Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Feeling the Bern

(3,839 posts)
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 02:33 AM Nov 2015

The reason for such venom at Bernie and his supporters from HRC fans

Keep in mind that even though I support Bernie in the primary, if Hillary is the candidate, she has my vote.

Now, onto the post:

Probably the biggest reason why HRC supporters and surrogates, even those here at DU, attack Bernie with everyone from calling him a fascist, a sexist, a racist, a hypocrite, etc. is because they saw an upstart candidate in 2008 overtake her, win the nomination and then win the general twice.

That sting is still fresh. They see Bernie doing the same thing Obama did and don't want their horse falling down like she did to Obama. Losing to Barack Obama was very painful, so every weapon in the book is needed and being used to attack and destroy another Democrat so the coronation can begin as scheduled.

I expect to get attack mercilessly for this post and even having it sent to a jury, but this is just one man's opinion based on watching politics for 25 years and tracking it for even longer.

168 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The reason for such venom at Bernie and his supporters from HRC fans (Original Post) Feeling the Bern Nov 2015 OP
I hadn't specifically thought that the venom comes from the need to "double down" this time villager Nov 2015 #1
Left over venom RobertEarl Nov 2015 #121
The Zeal To Elect A Female President Has Overshadowed The Good Judgement Of Many cantbeserious Nov 2015 #2
You sound like the Pubes that support Carson. Darb Nov 2015 #70
HRC Herself Touted Her Gender At The Last Debate - Enough Said cantbeserious Nov 2015 #93
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2015 #145
One would think that this would only be true if Rep Women running for office did asw well as HRC Sheepshank Nov 2015 #90
Whoever Said The Observation Only Applied To Women cantbeserious Nov 2015 #94
Not really... vorgan24 Nov 2015 #150
This Is DU - Republicans Not Under Consideration - Comment Still Stands cantbeserious Nov 2015 #154
Feels that way Armstead Nov 2015 #3
The One That Cannot Be Named - Will Not Be Denied This Time - Or So The Story Goes cantbeserious Nov 2015 #6
You know, that is very true. NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #10
There it is. MADem Nov 2015 #27
Thank you - ohheckyeah Nov 2015 #36
As I noted in a post below... Armstead Nov 2015 #51
Probably the most absurd characterization of a candidacy ever whatchamacallit Nov 2015 #55
It would be absurd if I thought you gave a hoot re: my response to your little query . MADem Nov 2015 #59
In essence, the hopeful and optimistic candidate always/usually wins. DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2015 #83
I'm tired of using logic, lets just use emotion BootinUp Nov 2015 #85
Then, by that argument you voted for Reagan? leveymg Nov 2015 #128
You may be right...or not Armstead Nov 2015 #50
Thanks for your well throught-out reply! NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #118
Here's my response. Believe it or not I'll agree with you up to a point Armstead Nov 2015 #123
WOW! NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #125
Yes. If we could all focus more on content rather than personalize everything Armstead Nov 2015 #135
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2015 #29
Well, to be fair, they used the sexist attack against Obama supporters too jfern Nov 2015 #4
yeah, I really don't think any of this is new. It's just business as usual. Win by any means liberal_at_heart Nov 2015 #5
It's going to backfire...count on it. InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2015 #52
I don't care what the reason is. merrily Nov 2015 #7
Well, there are a few gaping holes ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #8
"Many, many of us... tex-wyo-dem Nov 2015 #12
I guess you haven't seen any polls. NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #16
You mean CNN and/ or DWS..Polls? laserhaas Nov 2015 #17
Sorry, I keep forgetting ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #18
Most polls are corporate owned... N_E_1 for Tennis Nov 2015 #96
And yet ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #107
Here is a link to aggregate polling DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2015 #87
The unskew the polls is really annoying mythology Nov 2015 #134
I heard last night on the tweety show on MSNBC that HRC willvotesdem Nov 2015 #41
You said many on DU. n/t Dawgs Nov 2015 #67
Sure I've seen the polls... tex-wyo-dem Nov 2015 #114
I'm in this thread ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #115
Perhaps I was in the minority... tex-wyo-dem Nov 2015 #116
First off ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #120
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2015 #124
"It's Clinton's turn" ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #129
Yes it does....they are called Democrats VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #31
yep, they're a dwindlling breed demwing Nov 2015 #64
I can attest to this scenario. Darb Nov 2015 #72
We need more Bernie venom to validate this ridiculous thread. nt BootinUp Nov 2015 #81
You are wrong. Skidmore Nov 2015 #164
I agree with your post in a real life scenario, Cassiopeia Nov 2015 #20
A few thoughts / gaping holes with the gaping holes...... CanadianComrade Nov 2015 #23
"Talk about differences on the issues instead of trying to stab with talk of racism, sexism, .... " GoneFishin Nov 2015 #40
Right off the top ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #109
Well, right off the top.... CanadianComrade Nov 2015 #119
No, I actually ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #122
Uh -huh. You did. CanadianComrade Nov 2015 #139
Try actually reading. NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #140
Of course you aren't..... CanadianComrade Nov 2015 #141
If you think ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #147
....except your post is still there.... CanadianComrade Nov 2015 #148
I'm sorry. NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #149
You should be sorry. CanadianComrade Nov 2015 #151
Ah, yes ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #152
It doesn't matter in the slightest, really.... CanadianComrade Nov 2015 #156
What ev. n/t NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #159
Thanks So Much For Your Observation... Just Today I Was ChiciB1 Nov 2015 #155
Thank you.... CanadianComrade Nov 2015 #168
Where Did You Go NanceGreggs? I Used To Read Your Posts ChiciB1 Nov 2015 #153
I left in 2009 ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #160
So Sorry For Your Loss & I Do Remember You From Back. ChiciB1 Nov 2015 #161
Thanks so much for the kind words ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #165
Not even remotely true Godhumor Nov 2015 #9
Tiny amount, yes. murielm99 Nov 2015 #14
I'm gay and I believe that Bernie will represent my interests much better than Clinton. stillwaiting Nov 2015 #42
Saw a really zentrum Nov 2015 #11
That's what worries me more than anything... tex-wyo-dem Nov 2015 #13
That's it exactly. zentrum Nov 2015 #21
Soooooo we should pick our candidate based VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #32
Not the point zentrum Nov 2015 #91
Bullshit! VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #92
Charming. n/t zentrum Nov 2015 #98
Accuracy is not dependent on charm. LanternWaste Nov 2015 #99
I don't think I am smart enough to understand your post! NT hueymahl Nov 2015 #101
Thanks! VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #105
When you responded to that statement did you have to look at the URL to make sure where randys1 Nov 2015 #102
It absolutely will result in bigger voter turnout for the GOP. I have no doubt about that. stillwaiting Nov 2015 #43
And Bernie will? Darb Nov 2015 #74
Or maybe its because of all the venom directed to HRC from Bernie fans, who were pnwmom Nov 2015 #15
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2015 #19
Not true. The venom began, as others have noted, in 2008, pnwmom Nov 2015 #22
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2015 #24
Dirty? VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #33
Implying your opponent is a sexist Kentonio Nov 2015 #37
Oh implications now are dirty... VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #45
There is a huge difference.. Kentonio Nov 2015 #54
Okay....if YOU call that dirty VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #60
Making a clear implication that another nominee is a sexist Kentonio Nov 2015 #63
what "clear" implication... VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #66
Oh we've gone from shouting to screaming now have we? Kentonio Nov 2015 #77
By the end of the day it will be screaming. Would be funny if it was not sickening. djean111 Nov 2015 #88
The rediculous part is that Bernie wasn't even talking about Hillary, bvar22 Nov 2015 #104
You must have been a lurker reader of the board-having just joined today, you know about what riversedge Nov 2015 #26
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2015 #30
MIRT is on the case! Good for MIRT! nt MADem Nov 2015 #44
Bill Clinton did the same AgingAmerican Nov 2015 #25
Sanders is now saying establishment politicians can not make the type of changes we need Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #28
Oh, but the media always riversedge Nov 2015 #65
I expect Sanders statement will be twisted somehow. It has been before and will be again. Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #71
No, what he is alluding to is that Citizen's United won't be fixed if Hillary Clinton is elected davidpdx Nov 2015 #131
My question is if this what Sanders is alluding to why i the hell does he allude to something, why Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #132
CU could be overturned in a number of different ways davidpdx Nov 2015 #133
Let me help you past this skepticism, Clinton knows CU is bad, wants to see this overthrown Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #136
I know that she has said she will and that is great davidpdx Nov 2015 #137
Let me ask you this, what guarantee do we have with anything a candidate says? I have heard lots of Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #138
I agree, there is zero chance the current court would overturn itself davidpdx Nov 2015 #143
Kicked and recommended! Enthusiast Nov 2015 #34
You're wrong. Most Hillary supporters like Bernie. Most Bernie supporters hate Hillary. DanTex Nov 2015 #35
I think if most Bernie supporters hate Hillary.... smiley Nov 2015 #38
It says a lot about Bernie's supporters. DanTex Nov 2015 #39
nope x 2 smiley Nov 2015 #112
Nah, it says more about Bernie fans. JaneyVee Nov 2015 #47
nope.... smiley Nov 2015 #111
Nailed it Tex. Darb Nov 2015 #75
but the Bernie supporters are saying they will write him in... luvspeas Nov 2015 #80
From what I can see,the venom directed at Hillary is sufrommich Nov 2015 #46
You watched politics for 25 years and got it this wrong? JaneyVee Nov 2015 #48
Many of the ones here were in the Obama camp. Warren Stupidity Nov 2015 #49
+1. The split is straight down neoliberal libs vs progressive libs Catherina Nov 2015 #106
Since you mention folks who "defend" Obama ... JoePhilly Nov 2015 #110
Interesting list. Warren Stupidity Nov 2015 #113
Post removed Post removed Nov 2015 #53
My reaction is definitely not based on anything that happened in the 2008 primary. Skidmore Nov 2015 #56
Impossible! Blue_Adept Nov 2015 #61
I don't see it BootinUp Nov 2015 #57
I've been thinking this election is deja vu all over again. Vinca Nov 2015 #58
But so many of the Hillary supporters ARE Obama supporters! Blue_Adept Nov 2015 #62
Because Obama is now the establishment demwing Nov 2015 #69
They weren't Obama supporters until the 2012 election. Vinca Nov 2015 #89
Dr. Carl Jung DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2015 #68
The flame-throwers are a minority at DU. randome Nov 2015 #73
If we somehow quantified the venom factor of the two camps here BeyondGeography Nov 2015 #76
But if we could bottle it and sell it, we'd be rich! randome Nov 2015 #78
The Fountain of Eternal Venom...we could market it as a life force BeyondGeography Nov 2015 #82
Lol...so completely self-unaware Evergreen Emerald Nov 2015 #79
The "venom" is aimed at Sanders supporters, not Sanders himself. NuclearDem Nov 2015 #84
+1000 betsuni Nov 2015 #126
Dirty Tricks? Faux pas Nov 2015 #86
Nope. I was an Obama fan from the start in 2007's primary season. Starry Messenger Nov 2015 #95
Ohhhhhh... please postatomic Nov 2015 #97
I think it was Gandhi who wrote, “I like your candidate, I do not like your candidate's supporters.. LanternWaste Nov 2015 #100
Oy vey... randys1 Nov 2015 #103
I find it ironic that Sanders' supporters are complaining of being attacked. Beacool Nov 2015 #108
+1 SunSeeker Nov 2015 #146
So for someone like myself who supported Obama (and not Hillary), and who now supports Hillary … NurseJackie Nov 2015 #117
The professional left is as bad as the far right. Dawson Leery Nov 2015 #127
I elected to support Barack Obama in 2008. He was the stronger candidate who I believed BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #130
We are upset because you are weakening Hillary for the general JTShroyer Nov 2015 #142
I am? Personally, how can one person going overseas in four days again really Feeling the Bern Nov 2015 #144
Please tell us where you saw someone call Sanders "a fascist, a sexist, a racist" George II Nov 2015 #157
There's no "venom." Someone's projecting again. nt Hekate Nov 2015 #158
... Is he is terrible as a candidate and would get crushed in the general election. stevenleser Nov 2015 #162
Steve, against that gaggle of slime on the GOP side, the Democrats could run Feeling the Bern Nov 2015 #163
Is it a question of whether they ARE slime or rather BootinUp Nov 2015 #166
Agreed: Feeling the Bern Nov 2015 #167
 

