Here are my concerns about a Bernie candidacy ...

[merrily]

79. Point one is relevant to the primary, not the general.

If and when Bernie is the Democratic nominee, the Democratic donors and the DNC kick in. Then, it will not any longer be the underdog raising $40 a time and not being able to afford much TV.

Point Two. I don't know you keep saying he was ineffective as a legislator and assuming you don't have to say more.

He was not ineffective as an independent legislator. The first year he was in the house, he formed the Progressive Caucus and chaired it from 1991 to 2000. That was an innovative way to expand his independent voice and help unify the House's left and amplify its voice. The caucus went from five or six in 1991 to about 100 in Janaury 2007. Its numbers have decreased because the numbers of Democrats have decreased. However, it remains the largest caucus in Congress. And he remains a member of that caucus. If you don't think the Progressive Caucus has had an impact, then we just disagree.

In addition, he was very effective with floor amendments, which is about all a populist liberal can do. It's what Grayson does as well. Plus, Sanders had a voice as a member of the Democratic Caucus. I believe Sanders was as effective as possible, and then some, given that Third Way was the new gospel when he got to Congress. That Caucus values him greatly and publicly. So did Dean, when Dean was head of the DNC. He was on TV speaking for Democratic positions a lot, with no one contradicting him. I have to believe they would have disavowed his words, if he had been speaking out of turn. There is less than no reason to assume he has had no effect on his caucus. ha

Point Three. IMO, this is a very unfair implication. He has a 100% rating from the HRC and NARAL and a 97% rating from the NAACP. As far as not speaking, which, IMO, is less important than doing, he has, he is and he will. As a Senator from Vermont, he spoke when and where appropriate for a Senator from Vermont.