Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Nanjeanne
Nanjeanne's Journal
Nanjeanne's Journal
February 6, 2016
I'm guessing it amounts to more than an "artful smear"
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Latest HRC "smears" being sent out re Sanders
David Sirota has tweeted
This Is from @HillaryClinton, who simultaneously insists she abhors negative campaigning.
I'm guessing it amounts to more than an "artful smear"
[URL=
.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
February 5, 2016
Ben Jealous, former head of the NAACP will be on Chris Hayes tonight
I typically try to stay away from MSNBC because I prefer my blood pressure to remain stable . . . but I'll watch this tonight.
Christopher Hayes ?@chrislhayes 39m39 minutes ago
Christopher Hayes Retweeted POLITICO
Jealous will be my exclusive guest tonight.
February 5, 2016
Jackie Cilley is a former Democratic candidate for New Hampshire governor, former state senator and currently serves in the New Hampshire House.
Read the whole thing here: http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20160204/NEWS/st_refDomain=t.co&st_refQuery=/xarqs2OESb
Bernie Sanders: A Future to Believe In. Another Endorsement from NH
(bolding mine)
By Jackie Cilley
Posted Feb. 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
— George Bernard Shaw
Throughout the lengthy presidential primary season, I’ve wrestled with the decision about which Democrat I would support. Our candidates have all given us ample reasons to support them. I‘d largely decided to stay on the sidelines and simply cast my vote in February and I realize it’s late in the process to make a public declaration of support and to encourage others to join me.
Something has recently moved me to action: As a progressive, I’ve been told by mainstream/establishment-types to be practical and pragmatic for far too long, that I shouldn’t dream. The airwaves and print media are now being flooded with the same message, perhaps best articulated by Jonathan Chait’s recent brief against Bernie Sanders, that we Democrats ought to be practical and try to move the ball forward in small — infinitesimal, really — ways. I refuse to accept this argument. We need to risk real progress. We need to elect Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Something has recently moved me to action: As a progressive, I’ve been told by mainstream/establishment-types to be practical and pragmatic for far too long, that I shouldn’t dream. The airwaves and print media are now being flooded with the same message, perhaps best articulated by Jonathan Chait’s recent brief against Bernie Sanders, that we Democrats ought to be practical and try to move the ball forward in small — infinitesimal, really — ways. I refuse to accept this argument. We need to risk real progress. We need to elect Sen. Bernie Sanders.
The pragmatism argument has cost us in innumerable ways, eroding our society and economy while leaving our families behind. We’ve lost ground on wages — real median wages are below their peak of 15 years ago. We’ve lost ground on infrastructure improvements, with the most recent example of lead-tainted water consumed by Flint, Michigan citizens. We’ve lost ground on innovation and entrepreneurship and have slipped to 12th place in the world on business creation. We’ve lost ground on education, with our students ranking 35th in math and 27th in science among 64 other countries. The lack of big dreams, big ideas, big visions has led to Democrats adopting a pitiful aspiration of incrementalism that has only resulted in a slower erosion of all we value.
But the biggest advances throughout history have only been made because of dreamers and “unreasonable” people. The Wright brothers and their pie-in-the-sky flying machine that led to air travel, Bell and his silly belief that voice could travel long distances over wires, Salk and his daydream of curing polio, or Jobs and his notion of putting computing power into the hands of everyday folks. In fact, not a single advancement has derived from being pragmatic and accepting the status quo. Not a single innovation has resulted from playing it safe. We would all still be writing on cave walls if there was no one who dreamed of a better way of life. Every one of those dreamers was told it couldn’t be done – and it couldn’t until we did it.
But the biggest advances throughout history have only been made because of dreamers and “unreasonable” people. The Wright brothers and their pie-in-the-sky flying machine that led to air travel, Bell and his silly belief that voice could travel long distances over wires, Salk and his daydream of curing polio, or Jobs and his notion of putting computing power into the hands of everyday folks. In fact, not a single advancement has derived from being pragmatic and accepting the status quo. Not a single innovation has resulted from playing it safe. We would all still be writing on cave walls if there was no one who dreamed of a better way of life. Every one of those dreamers was told it couldn’t be done – and it couldn’t until we did it.
Jackie Cilley is a former Democratic candidate for New Hampshire governor, former state senator and currently serves in the New Hampshire House.
Read the whole thing here: http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20160204/NEWS/st_refDomain=t.co&st_refQuery=/xarqs2OESb
February 5, 2016
How I Hope This Happens - Bernie Sanders heads to New York for possible SNL cameo with Larry David
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/bernie-sanders-snl-larry-da
February 5, 2016
...More here: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/5/1480366/-For-2016-the-choice-is-clear
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Councilman Jared Rice from Westchester NY (Hillary's Neighborhood) Endorses Sanders
The Councilman actually endorsed back in January - but he has since written a much longer endorsement that is worth the read.
For 2016, the choice is clear
As the first elected official from Westchester County – home of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – to officially endorse U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders for president, I truly understand the importance of this year’s election. Although it would have been much easier for me to either support Clinton or remain neutral, I feel compelled to support the candidate who has the best plan to move this country toward a more equitable future. Eight years ago I was motivated by then-Sen. Barack Obama, and now I’m inspired all over again by Sanders. Like millions of others, I am part of the grassroots movement to elect him as our next president.
I was initially drawn to Sanders, as a criminal justice attorney, because of his commitment to real reform in our criminal justice system. His proposed legislation to ban privately run prisons exemplifies the bold leadership that is needed as we move into the heart of the 21st century and seek to end mass incarceration once and for all. With only 5 percent of the world’s residents and 25 percent of the world’s prisoners, the U.S. holds the shameful distinction of incarcerating more of its citizens than any other country (the majority of them being black and brown males). Corporations should not have a financial incentive to lock people up. Instead, they need to be incentivized to create jobs for our unemployed. To the contrary, Clinton's Ready for Hillary PAC received hundreds of thousands of dollars from private prison lobbyists and only stopped because of activist’s pressure.
...More here: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/5/1480366/-For-2016-the-choice-is-clear
[URL=
.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
February 5, 2016
Sanders Campaign Is a Genuine Progressive Social Movement for Democracy
Worth reading long endorsement but last paragraph below.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-glover/sanders-campaign-genuine-progressive-movement_b_9163960.html
Actor and Activist Danny Glover Endorses Sanders
Sanders Campaign Is a Genuine Progressive Social Movement for Democracy
Worth reading long endorsement but last paragraph below.
And who best to take on such a system but a candidate who is straightforwardly honest, boldly courageous, who has not been corrupted, who receives nothing from Wall Street or the corporations who have hijacked American democracy, and who owes them nothing in return? This campaign is a rare, perhaps unprecedented event in this country's modern electoral history. It deserves the support of everyone who favors social and economic justice
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-glover/sanders-campaign-genuine-progressive-movement_b_9163960.html
February 4, 2016
So much more to read . . . but I'll end with this:
http://linkis.com/mattbruenig.com/2016/JLsKi
Matt Bruenig is researcher of poverty and welfare systems at the think tank Demos.
Hillary Clinton’s Wildly Unrealistic Puppies and Rainbows Plan
The funniest thing about pro-Hillary punditry is the claim that her proposals are achievable while Bernie Sanders’ proposals are not. This has been all over the punditry of late, especially in the oldsplaining get-off-my-lawn punditry aimed at the rude teens who support Sanders. For an example of it, look no further than the New York Times official endorsement:
In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.
This is frankly insane. Hillary Clinton’s legislative agenda has a 0% chance of passing through the GOP-controlled Congress. None. Nothing. Zilch. This is true, not only because the GOP fundamentally disagrees with her proposals, but also, crucially, because the GOP pursues obstruction for its own sake. It has been very explicit about this. The GOP has (probably correctly) determined that helping a Democratic president pass things of note benefits the Democrats and hurts the Republicans.
Moderate liberals used to understand this fact. One of the big stories of the 2016 election is that many have now apparently unlearned this reality. Or, more likely, they need something to say about why Hillary should be favored over Bernie, and pretending that she can actually get her legislative agenda done is the only thing they can think of.
In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.
This is frankly insane. Hillary Clinton’s legislative agenda has a 0% chance of passing through the GOP-controlled Congress. None. Nothing. Zilch. This is true, not only because the GOP fundamentally disagrees with her proposals, but also, crucially, because the GOP pursues obstruction for its own sake. It has been very explicit about this. The GOP has (probably correctly) determined that helping a Democratic president pass things of note benefits the Democrats and hurts the Republicans.
Moderate liberals used to understand this fact. One of the big stories of the 2016 election is that many have now apparently unlearned this reality. Or, more likely, they need something to say about why Hillary should be favored over Bernie, and pretending that she can actually get her legislative agenda done is the only thing they can think of.
1. Theory of Change
We’ve heard a lot in this election about Sanders’ supposedly faulty theory of change. Most of the analysis on this has been pretty bad and has not actually responded to what his campaign seems to think his theory of change actually is.
Sanders appears to be a believer in what we might call the Burlington Model of change. In the Burlington Model of change, you capture the executive and then, through exemplary executive operations and large scale organization, you use the executive office to get your opponents run out of the legislature in the next election. I call this the Burlington Model because this is what happened in Burlington, Vermont when Sanders captured the city from the incumbent Democratic establishment.
Whatever you think of Sanders’ theory of change, he at least has one that takes into account the procedural hurdles to getting his agenda across. Clinton has none. She appears to believe that her becoming President will create this puppies and rainbows land of unicorns where a GOP Congress will help her pass her legislative agenda. Few in the media have called this out, but it is truly a nonsensical fantasy.
We’ve heard a lot in this election about Sanders’ supposedly faulty theory of change. Most of the analysis on this has been pretty bad and has not actually responded to what his campaign seems to think his theory of change actually is.
Sanders appears to be a believer in what we might call the Burlington Model of change. In the Burlington Model of change, you capture the executive and then, through exemplary executive operations and large scale organization, you use the executive office to get your opponents run out of the legislature in the next election. I call this the Burlington Model because this is what happened in Burlington, Vermont when Sanders captured the city from the incumbent Democratic establishment.
Whatever you think of Sanders’ theory of change, he at least has one that takes into account the procedural hurdles to getting his agenda across. Clinton has none. She appears to believe that her becoming President will create this puppies and rainbows land of unicorns where a GOP Congress will help her pass her legislative agenda. Few in the media have called this out, but it is truly a nonsensical fantasy.
So much more to read . . . but I'll end with this:
3. The Pundits Are Bullshit
You don’t have to base your vote on this pragmatist calculation of course. There are various other arguments out there, e.g. those about symbolic gains of each candidate and the long game implications of each candidate. But what you can’t do, if you are being honest, is cry about the unrealism of Sanders platform without also crying about the unrealism of Clinton’s platform. And that is what the pundit class (which is heavily in the pro-Hillary camp) are currently doing.
You don’t have to base your vote on this pragmatist calculation of course. There are various other arguments out there, e.g. those about symbolic gains of each candidate and the long game implications of each candidate. But what you can’t do, if you are being honest, is cry about the unrealism of Sanders platform without also crying about the unrealism of Clinton’s platform. And that is what the pundit class (which is heavily in the pro-Hillary camp) are currently doing.
http://linkis.com/mattbruenig.com/2016/JLsKi
Matt Bruenig is researcher of poverty and welfare systems at the think tank Demos.
February 4, 2016
. . .
. . .
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34700-hillary-clinton-s-deliberate-deceit
Surely Hillary Clinton Knows Why Wall Street Pays Her
Thursday, 04 February 2016 00:00
By Carmen Yarrusso, Truthout | Op-Ed
. . .
(bolding mine)
Clinton is surely aware that Wall Street won't give politicians millions without expecting something big in return. In a Des Moines Register interview, she justified her $250,000-per-event Wall Street speaking fees, saying, "What they were interested in were my views on what was going on in the world ... there's a lot of interest in getting advice and views about what you think is happening in the world." Does she honestly expect the American people to believe Wall Street pays her $250,000 for a one-hour talk because they want her views on the world? She most surely knows that Wall Street wants her political influence.
In that same interview (as if to say, "Bernie does it too"
, Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders for his 2000 vote for deregulating swaps and derivatives (the Commodity Futures Modernization Act), which was one of the main causes of the economic collapse in 2008. Of course, she didn't mention that Sanders forcefully spoke out against the bill, and Sanders, like the rest of Congress, was essentially blackmailed into voting for it. She didn't mention the bill was inserted at the last minute in omnibus legislation needed to keep the government going. She didn't mention only four members of Congress dared to vote against it. She didn't mention the bill came from a deal between her husband and the Senate Banking Committee chairman, Phil Gramm. Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, ensuring Hillary would collect millions from Wall Street for her Senate campaign (and she did).
In that same interview (as if to say, "Bernie does it too"
, Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders for his 2000 vote for deregulating swaps and derivatives (the Commodity Futures Modernization Act), which was one of the main causes of the economic collapse in 2008. Of course, she didn't mention that Sanders forcefully spoke out against the bill, and Sanders, like the rest of Congress, was essentially blackmailed into voting for it. She didn't mention the bill was inserted at the last minute in omnibus legislation needed to keep the government going. She didn't mention only four members of Congress dared to vote against it. She didn't mention the bill came from a deal between her husband and the Senate Banking Committee chairman, Phil Gramm. Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, ensuring Hillary would collect millions from Wall Street for her Senate campaign (and she did).. . .
According to The Intercept, from 2013 to 2015, Clinton took in $2.8 million (on top of the above $2.9 million) from 13 paid speeches to the health-care industry. Does she honestly expect the American people to trust her judgment about single-payer health care?
. . .
Assume Clinton's being honest. Assume it wasn't political expediency, but rather new or better information that motivated her reversals on these major issues. What does that say about her future judgment? Many, including Bernie Sanders, got these issues right the first time.
George Orwell said, "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." It appears that Clinton isn't ready to go quite that rogue.
George Orwell said, "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." It appears that Clinton isn't ready to go quite that rogue.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34700-hillary-clinton-s-deliberate-deceit
February 4, 2016
Excerpt:
SNIP
Warren, a Democrat, disputed that notion in harsh terms, telling IBT that such statements show why American voters should focus on Wall Street’s power during the 2016 election.
Elizabeth Warren Defends Bernie Sanders From Goldman Sachs Criticism
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/election-2016-elizabeth-warren-defends-bernie-sanders-goldman-sachs-criticismExcerpt:
In an interview with International Business Times hours before Wednesday night’s Democratic town hall in New Hampshire, the Massachusetts senator — whose endorsement is coveted by both Democratic candidates — slammed Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein for asserting earlier in the day that Sanders’ criticism of Wall Street had created a dangerous environment in America.
"He thinks it’s fine to prosecute small business owners, it’s fine to go hard after individuals who have no real resources, but don’t criticize companies like Goldman Sachs and their very, very important CEO — that’s what he’s really saying,” Warren told IBT.
"He thinks it’s fine to prosecute small business owners, it’s fine to go hard after individuals who have no real resources, but don’t criticize companies like Goldman Sachs and their very, very important CEO — that’s what he’s really saying,” Warren told IBT.
SNIP
Warren, a Democrat, disputed that notion in harsh terms, telling IBT that such statements show why American voters should focus on Wall Street’s power during the 2016 election.
“When Blankfein says that criticizing those who break the rules is dangerous to the economy, then he’s just repeating another variation of ‘too big to fail,’ ‘too big to jail,’ 'too big even to prosecute,'” she said. “That tells you here we are, seven years after the crisis and these guys still don’t get it. Seven years. That crisis cost an estimated $14 trillion, it cost jobs, it cost homes, it cost retirement funds. And Lloyd Blankfein stands up and says ‘Don’t even criticize me, I ran a company that was right at the heart of some of the biggest financial frauds in history and made money off it, but don’t you dare criticize me.’ That’s his position? That’s why we need voters to get really engaged.”
February 4, 2016
Good read.
Bolding mine
<snip>
Bernie Sanders Isn't The Only One Who's Questioned Whether Hillary Clinton Is A Progressive
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-progressive_us_56b26c0fe4b08069c7Good read.
Bolding mine
In 2005, for example, Bruce Reed, a longtime aide to former President Bill Clinton, characterized Hillary -- at the time a Democratic senator for New York -- as "quite culturally conservative," and therefore "a natural choice" to define a policy agenda for the Democratic Leadership Council, a centrist group with which she had a leadership role.
<snip>
"I think -- you know, I've known her for 15 years and she's a Clinton Democrat from the get-go. She's always been quite culturally conservative."
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Oct 28, 2015, 02:02 PMNumber of posts: 5,398