Is Bernie Sanders Surging? So What if He is?

There's another Democratic debate tonight, the last before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. In what reads more like an op-ed than a news article, reporters at the Washington Post say Bernie Sanders seems to be picking up steam and Hillary could be in trouble.

She arrives here in the middle of a rocky stretch, all of a sudden on the wrong side of a new narrative that suggests Sanders is surging and she is weakening, facing possible defeat in the first two contests of the year.

The Vermont senator continues to lead the polls in New Hampshire, and now he has closed the gap in Iowa, the state where Clinton’s campaign fell off the tracks eight years ago. For Clinton, it wasn’t supposed to be this way against a septuagenarian, self-identified democratic socialist who began his campaign with no national profile and no financial network.

How is the following news rather than opinion?

[Heads up: This will not be a popular post with Sanders supporters, so if he's your idea of the best choice for President, you may want to stop reading now. Nor will Trump supporters like it, but I don't much care about them.] [More...]

She is the embodiment of the Washington political class in a year of rising antiestablishment anger. She struggles to project authenticity at a time when voters hunger for that quality in their candidates. She has a lengthy résumé in public life at a time when many voters seem to have devalued experience in government. She symbolizes continuity when many voters are demanding change.

It seemed unimaginable that a Clinton, particularly a Clinton who could become the first female president in U.S. history, could be overshadowed in a political campaign this year, and yet that’s currently the case. Trump and Trumpism loom over the entire country. His candidacy is the talk everywhere, for better and worse.

Sanders also creates his own energy force with an unabashedly liberal, big-government agenda that brings cheers from the progressive wing of the party. He has tapped into pent-up frustration on the left that has proved to be a potent force.

That's opinion, not fact. Sanders doesn't energize me at all, let alone inspire me. During every debate, Hillary has been outgoing, confident, easy to understand, positive and inspiring. The prospect of Sanders being President leaves me with a sinking feeling Government will come to a standstill. He's too polarizing, just like Trump, only he's at the other end of the spectrum. In the long run, I don't think the American people will elect either one of them.

While I agree with many of Sanders' position on issues, I think he really only cares about campaign finance and Wall St., neither of which are important to me. During the debates, he's stooped over except when he talks about those issues. Sanders does not energize me. He reminds me of your aging grandpa. Would I vote for him if nominated? Of course. But I'd rather vote for Hillary.

As for Trump being the center of conversation, who cares? Where is the evidence that being a hot topic around the water cooler or on Twitter or CNN for that matter translates into votes or impacts or increases a candidate's chance of being elected?

Trump and Sanders are both outliers. The media's fawning over them creates a picture in my mind of two overweight kids on a playground see-saw - balancing each other out as they sit on opposite ends. One goes up, the other goes down. Both land with a thud.

What matters is what happens at the voting booth, not on TV and online. Other than the privileged, the media, and those with too much time on their hands, I think most people, particularly those with young children, are focused on their daily lives and making ends meet. They are not going to vote for President based on who's trending on Twitter or late night talk shows.

Sanders may well win Iowa or New Hampshire, but I doubt he'll end up winning the nomination. As for Trump, even if he wins the Republican nomination, I really don't see him winning the presidency. I doubt Americans will vote for Trump for President just because he's outrageous.

I cannot picture Sanders as President of the United States. I don't think he's particularly qualified or interested in too many aspects of the job. I don't think he's sufficiently well-rounded. He strikes me as too stubborn, and I think he'll create total gridlock in Congress. Nothing will get passed. People seem to be latching onto him and Trump because they offer easy outlets for venting frustration. But at the end of the day, I doubt most people want a a complainer or whiner in the White House. All those two do is criticize, criticize and criticize. I hope that when it comes time to vote, people will think about both who has a concrete plan on important issues that meshes with their own and will change their lives for the better -- and who has a better chance of implementing his or her plan if elected. To me, neither Sanders (with his unoriginal and overused message of change) nor Trump with his fanatical boasts that he can do better than anyone else, is that candidate.

No candidate is going to change the course of American politics in one election cycle. Washington is where the action is, and candidates who claim to be outsiders who will change the culture of Washington if they get elected are dreaming and pulling your leg.

In other Sanders news, he's doing an about face on immunity for gun manufacturers. Why? My view: it's politically expedient and will wield off expected attacks from Hillary that he's too soft on gun control. There's also little downside. Supporters of immunity for gun manufacturers are mostly Republicans and Second Amendment supporters, who wouldn't vote for him anyway. Did he really change his mind on the issue or is it a vote - getting switch? Sounds like the latter to me. More politics as usual, only this time it's from Sanders who has claimed to be beyond politics as usual.

The reality is all serious candidates end up beholden to politics as usual, otherwise they can't win. The system is what it is, and while it may change over decades or generations, it's not going to change in one election cycle. So pocket the hope and change, and vote for the candidate who is likely to actually get things passed a divided Congress.

The minor differences on issues between Hillary and Sanders are immaterial and pointless hair-splitting. It seems to me only one of them has a prayer for getting any part of a progressive plan through Congress, and that's Hillary, not Sanders. It's precisely because of Hillary's experience and decades at the heart of Washington politics that she is more likely to navigate her policies through Congress. That experience is a reason to support her. It's nothing to hold against her, despite the bias of the media which has promoted that meme.

Malcontents like Sanders and Trump (and they both come off as malcontents to me) never win, they just feel good after getting things off their chest. I applaud Sanders for raising the consciousness of the American people on a host of important progressive issues, but I think he has zero chance of implementing them if elected. In another decade, hopefully his ideas will be mainstream and he'll get the credit he deserves for them. But in 2016, I don't think Sanders has a chance of successfully navigating his policies through a divided Congress or implementing any significant change in policy. Hillary has both the navigational skills and experience, and I think will command enough respect to implement at least some of her policy changes. In my view, voting for Sanders may be a feel-good vote, but it will also be a futile one. Democrats can do better, and the better candidate is right in front of their noses.

As for Trump, he's nothing more than a fuse lit at both ends. If nominated, the only way he won't burn out with voters before the election is if the alternative is just as polarizing, just at the other end of the spectrum, e.g., Sanders.

Feel free to disagree, I know many, if not most readers will. That's fine, just be civil and avoid name-calling and personal insults (to me, other commenters and the candidates) in your comments if you want them to stay up.

< Saturday Open Thread | Sean Penn on "60 Minutes" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's a weird year (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by dissenter on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:37:35 PM EST
    Do I agree with you Jeralyn that Bernie looks rumpled? Yes. But I think those kind of optics also appeal to the "people that take a shower after work" as Michael Moore likes to say. I do not think Hilary Clinton can win the majority of blue collar democrats. They are just struggling too badly. Their economic insecurity is more important than any kind of polish and she is the poster child for wall street.

    That brings me to the triad of issues which Bernie is much stronger on with this group of Americans- as well as young people and independents - which include trade/TPP and the impact of globalization and climate change on the economy and foreign disasters. The second pillar to that is immigration (I'm not talking about refugees but rather the unease in the US that our immigration system is not connected in any way to our economic conditions). I have always believed that is what is ultimately fueling the anger on immigration both left and right. And finally healthcare (a fair single payer system) that doesn't bankrupt the middle class. Everyone in the media seems to forget that lots of people in this country do not qualify for subsidies or employer benefits and that includes actual plumbers, free lance and contract workers (almost 40% of the work force)and others. Further, people in their 50's that do not get subsidies have insurance payments that exceed their rent/house payments.

    I have a bunch of other reasons personally why I am supporting Bernie (partially due to Clinton's large number of foreign policy failures which I have watched up close and personal)but I also just can't stand the Clinton drama or poll driven policies any longer. Her credibility is at zero for me. I don't think I am alone.

    We will see but I'm not going to vote for her for the reasons you gave. In a general, I might throw my vote to her but I will not enjoy it in any way and I voted for her in 2008.

    She will not get anything through Congress because the hatred for the Clinton family surpasses the hatred for Obama on the right. Further, I think young people will stay home in the general if she is the nominee. That is my thought on all of this.

    What might be good is a brokered convention with neither winning the nomination and a compromise candidate emerging to keep the party together. Elizabeth Warren fits the bill.

    Clinton is clearly (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Coral on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:38:34 PM EST
    the candidate most ready to take on the role of president in a very complex world.

    I agree with many of Sanders' issues and stands on the economy. And I share many of Clinton's opponents criticisms of her foreign policy tendencies (too hawkish).

    That said, she has convinced me in the debates and interviews I've watched in this campaign season that she has a command of the issues, facts, and political realities that none of the Democrats running can match.

    The GOP candidates are like a house of horrors. I can't imagine the US, possibly the entire world, surviving one term under the presidency of any of them.

    Clinton, especially if she has the benefit of an active Democratic progressive movement and Democratic Congress, could be much more of a progressive, both on social and economic issues, than many Sanders supporters expect.

    She needs to be pushed, the way LBJ was pushed by the very active civil rights movement.

    She's also tough as nails, and can survive in a poisonous political climate where many others would wilt.

