HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Is it now abundantly clea...

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 10:44 AM

Is it now abundantly clear why DWS and Hillary want to limit exposure to voters?

Just the slightest poke by Bernie and O'Malley and Hillary was unable to handle herself. She was defensive and unconvincing. She also made what I believe to be a major gaffe, tying her support of Wall Street to 9/11. Maybe there's something in the water in NY that makes everyone tie 9/11 to all their thoughts and actions.

Her performance last night did nothing to change my view that she is unelectable. In fact, it proved that she would be a disaster for the progressive cause.

151 replies, 9134 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 151 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is it now abundantly clear why DWS and Hillary want to limit exposure to voters? (Original post)
FlatBaroque Nov 2015 OP
fredamae Nov 2015 #1
FlatBaroque Nov 2015 #3
Faux pas Nov 2015 #6
in_cog_ni_to Nov 2015 #37
Faux pas Nov 2015 #63
Hortensis Nov 2015 #107
azmom Nov 2015 #7
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #12
Perogie Nov 2015 #14
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #21
fredamae Nov 2015 #17
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #30
fredamae Nov 2015 #33
floriduck Nov 2015 #52
Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2015 #51
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #69
Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2015 #81
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #92
Sheepshank Nov 2015 #126
Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2015 #128
DianeK Nov 2015 #56
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #76
floriduck Nov 2015 #45
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #62
Live and Learn Nov 2015 #61
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #64
Live and Learn Nov 2015 #67
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #71
Live and Learn Nov 2015 #79
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #94
Live and Learn Nov 2015 #110
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #113
rhett o rick Nov 2015 #116
Loki Nov 2015 #24
philosslayer Nov 2015 #48
sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #132
Kalidurga Nov 2015 #2
ejbr Nov 2015 #31
Kalidurga Nov 2015 #111
cantbeserious Nov 2015 #4
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #15
Andy823 Nov 2015 #19
bkkyosemite Nov 2015 #32
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #42
DhhD Nov 2015 #73
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #75
DhhD Nov 2015 #82
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #89
DhhD Nov 2015 #98
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #101
DhhD Nov 2015 #102
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #104
frylock Nov 2015 #144
bkkyosemite Nov 2015 #148
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #149
bkkyosemite Nov 2015 #150
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #151
Duval Nov 2015 #86
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #91
Duval Nov 2015 #105
cui bono Nov 2015 #108
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #114
cui bono Nov 2015 #117
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #124
cui bono Nov 2015 #130
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #131
cui bono Nov 2015 #134
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #135
cui bono Nov 2015 #136
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #140
cui bono Nov 2015 #147
Faux pas Nov 2015 #5
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #8
FlatBaroque Nov 2015 #10
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2015 #11
The Green Manalishi Nov 2015 #57
Duval Nov 2015 #90
cui bono Nov 2015 #112
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2015 #118
cui bono Nov 2015 #137
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2015 #138
Oilwellian Nov 2015 #119
NurseJackie Nov 2015 #120
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2015 #125
NurseJackie Nov 2015 #26
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #49
tecelote Nov 2015 #28
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #36
tecelote Nov 2015 #40
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #47
tecelote Nov 2015 #55
Duval Nov 2015 #87
tecelote Nov 2015 #95
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #88
tecelote Nov 2015 #96
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #100
Oilwellian Nov 2015 #121
Sheepshank Nov 2015 #127
Ms. Toad Nov 2015 #66
PatSeg Nov 2015 #34
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #54
PatSeg Nov 2015 #78
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #97
PatSeg Nov 2015 #106
Laser102 Nov 2015 #43
BeyondGeography Nov 2015 #9
LineReply .
stonecutter357 Nov 2015 #13
AzDar Nov 2015 #16
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2015 #103
SoapBox Nov 2015 #18
Metric System Nov 2015 #22
INdemo Nov 2015 #25
sammythecat Nov 2015 #41
INdemo Nov 2015 #109
Duval Nov 2015 #93
brooklynite Nov 2015 #99
Dem2 Nov 2015 #20
PatSeg Nov 2015 #74
Dem2 Nov 2015 #77
PatSeg Nov 2015 #80
zentrum Nov 2015 #23
Name removed Nov 2015 #27
fbc Nov 2015 #29
bkkyosemite Nov 2015 #35
fbc Nov 2015 #39
FlatBaroque Nov 2015 #68
cherokeeprogressive Nov 2015 #38
askew Nov 2015 #44
moobu2 Nov 2015 #53
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #60
moobu2 Nov 2015 #65
R B Garr Nov 2015 #72
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #85
whereisjustice Nov 2015 #46
FlatBaroque Nov 2015 #59
moobu2 Nov 2015 #50
NurseJackie Nov 2015 #146
Helen Borg Nov 2015 #58
jaycrewz Nov 2015 #70
Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2015 #83
Hepburn Nov 2015 #122
BainsBane Nov 2015 #84
rhett o rick Nov 2015 #115
Sheepshank Nov 2015 #123
Metric System Nov 2015 #129
UglyGreed Nov 2015 #133
NCTraveler Nov 2015 #139
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #141
NCTraveler Nov 2015 #142
BlueCaliDem Nov 2015 #143
Romulox Nov 2015 #145

Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 10:47 AM

1. I came across This this AM WTH?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 10:54 AM

3. that's how they roll n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 11:23 AM

6. My head is

shaking it's self right off my shoulders, makes me wonder what else they're up to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faux pas (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:12 PM

37. Oh,the filth runs deep!

You don't hire the likes of David Brock expecting to run an honest election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to in_cog_ni_to (Reply #37)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:49 PM

63. Got it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faux pas (Reply #63)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 05:17 PM

107. IMO, you guys are completely missing the big picture. You bet the dNC management

Is trying to manage this primary. A clear vision would include what is going to be a tough race against whoever the GOP runs. No matter how big a nincompoop or how fascist-extremist, he will be backed with at least several hundred million dollars from Big Business and the full force of the right wing media to beat whoever we put up.

You don't like to admit it, but Bernie and Hillary are very similar compared to today's GOP business fascist agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 11:36 AM

7. Good find. First, I had heard of that.

Tweeting that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:06 PM

12. Right-wing conspiracy crap has no place on a Democratic Party supporting site.

The sources used for the article are Daily [strike]Howler[/strike] Caller and Hot Air? Seriously?? Both are right-wing propaganda sites and President Bill Clinton is one of their chief targets.

You really should consider the sources before writing a post on a Democratic Party supporting site even if you can't stand Hillary Clinton, fredamae.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:08 PM

14. Are you claiming Hillary didn't make that comment?

Does it matter where the info comes from as long as it's the truth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Perogie (Reply #14)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:29 PM

21. WHAT comment? No comment by Hillary is cited at the link.

Does it matter where the info comes from as long as it's the truth?

No, but then you look at intent and discern whether an article is propaganda and what the intent is. The above article's intent is to cast a shadow on Hillary Clinton's probable win. As Democrats who want to see another Democrat in the White House come 2017, the last thing we need to do is post articles sourced from RW propaganda sites that exist merely to smear Democrats. The Daily [strike]Howler[/strike] Caller and Hot Air are such sites.

The Daily Caller and Hot Air bill themselves as conservative (read: right-wing) "news" sources. Why on God's green Earth is an article that uses these RW-sites on Democratic Underground? And why do you support it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:16 PM

17. I repeat

http://truthinmedia.com/bill-clinton-serves-presidential-debate-commission/

If true....what say you DWS?

