Hillary Clinton will be the next POTUS

[KMOD]

There is not one candidate running, who comes even close to her outstanding qualifications.

She is heads and tails above every other single candidate running, and the polls, the endorsements, the positive commentary from not only United States voters, but also from World Leaders and people of the world prove it.

The Republicans will pull out all the stops to prevent this, but I, and many, many others will not let them. I'm working hard for the election of Hillary Clinton. The Democratic Party is going to keep the White House, as well as make gains in the Senate, and the House.

The future is bright. We've got this.

[PowerToThePeople]

1. I do not agree with you.

Democratic party will keep the White House, with Bernie Sanders as President.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. Impossible....

The Clintons OWN the Democratic Party.

Right?

[reformist2]

161. The OP is just trying to boost the flagging morale over in Camp Hillary. They were never

that enthusiastic to begin with, so I kind of feel sorry for them that they have to pretend like this.

[MrWendel]

2. K&R

[ucrdem]

3. It's looking that way.

I'm glad it's more or less settled and I wouldn't object to a Clinton-Sanders ticket or the reverse if it came to it. I don't see the point of a gladiatorial primary unless we're talking about Jeb and the boys.

p.s we're going to get a gladiatorial general whether we like it or not . . . .

[cascadiance]

112. Sanders would never sacrifice his senate seat to be second in command to Hillary...

... and quite frankly, I don't think that you would want a Clinton/Sanders or Sanders/Clinton ticket in the white house as divided as they are in who they answer to (the people versus Corporate America) as I think both of the heads of those tickets would be a lot more prone to a political assassination to change who's in charge of the White House. There would be enough extremists on both sides in this day and age of high stakes to have that happen unfortunately.

[MADem]

4. She's the only candidate running with executive branch experience at the federal level. nt

[CoffeeCat]

5. So?

Obama never had "executive branch experience at the federal level" and he's been one of the most amazing presidents of my lifetime.

[MADem]

6. He had a superb SECSTATE, and a superb VP, too. nt

[Kentonio]

47. True

Hopefully Bernie will appoint amazing people to those roles too.

[MADem]

73. In the cabinet of his imagination in "What Might Have Been" land.

He doesn't have a hope in hell of winning. The more I see of him, the more I am certain of this.

He has a few lovely generic ideas, but he has no way of getting there from here. And he'd be crushed--I am telling you, crushed--by the GOP if he ever got to the general contest. His past is just full of 'stuff' that is ripe for overblowing and exploitation. You'd see nothing but negative ads, and here's the thing about those--if the material is new and unknown, they work.

Nice man, but he won't be POTUS.

[Kentonio]

75. You'll probably want to make sure you're sitting down

When the results start to come in from Iowa.

[MADem]

80. I think he'll do well in IA and NH.

So I won't need to be seated. I would be very surprised if he does poorly in those two homogenous states. Where the rubber will meet the road is Super Tuesday. It will cease to be a contest at that stage of the game.

[Kentonio]

88. The effect of a Sanders clean sweep of Iowa and New Hampshire would be staggering.

It's incredibly hard for Clinton to regain the momentum once the message gets out that he's a viable candidate.

[yardwork]

89. I don't think so. Sanders should win NH. He's from VT.

He could win IA. But I think that will be it.

[Kentonio]

90. If he wins Iowa then all you'll hear in the media is 'Clinton loses to Sanders!'

People will see it constantly and they'll believe its possible not just there but everywhere. It would be a complete game changer.

[MADem]

93. And if he loses IA, the Sanders crew will be saying "He came in 2nd! He's gaining on her!"

These contests just don't mean as much as people sometimes want them to mean. Because those two states are so homogenous, and do not reflect the ethnic or urban qualities of our nation, they just aren't taken as seriously today. They are almost an artifact of a bygone time. It's why so many people (this time around it's the RNC chair, but in years past others have done the same) are calling to eliminate their "First in the Nation" status and give it to other, more representative states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/29/the-ridiculousness-of-kissing-up-to-iowa-and-new-hampshire/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/04/enough-with-letting-iowa-go-first-the-first-primary-state-should-be-california/

Super Tuesday is where the rubber meets the road--that's when you see urban and rural, all ethnic groups, varying socioeconomic statuses, all going to the polls to do their thing.

IA and NH look like 19th Century America (with the exception that they "let" the women vote).

Super Tuesday is the voice of America today.

[Kentonio]

94. If he wins NH and loses Iowa by a couple of points he'll still get a big boost

The stuff about demographics is just wrong though. The average voter doesnt give nearly enough of a damn to care about teh fine print, the big story is that Clinton is beatable. That changes the following races considerably.

[MADem]

113. That is a narrative "Team Sanders" keeps prosecuting.

That's not the campaign she is running, though. She works like she's 20 points behind if she's neck and neck.

And the demographics are NOT wrong. They are what they are--and IA and NH are homogeneous states. The numbers do not lie.

https://suburbanstats.org/population/how-many-people-live-in-new-hampshire

https://suburbanstats.org/population/how-many-people-live-in-iowa

[Tarheel_Dem]

168. "The demographics are just wrong"? Care to amend that statement now?

[Kentonio]

169. Did you really just dig up a random post from December to pick an argument over?

[Tarheel_Dem]

170. But you were so emphatic that I kinda believed you. Just wondered if you have any regrets about....

being so emphatic, and so wrong?

[Kentonio]

171. Sure, I seriously underestimated how fundamentally dishonest the American media has become

A mistake I thought I was decades beyond, but it turns out they can surprise me even now. Ah well.

[Tarheel_Dem]

172. So it's the media's fault now? You think the media was in the bag for Hillary? What're you saying?

You made some very bold predictions that didn't come to pass, and rather than own up to that, you're blaming the "American Media"?

[Kentonio]

173. If I remember rightly, I said that the idea certain racial groups wouldn't vote for him was wrong

That was semi born out by his large gains with Latinos, Asians and Native Americans later in the race, but I was wrong about him being able to pull in significant support from the African American community. Considering his policy positions were more likely to actually help many AA communities than Clintons, yes I put at least a proportion of the blame for that on the media narrative that he was unelectable for the first half of the race.

[Tarheel_Dem]

174. You think AA's care what the "media narrative" was? We don't. We just knew who the better....

candidate was, and we voted that way. No big conspiracy necessary. It is what it is. If we cared about "media narrative", we'd probably hate Obama as much as some others do.

[Fawke Em]

99. But it's hers to lose, so that narrative is accurate.

[MADem]

105. What's "hers to lose?" Two homogenous states where white males

usually do best?

That narrative isn't the narrative of the Clinton campaign. Her campaign's view is that both of these early contests are neck-and-neck and she has to fight for every vote.

The "inevitability" strawman with regard to these first tests is an invention of the Sanders campaign and/or his supporters. Set it up, then go at it with broomsticks!

Polls and demographics clearly favor Clinton on Super Tuesday--but let's not confuse the two events. One of these things is most assuredly not like the other.

[bunnies]

165. NH - First state in the country to have an all female congressional delegation.

And a female Governor to boot. White males my ass.

[MADem]

166. Sadly, that lasted but a moment. Frank Giunta (R) harshed the mellow.

He crushed Carol Shea Porter and took back her seat (he had it before).

I like most of their delegation--save Frank and Kelly Ayotte, also a Republican, who makes John Sununu (the younger AND the elder) look normal.


The state is 90 plus percent white and gunny. It's right next door to me. I know the vibe up there. "Live Free or Die" isn't just what's on the license plates.

A lot of BIG money--NATIONAL money-- went into those races -- it wasn't just wishing, hoping and "good feminist feelings" that brought in those wins.

Hillary Clinton was active in their campaigns. So was Bill.

[cascadiance]

116. I guess her finishing 2nd in Iowa will be a win for her since she finished THIRD in Iowa in 2008!!!

That's how the Clinton campaign will try to spin a loss there as being...

[MADem]

130. You haven't seen the polls lately, I see. nt

[cascadiance]

135. I see the crap polls today just like I've seen them as they were back in 2008 too...

There still haven't been votes cast, and polls are engineered as I noted when we talk about who gets polled, which is a science. A science that I would argue is engineered to work against voices like those supporting Bernie who have been independent voters in the past, tend more to be young people, and tend to have less land line phones, all of which characteristics these polls work against sampling people in those groups.

[MADem]

137. I think you're just angry because the polls don't say what you want them to say.

"Crap polls?"

Sure, there are a few sketchy polls out there, particularly the ones that are done by advocacy or interest sectors, but a lot of the polls are the best effort of experienced agents who consider the shortcomings of old school methodologies.

Is the poll that shows Sanders up by ten in NH a "crap poll?"