    I can't imagine a Sanders presidency that would be anything other than a disaster. If he managed to win the election, how would he handle the recalcitrant and obstructionist Congress he would face, and the attacks of all the usual suspects. Obama has survived the onslaught, but it has taken its tolls, and he didn't accomplish much that he'd promised. No transformational presidency. And his foreign policy has been a mess--although I forgive him, considering the mess that he had to clean up when he arrived in the White House.

    Ironic Funny Statement of the Week... (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 10:01:54 AM EST
    That's opinion, not fact. Sanders doesn't energize me at all, let alone inspire me. During every debate, Hillary has been outgoing, confident, easy to understand, positive and inspiring.

    I feel like the democratic party is pushing me right into Sanders arms, last week it was the people who didn't like HRC are misogynists, never mind that Sanders is the millennial female favorite, not wanting HRC means it's about her vagina, not her actual policies.  Beyond being offensive, it's simply not true.

    Now it's Sanders doesn't look Presidential.  Hmmm, well at least they aren't saying she is the person we would all like to have a beer with I guess.  I mean if that is the bar, then I think we can all thank god there was no TV during the FDR era.  

    For me, I like Obama and like what he has done, but given the choice, I would rather not have another Obama 8.  He got us off the brink of financial chaos and brought most of our boys home from the ME.  But this is not 2008, we don't need another Obama, we need someone who is going to tell the folks that took us took the brink, no more.  We need someone who is not being financed by them as well.  We don't need an Iraqi redux, which is where Obama is going and where HRC will pick-up.  We need someone who is in our corner, who isn't being financed by Big Money and all the strings those dollars come with.

    I don't a F what they look like, I don't care if they have a penis or a vagina, and I sure as hell don't need people acting like there is something wrong with me because I don't think Clinton is the modern day messiah who will cure us of all that ails us, including cancer.

    Re: the media fawning over Sanders (4.89 / 9) (#2)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:00:47 AM EST
    I can't disagree more. For months, the media has been dismissing him as a far left crank. It's only in the last few weeks that the coverage has changed, and that's because it would be pretty hard to ignore the fire he has lit with Dem voters. He, apparently, connects with voters in a way Clinton does not. Wall Street and corporations stacking the deck against middle and low income working folks may not interest you, but it sure does ring true with me, and millions of other Americans who are working our a$$es off, budgeting like mad, and still struggling to pay all the bills. The economic message resonates with voters who are tired of Dems playing footsie with the same investment bankers and lobbyists as the GOP does.

    People are still suffering in this country, despite the improved economic outlook. Full time work is hard to find and wages are stagnant. Housing is unaffordable unless you live in a nowhere town with dwindling populations far from the either of the coasts. There's a lot that's not working well for a lot of people, and Clinton's approach of go-slow-incrementalism only promises more of the same. She doesn't have a strong message about income inequality. Sanders does.

    Worse, perhaps, she is looking and sounding like a hawk on foreign policy, and that's not going to win over young voters.

    It's not just the WAPO pointing out the quicksand-quality of Clinton's campaign. The NYT published an article last night saying many of the same things, and more. There are too many nuggets to quote here, so I would suggest reading it for yourself. But the gist of it is that she and her campaign team relied too heavily on the "studied, seasoned" personae she wants to project, as well as the "rational" message she offers (clearly a dig at Sanders, implying he is irrational). Also, there's this:

    Mrs. Clinton and her team say they always anticipated the race would tighten, with campaign manager Robby Mook telling colleagues last spring that Mr. Sanders would be tough competition. Yet they were not prepared for Mr. Sanders to become so popular with young people and independents, especially women, whom Mrs. Clinton views as a key part of her base.

    Given her many political advantages, like rich donors and widespread support from Democratic Party elites, she is also surprised that Mr. Sanders's fund-raising has rivaled hers and that her experience -- along with her potential to make history as the first woman elected president -- has not galvanized more voters.

    That right there exposes not only the presumptuousness of relying on the wealthy elites to turn your fundraising into an unstoppable machine, but also the assumption that Sanders would not be able to make the case for his policies with young, independent, and female voters.

    Oh, and there's a completely nonsensical argument that her team makes about how they expected--and needed--Joe Biden to run, because he would inevitably soak up all of Sanders' oxygen (a tone-deaf idea if there ever was one...Biden and Sanders do not represent the same constituency) and, in addition, that Clinton would have been able to better hone and strengthen her message against Biden, and then emerge as the clear victor over the entire Democratic field.

    For that alone, her advisors deserve to be sent packing.

    Her campaign seems to be making a lot of the same mistakes they made in 2008. It doesn't give me any joy to see her stumbling like this, but she really needed to get a whole new crew this time around. Instead, she stuck with the same old Clinton team as before, and it's hurting her. I reject the notion that it's just an opinion--rather than a fact--that Sanders is surging and she is slackening. The polls show him in a strong position to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, and even some Dems in South Carolina are now said to be worried (that's in the NYT article as well).

    It doesn't matter that she's smart or "experienced", because so is Sanders. And it's not a blue book exam, it's the campaign for the White House. She's not connecting, Sanders is. She needs to figure out why, retool, and fight like he[[ without resorting to tactics like we have seen in the past week. Otherwise, she's going to continue to turn voters off, instead of bring them into the fold.

    Looking Presidential matters (3.50 / 2) (#8)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:55:40 AM EST
    POTUS is head of state....not some freedom fighter from the Balkans with a lot of revolutionary ideas....

    looks presidental? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:32:12 AM EST
    A great campaign ad for HRC.

    I can see it now. Soft lights and music as HRC stands on the stage saying. "I stand before you as someone who looks presidental. Here is my promise to you, I will alway bring to my office and to you the people of America, a president who looks presidential." :-)

    I find it extremely amusing that Hillary's supporters who once railed against the many attacks on Hillary's appearance are going that route now.


    Actually, he looked (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 12:08:10 PM EST
    pretty sharp on MTP....

    Kinda like a European style statesman or senior bureaucrat.


    The old John Kerry dig: He's too European (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:12:36 PM EST
    First, Sanders looked like a Balkan freedom fighter. Now he's "European style." Sounds like he's moved up in the fashion world, overnight.

    Gotta go with MOBlue's take: It is funny how the same people who bristle at criticisms of Clinton's appearance think it's okay to turn those criticisms on Sanders.

    After reading through the entire comments, I see there's a lot of fantasy going on. I've even learned that Clinton is going to cure cancer. It's been said repeatedly, so it must have heretofore mysterious relevance to the question of whether Sanders is surging.


    European (none / 0) (#129)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:39:54 PM EST
    meaning imo serious and unsmiling....

    Typical American politicians for better or worse tend to smile a lot more and try to emote warmth, whether phony or not....


    Emotes warmth? (none / 0) (#186)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 10:23:44 AM EST
    That has not exactly been isted as one of HRC's strengths.

    Also, a long time compliant by Democratic voters and Hillary's supporters in particular, has been the amount of ink devoted to negative remarks about her appearance.


    Actually she can (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by sj on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    Or at least it resonated with me. I can't find video, but this resonated:

    I have met too many people without health care, just a diagnosis away from financial ruin. But I've also seen the scientists and researchers solving the medical mysteries and finding the treatments and cures that are transforming lives.

    I've seen the struggling schools with the crumbling classrooms and the unfair burdens imposed by No Child Left Behind. But I have also met dedicated and caring teachers who use their own savings to buy supplies and students passionately engaged in the issues of our time, from ending the genocide in Darfur to once again making the environment a central issue of our day.

    None of you, none of you is invisible to me. You never have been.

    I see you, and I know how hard-working you are. I've been fighting for you my whole adult life, and I will keep standing for you and working for you every single day.

    From her last run.

    You Bernie supporters (none / 0) (#133)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:43:50 PM EST
     are on the serious side, taking umbrage at a lot of things...

    He combed his hair (none / 0) (#136)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:46:06 PM EST
    If Hillary appeared without combing her hair, I think many would notice....

    Actually, I am an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:44:54 PM EST
    You should know that by now....

    Nixon and Bush the Son (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:29:35 PM EST
    In 1968--in the midst of the Vietnam War with all the related anguish and death and in the midst of dismay and grief over the assassination of Sen. Bobby Kennedy--I was furious & saddened & dejectedly confused about our country.  The voice, face, and foreign policy of LBJ amounted to the depth of warmongering, heartless depravity to me.  Humphrey ... LBJ's stand-in to run that year--no way was I going to vote my first presidential vote for that man (and, my husband wrote in the name of Mickey Mouse.)  That was understandable for young people then ... we weren't about to focus on the domestic policy with the incredible advances in Civil Rights and with the birth of Medicare.  Nope.  So, we all remember the beneficiary of our disappointment.  Yep--in a frying pan-to-fire sense, we got to witness Richard Nixon become and stay President for almost six years. There shouldn't be any need here to point out the many downsides of that.  But, hey, it sure felt good for a few hours to vote the way we felt.

    So as not to make this comment too lengthy, I'll skip over another one of my feeling forays that led to throwing myself into Dukakis' campaign--because I ignored the limitations of perception about him (e.g. Apart from Massachusetts, he was viewed as limited, somewhat effete, quite weak) until the results that election night when--as I try not to recall--Dukakis picked up one state.

