HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Her Sister » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »

Her Sister

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Feb 28, 2016, 02:34 PM
Number of posts: 6,444

Journal Archives

Bernie Sanders Is Smart to Keep His Mouth Shut About Israel

The U.S. presidential candidate has the Democratic progressive vote in his pocket and is wise not to reveal that, on the Middle East, he stands more to the right than his fans would like him to.



read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.702148

excerpt:

Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect that Sanders is going to break his silence when it comes to Israel - and the Middle East as a whole - anytime soon. Not when keeping quiet has worked extremely well for him so far....  And so, when pushed during press interviews to address Israel, he has dutifully hit his talking points, which are fairly indistinguishable from Clinton’s or Obama’s, and impressively consistent over more than two decades:

1. It’s depressing.
2. We need a two-state solution.
3. I’m not crazy about the leadership on either side.
4. The United States needs to use its clout to push for peace. 

And then he moves on as quickly as possible without laying out in detail what he would do as president to change the situation, and how that would be different from moves by any of his rivals.  

Sanders and his campaign strategists have clearly made a decision that it is a lose-lose proposition for him to do so. Sanders has no desire to try to compete with Hillary Clinton for the pro-Israel Democratic financial support. There’s no need to attack her since there are plenty of others doing the work for him- from leftist criticism for being too cozy with pro-Israeli supporters like Haim Saban, and from the right for her association with Obama’s policies and the often kooky and disturbing advice of her advisors, as revealed in the recent court-ordered email dumps. 

The one time Sanders took the lead on an Israel-related matter was a year ago, when he was the first member of Congress to declare that he would be deliberately absent from Netanyahu's controversial speech to a joint session of Congress laying out his case against the Iran deal. But that was about the Israeli prime minister’s disrespect for the White House, not a policy statement.
Overall, the Sanders camp has decided that silence is golden at a time when he has much of the Democratic progressive wing in his pocket. There is no reason for him, they figure, to risk alienating the crowds of enthusiastic progressive supporters who are “Feeling the Bern” by reminding them of an issue on which it seems he is much closer to the “establishment” than they are - and would probably like him to be. 


read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.702148

Video/tweet BS on Cuba

https://twitter.com/SDzzz/status/719384701337608192

Didn't know where to post, so here! Video is short in that tweet.



Progressivism doesn’t die with Hillary Clinton: Debunking myth that only Bernie..~Salon.com

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/11/progressivism_doesnt_die_with_hillary_clinton_debunking_the_myth_that_only_bernie_can_foster_hardcore_liberal_ideas/

Progressivism doesn’t die with Hillary Clinton: Debunking the myth that only Bernie can foster hardcore liberal ideas
Progressive ideas need to be pushed through organizing the party and pushing legislation, not outsider rebellion


Excerpts:

...The reality is that Clinton’s campaign is much more representative of the liberalization trend than Sanders is. Despite the loud honking about centrism and DINOs coming from the Sanders camp, the truth is that the Democratic party is not a cluster of recalcitrant centrists and conservatives. The Democrats have been drifting leftward for decades now. Not as fast as the Republicans have been drifting rightward, because that’s impossible, but, even though it might be hard for Sanders fans to swallow, the movement to the left has been quite steady.

Clinton herself is part of this trend, with a Senate record that put her in the top third of most liberal Democrats, and even to the left of President Obama. She’s certainly more liberal than her husband, in part because her career as a politician started when his ended, meaning that she’s tracked left as the party has on issues like gay marriage and immigration. No wonder she voted with Sanders 93% of the time.

In other words, Sanders didn’t make what he calls socialism “an acceptable idea to a good chunk of the electorate,” as Mitchell would have you believe. On the contrary, there’s been a long, if boring, takeover of the Democratic party by the liberal wing, represented by Clinton and Obama, and Sanders is reaping the benefit of the mainstreaming of liberalism.

While the Sanders base is appealingly young, there is a major problem with the assumption that his base represents some kind of demographic future: They aren’t particularly diverse. On the contrary, the Sanders base looks disturbingly like the Republican base, dominated by white men. Clinton has won women in all but three states: New Hampshire, Vermont, and Wisconsin, and in Wisconsin, Sanders only got 50% of women. Clinton continues to crush with black voters and is doing much better than Sanders with Hispanic voters, as well.


MORE...

Mark Halperin on Bernie’s Interview: Hillary Clinton Would Be ‘Creamed’ If She Gave Answers This Bad

MSNBC~

NYDN ~TRANSCRIPT: Hillary Clinton meets with the Daily News Editorial Board, April 9, 2016:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-hillary-clinton-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2596292

Should be good!


~includes audio 1 hour 17 mins

Why Black Voters Support Hillary Clinton

https://medium.com/marcushjohnson/why-black-voters-support-hillary-clinton-afcf7e6ff5bb#.idpbdia3a


The 2016 primary season has been a particularly interesting one. Bernie Sanders, the insurgent candidate on the Democratic side, has taken up the label of the candidate of the common man. Although he has energized millions of voters and won several states, he’s done terribly with the most consistent and reliable Democratic voters in the Party — Black voters. Sanders has not cracked 30 percent of the Black vote in a single state, atrocious numbers for a Democrat who wants to be the nominee.