I did not post this as anything but a question. Are questions undemocratic in your view? Regardless of the source, should we not question media claims?

Is this link from the article false?
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=commission-leadership
Is The Commission For Presidential Debates incredible?
Thank you for your response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:56 PM

30. You don't need to repeat. I got it the first time. And you're still wrong.

It wasn't a question. It was a clever attempt to cast aspersions on the Democratic front-runner using a right-wing article that's sourced from right-wing propaganda sites - and what has NO place under an OP about issues regarding the Democratic primary debate schedule. There's no excusing it.

However, the second link, the CPD, is a good and unbiased link to the commission that sponsors general election debates. But it has nothing to do with the Democratic or Republican sanctioned primary debates, so why ask DWS to comment on it?

Other than trying to keep the meme of distrust for Hillary Clinton alive, why again did you post that right-wing article?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:03 PM

33. I believe it is

worthy of discussion.
.
Thank you for your heartfelt responses...but - this is a site that is open for discussion, a place to air concerns and pose questions.

I am concerned-I am questioning a conflict of interest, if this is true.
Thanks for your interest in my post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:35 PM

52. If you research

 

2015 presidential debate commission, you'll see Bill Clinton and 3 other former presidents listed as honorary co-chairmen. So it isn't a big deal but I at least researched it before trashing the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:35 PM

51. I'm sure you will defend Bernie just as much when Hillary drops out.....

 

Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #51)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:00 PM

69. Not defending anything. Just bringing clarity to an attempt to confuse in an attempt to

cast aspersions on our Democratic front-runner.

But to answer your question anyway, absolutely I'll support Sanders should he win the nom. And I've written post after post that I will. And just about every single Hillary Clinton supporter has pledged as much.

The question is, will Sanders supporters [strike]defend[/strike] support Hillary Clinton when he drops out? Will you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #69)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:33 PM

81. He's the "front runner" in the straw poll by A LOT....

 

BTW: I'm a Blue Collar Dem going back to Bobby. What does THAT tell you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #81)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 04:00 PM

92. Good. Just checking.

And as an fyi? I don't put much stock in straw polls, but, whatever makes you happy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #51)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 11:54 AM

126. OMFG...yet another fucking loyalty test

 

while the rest of the Bernie Supporters denigrade this type of action, here you are.......................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #126)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 02:09 PM

128. I know...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:41 PM

56. this would have never become an issue at all..

 

if Bill Clinton had only had the foresight to understand that this is perceived as a clear conflict of interest and recused himself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DianeK (Reply #56)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:14 PM

76. What makes you think he won't? We're still in the primaries. The CPD, of which he's an

honorary member, is about the general election. Has Hillary Clinton already won the Democratic nom? No? Then why should he recuse himself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:29 PM

45. Are you stating this information is bogus? nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #45)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:48 PM

62. I believe I was clear in my initial post and the follow-up what I'm stating,

and that it's got nothing to do with DWS (whom I have no warm and fuzzy feelings for, just so we're clear) since she's the Chair of the DNC - that's tasked with scheduling and funding the Democratic primary debates - and not the CPD - that's tasked with scheduling and funding the general election debates.

So subtracting that, the article that was posted - an article written by a Ron Paul supporter, by the way, and using RW propaganda sites as sources - is nothing more than another attempt to cast aspersions on our Democratic front-runner just in case she wins the primaries and then the G.E..

Let's not do the GOP's smear campaign for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:48 PM

61. Hmmm, didn't I just see a Hillary supporter using Frank Luntz as a source? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #61)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:50 PM

64. So? Was it an article written by a Ron Paul supporter, sourced from notorious RW-propaganda sites?

No?

Then it's apples to oranges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #64)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:53 PM

67. Not at all. It is more like Honeycrisp vs Jonathon.

And, reeks of hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #67)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:03 PM

71. Good thing your opinion doesn't constitute a fact, eh?

I've explained the difference in my posts above. If you can't see it then it's on you, not me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #71)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:20 PM

79. And your inability to not see the similarities are quite telling. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #79)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 04:02 PM

94. Another opinion of yours - not backed by any evidence other than YOUR inability to

understand the difference between the DNC and the CPD, the primaries and the general election. So, again, your opinion is not a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #94)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 06:39 PM

110. What I really don't understand is how your post makes any sense at all. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #110)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 12:46 AM

113. I've noticed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #64)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 01:36 AM

116. Please support the People and not the billionaires. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:34 PM

24. An article written by this man?

Barry Donegan
Barry Donegan is a writer, musician, and pro-liberty political activist living in Nashville, TN. Donegan served as Director-at-Large of the Davidson County Republican Party from 2009-2011 and was the Middle Tennessee Regional Coordinator over 30 counties for Ron Paul's 2012 Presidential Campaign. Follow him at facebook.com/barry.donegan and twitter.com/barrydonegan

Yea right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:33 PM

48. Good

 

If HRC is the nominee, why is this bad?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 09:32 PM

132. Wow! if true, he needs to step down from that commission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 10:48 AM

2. I like her more now

But, not for President. She has issues with being honest. I don't particularly like her spotlight hogging style. But, I do like her laugh it's infectious, she had some good moments where I felt like she had genuine affection for the two gentlemen she shared the stage with. Also, she was completely taken aback by the questions about her Wall Street ties like how dare anyone ask those questions or take exception to the corruption of politics via Wall Street money. But, other than that and her not being able to connect terrorism with Iraq she was pretty good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:02 PM

31. I agree

However there was a point where she looked like she was going go homocidal on Bernie. It was the look in her eyes. I liked this too. Not because she looked like she was gonna hurt Bernie, but because I love a strong woman. (I'm a man)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ejbr (Reply #31)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 08:06 PM

111. I know right

She seemed a lot more human during the debate and a lot less like a politician. I did not like her 9/11 reference one little bit. She is conflating so many things here my head hurts. 9/11-Wall Street bailouts in 2008, Iraq and the War on Terror, probably not intentionally at least I hope not, but those things are going to be muddled in people's heads once again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 10:55 AM

4. For This One - Neocons Pushed Iraq Invasion - HRC Voted YES On IWR - HRC Bears Responsibility

This is the single most important reason I will not vote for this candidate.

HRC is not redeemable from this perspective in this one's eyes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:10 PM

15. "HRC is not redeemable from this perspective in this one's eyes." Not surprising.

In your eyes, judging by your past posts, President Obama was never "redeemable" to you, either.

Are there any Democrats you're actually willing to support on Democratic Underground?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:19 PM

19. Good question

I think a lot of posters here were "anti Obama" before they were "anti Clinton". They also had a problem with the party as a whole, and many spread the meme that both sides are the same. If they don't like democrats, I don't know why they come here to a site to that is aimed at helping more democrats get elected.

I have no problem voting for any of the three now running if they win the nomination. I prefer O'Malley, but in the end we need to keep the WH and make damn sure none of the morons in the clown car set foot in the WH.

I think they all did a good job last night, a million times better than any debate the GOP has had, that's for damn sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Andy823 (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:03 PM

32. I was an Obama Mama and am voting for Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #32)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:18 PM

42. Why? After years of excoriating President Obama, you'll reward Sanders and support him?

After he publicly claimed to want to see President Obama primaried in 2012 (because it was good for democracy), you're a-ok with that and still want to support him? After lying that President Obama never called on his coalition to push change forward, implying he just used his supporters to get elected and then tossed them aside when he won the presidency, you still support Sanders?

I don't understand the disconnect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #42)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:09 PM

73. Why? Hit the minus box in the upper left corner. Click on the New Democrat's texts below.

http://littlesis.org/maps/882-state-department-mexico-energy-reform-web

The President is on the Left. Sanders is not in the picture because he is Left of policy. Clinton is the third compo net of policy and Plan.

New Democrat Policy and Plan to privatize by staff and privatizers, TPTB, and the fascist world 1%. All on a bit map if you photocopy and print. It would make a nice wall piece in an office with the title, 'Advanced Triangulation'. We realize how New Democrats are so proud of their work. They did not have to send troupes in to privatize Mexico National Oil.

Please read the entire thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DhhD (Reply #73)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:12 PM

75. I understand YOUR reason - Pres. Obama is not left enough. But for a self-identified "Obama-mama"

supporting Sanders after having claimed to have supported President Obama makes NO sense. None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #75)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 03:01 PM

82. Except: Please look at and analyze the 2008 Campaign promises. Supporting Obama now as a New Democ

Democrat does not add up in this thread. People moved from HC to Obama for the reason of Obama's 2008 campaign promises versus HC record. You have helped the democratic process to unfold in to the Light as Obama chose to abandon his promises as he is a New Democrat. Clinton is moving right of Obama still even after 2008. No wonder Sanders tried to stop the third way roller coaster by saying that Obama, NTBP-- Needed To Be Primaried, in 2011-12. I am hoping that you can read the WikiLeaks story on Hillary Clinton and the revolving door into Privatization 2011-12 and get back with us. Clinton will be primaried over privatization; its coming. Americans need to see if they agree with her Privatization Plan of 2011-12 versus her war profiteer strategy for Iraq 1998-2006 to privatize Iraqi Oil Industry. OIL - Operation Iraqi Liberation was voted on by Clinton. Where her policies as SoS in the Arab Springs for liberations or for privation oil coup? Study the coup history of the Untied States in the Western Hemisphere it you can. She accepted the position of SoS knowing that she might run for President and continued to privatize through 2012! That is part of her record.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/08/07/hillary-clinton-state-department-emails-mexico-energy-reform-revolving-door

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DhhD (Reply #82)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 03:51 PM

89. I'm sorry, but when you toss the word "third way" into a discussion, my eyes roll up

in exasperation. I'm not fond of conspiracy theories. I can trump up enough of them against Sanders, but that would take a great deal of willingness to see him in a not-so-favorable light and I'm not playing that game just in case he wins the nom and I'll have to vote for him.

So again, I understand where you're coming from. President Obama is not left enough for your taste. Understood. But for a DU poster like bkkyosemte, who has claimed to be an "Obama-Mama" - and I'm assuming here that she's a solid supporter of him otherwise why label oneself as an "Obama Mama" - it baffles me why she would choose to support a Democratic presidential candidate who's been so derisive of Obama. It just doesn't add up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #89)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 04:12 PM

98. Thank you for asking me in today. Social Security Reform is on the, third way, reform list. Let us

hear Clinton's Plan for reforming Social Security. In the First Primary Debate, HRC talked about deepening Obama's Social Security Plan and the 1993 Greenspan Commission. Problem is that Reagan never paid the SS Insurance Trust Fund back. Obama lowered the SS tax in his first term instead of removing the Bush Tax Cuts. Obama ended the SS tax cut in his first term also. Seems like that is the policy and Plan of HRC for 2017? She will be primaried over that in coming debates.

http://www.thirdway.org/

Third way spells the name of their organization without a capitol T and W, as in third way, even though third way is are two proper nouns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DhhD (Reply #98)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 04:19 PM

101. You're discussing domestic policy. Domestic policy is NOT under the constitutional powers of the

president. It's under the constitutional powers of Congress.

Congress can and will flex their muscle should any president, Democratic or Republican, try to play around with Social Security. We've seen it under G.W. Bush, who got a hard smackdown from members of his own Party when he tried to privatize Social Security, and we've seen the uproar in Congress when President Obama offered chained CPI in the "Grand Bargain" budget in order to get Republicans to raise taxes on the wealthy - chained CPI being the reason why Sanders did the Republicans' dirty work and said it would be a good idea to primary Obama in 2012. What's happened to Social Security since? Nothing.

Social Security is here to stay. Forever and ever.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #101)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 04:29 PM

102. Lets hear from Hillary Clinton on that in the next Debate. I hope that nothing happens to

change Social Security and the rest of the Safety Net, except for the better. Whose Plan is better? What is that best Plan? Americans will decide. We must help and support the best Plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DhhD (Reply #102)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 04:45 PM

104. It's already out there. You can read it at your leisure

at her website here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/

Social Security isn't just a program—it's a promise. As president, Hillary will:

Defend Social Security against Republican attacks. Republicans are using scare tactics about the future and effectiveness of Social Security to push through policies that would jeopardize it. The real threat is Republican attempts to undermine the bedrock of the system. Hillary believes that Social Security must remain what it has always been: a rock-solid benefit that seniors can always count on—not subject to the budget whims of Congress or to the fluctuations of the stock market. She fought Republican efforts to undermine Social Security when she was a senator and throughout her career, and she will fight them as president. As president, she would:

Fight any attempts to gamble seniors’ retirement security on the stock market through privatization.

Oppose reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments.

Oppose Republican efforts to raise the retirement age—an unfair idea that will particularly hurt the seniors who have worked the hardest throughout their lives.

Oppose closing the long-term shortfall on the backs of the middle class, whether through benefit cuts or tax increases.

Expand Social Security for those who need it most and who are treated unfairly by the current system—including women who are widows and those who took significant time out of the paid workforce to take care of their children, aging parents, or ailing family members. Social Security works well, but it should work better. Hillary will fight to expand Social Security for those who need it most and who are treated unfairly today. For instance: read more

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #89)

Tue Nov 17, 2015, 03:48 PM

144. How in fuck is Third Way considered a conspiracy theory?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #89)

Thu Nov 19, 2015, 12:45 AM

148. I WAS an Obama MaMa back in 2008

He was for change. That is the reason why I voted for him, canvassed for him and donated to him and his office where I live. That "change" is not what I expected. I expected more of his promises to be realized. Now I understand there is a majority in the House that has blocked him but there wasn't when he was first elected. Single Payer I have always been for. Corruption in government I detest. Lobbyist's should be outlawed from roaming OUR Congress halls. I want $15 hr for everyone who wages are lower than that. I want the billionaires to stop stealing from the average and the poor. Children going hungry in our Country stinks. I'm not as savvy as you Cali but I'm from Cali too. I was born in Berkeley!

Bernie is a breath of fresh air that I thought President Obama was for. Change (there is some) but not enough to help those in need in this country. I want honesty, I want fairness, I want everyone to be able to put food on the table and help their kids with all their needs. Continue to blast me I don't care. The sun will come up tomorrow. ......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #148)

Thu Nov 19, 2015, 12:47 PM

149. President Obama kept his promises where he was able to. Anyone who says he didn't, isn't

being objective. And taking into account that Republicans will hold the majority in the House until 2021, what makes you think anything a President Sanders wants to do will come to fruition without allies in Congress?

Anyway...I'll try to address your complaints one by one.

1) Single Payer: Senator Obama has never promised single payer. He made ONE mention of it, during a speech, but he's never promised it in his campaign nor pursued it as a policy. Anyone who thinks he has, has misunderstood him. HOWEVER...he has reformed health care and the health care industry through ObamaCare (PPACA). Also, within ObamaCare, there is the 1332 subsection entitled, State Innovation Waiver. This allows for each individual State to implement single payer and ObamaCare will pay up to 85% for its implementation. Even Sanders' State couldn't implement single-payer even with the 85% funding for its implementation.

