2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNY Times Attends Clinton House Party in Iowa, Finds Instead MORE SANDERS SUPPORT In Evidence.
A lesson in today's skim-the-headlines world of social media. Read the full article folks. From the Sunday NY Times article, “Stung in 2008, Hillary Clinton Builds Formidable Team in Iowa,” this little gem had me chuckling and to my mind really just about sums up the hapless fortune of this wooden, forced and Wall St-funded campaign:
“I’m a pretty wealthy farmer,” he added. “I think it’s ridiculous the way we treat poor people. Nobody wants to pay a dime in taxes.”
Few of the 45 in attendance signed the Clinton commitment cards or said they were ready to volunteer for her.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/us/politics/stung-in-2008-hillary-clinton-builds-a-formidable-team-in-iowa.html?_r=1
Ostensibly this was to be a bold-faced, "we're serious about not letting this happen again," but it turned out that, as many Clinton supporters here have readily admitted, there's just not a lot of enthusiasm for her candidacy. And if Sanders loses there will be even less if she gets the nomination, and that should deeply concern the Dem party machine. Oh yes, there's plenty of name recognition. And there's many, including myself, who'd love to see a female President. But when you add it all up, the First Lady from 23 years ago and well-known corporatist and war monger represents a very damaging case. Like it or not, she will be the face for continued monarchy in the United States, and she also wears the vest of Protectorate for her biggest donors on Wall St, and not for the vast 99% on Main St still slogging through this grinding economic crisis. This will be all too abundantly clear once the public begins seeing them side by side and determining which of the two is more believable and genuine.
If Sanders continues to get the kinds of support he keeps building day by day, week by week, then the Dem party chiefs are going to have to contend with a very serious dilemma, should they have already decided to throw all their weight behind Clinton. Her negatives will continue to rise, I predict, inversely to Sanders' positives which will increase at 2 or 3x that. At some point the few sane and rational ones will have to stand up and ask the old guard if they're prepared to go down with the ship and blow a huge opportunity to return this party back to its roots. Middle America is opening their arms to Sanders in a big and impassioned way. If all that energy gets supplanted by Wall St and corporate campaign donors and the Machine doubles down on the Monarchy Candidate we will hear the greatest, penetrating sucking-sound of a vacuum ever heard. What about the numbers showing Clinton way ahead of Sanders? I think they're going to drastically change once folks get to finally see Sanders, while at the same time having to see yet more and more of Clinton. I predict then the changes in poll numbers will be dramatic and fast.
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/27/1406031/-NY-Times-Attends-Clinton-House-Party-in-Iowa-Finds-Instead-More-Sanders-Support-In-Evidence
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)They signed on to working with Clinton Cash nutjob author, then they blew it the other day on email's. It's obvious they will spread lies and propaganda to trash Hillary. It's actually sad to see what has happened to NYTimes.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)The comments above are an D-KOS contributor's analysis of what the NYTimes wrote. They only reported what people were saying at the meetings.
artislife
(9,497 posts)How many sources are we allowed to believe now?
Not counting the campaign iteself and the supporters themselves.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I thought D-KOS was a standard-bearer in progressive and/or left attitudes.
Your guess is as good as mine.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)...They're one header away from Fox News......
...until the next Hillary story is written that is full of rainbows and unicorn, then its kiss and makeup.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge, which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible. (1.3.16)
For as long as Winston can recall, Oceania has been in a constant state of war – with whom it was at war is of neither importance nor consequence.
Book 1, Chapter 3 Summary
This is how the other candidate talking points sound.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"The New York Times is shape-shifting into the National Enquirer" Segami 4/20/2015.
I mean.......consistency and all.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I also see who is disseminating the information. As Segami says, the National Enquirer.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)First time I have had someone other than the op thank me for kicks. I appreciate it. Anytime I can bring attention to what has been referred to by good duers as the National Enquirer of US news I will gladly do so. I will come back in an hour or so to kick it for you again.
SCantiGOP
(13,874 posts)Had he just used a few more capitals and bold letters.