[MADem]

91. Oh please--at best it would be close, first of all, and second, how many

times have those contests been "the deciders?" Or even the game changers--particularly for the winner?

Governor Bill Clinton lost IA to Tom Harkin, Uncommitted, and Paul Tsongas. He got THREE percent of the total. Three lousy percent. Trump would call him a "Yuuuuuge Loser!"

He didn't win NH, either. He came in 2nd.

That didn't stop him from going all the way to the WH.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary#Democrats

And Hillary Clinton WON NH in 2008--it didn't help her further down the line, did it?

So what was that about "staggering?"

Take a look at the "winners" in IA since the seventies--"Uncommitted" has prevailed a couple of times, and quite often, the caucus winner doesn't either get the nomination OR win the election. It's just not a "game changer:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses#Past_winners

What IA and NH do, is clear out the poor candidates when there's a large field (the GOP field, this year). People put every dime into those two contests trying to break out. If they don't break out, they don't get any more money, and they go away. What these two contests also do is tell the country at large "On your mark, get set, GO!" They signal that we're "off to the races" and the election process is underway. Another thing they do is provide a needed/relied-upon source of revenue for both states. Those two "first in the nation" gigs are worth MILLIONS in terms of business receipts. It's why they fight so hard to keep their places--the money is like a tide that rolls in every four years.

[Kentonio]

92. It doesn't matter if its close, its all about the headlines it creates

If you're hanging your hat on Bill Clintons results in a completely different race meanwhile, I really don't know what to say to you. Hillary was supposed to have already won the race about a year ago before it even began. That's how inevitable her nomination was supposed to be. If she loses the first few states, having lost already last time around, it would be simply devastating for her campaign. It sends the message that she is once again beatable, and once that news gets around she is done. She just doesn't have the commited support to withstand it.

[MADem]

101. I provide facts and history, you respond with "feelings."

Bill Clinton lost both IA and NH and won. Why? Because representative states (i.e., states that looked like America) brought him home.

If you think that two early contests are going to make the sale for Sanders with black and latino citizens, I have a bridge for sale. The imprimatur of one or two homogenous states is not going to do the impressing or "devastating" that you're hoping for.

You don't have to believe me--I'll be happy to wait and let time make the case for me. In the interim, I'll cough up some more facts for your perusal.

Another view of Sanders' stakes are as follows: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-or-bust

While the Sanders campaign is hardly writing off Iowa, where the candidate is spending this weekend, and whose Feb. 1 caucuses kick off the presidential contest, his aides are increasingly talking about Iowa as a place they need to make a strong showing or to outperform expectations – not necessarily to win.

In New Hampshire, however, which holds its primary on Feb. 9, there is only one option. “I wake up every morning and tell myself that New Hampshire is a must-win,” Sanders’ New Hampshire state director Julia Barnes told MSNBC. “I think strategically there is a great amount of importance for us to do well here … No one is going to say that it’s not a must-win.”

Sanders may need to win both Iowa and New Hampshire to pose a clear, mortal threat to Clinton. But a win in either state will keep him and his message alive to fight another day.

A win in neither would be the end of the line.

While the two contests that come immediately after – Nevada and South Carolina – are demographically challenging for Sanders, his team is eyeing primaries and caucuses in Colorado, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and his native Vermont, all of which occur on March 1, as possible victories.

There's MUCH more in that article; I urge you to read the whole thing. He's got a tough slog, and his campaign staff is talking like Rove to Romney with their optimistic projections. He's going to have to shift a lot more people, and his problem is, he's plateaued.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/14/bernie-sanderss-momentum-problem/

...Sanders is not seeing the traction he needs if he wants to win the state. And the big burst of momentum that put him into contention over the summer slowed, retreated and isn't necessarily starting back up — with fewer than 50 days until Iowa.


We can track Sanders's momentum by comparing his polling to Clinton's. You can see him consistently gaining ground against Clinton until early October. The halt to his forward progress happened shortly before the first Democratic debate. In the wake of that, Clinton's lead over Sanders nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire grew. Sanders has recovered somewhat, but not yet enough in Iowa or nationally.

And that "favorability" dog ain't hunting, either:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

Headlines are a two - edged sword....and that's probably good for both candidates, depending on the time and event. "Sanders Struggling" is probably a harder headline to overcome than "Close victory."

[Gothmog]

131. Nate Silver disagrees

In the We Got Berned article, 538 makes clear that nothing has really changed, http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire/

So why do I still think Sanders is a factional candidate? He hasn’t made any inroads with non-white voters — in particular black voters, a crucial wing of the Democratic coalition and whose support was a big part of President Obama’s toppling of Clinton in the 2008 primary. Not only are African-Americans the majority of Democratic voters in the South Carolina primary (a crucial early contest), they make up somewhere between 19 percent and 24 percent of Democrats nationwide. In the past two YouGov polls, Sanders has averaged just 5 percent with black voters. Ipsos’s weekly tracking poll has him at an average of only 7 percent over the past two weeks. Fox News (the only live-interview pollster to publish results among non-white voters in July and August) had Clinton leading Sanders 62-10 among non-white Democrats in mid-July and 65-14 in mid-August. Clinton’s edge with non-whites held even as Sanders cut her overall lead from 40 percentage points to 19.....

But even if you put aside those metrics, Sanders is running into the problem that other insurgent Democrats have in past election cycles. You can win Iowa relying mostly on white liberals. You can win New Hampshire. But as Gary Hart and Bill Bradley learned, you can’t win a Democratic nomination without substantial support from African-Americans.

This article is a little dated but the Demographics have not changed. Iowa and NH are 90+% white states and are not representative of the base of the Democratic party. To date, no polling has shown that Sanders has made any meaningful inroads on the non-white base of the Democratic party.

[MADem]

139. I hear a large diesel engine warming up.....vruuuuuuum, vruuuuuuuum.....

Nate Silver, come on down!!!

[Kentonio]

164. His name recognition is still low amongst AA and Latino voters.

This will change very quickly after Iowa and NH.

[cascadiance]

114. The polls say you are wrong and that MORE voters would support him against GOP challengers...

... than she would get. It's more likely that "she wouldn't have a hope of winning" against certain GOP challengers than he would.

Umm.... Hillary's past has been more *ripe* for exploitation by the GOP than just about any other pol out there. In fact it was a "documentary" on Hillary Clinton that served as the basis that gave Roberts the chance to expand that case to craft the Citizen's United decision for the corporate elites to have no spending limits in their bribery campaigns!

[MADem]

120. Well, no, they don't. You can cherry pick a poll here and there, but the truth

is that Sanders would be crushed brutally by a GOP money machine. His early life would be dragged over the coals and mocked, successfully, too. Hillary's past is "old news/asked and answered." It's just not NEW material.

Sanders' life has not been examined at all--and what has popped up--that most people haven't even focused upon--is absolute fodder for tabloid treatment. It reads like a lusty novel!

Democratic money, should Sanders find that path through Super Tuesday, would go, by and large, to down - ticket candidates, not to Sanders. There's no loyalty either way -- from him to the party, or Democratic donors to him as a standard bearer.

He'd get the very minimum amount of support, he would lose, decisively, and the DNC would start girding their loins for 2020.

[cascadiance]

123. You are the one that is talking about the ones YOU cherry pick to say they favor her...

It is the money machine that controls the corporate media and their polls everywhere... That has those polls run so that they check "land line" phone numbers over cell phone numbers, "historical Democratic voters" instead of newer, younger voters, or those that are switching from independent status to become democrats to vote for Bernie in the primaries.

It is someone like Hillary that will be crushed by the GOP money machine, as the GOP money machine will push the corporatist Republicans over her, and those that might want to be resistant to the money machine to vote for a non-corporate candidate will stay home if she's the nominee rather than Bernie.

His life has been scrutinized both by the GOP corporate money machine and Hillary's machine. He isn't a "secret" to anyone, having an hour of his life weekly being televised and recorded for those of us to hear on Thom Hartmann's show for the last decade.

The problem is that when his life is "exposed", it shows how much more consistent he is and how he was never a Republican like Hillary was, and was consistently for the average American for a lot longer time period than she has been, since she left the Republicans and supporting a candidate that was AGAINST the Civil Rights bill of the 60's.

[MADem]

140. You haven't read the whole thread, or if you have, you haven't read very closely.

I say, straight up, that Sanders is leading in NH.

Is that "cherry picking?"

smh.

You're angry with me because you're ... what? Nervous about these polls you purport to hate? You dislike my OPINION?

Your laundry lists of Reasons to Hate Hillary is kinda sad.