villager

(26,001 posts)
1. I hadn't specifically thought that the venom comes from the need to "double down" this time
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 02:36 AM
Nov 2015

But it makes sense...

It's almost bewildering how mere conversation is verboten, and everything must be sniping, snark, half-truth, etc....

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
121. Left over venom
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:40 PM
Nov 2015

That has been brewing for 8 years.

Read a diatribe against Bernie supporters that reminded me of what bigots and racist used to say about all black people. That because one or two Bernie people treated them wrong, the poster was mad at every Bernie supporter.

 

Darb

(2,807 posts)
70. You sound like the Pubes that support Carson.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 10:00 AM
Nov 2015

Without doubt they believe he can win because African Americans will vote for him because they are mindless, skin-color voters. Can you refute that? It sort of reflects your comment, except replace African American with women.

Response to cantbeserious (Reply #93)

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
90. One would think that this would only be true if Rep Women running for office did asw well as HRC
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 12:56 PM
Nov 2015

.....If Hillary's policies sucked as badly A Bachmann's or Fiorina's, her numbers would be tanking too.

Women are not sheep, it's offenseive to treat them that way. Their judgement is perfectly fine

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
3. Feels that way
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 02:42 AM
Nov 2015

Before he announced, just about everyone on DU liked ol' Bernie.

Now, to some he's all kind of nasty stuff, simply for the sin of challenging Clinton.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
10. You know, that is very true.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 03:40 AM
Nov 2015

A lot of people liked ol' Bernie before he started campaigning.

And obviously you want to put any changes in that attitude down to the fact that he's "challenging Hillary".

The fact is there is something the BS supporters never bothered to look at. From the outset of BS's campaign, his supporters have relied on the meme "Once people get to know who Bernie is, they will love him!"

What you didn't count on - and really should have seen coming - is that when some people "got to know Bernie", they wouldn't like him at all.

The BS supporters here seem to have taken it as a given that once anyone "heard Bernie's message", they would be as enthralled with him as they were. It's like it never occurred to you that some people would be turned off by him, just as some people are turned off by Hillary.

You can claim all you want that BS's support is stagnating because of the media, the PTB in the Party, endorsements from Democratics in office being bought-and-paid-for and/or being "scared to death" by the Clinton payback machine.

What you might want to consider is that not as many people are "into Bernie" as you initially thought/hoped there would be, and that a lot of people have "heard Bernie's message" and just aren't buying what he's selling.



MADem

(135,425 posts)
27. There it is.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 05:26 AM
Nov 2015

If I wanted to be yelled at, and pointed at, and lectured, and hectored, and listen to a litany of complaints about how much the country fucking sucks, with no clear, realistic, reasonable paths to solutions, I'd be a Sanders supporter.

"Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here" is not, to me, anyway, a good campaign strategy. I don't like wallowing in misery and despair, and that's the way the Sanders campaign hits me. It's the OPPOSITE of "Hope and Change." It's an "Everything SUCKS and Let's YELL About It" strategy and I find it tiresome. Yeah, we ARE all gonna die, but let's not dwell on it constantly, shall we? I can probably find plenty of negativity locally, if that's my thing (and it ain't). A POTUS is supposed to give people a positive sense for the future, and I don't get that from the Senator from VT. This is, of course, my personal opinion, but I wouldn't be surprised if I get yelled at for expressing it!

And, speaking of that, on top of the yelling by the candidate, there's the yelling by the "supporters" when a voter expresses reservations, never mind dislike. It's LIGHTNING quick! The outrage/swarm/beatdown thing gets tiresome, too. You will assimilate--and if you don't, you'll get alerted on and your post will be hidden! Like that's going to "encourage" people to vote for the guy!

Between the "The End Is Near" and "Lord of the Flies" vibes, I just can't get enthused. I prefer the candidate who is speaking out about gun violence and knows how to work with governmental entities in USA as well as with leaders around the world.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
55. Probably the most absurd characterization of a candidacy ever
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 08:51 AM
Nov 2015

Let me guess... you're doing just fine under the $tatu$ quo.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
128. Then, by that argument you voted for Reagan?
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 01:33 AM
Nov 2015

It follows from your point about voting for optimism. Remember Morning in America? I do.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
50. You may be right...or not
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 08:29 AM
Nov 2015

I've been an admirer of his since the 1990's, because of his integrity and as one of the few people in politics that was honestly eaising issues and addressing the problems that were avoidable and needed to be dealt with then to prevent worse problems down the road-- but which we ignored and have allowed to grow much worse.

And, as far as "electability" the fact that people in Vermont (where people know their candidates on a more personal level than a larger state) keep electing and reelecting the guy by huge margins, says something. (And Vermont is not Mars.)

But I can see his limitations in terms of packaging. He doesn't have that light touch. And people tend to gravitate to the politician who tells them "Everything's great. We just need a few tweaks" than the person who tells you there's a serious problem that has to be fixed....

It's like a car that needs a major valve job. People are going to "feel better" about a mechanic who tells you that you just need an oil change, than the one who accurately diagnoses the engine and urges you to make the repairs.... When the engine seizes down the road, they may feel differently, or they may not make the connection between the reassuring mechanic and the damage they caused or allowed to happen.

IMO, people are now realizing the vehicle is not running well. The current election is a choice between going back to the reassuring but slipshod mechanic for another quay of oil, or listening to the guy who warned you to fix the engine earlier.

http://robertreich.org/post/132363519655
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251764150

But, Clinton also has her liabilities, in terms of public perception. Sure she has a core of loyal followers, and others who see her as the path of least resistance, the "safe bet" to beat the GOP.

But she too has a limited appeal beyond that, especially when it comes to the segment of the population beyond Democratic partisans and progressives worried about the GOP. She tends to do better when she on the periphery, where her positive attributes are visible, but she's not under close scrutiny or exposed constantly. She's had a good month, but Clinton fatigue may settle in again -- even if it's after the nomination.



NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
118. Thanks for your well throught-out reply!
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 08:42 PM
Nov 2015

If I might pick up on your analogy, to me BS is the mechanic who, every time I bring my car in, rattles off a list of what's wrong with it: there's a rattle in the engine, two tires are out of alignment, the brakes screech when applied, there's rust on the door frames, etc.

I already know those things - it's an old car, and I've known about those problems for years. So why do you keep reiterating them, over and over, without offering any solid evidence that you can repair it?

"IMO, people are now realizing the vehicle is not running well."

My biggest problem with BS is that he's been rattling off the same laundry list of what's wrong for decades now - and he's doing so as though this is news to the American populace every time. This is NOT news to anyone. I had the same complaint about OWS - their assumption that the citizenry was completely unaware of the disparity between the 1% and the 99% until they came along and told them.

People KNOW what's wrong - they want to hear about how it can be made right.

We see lots of OPs here about how Bernie wants free college for everyone, Bernie wants money out of politics, Bernie wants this and wants that. I am sure Bernie also wants world peace and a cure for cancer - but wanting and actually accomplishing are two different things. And thus far, BS has offered very little in the way of solutions. In other words, if he stopped yelling about how bad the car is and always has been, and started talking about viable ways to get the car back in ship-shape, I would take him more seriously.

You are absolutely right when you say that people want a president with a positive outlook. That's human nature. That, IMHO, was a huge part of Obama's appeal; he said "yes, we can" move forward - not "let's harp on everything that has been wrong up to now".

Rightly or wrongly, perception plays a big role in politics - and that perception varies from one voter to another. What BS supporters see as Bernie's "consistency" on issues for decades, some of us see as a stubborn refusal to adapt to an ever-changing world. What some see as Bernie's passion, others see as endless lecturing. And so on.

What it all comes down to is that BOTH BS and HRC have a "ceiling" in terms of the supporters they will attract. HRC will only get so many people on her side, just as BS will only get so many people on his side. And the fact is that HRC's ceiling is higher than Bernie's. The polls clearly show that she has more supporters than he does. That's the way political races work.

Sadly, many BS supporters here (real and alleged) have focused almost entirely on what's wrong with HRC, instead of what's right with Bernie. They have consistently told HRC supporters that they are pro-war, pro-the 1%, pro-the status quo, pro-Wall Street - you get the picture. Instead of saying "we have a great candidate in Bernie, so why don't you listen to what he has to say", they have characterized HRC supporters as being "pro" everything that is wrong with the country.

Elected Democrats who have endorsed HRC are immediately thrown under the bus, stigmatized as having been "gotten to" by the Clinton Machine, accused of being "bought-and-paid-for". The BS supporters give no thought to the idea that these endorsers actually think HRC is the right person for the job of POTUS - instead they are labelled as sell-outs. The reasonable reaction to HRC's endorsements would have been, "Well, I'm sorry John Lewis went with Hillary instead of Bernie." The actual reaction was to flood his FB page with vitriol for his choice.

It's been said by many political observers that BS's biggest problem is his supporters. That notion did not materialize out of the ether - it is very real, and very problematic. And it is truly unfortunate. I have seen things stated by BS supporters that I have no doubt he would never agree with or condone.

"Clinton fatigue may settle in again -- even if it's after the nomination."

I'm sure DU will be flooded with anti-HRC posts from her first day in office - just as it was flooded with anti-Obama posts from his inauguration right up to today. I've given up all hope that DU will ever again be a "Democratic" site, and we will no doubt be hearing from those posing as "disappointed Dems" who have been Obama-bashing for years, and will simply move on to HRC-bashing in its stead.




 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
123. Here's my response. Believe it or not I'll agree with you up to a point
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 11:53 PM
Nov 2015

Since we both seem in comparatively reasonable moods, here's my response. Please remember this is all IMO. Obviously, mileage may vary.

That, IMHO, was a huge part of Obama's appeal; he said "yes, we can" move forward - not "let's harp on everything that has been wrong up to now".

I do appreciate that Bill Clinton, Obama have the gift of making people feel a sense of possibility and hope. I was also a big admirer of Wellstone, because (even though he looked like a nebbish) he also projected a sense that "we can do better." ....I would prefer that Bernie's personality was somewhat sunnier. He does tend to be too downbeat and/or angry. But the part of Bernie's message that does not come out as much is that he is genuinely hopeful. He's not saying "All is doomed." Instead he's saying "We've got big problems, but if we come together and assert ourselves we do have the power to fix it and make a better world."

But, frankly we do also need anger -- purposeful anger to get us off out collective butts and offer an active alternative.

If I might pick up on your analogy, to me BS is the mechanic who, every time I bring my car in, rattles off a list of what's wrong with it: there's a rattle in the engine.....it's an old car, and I've known about those problems for years. So why do you keep reiterating them, over and over, without offering any solid evidence that you can repair it?

Actually, when he sets his stump speech aside he has a lot of grasp of details and offers specific practical solutions. He surprised a lot of people in Burlington when he became mayor. Many initially also thought he was just an ideological shouter, and he walked into a hostile situation. But he turned out to be a practical problem solver. He cleaned up a lot of administrative problems, and built coalitions and got a lot of positive things done, from potholes to civic initiatives. And when people saw him in action, they kept reelecting him by large margins.

My biggest problem with BS is that he's been rattling off the same laundry list of what's wrong for decades now - and he's doing so as though this is news to the American populace every time. This is NOT news to anyone. I had the same complaint about OWS - their assumption that the citizenry was completely unaware of the disparity between the 1% and the 99% until they came along and told them....Rightly or wrongly, perception plays a big role in politics - and that perception varies from one voter to another. What BS supporters see as Bernie's "consistency" on issues for decades, some of us see as a stubborn refusal to adapt to an ever-changing world.

Unfortunately, laundry list has been valid for decades, but it was swept under the rug and kept invisible in the wider conversation until recently. It's only now that the mainstream conversation is finally talking about issues we should have (and could have) tackled many years ago, because that's when it really started. Bernie (and other progressives) saw it in the 80's and 90s, and worked hard to bring these issues into the national political conversation and raise awareness back then. But they were not able to break through the conventional-wisdom-echo-chamber. Among us older farts that does cause a certain combination of impatience and frustration, as we saw the bad things predicted back then coming true,because it didnlt have to happen.

People KNOW what's wrong - they want to hear about how it can be made right.

Well this may sound simplistic, but one basic solution is often "Just Say NO." Or as Obama (I think) said "Just don't do stupid stiff." We could have broadened prosperity and avoided a lot of problems by saying NO to a lot of bad policies and bad decisions since he 80's. It wasn't like they were a force of nature. They have been the cumulative effect of a lot of bad moves -- things that were promised by the "Establishment" but were ultimately destructive. For example, we should have said NO to excessive deregulation that enabled the growth of monopolies that are sucking money out of the pockets of average Americans and smothered a competitive diverse economy. NO to financial deregulation that allowed banks to become too big and too corrupt and too powerful. NO to the media deregulation that wiped out diversity of ownership. NO to "free trade deals" that greased the wheels for outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing. We saw the results in the 2008 meltdown, the weakening of the middle and working classes as their money is sucked upward. Now that there is more recognition, one basic solution is to not repeat the mistakes -- and the avoidance -- of the past.

Sadly, many BS supporters here (real and alleged) have focused almost entirely on what's wrong with HRC, instead of what's right with Bernie I....It's been said by many political observers that BS's biggest problem is his supporters. ... I have seen things stated by BS supporters that I have no doubt he would never agree with or condone. .

I'll partially agree with you and disagree. It has sometimes gotten too personal and overheated. (I plead guilty.) But it is less aimed at her, but what she represents, which is the politics that many of us believe has caused the problems. As a person I like and admire her. But I believe she is too locked into the Big Money/Big Power/Crony Capitalism that has caused so many problems.....The thought of that gets the dander up of people who believe we need to break way from that. And some of us get overzealous sometimes.

But that happens on all sides. Some of that is the result of a feedback loop where snark on one side feeds snark on the other side. (On a personal note, I had been away from DU for a long time, and checked in after the Netroots/BLM incident out of curiosity. I was appalled at the extent of the polarization and shocked at the way Bernie and white progressives who supported him were being demonized.)

I'm sure DU will be flooded with anti-HRC posts from her first day in office - just as it was flooded with anti-Obama posts from his inauguration right up to today. I've given up all hope that DU will ever again be a "Democratic" site, and we will no doubt be hearing from those posing as "disappointed Dems" who have been Obama-bashing for years, and will simply move on to HRC-bashing in its stead.

First of all, when I referred to Clinton fatigue, I wasn't talking about the "cranky left." I was referring to mainstream Clinton Fatigue that seems to arise when she and Bill are on the center stage for too long. They're better in smaller doses for many people. And if that kicks in during the General, it could be trouble.

As for the "bashing." Well that term is used too frequently to dismiss legitimate disagreement. A lot of people "bash" Obama over specific policies, but still like and support him in a larger sense. It is also advocacy against policies that many believe would be counterproductive or harmful. I believe "bashing" for example, helped to block a truly terrible merger of two abusive Telecommunications Monopolies last year.












NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
125. WOW!
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 01:22 AM
Nov 2015

Fantastic response - and an excellent piece of writing. You made your points clearly and concisely.

I guess we're just going to have to break down and admit that we actually do agree more than we disagree on many, many things.

I remain a staunch HRC supporter - and you remain a staunch BS supporter. But I now have an insight into what your perception of both candidates is, and hopefully you have some insight into mine.

And we actually had a really good discussion without once using ALL CAPS!!!, or : , or calling our respective candidates-of-choice well-known poopy-heads (I'll just use that as a euphemism for all the usual shit that gets thrown around here).

I really, really enjoyed this exchange. I haven't changed my mind, and I know you haven't changed yours. But I think maybe we both realized that we do have a "meeting of the minds" on many aspects of this process.

I'm sure we both want the same things for the country - we simply differ on who is the best person to get us where we want to be.

--- Nance







 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
135. Yes. If we could all focus more on content rather than personalize everything
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 08:38 AM
Nov 2015

In "real life" (whatever that is) I have 3D friends who support Clinton, and we've had some "lively" discussions and disagreements. But we never project it on each other personally beyond that, and it has no bearing on our friendships or the way we view each other as people.

It's more difficult to do that here on the interwebs, because we're all words on a screen rather than 3D people. We often see each others only in the limited frame of who we support or how we view issues. And we get carried away by our own passions.

But IMO, while vigorous disagreement and some good-natured snark is fine, it'd be great if there was less of the tendency to fall into opposing "camps," and an environment that gets so heated and alienates people who often agree on much below the surface.

Response to Armstead (Reply #3)

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
5. yeah, I really don't think any of this is new. It's just business as usual. Win by any means
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 02:47 AM
Nov 2015

necessary.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
8. Well, there are a few gaping holes ...
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 03:18 AM
Nov 2015

... in your theory.

Many, many of us on DU (and in RL) who were Obama supporters in 2008 are now HRC supporters. So we would hardly be still "stinging" from the fact that Hillary lost to our preferred candidate in that election. I am a staunch HRC supporter now, but I was an Obama Girl in 2008 - and I have to tell you, I was overjoyed when he won the nomination and she didn't. And I am certainly not alone in that experience. So where do I, and all of the other Obama supporters, fit into your little scenario?

As has to be pointed out time and again, BS is no Obama - not even close. No one sees 'Bernie doing the same thing Obama did" - not by a longshot. Obama was an up-and-comer in the Democratic Party in 2008, and proved his mettle to the satisfaction of those who supported his nomination. BS isn't even a Democrat - nor has he forged the Party alliances that Obama enjoyed then, and Hillary enjoys now. Obama was young, vibrant, a particularly eloquent and persuasive speaker who ran a forward-looking and uplifting campaign. Bernie has his good qualities - but they do not include any of the aforementioned.

Your theory assumes that exactly the same people who supported HRC in 2008 support her now. She seems to have maintained a lot of that loyalty - but she now adds to it a wide swath of Obama supporters, who see her as building on his legacy.

The notion that people are "attacking" BS because "the sting is still fresh" is ludicrous beyond belief, and politically naive to the nth degree.

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
12. "Many, many of us...
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 03:46 AM
Nov 2015

...who were Obama supporters in 2008 are now HRC supporters"

I'm not so sure your theory totally holds water.

Many of Obama's supporters in 2008 supported him because they saw him as anti-establishment, a true progressive for change. HRC represented the establishment to them.

Bernie has assumed that mantle of anti-establishment in this election, and I think many of Obama's supporters from 2008 now support Bernie for the same reasons.

HRC is still the establishment candidate.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
16. I guess you haven't seen any polls.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 03:57 AM
Nov 2015

Do you really believe that HRC is far in the lead due to people who weren't Obama supporters? Her numbers with the AA demographic alone demonstrate that former Obamans are now HRCers.

Take a look at the members of the BOG here on DU - then look at the members of the Hillary Group - you'll see a lot of the same names. Hillary supporters see her as the natural choice for carrying on Obama's legacy.

And by the way, do you think Bernie's grand idea that Obama should be primaried in 2012 has been forgotten by staunch Obama supporters? Not a chance. If you want to discuss a "sting" that's still fresh, THAT one is for many, many Obamans.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
18. Sorry, I keep forgetting ...
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 04:10 AM
Nov 2015

... that any polls that show HRC in the lead are fatally flawed, and polls showing that Bernie is set to "win all 50 states!" are accurate.



Please forgive my penchant for living in the real world. It's a habit I just can't seem to break.

N_E_1 for Tennis

(9,593 posts)
96. Most polls are corporate owned...
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 02:27 PM
Nov 2015

None of those corporations want any progressive, socialist, to look like they are leading.
It just goes against the grain.

Critical thinking.

Bernie may not win, he may, the truth of the matter is....he gets people to look behind the curtain.

We are in a corrupt system, all of it. From Washington, to local, to way to much corporate power.
We have been bought, we are now being sold.

If all the Sanders run does is shed light on this....he wins. HE WINS.

Truth will be told...TRUTH WILL WIN.

But till then we will live in a corporate owned world, obeying the masters of media and sales.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
107. And yet ...
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 05:27 PM
Nov 2015

... no one complained about "corporate-owned polls" when those polls showed BS's numbers going up.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
134. The unskew the polls is really annoying
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 08:25 AM
Nov 2015

No real evidence is ever presented, just random claims of bias. It's sad that some resort to such nonsense.

 

willvotesdem

(75 posts)
41. I heard last night on the tweety show on MSNBC that HRC
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 07:55 AM
Nov 2015

is now exactly (in the polls) where she was at this point in her run against Mr. Obama.

"Hillary supporters see her as the natural choice for carrying on Obama's legacy."

IMHO President Obama has acted more like a slightly left of center Republican than a Democrat. He's fair to middle on some social issues but as bad as Bush on military and economic issues. If HRC is going to carry on that legacy we will be much worse off in 2020 than we are now and now ain't good.

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
114. Sure I've seen the polls...
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 07:06 PM
Nov 2015

which begs the question: Why are you here on this little discussion thread defending your candidate so fervently when, if you believe the polls, she's way ahead and has it all sown up for all intents and purposes? Seems like a strange compulsion to rub our noses in the polls.

Sure there are many former Obama supporters that are now supporting HRC (two peas in a pod, as it were), but I will stand by my opinion that Bernie represents what many 2008 Obama supporters still want...a truly populist and progressive anti-establishment candidate.

With regards to Bernie's call to primary Obama back in 2012: If you remember, many of us progressives were disillusioned, to say the least, with Obama's first term. Appointing crony financial and industry insiders to his cabinet, refusing to investigate and prosecute Wall Street financial crimes for the 2008 crash, refusing to investigate the Iraq war, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and on and on. Bernie's call to primary was purely symbolic, meant to send a message that we progressives were not happy and that we demanded a change in direction.

It's a big tent party, so I'm sure you would agree that there are many voices and would encourage free-thinking and disscention when warranted.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
115. I'm in this thread ...
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 07:17 PM
Nov 2015

... dispelling the ridiculous notion that HRC supporters are still "feeling the sting" of her loss in 2008.

"If you remember, many of us progressives were disillusioned, to say the least, with Obama's first term."

And you were in the minority then, and are in the minority now. So the fact remains that many of us who were appalled by BS's position on having Obama primaried are not about to support him now.

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
116. Perhaps I was in the minority...
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 07:30 PM
Nov 2015

Apparently that's what Obama's CoS meant when he called me "fucking retarded"

And you wonder why we liberals and progressives were a bit disillusioned?

I like to feel like I'm worth more than just a highly offensive name...Bernie provided the message to the WH for us liberals/progressives.

Hell, you could look at DU over those first four years and see hundereds of threads about how Obama sold us out. I only wish his first term had been like his second...I know, I know, he's not running again and has more freedom to do what he wants, but still...

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
120. First off ...
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:11 PM
Nov 2015

... Rahm Emmanuel didn't call anyone "retarded" - he said that an idea being proferred was "retarded'. I leave the mis- characterization of quotes to FOX-News.

You - like many here - constantly say "WE liberals and progressives". I have some late-breaking news for you: there are liberals and progressives who are now, and always have been staunch Obama supporters. And a lot of us are now HRC supporters. You do not own the labels "liberal" and "progressive", and are in no way the final arbiter as to who those labels are appropriately affixed to.

"Hell, you could look at DU over those first four years and see hundereds of threads about how Obama sold us out."

Ah, yes, I certainly saw those threads - which is why I left DU for years to post elsewhere - along with a lot of actual Democrats who also abandoned DU. It was no coincidence that after the TOS was changed, which allowed anyone posing as a Democrat to post here without restriction, the Obama-bashing became continuous and unabated to this day.

DU became infested with RW trolls who, under the guise of being "disappointed Dems", use this site to further their own agenda, which has nothing to do with being a Democrat - allegedly disappointed or otherwise.

I have seen complaints about Obama that were lifted straight from RW talking points - as I now see HRC-bashing posts with actual links to RW sites, authors, pundits, bloggers, etc.

DU ceased being what it initially was a long time ago, a place for actual Democrats to discuss the issues of the day. Now it's just another political message board that allows anyone to post here - so long as they "pretend" to be Democrats.

Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #16)

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
129. "It's Clinton's turn" ...
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 01:40 AM
Nov 2015

... is a RW talking point. You don't see any HRC supporters saying that - just like you don't see BS supporters claiming that "its his turn" - even though many feel it is "the turn" of a far-leftist progressive as opposed to what they call "the establishment" types, and I don't dispute their point in feeling that way.

No one is bullying anyone into voting for anyone - you are free to vote as you choose. No one is "demanding" anything.

But this is DemocraticUnderground, and you will actually come across Democrats (oh, nooooooeeesss!!!!) who believe that Democrats should elect their own to the WH, and not threaten to take their ball and go home if their preferred candidate is not the nominee.

Of course Clinton supporters are going to post positive polls for their candidate, just as BS supporters did when his poll numbers were on the rise all summer. That's what happens on a political message board when people are supporting different candidates.

If you find any of this to be offensive or "bullying" behaviour, or people "lording it over" others, this site might not be a good fit for you.

 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
64. yep, they're a dwindlling breed
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:47 AM
Nov 2015

having been replaced by an invasive species known as the "Blue Dog."

 

Darb

(2,807 posts)
72. I can attest to this scenario.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 10:04 AM
Nov 2015

I was Obama over Hillary last time. I am with Hillary this time. I like Bernie a lot though.

Skidmore

(37,364 posts)
164. You are wrong.
Sat Nov 7, 2015, 06:31 PM
Nov 2015

I too was an adament Obama supporter in 2008. I liked the man and I responded to the hope that we could have a leader who was able to bridge the gap between communities and parties so that the nation could heal. There was no way to predict that the Republicans would dig in and adopt obstructionism as a form of governing. It had nothing to do with whether I saw him as anti-establishment or progressive. I watched him mend the pre-election divide with Hillary and saw her get on board to work with him as he did is best to try to dig the nation out of so many messes.

Sanders' mantle of anti-establishment will wind up being shredded by an incalcitrant Congress. Sanders is no Obama by any stretch of the imagination. I want a power player in there who has broad experience and a intimate knowledge of the internation dynamics. I will vote for Hillary. I don't need a saviour, I need a leader.

Cassiopeia

(2,603 posts)
20. I agree with your post in a real life scenario,
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 04:22 AM
Nov 2015

but I also agree with the OP when considering the DU world.

There are some here from 2008 that never let the loss to Obama go.

CanadianComrade

(30 posts)
23. A few thoughts / gaping holes with the gaping holes......
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 04:36 AM
Nov 2015

As a Canadian, I can't be accused of having a horse in this fight. So none of what I have to say comes from anywhere like that. If I were to have a vote, I would place my vote for the eventual nominee, and either candidate would work in the end. But watching this from above a few things look pretty obvious....

First of all, you can't say that "nobody" sees Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton. A hell of a lot of people do, in fact, envision that happening. The fact is that at this point in the campaign last cycle, then-Senator Obama did not have near the support Bernie Sanders is producing this cycle. I checked. That's a fact. The Obama support grew later. So if Hillary Clinton has her supporters along this time, plus a lot of President Obama's supporters -- one would wonder where all of these Sanders supporters are coming from. Some supported Hillary last time, and many supported the President. It stands to reason and is just basic math.

Second, to suggest Sanders is not a persuasive speaker is ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, for some reason, and seems like the pettiness or possibly the defensiveness the OP was pointing out.

I don't think anyone really thinks the OP was saying that literally everyone who is attacking the Senator is doing so because of what happened to their candidate last time. But to many who did support her then, this is an all too familiar feeling, and a very frustrating one. You could even conclude that with the earlier support, Senator Sanders has a head start on doing to Mrs. Clinton what then-Senator Obama did last time. Certainly, if Sanders was not seen as a real threat, there would be no need at all for this defensive venom we've all seen on full-throated display. Yet there it is. Yes, for many, the sting really is still fresh, and even worse -- this is seen as Mrs. Clinton's last shot.

To not recognize these truths could be considered ludicrous, or politically naive. But using those words and making those accusations is counter productive and, sorry, quite telling. Far better though to just accept that everyone is entitled to their own choice, and mud-flinging now does nothing but future damage. Talk about differences on the issues instead of trying to stab with talk of racism, sexism and the like. Then it isn't personal and combative. The people you are engaging (your friends, remember?) won't feel attacked or insulted. Certain issues are more important to some voters, others may rank it differently. The only way to persuade is to talk it through, not insult or demonize. What issue makes you choose this person ahead of that person? Why is that important to you? Can you relate that message to someone else in your party so they will hopefully see it your way as well?

Going negative within your own party is never good in the long run. Hillary is not Michelle Bachmann and Bernie is not Louis Gohmert, so why attack them like they are? These are good people with differences on policy, nothing more, so treat it that way. Either Democrats are better than this or they aren't. It seems some are, but others have some more soul-searching to do.

Good luck everyone.



GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
40. "Talk about differences on the issues instead of trying to stab with talk of racism, sexism, .... "
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 07:51 AM
Nov 2015

The failure to do this is the genesis of a lot of friction. Another problem stems from psyops which seem intended to convince supporters of the other candidate that they are wasting their time, money, support.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
109. Right off the top ...
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 06:32 PM
Nov 2015
"First of all, you can't say that "nobody" sees Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton."

I am trying to figure out where I said that - because I didn't. Obviously, BS has a lot of supporters who have donated both money and effort to his campaign, which I doubt they'd do if they didn't envision him winning.

"So if Hillary Clinton has her supporters along this time, plus a lot of President Obama's supporters -- one would wonder where all of these Sanders supporters are coming from."

You forget how many candidates there were in 2008 - there were Edwards supporters, Biden supporters, etc. Eventually it came down to Obama v HRC, and most people eventually supported their preference between the two. That doesn't mean that they completely abandoned their preference for one of the candidates who didn't survive the final cut. I know that a lot of Edwards supporters are now BS supporters, because they perceive the same sense of idealism in the two men. Some staunch Biden supporters have moved to BS since Joe decided not to run - far more of them went to HRC - again demonstrating that neither HRC nor BS have a "lock" on all Democrats, but HRC is definitely attracting more of them.

Are some former Obama supporters now BS supporters? Absolutely. But far more of them are now HRC supporters. And as I said earlier, many, many Obama supporters are mindful that BS wanted Obama primaried in 2012, and have not forgotten that. They are also cognizant of the fact that Obama chose HRC as SoS, and the two have worked closely together and are, for the most part, "on the same page" in many regards.

"Certainly, if Sanders was not seen as a real threat, there would be no need at all for this defensive venom we've all seen on full-throated display. Yet there it is. Yes, for many, the sting really is still fresh, and even worse -- this is seen as Mrs. Clinton's last shot."

The venom displayed here by HRC supporters has been a response to the BS supporters' constant attacks on Hillary - many of which are sourced from, and are a parroting of RW talking points. I know it's been a popular meme among BS supporters that Hill supporters are worried, scared - even terrified!!!. Well, when your candidate is this far ahead in the polls, it's obvious that it's the other side that's worried - and it becomes a classic case of projection.

To put down the "venom" from the HRC side as being due to "the sting" of her having lost her nomination bid in 2008 is really straw-grasping. And as for those who you think are supporting HRC because it's her last shot - let's not forget that for Bernie, this is his only shot.

In the end, there can be only one - and that "one" will be the candidate with the most support. And it is obvious that HRC has far more support than BS.

That's just the way it is.

CanadianComrade

(30 posts)
119. Well, right off the top....
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 08:48 PM
Nov 2015

.....you kinda did say that. You say nobody expects Bernie to do what Obama did, "not by a long shot".

To suggest that much of the vitriol here directed towards Senator Sanders is a defensive response, well that seems a bit convenient. "He made a face at me first" is not an excuse, and quite frankly, I wouldn't let my children get away with that excuse, let alone grown adults.

And I've been over to visit the other place to see the discourse myself. It's much uglier than I expected, and the worst is not coming as defense at all. It is just insults and childish attacks one would expect from the likes of Ann Coulter. Sorry, but it is. It's tough to defend the indefensible. That doesn't excuse shots at Hillary either, but don't defend that garbage and pretend it's honorable.

You can call it straw grasping, but for many Hillary supporters, the OP rings very true.

And you know, while we are being careful to be quoted accurately, I did not say people were supporting Hillary because it was her last shot. I said some of them are desperate (straw-grasping, if you will) because if she loses this one too, well, that's it. And both times she was supposed to walk away with it.

And yes this is Bernie's only shot, as he's never run before. It isn't Hillary's only shot because she lost last time.

I notice you didn't bother quoting the other stuff I wrote -- the stuff about the language and accusatory tone and how it is self-defeating. It is you know. But nothing will improve if there are those who will defend it with a "he/she did it first!" excuse.

Like I said Nancy - you're either better than that or you aren't. Your decision in the end.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
122. No, I actually ...
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:41 PM
Nov 2015

... didn't "kind of say that".

Bernie is NOT Obama, and pretending that he is doesn't help his cause.

As for what gets said here - language, accusatory tones, etc. - I really don't care. I care about a Democrat being elected POTUS next November, and all the accusations on DU against her aren't going to affect HRC's chances one way or the other.

DU is comprised of 85% BS supporters, 10% HRC supporters, and 5% undecideds. That is not reflective of the Democratic Party as a whole, as we all know - so looking at DU as some kind of measure of anything in the real world is just folly.

The vitriol goes back and forth between the factions on DU - and it has become an on-line game of "I can be nastier than you can". In the end, it is all meaningless. The average voter is not looking to DU for serious advice on who to support.

CanadianComrade

(30 posts)
139. Uh -huh. You did.
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 04:24 PM
Nov 2015

And I cited where you did. Changing it now to say you'd only stated Sanders is not Obama is misleading, but you know that.

It isn't just DU where there are words against HRC, but you know that, too. Nobody suggested DU is turning an election. And nobody said they were using DU as a "measure" of anything. Yes, that would be "folly". It would also be a strawman argument made by you.

Not caring about the language and vitriol both ways is part of the problem. If you truly cared about electing a Democrat for the White House next year, you'd care about how the debate between Democrats is done.

And I referred to the vitriol at the HRC site you frequent. That is majority HRC supporters by design, and is a cesspool of vitriolic insults. Oh right. You don't care. I forgot.

The OP, and me, never stated that this nastiness was a problem only here, because it isn't. And that is what both of us were speaking to. Strawman arguments don't help make your point, but they do draw a big red circle around the weakness of your argument, whatever that is. It seems to be that HRC is the greatest, is the inevitable nominee, and anyone who says otherwise deserves whatever they get in return. You're entitled to this opinion, if that is what you are arguing (seems to be but I can't tell - you're too busy arguing against points nobody has made), but it is one that isn't easy to respect.

If you don't agree that the nastiness and accusatory tone matters at all (not just here but in the national debate between supporters) - we will have to agree to disagree. It really is hard to see how you'd argue against having a debate on policy differences instead of throwing insults, but like I said twice now: You are either better than that it you aren't. I think we have our answer.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
140. Try actually reading.
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 05:45 PM
Nov 2015

In response to the OP's comment: "They (HRC supporters) see Bernie doing the same thing Obama did ...", I said that in the HRC camp, "No one sees 'Bernie doing the same thing Obama did - not by a longshot."

The OP was speaking specifically about HRC supporters, and I responded as an HRC supporter to the OP's ridiculous assertions about what HRC supporters are thinking.

Do BS supporters see him "doing the same thing Obama did"? Of course they do. This board is rife with posts from the BS camp stating exactly that, over and over since BS announced.

Bernie Sanders is NOT Obama in any way, shape or form. But that doesn't dissuade his fans from insisting that he is.

As for the rest of your reply, I am really not interested.



CanadianComrade

(30 posts)
141. Of course you aren't.....
Fri Nov 6, 2015, 12:42 AM
Nov 2015

....so you'll continue with the irrelevant things you comment on (like how you think as a Hillary supporter you represent all Hillary supporters and somehow know their thinking and reasoning), and ignore whatever refutes your position or makes you look bad. Try actually addressing the matter at hand once. Try following the conversation to at least attempt to understand the discussion. Try answering the points made without resorting to childish condescension ("try actually reading&quot . Trust me, I can read just fine. And stop playing the victim afterwards, pretending like this kind of discourse doesn't invite a response in kind. If that is why Sanders supporters seem so mean to you, perhaps the problem isn't with them.

I love how you claim to be so un-worried about Sanders but you can't seem to stop yourself from looking waaaaay too worried about Sanders. If he isn't a threat, why all the craziness? That's rhetorical. I've had quite enough of your strawman army. I'm really, really relieved that as a Hillary supporter, you are far from representative of others that support her.

Like I said, I have my answer, and you keep driving that home with each subsequent comment. I don't even have a dog in this fight and I can see through this like used Neutrogena.

I think the discussion should be about differences in policy and not about insults thrown back and forth between supporters. You don't. 'Nuff said right there. Good luck.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
147. If you think ...
Fri Nov 6, 2015, 02:59 PM
Nov 2015

... that someone responding as an HRC supporter means speaking for all HRC supporters, you obviously have problems with reading comprehension.

CanadianComrade

(30 posts)
148. ....except your post is still there....
Fri Nov 6, 2015, 03:50 PM
Nov 2015

"...and I responded as an HRC supporter to the OP's ridiculous assertions about what HRC supporters are thinking."

Said Nancy. Because as an HRC supporter, you are qualified to say what they are thinking, or not thinking, right? Some kind of mind-meld happening there?

Your words have meanings Nancy. If you don't like being held accountable for what it is you are saying, try not saying it.

"As an HRC supporter....." Lol

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
149. I'm sorry.
Fri Nov 6, 2015, 04:32 PM
Nov 2015

But my patience in trying to deal with your inability to understand common language usage has now been exhausted.

CanadianComrade

(30 posts)
156. It doesn't matter in the slightest, really....
Fri Nov 6, 2015, 10:59 PM
Nov 2015

But at some point a little self awareness might make you a better person.

But I have a sneaking suspicion you're one of those "ends justifies the means" types. Your choice.

Like I've said repeatedly - you're either better than that or you aren't. And lady, you aren't.

I'm done talking to this particular piece of furniture. You're dismissed.

ChiciB1

(15,435 posts)
155. Thanks So Much For Your Observation... Just Today I Was
Fri Nov 6, 2015, 10:55 PM
Nov 2015

talking to a couple of Canadians about politics. Not going to go into many specifics, but will say I was very happy with what they said. AND, as you they don't have a dog in our fight. I know where my allegiance is, but some of this crap that gets thrown around here is simply astounding AND childish.

ChiciB1

(15,435 posts)
153. Where Did You Go NanceGreggs? I Used To Read Your Posts
Fri Nov 6, 2015, 10:51 PM
Nov 2015

a long time ago. I've left and come back quite a few times and I could have missed your return. It's just a question because I remember your name and some of your journalistic posts.

Doesn't matter that I don't agree with you, right now I'm just wondering.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
160. I left in 2009 ...
Sat Nov 7, 2015, 12:50 AM
Nov 2015

... (I think that's right) to write articles for another website. DU had become far too anti-Obama/anti-Dem by then, and it was no longer a good fit for me here.

I post here now in a very different way than I used to. I no longer see DU as a "Democratic site", but just another political message board. And I post accordingly.

I lost my husband (JeffR of DUzy fame, and long-time participant in the Photo Group) very unexpectedly in May. So I guess I spend more time here, and other political sites, than I should - now that I can no longer discuss politics with him, which was always a big part of our conversations.

It doesn't matter that you don't agree with me - I appreciate your remembering me, and taking the time to ask where I've been.

ChiciB1

(15,435 posts)
161. So Sorry For Your Loss & I Do Remember You From Back.
Sat Nov 7, 2015, 09:57 AM
Nov 2015

Obviously the reason I asked. Was just wondering. As I said I've left and come back many times myself as you can see by my number of posts. Been a member since 2004 and so many others from back then are gone.

Of course our differences of opinion are simply that as I don't like getting into many of the "ready to rumble" posts. I will have to say right now I'm getting a little turned off again.

I also remember your husband but must have been "out" when he passed away.

As I see we do support different candidates, but it's just a matter of choice right now. Politics has been something I've been involved with for more years than many here, but perhaps a crazy addiction. Wish it weren't so at times because the "game" and atmosphere has changed dramatically over time. But these discussions will be played out here.

I'm sure we'll be involved in more discussion here as time goes by, so welcome again.

Godhumor

(6,437 posts)
9. Not even remotely true
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 03:34 AM
Nov 2015

And the preemptive "I'm going to be attacked for this post" was a nice touch.

This board is 90% or so for Bernie. And that echo chamber is probably why OPs claiming African Americans have Stockholm Syndrome or that LGBT activists who support HRC are voting against their own interests can earn huge numbers of recs.

Heck, the second reply to your op is a statement that us HRC voters aren't capable of judging her beyond her gender.

Don't pretend Bernie supporters haven't brought some of the tiny amount of grief they're given on DU on themselves.

murielm99

(30,656 posts)
14. Tiny amount, yes.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 03:51 AM
Nov 2015

Compared to what they, as about 90% of DU, are doing to others.

I was one of the people who always liked Bernie. My kid lives in Burlington.

I was open-minded enough to attend a rally in Madison, until I missed my ride and had to stay home. I was going to see what he had to say.

I don't think he is viable as someone to win the general. I support Hillary. I like her for her qualifications and experience. I like her because I think she can win. A Republican would be unthinkable.

Until I was attacked for my Clinton support here, and I do mean attacked, I did not take anything personally. Then, I saw the number of people being silenced by Bernie supporters.

I would like Bernie to go back to his state and continue being Senator. He is needed.

I will continue my support for my candidate. I will continue to criticize Bernie supporters, who by far, are the ones causing so much of the anger and division on DU.

stillwaiting

(3,795 posts)
42. I'm gay and I believe that Bernie will represent my interests much better than Clinton.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 07:57 AM
Nov 2015

I honestly don't think I would worry about him selling me out nearly as much as I would with Clinton.

So, from that perspective I guess LGBT activists are voting against their better interests.

Again, that is my opinion. Hope it's allowed.

There are track records to compare that are the basis for this opinion and have been discussed many times here.

zentrum

(9,865 posts)
11. Saw a really
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 03:44 AM
Nov 2015

Last edited Wed Nov 4, 2015, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)

…disturbing graphic today on CNN. It was only in passing at the airport, so I don't know how or who conducted the poll. It was Jake Tapper's show. The point was that though she polls well with Democrats, she is not "liked" or "trusted" by the majority of the rest of the country. She's scores over 50% on "distrust".

Like you, I feel the Bern and will have to vote for her in the general, but it's only because the Repugs have such terrifying candidates that she'll stand a chance with Independents.

It's a damn shame, because I really don't think she'll be able to be all that effective if she makes it to the WH.

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
13. That's what worries me more than anything...
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 03:50 AM
Nov 2015

About HRC. Outside of Democratic ranks, she is not liked or trusted, and she's downright hated by many in the opposing ranks. That hatred may very well result in big voter turnout for the GOP.

zentrum

(9,865 posts)
21. That's it exactly.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 04:33 AM
Nov 2015

And she and her husband are like scandal-porn for the RW and the media, and we'll face that non-stop for the four years of her term, if she makes it.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
32. Soooooo we should pick our candidate based
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 07:14 AM
Nov 2015

On who Republicans and Indies like?

Does that make sense to either of you?

zentrum

(9,865 posts)
91. Not the point
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 01:01 PM
Nov 2015

…at all. We should have a deeper bench that has been developed by the Democratic party at all levels. (See Charlie Pierce post on DU this morning). Rather than a chosen one that the party has stove piped to the top.

We should have a frontrunner who does not have so much baggage. It is a real concern that the RW hates her with a white hot hatred and it will galvanize their base whereas HRC and DWS have risked suppressing the Democratic base. It's not about the Dems having a candidate that Indies and Repugs like—it's about having a frontrunner that the majority of the country trusts. and doesn't distrust. That gives me the willies.

It's dangerous to insist on HRC.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
92. Bullshit!
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 01:03 PM
Nov 2015

and it is NOT dangerous....she is well respected among DEMOCRATS and that is what I am interested in....

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
99. Accuracy is not dependent on charm.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 03:08 PM
Nov 2015

Accuracy is not dependent on charm. Charm is in fact, irreverent to accuracy. Unless of course, one maintains the pretense that 22-2=24-4 is full of charm, decorum and likability-- and that mathematics and charm are predicated one on the other.

stillwaiting

(3,795 posts)
43. It absolutely will result in bigger voter turnout for the GOP. I have no doubt about that.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 07:59 AM
Nov 2015

It's a shame that that is so, but it is.

 

Darb

(2,807 posts)
74. And Bernie will?
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 10:06 AM
Nov 2015

Bernie will be able to be effective in the White House? Pshaw, he'd be black-balled faster than Obama was and that happened on Day 1.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
15. Or maybe its because of all the venom directed to HRC from Bernie fans, who were
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 03:51 AM
Nov 2015

Last edited Wed Nov 4, 2015, 04:35 AM - Edit history (1)

on a anyone-but-Hillary kick long before Bernie declared his candidacy.

Response to pnwmom (Reply #15)

Response to pnwmom (Reply #22)

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
37. Implying your opponent is a sexist
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 07:37 AM
Nov 2015

And worse the dog-whistle racism back in 2008 counts as 'dirty' to many of us.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
45. Oh implications now are dirty...
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 08:16 AM
Nov 2015

You havent followed politics long have you? Compared to the shit Sanders supporters fling at her.....thats downright laughable

Keep digging

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
54. There is a huge difference..
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 08:46 AM
Nov 2015

Between what random people on the internet say, and what the candidates themselves say.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
60. Okay....if YOU call that dirty
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:16 AM
Nov 2015

then I call "implying" that she is screaming is sexist....you know if WHAT the candidate says is the only important thing....and since JUST the "implication" is enough to indict her....then HIS falls under the same scrutiny !


Boy you all are NOT ready for the Republicans in the GE! If you think THAT is dirty.....they will peel your eyelids back!

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
63. Making a clear implication that another nominee is a sexist
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:42 AM
Nov 2015

When you know damn well that is not the case, is a cheap smear. Yes unfortunately we expect that kind of dirt in the general, but within the party it should be completely unacceptable. It's sad that you apparently think anything goes these days, and even sadder that you just doubled down on the ridiculous sexism claim.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
66. what "clear" implication...
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:56 AM
Nov 2015

Its just as "clear" as his implication that SHE was screaming....

Like I said....if that sticks under your craw...you are NOT ready for what the Republicans will fling at your candidate. Do you think they will ignore him if he were in the GE like they do now? You are in for a rude awaking should that happen.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
77. Oh we've gone from shouting to screaming now have we?
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 10:20 AM
Nov 2015

Really classy. As for the Republicans, like I said in my last post, you expect that in the general, in the primary when it might be your eventual nominee you're smearing, that's totally unacceptable.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
88. By the end of the day it will be screaming. Would be funny if it was not sickening.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 11:56 AM
Nov 2015

And totally totally expected and business as usual.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
104. The rediculous part is that Bernie wasn't even talking about Hillary,
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 03:42 PM
Nov 2015

and, of course, anyone who cares to read the entire quote will know this detail.

riversedge

(69,725 posts)
26. You must have been a lurker reader of the board-having just joined today, you know about what
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 05:13 AM
Nov 2015

happened in may or June.