Segami
(14,923 posts)the one who uses CAPS in his/her name with nothing to say........
Segami
(14,923 posts)Judith Miller......need I say more?
Oh, and just for consistency, thanks for the bump.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I'm not here for the bumps and it's a mindset I don't get. You love the bump when you post an article from a publication you compared to the Enquirer just a few short months ago. I'm not in it for bumps. Lol. I do love the transparency.
Segami
(14,923 posts)and bumps are far from it.......so quite frankly, any response to you would be twisted to continue your tripe.......so on that civil note, I bid you thanks for the bump.
Let her roll.....
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I'll try to remember to do it next post of yours I see. The Enquirer can be fun for some.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Maybe they offer the authoritarian comfort of the promise of security. Maybe some think the wealthy are successful and therefore worthy of adulation. I am challenging you to fight for our freedom and liberties that Wall Street will deny us.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Go, Bernie.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)But I didn't get much agreement.
They don't have credibility, the Corporate Media and their Pollsters have zero credibility which is why most people now do not rely on them for news.
Sometimes by accident they get something right, maybe because the story is too widespread to try to deny.
This is one of those cases. Bernie's message is resonating everywhere. Because we know where the people stand on most important issues, even though we are constantly lied to about that. And he is talking about what the people WANT politicians to talk about. It should be no surprise that his message resonates with more and more people as they get to know him.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the Clinton campaign, but who do you favor????
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Big Vincenz
(16 posts)cocainecowboy
(45 posts)eom
Agony
(2,605 posts)your meme is awesome and bound for glory
this land is your land, this land is my land...
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts) artislife
(9,497 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I know you can't herd them! (actually, I can herd the only one I have left, Mr. Mikey)
artislife
(9,497 posts)Ms. Ruby. She loves a good rub, she will purr and then hiss at the end. Just in case I get any ideas....
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Bernie's popularity grows by exposure and word of mouth, his fans are excited about him. There is nothing exciting about Hillary and her popularity always goes down when she is forced into the spotlight.
Other than her few vocal fans on DU I haven't had one person in the real world tell me I should support Hillary and if they claim to support her when asked they can't give me a reason why other than "it's her turn" or "it's time for a woman President", both poor excuses.
Jane Austin
(9,199 posts)I am routinely being asked by my friends what I think of Bernie.
When I say "I like every single thing he says," they light up and agree enthusiastically.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)I told her she just needs to hold on til Vice President Warren runs for Bernie's third term.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Bernie Sanders' national favorable score doubles to 24%
Hillary Clinton's image slips, now tilts negative, 48% to 43%
Sanders still trails Clinton in favorability among Democrats
PRINCETON, N.J. -- Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' favorable rating among Americans has doubled since Gallup's initial reading in March, rising to 24% from 12% as he has become better known. Hillary Clinton's rating has slipped to 43% from 48% in April. At the same time, Clinton's unfavorable rating increased to 46%, tilting her image negative and producing her worst net favorable score since December 2007.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184346/sanders-surges-clinton-sags-favorability.aspx
okasha
(11,573 posts)While Sanders has a rating of 24% favorable, his unfavorable rating is 20%. Not everyone who knows about him loves him.
And--Hillary's favorable rating is 20% higher than his.
Poll reflects the general population, not just Democrats. We know why conservatives hate Hillary. Why do they like Bernie?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Many tea party types are just as angry at uprosecuted banksters as we on the left are, as noted on this post about a synergy between the Tea Party and Occupy movements before last election...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/03/1051093/-UH-OH-The-Tea-Party-OWS-alliance-that-the-banksters-were-hitting-themselves-over-has-arrived#
I'm sure many of these "conservatives" as being more drawn to someone like Bernie who champions going after Wall Street Crime far more than they like someone like Hillary, who doesn't side with them on either social issues or prosecuting corporate crime either.
Does that mean that we're joined at the hip with many Republicans? HELL NO! But on issues like these, this is where Bernie will be underestimated in the general election with his support with populist conservatives (and independents) that in many ways mirrors populist support from many on the left too.
okasha
(11,573 posts)who is willing to get into bed with
The Founders intended the US to be a Christian Nation!