Hillary was a REPUBLICAN (ooooh...before she could VOTE!! And her childish support for a candidate is going to follow her forever, because you say so?). I guess you "hate" Elizabeth Warren too--she was a registered Republican in 1996! Sanders was a "Liberty Union Party" member--in his thirties! Oooh!

That's not the shit that matters. Do your own oppo research if you're really interested--but do it sincerely. DIG. And once you dig down deep, READ. All of it. Then put yourself in the shoes of the opposition, and it won't take you but a minute to cough up a few ideas for oppo strategies. That said, it's unlikely that anyone will need to use that material for a general campaign. I smell toast, and we'll be having breakfast right after Super Tuesday.

[cali]

60. More like an ethically flawed and neocon fp tenure.

[Fawke Em]

98. Yeah. I like Kerry. eom

[MADem]

107. Who is also a good SECSTATE--but he wasn't Obama's first pick. nt

[cascadiance]

117. Kind of like Rahm Emanuel was his first pick to head up his cabinet...

... good company to keep I guess, even though most of us resent being called "f'ing retards" for our political stances supporting the 99% over the 1%!

[MADem]

141. SMH @ your "Kind of like Rahm Emanuel was his first pick to head up his cabinet..." ???

Rahm Emmanuel wasn't in Obama's cabinet.
He sure as hell didn't "head it up."

Good grief, learn the basics. Or just don't bother. You make yourself look bad when you say things like that.

Here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet

You won't find "White House Chief of Staff" on that list. It's not a "cabinet" job.

He was his Chief of Staff--it's a gatekeeper job. It requires studied knowledge of the POTUS's work ethic, habits, ability to process material, preferred pace, as well as quick, independent thinking, unfailing judgment and brass knuckles--and an intimate knowledge of the workings of the Hill to be effective.

RE was PERFECT for that job, and Obama choosing him was probably one of his best early picks--even if you don't like the guy's politics.

[cascadiance]

142. Obama's staff is his cabinet... Emanuel was his "Chief of Staff"

... and was the individual as the CHIEF of that staff helped Obama pick and recommend members for his cabinet which is what his chief of staff does. Yes, ultimately, Obama is the real "chief of staff" in terms of being their ultimate boss, but Emanuel was his right hand man then.

And so what made RE "PERFECT" for the job, unless you like corporatism and mismanagement that has the citizens of Chicago wanting Emanuel to resign for his lack of oversight of their frickin' corrupt police department, and having a big primary challenge for the BS that Emanuel was pulling in managing Chicago's school system too earlier.

Emanuel is one big reason why we have a Republican House now, as it was his "leadership" of the DCCC that had more corporate friendly candidates pushed in various House races that hugely got voted out in the subsequent mid term elections because REAL Democrats didn't like the crap that Emanuel and the corrupt DCCC he managed were pushing on to the electorate.

[MADem]

144. No. You are wrong about that.

Plain and simple...WRONG.

I gave you a link. Read it and learn something. You need to know what the role and function of the POTUS's cabinet is before you can proceed in this conversation--and it is plain that you have NO clue on that score.

Tell us, did Rahm endure an "Advise and Consent" Senate Hearing before being named to his position? NO?? Gee, why? Perhaps because he was not a member of Obama's cabinet? Ya think?



Did you go to school in America? Did you take civics, government, American History? Any of those courses? If you did take those courses, you should sue the town where you went to school, because they didn't impart even the basics to you. You were ill-served in your educational experience.

[cascadiance]

149. Apparently Cabinet secretaries didn't like Rahm Emanuel regarding them as his "minions"...

... according to this article here...

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2015/03/24-cabinet-secretaries-white-house-staff-pfiffner

Cabinet secretaries naturally resent being overshadowed by White House staffers, who are usually younger than they are and are often seen as political loyalists rather than policy experts. Staffers have access to the president and seem to impose their personal preferences on the cabinet. President Obama’s cabinet secretaries did not appreciate chief of staff Rahm Emanuel treating them as his “minions.”

Chief of Staff is a cabinet level position even if it isn't a position on his cabinet, and being selected earlier than cabinet members, traditionally has been one to help be instrumental in the president selecting who's in the cabinet.

Like it or not, Obama used Emanuel as other presidents have their Chief of Staff to help them select their cabinet selections. It is argued that it was Rahm Emanuel that had helped push Obama to select Clinton as his secretary of state.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/52428/

...
But for Obama and his inner circle—notably Rahm Emanuel, his new chief of staff, whose fingerprints are all over the Clinton gambit—Hillary brings an array of strengths to the table, and many of what critics see as her problematic qualities can be viewed instead as assets. Her existing relationships with world leaders and her global star power would allow her to walk into foreign capitals and deal with the president or prime minister on level footing. And in the face of a cratering economy likely to consume the first year (or more) of Obama’s term, handing off the foreign-policy legwork to a savvy, tough, high-profile surrogate with roundly acknowledged expertise on the relevant issues holds no small appeal.
...

[MADem]

153. What's that have to do with the fact that you incorrectly identified Emmanuel as a Cabinet member?

Here's the answer: NOTHING.

We're not arguing about what a 'nice guy' Rahm Emmanuel is, here.

You said he was in Obama's cabinet.

I corrected you.

You gave me shit.

I reliterated that you were wrong.

Now you're trying to change the subject as to Rahm's bona fides. They were never the point. And now I'm supposed to believe your weird assertion that "Rahm picked the Cabinet" when twenty minutes ago you thought he was IN the Cabinet?

Please. Quit while you're behind.

You are still wrong. The POTUS has responsibility for choosing his cabinet. He takes advice, certainly (and I'll bet he took a shitload from Biden), but the decisions are HIS--and the rest of that article makes that entirely clear. Really--Obama didn't need any "special help" from anyone, least of all a House member he promoted to do HIS bidding (not the other way around). And to suggest that Rahm played a Svengali-like role is a bit off-putting, for reasons I won't even raise here, but I find terribly offensive. I'll bet I'm not alone on that score, either.

The fact that you edited at a precise point in that analysis is also telling. If one keeps reading, it's clear WHO made the call--and it wasn't Rahm Emmanuel:

Then there are the more subtle advantages to picking Hillary. Foreign policy is prone to internecine conflict in any administration, with the secretaries of State and Defense, the national-security adviser, and often the vice-president all jockeying for position. And Obama’s regime—with Joe Biden in the building and Robert Gates likely to remain atop the Pentagon—will be no exception. But Clinton is much closer to Biden than most people realize; that campaign gaffe of his about her making a better V.P. than him was more like a Freudian slip. And Gates, like many Republicans, is said to respect Hillary immensely; indeed, no Democrat is regarded more highly by the opposition and the generals.

Little of this, it should be noted, is true of the other shortlist candidates to run State. John Kerry and Bill Richardson are both fine men, qualified on paper for the job. But Senator Pompous has long had an intensely competitive relationship with Biden (“They’re like brothers—in every sense,” reports a Biden confidant) and is unbeloved by the GOP. And does anyone really think that Governor Doofus (or, if you prefer James Carville’s formulation, Governor Judas) possesses anything close to Clinton’s candlepower? Or gonads, for that matter? You can bet your last dollar that Emanuel, for one, does not.

Finally, there’s the Machiavellian angle: Obama playing the prince by pulling the old king and queen close. As Dee Dee Myers observed, her former boss is sure to cause Obama heartburn whether he is in the huddle or on the sidelines, musing about the new president’s (inevitable) missteps. “The question is not how to keep him at arm’s length,” she blogged, “but rather how best to harness his prodigious talent in service of shared goals, rather than political mischief.” The odds of doing that—and, incidentally, banishing any stray fantasies of a nomination challenge in 2012 from HRC’s mind—go up by putting his wife on Team Obama. .... The thread that binds these names together isn’t ideology but a devotion to a kind of hard-nosed, even ruthless pragmatism. Moreover, Obama’s appointments to critical posts reflect an inclination toward people with deep institutional expertise and major-league political chops, who can effectively drive or implement an agenda. Picking Emanuel was all about mastering Congress, Daschle about actually passing health-care reform (as opposed to think-tanking the perfect, elegant policy solution, à la the Clinton effort in 1993–94). Keeping Gates is about getting out of Iraq without letting the country descend into chaos. The putative Clinton pick carries hints of a similar raison d’être. You can easily imagine Obama telling Hillary: A deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians—go bring that sucker home.....

Your link is so old they still believed Tom Daschle would pass Senate scrutiny--but see, he's one of those "Cabinet nominees" who could not pass the Advise and Consent hurdles, and so he was discarded in favor of Sebelius.

[CajunBlazer]

7. Bernie Sanders is not Barack Obama

[akbacchus_BC]

9. Agree, but Bernie is better than a person who wants to be the President of America!

When did a person who desperately wants to gain control of America got shut down once and trying again?
Hilary needs to give up on politics and go play with her grand child. This woman never know when to quit!

