is for someone to tell me what her agenda is for America. The OP won't tell me what he/she thinks Hillary's agenda is, so maybe somebody else can.

[Blanks]

69. Her agenda is complex...

If you really want to know what her agenda is, read her site. Her agenda consists of several categories, it would not do the plan justice to simply summarize it.

If you don't like her agenda, read up on it and pick it apart. It's right there for you to analyze and pick apart.

[riversedge]

52. If you need to ask, then you have not paid attention this whole primary season. Makes you look

foolish that you ask. Her plans and goals are readily available and you know that already.

[Dawgs]

54. Okay, Go!

You should be able to write it out of the top of your head in a few short sentences.

[timmymoff]

6. God Bless Hillary Clinton and the people who own her!

[YouDig]

7. Excellent post. And I would add that their agendas are very close to each other,

and they voted 93% the same way in the senate. There are a few areas where Bernie has unworkable proposals, like single payer, but broadly they stand for the same things.

The difference in the campaigns has mainly been the cult of personality aspect of the Bernie campaign, and his negative tone.

[Beowulf]

9. Invented nonsense?

So she's not the candidate Wall Street has shown the most support nor did she push fracking as SoS and she didn't vote for the IWR, destabilize Lybia, and support a coup in Honduras?

No wonder you don't get the Sanders campaign

[YouDig]

24. Her IWR vote was a mistake, she has said. She's as tough on financial regulation as anyone.

She pushed fracking as SoS as part of Obama's climate policy to replace coal with natural gas. She didn't support a coup in Honduras. And in Libya she joined an international coalition led by Europe to stop what the entire world knew was an impending mass murder by Kadafi (sp?).

Somehow anti-Hillary people are just programmed to thoughtlessly spit out a list of everything bad that Hillary has allegedly done, and both ignore the context and the big picture. She's voted with Bernie 93% of the time, and their platforms are very similar. If half of what Hillary stands for gets past the GOP, she would be one of the most successful liberal presidents ever. But always focus on the few negatives.

[Beowulf]

40. So you admit Bernie is the legislative standard.

But why settle for 93% Bernie when you could have 100% Bernie. That statistic has no meaning without context. How many of those votes were unanimous consent or procedural? How often did she vote with Mitch McConnell? How many of those votes were naming post offices, declaring official bbq sauce day. And what were the votes where they differed. It's the same kind of disinformation as she's the most admired woman in the world, when she tops the list with around 12% of the vote. You could also say accurately that she is not the most admired woman by 88%, but that wouldn't be very flattering. Or that she's the 11th most liberal senator. When there are less than 5 liberal senators being 11th doesn't make you a liberal. It just means you aren't as conservative as Jeff Sessions. I have two cats. When someone they don't know visits, they run and hide. After about 30 minutes one of them will emerge to check things out and then return to his hiding place. I call him my outgoing cat. Of course he isn't outgoing at all, but compared to his brother, he's positively gregarious.

Like hell she didn't support the coup in Honduras and like hell she wasn't at the forefront of destabilizing Libya. Those emails you guys say aren't important make it quite clear she did. Berta Caceres held her responsible shortly before she was assassinated. BTW, when did she condemn that murder?

The IWR vote was a mistake because she only acts out of political expediency, just as she now says it was a mistake mainly because Obama beat her over the head with that issue and Bernie was going to as well. If it didn't cost her politically, she'd say nothing.

[YouDig]

44. I didn't say he was the standard, neither of them are. I said that they are similar.

Both have some bad votes, but overall very good progressive records. On gun votes, her record is better than his easily. And the 93% is meaningful. Of all the Senators running for president in 2016 in either party, the pair with the most similar voting records are Hillary and Bernie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/05/27/how-often-the-2016-candidates-agreed-and-disagreed-in-their-senate-votes-charted/

Now, I bet you didn't know that, and just assumed it was "disinformation", because you "just knew." Facts don't matter when it comes to attacking Hillary. But you're wrong. She's also the 11th most liberal Senator, as you said, and that's also not disinformation.

You're also wrong that she destabilized Libya -- that campaign was a European led effort. And, of course, you omit the impending mass murder which would have been the result of inaction. Much easier to propagandize if you ignore key facts like mass murders. And blaming Hillary for Honduras is an insane conspiracy theory.

And so on.