Immigrants are criminals and rapists!
Obama is coming for our gunz!
10% flat tax!
Muslims are all murderers!
Obama is a Muslim!
Execute abortionists!
the Tea Party.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)But you can see why if they hate banksters, they might be drawn to Bernie, who is certainly less aligned than many Republicans with them, and is also less aligned than Obama or Hillary is. Many of them, as also being a part of the 99% that is being subjugated by the wealthy elites are not always stupid, and know when someone is working to help their betterment, even if they're deluded and perhaps mean spirited on many other ideas. That makes them potential voters for Bernie, even if they might not support all of the other issues that Bernie supports. Depends on their priorities.
okasha
(11,573 posts)I. Do. Not. Trust. Anyone. Wiiling. To. Get. Into. Bed. With. The. Tea. Party.
Bernie can lie down with these dogs if he wants power that badly, but the rest of us will have the Frontline locked and loaded.
More seriously, the Tea Party wants us LGBT's dead. It wants the female half of this nation enslaved. If Bernie and/or his supporters pander to my enemies, then you are also my enemies.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If Bernie speaks to many of us in a populist fashion, even if many or most of us are independent or on the left, that doesn't stop Tea Partiers with an ounce of brains to also understand that a lot of what he's pushing will help them more than any other presidential candidates who mostly support corporate America and not the 99%...
There are also likely many banksters and corporate power mongers who would have Hillary as their best choice. They are the last people I'd want to hang with either, but I'd probably still vote for Hillary over so many other of the Republicans who suck in all ways. But I still feel that this country needs as its top priority to disempower those with big money trying to own our government, even if many of them support some social issue positions that I agree with. That's why I'm supporting Bernie now.
When Bernie pushes on so many issues that have the support of a MAJORITY of Americans, then yes, he's going to get some Republicans supporting him too. That doesn't mean you throw those votes away by dismissing them. It means that you are working on the right issues that most Americans support!
okasha
(11,573 posts)And when those "voters" want payback for their support, what then?
Sanders has already dismissed women:s reproductive rights and LGBT equality as things he can "agree to disagree about.". Who does he sell out first?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Bernie will owe more to those on the left side of the fence and where he's been and not changed, and won't change in the future.
okasha
(11,573 posts)He's Sir Galahad.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)And Hillary is Joan of Arc.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)HC supporters have their own version of history, don't they?
One of the two candidates was on the right side of it while the other...well she's still evolving.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)cocainecowboy
(45 posts)Evolving.... it sounds like she's metamorphosizing to Clinton: The Next Populist Version (for reals!)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Some folks here were more than happy to throw lgbt people under the bus last time around.
Now that Hillary supports same sex marriage they've suddenly decided there's room on the bus after all.
And they want to give her the credit for what others fought so hard for.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You seem to be confusing Bernie with your candidate who panders to religious bigots and misogynists:
ALBANY, Jan. 24 - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Monday that the opposing sides in the divisive debate over abortion should find "common ground" to prevent unwanted pregnancies and ultimately reduce abortions, which she called a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."
In a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters near the New York State Capitol, Mrs. Clinton firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of legalized abortion and praising the influence of "religious and moral values" on delaying teenage girls from becoming sexually active.
"There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate -- we should be able to agree that we want every child born in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved," Mrs. Clinton said.
Mrs. Clinton's remarks were generally well received, though the audience was silent during most of her overtures to anti-abortion groups. Afterward, leaders of those groups were skeptical, given Mrs. Clinton's outspoken support for abortion rights over the years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/nyregion/clinton-seeking-shared-ground-over-abortions.html
She was adamantly opposed to same sex marriage:
Nice try, okasha, but Bernie Sanders has ALWAYS supported lgbt and women's rights, he didn't need to evolve like Hillary.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)I wasn't aware of that.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Did he? I wasn't aware of that. Link?