    Then, we have how we got to Bush the Son ... and all of its mostly negative ramifications.  Of course, Ralph Nader wasn't the only cause of Gore's defeat.  Under any definition, tho, Nader's numbers take in Florida contributed to the Bush win in 2000.  And, definitely, the languor and "third-term" fatigue sapped the necessary energy needed in order to win the Presidency.  Because I had digested (with lots of dyspepsia) the enormous & lasting downsides--think "trickle down", think the ultimate hagiography of Reagan, think the pains inflicted on America's lower economic class, think Central America & the CIA, and think so much about the Supreme Court & the cast of rigid right characters that have come with recent Repub Presidents--I steadfastly voted for Al Gore. A number of others without the hard learning curve from earlier, went in other directions and/or kind of dragged themselves to the polls.

    Yes, I am a strong Hillary Clinton supporter.  And, yes, I respect Senator Sanders ... I respect Senator Sanders as a good, solid senator from Vermont.  And, more importantly, I agree with the thrust of Jeralyn's analysis here.  IMO, Experience and Temperament and Breadth of Background count for a lot.  In this regard, Mr. Sanders is too limited in outlook as well as representative background ... and, if previous political studies hold, his temperament may well be too dour in a country that tends to vote for optimism in presentation, demeanor.  So ....

    So ... I do not believe that Sanders can win a general election.  (I won't bet the house, but close.) The Repubs would do cartwheels to pummel a Sanders the way they decimated a Dukakis.  Whatever else our motivation:  The Supreme Court.  Look at the issues; consider the ages; see the present split; and, know that a Repub will take that 5-to-4 split and increase the Roberts/Scalia/Alito/Thomas/Kennedy(usually) majority by at least a decisive 1 or 2.  For a generation.  A generation of everything that the progressive left strives for will be condemned to nothing or worse.  That is not an overstatement; it is ugly and it will taste uglier.  

    Jeralyn is correct.


    Are you (none / 0) (#3)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:08:54 AM EST
    a bernie supporter?

    so Hillary cures cancer, that's bad news right?


    Has Hillary cured cancer? When was that? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:12:49 AM EST
    If so, that's fabulous! She'll probably get the Nobel for medicine.

    Not yet (none / 0) (#5)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:15:34 AM EST
    but some day she and Obama will and Sanders will be distributing the cure to everyone.



    In order to adhere to Jeralyn's wishes (none / 0) (#6)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:19:25 AM EST
    for polite discourse, I will not be able to adequately respond to your comment.

    It's after midnight here, there's a Seahwaks game to watch in the morning, so time for bed. Priorities.


    i think it was pretty (none / 0) (#7)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:22:59 AM EST
    clear i described a world where Obama and Clinton cured cancer and President Bernie distributed it.

    thats what the media and everyone wants.

    so be it.  and so it is.


    Yeah... (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:34:33 AM EST

    I think Biden is in line to cure it first, so there's that.

    FWIW. I would love to know how Wall Street contributing to HRC's campaign going to cure cancer, I mean if that is the process, shouldn't it have already been cured like 10 elections ago.

    Let's just hope you are a gasbag and that people will fund cancer research no matter who is the President is.

    I am life long democrat and fairly liberal, can we please stop stating that D's are going to cure cancer, I mean seriously, how is that any different that R's stating they will eliminate ISIS.  Yeah, it would be great, but back here on planet Earth, it's a ridiculous statement to make, and even worse to use it in an argument against another candidate.

    And lastly, god help us if WS owns the rights for a magical cure to cancer. Exhibit A


    I've been lean Hillary so far throughout... (4.75 / 4) (#59)
    by magster on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 12:30:02 PM EST
    ... because I've felt that she will be the better campaigner and more effective counter-punching Republicans. But if Bernie is still legitimately viable by the time of the CO caucuses, I will have to rethink that. With all the institutional support she has within the party, if she can't effectively knock out Bernie before Super Tuesday or be well ahead in the polls in the states that are part of Super Tuesday, then that will mean she's a horrible campaigner and chooses incompetent advisers, especially considering this happened to her in 2008 already.

    She's a horrible campaigner (3.50 / 2) (#60)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 12:55:39 PM EST
    Because the media makes it so.

    It doesn't matter what she does, her campaign could cure cancer, the media will crap on it and folks like you would just conclude she's a horrible campaigner, so be it.


    In 2008 she was horrible. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by magster on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 01:07:50 PM EST
    The nuts and bolts of amassing delegates in 2008 was totally lost on Penn until it was too late. That wasn't media, that was Hillary hiring an arrogant buffoon to run her campaign.

    I was in Iowa and watched her (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:46:06 PM EST
    campaign as a credentialed blogger for five days up close during the Iowa caucuses. (As well as John Edwards and even Mitt Romney. ) She was a terrific campaigner.

    I have also watched her campaign up close at numerous fundraisers in Colorado for many years. I've watched her campaign at blogger conferences.

    She is absolutely not a horrible campaigner. Crowds applaud her and she inspires them.

    If you are watching selected media clips or just the debates, you aren't getting a full picture. If you have attended a campaign event maybe she had a bad day, that's possible, but I don't think it's representative of her campaigns.


    I have said this too (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:52:35 PM EST
    But I agree with you.  In personal appearances, especially small ones, she is almost unmatched as a candidate by anyone except perhaps her husband.  
    Unfortunately IMO that does not translate well on a big stage.  I don't pretend to know why this is but it's been written and talked about a lot over the years.

    So I agree she not a terrible candidate.  I probably said that but its an overstatement.  That said, she does not do tv well.  Or certainly AS well.  And unfortunately that's a lot of what modern campaigns are.


    THAT said (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:00:02 PM EST
    I don't think Bernie is any better.

    But if we are talking about tv skills, well, Donald.


    Strategy and who to surround herself with... (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by magster on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:24:45 PM EST
    is what I was referring more to. Penn was odious in 2008. Forgiven, but if it looks like the same dynamics are happening again....

    Watching debate. She's doing great. They all are. Team Dem is so much better than the jokers who debated a few nights ago.


    She shines at personal appearances (none / 0) (#160)
    by sj on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:50:08 PM EST
    Campaign strategy not as much.

    Media hated her then too (none / 0) (#62)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 01:12:30 PM EST
    Of course media hating Clintons is Clintons own fault and so it is.

    I agree (none / 0) (#79)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:19:12 PM EST
    that the media hated her - and treated her terribly in 2008.

    A word in her favor cast you as a racist.
    And good old Obama just let it go on.

    In this go-round, I have been, and am still open to Hillary as a candidate.

    But I must say, that upon every occasion I have seen her - every interview - every "debate", she is very personable - exudes that "happy warrior" energy, looks great... and all the rest.

    But when she starts to answer a question, I wind up having no clue what she really wants to do. Her answers on issues frequently take so many turns that I just have to tune out.

    I have found Sanders to be at least comprehensible - even on that business concerning gun control.

    I will be watching tonight with an open mind.
    I, as much as anyone, would like the republicans to be defeated - but so far - I would greet a Clinton victory with a great measure of apprehension.


    To each their own (3.50 / 2) (#82)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:26:25 PM EST
    I find her answers to be very clear and refreshingly comprehensive.  

    But that's just me I know the media prefers the easier sound byte.  Is it Clinton's fault she doesn't give them one, or our fault for patronizing a media that caters to our predisposition to LCD, I can never say for sure.

    Stop being so smart, Hillary, and just repeat "wall street bad, grrrr" in frankenstein voice over and over again.  Oh well...


    Clear and comprehensive. (none / 0) (#103)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 04:31:14 PM EST
    When asked recently at the Iowa forum whether she supports reparations, Hillary said neither yes or no. She said,

    "I think we should start studying what investments we need to make in communities to help individuals and families and communities move forward."

    You may see that as clear and comprehensive, but I don't.


    I actually think your last point is her ... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by magster on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 01:16:03 PM EST
    ... strength -- beating back conservative media narratives and remaining strong. The Benghazi hearings after getting pummeled in the media for months was when I started supporting her. But the inevitable tightening of the polls has her slamming single payer which, seems to me, is a risky thing to do in a Dem primary.

    SLAMMED single payer? (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 01:43:58 PM EST
    You will know them by the hyperbolic verbs they use...

    So you know blah blah blah you know this so it is what it is ...

    She said the middle class should not be taxed more...

    She said build on ACA not throw it out...

    And of course Bernie doesn't want to throw it out, right?  or does he?   cause no his plan is only a vision?  No?  or a plan?  but either way no details ok until after people vote cause that's the best way... and the media is cool with that of course ...

    Yep. That's what she said.  


    Would you just (3.50 / 2) (#87)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 03:00:36 PM EST
    fricking stop with the "cure cancer" meme?
    It's not just getting old, it's also minimizing the whole impact of cancer on those people who suffer from cancer, and also those whose loved ones have suffered and/or died from cancer.
    Defend Hillary's campaign all you want, but stop with the "curing cancer" stuff.  I'm sure you think that you are being clever, but it does your comments no good, it also does Hillary's campaign no good, either.
    It just appears that you are blowing off the devastating effects that cancer can have on people and their families, just to make some kind of political point.

    Back in the day (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by ragebot on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:29:25 PM EST
    LBJ complained he could walk on water across the Potomac River and the news would report "LBJ can't swim".

