My wife just turned a lightbulb on in my head.

[retrowire]

She commented that it's possible that Hillary has so many endorsements and Bernie has so little because of the likely fact that most politicians have blood on their hands because of doing the same as Hillary. Being too friendly with wall st and lobbyists...

I think they know if Bernie wins, they'll all have skeletons in their closets, and they'll all have bad relationships with special interests that they can't hide or don't want to discontinue...

Their jobs are too comfortable, and they like it that way.

I want to tell you all something.... We can't let a "miscount" Al Gore vs Bush kind of thing happen again... Bernie could be screwed in a pinch kind of scenario. We need a LANDSLIDE. A landslide that CANNOT be misconstrued.

And honestly, I believe we will get that landslide... If everyone GOTV!

FEEL THE BERN PEOPLE. FEEL ITTTTT!!!

[99th_Monkey]

1. K&R nt

[draa]

2. Well retrowire, at least you realized it. That's what's most important.

I'd say the majority of both parties are corrupt as far as contributions and who buys their protection goes. That's why no one but Warren and Sanders are really fighting Citizens United. And make no mistake, just like with the Mafia it's "protection" they offer and all companies play.

It's protection from having to pay better wages. Protection from paying fair share of taxes. Protection from prosecution. And worst yet, protection from changes in the status quo. It's something that we must fight to end.

[TDale313]

3. May be part of it.

I think many things fed into this. The establishment likes an establishment candidate. People like to support the winner, and it looked for a while like she was as close to a sure bet as a non-incumbent could be. The Clinton's are known to have long memories and to hold a grudge. Bernie is a threat to the status quo. Many reasons why the endorsements were lining up Clinton's way. But momentum's shifting and many of those reasons are shifting too.

[JDPriestly]

4. In his State of the Union speech, Obama kind of spoke to the concern you raise in the OP>

He reminded members of Congress that their job security (and in many cases thanks to generous and very rich donors) is greater than that of most Americans.

It used to be that a person (usually a man back then) got a job with a company while still young and pretty much kept that job or at least continued to work in the same field until retirement. Maybe a person might make one or so job changes during their life.

That is no longer the case. And that fact is one of the reasons that Americans are so unhappy. Our social expectations, the expectations of people who hire and the political and policy realities still assume one or two jobs per working person per lifetime.

That just isn't so anymore. Many, maybe most of us at least of those of us who live in cities have to change jobs several times in our lives if not frequently.

In that sense, folks on Wall Street and in Congress are the exception, not the rule.

And we are frustrated and bitter about it.

The government's policies about labor, work, education, health care, etc. are all based on the old model -- people do at least the same kind of work if not the same job for most of their lives.

Bernie seems more aware of and seems to respond more to the new reality. That is one of the reasons for his popularity.

Hillary just seems oblivious on this point.

The single payer health insurance proposal and the free tuition at state colleges and universities (and other state post-secondary schools) are two ways to respond to the new reality we face.

Congress and their donors are out of touch.

Feel the Bern!

[ReasonableToo]

5. Yes, if been thinking similar thoughts

I'm no journalist and I don't know all the election rules but I've been wondering about all that speech money from Wall Street, Pharma, energy etc. Can that money funnel through Clinton Foundation to fellow Dems? Has it?

I remember MSM speculation about money going from China into Adelson's casinos and then into republican coffers. Is this a widely used trick so that there is no official record of the actually source of donations? I don't mean to come off as making an accusation. It's something I'd like to see a journalist check out.

I'd love to see campaign donations tied to voter registration. Only registered voters can contribute to campaigns.

Also agree with comments about needing a comfortable lead. We need objective exit polling back in place. And, of course, verifiable paper ballots. The powers that be want close polling and unverifiable electronic ballots so the can do their Ohio 2004 trick again and again.

[Populist_Prole]

6. It's like living under an apple tree for food

They'll live from what falls, and reliably so, but not all that good. It could get better but why rock the boat?

I'm truly enjoying the upset from the status quo because it's really make or break...something to believe in. The descive battle between good and evil I've always lusted for...made much more rewarding by the sharp relief between the two choices.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

7. A lot of the celebrity ones have been offered key cabinet posts for those endorsements too....

The classic reward is the ambassador to a tropical paradise like Tahiti.

[Nyan]

8. They wanna go to the same parties that the Clintons go to,

And make friends with their deep-pocketed friends.

[druidity33]

9. They have nothing to lose...

Bernie won't hold it against them for endorsing her. He'll pick the "best" person for the job regardless. Hillary however has an enemies list...

[retrowire]

10. Yeah, I don't think Bernie would punish anyone specifically, as long as they didn't keep it up.

But... They won't want to stop. So, they may just try keeping it up.