[KMOD]

13. What an assinine statement.

My god, are you sure you are a democrat?

[davidpdx]

21. Yep it's the constant cornation among Clinton supporters

Smug and entitled, just like their candidate.

[AlbertCat]

64. THIS ^

I just don't know what her supposedly "great experience" is. She's only won 2 elections for the same carpetbagger senate seat, calculated just for a presidential run. She was 1st Lady, so I guess she knows where everything in the White House is....

I don't see anything stellar about her SoS gig.

All these superlatives.... just looks like celeb worship.


She lost that last primary, and she can lose this one.

[davidpdx]

95. Speaking of superlatives....

If we'd all just get behind Clinton, "The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect,”

[yardwork]

29. Who wants to be president of America?

Is there a loon who is trying to be president of the Americas? Like, North and South America, and Central America too? Take over all those countries?

Is this something Trump is talking about now?

[Codeine]

34. You seemed to love her last month.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251823490

[Sheepshank]

68. you appear to be pissed off because a woman doesn't buckle under the pressure and quit?

OMFG......

[Cha]

127. No, bernie is not a "better person", aBC. You really need to study up on the reality

of history before you go telling anyone to "go play with their grandchild".

[akbacchus_BC]

8. Much to the detriment of the US! If you all want change, vote for

a real Democrat who is not a war mongerer and for wall street. Hilary Clinton is all you all got? Gosh, is she is coronated, kiss goodbye to her not supporting cronies who produce weapons. This woman voted for the invasion of Iraq, do not tell me that she did not know that children will be killed. I rest my case!

[KMOD]

10. She is not a war mongerer, and quite frankly,

many of us are tired of that argument.

[akbacchus_BC]

11. With all due respect to you, Hilary voted for the invasion of Iraq!

President Obama didn't.

Hilary lies all the time but liars have fans. The shit she pulled in 2004 may have eluded you. She is a liar.

By the way, what did Bill Clinton do for Black Americans apart from being on Arsenio Hall's show. Bill fooled a lot of Black Americans and they thought he had their interests at heart. Lo and behold, Bill Clinton instituted three strikes you are out. Since then the incarceration of black men is beyond anyone's imagination. And now you want Hilary to be elected. Americans, you need to vote for change not the same old shit again and again. We did it in Canada, you can do it too!

[KMOD]

12. I disagree.

I'm from New York State and I know exactly where she was coming from. She never authorized a war in Iraq. She left options open, on how to deal with the terrorism that was happening. Bush took advantage of that opportunity. Christ, the guy freaking ran on it in his election.

She is no liar. She is one of the most courageous and honest politicians out there. There are very few politicians I like, Hillary is a class act.

Hillary Clinton recognized and spoke about racial injustice back in 2000. Just google Amado Diallo.

[akbacchus_BC]

14. Sorry, the Clintons never cared for black people. They only wanted Black votes and then fucked them!

I really hope Bernie can engage people of colour to vote for him. The Clintons suck! Tell me one thing they did for black folks? I just hope black America remember that Bernie marched with Martin Luther King. That is Bernie's down fall, he never says he was in the civil rights movement, he thinks that Americans know how his involvement was!

[akbacchus_BC]

15. I agree to disagree with you. You have your opinions and I have mine!

Mrs. Clinton is a joke!

When did a candidate run for President twice in the US and won? Am curious!

[MADem]

79. Nixon. Reagan. Bush.

And that's just recently. There are many more who ran and lost first, then won later. You should not presume to teach history--with sexist overtones--to people here at DU without first doing your homework.

Nixon (won the GOP nomination, but lost the general election in 1960; won 1968)
Reagan (lost the GOP nomination in 1976; won the general in 1980)
Bush (lost the GOP nomination in 1980; won the general in 1988)
......

The list by election:

1789--John Adams (lost to George Washington) became 2d President
1796--Thomas Jefferson (lost to John Adams) became 3d President
1808--James Monroe (lost to James Madison) became 5th President
1824--Andrew Jackson (lost to John Quincy Adams) became 7th President
1836--William Henry Harrison (lost to Martin Van Buren) became 9th President
1844--James Buchanan (lost to James K Polk) became 15th President
1856--Millard Fillmore (lost to Franklin Pierce) became 13th President
1860--Andrew Johnson (lost to Abraham Lincoln) became 17th President
1864--Ulysses S Grant (lost to Abraham Lincoln) became 18th President
1888--Grover Cleveland (lost to Benjamin Harrison) became 24th President (after already serving as 22d President)
1960--Richard Nixon (lost to John F Kennedy) became 37th President
1976--Ronald Reagan (lost to James Earle Carter) became 40th President
1980--George H. W. Bush (lost to Ronald Reagan) became 41st President

https://www.quora.com/Which-U-S-presidents-lost-in-their-first-bid-for-presidency-and-how-did-they-regain-the-confidence-of-the-public

Your comments are out of line. You should consider deleting some of them. Aside from the sexist remarks about "going home to play with grandchildren" your grasp of US history is poor. Google is your friend, too.

Further, given your comments here in THIS thread, where you predict the ELECTION of SECSTATE Clinton:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251886891

your remarks in this thread are suggestive of someone who toys with people on the internet for sport.

That's not a good look.

[KMOD]

18. They do care.

And no. I'm not pathetic. I care, too.

I'll talk to you later.

[akbacchus_BC]

19. You have got to be kidding me. Bill Clinton was the President who instituted

three srtikes you are out. How can anyone on here agree that after three minor trangressions, you are fucked for life and even if you are a minor, you are being tried as an adult. How does this court system work? Punish as opposed to reform?

[akbacchus_BC]

20. Sorry, hope to engage with you again. Take care

[w0nderer]

24. Hidden post above

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Tue Dec 15, 2015, 06:17 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

kmod, the clintons do not give a rats ass about black people in america.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=898705

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"is this a liars convention? You are pathetic!"

Nasty personal attacks are inappropriate.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Dec 15, 2015, 06:27 AM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: OTT and unnecessary personal attack.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attack. Wrong.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Heat of verbal combat, there is an apology down-thread.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: That's nasty and personal. Hide. Sanders supporter, here.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Broward]

38. Somehow, we've gotten to the point where Dems are defending the Iraq War vote.

Party first I guess, reminds me of Bush supporters.

[Fawke Em]

100. Yeah... she is.

Sorry you're tired of hearing the truth.

She is a neocon on foreign policy and even the neocons say so.

But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html?_r=0

[bowens43]

23. hill will never be president. if she gets the nomination be ready for president trump or cruz

she is unqualified and more importantly she is ethically and morally unfit to lead the US. She is the epitome of everything that is wrong with politicians in this country. She and those like her are the reason that are country is so fucked up.

[Thinkingabout]

54. Now if you said Sanders would never be president because truly he is not

Qualified I would agree. Hillary is not only qualified but the most qualified candidate running. Saying it will be Trump of Cruz does not scare me away from the best qualified candidate.

[Fawke Em]

103. What has she done that makes her qualified?

Most of her "big work" has turned out to be very bad.

[Thinkingabout]

145. So you do know what her record is, I will stand behind her record, experience and knowledge.

[Chan790]

25. I actually think her possible victory would be a dark age for America and the Democratic party.

She's a terrible candidate. She's a terrible human being. (and I know her personally so I can state that factually. I'd sooner leave my dog in the care of Michael Vick than Hillary.) She'd be a terrible President--worse than Reagan, marginally better than the Chimp.

If we truly care about the future of America...we need to drive Hillary from this race.

[SecularMotion]

26. "'I'd sooner leave my dog in the care of Michael Vick than Hillary."

This is one of the most disgusting comments I've seen on DU.

I don't understand "liberals" who attack Democrats in this manner.

[Chan790]

30. There is nothing disgusting about the sentiment...

that I trust her less with the wellbeing of a living thing than I trust a well-known low benchmark. It's but a handy benchmark for how little I trust her.

I can put it any number of other ways...I also wouldn't trust her with my money, the Presidency of my country, or my children. I'd feel more secure in good intentions of my President if we elected Jason Voorhees than Hillary Clinton.

You seem to have missed the two key points there:

a.) I know Hillary personally.
b.) I think she's an evil human being based on that experience who should not be entrusted with the well-being of anybody or anything.

[SecularMotion]

33. I expect you'll be leaving DU soon if you won't support Hillary for President.

Your ugly "sentiments" will not be missed.

[Chan790]

35. You're free to block me now.

You can pretend that I got banned. I will not miss you either.

[SecularMotion]

37. I can wait

[Chan790]

39. Your decision.

I'm perfectly glad to have more audience in my crusade to force Hillary into retirement and spread the gospel of This evil person needs to never be President.

[SecularMotion]

41. So you're on a crusade against Hillary, LOL

[ismnotwasm]

49. He knows her.... Personally.

[DonCoquixote]

85. will you still ask for this person's money or time

during the election.

If certain Hillary supporters decline to ask the favor of those same Democrats they demonized during the primary, it will look pretty grim in the general.

[MADem]

83. You "know Hillary personally?"

Sure...bet you chat on the phone all the time.



I'm King of Siam, myself.

On the Internet, Everyone Is A King!

[yardwork]

27. What did she do to your dog?

[yardwork]

32. This sounds like hysteria.

Last edited Tue Dec 15, 2015, 04:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Edited to add that I didn't alert on that post. I see that somebody else did.

[Chan790]

36. Not at all.

I just saw past the facade and realized immediately that Hillary is only about Hillary in the most sociopathic manner imaginable and she will fuck-over or hurt whoever she has to for what she feels entitled to. All of her empathy? Fake. Concern for women and children? Fake. Compassion? Fake. About the only things real about Hillary Clinton is that she's Wall Street's puppet and she doesn't give a fuck about any living thing on Earth except herself. She will say or do whatever she has to for the Presidency...but she means none of it.

You can elect her, but it's going to be a lot like a 4th Bush term.

[SecularMotion]

40. Why do you even bother posting on a website for Democrats?

You would find more agreement for your ugly comments on Free Republic.

[Chan790]

44. Because unlike Hillary, I actually am a Democrat.

I'm a bit too progressive for Free Republic. The real Hillary, the one you don't see, would fit in wonderfully there; She's every bit that cold and sociopathic and heartless. There's not enough life left in her life to get her karma out of the negative. Beyond that, she's the ultimate opportunist.

I'm not kidding or exaggerating when I say that she's Greg Stillson from The Dead Zone personified. Truly a terrible, evil human being without any redeeming qualities. I don't know how her own family doesn't loathe her.

[Cha]

125. Nah, you have it all wrong. You really need to brush up on reality and then post.

[Robbins]

45. pay better attention

he doesn't want another bush term.sad thing is liberals who don't want far right people in white house are now accused for
being like those right wingers because they oppose clinton because she would push dems further to right.

Clinton supporters will support anything she does or say and bash anyone who opposes her to point of calling anyone who supports another candiate for dem nomination racist or sexist or anti-women.and be fine with her pro-trade deadls,pro-wall street,pro-war,
and be fine with her using republican talking points on internet,war,and taxes.

[SecularMotion]

46. Labelling Hillary Clinton as "far right" is delusional.

[Fawke Em]

106. On foreign policy, she absolutely is. eom

[Cha]

126. Of course it is..and says more about them than anything about SOS Hillary.

[Trajan]

147. Your implication ... That those who do not support Hillary must not be 'Real Democrats'

I've been a Democrat all my life (I'm just short of sixty) ... Yet, I have found Hillary to be the LEAST 'Democrat' of all the options I have ever seen since George Wallace ...

I've voted Democratic Party in each and every presidential election since 1976 ... So, what now? ....where do I hand in my resignation papers? ....

[CharlotteVale]

42. That's exactly how she comes across to me too.

[DonCoquixote]

84. be careful chan

you might get baited to saying more stuff to get hidden. That is what counts for a "victory" among some people, exactly the same people who in the next four years will wonder why their kids are sent to Syria, or why the GOP gets the latest cave on the social safety net, or why Wall Street was allowed to run amok AGAIN, and they will ask this while wearing their worn out " You know who in 2016" T -shirts.

And I will answer "because you accused anyone who tired to bend her ear towards the working class a traitor to the Democratic party, that's why."

[Go Vols]

96. Yep

The Hillarians got him.

[Gothmog]

28. Predictwise has Clinton at 94% chance of being the nominee

This ties her previous high http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination

[Fawke Em]

109. Who cares?

[Gothmog]

121. People who want to know who will be the party nominee

The free market system is actually somewhat efficient and works. The Predictwise system is the successor to the Intrade market which was very very accurate The people who invest their money in positions on election outcomes are very very careful and use a number of different tools. Intrade was very accurate in predicting election results https://www.quora.com/How-accurate-has-Intrade-been-at-predicting-the-result-of-U-S-elections

In the last election it was 90% for all elections (non presidential) the last Presidential election they were correct on all of them, except Missouri but that didn't get called until two weeks after the election, the earlier elections were in excess of 88% but were in the very early days of Intrade.

The interesting part about the Intrade data is that you can make accurate predictions a week in advance of the election,

Here is the actual results of the intrade prediction for the 2008 election vs the actual results http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php

2008 Electoral Map - Election Results
Shown immediately below is the electoral map depicting the results of the 2008 presidential election in which Barack Obama won with 365 electoral votes to John McCain's 173. Below, the Intrade results are shown. Further down you will find the 2008 pollster report card.


2008 Electoral Map - Intrade Forecast
Shown immediately below is the Nov 4, 2008 election day forecast from the Intrade prediction market. Intrade did not predict Nebraska splitting its votes, and it was the first time in state history that this happened. Missouri and Indiana were also reversed in the forecast, but both having eleven electoral votes resulted in a nearly dead-on electoral vote count.

Predictwise is the successor to Intrade with features built in to make it harder for US investors to place bets. I would not discount the accuracy of these systems

[Cha]

128. Lots of People care! I love it.. thank you, Gothmog~

[Gothmog]

132. Numbers are good things

I enjoy numbers and the political/predictive markets are fun to watch. Again, the free market system works and the people who invest in these markets are savy investors who make use on a number of tools that do not include online polling

[Robbins]

43. You got to be kidding me

someone who is war monger and corporist has outstanding qualifications?

One who praised Henry Kissinger?

One who hangs around with bushes?

Who never saw a war she didn't like?

One who is In protect of wall street?

One who often In past talked about bi-partisan?

Postive commentary?

What sad day when those obsessed with Clinton are hijacking democratic party and fine with her pulling it to far right.

[SecularMotion]

48. "those obsessed with Clinton are hijacking democratic party"

Clinton supporters are hijacking the Democratic party, LOL

The Berniacs get crazier every day

[Fawke Em]

110. Look! It's a Hillarian defying reality!

Those Hillarians are insane to think she won't run to the Turd Way right!

[NurseJackie]

57. Hoo boy!

[MADem]

86. Clinton said that she disagreed with Kissinger but didn't doubt his

care and love for the country, or words to that effect. That's hardly an endorsement.

Shall we haul out all the praise that Sanders has heaped upon "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran" McCain? Take note of all the times he voted to fund wars (and no, the canard about 'paying the troops' is not operative--they get paid even if a budget is not passed, and they continue to be supplied if a budget is not passed)? Look at his warming relationship with the MIC and his corresponding increase in political donations from people who work in that sector?






Is that how you want to play it?

smh.

[riversedge]

50. This poster fits your OP

[Armstead]

52. ...and some people convince Sanders supporters of idol-worshipping

[riversedge]

56. It is a great pic of the future Madam President

[Armstead]

69. No prob with the picture....Just sayin'

The picture and caption implies that she's a large4r trhan life hero who is set to save America single handedly.

Fine. People get enamored by their candidate of choice. But sauce for the goose...etc. People criticize supporters for praising Sanders, and call it hero worship, St. Bernie, etc. This is the same thing.

[riversedge]

74. Oh, chill out. and enjoy the pic

[KMOD]

66. I love that picture.

[riversedge]

71. First time I saw it was yesterday. and I do not

know if has been circulating but I, too think it is a great pic of Hillary--sharp, in charge.

[Fawke Em]

111. God, what a scary thought.

How many of our children will she kill with her wars?

[themonster]

53. yes

I agree 100%. She is the best qualified candidate for President. The Republican party has gone too far to the right. The Tea Party has been a detriment to it. My only worry is the Republicans using illegal means to win like they did with Bush vs Gore.

[Kelvin Mace]

55. I can see her cabinet now

Rahm Emanuel, Joe Lieberman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, George W. Bush, Kay Hagan....

[MADem]

115. Bernie Sanders. Labor or the VA. The first is an obvious fit, the second, a bit

of a twist--since Sanders never served in uniform, but has an interest in veterans' affairs.

[cascadiance]

118. He would rather have a REAL voice in the senate than serve in her cabinet!

Same for Elizabeth Warren...

[MADem]

122. Time will bear that out, too. There's something to be said for having an

entire portfolio over the course of four to eight years. He might find that pleasing.

You have a larger voice in terms of influencing executive opinion serving in the Cabinet than you do from a Senate desk. As a cabinet official, you have access to the POTUS. As a Senator, you have to wait for an invitation.