    Ok let's try this... (2.75 / 4) (#88)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 03:11:39 PM EST
    She could invent time travel and travel back in time and kill hitler and the media would again, as they always have, find a way to spin even that too as nothing more than a cold calculated move to win the election.

    It really could be anything.

    Prediction:   I will now be accused of minimizing the holocaust.  Oi.


    You obviously (3.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 03:27:46 PM EST
    just don't get it, do you?  So everything you say is golden, but will be minimized or spun by others.
    Look into yourself, and grow up.
    I'm done with you.

    What I get is (none / 0) (#94)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 03:45:23 PM EST
    Even with the media folks who are supposedly friendly to dems and to Clinton too you get this question that's framed in this weird way to sort of imply Clinton is, just by having the temerity to run for president, Clinton isn't setting an example for young women in America, the question is framed to imply Clinton is holding back other women in the party who could be vice president.

    It's a little messed up just in one persons opinion.


    I'm glad you stated it was just an opinion (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 03:53:24 PM EST
    Because there's no factual basis for it. And, as a fifty-something woman who's been politically active since the 1970's, I find almost all of your comments to be mind boggling. It, frankly, amazes me that you think your incessant whining and blame-gaming is doing your candidate any good.

    I'm not trying to do "my candidate" (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 04:00:38 PM EST
    ... Any good.... But it is by moving out of the context of the primary election itself that such things can be discussed.

    It appears to you as whining cause it doesn't fit the way these things work according to your world and you know I do respect that.

    But I see that question Maddow asked as totally creepy, I know Obama would never have been asked if he can pick an African American vice president... So yeah that's whining according to you, it might not be according to everyone.


    shoshoene (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:51:06 PM EST
    watch the insults. Your comment is delete-worthy. I'm leaving it up so you and others see what is inappropriate here. Do not mock others positions. You are free to disagree but not to call people whiners etc.

    Then go ahead and delete it (none / 0) (#177)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:16:01 PM EST
    My comment was hardly the worst insult on this thread, and frankly, I don't cotton to being made an example of, simply for saying something that's obvious.

    Really, delete it.


    So do you really think (4.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 04:31:03 PM EST
    that invoking Godwin's Law furthered your argument?
    Listen up.  If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I intend to vote for her.  But I will vote for Bernie in the Primary.  It probably won't make a difference in the state I live in, which will very likely go for Hillary overwhelmingly in the Democratic Primary.
    But by making the arguments you have made in trying to defend her, you are not doing her any favors.

    I'm not trying to do her any favors (1.50 / 2) (#108)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 04:38:32 PM EST
    And you can pick anything.... Sorta turn it into a game, hey!   everyone list what great thing Clinton could do and how the media would spin it.

    Here's another one... Ready?

    Clinton invents an unlimited source of clean energy.  Rachel Maddow leans in to ask her "didn't you just set other forms of clean energy back decades, sec. Clinton?"

    You know it.  It's absurd.  I'm sorta laughing as I post this.


    Well, I'm "sorta laughing" (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:11:19 PM EST
    At you, and your weak arguments and game-playing.
    Presidential politics is not a game, it's serious, but it seems that you don't see it that way.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#121)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:27:58 PM EST
    But no I can't take an election seriously when the media has it in for one candidate.  Maybe another reason I sorta feel like its stupid has to do with the fact that the primary will be decided by 2 states.  It's not like I'm actually involved. Or even could be if I wanted to.

    The primary (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:33:00 PM EST
    On either side, will not be decided by two states.  I don't disagree that it's absurd that NH and Iowa have has much influence and get as much attention as they do.

    That said, they will not decide the primary.   Iowa in particular has historically been sort the opposite.  Meaning you can be sure whoever wins it will NOT be the nominee.


    Ok (none / 0) (#138)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:48:06 PM EST
    But I don't get a meaningful vote. Therefore.... Whatevs.

    You know I actually don't get a meaningful vote in the general election either thanks to my red state locale and the electoral college. Oh well.

    My stupid preoccupation with the media is, bigger picture, a cultural thing, sorta new here so you guys haven't even heard my rants and diatribes against how media reports terrorist attacks.  Why not just actually tell every radicalized human being on the planet they'll get their 15 minutes of fame.


    The (none / 0) (#71)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 01:51:39 PM EST
    Clinton rules are true force of nature in today's political eco system.

    Hillary is (none / 0) (#73)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:02:39 PM EST
    not a victim here, in my opinion.

    The victim is a real discussion of issues that affect the quality of our lives - and if we even have much of a chance of enduring much longer.

    I am particularly concerned with our involvement in wars.

    One whole generation of Americans has not known a single day in which we have not been at war. If it's not one place, it's another. At least three at the moment.

    I don't know if there is any other country on this earth about which the same could be said.

    In my opinion, the media has taken exactly the opposite course than the one you describe. Sanders has been ignored by the press - mainstream and otherwise - until it became impossible to do so.

    Sanders' popularity has nothing to do, imo, with a negation of Hillary Clinton. It has to do with a strong identification with his presentation of issues.

    Just my opinion.


    He hasn't been ignored (none / 0) (#76)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:07:32 PM EST
    I can't find it but they showed number of appearances on news shows and Trump is yeah at the top but Bernie is in the top five and Clinton isnt even ranked.

    But now you're just going to criticise her campaign for keeping her inside the bubble, I know how this works.

    Just wanted to say its BS that theyve ignored him, I navigated to Chris Hayes website and for one week 6 out of 10 stories: Bernie.


    Here's some data you can (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:22:12 PM EST
    There's no search parameter (none / 0) (#84)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:30:50 PM EST
    For positive and negative spin so I'll pass on that thanks!


    Ok, Yes, you have a point.... Fox news has probably mentioned Hillary more than Bernie.  


    If you are game, magster (none / 0) (#132)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:41:12 PM EST
    I'd be honored to speak with you about the Colorado Caucuses scheduled for March 1. (HRC will also be in Denver on February 13th for the annual JJ Dinner ... you might want to come just to hear.  Food is not very good; but the address promises to be.)

    I'm serious.  It can be important to have one-on-one Devil's Advocate and all that.


    Maybe... (none / 0) (#178)
    by magster on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:20:46 PM EST
    I'm in Parker. Where are you located?

    I got heavily involved in the 2008 and elected as a delegate, and frankly it was a drag sitting in high school gyms for hours to cast one vote.

    My twitter handle is @progressonugget if you want to send me a private message with more info.


    "He's too polarizing" (4.75 / 4) (#67)
    by me only on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 01:30:44 PM EST
    Right, got it.  Hillary is the non polarizing candidate.

    Why in the world (none / 0) (#75)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:07:03 PM EST
    wouldn't we be polarized?

    Why shouldn't we be discontented with the conditions we face?

    We have been placed in grave personal danger by the actions of successive administrations.

    Things like that tend to galvanize, or polarize, people.

    We're running out of time - in my opinion.

    If someone is inclined to describe the above as, "whining", so be it.

    I don't know how else to say it.


    Couldn't disagree more. (4.50 / 2) (#18)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:13:30 AM EST
    During every debate, Hillary has been outgoing, confident, easy to understand, positive and inspiring.

    Whether she is outgoing or confident does not interest me. Cruz is "confident". So?

    I find her far from easy to understand and far from inspiring. In fact, her stances toward the use of our military and her criticism of Obama for not using more sooner in Syria is a source of apprehension, not inspiration.

    Her call for more sanctions on Iran, at this very moment in time is, to say the least, disheartening. To whom is she directing her campaign? The Tea Party?

    Far from finding these utterances to be positive and inspiring, I find them to be distasteful and frightening.

    To criticize Sanders physical posture is, frankly, surprising to me. What about FDR's posture? We're going for "looks" now?

    To call Sanders a "malcontent" is beyond strange, imo, if this is meant as a criticism, as it would appear to be.

    What do we have to be content about?

    The critique of his posture is an observation (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 10:16:18 AM EST
    of how his posture indicates his interest and confidence in what he is talking about, not a criticism of appearance for its own sake.  

    But I think you know that.


    No... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 10:29:36 AM EST
    Actually I don't know that.

    Jeralyn has mentioned his posture before - his physical posture. It is purely based on her perception of his "optics".

    By contrast, Hillary is represented as confident.
    Her image. Her optics.

    Sanders is obviously interested and confident in what he is talking about. It is in his sound. His bearing. The content.

    That is why, if pollsters are to be believed, he is surging - something to which Jeralyn says, "So what?"

    So plenty, imo.


    On surging (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 10:50:55 AM EST
    According to 538 Hillary has a 57% chance of winning NH and an 82% chance of winnING Iowa.
    Some surging to do.



    He projects interest on some topics more than (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 11:02:24 AM EST
    others. That is natural....if he had a more consistent performance style he'd be called inauthentic and someone in search of his own personality, as Clinton is called. So eternal way there is no winning the projection game.

    If image and presentation were not part of politics, I have a lot of friends who are smarter and more progressive than any of these candidates...and yet none of them have even considered public office. It takes certain personal traits to even want to do that. If presentation and image didn't matter, progressives would have been lining up behind Dennis Kucinich in 2008. How many here were on that bandwagon?


