Rachel giving Merkley that work! Sanders' tone and tenor of the campaign is toxic! AMEN!

GO RACHEL!!!!

SHE WINS!!

The coal narrative is full of shit. Bernie Sanders is to the left of HRC on coal!

The pundits continue to suggest that the reason why HRC is losing is due to her missteps and misstatements on coal.

BULLSHIT!! That's a smokescreen!

Why?

Because she and Bernie Sanders share the same views on coal. In fact I would argue that Bernie is to the LEFT of her on this issue.

So, there's something else driving these results.

And like we saw in West Virginia, most of those Bernie voters are really Trump voters in disguise.

Added to that, Steve Kornacki is suggesting that the in the Bernie strongholds, there are a lot of "Uncommitted" voters.

Hmmm....

My post was hidden, but I stand by my position and have no regrets.

The alerters point to my transparency page. Yes, I've been "hidden", suspended and will likely be banned in the future.

But I'm speaking MY truth and have no regrets.

I am very disappointed that DU allows for the silencing of people of color, women and other protected groups---even in protected spaces.

I will continue to speak up. Hides or no hides.

I will continue to speak out against injustice, whether that injustice emanates from the Hillary Clinton camp or the Bernie Sanders camp.

I still believe that Bernie Sanders--once an honorable man--is flat-out LYING to his supporters, making them believe that he has a viable path to the Democratic Party nomination when he knows that he doesn't.

And whenever I can, I will speak out on this subject until things change.

Bernie Sanders raising money off of false hopes - why aren't we SCREAMING about this?

/rant on

One of the most frustrating aspects of this entire primary season is the fact that the Corporate Media ***refuses*** to hold Bernie Sanders accountable for anything, no matter how egregious, no matter what he and his fanatical supporters do.

And more infuriating is that the liberal pundits who may not even support Sanders are too scared to speak up. They are so afraid that Sanders' voters won't move over to Hillary Clinton in the general that they have been tip-toeing around the truth.

And here's the truth:

First, Bernie Sanders has NO PATH to the Democratic nomination.

Second and more infuriating, Bernie Sanders and his entire team ***KNOW*** that he has no path to the Democratic nomination.

Third and most frustrating, the Corporate Media (including the so-called liberal punditry) ***ALSO KNOW*** that he has no path to the Democratic nomination. And quite frankly, they've known this since March 15th!

But Sanders is LYING to his followers.

Yeah, I said it. No more pussyfooting around. No more tip-toeing to save people's butt-hurt feelings.

I'm going to say it again so that I'm clear:

BERNIE SANDERS AND HIS ENTIRE TEAM ARE FLAT-OUT LYING TO HIS SUPPORTERS!!

Worst off, he's taking money from his supporters knowing fully well that he has no path to the Democratic nomination.

No, he will not win the most votes.
No, he will not win the most pledged delegates regardless of his shenanigans.
No, he will not convince super delegates to turn against HRC. It's not happening.
No, those RED states he won in the primary season will not suddenly turn BLUE in the general election.

NO, NO, NO!!! By every metric possible, he knows that there is no way to win the Democratic primary.


He knows this. His team knows. The Corporate Media knows this. The liberal commentators (even Stephanie Miller, Rachel Maddow, Norm Goldman, Thom Hartmann, Sam Seder and all the jerks over there on Young Turks) know this.

THEY ARE LYING TO THEIR SUPPORTERS.

Only David Axelrod has had the balls to call Sanders and his team out on this lie. He's the ONLY one who is telling the truth and the liberal punditry attacked him for it.

Why aren't we all screaming from the rooftops about these lies?????

/rant off

Hillarys negatives are high, thanks to the Corporate Media. But there's good news...

The Corporate Media and the BSers love to point out how HRC's negatives are so high. The BSers tout these numbers as evidence that she is unfit to beat the Republican nominee. Indeed, they point out that in ***hypothetical*** match-ups, BS beats the ReThug nominee by a greater margin than she does, and therefore BS should be the Democratic Party nominee.

Here's what they don't acknowledge:

1. HRC, by every electoral metric, beats BS. More pledged delegates, more Super Delegates, and many more votes than BS. If he's the better candidate, then he should be beating her soundly. He is not.

2. HRC beats the ReThug candidate in popular votes, by far.

So even with the high negatives, one would think HRC should be losing, right? BS should be beating her blindly, especially since the Corporate Media has treated this guy with kid gloves. And yet he is not. HUGE rallies ought to translate into high vote counts, right? Not.

And insofar as he's the so-called "Revolutionary Candidate," one would think that he would have the numbers that Barack Obama had, right? Right. He doesn't.

And...if he's such a change agent, his support among young voters is not translating to high voter turnout on the Democratic side as it did in 2008 for Obama, right? Right!

In sum, HRC supporters should be proud of the fact that despite all this negative coverage directed at HRC, she's still winning with more votes, more support, and outperforms Trump as well.

Jeff Weaver is REACHING! Stuttering and can't explain the math.

Steve Kornacki is breaking it down to him. Kornacki is even being too generous to Sanders and this guy does not have an argument.

He just said BS is doing well in NJ and PA. That's not true.

Big rallies don't mean shit if you can't get people to the polls!

Frankly I'm sick and tired of hearing about BS's "YUUUGGGGEEEE" rallies and how so many people are SOOOO enthusiastic to vote for him. But the Corporate Media is, once again, being so irresponsible in its reporting.

If "YUGE" crowds at rallies meant anything, HRC would be losing to BS and Trump.

It is a false narrative that I believe has hurt the Democrats during this primary.

It's just annoying.

/rant off

Why did Sanders wait until we have a black president to cast blame and start his "revolution"?

I've been thinking about this for a while now:

If Sanders wanted to change the Democratic Party, why didn't he start his revolution back in 2000 when black voters were being disenfranchised? Why wait now to get angry after the First Black President is in the White House? He wasn't this angry when Bush or Clinton was in office. Yeah, he may have yelled and screamed, but he waits until we have a black president, blames that president, and NOW at 74 years old, he wants to start a revolution?? Get the fuck out of here!

Sanders is behaving like the fucking Teabaggers who sat and watched George Bush and the Rethugs spend us into oblivion, run this country's economy in the ground, start two never-ending wars, destroy our standing in the world---and they didn't say or do ANYTHING until the Negro got into the White House. Suddenly, it's all HIS fault. Suddenly, the bad economy, the wars, everything is the black man's fault---not George W. Bush or the Rethug policies.

Rather than use his so-called star power, calling on progressives to stay focused and vote in 2010, reminding young voters, especially what's at stake, he stayed quiet. Rather than encourage voters in 2012 to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, he argued that the First Black President should face a primary. Today, he dismisses voters in the American South--over 1/2 of whom are black voters. This is during a time when there is the most vigorous effort to disenfranchise black and Latino voters--Sanders and his fanatics dismiss those voters because they didn't support him. His fans invoke the Confederacy and slave/master mentality. His wife suggests that those contests don't matter because none of the Southern states will "go blue" in the GE. (Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1996; Obama won NC, VA, FL in 2008---and GA with its demographic shift could go Blue this year.)

No one sees the veiled racism in these statements and actions? To me, it's just as bad, if not worse than Hillary's campaign in 2008.

And yes, I don't give a damn what anyone says--a lot of that has to do with race, gender and privilege. There's a reason why the base of Bernie's support is white men. It's not merely a coincidence.

It's sad because I really used to admire Bernie Sanders. I would see him on my way to work every single morning--me getting coffee, he headed to Capitol Hill, nodding and smiling and saying hello.

He had my vote initially. He does not have it anymore. And April 26th when Maryland holds its primary cannot come fast enough for me. I want this thing to be over yesterday. Last night's abysmal performance and his rude, entitled behavior sealed it for me. I saw something in him that is really off-putting, hateful and spiteful. Sadly, I have come to really dislike this man.

Re: Vatican: Let's talk hypocrisy. For 8 years, many have given President Obama grief for inviting

Rick Warren to the inauguration and for meeting with Donnie McKlurkin -- two rabid anti-gay Christian ministers. But despite how far we've come on LGBT rights, they have no problem with Sanders "meeting with" the Vatican, Pope Francis or whomever, despite their stance on LGBT rights, gay marriage, and views on women and families.

Susan Sarandon is creaming her pants over this "meeting," but there's no outrage at all from these people about the Vatican's homophobia or sexism.

To this day, some in the LGBT community and others outside of it have never forgiven the president for trying to invite all who disagree to the table; and despite his evolving on the issue of gay marriage (which I believe he was always really for) and all that he's done for the LGBT community. However, they have no problem and take no issue with Sanders going to meet with homophobes and misogynists.

Different moral standards? Yes. Hypocrisy? Of course!