It's hard to know what Elizabeth Warren wants. I think she'd make a great Fed Chair. Yellen's chairmanship expires in 2018, she is on the board until 2024. I think she has enough clout to write her own ticket.

[cascadiance]

124. So, would he have been better able to fight against the TPP in the Senate or in Obama's cabinet?

YOU know the answer to that question! It's pretty f'ing obvious. In fact Hillary's excuse for not taking a stance on that issue earlier when it might have mattered when Fast Track was being voted on was that she was formerly in Obama's cabinet.

How Hillary has stood on the TPP as a former cabinet member is a testament to why Bernie would be better served staying in the Senate and fighting the battles there where he can better serve the 99% that he's ALWAYS worked for, unlike many other corporate Democrats of our age now.

[MADem]

129. Why are you yelling at me? That's not going to make people vote for your candidate.

He couldn't do shit about the TPP in the Senate--he doesn't control the narrative there. He sits, on his ass, while the GOP majority leader sets the agenda and calls the shots.

He has no voice except when the chair recognizes him, and only until the gavel bangs.

You do not, apparently, understand that cabinet officials don't have contrary opinions while they serve their POTUS. They work FOR -- not against -- their boss. Clinton carried out her boss's foreign policy directives and became his eyes and ears around the globe. It wasn't for her to have "stood on the TPP" --that wasn't her role. If you disagree with the Prez, you submit your letter of resignation if you can't simply stuff it down and carry on.

Good grief, I am stunned at how few people understand how this sort of thing works.

Bernie will do what Bernie wants to do. He can sit in the Senate if he'd like, tending to his constituents, and his new friends at Lockheed Martin.

But I wouldn't be surprised if he would like something more--like a cabinet gig.

[cascadiance]

134. Had we not had corporatist Democratic Party traitors, we could have stopped fast track...

... with his vote in the Senate. Had he not been in the Senate, that would have been one less vote to do a filibuster against that bill then. Had he been in the cabinet instead, not only could he not try to help filibuster that vote, he couldn't have spoken against Obama's Republican corporate friendly TPP BULLSHIT that was passed with the TPA then. Voting to filibuster a bill that screws Americans isn't "sitting on his ass" as you so "nicely" try to characterize him and other Democrats that are fighting for US rather than corporate America that both Obama and Hillary seem to love with that "free trade" crap that they work WITH Republicans to pass!

Again, you just noted my reason for him NOT to serve in Clinton's cabinet, which you seem to be advocating here. He can be more independent and work against what the president's administration is doing if it is working against what his voters wanted him to work for, which will likely be more for corporate interests than people's interests if Clinton gets elected, just as it is now when Obama is working more for corporate interests than the people's interests on so-called "free trade" CRAP that he's pushing harder along with Republican Party support than anything else that the Democratic Party has wanted him to negotiate for (and that would include things like Obamacare, which he failed to try and negotiate things like single payer or a public option the way he's been pushing everything about the TPP crap).

Bernie will do what his voters want him to do, unlike so many corporate Democrats do. New friends at Lockheed Martin? I'm sure they just LOVE the war tax he proposed that if passed would do so much for (make that AGAINST) the MIC that that company is a part of. SO what bullshit ties him to Lockheed Martin in the latest spin cycle?

[MADem]

143. What are you going on about? You DO realize that when a Senator leaves

to do another job, that another Senator takes their place?

Example: My Senator, John Kerry, departed the Senate to serve as SECSTATE.

He was REPLACED--by a guy named Ed Markey that we voted in a while back. A good Democrat, Ed is--and has been, for all the years he served in the House.

Bernie will do what BERNIE wants to do--not what "his voters" want him to do. I think a lot of them would have preferred that he not run at all.

Of course, his "war tax" you go on about (much like most of his proposed legislation) has as much chance of passing as I do being named to Obama's cabinet (and not his Chief of Staff, either...).


As for his friends at Lockheed Martin, I'm quite sure that once they educated him on the many benefits of the Worst Fighter Aircraft in US History, they had more than a bit to do with his comments favoring drone warfare, too. L/M makes one helluva drone, doncha know. All this isn't "the latest spin," either--from your comments, I'm concluding that you know next to nothing about the candidate you purport to support (never mind the workings of the federal government).

[cascadiance]

146. When you don't know who will replace you, then I'm sorry, but it DOES count staying in the Senate...

I'd much rather have Bernie's voice in the Senate (along with senators like Elizabeth Warren and one of my senators Jeff Merkley) than someone like my other senator Wyden, who I really had hoped we could get a primary challenge by Pete DeFazio against so that we'd have one less vote being corrupted for the corporate corruption of our government called "free trade" that the corporate powers are pushing on to us.

Bernie has the respect of most of his supporters because he DOES do what they want him to do, partly because he believes in the same things that they do, and is an honest politician in that regard. Many Republicans, even if they don't agree with him on many issues, respect him for his honesty, while we wait for Hillary to poll test the issues before she takes stances on them. Still waiting for EIGHT F'ING YEARS now to clarify if she's reversed her CORPORATE supporting stance on H-1B visas that affect me and many other in the tech industry almost more than anything else they do that keeps us out of jobs, underpaid, or in contract jobs now if any where unions can kiss our ass good bye in terms of regaining any power. Do you care about organized labor? Supporting Hillary might put that in doubt.

Umm... I think you need to provide more context to clarify YOUR contention that Bernie is a "friend" of Lockheed, or if he's more a friend of just getting jobs and tax revenue in Vermont, which is more likely what you are trying to extrapolate his voting history to mean. Just about every other vote he's made has been against MIC control over our government, and cut down it's power. Whether or not his war tax could pass in a Republican congress doesn't really matter. I'd much rather him take stances on what we SHOULD have as legislation in the face of Republican opposition, as opposed to voting for crap like the TPP that serve corporate interests.

Though Bernie's earlier released immigration platform has influenced Republicans to get some bipartisan legislation out in the senate that Cruz and Sessions are now pushing his earlier idea of raising the minimum wage of H-1B Visa employees to over $100k along with other controls of that program, that would be good for American workers. I wonder where Hillary stands on that bill, or why someone like her that wants to lead our country doesn't take a stance on that bill now to either oppose it, or "evolve" her earlier 2008 stance on the H-1B program. Or would she rather support the anti-American worker program pushed by Rubio and other more corporate controlled Republicans trying to protect H-1B indentured servant program.

Bernie has basically said that he wouldn't exclude the USE of drone weapons in war. That's not the same thing as saying he'd use them constantly to take out terrorist suspects the way that Obama has been in countries where we aren't at war with, or where we aren't really screening out civilians that heavily from the targets. You wouldn't expect him or any other presidential candidate to exclude the use of missiles either, even if he would be more apt to want to have more efforts to scale back ours and other countries' nuclear arsenals. Again, you are using selective cherry picking of news articles yourself to try to spin issues that really aren't issues.

[MADem]

148. But he DOES know who is likely to replace him.

The universe of "Ready For The Senate" candidates in VT is not large. The entire state of VT has about as much people in it as the city of Boston--and Boston is not a terribly large city.

You're parsing, you know. No one is going to get down in the weeds about Bernie's drones--he's either for 'em, or he isn't. And he's standing with Lockheed Martin's Predator. And Sandia Labs. Gee, what a shock. Not.

[cascadiance]

150. Sorry but if you think that Bernie's highest priority is being a Lockheed servant, you are CLUELESS!

You really don't understand his history and what he's fought for. And sorry, but as a cabinet officer on Hillary's staff, he answers to HER more than he answers to the people of Vermont and the rest of this country as Vermont's senator.

It's like trying to say he's against immigration that so many have tried to do because on many occasions he's taken principled stances against the attached GARBAGE of "guest labor" (indentured servant!) programs that were thrown in to those bills to corrupt them. It's a shame, because so many of us would have fought harder to get those immigration bills passed if that CRAP that has many of us screwed now wasn't thrown in to them.

Still aren't putting out a link to support your GARBAGE claim that Bernie prioritizes being a "friend" to Lockheed Martin. Just continue to make your own allegations with nothing to back them up. Evidently you didn't take high school debate class either.

[MADem]

152. Don't go making this about me, now--that's not a good move.

I'm not "clueless"--you're the one who thought Rahm Emmanuel was a cabinet official, so let's not throw stones in your big glass house, shall we?

As a cabinet officer to Clinton, he'd have an opportunity to shape labor issues for years to come. He'd be a de facto lobbyist to the Congress of the United States for things like better workman's comp, improved working conditions, jobs for vets and the disabled, and the Big Magilla in The Room-- the fifteen dollar an hour wage--and it would be nice if he would do that, since he's not putting his money where his mouth is on that score.