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)She's got nothing, wow what a shocker.
okasha
(11,573 posts)so you'll need to type or paste this in:
www.threalitycheck.org/article/20150603/matters-bernie-sanders-doesn't-talk-race-gender
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
I knew you had nothing.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I know someone who leans Libertarian and supports Sanders. He has asked for nothing in return.
Your argument is not only disingenuous, it's ridiculous.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Didn't Hillary run in 2008 while opposing same sex marriage?
While Bernie supported equal rights for decades?
Seems like HC supporters were willing to lie down with some dogs without reservation.
See this post to see which candidate will give you fleas: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=478111
Personally I'll trust the guy who's always championed human rights, not the one who played catch-up after public opinion convinced her she was wrong.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Glad to hear someone else would never get in bed with them. And yet so many others are shareholders in Wall St, of the corporations pushing those viewpoints and funding the politicians, lobbyists and far right media and websites that distribute hate and divisiveness.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)really kind of are an extension of people here at DU you agree with? I couldn't see myself having teaparty friends on the outside. So I am wondering how accurate your sampling of friend data is compared to the other couple hundred million people that might vote?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)almost always votes Republican, mostly on the single issue of abortion, and he is very enthusiastic about Bernie. Of the few others I do have none that are excited about Hillary and many are hyped about Bernie.
Hillary's support right now seems to be a mile wide but only an inch deep. Bernie's is like a deep stream that is starting to swell with runoff from a downpour.
My best friend and I have had many talks about politics where I told him often that he is wasting his time voting for Republicans expecting them to ban abortion on a national scale. He started agreeing with me about the same time I realized that the Democrats will never give us single payer healthcare for the same reason, because we will then have no incentive to vote for them. We both believe that both major parties are generally screwing us.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)While I don't agree with him on everything, I don't dislike him because of his political beliefs. In fact he supports Bernie Sanders and I was the one who encouraged him to re-register to vote.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)g-d forbid anyone actually hear hillary on stage....her poll numbers will drop even further
Duval
(4,280 posts)What's going to happen when the debates begin? 
I predict Bernie's numbers will increase dramatically. Also, on what channel/station will the debate take place? Someone today suggested they go on Free Speech TV. I know Thom Hartmann would be happy to host. I'm concerned that FSTV is not available to everyone.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)hartmann is great, but like you i would be concerned about visibility.
of course, since dws has not graced us with even the damn DATES, it is moot for now
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who benefits most from delaying and minimizing the debates, and folks are already wondering why the GOP has a firm date for their first debate when we have even settled on a month!
senz
(11,945 posts)You left out, "She's better than a Republican." This is her ultimate trump card. I can even see it on a bumper sticker: "Hillary: Better Than a Republican."
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Which presumes that Clinton would appoint justices who would vote to get rid of Citizens United after she basically gets elected thanks to Citizens United.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
senz
(11,945 posts)Yes, I've wondered what kind of candidate she would appoint. I still have to believe that he/she would be better than a Scalia, Alito, Thomas, or Roberts. But we don't know, do we?
dsc
(52,170 posts)Four judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court by Democrats in my lifetime (I will be 48 this year). All four of them, every last single fucking one, is still on the court. And all four of them, every single last fucking one of them, voted against Citizen's United, voted against the gutting of the voting rights act, voted for the decisions which created marriage equality and I could go on and on and on. But no we have no fucking clue if a Democrat would be better.
senz
(11,945 posts)Just as obviously, Yellow Dog Democrats are better than Blue Dog Democrats. And progressive Democrats are better than DLC Democrats.
I'd feel much more optimistic for the future of this country if she weren't all we have. Come to think of it, she isn't.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)citizens united applies to all candidates.
Once it is repealed, the new standard will apply to all candidates....and that is acceptable. As is stands, the Republicans benefit much more from this SCOTUS decision than the Dems...than any Dem. It behooves Hillary and anyone else to repeal the decision since it hurts all Dems....not just Bernie.
Why anyone would think that Hillary wopuld delibertately give any Republican the upper hand, when it comes to campaign financing, is beyond me.
okasha
(11,573 posts)is quite beyond me.
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If she is elected, you really think Hillary Clinton will give up all that campaign cash she is raking in right now. Yeah, right. And I've got a bridge to sell you.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)she cannot line her own pockets with campaign money. You do realize there are those on the right that are out raising her...right? You realize that Romeny was ultimately able to outraise Obama...right?
So yeah, the shitty part comes in when someone makes up shit and tries to portray it as fact.
If it were an equal playing field, where EVERYONE has certain limits on campaign funding, she will go for it.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)That is you putting words in my mouth.
Now back ON TOPIC to what my point was:
Hillary Clinton will not give up unlimited funding for a campaign (bolded for emphasis) because she can do huge fundraisers and rake in millions in one night. That IS a fact.
Using the right does it and that makes it OK is a bad arguement. If a Republican robs a bank does that make it ok for a Democrat to? No.
As much as I'd like to see "an equal playing field" nothing will happen if Clinton is elected. I don't trust her, I don't have to trust her, and I don't have to blindly worship her. Don't like it, then go eat a bagel.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Isn't she a hard worker?
Isn't she a fighter?
Isn't she practically the incumbent?
Isn't she the first woman to summit Mt Everest?
~~~
oops
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)But I only recall hearing that from one person. Kind of a surprise because that was the main one on DU for quite a while.
senz
(11,945 posts)have fallen when matched up against some of the Republicans.
You know, I don't think I've heard an argument for her that states what she actually stands for. It's all how she'll do in horse race politics. That is amazingly weak and unreliable.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)the radio this morning it was just a whole bunch of meaningless soundbites.
Oh she'll come out with "we need a higher minimum wage" or "women need equal pay" but never any words on how she would fix the problems.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's the only reason I'd vote for her in the ge.
senz
(11,945 posts)But that's a low bar. My cat's feral boyfriend's whole set of whiskers are better than a Republican.
Hey, nice to see green winged Hello Kitty with H.P. Lovecraft chin tentacles skipping through these parts. In fact, green winged Hello Kitty's leftmost tentacle is better than 10 Republicans.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They told me the news doesn't matter until a few weeks before the election.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I made zero comment with respect to my thoughts on the Times. I would have had to do so for your question to have any merit.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I have yet to see a crowd react to Clinton with the enthusiasm that the thousands of people who travel to see Bernie show. Maybe at her first speech, and maybe at her speech on voting rights.
But the enthusiasm wasn't nearly what it is for Bernie.
I wonder what the MSM has up its sleeve to try to stop Bernie.
Chuck Todd tried to get Bernie but failed miserably. (Remember that meme for Bush. Also appropriate for Chuck Todd.)
George II
(67,782 posts)
pnwmom
(109,020 posts)and Media Matters pointed out was one in a long line of misleading pieces about her, I can't take anything seriously that they say about her anymore.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I wouldn't pay a lot of attention to what they say. Brock is also the brains behind the unintentionally hilarious "correcttherecord.org" which amateurishly churns out reams of flowery pro-Clinton propaganda in the guise of rebutting facts put forth by other media.
pnwmom
(109,020 posts)about Hillary.
But I notice you didn't say anything about the Newsweek story that said the NYTimes recent account about the emails was "despicable" with a story made up "out of thin air."
tularetom
(23,664 posts)story, but that is a long way from saying that Clinton is out of the woods over this email stuff. There is still the very real possibility that the private server may have been hacked, which would raise a serious question about judgment.
But as far as Newsweek is concerned, I honestly have to admit that I thought they went out of business and I was unaware they were still publishing. If they wrote that, I agree with them, but I doubt that many people read it.
pnwmom
(109,020 posts)Hillary's emails were probably safer on the home servers that had originally been set up for Bill's use.
Here's a link to the Newsweek story:
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246
The real issue is how classified information is being handled NOW in response to Freedom of Information Requests -- not how Hillary Clinton handled it when she was in office.
Yes, there is memo after memo after memo, which the Times gloats were given to it by a senior government official. . . . And all of them are about the exact same thing: the process being used by current FOIA officials reviewing the emails of a former official is messed up. That’s like criticizing the former owner of a car for the work conducted by the new owner’s mechanic.
So what was the point of the memo written by Linick and McCullough? The memo itself is very clear: “The Department should ensure that no classified documents are publically released.”
In terms of journalism, this is terrible. That the Times article never discloses this is about an after-the-fact review of Clinton’s emails conducted long after she left the State Department is simply inexcusable. That this all comes from a concern about the accidental release of classified information—a fact that goes unmentioned—is even worse. In other words, the Times has twisted and turned in a way that makes this story seem like something it most decidedly is not. This is no Clinton scandal. It is no scandal at all. It is about current bureaucratic processes, probably the biggest snooze-fest in all of journalism.
SNIP
In our hyper-partisan world, many people will not care about the truth here. That the Times story is false in almost every particular—down to the level of who wrote what memo—will only lead to accusations that people trying to set the record straight are pro-Hillary. I am not pro-Hillary. I am, however, pro-journalism. And this display of incompetence or malice cannot stand without correction.
And to other reporters: Democracy is not a game. It is not a means of getting our names on the front page or setting the world abuzz about our latest scoop. It is about providing information so that an electorate can make decisions based on reality. It is about being fair and being accurate. This despicable Times story was neither.
druidity33
(6,450 posts)i think the Clinton e-mail "scandal" is bullshit.
I could go on, but it's not worth elaborating. I understand the arguments, but i can't believe she would have done it if she thought it was reckless or in any way insecure.
Thanks for the concise links.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Going as far as to call them the National Enquirer. The new Clinton story seems to have given them an all new respect for the publication.
Damansarajaya
(625 posts)until it has already happened.
senz
(11,945 posts)All over this land.
Damansarajaya
(625 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)#bernie2016
#feeltheburn
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 27, 2015, 03:54 PM - Edit history (1)
represents what they think the party stands for and who can also get popular enthusiasm for the general (which is often just assumed to be equal to the enthusiasm/vote they get in the primary)
I presume that the Clinton campaign absolutely didn't expect a real primary campaign--there'd be O'Malley and a scattering of others that'd be like Bill Bradley was in '00: affable, a little lefter on a few issues, but not shaking up the system or demanding any policy or change that couldn't be easily absorbed into the main campaign
strategically, they could even lose IA and NH like Bush '00 or McCain '08 on the other side of the aisle, but that'd just means more endorsements come November since everyone's playing the game: there'd be no vocal, wildly popular opponent like Obama in '08 so it could even be a clean campaign; Obama even lost the Dems' strongholds of CA, NY, and PA and managed to win--
generally the primary campaign is an extension of the general run: meet-and-greets, townhalls, big donors that you "need" to win the general, strategizing against the probable GOP opponents, building name recognition, careful stage management and pre-arranged interviews with only the friendliest of talking heads; the slot would go to the VP or SoS or maybe a Senator already popular with the people and on the floor, and a few challengers who'd never break 20% or 30%
but this time around Sanders saw Obama waste away his mass movement, buddy up with the GOP and big business, give the war criminals and the Wall (St) criminals even more money, give single-payer advocates the bum's rush--and, worse, this was all after he'd condemned this sort of bait-and-switch and even regular Capitol Hill horse-trading; Sanders is an Old Democrat, not a TV-production Blairite who promises the sky: he's a bigmouth in the style of Proxmire or Fulbright or Yarborough, someone who remembers when college wasn't $30,000 a year, corporations resisted their raiders, and economic policy didn't actively reward shipping a factory to Mexico or China--but also remembers the war, racism, and environmental negligence of that era
now all the "officialists" can do is draw the curtains and pretend the storm's a drizzle, and send out the innuendo brigades
and "wooden"? yeeoouch! and I say that as someone who just got banhammered from the "safe space"
okasha
(11,573 posts)That is a very carefully manicured quote.