    Interesting point (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 11:05:59 AM EST
    I think if Dennis was running this year he might well be doing as well as Bernie.  For whatever reason the idea of picking a candidate who can win a general election seems to be less important on both sides this year.

    Bingo (none / 0) (#98)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 04:09:20 PM EST
    For whatever reason the idea of picking a candidate who can win a general election seems to be less important on both sides this year.

    I would posit that the reason is many people are coming to believe that win or lose they are fkd, so they are more than willing to vote with their middle finger, consequences be damned.


    Gallup (none / 0) (#105)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 04:32:01 PM EST
    Should do a poll to find out how "middle finger" would do when running against all the current candidates.

    And then on the same poll ask who that person supports in their respective primary.


    It wasn't (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 11:09:27 AM EST
    Kucinich's optics that made me lose interest in him.

    I thought, after a certain point, he lost his soul.
    A subjective reaction, admittedly.

    My point is, I lost interest in Kucinich - but it was not because he was short.

    Obama's image was carefully constructed.
    The rock star.
    Women swooning at his rallies.
    The foxy shirtless guy.
    The cover of GQ.

    They can sell anything.


    his posture is significant (none / 0) (#144)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:59:40 PM EST
    as Ruffian said because he perks up at what interests him and it's two issues: campaign finance and Wall St.

    There are also numerous political science (none / 0) (#151)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:21:48 PM EST
    studies having to do with personal image in Presidential campaigns.  Beginning with Eisenhower's victory against Stevenson initially where the principal reason given to the paramount Michigan Survey Research Center was the positive effect of Dwight Eisenhower's smile .... and, then, consider the effect of early TV lighting and Nixon's infamous "shadow" (unshaven look) during the debates which was deemed to be a dour negative for him and a corresponding positive for candidate JFK ... etc.

    People might not like the effect of image, demeanor, etc. But, how the public reads things in this hyped-media day is extremely important ... like it or not.  Stooping looks less than commanding; it gives the message of defeatist.  That will have an effect in a general election.  A big effect ... no, I will not say "yuuuge."


    Looks like (1.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:33:57 PM EST
    They are going to argue any attack on Bernie's optics is anti-semitic.  Hey.  Could work.

    Optics schmoptics ;-) (none / 0) (#163)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:59:40 PM EST
    But... (none / 0) (#43)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    more important than a discussion about appearance or optics is the content of what seems to be appealing to so many.

    To repeat:

    I find Clinton far from easy to understand and far from inspiring. In fact, her stances toward the use of our military and her criticism of Obama for not using more sooner in Syria is a source of apprehension, not inspiration.

    So, I look for an alternative.


    That is the part of her record that I disagreed (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 11:36:32 AM EST
    with as well. I was glad Obama took a more hands off approach. Given the horror of the current situation though, I have no way to tell if he did the right thing.

    I don't think she is some kind of a knee jerk militarist however - I know you disagree with me on that.


    Yes... (none / 0) (#48)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 11:58:40 AM EST
    I have to disagree with you on that.

    I wish it were otherwise.

    And although Obama did resist pressure from the right(and Hillary Clinton) for awhile (as Jeralyn wrote that she hoped he would) that resistance crumbled as it usually does.


    I don't believe there is a "right thing" (none / 0) (#56)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 12:20:46 PM EST
    We're on the Highway to Hell and there is No Exit.

    Hey Ms J (4.50 / 2) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:57:07 AM EST
    Yep.  What you said.

    I think the only similarity to 2008 here will be the response to you blog posts on your choice for the best democratic candidate.  

    Just dropped in to say that.  Don't expect to many comments from those of us who agree in this thread.  

    And btw (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:58:59 AM EST
    IMO it's not "most" readers who will disagree.   It just seems that way because of the volume and frequency.

    I attempt to keep (4.50 / 2) (#78)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:17:38 PM EST
    in perspective, although not always without difficulty as I have predilections, the purpose of the Democratic primary: To determine the best candidate to be president of the USA. And, to become president of the USA, the candidate must be able to defeat the Republican candidate in the general election.

    The respective primary campaigns provide the opportunity to make that determination. While the candidates are likely to get into hot political discourse, even wildly overblown assertions or distortions of positions, the passion for one candidate or another should not obligate rancor and acrimony among different primary supporters.  After all, the result of the primary competition will be a Democratic nominee to face the Republican nominee in fall. Winning will require the consolidation of support and unity of supporters. Without which, the Democrats might as well skip primaries, keep their blood pressures in check, and, simply, hand the race over to the Republicans.

    For me, part of the determination of "best" is how the candidate responds to their primary opponents.  Are they able to clarify, defend, or, even, change positions?  Are they able to debate points? Rebut effectively charges and misrepresentations? Provide dreams as well as pathways and details necessary  to their achievement?

     These are some of the ways and means to ascertain the candidates resilience in the face of a Republican nominee who dished out brutal attacks on fellow clown car riders, and will be just warming up for a Democrat.  

    You do a great job (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 03:49:11 PM EST
    Of keeping things in perspective.  Me, less so

    When the right wing attack machine was finished spending their billions of dollars on Bernie republican landslide would not adequately describe the result.


    It is often (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 04:26:26 PM EST
     reported, to the joy of many Democrats, that the Republican party is in turmoil.  But, whomever is nominated, Trump or Cruz, the Republicans will fall in and provide their support--but with a few exceptions.

    As an example,  if you saw the Bill Maher show (Jan 15) one of his guests, former George W. Bush communications director, Nicolle Wallace, agreed with Bill that Trump was a bigot but, of course, she will wind up in his corner.  Another guest, Ralph Reed, said he finally agreed with Cornell West on something, that Bernie should be the nominee.  I think their problem is not with what Trump thinks but he is impolite and loud about it. They worked hard over the years to mask the meanness.

    On the Democratic side, everyone lamented the primary, a coronation.  We needed more candidates. With two serious contenders in the race, we may be headed for a divided mess.  If Mrs. Clinton is the nominee, the Sanders supporters may stay home or go in another direction.  If Sanders is the nominee, Clinton supporters are, in my view, more likely to support Sanders.  But, then comes the general.


    I disagree (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 04:31:53 PM EST
    I've already stated on other threads that, as a Sanders supporter, I would still mark the ballot for Clinton if she were to prevail going into the general election. I don't think I'm the exception. The meme going around that Sanders supporters are just the left's wild-eyed version of Trump supporters is not only inaccurate, it's insulting as hell.

    Suggesting that (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 04:43:07 PM EST
    Trump and Sanders supporters share some bandwidth is not at all intended as as insult to either.  It's IMO evident.  And polling backs it up.  A statistically significant number if Sanders supporters have told pollsters they will vote for Trump if they can't vote for Sanders.  FLJoe (I think posted that and could add more).
    In any case it's not a reason to think someone is insulting Sanders supporters to point this out.
    There is a very clear and evident thread of throw the bums out on in both parties.  

    On transferring support, no one doubts you would support the democratic nominee.  Or I should say I don't doubt it.

    That said you don't have to go far to find many Sanders supporters who say they will not support Hillary. Loudly and often.  That's just a demonstrable fact.   No doubt there are some Hillary supporters who might do the same but Dan is absolutely right that there are far more blogosphere examples of the former than the latter.


    I think there are some on both sides (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:00:39 PM EST
    of the primary who would withhold support of the eventual nominee, and they are short-sighted, IMO. But, I wouldn't put stock in what is being said in internet comment sections. Things change as we get closer to November. I remember a whole lot of internet commenters vowing they would NOT vote for Obama in the general in 2008 and...well, the rest is history.

    For what it's worth, "throw the bums out" is something the Clinton campaign needs to pay attention to and find a way to deal with. And, sorry Howdy, but I am tired of being told by some that I'm an emotional revolution-ist, aligning myself with a candidate who wants to tear the whole American system apart. He's a not an anarchist, for cripes sakes. But he, and his supporters, are being painted like that. And I can guarantee, that is the surest way to alienate people from the idea of voting for Clinton in the general election.  

    I'm hoping tonight's debate will highlight the differences in the two candidates' policy positions, without either of them going into attack mode. I think they are both a far sight more gracious and adult than some of their supporters.


    I would be tired of it (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    If I was you.  I have never said that. I don't think Hillary has or would.  It would be extremely stupid.

    As far as Hillary supporters saying they would not support Obama I can tell you that many stuck to it.  It just didn't stop him from winning.  And IMO it would not stop Hillary this time.  Especially considering the probable opponents.

    We are I think going to get record turnout in 2016.  With all the unpredictability that implies.


    I know, I wasn't implying you had said it (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:25:00 PM EST
    But others, right here on this site, have, and are.

    I think there's one important thing that a lot of people are forgetting: whoever the nominee is, the other candidate is going to come out in full force support of him/her. I still think--whatever happens in Iowa and NH--that Clinton is going to emerge with the nomination. But, she is going to need to scramble like crazy to do it, and she may only eke it out. I don't know. And I don't doubt for one minute that Sanders would go on the campaign trail for her. His views and policies are diametrically opposed to that of any of the Republicans. He would be the first to say her election over the GOP is crucial.