[Beowulf]

50. LOL

So Hillary and Bernie were the most alike of any two senators? Besides those two, that would include Cruz, Rubio, Graham, Paul, Santorum and, oh yes, Jim Webb. I'm supposed to be impressed that Hillary votes more like Bernie than Rick Santorum? Like every Clintonian I've ever encountered, you think you can bury your points in language, enough to defend against accusations of lying. But in the end none of it means a damn thing important. Go peddle your canned shit somewhere else. I'm done with you.

[YouDig]

51. Of any two who were running, yes.

Hillary is more similar to Bernie than Rubio is to Graham, for example. Or that Santorum is to Cruz. 93% is remarkably high for two senators to have voted the same. I guess you thought that it meant that Hillary was more similar to Bernie than anyone else on the list, but it's more subtle than that.

I know the logic is difficult, and there's the temptation to use #bernielogic, but you can do it if you put in some effort.

[Beowulf]

56. You have no idea to whom you are addressing.

There's being smug and there's clueless smugness. Even if they are the most alike, it still means very little. How many of Bernie's issues even receive a vote? The Senate votes on what the leadership allows them to vote. Their voting similarities are entirely based on what leadership allows. That's a very limited agenda. It doesn't make her liberal or progressive. It certainly doesn't make her like Bernie.

[YouDig]

57. I am addressing "Beowulf", who previously insisted that the 93% similarity was not

a big thing, and then presented with evidence that it was extremely significant, either pretended not to or actually didn't understand the evidence.

And now you want to say, well even if it is significant, it still doesn't matter. That's moving the goalposts. The reality is, you've made up your mind without evidence, and no evidence will make any difference.

[Iliyah]

10. K & R

[Cal33]

11. And the Hillary supporters have been cheating in almost every single state. Suits in

court are still going on. I hope there will be more suits. You people behave like
Republicans.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Nobody is cheating...

Your guy lost.

[The Polack MSgt]

30. I am proud to be counted among

The "You People"

BTW addressing people who disagree with you as a monolithic faceless mass and dismissing their thoughts with a "You People" message?

Pretty fucking Republican

[TimPlo]

37. Irony at it's best.

First you say "BTW addressing people who disagree with you as a monolithic faceless mass and dismissing their thoughts with a "You People" message? "

Then try to paint a group of people as all thinking the same by saying "Pretty fucking Republican"

[The Polack MSgt]

43. Are you trying

To twist a Mobius strip of Irony?

Replying to ONE PERSON who just said that "You People act like Republicans" is exactly the same as:

"try to paint a group of people as all thinking the same by saying "Pretty fucking Republican"

In your mind I suppose that makes sense.

I am addressing you, just you, with this reply TimPlo. I was addressing Cal33 in the previous comment.

[beachbum bob]

13. well put...I am afraid it will fall on deaf sander supporter's ears...

the zealots were seeking movement so they created one and sanders has no idea what he is doing now.....its never been about "us" the core of democrats, liberals and progressives.....its all self serving and self centered......sanders and his people are NOT "BIG TENT" orientated....and why the disconnect they have with blacks, women and voters over 45.....

I am afraid sanders ego is in control and he just be that "angry old socialist" willing to see america destoyed.....that may be the real bernie sanders afterall judging be his lack of leadership with his supporters who have been running amok for a long while....


he can't win the nomination but he can insure that Trump is elected and I am afraid the democratic convention may be worse the the 1968 on in Chicago that allowed Nixon to beat Humphries....

these zealots are of the same mindset to reek havoc just like what has been done at WTO meetings and other such meetings.....in the end...they could care less about you or me or the future of America....

[PatrickforO]

14. The strange thing is that the pesky Bernie Sanders is still

winning primaries.

I'm part of the 'legacy' of the Obama coalition you mention, and my needs WEREN'T met when we didn't get single payer, which is WHY I campaigned for him in 08. I was ready to mobilize. I was ready to march. But we were lied to. The Dems in power never intended that because it's against the fucking GATS treaty. They did not tell us the truth - they said they didn't have the votes while the worm Reid refused to use his majority to get rid of the 'silent filibuster,' and Obama did not use his bully pulpit to get us out on the streets.

So, don't give me that.

And what about the TPP? How can any responsible person (who can read, and is willing to wade through obtuse legalese written by lawyers deliberately trying to be misleading) believe the TPP is anything less than the death knell for democracy in favor of corporate profits? How?

All I say is this: IF Clinton wins this primary, and it is a big IF, she'd better not pivot right. If she does she probably won't win the general election.