The KOS commentary is a hit piece pure and simple, fraught with wishful thinking.
senz
(11,945 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)it just keeps getting yellower and yellower. It's been ill at least since the Judith Miller debacle.
KOS provides a platform for a variety of commentators from, very roughly, the left. This one is a Sanders devotee and a Hillary hater. So what?
plain and simple, I do not read ANYTHING in the rag NYT. Period.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Lesson learned. Hillary has one this time.
Where's Bernie's logo?
Huh?
Well?
Where is it?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts) nikto
(3,284 posts)(Apologies to Thunderclap Newman)
Something In The Hair
"Call out the instigators
Because there's something in the hair
We've got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right
And you know that it's right
We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together now
Lock up the streets and houses
Because there's something in the hair
We've got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right
And you know that it's right
We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together now"
http://ih1.redbubble.net/image.57017288.2148/fc,550x550,black.u2.jpg
still_one
(92,480 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)still_one
(92,480 posts)has become a rag. That does not mean to say that the story about these polls are incorrect, it means that I don't trust the NY Times, and haven;t since their reporting of WMDs in Iraq, conveniently left out critical details. I put them in a similar category as I do fox news. Unless it is confirmed by other sources, I remain neutral on that story.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Lots of sadz today.
Big Rec sent me here to K&R this thread.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The NYT is DEAD TO ME!1!
senz
(11,945 posts) beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
I wonder if they are behind Big Rec™?
senz
(11,945 posts)they'd view it a tad more kindly.
Nah, the queen must have her due.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)First they scream "He's too left!1!"
Then "He's too right!!1!"
I don't think some of them are capable of looking at this rationally.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts) 
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)
madokie
(51,076 posts)but for the time being my support is for Bernie Sanders. The man who lives the words he says and for the most part that I can identify with. I simply like him.
He cares about us more than any of the other candidates. When he mentions his grand children I'm all in. I've only gotten one and she is precious to us and the most important thing in this life to me and my wife
George II
(67,782 posts)....over the weekend?
Actually, if true that's probably a great development for Clinton. House parties are held to raise funds for the candidate. If Sanders followers want to attend Clinton house parties and fundraisers, have at it.
But I'm sure Sanders would be chagrined to find out that his so-called followers are contributing to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
senz
(11,945 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)She needs the money!
artislife
(9,497 posts)Better than a cake sale!
Over breakfast."Honey, we just can't have those kids we talked about. No, it isn't because we are up to our eyeballs in student debt. No, it isn't because we lost all the equity in the house due to the fracking causing earthquake damage. Who knew we would need that coverage in Omaha. No, not because the manufacturing jobs left. No, because all my eggs are going to Hillary."
Here, have a coffee and donut. We aren't even keeping those eggs.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The cause being making a rich powerful white woman even more rich and powerful!
Who wouldn't sign up for that?
artislife
(9,497 posts)nikto
(3,284 posts)they don't even know that they don't know.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) 
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)She is not content with hiding in a corner but interested in continuing the campaign until she is elected. Her contributions continues and her database continues to grow, Go, Hillary!!
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)There will be (more) reports of undercurrents within the Democratic establishment, the establishment that superdelegates live in, that suggest a desire to have a candidate/candidates ready in case it looks like Senator Sanders will gain the upper hand.
I expect the story to mention how any such talking of such matters is strictly sub rosa. If made public it could be seen as undermining Secretary Clinton's position. But there will also be some sense of urgency. A late comer entering/pushed forward after Sanders looked positioned to overtake Clinton would risk looking like exactly what it was. The establishment deciding to act in their best interests.
senz
(11,945 posts)If the establishment pushes the people too hard, the people gonna rise up somehow.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)The Hollywood Ending to that hypothetical is a more monumental win for Sanders. Our gate keepers would be licking their wounds and Sanders would have earned even more credibility as a true game changing Progressive. Bucking the establishment and winning gives you a deeper connection to the voters and more say in drawing up our party's platform.