Response to riversedge (Reply #26)

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
25. Bill Clinton did the same
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 04:51 AM
Nov 2015

And so did Carter.

Establishment Democratic candidates just don't win the presidency.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
28. Sanders is now saying establishment politicians can not make the type of changes we need
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 06:03 AM
Nov 2015

In these very difficult times, he is an established politician, he has been in politics for a long time, he has been in congress since 1991, that is twenty five years, which if he is right on this theory then he can't get the job done. This is what Sanders is saying.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
131. No, what he is alluding to is that Citizen's United won't be fixed if Hillary Clinton is elected
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 05:32 AM
Nov 2015

Assume she wins both the primary and GE and is sworn in. She has promised to overturn Citizen's United has she not?

My question is what motive does she really have for doing so? She will have to run for re-election in 2020 (I am assuming if elected she would serve two terms, correct me if I'm wrong). Given that elections are getting more expensive, what will be the first thing she'll start doing once elected? Fundraising for re-election. Assuming she has a Republican House and a Democratic Senate (both fair assumptions given the fact that the CD are so jerryrigged), she then can say it's not her fault. Her way out of this whole thing is already set and she can continue to take advantage Citizen's United while the rest of us get screwed.

So here is where I walk the talk: The first mid-term elections into the next presidential term are three years away. I will still be here, you will still be here. If she is elected and Citizen's United isn't overturned you donate $100 to the charity (not political) of my choice. If it is, I will gladly donate $100 to the charity (not political) of your choice.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
132. My question is if this what Sanders is alluding to why i the hell does he allude to something, why
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 07:45 AM
Nov 2015

Not just say it? Concluding only Sanders can or fix CU according to Sanders, he hasn't proceeded with actions while he remains in congress and this is exactly where the action needs to start. No, I heard what Sanders said, I can take him at his word of what he says, not other interpretations to cover what he said.

I dont buy the reasoning Clinton will not work to get CU overturned based on elections being expensive, if overturned all candidates will be under the same rule, no advantage to any candidate. I would never bet on what congress is going to do, based on the fact current members is not taking action, the president can not use executive order to overturn a SC decision. Since I donate more than $100 to charity on regular basis that part isn't a problem.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
133. CU could be overturned in a number of different ways
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 08:12 AM
Nov 2015

I was just talking to DFW in another thread about this. Congress is one way, SCOTUS is another, a constitutional amendment is yet another.

In terms of what Sanders has done: you asked a straight forward question, so I'm going to give you a straight forward answer:

Bernie Sanders Files A New Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is renewing his efforts to rid the country of Citizens United by introducing a new constitutional amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court’s decision.

SECTION 1. Whereas the right to vote in public elections belongs only to natural persons as citizens of the United States, so shall the ability to make contributions and expenditures to influence the outcome of public elections belong only to natural persons in accordance with this Article.
SECTION 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power of Congress and the States to protect the integrity and fairness of the electoral process, limit the corrupting influence of private wealth in public elections, and guarantee the dependence of elected officials on the people alone by taking actions which may include the establishment of systems of public financing for elections, the imposition of requirements to ensure the disclosure of contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of a public election by candidates, individuals, and associations of individuals, and the imposition of content neutra limitations on all such contributions and expenditures.
SECTION 3. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to alter the freedom of the press.


snip

President Obama endorsed the Sanders constitutional amendment in 2012, and explained the rationale behind it, “Money has always been a factor in politics, but we are seeing something new in the no-holds barred flow of seven and eight figure checks, most undisclosed, into super-PACs; they fundamentally threaten to overwhelm the political process over the long run and drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. We need to start with passing the Disclose Act that is already written and been sponsored in Congress – to at least force disclosure of who is giving to who. We should also pass legislation prohibiting the bundling of campaign contributions from lobbyists. Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn’t revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/21/bernie-sanders-files-constitutional-amendment-overturn-citizens-united.html

That's all I can post without going too far over the limit. Even President Obama endorsed the constitutional amendment he proposed. So yes, Bernie Sanders HAS done something about it.

Again, assuming Hillary Clinton wins the primary and GE I am skeptical she will do anything to help overturn CU. As I was telling DFW in the other thread, the way I see it is CU is like a huge knot and only by undoing that knot will some of these other important issues be solved. I get it people are passionate about their candidate and their issues, but what will get accomplished if that knot is in the way? Not a damn thing.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
137. I know that she has said she will and that is great
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 10:03 AM
Nov 2015

The question is will she hold to that.

The first article mentioned her book, which I have, but have not gotten to. Hopefully I can read it before my primary. I have lots of time. It isn't until May.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
138. Let me ask you this, what guarantee do we have with anything a candidate says? I have heard lots of
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 10:12 AM
Nov 2015

things said during this campaign in which I know is not going to happen. Thinking the SC we currently have is going to overturn CU is something to be skeptic about, I don't anticipate these same people is going to reverse their decision. The only reason is republicans has found Democrats are capable of raising as much or more money they have.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
143. I agree, there is zero chance the current court would overturn itself
Fri Nov 6, 2015, 03:31 AM
Nov 2015

I also agree that there is no guarantee once a candidate is elected (any candidate for that matter) that they will do what they say. The problem again is the longer we have CU in place, the further damage is going to be done. CU is essentially stopping us from getting the people we need elected to get elected to put more changes in place. President Obama has been hamstrung by assholes in Congress and has done what he has been able to do. The next president will have just as difficult of a time getting things done as President Obama if CU is not overturned. That means the 1% gets more and more and those of us who are in the 99% (I'm assuming you are as well) will only have it tougher.

BTW I actually don't even live in the US anymore, but I still care enough about the people there to want to see change. Specifically I'd like to see the health care system go to single payer or universal. I have been sick as a dog this week and was able to walk into any doctor's office I wanted to get seen by a doctor. My copay was about $4 and my medication was less than that. Many of us who live overseas are lucky because we have awesome health insurance. I'm not saying the ACA is bad, just that there is so much more that can be done.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
35. You're wrong. Most Hillary supporters like Bernie. Most Bernie supporters hate Hillary.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 07:24 AM
Nov 2015

At least here on DU.

Also, the Obama thing is silly. Like many Hillary supporters this time around, I was an Obama supporter in 2007/2008.

The behavior of some Bernie supporters this time around reminds me very much of the Hillary supporters towards the end of the 2008 campaign, particularly the ones who proudly claim that they won't vote for the Dem nominee if it's not their top choice.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that you'll be voting for Hillary in the General. That's what matters anyway, in a few months we're all on the same team.

smiley

(1,432 posts)
38. I think if most Bernie supporters hate Hillary....
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 07:45 AM
Nov 2015

it says a lot more about Hillary than it does Berni Sanders.

BTW... I'm an indy with heavy dislike for HRC. But if she wins the nomination I will hold my nose.... again.

 

Darb

(2,807 posts)
75. Nailed it Tex.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 10:13 AM
Nov 2015

I was Obama and am now Hillary. And I like Bernie a great deal. I do see much hate of Hillary by many Bernie people though, if they are real Bernie people and not baggers in disguise. Before you alert you little alerter mice, I am not calling anyone a bagger. I am jussayin' the opinion of Hillary by some Berners (if real) and all baggers are eeeerily similar. Actually, identical in their level of contempt I'd say.

luvspeas

(1,883 posts)
80. but the Bernie supporters are saying they will write him in...
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 10:23 AM
Nov 2015

in greater and greater numbers. Showing their true colors (not blue)

sufrommich

(22,871 posts)
46. From what I can see,the venom directed at Hillary is
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 08:17 AM
Nov 2015

being spewed by the same people who have been spewing it at Obama for the last 7 years. I think you've got it backward,most Clinton supporters also have been happy with Obama,the demographics she leads with(which are almost every demographic in the party) prove that.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
49. Many of the ones here were in the Obama camp.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 08:20 AM
Nov 2015

Or at least were part of our charming BOG, and are using the same tactics they used to defend the Obama administration from any and all criticism. It is the same mentality that defended capitulation by congressional democrats during the Bush administration. I don't buy that this is the revenge of the pumas, it is just more of the continual battle here and elsewhere between centrist establishment Democrats and the disorganized left wing of the party.

Catherina

(35,568 posts)
106. +1. The split is straight down neoliberal libs vs progressive libs
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 04:40 PM
Nov 2015

That doesn't mean there isn't a puma factor. It's there, very loud, and organizing things.

It's strange to watch certain so-called liberals who were so angry at Hillary's last lost that they organized the vote FOR McCain against Obama in the 2008 and 2012 General Elections repackage themselves as the best buddies of the people who are so blindingly loyal to Obama, they wouldn't tolerate any criticism of him on policies.





JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
110. Since you mention folks who "defend" Obama ...
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 06:47 PM
Nov 2015

Let's check something ...

Some on this site have accused Obama of all manner of evil.

They were SURE he'd never end DADT.
They were SURE he'd never support ending DOMA.
They were SURE he'd never pull out of Iraq.
They were SURE he'd extend all of the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
They were SURE he'd gut / cut / destroy Social Security and Medicare.
They were SURE that the ACA would be a DISASTER!!
They were SURE he'd collapse the economy and cause a double dip recession.
They were SURE he'd invade Syria much like Bush invaded Iraq.
They were SURE he'd invade Iran much like Bush invaded Iraq.
They were SURE he'd invade Libya much like Bush invaded Iraq.
They were SURE he'd invade Egypt much like Bush invaded Iraq.

I could go on ...

... but the point is ... the folks on this site screaming bloody murder about Obama for the last 6+ years have been WRONG over and over and over.

And who do we find on DU screaming loudest and the in the angriest voices about Hillary now??

The same perpetually disgruntled, and perpetually WRONG, folks that spent the last 6+ years attacking Obama.

If what you called the "disorganized left" wants to be taken seriously ... its going to have to be RIGHT some of the time.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
113. Interesting list.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 07:06 PM
Nov 2015

We've pulled back into Iraq.
The Bush tax cuts remain in place.
We are now stuck in Syria.
We collapsed Libya into a militia mess, Iraq style.
We didn't invade Egypt, we illegally supported a military coup that overthrew an elected government and re-established the dictatorship.
We are stuck in afghanistan, which you left off the list.

