I understand what you are saying. I'd also like to point out the following:

<< THEY have ginned themselves up think he has been SO HARD TO WORK WITH, all their arrogant "he made his bed" comments and all. >> The present-day leaders of the Republican Party are not Republicans. They are Corporatists,
Neo-Cons ...etc... who joined the Republican Party some 50 years ago, worked their way up the power ladder within
the Party, and finally kicked out the old leaders when Ronald Reagan became president. They will do all they can to destroy any Democratic president (and the Democratic Party) with all their lies and dirty tricks -- regardless of the president's race. They failed in their attempts to impeach Bill Clinton, and I feel quite sure they are doing their best to impeach Obama right now, and they will continue to do this with any future Democratic president. Psychopaths can't
help but fight dirty. We are not dealing with normal people.

I think it's up to all Democrats in high positions (not just the president only) to point out the wrongs the Republican leadership are doing, as well as the lies they are telling -- with compelling evidence that they are lies. The Republicans own 90% of the news media. Their purpose is to mis- and dis-inform the general public, and they have succeeded extremely well. Today's news media are not worthwhile watching and listening to.

I believe if the Republican-voting masses knew more about what their leaders are doing to our country, many of them
would leave their party.

Democratic leaders should really make use of their positions in helping to keep all Americans better politically informed.
This is one strong way of fighting back against the lies of the Republican-owned media. Just point out to the policies
the Republicans are carrying out, explain how harmful they are for Americans, and expose their lies with evidence.
Plain language, without name-calling, would, I think, be very effective -- if it is kept up as long as necessary. Simply
sticking to the facts is a very powerful way of keeping the people informed with the truth.

At the present time, the above seems to be the only way for Democrats to fight back. And Democratic leaders
aren't using it often enough.

Yes, I agree with you that this is how Bernie will operate as president, and he will have

the help of Elizabeth in the Senate. I think they'll be making one grand team. This will
be so refreshingly different from Obama, who rarely said anything at all, even when the
Republicans filibustered 400+ times during his first term.

What's wrong with telling the American people what's happening to our country at the
hands of the Republicans? I don't understand this characteristic about Obama at all.
Does anyone?

Too many of the people voting for her don't know this side of her character.

And Mme. Secretary does not have much of a chance of winning in the GE, which Bernie does. Life

is full of unexpected twists, turns and contradictions.

The trouble is, there are still too many people who don't know about this. The anti-Sanders

people are still rather successful in their efforts at keeping him away from the public, although
they are becoming less and less effective. If Sanders only had the full publicity he deserved
right from the start, he'd have been the front runner today.

The DNC would never pick Warren. I am just guessing: I think she doesn't want to have too much

to do with the DNC. They are probably too much controlled by the Corporate Power people for her
taste. She is for the people, not for the corporations. She and Bernie are like two peas in a pod.

Do you think of Elizabeth Warren as one who would toe the line? I think she is someone who would

back Sanders all the way - just as I do,

For years the Republicans were trying their best to drag up something about

Bill Clinton with which they could find cause to have him impeached. They didn't. Then Banker
Mellon of PA thought of paying private investigators out of his own pocket, and sent them to
Arkansas and dig up dirt of any kind on him. The investigators came across a few women who
claimed to have had sexual relations with Bill, when he was Governor of Arkansas.

Extra-marital sex is not a crime. But the Republicans made use of deceit and tried to obtain
evidence illegally. They succeeded in having a friend of Monica, Linda Tripp, to secretly use
a wire while talking with Monica about her intimate physical details with Bill Clinton. [This
meeting between Monica and Linda took place in Maryland, and in Maryland it is a crime to
secretly tape someone without that person's consent]. The rest is history. Tripp was working
for the federal government. After she lost her job, none of the Corporate Power people would
consider giving Linda a job -- after all she had done for them!! This is so typical of Corporate
Power people. Bush, Jr. cut down on spending for injured veterans. Correct? And it was his
war to begin with. That's gratitude for you! Republicans try to take everything, and give you
nothing in return.

What the GOP wouldn't do to impeach any president who isn't one of their own! They have
tried to impeach Obama, too. I'll bet they are still trying. And they will do the same to any
and every other president who isn't a Republican.

As for extra-marital sex, Alfred Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" said that
around 60% of males admitted to having had it, and his later "Sexual Behavior in the Human
Female" reported that some 40% of women admitted to it. Many of our earlier presidents
were known to have done the same thing. It's just that the news media avoided discussing
such a topic during those earlier times. They had more respect for privacy then.

I think it was the Republicans who brought out this topic right into the open, when they
were trying to find something to impeach Clinton with. Even then, they did not succeed.
They could only accuse him of having lied about sex under oath. And he was found
"Not Guilty."

If you think Bill should have been made to pay for it somehow, he already has. Just think
of that huge and prolonged trial, and all of it reported on TV. And what about all the
other presidents right up to Jefferson, who had fathered several illegitimate children with
his female slaves?

I think we Americans do have some kind of "official" sexual hang-ups. Europeans wonder
how come we are so hung up about the sexual lives of our presidents. Has our sexual
maturity been arrested at stage of adolescents, who are wondering about the sexual lives
of their parents?

I think anyone with a sense of decency would leave out this topic altogether. I am

a Sanders supporter, but what happened between Bill and Monica in the late 1990s
has nothing to do with politics whatsoever. It should be left out.

He is convincing enough DEMOCRATS, all right. If he didn't you people wouldn't be

doing everything possible to prevent him from being seen and heard by the general
public - like having as few Democratic debates as possible, and putting these on
weekends and before holidays, so that fewer people will be listening to him. These
are foul dirty tricks, and I'm sure you are agreeing that they are foul and dirty.
Would you people be doing these things if you really believed that Bernie doesn't
have a chance to "win a general election"?

Bernie started running in May 2015. Hillary was some 40% points ahead of him.
And he was 0.3% behind her in Iowa 2 weeks ago, 22% ahead of her in New
Hampshire last week, and 4% behind her yesterday. It's a rare thing for anyone
to make such huge strides in such a short period of time. I expect him to lose in
almost all the Southern States, of course, but he does have a good chance of
winning in many, if not most, of the rest of the nation.

Another thing: In comparing Bernie and Hillary to Republicans for the General
Elections, most of the time Bernie beat them by higher percentage points than
Hillary did. Many Democrats are convinced that even if Hillary should beat
Bernie in the Primaries to win the Dem. nomination, she would lose to the
Republicans in the GE, whereas Bernie has already shown that he would beat them.