[CrowCityDem]

15. I've asked them all along...

what concessions they would be willing to make to Hillary's voters, if Bernie were to have somehow come out on top. The answer was always, without fail, that their positions are already better, so they wouldn't need to concede anything.

That proved to me that it was always 'my way or nothing' for many of them.

[Red Mountain]

17. I suppose it will come down to a discussion of specific policies

(i.e. the party platform) rather than a war of competing broad generalizations.

That's the way it's supposed to work, right? Or does the winner take all in the Democratic primary? Does the minority deserve a voice or should they sit down and shut up?

[bigtree]

46. I think the platform will reflect much of what Bernie campaigned for

...and it should. There's little in the Sanders issues agenda that Hillary's diametrically opposed to; more to the point of the op, that her supporters are all that opposed to.

We might not see 'free' college, for example, but there should be something which reflects the needs a desires of voters to ease or eliminate the crushing burden of student debt.

There will be an effort, I suppose to include 'single payer' in the platform, but I'd bet that something closer to universal coverage' will still prevail.

I'm not sure about my beloved pot, but who knows? I really can't believe we're at the point of even considering legalization, so many years out in the cold.

The value in all of that? I dunno. I think most platforms have been ephemeral pablum, but maybe this one will be different.

[casperthegm]

18. I made it to the second paragraph

"I don't mean the invented nonsense about Wall St., or fracking, or warmongering. Those are obvious exaggerations which have no basis in fact or any place in Hillary's stated agenda."

-And that's when I stopped considering your argument. As soon as you simply dismiss her speeches to Wall Street, damage from her support of fracking, and damage done here and abroad by her vote for Iraq, support of regime change, and no fly zones....there's simply no common ground here. We're not making this shit up or distorting the truth. History is history. She's done what she's done. The DNC has done what it's done, from DWS down to Roberta Lange in NV.

You want us to come together to defeat Trump, but when you summarily dismiss these issues as if we're just making up history; it ain't happening.

[TCJ70]

22. That was where I got lost as well...

...no basis in fact? She did those things!

[bigtree]

32. none of that is in her stated agenda

...it's conjecture, and at odds with the issues she's raised and supported in this campaign.

But the point is that whatever you feel you need to project about Hillary's agenda is a poor substitute for what voters are saying. I've read countless posts proclaiming the virtues of the Sanders supporters, and in the same verse, a diminution of the interests of Hillary supporters to the point of declaring them as corrupt as the worst of anyone's opinion of her.

So, you have this demand, really, that Clinton or the Democratic party recognize this contingent of Sanders supporters whose mythology hasn't lived up to the outcome of this election. If there's a voice that has primacy in the wake of this Democratic primary, it's the voice of the Hillary voter, who has prevailed in numbers exceeding 3 million over that of Sanders. That voice shouldn't be obscured, altered, or corrupted by strident critics of Hillary Clinton. Losing campaigns don't get to set the agenda. Winning campaigns determine the direction of the party.

[casperthegm]

34. It doesn't have to be in her stated agenda in order to be true

How is this for conjecture;

1. Clinton is in favor of fracking. Supported by fact check; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/13/bernie-s/does-hillary-clinton-support-fracking/

Oops.

2. She gave speeches to Wall Street. For hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop. If this is not the case, can you provide proof? Does that mean that she's bought and paid for? Depends who you ask. You ask me, I'd say "duh." I'm guessing you're giving her the benefit of the doubt. Ok...

3. Warmongering; Clinton voted for the Iraq War. Sanders did not. One candidate (despite his apparent lack of foreign policy experience) had the foresight to see that it would destabilize the region and potentially give rise to terrorist groups via the power vacuum. Hello ISIS. Not to mention the multi-tillion dollar price tag, and thousands of US lives lost. And that's just Iraq. Now we have Syria, Lybia, and the no fly zone proposal. Yeah, I think your warmongering description is a good one.

So yeah, you call it conjecture. I'll call them facts. And that's only three issues.

Now, as far as determining the direction of the party; sure, the winning campaign sets the tone. But as we've already seen, DWS is already working on tilting the playing field, assigning all but 3 committee chairs to Clinton supporters. When you have a 55/45 split among delegates shouldn't we see an equivalent ratio at the convention? It's their game to rig as they see fit, and if they choose not to have an equal ratio, that's fine. But I hope you don't mind losing those votes in the GE. Shrug it off at your own risk.

[bigtree]

39. you lost the point

...this post isn't about heeding Hillary's agenda, it's about heeding her voters before demands that Sanders voters are heard.

You can debate her record on your own thread and time. This election is all but over, and advocating against Hillary is fast becoming indistinguishable from any other opposition to her bid for the WH.

[casperthegm]

42. If I lost the point

It's only because I was responding to what you posted in your second paragraph. When I see something posted that is both patently false and dismissive I feel the need to address it and set the record straight. You brought up her record to begin with, so it was fair game. If you don't like the facts presented then I suggest you take a closer look at the candidate you are supporting.

[bigtree]

47. I'll take the blame for diverting your attention with that paragraph

...but understand this, if you will, I'm over and done with the advocacy against Hillary in this election.

Have at it, but I'm not here for that.

[Progressive dog]

21. K&R

That's the way democracies are supposed to work, vote count wins.

[Armstead]

23. You obviously have not been watching or listening

Demographic groups are not monolithic. From the beginning -- when hardly anyone had heard of sanders the Clinton campaign started their whisper (and later shouting) campaign that Bernie "has a problem with....AA's, women, Latinos, women, (fill in the demographic blank)"

They created a phony dichotomy between the goals of Sanders and those of the minorities you mentioned.

It was smart marketing because it created a false impression in the minds of people who didn't know who this cranky old white guy is and what he has stood for and fought for all his life.

And so, yeah, he has had an uphill battle. But don't make this disingenuous claim that he and his campaign have not been working hard to reach out all voters, against the clever -- but empty -- marketing and branding an d entrenched connections of the Clinton campaign.

[AgingAmerican]

25. We aren't sure what her agenda is

Even her supporters can't explain it

[auntpurl]

26. k&r

[yodermon]

27. Sanders is done, kaput. As such he doesn't NEED Hillary voters (for what??)

Hillary on the other hand, does need Sanders voters.

It's not "confounding", it's just how this naturally plays out.

[The_Casual_Observer]

28. Their agenda is free stuff, ignoring the middle east and legalized pot. After this they can return

to the drum circle.

[frazzled]

31. It's only the message and example they've received from their "leader"

I think it's time to stop questioning the Sanders supporters, who are merely following a lead. It's time to come clean about the candidate himself. It's something I've seen since Day One of this race, and something others have come to recognize very late (see http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/it-comes-from-the-very-top). It's about the egotistical, myopic, ill-tempered, imperious grandiosity of Sanders himself, well documented even in progressive Vermont circles for many years; about the intransigent, angry self-importance and authoritarian pomposity that broaches no questioning. It's about stale, iconoclastic, hard-line take-no-prisoners ideology, with little regard for anything or anyone outside its narrow purview. Too bad if your concerns are more immediate or your view of the common good more expansive. It's about hyperbole and conspiracy and self-righteousness all at once, directed at a few untested, underconceived ideological slogans. And "by any means necessary." It's hard for me to understand why anyone can find this appealing; it feels like the flip side of Donald Trump to me.

My only fear is that Sanders is creating a small generation who will display the same un-nuanced, self-satisfying, narrow-minded, conspiratorial intransigency.

Do I sound angry? Yes, I am. I am a pretty good judge of character, and I have seen nothing to disabuse me of my initial impressions of the character of this candidate.

[griffi94]

33. Neither Bernie nor his supporters are interested in that

They're not about a broader coalition and they're certainly not
interested in the day to day mechanics involved in effective governing.

The movement reflects it's leader.
Bernie has a few phrases he says over and over
that really appeal to his supporters.

Those phrases and a strong sense of moral superiority
are about all he has.

Bernie and his supporters are more social critics than anything.
They can tell you everything that's wrong and what should be done
to fix it.
There's no real plan but theirs is the only way.
If you don't buy into that way it's because you just don't get
Bernie not because it will never work.

They hate the very idea of compromise because if you can't have everything
then nothing is better.

That's the reason Bernie got wiped out by the core of the Democratic primary voters.
Most people aren't activists.
They can't afford an all or nothing philosophy.

Whether Bernie and his supporters like it or not people
vote largely on their immediate self interest.

He's not going to have any luck convincing people take a hit now
for some really long term gain that they may not survive to see.

People who aren't activists tend to live in the right now.

Free college doesn't help them if their taxes go up 1000 a year.
They don't have that extra 1000.

A 15 dollar minimum wage would be great if it were possible.
If it's not possible tho a 12 dollar minimum wage is better than $9.50.

Typical kitchen table issue voters don't care enough about the IWR
for it to matter.
They're the same with fracking.
They're kind of interested but it's not a swing issue.

They know things are better than they were 8 years ago.
And they see Hillary as the best chance for things
to continue to improve.

They voted for reachable good over unreachable perfect.

[beaglelover]

35. K&R!!!!!!!!

[Time for change]

58. You say that the number of Hillary supporters dwarf the number of Bernie supporters

It is the other way around.

Hillary supporters may or may not outnumber Bernie supporters within the Democratic Party, which is a minority party (29% of the electorate). Nationally, Bernie supporters vastly outnumber Hillary supporters, which is shown by his much better favorability ratings and his much better poll numbers in competition against every Republican candidate, especially Trump.

[bigtree]

60. wow, you're arguing against the importance of the Democratic vote?

...and still hawking unaccountable, often corporate-sponsored media polling?

It's almost unbelievable that you're presenting this as some kind of proof of support, but any port in a storm, I guess.

Besides, you've grossly misrepresented what I wrote to fit your 'poll' narrative.

me:

here we are, with their (Hillary's) numbers (votes) dwarfing those of Sanders' self-proclaimed people's revolution; representing the only legitimate 'movement' of voters in this Democratic election.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. Maybe in the East Coast and in the Red, Anti Gay States she has a lead but in my region she's

lost every election so far and did not even get as many votes as she did in 2008. Of course you believe the West Coast does not count, and that we have no right to a voice of any kind. We are supposed to look to the glory that is Maryland and do as they tell us to. Fuck that noise, Maryland's entire delegation voted for DOMA and I've not done a bit of business with anyone there since.

[Jamaal510]

59. K&R

[firebrand80]

62. That's the problem with framing it as a "revolution"

It becomes "us against the world," everyone else is the enemy. Anyone you can't convince to see it your way is on the wrong side of history.

Revolutions are not like elections. There is no "we'll get 'em next time" attitude once a revolution fails, it's just over. Either the rigged system is overthrown, or it's not. It's very difficult to tell your supporters to go work together for the greater good with the folks that you've spent the entire time demonizing, to go join the oligarchy.

So no, there will be no such recognition. Those folks are either to be (a) despised for trying to uphold the rigged system or (b) pitied, because of their Stockholm Syndrome.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. What I learned is that this Party is full of antisemitic Reagan adoring AIDS revisionists

and those persons have a loud crew of helpers. DU allowed openly bigoted posters to attack a minority candidate for months with thinly disguised dog whistles and blatant smears. Some of those posters have been found out and exposed for what they are but their cohort of helpers still promotes them while attacking Bernie and his supporters. Not a shred of shame.


Hillary's outreach: "It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s and because of both president and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan — we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it, and that too is something I really appreciate with her very effective low-key advocacy. It penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, hey, we have to do something about this too."

[NurseJackie]

65. Well done! Nicely written!

[JCanete]

66. What agendas are those. Don't just name groups, and don't just give me

some prepackaged surface justification that these groups are overwhelmingly for her therefore she's good for these groups.

People vote against their self-interest all the time, for a myriad of reasons, or else how do you justify people like W ever getting into the White House.

Why don't you answer how Hillary is better than Bernie on any issue affecting any group other than wealthy Americans when it comes to policy?

The Hillary camp and the complicit media put a lot of effort into painting Bernie as not hearing these different communities, and using the early vote totals in states where Bernie was still pretty much a no-name candidate to promote that perspective. That was a concerted effort to present that reality to voters, and you and your like have been carrying the same water for these many months. Pat yourself on the back.

What doesn't matter to you is that in every way, Bernie's targeting of economic disparity, lifting up the bottom, infrastructure, and campaign finance, ARE the path to actually doing something for disenfranchised communities.

It is the height of irony by the way, that you say you don't want rhetoric when that's all this post is bringing. Your characterization of Sanders supporters and our actions are cherry picked. You don't look for the best examples of our words, only our worst. You say we don't have any positions, only anti Hillary vitriol, even though there are plenty of examples to the contrary on this board, but you don't bother to site them even for refutation. Hey, we see what we see. I'm not calling you a liar. You may just miss the stuff that doesn't fit with your world view. Maybe look a little harder?

[scuciti]

67. Brag much?

This is by far the most arrogant pompous pile of crap I have ever read at DU.

How dare they?????? They must show their appreciation to Hillary before they can even weakly protest vote for Bernie. The gall.

[mcar]

68. K&R