Sanders and his campaign have made several convenient excuses:
1. Black voters will flock to Sanders once they get to know him
2. Voters in “red states” don’t matter, because those states are more conservative
3. The Clintons are a brand, and Bernie is a relative unknown


All of these excuses are problematic, especially for someone who is supposed to be running a national campaign. Votes in South Carolina could just as much as the ones in Washington state, for one. And if Black voters don’t know who Sanders is by now, then the blame lays with the Sanders campaign for doing a terrible job at minority outreach. Perhaps the worst excuse, which we don’t really hear from the campaign, but we do hear a lot from backers on social media, is that Black voters just don’t know what’s in their best interest. This is condescending at best, and racist at worst, the insinuation being that Black people aren’t smart enough to know who the candidates are, what they stand for, or what their own interests are as a group. Black voters are just as intelligent as any other group, and they know their interests just fine. It’s just that they’ve decided Hillary Clinton serves their interests far better than Bernie Sanders. That is why Hillary Clinton has beaten Sanders by 40 points or more with Black voters in every single state that has voted so far.

Black voters’ preferences have perplexed many observers, especially leftists who have found fault with the Clintons for not being “progressive enough,” and angered Sanders backers such as Michelle Alexander, who don’t believe the Clintons “deserve” the Black vote. In the past few months, the entire Clinton Presidency has been relitigated with a particular focus on the crime bill. The crime bill was supposed to be the smoking gun that would turn Black voters against the Clintons this election cycle. That line of thinking has failed mostly there is a lot of confusion from academics about what the bill actually did.
What People Get Wrong About The Crime Bill :...

Pretty long article, lots of good information about Voting Rights, History, the Clintons all the way to Obama

Bernie Sanders dismisses Clinton lead: ‘A lot of that came from the South

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/bernie-sanders-dismisses-clinton-lead-a-lot-of-that-came-from-the-south/


Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — who has run off an impressive string of primary victories — dismissed actual vote totals that show former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a commanding lead, saying those votes “came from the South.”

Host George Stephanopoulos noted Clinton’s lead in delegates and asked the senator if he would take his fight for the nomination to the floor of the convention.

“Well, here’s what I think,” Sanders replied. “I think at the end of the day, what Democrats all over this country want to make sure is that somebody like a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz does not end up in the White House. And I think what more and more Democrats are seeing is that Bernie Sanders is the stronger candidate.”

“She’s getting more votes,” the host pressed.

“Well, she is getting more votes. A lot of that came from the South,” Sanders parried. “But if you look at the polling out there, we do a lot better against Trump and the other Republicans in almost every instance — not every one — than she does. And the reason is that we both get a lot of Democrats, but I get a lot more independents than she does.”


more plus video:

5 Reasons This Election Is Nuts—and the Science Behind It The candidates are outrageous...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/feeling-it/201603/5-reasons-election-is-nuts-and-the-science-behind-it
5 Reasons This Election Is Nuts—and the Science Behind It
The candidates are outrageous, the rankings unexplainable. Research shows why.

Posted Mar 24, 2016


2. Why negative press makes supporters like their candidate more

What about Trump backers? Shouldn't negative press change their minds? Nope. The more they hear negative press, the more they like him, too, due to the backfire effect. When someone gives us evidence that we are wrong about a strong opinion we hold, it can actually make us feel stronger about it. They also fall prey to confirmation bias—looking for all the evidence that confirms their opinion, ignoring any contradictory evidence. That’s what makes conversations about politics so difficult. Research shows that, when it comes to politics, people often feel the same way they do towards a sports team. It's more about affiliation and group membership than ideology.


1-5 reasons in the article. Interesting!

Sanders not yet spreading campaign wealth to other Democrats ~ Rachel Maddow Show/Blog

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 4/7/16 Thursday
Jane Sanders offers assurances of Democratic fundraising
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-offers-assurances-of-dnc-fundraising-661978179677
Jane Sanders, wife and campaign adviser of Democratic candidate for president, Senator Bernie Sanders, talks with Rachel Maddow about uniting the party behind the eventual Democratic nominee and how Sanders plans to help other candidates with his fundraising largess. Duration: 1:59
VIDEO



THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 4/8/16 Friday
Sanders not yet spreading campaign wealth to other Democrats
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-not-yet-spreading-campaign-wealth-662182467511
Yamiche Alcindor, national reporter for the New York Times, talks with Rachel Maddow about the past fundraising Bernie Sanders has done for Democratic candidate and the willingness of the Sanders campaign to help Democratic candidates, though so far the focus has been on the presidential nomination exclusively, a point of contrast with Hillary Clinton that his opponent is using against him. Duration: 6:31
VIDEO

GOP’s Benghazi Committee just keeps going (and going) ~ Rachel Maddow Blog MSNBC

Remember the House Republicans’ Benghazi Committee? It was nearly six months ago that the GOP-led panel held a farcical, 11-hour hearing with Hillary Clinton, which only reinforced suspicions that the committee served no legitimate purpose.

That was October of last year. Believe it or not, the investigation still exists, and the panel’s Democratic minority issued a statement yesterday announcing the committee’s newest milestone.
[Thursday] marks the 700th day since the authorization of the Select Committee on Benghazi. During this time, Republicans have discovered no new evidence that contradicts the key findings of the previous bipartisan and independent investigations.

“As House Republicans drag on their taxpayer-funded partisan attacks on Secretary Clinton closer and closer to the election, their actions have shockingly become even more partisan, secretive, and dysfunctional,” said Ranking Member Elijah Cummings.



I can appreciate why these totals may seem abstract, but to put this in context, the 9/11 Commission, investigating every possible angle to the worst terrorist attack in the history of the country, worked for 604 days and created a bipartisan report endorsed by each of the commission’s members.

The Benghazi committee is now on its 701st day, and even some congressional Republicans have admitted the panel is a partisan exercise, making it that much more difficult to justify its prolonged existence.


MORE...

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-benghazi-committee-just-keeps-going-and-going
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »