With "friends" ***ahem:Bernie*** like these, who needs enemies? (tweet and link)

[JCanete]

179. Well I guess that depends on the job he's doing heading outreach, which in my opinion, should

be about selling the message, not necessarily peddling brand first, content second. I think it matters when you're doing outreach that you don't seem like you are a shill. To differ from some people in the democratic party and from some of the party's choices , even while you are performing outreach, makes your voice sound more authentic, more circumspect. We need to get these ideas to people, and at the same time, show them that what they're being sold by their own Senators and congress-people is a pile of shit. I think he is putting discourse out there that will make it easier for progressives to court people in these communities. , but we shall definitely see.

It isn't inconsistent to endorse one candidate and not another though. One is being endorsed for reasons, just as the other is not being endorsed for different reasons. That's assuming that Sanders may know Ossoff better than he states, and was choosing a diplomatic way of discussing the candidate at this time, but that's all speculation. The question here is not on consistency, but on whether or not Sanders is too willing to compromise on pro-choice messaging for the sake of those issues he thinks most dear. I don't personally think he should be endorsing said candidates. I'm okay with the endorsement of Parriello, but if Mello is voting for forced ultra-sounds and hasn't come around on that kind of decision, that is draconian.

That however is more questionable in the context of his vote.

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/04/20/1654527/-Heath-Mello-abortion-ultrasound-and-Bernie-Sanders

This writer goes into detail pointing out Mello's record with Planned Parenthood, as well as this vote apparently being a compromise to stave off even more invasive, Constitutionally indifferent legislation. Also, apparently, the wording is not at all as is being described. Note: I didn't read this legislation myself, so this is all preliminary for me....
but it appears to be the case, that if an ultrasound is done for whatever reasons, the screen must be tilted so that the patient can see the screen, and any questions must be answered.

This is almost certainly pro-life passive-aggression, but as the law states, I'm not sure if there is anything that says "before a woman has an abortion, an ultrasound must be done and she must view it." If I'm incorrect, and you have better information let me know.