    Sadly, while I can imagine Hillary (grudgingly) supporting Sanders in November, I don't see Bill lifting a finger.


    Capt (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:37:08 PM EST
     I never saw numbers like that, I don't ever a recall any pollster  even asking such questions. I have heard some (wild IMO) speculation about significant Bernie to Trump jumpers but I have seen zero empirical evidence for it.

    You are correct in seeing the huge tide of anti establishment sentiment across the electorate. Sanders supporters are are analogous to Trumps but not equal. They are both rising tides of liquid but one is oil and one is water they will never mix.

    My gut feeling is Trump will get zero crossover votes from Bernie supporters. At worst a hurtful number will stay home or vote Green. Bernie's supporters are overly(YMMV)idealistic and passionate but they are not stupid. Certainly smart enough to see that Trump is a bigger bum than Clinton even if that is their main motivation.


    Shoephone, (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:30:29 PM EST
    I misstated in the following...'if Mrs. Clinton is the nominee the Sanders supporters may stay home or go in a different direction,' and you are right in calling me on it.  

     I meant to say (but didn't) that some of the Sanders supporters may stay home or go in a different direction.  You, like me, will vote for the nominee who ever it is, Senator Sanders or Mrs. Clinton.  

     I hope to be wrong, but I fear that if Mrs. Clinton is the nominee the disappointment of some of the supporters, especially those young supporters, will result in stay at homes, on the basis that all are the same--R or D. Don't see the same for the most ardent Clinton supporters.


    This article represents (none / 0) (#112)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 04:51:10 PM EST
    my worry.  "Sanders or Bust."  by Walter Bragman, Salon.  The author claims that 20 percent of Sanders supporters (if Clinton is the nominee) will defect to Trump. And, let the Republicans have 2016 rather than Hillary.  Hopefully, a fringe situation.

    Nice (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:06:05 PM EST
    eleventy dimensional strategy bs to give him a reason to write another Hillary hit piece.

    Yes, and almost as nice (none / 0) (#152)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:29:47 PM EST
    are his litany of reasons why Mrs. Clinton is awful, so awful that it is better to cede the election to Trump or Cruz.  Let's try again in 2020 with someone good, maybe Senator Warren when the demographics are better.

     Starting, of course, with her "mistrust" owing to those "scandals," like the email server; against the minimum wage of $15, when Sanders support is to be on a gradual rather than sharp curve; flip flops when opponents changes are flexibility; her criticism of Sanders' policies that are not complete is an unforgivable attack on Sanders personally; her long held position on Syria is the same as Rubio's (who was still gulping Poland Spring when formulated); and closer to Ronald Reagan and Daddy Bush.


    One question Bernie was asked (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:35:04 PM EST
    In almost every appearance I saw today was when we would be seeing his healthcare plan he apparently promised before Iowa.

    The answer was always the same.  Soon.   Very soon.

    I expect it to be a topic tonight.


    UPDATE!! (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:07:24 PM EST
    Healthcare plan released.

    Ok (1.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:40:12 PM EST
    If that's true and I'm not sure it is, but if it is, it only proves my point above.  Much of Sanders support has nothing to do with any issue per se. 20% of his supporters probably don't even know what Single Payer means they just know he's not Clinton.

    Even (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:17:21 PM EST
    if that were true, it is something to take into consideration when proposing that we vote for HRC because she would be the winner in the general.

    Many people might choose to vote for anybody but her.

    I don't think that Sanders has generated that much animosity. At least not yet.

    But that is but an attempt to answer a completely irrational comment.

    "20% of his supporters probably don't even know..."

    This is a civil website, so I can't really tall you how insulting and demeaning of your fellow commenters that little piece of verbiage is.


    An apology (1.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:44:24 PM EST
    If anyone reading this happens to be a Sanders supporter who would vote for Trump if Sanders isn't nominated, and you also know what single payer is and care about single payer as an important issue, please accept my apology.

    The article was amusing (none / 0) (#139)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:49:45 PM EST
    in that it laid out every argument against Clinton...all within the context of a premise that she is going to beat Sanders.  Her'es how horrible she is...but if she happens to beat our guy, here's how we can still drive the stake through her heart.

    Which is typical (none / 0) (#141)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:53:15 PM EST
    But I'm not supposed to call that hate I guess.  

    This is the (none / 0) (#116)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:07:45 PM EST
    link to the Salon article.

    I read the article (none / 0) (#125)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:31:21 PM EST
    He makes some good points about her policy positions, but comes to the wrong conclusion.

    Who the heck is he? I've never heard of him.


    Now that is a gamble (none / 0) (#118)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:19:58 PM EST
    He really thinks Trump would not get re-elected in 2020. Too much speculation all the way around for me, but I would not bet on that.

    What I would bet on is that Trump picks (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:21:03 PM EST
    a very plausible VP and then resigns two years into his term.

    Based on an NYT (none / 0) (#128)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:37:26 PM EST
    article about Trump's business methods, it does seem that he has a short attention span. Likes the excitement of making the deal, but tires of follow through, looks for the next challenge.

     But, I don't think he, if successful, would resign.  That would be for "losers," like Nixon.   But, I do agree that he is likely to pick a running mate who is acceptable to the establishment. Like, Kasich, who gives a cloak, of sorts, of respectability (i.e, excuse, cover) to vote for Trump (I hate that Trump guy, but Kasich is really, really good).  And, Kasich helps with the critical Ohio electoral vote.


    He will make it seem like the most yuuuge (none / 0) (#135)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:46:00 PM EST
    positive step ever. Like he found out the job was just too small to contain his genius. He has no shame.

    Kasich or Rubio. I've been predicting Rubio will the their VP nom since the beginning, but Kasich would help them to lay on that veneer of experience and respectability.


    He's sending out the trial balloon (none / 0) (#131)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:40:53 PM EST
    of picking Scott Brown. Interestingly, Brown supported the torture of detainees, but also supported a ban on assault weapons.

    Aha! I forgot about him. (none / 0) (#137)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:47:02 PM EST
    That would serve the purpose.

    So you're (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:30:16 PM EST
    seriously putting out there that Bernie Sanders support is coming from a right wing attack machine?

    Based on the quality of your own attack mode, I could say exactly that about supporters of HRC.

    But I wouldn't.

    Some, including me, believe that Sanders would be more effective in defeating the republicans. Any republican.

    There are polls to support this point of view as well.

    If you disagree, as others do, all you have to do is say so. There is no need to smear anyone.


    So (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:37:44 PM EST
    You actually think that is what this

    When the right wing attack machine was finished spending their billions of dollars on Bernie


    You're funny.


    OK. (none / 0) (#161)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:52:04 PM EST
    I get it.

    I thought you meant that they were propping him up so as to deny HRC the nomination.

    What I guess you were saying that they would defeat him in the general by spending oodles of dollars on whoever their candidate was - and they would be successful because Sanders would be a weak candidate.

    I guess that's what you were saying.

    I disagree.

    I think he would be a much stronger candidate than HRC.

    Either way, the right will be spending many millions to support candidates in both parties who they can be reasonably sure will in turn support their business interests.

    You want HRC because you think she'll win in the general.

    I do not.
    I think she's extremely vulnerable.

    I think others sense that too.
    I think that's why there was a little smoke around Biden for awhile.


    Polling data... (none / 0) (#168)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:07:30 PM EST
    Here is a link to several poll results that predict a sizable Sanders victory over Trump.


    NBC News/Wall St. Journal has Sanders winning by 15 points.

    I think that is significant.

    If you go to this page on google, there are many other links as well showing a similar result.

    Link to Google


    Bernie (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:10:35 PM EST
    Has not had a single negative ad run against him.  If you believe he has you truly do not understand what is waiting for him.

    You are entitled to your opinion.  I do not share it.  


    I do (none / 0) (#172)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:34:57 PM EST
    not share your opinion either.

    I wouldn't say you don't understand, but I think you might be underestimating the extent to which people would rather not vote for HRC.

    I also think you are overestimating the importance of negative ads.

    Recent history would suggest that going negative, as with Cruz, as with Clinton recently, both Hillary and Chelsea, can boomerang.


    Bernie's (2.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 01:56:28 AM EST
    suits don't fit, his hair is not combed and he generally looks rumpled......

    And with a little photoshopping (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 01:29:46 PM EST
    you'd be surprised at how much bigger you can make his nose look.

    Oh please, this has nothing to do (none / 0) (#142)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:53:30 PM EST
    with his nose....Nice try....but that don't work on me.....

    To each his own, but if you are going to be President, you could at least try and look the part, look a little formal....

    He looked pretty good on MTP earlier today, as I said.....



    Right , I get it.. (none / 0) (#149)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:14:46 PM EST
    FDR with his legs and a Lincoln with his marfan's syndrome and depression probably wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell running today..

    That is, unless some high-priced Machievellian image-consultants could somehow find a way to make them look like impeccably-tailored corporate shylocks or ceos..

    I think Bernie's rumpledness is somewhat calculated. It makes him look more like one of "us" and dovetails with his outsider, man-of-
    the-people message.


    And if you really want to (none / 0) (#148)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:07:21 PM EST
    go there, you would of course agree that Hillary's comments about "shouting" were not an inappropriate use of the gender card, no?