Sanders Touts $15-per-Hour Wage — But Doesn't Pay It

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2015/07/27/sanders-touts-15-per-hour-wage-but-doesnt-pay-it

... Sanders himself is paying some of his campaign workers less than $15 an hour. Full- and part-time interns on his campaign are making $10.10 an hour, Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs said. Some other staff members also appear to be making less than $15 an hour.

The champion of workers’ rights might be paying better than your average creemee stand, but his campaign staff's starting pay is not a whole lot more than the $10 an hour Walmart pledged to pay its workers starting next year.

Briggs defended Sanders' campaign pay as in line with an executive order President Barack Obama signed last year as the minimum wage for contracted federal workers. Sanders' proposed legislation, Briggs said, does not call for raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour until 2020...

Oh, but wait--you wanted some information about Sanders' relationship with Lockheed Martin. It went from HATE, to Love-Hate, to ... something close to snuggling. Here's some light reading for you:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/lockheed-martin-in-vermont-senator-bernie-sanders-corporate-conundrum/5452106

Lockheed Martin in Vermont: Senator Bernie Sanders’ Corporate Conundrum

...The growing influence of corporations made the emerging relationship between Sandia Laboratories and Bernie Sanders somewhat perplexing. Sandia was managed by Lockheed Martin for the Department of Defense, had roots in the Manhattan Project and a history of turning nuclear research into weapons. Most of its revenue still came from maintaining and developing defense systems. Beyond that, as Sanders himself had frequently charged, Lockheed Martin ranked at the top of the heap in corporate misconduct. Between 1995 and 2010 it was charged with 50 violations and paid $577 million in fines and settlements. Sanders, an opponent of the Iraq war and wasteful military spending, had been a vocal congressional critic for more than a decade. It exemplified corporate excess and the one percent.....In January 2010, Sanders led a delegation to Sandia’s New Mexico lab for a closer look. The group included the CEO of Green Mountain Power, the state’s leading private utility; the vice president for research at the University of Vermont; the co-founder of successful alternative energy companies; and the head of the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, which runs Efficiency Vermont.

At the end of the same year, ten days after the mini-filibuster that jump-started the “draft Bernie” for president campaign, Mayor Bob Kiss announced the results of his own Lockheed negotiations, begun at billionaire Richard Branson’s Carbon War Room. It took the form of a “letter of cooperation” to address climate change by developing local green-energy solutions.

Lockheed’s proposal to the city focused on “the economic and strategic challenges posed by our dependence on foreign oil and the potential destabilizing effects of climate change.” Their partnership would “demonstrate a model for sustainability that can be replicated across the nation.” Meanwhile, the Vermont Sandia lab, simultaneously being developed at UVM with Sanders help, would focus on cyber security and “smart grid” technology. Yet Kiss and Sanders denied knowing about the partnership being negotiated by the other. Both Burlington’s Progressive mayor and its famous former mayor-turned-Senator apparently saw no need to consult. Yet somehow everyone was on the same page.

By 2011, Sanders was also supporting the Pentagon’s proposal to base Lockheed-built F-35 fight jets at the Burlington International Airport. Despite his past criticisms of the corporation’s serial misconduct and excess, he joined with Vermont’s most enthusiastic booster, Senator Patrick Leahy, signing on to a joint statement of support. If the fighter jet, widely considered a massive military boondoggle, was going to be built and deployed anyway, Sanders argued that some of the work ought to done by Vermonters, while Vermont National Guard jobs should certainly be protected. Noise impacts and neighborhood dislocation were minimized, while criticism of corporate exploitation had given way to pork barrel politics and a justification based on protecting military jobs.....

Much more at link.

When it comes to defense, Sanders is also politically adroit. He voted against the Iraq War, a position that, among others, makes him a hero to the left. But he isn’t averse to delivering Pentagon pork. After years of publicly attacking defense contractor Lockheed Martin for cost overruns and overpaid executives, he persuaded the defense behemoth, which manages the Sandia Labs research center for the Department of Energy, to place a Sandia satellite lab in Burlington. Even more lucrative for Vermont, Sanders snagged a piece of Lockheed’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program—a controversial $1.5 trillion program yielding the most expensive aircraft in history. Eighteen of the jets will be placed at the Burlington airport for the Vermont National Guard. Vermont progressives went ballistic, demanded that the “killing machines” be kept out of the Green Mountain State, but Sanders held his ground. At a town hall meeting, he defended the basing, saying with a politician’s shrug that the F-35s were “essentially built.”

Sanders’s money savvy hasn’t endeared him to everyone in the Northeast Kingdom. At Currier’s Quality Market in Glover, an old-time general store that is decorated with taxidermied animals (including the extinct Northeast cougar) and sells guns, hardware, groceries and homemade maple cookies, a beverage truck driver complained that Sanders was just another “lying politician” who came from out of state and had not brought any improvements to his neck of the woods. “My dad worked at GE in Rutland all his life. I’ve been on the waiting list for 10 years,” the man, who refused to give his name, says.

It is true that the state has bled blue-collar jobs: The logging industry, for example, has suffered, with the number of sawmills dropping from 200 in 2005 to less than 130 now. The state lost 17,000 blue-collar jobs in the early 2000s, and while the state rebounded, the number of those jobs has not returned to pre-recession levels, as they did in neighboring New Hampshire.

Up a hill from Currier’s, there’s resistance to Bernie from the left. A northeastern hippie relic—the Bread and Puppet Theater and Museum—seems like a throwback to the Woodstock era. This spot is Bernie territory, but it also has progressives who think he’s too Washington, too mainstream. Chris Schroth, 28, a musician and carpenter, was preparing supper in the theater’s communal kitchen. He says he is skeptical of Sanders’s commitment to what he dubs “a conscious people’s movement.” He also says Sanders did not do enough to support Act 48, which would have made Vermont the first state in the union with a single-payer health system. The bill was set to become law earlier this year when Governor Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, decided it was too costly and abruptly shelved it. Schroth was among those arrested at a protest at the state Capitol against the scuttling. “Bernie was holding town halls talking about national health care, but he wasn’t lifting up the local movement,” Schroth laments. .....

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/10/02/bernie-sanders-campaigns-2016-presidential-campaign-democratic-party-374897.html

I'm not a real fan of this particular COUNTERPUNCH publication, but I notice that a lot of well-to-the-left-of-left people here at DU seem to enjoy it, and enjoy whipping it out as 'proof' of something or other. Here's what they had to say about Sanders when he started down the path of his cozy friendship with Lockheed Martin:

Senator Sanders rarely misses a photo opportunity with Vermont National Guard troops when they are being deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq. He’s always at the Burlington International Airport when they return. If Sanders truly supported the Vermont troops, he would vote to end all of the wars posthaste.

Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Congressman Peter Welch could hardly contain their enthusiasm over the news that Burlington International Airport had been named as a possible site to house the Air Force’s new F-35 fighter jet scheduled to replace the Vermont Air National Guard’s aging fleet of F-16s. The new high-tech instruments of death will cost $115 million a pop in sharp contrast to the F-16s which cost a mere $20 million each.

From whom might these F-35s protect Vermont? Possibly, Canada, separatist-minded Quebec, upstate New York, the New Hampshire Free State, or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Why on earth would anyone want to invade Vermont? Vermont has no military bases, no large cities, no important government installations, and no strategic resources unless you count an aging nuclear power plant. What if Canada, China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, or even the U.S. Marines were to invade the Green Mountain state? Just what would they do with it? Would all of the black-and-white Holsteins be confiscated, or perhaps the entire sugar maple crop be burned? Imagine trying to enslave freedom-loving Vermonters. Good luck!

Vermont is too small, too rural, and too independent to be invaded by anyone. It is a threat to no one. Furthermore, Vermonters, not unlike the Swiss, tend to stick to their own knitting rather than intruding into the affairs of their neighbors. Vermont has always been that way and probably always will be.

Major General Michael Dubie, head of the Vermont National Guard, has expressed the hope that the Vermont Guard might be morphed into a center for unmanned drone aircraft. Sanders, not unlike President Obama, thinks drones are cool......

Here's another view from the same left-wing perch:

Still, Bernie clings to his death-dealing supersonic relics, most fervently to the F-35 Lightning II fighter jet. As Andrew Cockburn reported in Harper’s, Sanders and his Vermont colleague Patrick Leahy waged a fierce bureaucratic fight to bring the jet to the Burlington Air Base as the premier weapon of the Green Mountain Boys, the 158th Fighter Wing of the Vermont Air National Guard. At $191 million per aircraft, the F-35 represents a technological wish-fulfillment for the defense lobby. Larded with the latest high-tech thanatic gizmos, the porcine and unstable Stealth fighter will prowl cloud-free skies (too dainty to fly in rain) on an endless quest to confront an enemy that no longer exists, and perhaps never did. The only people who will be terrorized by Bernie’s fleet of F-35s when they finally arrive are the poor residents of South Burlington, whose homes will be perpetually quaking from the caterwauling squeal of the jet’s after-burning turbofan engine.