Most of us have given Obama credit for his about face on gay rights starting in the 2012 election campaign. That may be the greatest achievement of his administration. However he ran against gay rights in 2008 and pandered to the homophobic bigotry of the religious right in that campaign.

Many of us think the ACA is better than nothing but far less than we should have accomplished in that brief window when we had a functional majority in congress. He went for way too little in some misbegotten fantasy that republicans were reasonable people who would work with democrats to do the right thing for the american people.

Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Skidmore

(37,364 posts)
56. My reaction is definitely not based on anything that happened in the 2008 primary.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:01 AM
Nov 2015

I wish I could pack a mirror onto this post so you all could take a look at yourselves. I don't see sweetness and light pouring out of "Team Sanders."

I support Hillary and I have stated why on several posts. Does it occur to people that perhaps that support might be genuine and not be due to political gamesmanship?

Blue_Adept

(6,384 posts)
61. Impossible!
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:31 AM
Nov 2015

Any genuine support is likely bought and pair for by the machine that maintains the status quo!

Or, as seen elsewhere, $tatu$ quo. Frankly, I find it hard to take people seriously people that throw $ into words to make it seem like they're emphasizing a point. Just strikes me as childish.

It's all just comical. I sort of play-advocate for Hillary around here simply because for the bulk of the summer and into September there were very few supporters of hers sticking around, particularly with some of the "purges" that were going on that caused some more well know members to abandon ship.

In the end I don't support any candidate during primary season because it's frickin' pointless for me to do so. Our primary is on March 1st, 2016. And I largely expect things to shift and change hard during the events of February where it'll all shake out and be pretty obvious by then, if not by January, where things are going.

I've lost my heart to candidates several times in the past only to see them not get far in the primaries. And then to see their true colors afterwards. Oh, my poor Edwards...

So I'll let the hardcore dig into it and work it all out. I'll support whoever comes out of the process because it means they can survive it and navigate the big pond out there.

BootinUp

(46,928 posts)
57. I don't see it
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:04 AM
Nov 2015

I don't see a lot of venom directed at Bernie.

As far as Bernies supporters, its a two way street.

Vinca

(50,170 posts)
58. I've been thinking this election is deja vu all over again.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:04 AM
Nov 2015

The Hillary supporters went after Obama supporters in the exact way they're now going after Bernie supporters. It makes you hate politics.

Blue_Adept

(6,384 posts)
62. But so many of the Hillary supporters ARE Obama supporters!
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:32 AM
Nov 2015

How do you reconcile that?

And frankly, a good number of people have been long, long, gone since 2008. Most folks do not stick around forums, political or otherwise, for eight years. The majority you may be thinking of likely aren't even here anymore.

 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
69. Because Obama is now the establishment
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:57 AM
Nov 2015

and many people like the status quo.

They didn't like Obama when he challenged the PTB, but they love him now that he represents those same powerful interests, and that is why some Obama support has transferred to Hillary.

Vinca

(50,170 posts)
89. They weren't Obama supporters until the 2012 election.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 12:51 PM
Nov 2015

I recognize some of the same suspects from 2008, but I'm not naming names.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
73. The flame-throwers are a minority at DU.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 10:06 AM
Nov 2015

A good candidate simply brushes off attacks. Good supporters do, too, IMO. Otherwise, you come across as something like the GOP candidates whining about debate questions.

My advice for the next few months: relax.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

BeyondGeography

(39,284 posts)
76. If we somehow quantified the venom factor of the two camps here
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 10:17 AM
Nov 2015

I don't think Camp Sanders would fare all that well.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
78. But if we could bottle it and sell it, we'd be rich!
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 10:20 AM
Nov 2015

"We're millionaires, boys! I'll share it with all of you!" -Carl Denham.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

BeyondGeography

(39,284 posts)
82. The Fountain of Eternal Venom...we could market it as a life force
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 10:26 AM
Nov 2015

And take the money and run before the unhealthy side effects became too apparent.

Evergreen Emerald

(13,069 posts)
79. Lol...so completely self-unaware
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 10:20 AM
Nov 2015

The reason for the venom is that many Hillary supporters are responding in kind.

At first we were stunned by the ugly vitrolic seemingly hatred of Clinton. And we countered the baseless arguments.

But, they continued and grew louder and more detached from issues...and we became angry.

And now, we just shake our heads and cannot believe that "progressives" act the way many Sanders supporters on this board have been acting.

Take a look in the mirror. You may find the real reason.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
84. The "venom" is aimed at Sanders supporters, not Sanders himself.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 10:50 AM
Nov 2015

From day one of Sanders announcing his candidacy, there has been an utterly vile and vicious contingent of supporters. The very day of his announcement, when Clinton supporters were welcoming him into the race, certain supporters were demanding the rest of us "have a big cup of shut the fuck up."

Then there was the utterly tone deaf attitudes toward African Americans--patronizing bullshit about MLK, stupid suggestions of Stockholm Syndrome, and going so far as to call certain BLM activists angry, black, Tea Party, Soros-funded lesbians.

Then there was the hilarious parroting of Gowdy talking points from RW media to further a wasteful taxpayer-funded, blatantly-partisan witch hunt, while simultaneously declaring any criticism, no matter how mild, of Sanders as part of a vast RW/DLC/corporate conspiracy.

This is shit that Sanders wouldn't even think to engage in, but is just expected out of a certain contingent of his supporters.

When people say certain Sanders supporters are acting like complete assholes, it's not an attack on Sanders, despite what the aforementioned asshole supporters like to assert; it's people saying certain Sanders supporters are acting like complete assholes.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
95. Nope. I was an Obama fan from the start in 2007's primary season.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 02:24 PM
Nov 2015

I was an extreme partisan and was probably annoying to the others, to boot. But politics is about finding points of unity, and some of us joined hands with supporters of other candidates after the primary. That's what adults do.

I don't see Bernie doing a single thing like Obama did.

postatomic

(1,771 posts)
97. Ohhhhhh... please
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 02:27 PM
Nov 2015

Do you know how many Hillary supporters have been driven off by the Snark and Gotcha' from the Sanders supporters.

What's that old expression; "No matter how flat the pancake there is always two sides."

No more venom from me. I feel that the days of Wine and Roses are over. I'll still point out inaccurate and false statements just to keep things real but mostly I will focus on the positive elements of the Hillary Campaign. It's just not worth the elevated Blood Pressure.

You can say whatever you like.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
100. I think it was Gandhi who wrote, “I like your candidate, I do not like your candidate's supporters..
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 03:16 PM
Nov 2015

I think it was Gandhi who wrote, “I like your candidate, I do not like your candidate's supporters. Your candidate's supporters are so unlike your candidate.”

Six of one, half a dozen of the other... and each dramatically lacking any real substance, supporting evidence or even a conclusion.

Five points for the preemptive self-martyrdom though-- as the implication that criticism is actually a merciless attack on the innocent, besides a wonderful wee bit of self-validation, solidifies my impression of the dogmatic and myopic supporters of an otherwise fine candidate



(Note to the Under-Educated and Grammatically Challenged: the additional qualifier of "dogmatic and myopic" supporters distances itself from merely the supporter, thus creating its own distinct demographic)

Beacool

(30,244 posts)
108. I find it ironic that Sanders' supporters are complaining of being attacked.
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 05:58 PM
Nov 2015

The only thing I have seen here for months on end is constant attacks on Hillary.

People who dish it out, should be able to take it too.


NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
117. So for someone like myself who supported Obama (and not Hillary), and who now supports Hillary …
Wed Nov 4, 2015, 07:40 PM
Nov 2015

… the premise of this post seems to fall apart under scrutiny. You seem like an intelligent enough person, so considering your twenty-five years of wisdom, it seems odd that you'd assume that the only people supporting Hillary now are the same ones who supported her then.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
130. I elected to support Barack Obama in 2008. He was the stronger candidate who I believed
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 03:05 AM
Nov 2015

could not only take on the Republican Party but BEAT them to the White House.

Now I've elected to support Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nominee because I believe she'll not only take on the Republican Party but BEAT them to the White House.

I have no faith that Senator Sanders has that gravitas and political skill. I have no faith in him that he'll get anything done for the American people should he become president. He'll need Congress' help for that, but he has no support in Congress amongst Democrats despite having been a colleague for 25 years. That tells me something about his character. At any rate, no allies in Congress translates to all his campaign promises amounting to exactly nada.

Still, if he's the Democratic nominee, I WILL vote for him. He's a thousand times better than any Republican.

JTShroyer

(246 posts)
142. We are upset because you are weakening Hillary for the general
Fri Nov 6, 2015, 03:11 AM
Nov 2015

You are doing exactly what the GOP wants you to be doing. Bernie flip-flopped on Hillary's e-mails

 

Feeling the Bern

(3,839 posts)
144. I am? Personally, how can one person going overseas in four days again really
Fri Nov 6, 2015, 04:13 AM
Nov 2015

weakened the Chosen One for the general?

And if she is weakened for that gaggle of shitstains on the Republican side, she's is trouble.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
162. ... Is he is terrible as a candidate and would get crushed in the general election.
Sat Nov 7, 2015, 10:20 AM
Nov 2015

There. I finished your subject line for you.

 

Feeling the Bern

(3,839 posts)
163. Steve, against that gaggle of slime on the GOP side, the Democrats could run
Sat Nov 7, 2015, 06:22 PM
Nov 2015

Mickey Mouse and still carry 30-35 states.

But what do I know? I don't have a radio show. I'm just a professor of the subject.

BootinUp

(46,928 posts)
166. Is it a question of whether they ARE slime or rather
Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:14 AM
Nov 2015

a question of whether people in large numbers SEE them as slime? Seems to me that history is littered with examples of the two points being confused.

 

Feeling the Bern

(3,839 posts)
167. Agreed:
Sun Nov 8, 2015, 04:45 AM
Nov 2015

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Mr. Stevenson "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The reason for such venom...