    I think Chuck Schumer looks the part; and, of course, Jamie Dimon has no peer in how he dresses and looks.....

    But isn't that the point?   If you look too good, that means you are corrupted by Wall Street?  So, looking a little less than sharp is called for?



    She Plays Clinton as Sanders Preps for Debate (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 04:14:14 AM EST
    BURLINGTON, Vt. -- The debate moderator looked at the woman in a dark pantsuit standing beside Senator Bernie Sanders and said, "Secretary Clinton, we'll give you one minute for an opening statement."

    The woman, Michaeleen Crowell, 41, is a policy wonk whose day job is chief of staff in Mr. Sanders's Senate office. But in her off hours these days, she is the senator's practice Hillary.

    "She's keeping me on my toes," Mr. Sanders said.

    Note to self (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:47:24 AM EST
    Never post on a cell phone. Oy. Sorry for the typos.

    It wasn't the typos (none / 0) (#126)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:32:44 PM EST
    Those were fine.

    guess you didn't read the part (none / 0) (#143)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:56:42 PM EST
    about namecalling and personal attacks on candidates not being allowed, Dadler. your comment has been deleted

    Excellent Post (none / 0) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:46:16 AM EST

    1968 (none / 0) (#14)
    by thomas rogan on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:48:40 AM EST
    Sanders is Gene McCarthy.  Hillary is LBJ.  Elizabeth Warren is as good as Hillary on policy without the Clinton baggage, if Hillary would only drop out.  Sanders is doing us a big favor by pushing Hillary out as McCarthy did.  Sanders will never be the nominee if Hillary drops out.  

    If Hillary drops out?. (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:55:29 AM EST
    What have you been smoking?

    Whether you agree or disagree with her policies, Hillary is one of the most tenacious people in politics. Hillary is not going to drop out.


    LOL. Yes, I am 100% with you on that Mo (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 10:18:05 AM EST
    Correct (none / 0) (#17)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:04:43 AM EST
    Even if the FBI recommends charges be brought on mishandling of classified information, Hillary will not bow out.
    She will plow ahead, just further proof of the right wing conspiracy

    I find this comment about as inane (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:17:02 AM EST
    as the one made by thomas rogan.

    IMO, your scenario is not going to happen. I know this is one of your favorite story lines but I think it will wind up in the fiction section.

    You may just have to chose between HRC and Trump in the general.


    Have you (none / 0) (#22)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:36:39 AM EST
    Seriously looked at what constitutes a violation of those laws.
    Having that material offsite, in a private server violates the law.
    Charges will be recommended, against State Department personnel, perhaps Madame Secy herself, whether the Justice Department chooses to prosecute, I tend to doubt it, but they will have a revolution on their hands from the FBI, they are already unhappy with the light treatment Petraeus received.

    It has been out of the news, because the FBI is not leaking...much, and the stories that they are now looking at Clinton Foundation. contributions just adds to the possibilities.

    Federal investigations are best to be taken seriously.


    I like to read fiction (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:58:20 AM EST
    but when it comes to politics, I prefer facts.

    Actually, Clinton is not under FBI investigation. The inquiry to which Bush refers revolves around the private email server Clinton used while serving as secretary of state.  And it is not a criminal investigation.

    Here are the facts.

    In July 2015, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community sent what is called a security referral to members of the executive branch. A security referral is essentially a notification that classified information might exist in a location outside of the government's possession. In this case, the location was Clinton's private email server.

    Soon after, the New York Times incorrectly reported that the inspectors general requested a criminal investigation into Clinton's email use -- as opposed to a security referral. But the newspaper later issued two corrections. The referral was in connection with Clinton's account, not whether Clinton herself mishandled information, and did not allege criminal activity.


    Hillary is not my candidate. Nevertheless, I don't like attacks based on distortions by her opponents any more than I like the untrue attacks against Sanders being used by HRC and her supporters.


    Mo (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 09:09:38 AM EST
    You are my favorite Sanders supporter here.  You are fair and consistent.  You do not suspect motives or IQ of this who disagree.  You are relentless but so am I .

    IMO you repeatedly make the best case for Sanders of anyone here.

    Just sayin


    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 09:18:01 AM EST
    You do a good job of discussing the in and outs of this insanity as well.

    I like reading your POV about what the Republican's around you are saying.


    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 09:22:22 AM EST
    It's not really because I like talking about republicans.  It's more that what most people around me say about democrats I could not repeat here.  Nor would it be informative since we are all to familiar with the derangement.

    Both Trump and The Bern (none / 0) (#16)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:02:32 AM EST
    Are learning.

    Someone in a earlier thread stated that both probably entered the primaries with no expectations of winning, and now find themselves with a path to the One Ring.
    And both have evolved. Trump has really toned down the most abrasive and insulting moments he previously had, The Bern has begun attacking (more policy than personal, but some Hillary supporters feel otherwise), evolving some positions where he previously might not have.
    Changes are being made to their campaigns, and style, ...because they see a path to victory.

    Trump is being propelled by a large distaste for Republican Establishment by many, too many false promises, too much pandering, and the news medias fascination with anything Trump. He receives enormous amount of free air time.

    The Bern s not getting the media attention of The Donald, but the possibility of a race on the Democratic side is exciting them. The sheer number of small donations to The Bern is impressive, and the fact that they can continue to fund him will keep him going.

    Hillary has been around for too long in the national eye, it is too tough to reinvent a persona with that political history. And she doesn't have any of the political skills of her husband, her greatest strength is on the debate stage, so I wonder why DWS and the Party Dem's thought they were protecting her with the limited debates, at the most inopportune viewing times.

    The sad fact is , there are not many honorable politicians, we are too often reconciled to voting for the least distasteful option, and perhaps, some of the voting public might be voting for their guilty pleasure as opposed to what flawed candidate might possible be best........

    Since primary season started (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 09:29:28 AM EST
    I have been recording the Sunday bobble head shows for selected surfing.

    Just heard Karl Rove say Bernie was winning because Hillary was old and tired and Bernie was fresh and new.

    The debate tonight will likely be at least as fiery as the last republican one.

    Both Hillary and Bernie (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 09:43:13 AM EST
    On MTP.  Bernie is backpedaling guns as fast as he can.  

    Why does Karl Rove (none / 0) (#51)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    Endorse Bernie?

    Rhetorical (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 12:26:20 PM EST
    I assume?   Because I could tell you.

    Did you see Bill Maher's show the other night? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 01:46:29 PM EST
    Ralph Reed and Nicole Wallace were pretty happy about Bernie's surge, that's all I'll say.

    All that tells me is that the Right (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 01:56:27 PM EST
    is starting to panic.


    I'd be nervous too if my most viable candidate was Trump.

    And the teabaggers are still utterly enamored with him. I love it.


    Really (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 03:41:57 PM EST
    That "all" that tells you?

    I'm sure thr "right" is quaking in their boots at the possibility of running against Bernie.


    The way I read it is that (none / 0) (#107)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 04:35:49 PM EST
    they think she'll get the nomination but that (they hope) Bernie will lower her stock in the meantime.

    I think that in the long run he'll wind up helping her more than he hurts her, because his critique of the Right is much more pointed and hard-hitting than any attacks he can make against Hillary.


    Did you see the exchange? (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 04:48:08 PM EST
    That was not the point.

    As far as helping or hurting that I think will depend more on what happens on the next two weeks than probably anything that's happened up until now.  

    It's about to get interesting.

    He certainly has the potential of bringing a lot of folks with hm who might not have been there without him.

    I hope it works out that way.


    If you saw it.. the look on their faces was more (none / 0) (#113)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 04:54:30 PM EST
    like that of the drowning ax murderer being tossed a lifeline by his next victim.

    Very descriptive. (none / 0) (#150)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:17:59 PM EST
    Much Ado About ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 10:49:20 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton leads rival Bernie Sanders by 25 points nationally ahead of Sunday's final Democratic debate and the all-important Iowa caucuses, according to the latest results from the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    The debate will air on NBC at 9:00 pm ET.

    Clinton is the first choice of 59 percent of Democratic primary voters, while Sanders gets the support of 34 percent. Martin O'Malley gets 2 percent.

    Those numbers don't differ greatly from December, when the poll showed Clinton with a 19-point national advantage over Sanders, 56 percent to 37 percent.

    But Clinton's current 25-point lead contrasts with other recent national polling, including a New York Times/CBS survey, which found Clinton with just a seven-point advantage.

    The NBC/WSJ poll screens out Democratic and Republican voters who aren't expected to participate in the presidential primaries and caucuses.


    One poll number that's been going around (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 11:00:29 AM EST
    EVERYWHERE is the recent one that said 47% would vote for a socialist.  The way it's being breathlessly reposted retweeted and repeated you would almost think it's not understood that 50%+1 is necessary to win.

    I think the point of that is to demonstrate (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 01:41:33 PM EST
    that Sanders' Democratic Socialism isn't the scary thing the so-called experts declared it would be.

    Which is not to say that if he were to be the nominee, that the GOP wouldn't put that issue front and center in the way only the GOP can do, but it isn't like Sanders hasn't had a few years of practice batting down that sort of fear-mongering.

    What will really bother me is if Clinton takes it up as an issue; I think that will hurt her more than it hurts him.


    You're right (2.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:00:34 PM EST
    Bernie would viciously smear every dem who has ever taken a penny from Wall Street and if Clinton fired back attacking him as a socialist, the media would make sure that hurts her.

    more and more ridiculous (none / 0) (#156)
    by sj on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:36:56 PM EST
    The last person to engage in a smearing campaign is Bernie Sanders. If you had read anything you would know that.

    Not that it would matter (none / 0) (#165)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:05:28 PM EST
    You know explaining this to a Bernie supporter...

    When it comes to dog whistling issues and stuff I know exactly what his last ad meant and if Bernie said "I will make publically funded elections" law of the land well that'd be great.  Attack that issue from that angle by all means!

    But I know what he meant in that ad and no one on tv or on a comment forum is going to tell me that ad wasn't an attack, yes, a vicious attack on ALL Democrats who have, at any time in their career, taken money from Wall Street industries.

    Let's put it this way... If that ad wasn't what I'm saying it was, then you tell me an alternative interpretation?  Was it just a polite suggestion Dems are the puppets of Wall Street?


    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by sj on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:07:20 PM EST
    I, like lady Z, am done with you.

    I'm glad (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 03:43:11 PM EST
    To allow Hillary decide what hurts her.

    On the media and Bernie (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 11:55:21 AM EST
    Both Hillary and Bernie were both on (I think) every Sunday show.

    I would challenge everyone commenting here to watch those interviews and then tell me if you think the questions were more aggressive with Hllary.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#52)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 12:07:40 PM EST
    speculation, but not responsive to the content of Jeralyn's post above.

    yes that's off topic (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:01:41 PM EST
    Sorry folks (none / 0) (#57)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 12:21:18 PM EST
    I appreciate that I found one place on the internet that's not consumed by its hate for Clintons but it's exactly the fact that I could only find one such place that leads me to the conclusion that Clinton never had a chance.

    While still a bemused onlooker the only thing that seems regrettable is that over the next 8 years many women (including my mom) will pass away never seeing a woman become president in this country.

    We saw this movie in 2008.  It is what it is.

    Just asking... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:22:00 PM EST
    but do you equate interest or support for Sanders with a hatred of Hillary Clinton?

    I don't.

    If she wants my vote, she could adopt some of Sanders political positions.

    And mean it.


    I do pretty much (none / 0) (#85)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:36:37 PM EST
    Case in point the same wing of the party hated her in 2008 therefore they adopted Obamas healthcare plan which was incremental.

    Now the same wing of the party has adopted Bernie's plan which is single payer and universal.

    Whats the common factor here, that wing hates Clintons, issues dont matter.

    Maybe that wing of the party should adopt an issue, and mean it.  Aside from just hating Clintons, I mean.


    What you (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 04:32:51 PM EST
    are writing is rather contemptible.

    The only person talking about hating anyone is you.


    Well maybe not hate (none / 0) (#109)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 04:41:40 PM EST
    But it's certainly not about the issue, otherwise everyone who supported ACA approach to health care during 2008 primary would support it now.

    I've seen some pretty strong language on the Internet, the C word even used by self described progressives.

    I think it's hate.


    If you think (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by sj on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 06:45:33 PM EST
    the Obama supporters of yesteryear and the current Sanders supporters are one and the same you are as delusional as I had concluded.

    For the record, in 2008 I was a Clinton supporter. As were many here. Supporting Sanders doesn't give me immediately give me CDS. I am well aware of her many gifts.

    But her priorities and mine are no longer in alignment. Or, more correctly, are nowhere close to being in alignment as my priorities and those of Sanders.

    I have long since conceded that I will probably never be in agreement with any President's foreign policy. I don't buy into American exceptionalism. So my focus is always on domestic issues.

    So Sanders it is.

    But the stuff you're writing? Instead of making up cr@p to smear her opponent you would be better off making her case. Lots of others here do.


    A lot of overlap yes (2.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:25:15 PM EST
    Nice to hear from an outlier.

    Again you see here's the problem about smearing.  You don't see something like Bernie's latest ad to be smearing Democrats but I most certainly do.  To sum up the ad: if you take donations from Wall Street then you are one of Wall Street's puppets helping Wall Street screw over Americans.

    If there's an alternative interpretation, let's hear it.

    Anyway so I was happy to find out an hour ago Bernie stopped his assault on the Dem party long enough to let us know how much our taxes will go up to fund single payer.  Now I just need to know how long I'll be paying that tax before I see any of the benefits of single payer.


    As (none / 0) (#123)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 05:29:45 PM EST
    a person who routinely accuses many here of CDS, I think you are being way to harsh. I have probably accused them of being haters, but in my heart I know that 99% of Bernie's supporters are just not that type of people, and despite their rhetoric,  hold no real hatred in their hearts.

    I have studied CDS for years and have noted that it affects different populations in different ways. It causes pure unmitigated hatred on the right, obsessive-compulsive behaviour and myopic tunnel vision in the press and an intense allergic reaction on the left.

    Hopefully by next November, after treatment with "fear of Republican salve"(and clothespins) they will be to vote for her.


    Bernie as president (none / 0) (#74)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:03:27 PM EST
    Onward and upward, to respond to that part of this post .... Not to just pick fights with everyone LOL, but it's what I think just another opinion.... I think there's too much at stake at the presidential level, Bernie might not care about anything but wall street and finance but there's enough people involved at the executive level to take care of other things and Bernie will sign off on them...

    Basically just following on my groundhog day 2008 theme what it means is I think Bernie like Obama will be an effective president. But that does mean increments. There will be no revolution and while I also predict he will be an effective president, someone like me will be defending his legacy to the Overton window pushers who will grow to hate him too if only to keep pushing that window,....

    Except for one thing.... The waving shaking hands, the quivering lips, and the hunch.... I can't square that.... Those kinds of things (for better or worse) won't help him in the international arena.  And state of the union speeches will be, well, slightly embarrassing although no one will probably say so.

    Oh well.  Just wanted to say I think he'll be an effective president, the downside being his supporters dont want just an effective president, they want REVOLUTION!

    la resistance!

    Revolution (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:30:48 PM EST
    does not have to involve shooting people.

    And the founders of this country advocated it.
    Jefferson wrote:


    he spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.

    God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed.

    What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

    That used to be what was considered "American'.

    Now, we are content to have our rights taken from us, to have our children taken from us to fight in wars for oil and power, and in exchange, they promise to protect us.

    The American Revolutionary spirit has been replaced by an update of the protection racket.
    The practitioners are the same, and the victims are the same.


    With all due respect to Mr Jefferson (none / 0) (#86)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:51:57 PM EST
    If you want rebellion,....

    Create a tripartite government with so many checks and balances.

    Install a king that gets overthrown every 20 years.

    I like his thoughts but I often wonder what he would have written in the wake of the horrors of the French revolution. It's an interesting topic.


    Wow. Dog whistle? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 03:25:50 PM EST
    Except for one thing.... The waving shaking hands, the quivering lips, and the hunch.... I can't square that.... Those kinds of things (for better or worse) won't help him in the international arena.  And state of the union speeches will be, well, slightly embarrassing although no one will probably say so.

    Or just obnoxiousness?


    The post above alluded (none / 0) (#91)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 03:40:14 PM EST
    To this issue.  And I think it's a valid issue, nobody ever said anything but if anyone was so inclined (and typically I so would NOT be inclined) one could pull a screen capture of a certain moment in the last debate, and in the screen capture you would see a drop of spit hanging from Bernie's bottom lip.

    So far the media has decided that that is firy and passionate, and I am hopeful that spin will continue thoughout the general election.

    We do know how a woman would be treated if she displayed the same optics.


    On the other hand... (none / 0) (#171)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:23:18 PM EST
    According to a new poll by Quinnipiac University on Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) destroys Republican candidate Donald Trump in a general election by 13 percentage points. In this new poll, Sanders has 51 percent to Trump's 38 percent. If this margin held in a general election, Democrats would almost certainly regain control of the United States Senate and very possibly the House of Representatives.

    This argument - vote for the person you think could defeat Trump - should be retired.

    Vote for the person who you feel best represents your views on issues of importance to you.

    That's what I will do (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by sj on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 09:25:39 PM EST
    Vote for the person who you feel best represents your views on issues of importance to you.
    Having said that, I think everyone should vote their conscience. If their conscience says that they should vote for the person that they think could defeat Trump, that is how they should vote.

    Once (none / 0) (#182)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:33:23 PM EST
    again, Hypothetical head to heads are about the most worthless polls that exist.

    Howdy is right, if anything it's driven by these(slightly more useful)polls
    Bernie's unfavorables are lower than anybodies, but  his favorables are also low indicating that not many people even know that much about him. There has been virtually nothing put out by the media or the Republicans driving up the unfavs. Even Hillary has done little more than sniping so far.

    I am absolutely certain that both numbers will rise and hypothetical head to heads will remain wildly inaccurate.

    Frankly electability arguments at this time are all merely navel gazing, based on personal opinions of the relative prowess of a candidate and a WAG about the mood of the electorate a couple of political lifetimes from now.