Award Bernie bonus points for consistency here. He is equally supportive of gun manufacturers, rejecting even the most timid restrictions on gun sales (the Brady Bill) and voting to shield weapons-makers from liability suits brought by victims of mass shootings. A few hours after the rampage at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, Bernie hypocritically tweeted out a statement of condolence for the victims which was notable only for the extreme banality of its sentiment.

Two days later, when U.S. airstrikes targeted a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, killing 22 medical workers and patients, Sanders’s twitter-wire went tellingly mute. But what could Sanders say about this war crime in real time, an attack that infused a new meaning to the phrase ‘surgical strike’? The miserable 14-year-long war on Afghanistan is the battle Sanders said had to be waged, a war without regrets.

Alexander Cockburn used to say that one of the pre-conditions for being a “serious presidential contender” was the ability to confess publicly, often live on Meet the Press, that you were willing to launch nuclear weapons against (pick a country, any country will do….), even at the risk of incinerating life on Earth.

Of course, these days, you also have to pledge support for Obama’s drone killing program, as Bernie Sanders has faithfully done. Sanders told George Stephanopoulos in August that if he becomes the next joystick bombardier in the Oval Office, he won’t pull the plug on the drones but he will endeavor to kill fewer innocent people. Rarely has the moral hollowness of American liberalism been expressed more clearly.

Thank you, Comrade Bernie.

The picture accompanying the article is telling, indeed.

More, to include Sandia details, here: http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/30/the-myth-of-bernie-sanders/


You could have done this homework yourself, you know. Google Sanders and Lockheed Martin, and you'll be reading all night. If you retain the information, you won't be --to quote YOU--"clueless"--at least as regards this particular inconvenient set of truths.

[Hepburn]

58. Coronation much?

Hillary as POTUS? That is a frightening thought.

[cali]

59. I think it's reasonable to make the claim that she'll be the dem nominee but not

that she'll be the next President. That is up in the air.

[KMOD]

62. Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson

are leading in the polls. That party is a mess.

I don't see a single candidate in that party, that stands a chance of being POTUS.

[cali]

63. There's a volatility in the repub race that makes it difficult to predict

And the point isn't just who she'll face, it's her. She has very high negatives. She undoubtedly will cause big repub turnout. Will dems turn out in big numbers?

[KMOD]

65. Of course they will.

Most democrats are excited to vote for Hillary Clinton.

[Hepburn]

67. Not the ones I know.

To a one, they dislike Hillary intensely. Some, but far from all, if she is the nominee will hold their noses and vote for her. However, not all will vote for her. She will lose both the GE and the down the line races.

JMHO

[cali]

70. I doubt it.

[Fawke Em]

108. Not any that I know.

Most liberals I talk to don't trust her.

[jeff47]

78. And she loses to Cruz in head-to-heads.

At least some of them. Varies by poll, obviously.

And that's before we get 20 years of opposition research dumped in October. You think Clinton was the only one who knew she'd be running for President?

The Democratic party is 30% of the electorate. She is very far underwater with favorability and trust with the rest of the electorate, and we're gonna get at least a dozen new "scandals" before November if she is the nominee.

Do not make the mistake of thinking it will be an easy election.

[fredamae]

61. For those who "Know"

who the inevitable winner will be in 2016...Would you Please give me the winning lottery numbers for Wednesdays Power Ball? <3

[Persondem]

72. Nice positive post and I agree completely. K & R nt

[HassleCat]

76. You are half right

It's about 95 percent certain Clinton will win the presidency. We will not make big gains in Congress, governorships, state legislatures, etc. The "third way" Democratic strategy has made us the minority party at every level of government, and that trend will continue as long as we continue to follow the current strategy.

[Doctor_J]

136. The hillarians are willing to sacrifice the party and the country so she can be the first female

president. More privatization, more war, more expensive healthcare, more disaffected voters, more heavy losses of seats coast to coast...none of it matters to the cult of personality. And that is the upside. She may well lose the ge, and the turd way and her starry eyed minions will be 100% to blame

[Orsino]

77. Hers was the tremendous advantage in money and name recognition.

Only a terrific message and decades of consistent progressivism have made Sanders a viable competitor, and I think he's still a bit of a long shot.

Establishment candidates tend to win big.

[workinclasszero]

81. Hillary is going to be a great President!

[FloridaBlues]

82. I agree! No one as qualified has ever ran for potus like Hillary

Dislike all you want but that's the way majority of polls and voters say

[cascadiance]

119. I'm sure people in her camp gave that line back in 2007 too. Doesn't make it work in the end!

[riversedge]

87. Spotted in IOWA... a gingerbread organizer....

Hillary is getting lots of help in IOWA




Hillary for Iowa ?@HillaryforIA 17h17 hours ago

Spotted in the Burlington office: a gingerbread organizer (collecting a candy commit card, of course!). #ImWithHer

[Gothmog]

133. That is very cute

[Fawke Em]

97. What outstanding qualities?

SoS? After her war vote and her wrong moves in Libya and Syria, that can't be it.
Senate? Because post offices don't name themselves.
First Lady? Ha!

She won't be president.

[ladjf]

102. I disagree with this post. nt

[asuhornets]

104. YESSSSS!!!...no text

[Ed Suspicious]

138. No.

[complain jane]

151. I like Bernie's ideas,

but I don't think he can win. So I'm voting for Hillary.

[Martin Eden]

154. Since when is terrible judgment in matters of war an outstanding "qualification"?

Were you paying attention in October 2002?

Bernie Sanders showed far superior judgment in the most important vote either of them ever took in their Senate careers. Subsequent events have proven Bernie more qualified, but it's not a matter of hindsight. Here at DU we knew the case for war was bogus. If Hillary didn't, she's not nearly as smart as you think she is. More likely she knew and was either on board with the neocon agenda or stuck her finger in the political winds of the moment and decided being a hawk better served her personal ambition.

All of the above are dis-qualifiers in my book.

For the same reason I refused to support John Kerry and Joe Biden in Democratic primaries.

[KMOD]

155. First, it's not quite as simple as you present it.

Second, I am not a one issue voter.

[Martin Eden]

156. Prety dang close to that simple

No matter how you try to parse it, the PNAC agenda was known. A vote for the IWR was a vote to put the decision in the hands of an administration that was orchestrating a false marketing campaign to sell a war it was obvious they were intent on waging.

Matters of war and peace are a HUGE issue that affect all the others. The $trillions we are spending on this endless war make it extremely difficult to make real progress on all the other things -- health care, education, building a sustainable energy infrastructure -- that Democrats ostensibly care about.

That should be obvious, but the reason I bothered to respond to the OP is the incessant extolling of HRC's foreign policy "qualification" -- which is perhaps the biggest (though not the only) disqualifier in her political resume'.

BTW, on a multitude of other issues I agree with Bernie Sanders over the neoliberalism of Hillary Clinton.

[KMOD]

157. I believe you are simplifiying it.

I've talked about this in the past, and I don't care to go through it again.

I'll keep this simple. The Iraq war was wrong, and was a mistake.

The blame however lies at the hands of George W. Bush.

[Martin Eden]

158. Cheney/Bush is the primary culprit, but his enablers share the blame.

Either Hillary voted against her better judgment, or her judgment was terrible.

More than ever, we needed strong Democratic leaders to stand up and speak truth to power in an effort to prevent catastrophe. Had Hillary Clinton stepped up to truly represent her New York constituents and the American people by showing clear judgment in this matter, she might have my support.

Unfortunately she lost my support, and her continued hawkishness has only confirmed that.

[KMOD]

159. Again you are simplifiying it.

I'm assuming that you are not from New York State.

She is an extremely strong leader, and there is no one running that I trust more to be the POTUS.

[Martin Eden]

160. We certainly disagree

I do not trust Hillary Clinton. Strong and wrong is dangerous.

Many thousands of New Yorkers took to the streets to protest the war before it was launched. I'm from Chicago, and travelled to join the protest in Washington DC on March 15, 2003.

[KMOD]

162. Yes, most of us from New York State were against the war with Iraq.

Again, I blame W. Bush, not Hillary Clinton, as do most folks in New York State.

[Martin Eden]

163. I think it's important to hold politicians accountable for their votes

Especially on the most critically important and consequential issues. Congress was complicit.

[R B Garr]

167. K & R!

Agreed, KMOD! Great thread.