All hypothetical stuff, it's based on my opinion of why powerful people are often reluctant to show their hand. When that teachers union came out with their early endorsement of HRC, they knew that to be risky, but it offered more potential benefit than waiting. Early endorsements are appreciated more than one after a candidate looks to have an easy win. Though in a close race a late endorsement is very appreciated.
"If the establishment pushes the people too hard, the people gonna rise up somehow."
Great point, and the risk of showing their hand in massively unpopular fashion is the later suppression of our turnout at the polls. Younger voters, more independent minded voters, and serially disillusioned older voters, are less prone to bite the bullet after a bitter and controversial loss.
Either way, if the establishment is seen as having put their thumb on the scales, and that is seen as costing our party dearly at the polls, well, it's a lot more likely then that lots of them are compelled to move on to spending more time with their lobbyist buddies/families.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)… they characterize Bernie as "hard left". He's just left. The way the Democratic Party used to be.
It's the Clintons themselves who dragged the party to the right so that ordinary, actual Dems are now defined as "hard left". What? Pro-working people?—reform of Wall Street and the rich-favoring tax code, universal health care—that's hard left?
Segami
(14,923 posts)as Third Wayer Hillary Clinton?
dflprincess
(28,089 posts)and it was the Times article that called Bernie "hard left".
zentrum
(9,865 posts)…no, never. Have you? Besides they are not equivalent. She really is 3rd-way. He is not hard left.
False equivalencies—that's what the MSM does!
RandySF
(59,493 posts)PatrickforO
(14,600 posts)First the M$M's continuously presents Sanders as a fringe left candidate, a (gasp) socialist (shudder!). You see this in the line: The careful, ground-up organizing seems designed to counter the kind of threat to Mrs. Clinton that has emerged from Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, whose hard-left policies have inspired huge crowds at rallies.
Second, we have us - you and me and millions of others - out talking to people. Today I was talking to a group of people and Bernie came up. One guy said he won't win because he's too 'hard left.' I countered with, "Not so. Everything he's saying, ALL his positions, are favored by at least 50% of the American people."
Social Security came up, and everyone in the group I was addressing expressed the belief that it is nearly insolvent, dying.
I educated them on that, too - and Bernie's solution of lifting the payroll tax cap.
See, all we all have to do is keep talking to people, keep educating them about the issues, because now we have Bernie leading the charge and we can really build some momentum on these policies that most of us have been advocating for years. I wonder how fast we will be able to break down the corporate-propaganda-induced ignorance. I'm thinking not too long. Maybe three or four or six repetitions of the same truths by as many different people, and we'll gain another Bernie supporter.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Well I hates to tells ya, NYT...
What you call HARD-LEFT policies are pretty damned Main Street for those of us that are not Banksters or Billionaires!
We are sick of your crooked bullshit and having our lives drained dry by you.
The peasants are over it!!!!!
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)As a woman of a certain age, I will vote for the candidate with the track record of working for the 99%, as opposed to voting for a woman just because she is a woman, a women whose core values (except on women's issues) are opposed to the core values that I hold and that are the core values of true Democrats.
Having another Angela Markel running this country would be a disaster and that is what Hillary is, bless her heart!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)As one of Bernie's Reddit supporters said this week 'everyone lives online' now. So many people are not being polled at all, so the numbers don't mean much today.
But that's fine, Bernie doesn't bother with polls, he bothers with people.
The reason his campaign is building support is because he isn't making it about HIM, it's about issues and the people.
Hillary's campaign is about HER and STRATEGY and it is so scripted and boring.
Eg, Bernie doesn't 'unveil' policies. He doesn't use those corporate words.
He TALKS policy from the heart.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)-Doesn't understand black people
-loves guns
-isn't trying hard enough
(looks through other anti-Bernie threads to talk smack about Bernie)
...Uh...#Itsherturn or something...
nikto
(3,284 posts)apnu
(8,759 posts)Do those clowns even know where the political goal posts are in America right now?
The GOP is playing out hard right politics, so we know what "hard" really is. But Bernie's positions are hardly that. We haven't seen "hard left" in America for several decades.
