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.
= new reply since forum marked as read
shaking it's self right off my shoulders, makes me wonder what else they're up to. 
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.
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.
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! 
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.
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:
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.
I was not expecting a post saying they agreed with 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!
Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)
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.
correct!!!! I bet you thought I was going to say......
