Democratic Party better heed Rachel Maddow's warning

[justamiddleclasser]

34. Bernie has only been a Democrat for 10 Months

The name of this site is "DEMOCRATICunderground.com." It is not "INDEPENDENTunderground.com." So when looking at Senator Sanders, it is clear that his participation as a "Democrat" has been totally self serving. Had he not participated in the Democratic Caucuses in Congress, he would have gotten NOTHING - not Chair of the Veterans Committee. Had he not identified as a Democrat less than 10 month ago, he wouldn't have gotten any traction on his candidacy for President. So after about 5 decades in elective office, he sees the light and becomes a DEMOCRAT - NO, it was self-serving, because he's using the Democratic Party to get what he wants, rather than having worked with Democrats for the past 5 decades to make real change.

Also, there is an ugly contradiction in criticizing Clinton for accepting Wall Street money, yet he accepted Harry Reed PAC money - Searchlight Leadership Fund - when he ran for the Senate - where BofA, JP-Morgan, and other banks were integral to the fund. And, he got plenty of union money too.

So, how can you TRUST Sen. Sanders about being committed to this revolution - when he switched from being and "Independent" in EVERY ELECTION HE RAN FOR - until NOW...He should have been created a national "Independent" organization 5 decades ago as he DIDN'T. The change he purports has to be initiated in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY at this time, because as an Independent, you only get a President worse than George W. Bush - just like Ralph Nader's candidacy in 2000 lost the election to Al Gore...who would have won two more states - including Florida had he not run. So, we get Justice Roberts and Alito...great, as a result we got Citizens United...thus we are worse off as we can't even get back to the good policy of the Clinton Gore Administration nor take back the $3 trillion in tax breaks under Dubya...if you don't have the votes in Congress, it won't happen.

Senator Sanders is more idealistic, using his followers...AND NOT REALISTIC...or if he was, he wouldn't admit to it because he would destroy his political message -"ending income inequality," but having no real plan to get there - sorry a plutonic - theoretical concept is NOT A PLAN - meaning a revolution is not a plan. So, in the end, we'll get greater income inequality and maybe that's the real revolution that will occur, but decades later while half our population suffer - but wait - global warming will have destroyed us first.

Unfortunately, he hasn't helped Democrats get elected to make this change...only himself. And, the only way to get the change is to help other candidates - who happened to be almost exclusively Democrats. He needs 60 votes in the Senate and at least 50 more Democrats in the House of Representatives (because just getting the majority won't be enough). He may believe in the trickle down theory...but that's Ronald Reagan...it doesn't work...you have to directly help other candidates...and Senator Clinton has for years - including President Obama, going to dozens of states in 2008, being the principal at scores of rallies, and helping Democrats win...

Also, he's misleading millions of low income wage earners about his single payer plan. As many get health care from their employer - whether it is from a large private employer or government, they LOSE in his plan, as they would then be taxed to get the health care that they now get as part of the total compensation package - IT'S WRONG.