2) Corruption in Government: This is a broad brush. What, exactly, are you referring to here?

3) Lobbyist's should be outlawed from roaming OUR Congress halls. Congress is not the White House. Laws to prevent lobbyists from roaming the halls of our Congress fall under domestic policy, and that responsibility falls under the constitutional powers of Congress, not the White House. Your legitimate concern should be addressed directly to Congress. A president's power over Congress is limited to "advise".

4) I want $15 hr for everyone who wages are lower than that: Again, this falls under domestic policy and that falls under the constitutional powers of Congress. A president has nada to do with domestic policy outside of pushing and prodding. But the ultimate decision lies with members of Congress and Democrats in Congress are already pushing for $12 p/hr, which is reasonable. However, nowhere in any law does it state that States and local governments can't raise wages as high as they can afford. Hillary Clinton made that clear the second debate.

5) I want the billionaires to stop stealing from the average and the poor: Falls under domestic policy and under Congress' powers, not the president's.

6) Children going hungry in our Country stinks. It stinks, I know, but again - and on the Federal level, this is domestic policy. Republicans cut SNAP in the last Farm Bill. People will get the government they voted for - or didn't bother to vote for.

Although it never gets any attention, President Obama did make crucial changes. You can read about them here:
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #149)

Thu Nov 19, 2015, 11:26 PM

150. You answered me with this numbered lesson, as if I was putting down the President. I was not!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #150)

Thu Nov 19, 2015, 11:34 PM

151. I apologize if that's how my post came across. I know you weren't putting President Obama down.

I know you're disappointed in him. Believe me, I know how that feels. But I hope that my post can help inform where some people might be inclined to gloss-over or not know. No harm, no foul!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #42)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 03:27 PM

86. It's Important to recognize the Context in which Sanders said that.

 

• July 22, 2011 Thom Hartmann Radio Program: "I think one of the reasons that the president has been able to move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him, and I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting what is a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing. … At this point, I have not (encouraged anyone), but I am now giving thought to it. There are a lot of smart, honest, progressive people who I think can be good presidents."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duval (Reply #86)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 03:58 PM

91. Oh, I knew in what context he spoke those words - on various shows, including Ed Schultz'.

It doesn't take away from the fact that he said it - on different shows, and during the time when President Obama was getting the least favorable news coverage as it was. Sanders was piling on, and that's what got the Black community so upset with him even to this day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #91)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 04:57 PM

105. Wasn't that also the time Obama

 

was making sounds regarding Social Security Benefits, (chained CPI)? That was wildly unpopular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #42)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 05:47 PM

108. Because they are voting based on policy and not personality?

It is true that there are people that vote against their best interests, like many of the GOP and those supporting a hawkish corporate Dem.

I don't understand the disconnect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #108)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 01:01 AM

114. Then again I ask, why support Sanders?

Personality, he's got. Policy rhetoric, he's mastered. But his ambitious policies will go nowhere in this Congress even if Democrats regain the majority in the Senate. They're just not into him and never have been.

The disconnect is claiming that you're an "Obama mama" but then turn around and support the candidate that's excoriated President Obama and even suggested he should be primaried. Yeah. Real credibility there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #114)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 03:03 AM

117. His policies best represent the people.

Perhaps they supported Obama but wanted more. That's true of a lot of us.

Bernie has more credibility standing up for the people than Hillary does. By far. It makes no sense to support Hillary when there is someone like Bernie running. His policies are the most in line with the Dem Party platform and supposed principles. A vote for Hillary is a vote against our best interests. We need to break the ties to Wall Street.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #117)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 11:52 AM

124. I disagree. His policy *ideas* sound like they best represent the people.

But his past votes on sensible gun safety measures, his vote against immigration reform (2007), his vote and support of Lockheed Martin's failed and ultra expensive F-35 fighter jet program that's cost taxpayers one trillion dollars already, and his failure to build a consensus of support among Democrats in Congress, does the American people no favors. He has NO credibility with me.

I understand politicians aren't perfect. I accept that. But his appeal with you and other Sanders supporters are his domestic policy ideas, and he's got a poor record on that. As president, it will get worse. Best Sanders just stays in the Senate where his short-fuse can make changes, and start building a circle of allies. He's just not ready to be president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #124)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 05:28 PM

130. Nothing is as bad as the IWR if you're talking voting records.

That disqualifies Clinton for me completely. But there's more too, she keeps fabricating stories, her mean spirited campaigning, insulting real feminist issues by playing the gender card unwarranted and now using 9/11 as an excuse to back Wall Street.

She has less than "NO credibility" with me. That is not someone who is looking out for the people, that is someone looking out for herself and those who fill her bank account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #130)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 09:30 PM

131. The PLCAA is worse. You should read up on it, then judge.

And for that vote, he will not get my support in the primaries.

That disqualifies Clinton for me completely.

Are you telling me you won't vote for Hillary Clinton if she wins the Democratic Party nomination?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #131)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 09:43 PM

134. I don't think so. You should read up on ISIS.

As a citizen of the US I will do what I feel is best for the future of our country at the voting booth.

I don't do loyalty pledges and oaths. I leave that to Grover Norquist and the GOP.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #134)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 10:18 PM

135. Yea, well, I do.

As a politically informed citizen of the United States, I have always done what I feel is best for the future of our country and all her people, not just a special subset. I also understand politicians are human and they err from time to time. The question then becomes, do they have the wherewithal to offer an apology for that error?

But if you Sanders supporters want to remain unforgiving despite her apology, and continue with hammering Hillary Clinton about her vote for the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq, how about showing some integrity and hold Sanders to account for voting YEA for H.R. 4655 on 10-05-1998 - the bill that George W. Bush used and included in the Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq (IWR)?

This is the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that U.S. Rep Sanders voted YEA on:

Passed House amended (10/05/1998)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.

Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.

Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.


Read the full text of the AUMF Against Iraq here and scroll down to find that the 1998 law was included: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

So Sanders wasn't all that against invading Iraq in order to depose of Saddam. Oooh. He didn't tell you? My word. How remiss of him.

And unlike Sanders, Hillary Clinton pushed for the Brady Bill and as Senator, voted against the PLCAA. AND she apologized for her YEA vote on the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq.

Sanders has refused to apologize for his wrongheaded votes on the above, and he's yet to be held account for his vote on the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #135)

Tue Nov 17, 2015, 04:27 AM

136. So how is this worse than voting for the IWR that Sanders voted No on?

Where is the link to this vote? I don't see this in the IWR you linked to either, I just glanced through quickly now.

Also, what's the background of this alleged vote? Was there something that would have made him vote for this, was it tied to anything, was it an inconsequential vote done for political reasons? I'll have to look into it if you can provide the citation for the vote, but really, you can't possibly really believe that this is worse than voting on the IWR, which as you say INCLUDED this piece, which means Hillary voted for this as well since she voted Yes on the IWR. Sanders voted No. Perhaps he realized it was a mistake and he actually RECTIFIED it rather than merely apologized for a wrong vote that actually AUTHORIZED WAR.

Not sure how you think that voting No on something makes one responsible for it. Twisted logic there. No, Sanders was not the least bit responsible for ISIS since he did not give authorization to invade Iraq, especially not on false pretenses and manufactured evidence. In other words, he wasn't duped into voting for a war, nor did he allow himself to vote for it for any other reasons which could include political gain.

As to the gun vote, is that the one that would not allow manufacturers to be held accountable for what someone did with their product? If so, then it was a very reasonable, responsible and important vote. We don't hold Ford or Chevy accountable when someone runs another person over with their brand of vehicle. That would be completely wrong to do just as it would be wrong to do that with a gun manufacturer. You cannot hold a company responsible for someone misusing their product. Now if they manufacture a faulty product that malfunctions, then yes, they need to be liable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #136)

Tue Nov 17, 2015, 12:50 PM

140. Still throwing stones, I see.

Anyway...

The link to his 1998 vote for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/105-1998/h482
Scroll down under the Vermont section and you'll see his YEA vote.

Also, what's the background of this alleged vote? Was there something that would have made him vote for this, was it tied to anything, was it an inconsequential vote done for political reasons?

No longer "alleged". His YEA vote happened, as you can see above.
If you're willing to ask these questions to understand why he voted YEA on the Iraq Liberation Act, then you should be just as fair to Hillary Clinton and ask why she voted YEA on the AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Otherwise, you're not being an honest broker.

Not sure how you think that voting No on something makes one responsible for it. Twisted logic there.

No twisted logic, unless it's coming from Bernie Sanders. Let's be clear, there'd be NO congressional justification to vote for the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq (IWR as some mistakenly call it) without the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Sanders voted for one when nobody was looking, but when Cheney/Bush pushed to actually finalize the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and brought this into the spotlight, and he saw how unpopular the war was with the majority on the Left, he decided to vote NO on the IWR.

Remember...as we've heard, read, and seen, we were in TWO wars, not one. There's a reason why they say two, not one. The Iraq invasion to depose Saddam Hussein was already set up in 1998 and had nothing to do with 9/11. The war in Afghanistan was launched because of 9/11. U.S. mass media conflated the two to help promote more war, but the reasoning for these two wars are completely independent of one another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #140)

Tue Nov 17, 2015, 07:57 PM

147. I'M throwing stones? Your entire posts are throwing stones.

So there is no authorization for military action in the 1998 bill. And then Sanders voted No on the IWR, which authorized military force. What is the problem exactly? While I'm not thrilled about a vote to meddle in another country's governmental affair, you are trying to say that he voted for the equivalent of the IWR when that is just not the case.

Here is a passage that states that they wanted to have Saddam indicted for crimes against humanity, to take him before an international criminal tribunal. Seems like Sanders' vote was made to uphold international laws.

(2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.
Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.


He never voted for military force and he never allowed falsified information to cause him to vote to authorize an illegal war. Clinton did.

Afghanistan doesn't have anything to do with this. The IWR was the vote to authorize military action in Iraq. Hillary voted for that, Sanders did not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 11:21 AM

5. K N R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 11:42 AM

8. Limit exposure? Reminder! The DNC only held six debates for the 2004 and 2008 presidential election!

We're not talking about unsanctioned debates. We're talking about DNC sanctioned debates that falls under DWS' responsibilities, and there were only six in 2004 and 2008.

Now the O'Malley and Sanders camp want to buck the rules and demand more debates?? Why? Because Bernie Sanders is running? Why is he so special that the DNC has to break the rules and add more debates? Reality check: Obama, a historically special candidate, only got six debates and was still able to win the nom. Why do Bernie Sanders supporters (the most vocal about this issue) think he won't get a fair shot without more debates? Especially with his tens and thousands of crowds, daily appearances on every show they can book, and Weekends with Bernie.

And then to add Hillary Clinton's name to this slanderous conspiracy theory is beyond the pale. She, herself, has said she's open to more sanctioned debates. She wanted more sanctioned debates in 2008. So to claim the exact opposite of what she's publicly been stating since 2008 is ridiculous at best. More debates only benefit her as an experienced politician who's done this many times before.

"I debated a lot in 2008 and I would certainly be there with lots of enthusiasm and energy if (the DNC) decide to add more debates," Clinton said during a press conference in Portsmouth. "And I think that's the message a lot of people are sending their way." ~ Hillary Clinton at Portsmouth 09/2015

Yet this conspiracy theory running through the Sanders camp that Hillary Clinton is against more debates because "she's afraid she might slip-up" runs counter to the facts - facts underscored by none other than RW-pollster, Frank Luntz, himself. Via his twitter: If GOP thinks Hillary is easily beatable, they're wrong It's not just words, but her tone & style are the best I've seen so far.

And since he's the clarion for the GOP, common sense dictates that he's sending out a warning to them and their supporters, and he would know what he's talking about.

Oh, and by the way? Hillary Clinton handled herself perfectly well and presidential last night - something I can't say about both O'Malley and Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 11:49 AM

10. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 11:56 AM

11. As a dispassionate observer I must give this round to BlueCaliDemocrat .

And there's this:

Bernie Sanders had the weakest night of the three Democrats onstage at Saturday night’s debate.
That’s according to a survey of the POLITICO Caucus, a bipartisan group of influential strategists, operatives and activists in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, who weighed in immediately following the second Democratic primary debate.

Nearly half of Democrats surveyed said the Vermont senator lost the debate, and only 10 percent of Democrats said he won. Those insiders who said Sanders had the worst night argued that he appeared out of his depth on foreign policy a day after terrorist attacks rocked France. He spent just a few seconds addressing the matter in his opening statement before pivoting to his familiar pitch about the economy, in stark contrast to rival Hillary Clinton, a former secretary of state who devoted her entire statement to the Paris attacks.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/insiders-bad-night-for-bernie-215901#ixzz3rZMzdqHD







Democratic Voters Overwhelmingly Think Clinton Won Debate; Particularly Strong on National Security Issues



A Public Policy Polling survey of Democratic primary voters nationally who watched tonight’s debate finds that it reinforced Hillary Clinton’s front runner status. Viewers overwhelmingly think she won the debate, and particularly trust her over the rest of the Democratic field when it comes to issues of national security.

Key findings from the survey include:

-67% of voters think Clinton won the debate, to 20% for Bernie Sanders and 7% for Martin O’Malley. On a related note 63% of viewers said the debate gave them a more positive opinion of Clinton, compared to 41% who said it gave them a more positive opinion of Sanders, and 37% who said it gave them a more positive opinion of O’Malley.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/




Iowa Focus Group: Among 33 undecided Iowans, HRC clearly wins debate by 23 to 10, and moves 11 undecided to her camp versus 3 for Sanders.

https://twitter.com/ChrisKofinis/status/665752437391659014?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw



After Strong Iowa Debate GOP Pollster Warns That Hillary Clinton Will Not Be Easy to Beat



Frank Luntz, the guy who crafts talking points for Republicans and does polls, has a warning for Republican candidates after Saturday night’s Democratic debate: Hillary Clinton will not be easy to beat.

Luntz warned, “If GOP thinks Hillary is easily beatable, they’re wrong It’s not just words, but her tone & style are the best I’ve seen so far.”

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/11/15/republican-pollster-warn-gop-hillary-clinton-easy-beat.html


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:41 PM

57. I like Bernie's policies a lot better

And I'm glad he's making Wall Street an uncomfortable thing for her to be for.... anything that pushes the debate back to the left. We need to make sure that a lot of people to a perp walk to a long prison stretch the next time anything even remotely resembling the last financial melt down happens. Executive officers of those banks need to do 5 years or more in very bad places and be made examples of.

That said, I think Bernie is running to air issues, attack Wall Street and the MIC and get his ideas out there.

Hillary is running to win. She's going to do whatever she has to in order to win. And that is what we need to make damn sure a Republican does not appoint the next few Supreme Court justices; *THAT* is everything. As many of her policies as I might loath, and I think that any government official who had anything to do with the Iraq war should be on trial for war crimes, including every senator who voted for it - the WORST SC justice she would nominate would be far better than the BEST one any of the possible Republican candidates would nominate. They know that the SCOTUS is what this election is about. Hopefully the economy won't crater again, and it would be very nice if we don't kill thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of unfortunate citizens in some other country, but it is ALL about the SCOTUS; those two or three justices will have more influence over the next 20-50 years in this country than any possible other thing any president could do short of starting WW3

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Reply #57)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 03:51 PM

90. After being ignored by the MSM for so long, Bernie is

 

finally getting his main issues to the people. The more people hear about Bernie, the more will support him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 08:32 PM

112. "Dispassionate observer"

I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #112)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 07:47 AM

118. "Dispassionate observer" = Honest broker

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #118)

Tue Nov 17, 2015, 04:37 AM

137. Thanks for making my point.

Those two do not equal each other.

Being dispassionate does not at all equate to being honest. And an observer is generally not at all a broker since an observer is not involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #137)

Tue Nov 17, 2015, 08:25 AM

138. Thanks for making my point

You're welcome.


If you don't understand how my status as a dispassionate observer allows me to be an honest broker and render untainted judgment there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion. That being said, I am compelled to say that this exercise in minutiae is enlightening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #11)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 11:42 AM

119. Your "dispassionate observer" schtick isn't working...

for those of us who have been here a long time. Posing as DU's voice of reason is hilarious

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #119)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 11:46 AM

120. Are you annoyed or amused? It's difficult to tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #119)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 11:52 AM

125. If you don't believe DSB is an honest broker there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that ...

If you don't believe DSB is an honest broker there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:39 PM

26. This needs to be an OP.

(Great post! Thanks.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:34 PM

49. Thanks, NJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:52 PM

28. There's this...

While the DNC sanctioned six debates in both 2004 and 2008, candidates were allowed to participate in events hosted by media outlets or universities, without repercussion. According to FiveThirtyEight, candidates ultimately attended 15 debates in 2004 and 25 in 2008.

Led by the nonpartisan and grassroots group Allow Debate, some Democrats are denouncing this year's "exclusivity clause" as "unprecedented and undemocratic"—not to mention politically un-savvy.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/09/16/many-democrats-six-primary-season-debates-just-not-enough

---

Why limit exposure?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #28)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:11 PM

36. Fair. You can criticize DWS for that new rule, but let's be honest here...Sanders is getting MORE

exposure than either Hillary Clinton or Martin O'Malley. And that's his goal, right? More exposure?

Again, those tens of thousands of people at his rallies catch headlines; his appearances on television almost each and every day (and I'd know since I watch a lot); and his Weekends with Bernie just about each and every week - something neither Hillary Clinton nor Martin O'Malley are getting - gives him more than enough exposure, yet his poll numbers are stagnate and minorities are still not warming up to him. Do you actually think more debates will benefit him? Seriously?

Not according to reputable sources cited in DemocratSinceBirth. Sanders didn't do himself any favors in this last debate and I don't see him doing any better in the upcoming four. He's just not presidential.

Also, Rachel Maddow did a clever job of getting around that rule. All three candidates came to her forum to present their views. Although the formula was somewhat different and it was called a "forum" rather than a "debate", she did give two hours worth of exposure to all three candidates. I believe I read and heard somewhere that they plan to do more of these.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #36)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:14 PM

40. This has nothing to do with Bernie's or Hillary's electability.

Why wouldn't we want as much exposure as possible of all the candidates to the American people?

What is the reason? Not, what is the excuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #40)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:32 PM

47. You know as well as I that that's not true. It's all about Sanders and his electability.

His supporters still hope that more exposure will benefit him, but I've seen no evidence of that.

Why wouldn't we want as much exposure as possible of all the candidates to the American people?

Why do you believe that isn't already the case? Thanks to Hillary Clinton's name recognition, Sanders, as second place front-runner, is getting more free marketing than he could've ever dreamed of. But considering how badly he did in the last debate - according to reputable sources that are NO friends of Hillary Clinton - why would Sanders want more debates? He's not doing so well with the debates so far and more debates are only going to showcase why Hillary Clinton is the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #47)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:41 PM

55. You say "It's all about Sanders and his electability."

O'Malley supporters say it's all about O'Malley and his electability.

Only Hillary supporters make excuses for the incompetence. Excuses only.

Still no REASON why.

Then there's this...

Led by the nonpartisan and grassroots group Allow Debate, some Democrats are denouncing this year's "exclusivity clause" as "unprecedented and undemocratic"—not to mention politically un-savvy.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/09/16/many-democrats-six-primary-season-debates-just-not-enough

---

That simply reduces exposure to the American people.

Again, for what reason?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #55)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 03:41 PM

87. DWS is the reason, tecelote.

 

She is a staunch Hillary supporter. The more people who hear Bernie's message, the more popular he becomes. Of course, this is my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duval (Reply #87)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 04:06 PM

95. Yes. Agreed... sigh!

There are a million excuses but no reason not to want Americans exposed to our excellent candidates.

The only conclusion seems to be that the DNC under DWS is undermining the other two candidates for Hillary's sake.

2015. We should be better than this. The world is depending upon us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #55)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 03:42 PM

88. It is.

The point I was making is already hashed and rehashed: six DNC sanctioned Democratic debates has been the norm since 2004.

As for that new rule, it's a mystery to me, although I know Sanders and O'Malley supporters are attributing it to a conspiracy between DWS and Hillary Clinton, which is baseless, fact of the matter is, DWS explained the reasoning for the exclusivity clause. You call it an excuse, but it's still an explanation.

She defended the schedule, saying six debates offered plenty of opportunity for the candidates to distinguish themselves, and that too many debates would be a burden on the candidates, pulling them off the campaign trail and eating up valuable resources and time.

Wasserman Schultz noted that in addition to the debates, there have already been at least a dozen other forums the candidates have been invited to appear at, and that at least a half-dozen more have been planned.

“You can see that our candidates are gaining steam on their own,” she said. “Look at the crowds Bernie Sanders is drawing. We have not had any debates yet and Bernie Sanders has found a way to really catch fire with our base.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/253196-dnc-chair-closes-door-on-more-debates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #88)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 04:10 PM

96. Come on...

"She defended the schedule, saying six debates offered plenty of opportunity for the candidates to distinguish themselves, and that too many debates would be a burden on the candidates, pulling them off the campaign trail and eating up valuable resources and time."

1. Why not let the candidates decide?

2. What better exposure than network prime time?

This is bull and you know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #96)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 04:13 PM

100. Like I said, you consider it an excuse. I consider it an explanation.

There's not much more to say about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #96)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 11:47 AM

121. It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma to Hillary supporters

wink wink

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #96)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 12:18 PM

127. I would have thought that Bernie preferred his 10,000+ rallys for messaging

 

He can speak unimpeded, they are generally televised as are snippet of the rally on primetime and cable news. Surely he could promote his website where the entirety of the speeches could be had. The audience gets to intteract more readily (cheering and then cheering louder), Bernie doesn't get challenged by those with opposing opinions and trying to cast dispersions on his words and past stands, and he can speak freely to the topics that mean much to him and he can ignore foreign policy. He can continue to press the meme (no matter how incorrect) that he is the only candidate that doesn't take PAC money.

Bernie has had 20+ years in the public arena. There are very good reasons he has never made a splash in those past decades. On a national level, voters and his peers were not buying his message, or his messaging style.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #36)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:52 PM

66. The candidates should not have to work around a rule that coerces candidates

to limit their debates to the three sanctioned by the DNC.

I don't care how many debates the DNC has - but it has no business coercing candidates to limit participation in debates in other forums. Every forum should be free to set up debates - and every candidate should be free to choose to participate (or not) in those debates without forfeiting the limited number of large nationally televised debates the DNC sets up.

So comparing how many debates the DNC held in prior years, how well (or poorly) candidates are doing, and creative ways to work around the rule, really misses the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:07 PM

34. Actually I think more debates

are good for all the candidates. Hillary is the best debater of the three and more debates would give her more positive media. Meanwhile, the republicans are getting the lion's share of the press.

I think Debbie Wasserman Schulz is a failed DNC chair and has cost us elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #34)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:38 PM

54. I agree with you on that.

Hillary is masterful on the debate stage, and has already gotten 11 undecideds into her camp vs Sanders' 3.

More debates won't benefit Sanders. It will benefit Hillary Clinton.

And I agree that Wasserman-Schultz should have been retired from the DNC LONG AGO. Not a fan of hers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #54)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:19 PM

78. Last night on MSNBC

someone said, that Bernie's advisers were telling him to go after Hillary, but once on the stage, he couldn't follow through. I have to say I disagree with that strategy. I like Bernie a lot and I am uncomfortable with him being an attack dog against a fellow Dem. It is out of character for him and I think he should follow his own instincts. It doesn't make him look weak, more like civil and reasonable.

Wasserman Schultz has to go. There is much more than the presidential election to consider and we need to win back the House and the Senate, not to mention state race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #78)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 04:10 PM

97. I wish they'd bring Howard Dean back as chair of the DNC. DWS has been a disaster

for our Party.

I've also heard that Tad Devine believes Sanders should go hard after Hillary Clinton, but that would be a huge mistake. He tried last night, and it backfired. I'm sure he's pissed off a lot of undecideds since she got 11 of the 33 undecideds last night into her column while he gained 3 of them. Good thing he really didn't follow through, though. It could've been worse. We've seen at the umteenth Baghazi hearing what happens when politicians attack her. She emerges as the winner.

Instead, Sanders needs to brush up on his foreign policy proposals and, for chrissakes, apologize for voting for the PLCAA and against the Brady Bill. He has, so far, refused to do so when he was given a golden opportunity last night. This disappointed me the most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #97)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 05:05 PM

106. Totally agree

I hate to see political handlers ruin a good politician. Bernie needs to go with what is comfortable for him. If he loses his authenticity, he becomes just another managed, scripted politician. Back in 2008, I remember what Mark Penn & Co. did to Hillary and it was painful to watch. I think this time, she has taken control of her campaign and is doing things her way.

I hope Bernie puts Devine in his place. You could tell how uncomfortable he was last night and it was uncomfortable to watch as well.

I like both of them, a little lukewarm on O'Malley for now. My main focus is on DWS and the DNC. Howard Dean would be a godsend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:21 PM

43. I didn't get to watch it but from all I've read, she did well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 11:43 AM

9. Too bad she has no competition to speak of

Sanders is a grim-faced problem describer who has been an often inept debater and O'Malley, while appealing, doesn't measure up resume-wise. I'd worry more about Hillary's stumbles if we couldn't count on the GOP to furnish a similarly vulnerable opponent but they'll come through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:06 PM

13. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:12 PM

16. Can't decide:did Bernie's awesome performance kick Hillary's ass, or did she do that all by herself?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AzDar (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 04:42 PM

103. This is like shooting fish in a freaking barrel

Can't decide:did Bernie's awesome performance kick Hillary's ass, or did she do that all by herself?

-AzDar



And then you woke up;


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=813007


Your boy did about as well as his acolyte did last night:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=797074

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=813292

On the same night, no less.

#lol@me


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:19 PM

18. At least she will be among friends on Dec. 17, at that $33,400 per plate

DNC fundraiser in NYC!

She won't have any pesky people bothering her and she can hob-knob with the Banksters that she claims she will control...uh huh.

Sorry Hill...the more and more we hear ya, the worse it sounds..."Cut it out", a lame college plan, trying the Red scare, the Racist scare, the Sexist scare, the "Impune" scare and then trying to invoke 9/11?

NOT-Good-Enough!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:29 PM

22. You're referring to the fundraiser for down-ticket Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:36 PM

25. Well associating the 911 terror attack as justification for the funding

from Wall St. was pretty much like Rudy Giuliani waving the 911 flag in 2004 and 2008 How did that work out for him
Shame on you Hillary

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clintons-mixing-911-wall-street-raises-ire-35213655

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to INdemo (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:16 PM

41. Yep. She deflected the question

with a lot of nonsense that included the words "women" and "9/11". Did she sell herself to wall street? Of course she did, but she dare not admit that.

You're right. It was shameful. And Bernie Sanders did not "impugn" her integrity. He merely stated a fact that is readily available in the public record.

There was a time, pre 2002, when I really like Hillary and hoped she'd run for President. But that was then and I've learned a lot since. To my dismay. I wish she was a much better person than she is. I don't trust her at all. Everything she says is suspect. Bernie is the real deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sammythecat (Reply #41)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 06:28 PM

109. This was last quarter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to INdemo (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 04:01 PM

93. That was a big mistake on her part and will

 

come back to haunt her. I could hardly believe she mentioned 9/11!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 04:12 PM

99. And of course, Sanders would NEVER do such a thing...

Bernie Sanders Courts Martha’s Vineyard Donors

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has risen in the polls thanks in part to his denunciations of the forces of concentrated wealth, drawing thousands of liberals to hear his jeremiads against corporate power in early nominating states and liberal hubs such as Madison, Wis.

But Mr. Sanders quietly stepped off the campaign trail this weekend to visit Martha’s Vineyard, a favorite summer destination of the country’s elite, in order to mix with representatives of some of the same interests he inveighs against in his stump speech.

...snip...

One prominent attendee, a supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, suggested Mr. Sanders’s appearance suggested he was more pragmatic than his rhetoric would let on.

“Bernie is attracting throngs and has a wave going preaching against the one percent,” said the attendee, requesting anonymity to speak candidly. “So why would he take the weekend to spend in Martha’s Vineyard with wealthy people who are donating at least $37,000 and change to the DSCC?” (That is the minimum contribution to the Senate Democrats campaign arm in order to attend the event).


http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/11/sanders-courts-marthas-vineyard-donors/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:19 PM

20. People see what they are predisposed to see

First let me note my bias, I find O'Malley to be a tad smug, I don't care for him as much as the other two.

I like Bernie and Hillary equally - each has a balance of qualities that appeal to me.

That being said, the only candidate that seemed to perform above expectations was O'Malley IMO.

I think the headlines about 9/11 and Wall St. stem from people's preconceived notions, the answer worked for me in context. I see how taking it out of context is appealing, but it's a shrug for me. Bernie was on point if not a little "average" for him. Same comment applies to Hillary, she was average IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:11 PM

74. I agree with you

I think that O'Malley could eventually be a good candidate, but he is pretty green up against Bernie and Hillary. I cringed a couple of times last night when O'Malley spoke and I guess "smug" might describe it, though I think it was more inexperience.

Yes, Bernie and Hillary were "average" for themselves, not as good as the first debate or the forum on MSNBC, but still light years ahead of the republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #74)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:15 PM

77. I don't know how to respond

I was not expecting a post saying they agreed with me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #77)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:23 PM

80. Okay, that got a laugh out of me

Actually, I could have said almost exactly what you said!

Normally I avoid the Primaries Forum, as it gets too unnecessarily contentious for me, but anything about Wasserman Schultz gets my attention. We need another Howard Dean as DNC chair, someone who knows how to win!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:29 PM

23. Absolutely.

I'm a Bernie supporter but could clearly see how well O'Malley did. This is exactly what DWS knows Hillary can not afford. The primary is so rigidly fixed that I'm just sick. They really don't care about the welfare of the whole party, but just the winning of their inner coterie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 12:52 PM

29. She was also very misleading about her contributors

 

When she said she had mostly small donors. Those mostly small donors make up less than 20% of her total donations.



and 60% women donors? What percentage of her total did they contribute? Nowhere near 60% I'd bet.

And we're not even counting the superpac money here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fbc (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:08 PM

35. Yes I caught that and had already seen the contributor post before. She lied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:13 PM

39. no she didn't technically lie

 

The number of individual donors and the dollar amount of those donations aren't necessarily the same. It's possible for 50% of her donors to be small donors and also possible to have less than 20% of her donations come from that group of small donors.

She was intentionally misleading, but it was probably technically the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fbc (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:54 PM

68. That's one of those things where you know they're misleading

they know they're misleading, but it's almost obligatory that they have to try and mislead. Of course, in this example the "number" of donors who gave <200 is more than those who gave >200. Therefore she emphasized that measure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:12 PM

38. t'is

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:28 PM

44. Yeah, that 9/11 Wall Street gaffe was really, really bad. It's going to haunt her the rest of

the election and quite frankly both O'Malley and Sanders should be working that into their stumps as a way of showing how out of touch Hillary is.

The idea that Hillary is this amazing debater has always been a media myth. Hillary's fine when she can use talking points and not be pinned down on any questions and when the moderator helps her out like Dickerson did last night by cutting off O'Malley anytime he tried to speak. But, Obama beat her quite easily in the 2008 debates after Iowa. The pundits gave every debate to Hillary but the voters gave the wins to Obama.

She also has a huge problem containing her anger on stage much like McCain does. She was rolling her eyes and glaring at O'Malley during the debate when he challenged her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #44)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:36 PM

53. It was only bad to desperate Bernie Sanders supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #53)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:46 PM

60. And to anyone with a shred of dignity.

 

It was a line reminiscent of Republicans at their worst. I have no sympathy for politicians who invoke 9/11 for political gain, especially when it's used to deflect from a question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #60)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:51 PM

65. Hillary Clinton represented New York City when 9.11 happened

so it isn't equivalent to what the republicans did when they used it for political gain. Hillary Clinton was addressing an issue with an accurate response. Anyone with any logic at all could see that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #65)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:08 PM

72. Exactly, and notice only morally pious anti-Hillary

types can talk about 9/11. If she answers them about it, she's criticized for responding to their smears.

One response to you already tries to pull the Moral card to try and shut people up and claim the high ground. So tired of the phony BS halo polishing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #65)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 03:21 PM

85. Really? Because so did Rudy Giuliani

 

The man whose sole strategy was to invoke 9/11 over and over again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:32 PM

46. "After dodging sniper fire to save Wall Street from 9/11, I gave the order to kill bin Laden."


In 2005, Board and Fritzon published the results of a study in which they interviewed senior business managers, assessing them for the presence of personality disorder.[11] Comparing their findings to three samples of psychiatric patients, they found that their senior business managers were as likely to demonstrate narcissistic traits as the patient population, although were less physically aggressive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder


Hillary cannot be trusted with the middle class and below. She needs us for her votes, but after that she will sell us to Wall Street as indentured servants.

People need to understand that New Democrats (aka 3rd way Democrats like Hillary) run the DNC like a gutless, for-profit corporation. Their first mission is to enrich themselves and their investors. They have to extract as much cash as possible from their voters and offer as little as possible in return.

Class warfare is on display during these debates. Hillary is Wall Street's weapon in its fight against the middle class and below. She is consistently demonstrating she has no fucking clue how difficult American life is for 300,000,000 people.

She lacks empathy and greatly exaggerates her self-worth. As a New Democrat, she's the poster child of shitty leadership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whereisjustice (Reply #46)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:44 PM

59. Painful

but one of the most brutally accurate description of DLC motivations I have read.

I do not know if the Democratic party can survive the DLC team. They have taken a great institution and handed the keys to Debbie Wasserman Schultz. They have hollowed it out and sold off it's most valuable assets for their personal, political empowerment.

greatly exaggerates her self-worth

She is surrounded by people who are constantly going to tell her what she wants to hear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:35 PM

50. More debates isn't going to help Bernie.

Matter of fact you people should be glad there wasn't more scheduled because Bernie lost every one very badly. He would have lost them all evidently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #50)

Tue Nov 17, 2015, 06:12 PM

146. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:43 PM

58. She cannot defend money in politics because...

It is impossible to defend! So, she had to use some BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 02:01 PM

70. I said this in another thread.

DWS, the DNC and HRC have put a bad taste in my mouth. Small debate schedule...hiding the debates in bad time slots (freaking NFL playoff Sunday for the Feb debate). Im this close to not voting next fall if Hillary wins.

I have my reservations about some of her political positions and flip flops...but this sort of rigging and outright ignoring of what democrat voters want pisses me off. We want more debates, and we want people to view the debates.

I cannot support a candidate when deep down in my core I feel like the primary is being fixed. I cannot support that sort of "democracy".

And trust me, Im not alone in my sentiment. The DNC better get their act together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 03:16 PM

83. Her argument was absurd....

 

She was claiming Wall Street and the Banks were contributing to her campaign as a 'thank you' for all she did for them after 9/11 and that Main Street USA received a 'trickle down' benefit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #83)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 11:49 AM

122. Voodoo ecomomics?

Think I have heard that phrase before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Sun Nov 15, 2015, 03:17 PM

84. That must be why Hillary's poll numbers went up after the first debate

and Bernie's went down. We'll have to wait to see the results of last night's debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 01:35 AM

115. They both answer to the billionaires. Vote with the People and not the billionaires. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 11:52 AM

123. you must not have watched the same debate I watched.

 

She was strong, she bit back when needed and came out of all that looking presidential while the other two came across as yapping losers, grasping for the spotlight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #123)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 02:21 PM

129. I know, right? Sanders once again revealed himself to be a one-issue candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 09:34 PM

133. Hey you must.......

correct!!!! I bet you thought I was going to say......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Tue Nov 17, 2015, 08:29 AM

139. Clinton has more exposure than any candidate.

 

Take away the right wing media attacks and she still has more exposure. Hint: that means it is to her own doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #139)

Tue Nov 17, 2015, 01:18 PM

141. And thanks to Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders is enjoying that exposure, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #141)

Tue Nov 17, 2015, 01:22 PM

142. She has some pretty impressive coattails.

 

And yes, Sanders himself benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #142)

Tue Nov 17, 2015, 01:35 PM

143. Yes, she does. That's why all this griping about "not enough debates!!" is so confusing.

Thanks to Hillary Clinton, Sanders is getting more national exposure than he's been able to get in his nearly 30 years in politics. I don't understand why his supporters don't see that how he benefits from Hillary Clinton's name recognition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Tue Nov 17, 2015, 03:51 PM

145. Hillary 9/11 gaffe shows that she doesn't think well on her feet. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread