home

Clooney and Friends Raise Huge Amount for Hillary and Dems

Bernie Sanders is bent out of shape because George Cloony and other Hollywood stars and bigwigs raised millions for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party this weekend. He really just wishes Clooney had chosen him.

Clooney agreed the amount of money raised is obscene, but he's not apologizing. [More...]

While a portion of the event’s proceeds were directly allocated to Clinton’s campaign funds and potential general election campaign, the rest of the “Victory Fund” was donated to the Democratic National Convention and other Democratic parties at the state level. Instead of raising money with the sole intention of getting a specific candidate in office, Clooney says the majority of money raised will benefit Democratic candidates at all levels of office.

“We need to take the Senate back because we need to confirm a supreme court justice," Clooney tells NBC, "because that fifth vote on the supreme court can overturn Citizens United and get this obscene, ridiculous amount of money out so I never have to do a fundraiser again.”

As for the "Bernie" movement, Slate's senior political analyst explains why there is no Bernie movement.

The truth is, Sanders is less an innovator than a beneficiary of favorable political and technological trends. And for as much as he has pressured Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment—forcing both to account for past policies, pulling their positions to the left, and denying them a chance to move to the center for a general election—there’s no indication that his influence will last beyond the campaign. History suggests it won’t: The energy generated by the most remarkable election-year movement in recent memory—the 2008 Obama campaign—dissipated in the aftermath of his victory.

....as much as Sanders and his most vocal supporters identify themselves as outside the party system, the only way a real Sanders movement can make change is to take an active role within that system. Voting is too imprecise to send a message or make a statement, and withholding a vote does nothing to persuade or build influence. (Who in the Democratic Party solicits Ralph Nader for advice and aid?) Sanders supporters who want to move the Democratic Party to the ideological left need to become Sanders Democrats, political actors who participate in the system as it exists. To win a lasting victory—to define the ideological terms of Democratic Party politics—the people inspired by Sanders need to do more than beat the establishment; they need to become it.

The New York Primary is just days away. Bernie's unlikely to take the hint, no matter how decisive the win is for Hillary.

< Thursday Night Open Thread | The Evolving Global Drug War >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This fundraiser (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 17, 2016 at 08:15:15 PM EST
    is important for states like GA to help the party come back.

    And may it help Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Towanda on Sun Apr 17, 2016 at 09:13:43 PM EST
    win with Feingold, again.

    Parent
    We need to get Russ back (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 07:22:12 AM EST
    And flip GA!

    Parent
    Recently (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Nemi on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 07:50:55 AM EST
    I came across this site and at the bottom found Russ Feingold. That reminded me of when I first came to TalkLeft in 2008 and got engaged in and learned about the election, how popular he was among TL-commenters.

    I sincerely hope that he doesn't stay there ... at the bottom. :)

    Parent

    It is sooo maddening that of the two pols (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 10:35:07 AM EST
    that come from the same part of Wisconsin, Paul Ryan instead of Russ Feingold is the one in power right now.

    Need to get Russ back in the Senate.

    Parent

    i'd have to agree with Mr. Clooney and (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 02:57:36 AM EST
    those protesters, the amount of money required to run for state/national office these days is obscene. however, don't blame it all on Citizens United, it was already starting to get out of hand long before that case was litigated. Citizens United simply provided a sole, identifiable target to blame it on, and certainly did result in those amounts getting more obscene faster.

    one problem with the protesters, and supporters of Sen. Sanders in general: while they raise valid points, not one of them has proposed a workable solution, not one. not even the good Sen. hisownself. I was always taught that, if you identify a problem, you should already have a potential solution in hand, before you raise your hand in the meeting. apparently, these folks haven't gotten the word.

    Another (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Nemi on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 06:01:45 AM EST
    of Bernie Sanders' all too many unveiled, more aggressive than passive, personal attacks on Hillary Clinton from the link to CSMonitor:

    "[George Clooney] is honest enough to say that there is something wrong when few people - in this case, wealthy individuals, but in other instances for the secretary, it is Wall Street and powerful special interests - who are able to contribute unbelievably large sums of money," Sanders said Sunday in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash. "This is the issue of American politics today. Do we have a government that represents all of us, or only the 1%?"

    Apart from the tiresome broken-record yada-yada-yada, he manages to yet again call Hillary Clinton dishonest. Logic certainly isn't his strong side but who cares when he repeatedly can get from a to ... z (as in getting from: The man Clooney is honest to: The woman Clinton is not!) in a split second, logic be damned. It's honestly(!) quite baffling to observe.

    And as for the quote from a 29-year-old male protester in the Guardian?

    Bernie's actually for the people, Hillary's just bought and sold.

    That's not only what every Bernie fan will chant even if you wake him up in the middle of the night, it is also the sort of thing - and much worse! - you'll see in Guardian articles and not least in Guardian's comments, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. They really, really love Bernie Sanders and really, really despise Hillary Clinton at that site. And it's apparent that the commenting rules and moderation of derogatory comments doesn't apply to comments about Hillary Clinton. It's really a sad state of affairs. And disheartening.

    Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 06:26:17 AM EST
    supporters are doing great huge damage to him and his campaign. Just looks like the only people that support him are a bunch of wackos.

    Parent
    It appears (none / 0) (#7)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 06:33:16 AM EST
    That the Occupy Wall Street has found their political voice.
    They have attached themselves to the Sanders campaign,
    But make no mistake, they are beholden to no candidate, it is the ideas.

    I don't think Sanders has much control over them, they just attached themselves to the Sanders campaign

    Parent

    He can (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 07:41:25 AM EST
    condemn what they are doing but he has not. He's afraid I guess to say anything or he likes what they are doing. Take your pick. This episode is a perfect example of why people like you and Republicans in general are fluffing and pushing Sanders.

    Parent
    They will turn on him (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by djork on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 11:36:48 AM EST
    when he concedes the nomination and endorses Hillary.

    Parent
    Probably (none / 0) (#110)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 06:44:57 PM EST
    But it does look like that portion of the Sanders voting bloc will not vote for Madame Sec.


    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#9)
    by Nemi on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 07:39:30 AM EST
    at least the louder ones, as for example the protesters outside the fundraiser, certainly seem to fit that description. As George Clooney explains in the video - btw nice to learn that Hollywood stardom doesn't necessarily exclude neither intelligence nor knowledge :) - he went over and tried to talk to them, only to be told that he was a 'corporate shill'(!), and then the protester deviated from the manuscript and added "And you sucked as Batman."

    LolSob.

    Parent

    What (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 07:43:28 AM EST
    a bunch of idiots.

    Parent
    The throwing of dollar (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 08:32:07 AM EST
    bills at Hillary was despicable....and only something that white privilege would dream up.

    Parent
    Can you imagine (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 08:56:48 AM EST
    if Bernie was the nominee? The GOP would have a freaking field day with this kind of stuff.

    But I'm sure the same people are fine with Bernie spending hundreds of thousands of their donations on him going to the Vatican to stalk the pope and deliver yet another rendition of his stump speech that nobody listened to.

    Parent

    dumb question (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by mm on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 09:01:02 AM EST
    But is Sanders allowed to charge this family trip to Rome to his campaign?

    How is that even possible.  Is there a primary at the Vatican that I haven't heard about?

    Parent

    Supposedly (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 11:32:54 AM EST
    he's not supposed to be using campaign funds for essentially what is a business/pleasure trip for him and his family.

    Parent
    He's poooooor. Who paid? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ExPatObserver on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 11:45:12 AM EST
    It would be ImmmAWWWRRRAL to use campaign funds for this trip.

    Parent
    There are stunts, and (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 03:30:52 PM EST
    then, there are stunts. Throwing dollar bills at a woman seeking voters at the polls, as if to a woman working the poles, is more in line with actions of a stunted adolescent male than a creative campaign stunt. Even if the idea was to graphically illustrate the Wall Street message of the Sanders' campaign, its sexist instinct is revelatory.  Sanders' supporters seem to have more blinders than Romney had binders.

    Parent
    Kind of a How Dare That Woman (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 05:15:14 PM EST
    On a nearby thread, there was commentary about Anita Hill and the whole so-called "hearing" on the Clarence Thomas nomination.  I'm reminded again about the how-dare-she sense of that time in the 1990s when a young black woman attorney testified about the character of a man ... imo, when a woman publicly told the truth about that particular person and, in retaliation for her courage & straightforwardness under oath, she was mocked by Senate inquisitors.  

    Why does so much of what appears to be happening now as to the unsubstantiated name-calling flung at Hillary Clinton, the ongoing seemingly special rules with a higher standard for HRC than any number of past presidents or candidates, and even the childish money flinging episode of yesterday hit people like me so hard.  One possible answer is the degree of anger behind that kind of BS calls to mind not just the treatment of Anita Hill, but also conjures up history's tales of witch trials.  Yes, I also remember when Barbara Bush referred to Democratic VP candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, as something that rhymed with "witch."  

    How dare that woman, indeed.  Then again, here's hoping it will be similar to a reply made by Denver's never-forgotten Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder who, when questioned about where a woman's place should be, answered with "A woman's place is in the House."  She meant Congress--where she represented us for 24 years; for Hillary Clinton, that House will be the White House.

    Parent

    Yes, I, too, (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 05:36:27 PM EST
    was drawn back to "Confirmation," by that stunt. The senators, then,  had a blind eye to the idea of sexual harassment--that was just what many men did and Professor Hill just did not understand. After all, who among them did not give a friendly pat to the waitress.  

    So, too, with the dollar bills. a blind eye to the sexist implications.  Just a pat...campaign theater.  Like throwing dollars at the erotic dancer, or even pennies, if of disappointing pulchritude.  And, this is a Democratic primary, to boot.

    Parent

    Abbie Hoffman threw dollar bills (none / 0) (#116)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 09:47:38 PM EST
    from the observers' gallery onto the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in 1967. It was one of the Yippies' first protest actions.

    Parent
    White privilege.. (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:08:58 PM EST
    as opposed to the expressions of solidarity with common working people like multi-million dollar royal weddings, sucking up to Goldman Sachs, and vacationing with the Kissinger's and Oscar de la Renta while thousands of people are losing their jobs and their homes.

    Parent
    Or even just hanging out in Vermont (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:10:39 PM EST
    doing nothing.

    Parent
    I think George Clooney should run.. (2.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 11:47:34 AM EST
    judging by their public statements, he has more of a grasp of the potential corrupting effects on American democracy of the Citizens United decision than Hillary does.

    Parent
    That is untrue, and I find it hard to (5.00 / 8) (#68)
    by caseyOR on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 01:48:21 PM EST
    believe you do not know that.

    Clinton has been publicly protesting that damn Citizens' United decision since it was handed down. Have you conveniently forgotten the background on that case? Do you not remember the original acronym for Citizens United?

    Try getting your facts straight before popping off.

    Parent

    Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Nemi on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 05:13:53 PM EST
    on campaign finance reform: Our democracy should work for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected. Dated September 8, 2015. She will

    Overturn Citizens United. Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who value the right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections. She'll push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United in order to restore the role of everyday voters in elections.

    End secret, unaccountable money in politics. Hillary will push for legislation to require outside groups to publicly disclose significant political spending. And until Congress acts, she'll sign an executive order requiring federal government contractors to do the same. Hillary will also promote an SEC rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose political spending to shareholders.

    Amplify the voices of everyday Americans. Hillary will establish a small-donor matching system for presidential and congressional elections to incentivize small donors to participate in elections, and encourage candidates to spend more time engaging a representative cross-section of voters.

    But what does she know. I'm sure both George Clooney and Bernie Sanders has a much better understanding of the problem than her, and the latter has a much better plan?

    Parent

    Funny thing (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 05:50:46 PM EST
    is Bernie's ideas are pretty much the same
    only appoint Supreme Court justices who will make it a priority to overturn Citizens United and who understand that corruption in politics means more than just quid pro quo.
    Fight to pass a constitutional amendment making it clear that Congress and the states have the power to regulate money in elections. I have been a proud sponsor and leading champion of such an amendment in the Senate.
    Fight for a publicly financed, transparent system of campaign financing that amplifies small donations, along the lines of the Fair Elections Now Act that I have been pleased to co-sponsor, and an effective public financing system for president.
    Insist on complete transparency regarding the funding of campaigns, including through disclosure of contributions to outside spending groups, via legislation, action by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Election Commission, and Federal Communication Commission, and an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their political spending.
    Fight to eliminate super PACs and other outside spending abuses.
    Work to aggressively enforce campaign finance rules.
     More words, but it sure sounds like they are on the same page, but Bernie is always trying to infer that he alone is fighting big money in politics and that of course Hillary is lying.

    Parent
    The logic appears to be that (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Farmboy on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 08:48:40 AM EST
    Clooney's fundraising in 2016 corrupted Clinton while she was in the Senate - ten years ago.

    Obama's time machine strikes again!

    Parent

    Sanders apparently said (none / 0) (#14)
    by sallywally on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 08:40:27 AM EST
    Clooney is supporting the "wrong candidate."

    Parent
    Yes, but not only that (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Nemi on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 11:41:06 AM EST
    in the video above, George Clooney - who, as every single public figure in support of Hillary Clinton I ever heard or read does, praises Bernie Sanders and says he likes him - is asked why he choses Hillary over Bernie. Apparently hard to grasp for any pundit? Why chose the wonky, experienced woman over an allegedly(?) 'likeable', grumpy man, seems to be their puzzlement.

    I so get it when Melissa McEwan says about a piece she wrote for BNR:

    The scariest part of submitting that piece for me is that there are no caveats. No obligatory "I know she's not perfect" or "I don't agree with her about everything." These things are true, but I wanted to be able to write one damn piece where I can say I'm fond of and grateful to her without apology. Because I am tired of having to reflexively say that my candidate isn't perfect, in a way no one else is obliged to do for their candidate, just because the candidate I support is a woman who is held to unreasonable expectations of perfection.

    And I've recently come to pretty much the same conclusion as her when it comes to debating the election, that

    If people don't know or believe by now that I'm not a mindless cheerleader, they're never going to. And obliging me to constantly acknowledge her failures in order to defend myself, as the cost of saying anything positive about her, doesn't serve either one of us. That's a game I no longer want to play.


    Parent
    Well said Mr. Clooney... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 09:39:44 AM EST
    I, for one, appreciate the honesty in regards to the obscenity of how we elect our government.

    Reasonable people can disagree on who's the best candidate, all things considered...it is unreasonable to pretend the big money game isn't having an adverse effect on our country.

    Bernie supporters (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve13209 on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 10:56:08 AM EST
    are relegated to posting vague comments to avoid being lambasted by the pro-Hillary mob here.

    Anyone read this Bloomberg article about the Hillary Victory Fund, that is raising all this money?

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-03/clinton-rakes-in-millions-through-state-channe ls


    Parent

    Don't take it personal... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 11:25:52 AM EST
    it's silly season Steve.

    I read it best somewhere, I don't remember...the Democratic choice boils down to this.  Do you want someone who can work the existing machine as good as anybody, or do you want somebody to try to improve the design of the existing machine before it breaks?

    I want a new design, hence I'm for Sanders.  That's too scary and unpredictable for some people, where as the existing machine is what scares the daylights outta me.

    Parent

    I, too, want a new design, my (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by caseyOR on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:03:51 PM EST
    friend. My political beliefs put me well to the left of most people in the U.S. So, one would peg me as a Sanders supporter, right? As you know they would be wrong. Clinton has my vote.

    Why not Sanders? Because I do not believe, based on everything I have heard him say in this campaign, that Sanders has anything approaching a new design. Demanding, yelling about blowing things up, complete destruction without also providing the plan for what and how to rebuild, without apparently, any idea what the new design will be, is reckless and irresponsible.

    At the beginning of this campaign Sanders could have had my vote. I was torn between Clinton and Sanders. Clinton because having followed her long career I know that she is neither a she-devil nor a corporate tool, but is, in fact, far more liberal than people are willing to believe. Sanders because I am a believer in a new design for the system. I thought he had something to back up his rhetoric. I waited. Crickets from Sanders are how he would actually govern. No hint from Sanders that he realizes that slogans are not enough.

    Clinton is a serious policy wonk. I appreciate that. She drills down into an issue until she knows it inside and out and then she proposes policies, fleshed out policies. And she has the intellectual honesty to change her mind and revise her position when there is new information or the situation changes. I would bet you have read  little to none of the policy speeches and papers she has delivered during this campaign. An actual well-thought out plan cannot be conveyed by a pithy slogan and does not make for a snappy headline.

    If you really want a new design study up on Clinton. If you just want a chance to throw some bombs stay with Sanders.

    Parent

    Her policy positions... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:22:09 PM EST
    sound good, they don't go far enough for my liking, and her neocon-ish foreign policy positions are still troubling. But domestically her positions are more attainable than Sanders grander plans, agreed.  And Sanders is short on specifics, fair point.

    My problem is, how much of Clinton's positions are due to Sanders surprisingly making a race of thing, and how much are sincere.  Say what you will about Sanders, but he's pretty much been the same pol since he was elected mayor of Burlington, Hillary is much more all over the place over the course of her political career.

    Now I know some will say my trust issues with Clinton are due to over 20 years of GOP propaganda...but I think that's bullsh*t.  There is plenty on the record to make one question her sincerity that has nothing to do with GOP lies. And I'll never be comfortable with the Wall St. money no matter how it is justified as necessary.

    Parent

    Should Sanders win the nomination (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by caseyOR on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:39:52 PM EST
    will you refuse to vote for him in November when he bows to the inevitable and takes all that filthy lucre from Wall Street and wherever else he can get it to fund a general election campaign that will require a billion dollars?

    Parent
    Good question... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:49:28 PM EST
    I would hope he would not accept the funds, and instead ask the people for 27 bucks and get creative...should he accept the DNC dirty roll, I'll have a tough decision to make.

    If he starts giving paid speeches to banksters, I'm out faster than you can say Brooklyn Boy Gone Bad.

    Parent

    So by your theory (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 02:09:30 PM EST
    and Bernie's, is because she took money (as a private citizen, no less), she is beholden to Wall Street (we'll ignore, as Bernie does, that she also took money for speeches given in things like the tech industry, and community colleges, and such).

    So, politicians who take money are automatically corrupt and beholden to those who gave it?

    Guess that makes Bernie beholden to Hillary, since he took $10,000 from her (eeevilll) Super Pac, so he could win his 2006 Senate race.

    I feel the "but...but..." excuses coming on as I type this.

    Parent

    Well come on...obviously he is not going (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 01:04:18 PM EST
    to give paid speeches to bankers while he is running. Almost as obvious, he is not someone they would offer money to hear speak, for a multitude of reasons.

    Parent
    I meant after the loss... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 01:07:28 PM EST
    if he does a Goldman chat after losing the nom, he's dead to me!

    Believe it or not, there is a very very small band of bankers/financiers with a conscience supporting Sanders.  They just can't be too vocal about it, for obvious reasons...ya think fishcamp has it bad at his gym, imagine how those bankers feel at work!

    Parent

    C'mon, kdog, support for Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by caseyOR on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 01:44:54 PM EST
    does not equal lack of a conscience.

    Parent
    Who said that? (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 02:23:27 PM EST
    Not me...the Bankers for Bernie gave that as a reason for supporting Bernie despite what it may mean for their industry.

    I know you have a conscience, silly :)

    Parent

    Thank you. :-) (none / 0) (#75)
    by caseyOR on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 02:25:20 PM EST
    You really thought.. (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 02:37:23 PM EST
    I'd swab the deck of a pirate ship whose Captain had no conscience?  Don't make me mutiny! lol

    Parent
    OK, I getcha (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 02:42:16 PM EST
    But can't the bankers with a conscience sign him up to do a speech? Do you expect Sanders to donate all of his time after the election?

    Parent
    I expect him to serve in the Senate... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 02:46:26 PM EST
    for as long as he wants, then retire to Vermont and enjoy his grandkids.

    I would be shocked if parlays public service into millions in the private sector like other public servants too routinely do.

    Parent

    Yes, he probably could have (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 03:20:26 PM EST
    done that before if that is what he was interested in. I do give him credit for that.

    Parent
    He (none / 0) (#93)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 04:31:33 PM EST
    has been on the DSCC's dirty roll for a decade already. Go back to Stein.

    Parent
    You know, Sanders had no problem (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by caseyOR on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:47:56 PM EST
    taking Clinton's filthy money to help fund his Senate race. He accepted $10,000 from HillPac, Clinton's PAC when he ran for the seat vacated by Jim Jeffords.  

    Perhaps for Sanders the cleanliness of Wall Street money is determined by whose campaign it is funding.

    Parent

    10 Grand... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 02:24:29 PM EST
    I can handle...when you add 2,3,4 zeroes to the end of ten grand, I get nervous.  Call me crazy.

    Parent
    As they (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 04:33:02 PM EST
    say "the cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter".

    Parent
    So, you agree (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 05:25:33 PM EST
    If HRC taking money, makes her a (not very nice word for sex worker) according to some Bernie supporters, then that should make Bernie one too, albeit a much cheaper one, right?

    Parent
    As you wish, Sahib. You're crazy. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 05:49:58 PM EST
    "We are like sheep without a shepherd.
    We don't know how to be alone,
    So we wander 'round this desert
    And wind up following the wrong gods home.
    But the flock cries out for another,
    And they keep answering that bell.
    And one more starry-eyed messiah
    Meets a violent farewell.
    Learn to be still."
    -- The Eagles, "Learn to Be Still," Hell Freezes Over (1995)

    For people who insist that they want to see change happen, kdog, you and others seem to be doing your absolute damnedest to perpatuate the continued self-marginalization of the political left in our country. These unreasonable and unrealistic demands for political perfection from candidates can only further ensure that the present status quo, crumbling though it may be, remains in place and listing to port.

    I'm sorry, but while I like Bernie Sanders and appreciate what he's accomplished by moving the intraparty conversation to left of center where we need to be, I see nothing in him that's either new or refreshing. That's because I'm now old enough to have borne witness to repeated variations of his candidacy and campaign, in every single contested Democratic primary season since 1968.

    Simply put, Bernie is swimming against the same political rip tides which eventually pulled under Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Gary Hart, Paul Simon, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich, along with their respective campaigns.

    Bold Truthtellers one and all, I'll grant you. Yet nary a single one of them made it to the finals save for McGovern in 1972, and lots of Democrats remember what subsequently happened to him.

    Perhaps, kdog, when liberals such as yours truly reach our age at 50-plus, we inevitably come across as old and jaded fuddy-duddies to those of subsequent generations. But more than likely, the primary reason many of us support Hillary Clinton is because at some point in our own respective youthful lives, we probably joined the revolution ourselves, so we've been there and done that.

    Therefore from our own perspective, as was sadly the case in those bygone days of yore, Bernie's revolution isn't likely to happen, either. Rather, not unlike old football coaches, we've come to see and appreciate Hillary Clinton's sound ground game with progress measured three to four yards at a time, because we've learned from sometimes bitter experience what generally becomes of teams which are dependent upon the Hail Mary for their success.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    kdog -- Did you support Obama in 2008? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Cashmere on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 05:03:24 PM EST
    kdog -- Did you support Obama in 2008?

    If so, were you OK with his acceptance of Wall Street money?  Did you support Obama over Hillary because she had a track record and he did not have a track record?  Did you support Obama over Hillary because of the Iraq war vote?  I'm really curious, and also have no idea if you did support Obama in 2008... again, just curious.

    Parent

    I believe kdog voted for Stein, not (none / 0) (#113)
    by caseyOR on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 08:10:11 PM EST
    Obama or Clinton.

    Parent
    Thanks for this caseyOR (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by smott on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 04:24:36 PM EST
    I flipped Indie in 2008 but held my nose and voted for Obama.
    In 2012 I voted Jill Stein as I am in PA and there was no risk...but I am admitting now what I knew deep down then, that I was just relying on others to do my job for me and vote Dem.

    Romney was no more acceptable to me then, than Trump or Cruz is now, but I will not rely on others again.

    If you're truly willing to burn the village down, I would ask that you think about others who are unable to suffer that. Even if you can.

    Parent

    Does anyone know (none / 0) (#134)
    by sallywally on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 10:19:12 AM EST
    What the new design may look like?

    Parent
    Not scary at all (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:07:56 PM EST
    But this is a machine that needs to be fixed from the bottom up. The POTUS is not the one that can fix the machine. He/she has a different job once elected.

    Parent
    I don't know if I agree with that... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:26:02 PM EST
    yes, change comes from the ground up, but I believe a bold statement like electing a President Sanders can spur that ground-up change and help speed it along.

    It would be a tremendous statement...that alone has my vote.  You're talking to a protest voter since 2000 remember.

    Parent

    I look at all Obama has had to deal (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:36:31 PM EST
    with in the last 7 years, and I think reforming the entire political system on top of it would have been a lot to ask. I just don't expect that out of the president. Doing what he can to help it instead of hinder it, yes. If Hillary is quashing egalitarian reforms, then I'll look at alternatives in 2020.

    I know we disagree on the merits of using a POTUS vote to make a statement. I just don't think that is what it is for, but it is your vote to use as you wish, and I know you look at all sides to make up your m ind. That's all anyone can ask of a voter.

    Parent

    Likewise sister... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:51:49 PM EST
    if they were all like you and Casey (and Clooney), this campaign would be a lot easier to stomach.  Same goes for the Nasty Normans in Camp Sanders.

    I do try to check myself, and not get carried away, believe it or not!  At the end of the day, we're all on the same page pretty much.

    Parent

    Getting (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:55:10 PM EST
    Sanders elected president would do nothing. The GOP would sit there and investigate his background for four years and then he would be kicked out of office for 1. his baggage and 2. his inability to get anything done. The GOP might prefer Sanders as president for that very reason. They think they can stymie him for 4 years. Top down "revolutions" like Sanders is proposing have a history of being a disaster. He wants to blow everything up much like the tea party does but has no idea how to put it back together.

    Parent
    I held the same beliefs as you (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by vml68 on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 02:42:08 PM EST
    on the protest vote till a few years ago. Now, not so much.

    As someone said to me, all the "my conscience is clear" people are relying on the "morally corrupt" democrats to be practical and vote to make sure the Republicans don't win.
    So, unless your protest vote means you are totally fine if the outcome is the Republican Party wins instead of the Democrats, you are basically just relying on someone else to do the "dirty work" so you can feel morally superior.  

    Also, all the "protest vote/my conscience is clear" people might want to consider if that is really true if the Republicans win and continue decimating the rights of women, minorities, etc.

    And, as for the argument that the person lives in a blue state so it is ok to protest vote, again you are relying on others to make it safe for you to do so. IMO, a protest vote says that not only is the person willing to take the chance that he/she will get f*cked, he is also willing to f*ck every one else  .

    I don't mean to pick on you Mr K. Everyone has a right to vote the way they please but I am getting sick and tired of hearing from people how they are just too good to hold their nose and vote for the "Corporate wh0re" Clinton if St. Bernie does not win the nomination.

    Parent

    I don't know V... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 02:51:58 PM EST
    obviously I prefer Democrats to Republicans, like preferring the flu to pneumonia...but what I'd prefer most is for all those who vote for the corporate whores to join in the protest vote, at which point it's not a protest anymore but a winner!  Sanders is the closest we've come to that yet in my lifetime, which is very exciting for 2020 and beyond.

    I don't expect others to vote D to allow me to feel good about myself, not at all.  I will feel good about my vote regardless of how anybody else votes or who wins.  

    Parent

    This does not make sense to me at all, Kdog. (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by vml68 on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 03:30:47 PM EST
    I'd prefer most is for all those who vote for the corporate whores to join in the protest vote, at which point it's not a protest anymore but a winner

    I totally get being all out for Sanders in the primary. But, if Clinton wins the nomination, who/how does it help/who is the winner? if a protest vote ends in a Republican administration? Can you could explain the bolded part to me? 'Cos I am not getting it.

    I will feel good about my vote regardless of how anybody else votes or who wins.
     
    So, you are telling me that a person who rails against income inequality, discrimination against women, minorities, the poor, will still feel good about their vote if it results in a Republican administration that makes all of those situations worse?
    If that is true, then I am sorry to say Mr K that you really don't care about any of those issues, just your own vanity.
    IMO, people need to put their money where their mouth is or spare me the preaching.

    Parent
    That's the thing V... (none / 0) (#123)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 06:44:39 AM EST
    income disparity, rigged economy...those issues are worsening under Democrats and Republicans. How can we vote for that?

    Is it not the same vanity you speak of that motivates an establishment Democrat voter? We stopped the Republican, yay! But what have you really accomplished? 16 of the last 24 years we had  a corporate Dem president, and it shows. Keep voting for that if it makes you feel good...makes me sick.

    Parent

    Well, kdog, let's rephrase that question. (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 02:47:36 PM EST
    kdog: "Is it not the same vanity you speak of that motivates an establishment Democrat voter? We stopped the Republican, yay! But what have you really accomplished?"

    I'm really not sure you can explain to my satisfaction anymore what YOU hope to accomplish here by continuing to slur our party's likely nominee without much if any due personal regard for actual facts, and by further threatening to withhold your vote should your preferred candidate not get the Democratic nomination.

    Because from my vantage point and speaking for myself only, I only see you doing your level best to preclude the likelihood that liberals could actually enjoy a controlling majority on the U.S. Supreme Court for the balance of my natural lifetime -- and for what, exactly?

    Further, you keep referring to this as the "silly season," a pithy, cynical and dismissive take on your part to an otherwise very serious undertaking, the election of a president, which pretty much sums up your own present attitude and behavior.

    Perfection is the enemy of the good, kdog, and Bernie Sanders' dogma is nothing more than a false and fleeting comfort for the intellectually indolent and the politically obtuse. He likely can't win in November, which means that he's most certainly not going to win this summer, so this primary race will be effectively over very soon. That's the reality here. When that moment of truth actually arrives, you'll have a decision to make, and that choice is yours alone.

    You can further self-marginalize politically by casting your ballot for president this November for the fantasies of Jill Stein, a decent and caring but otherwise electorally impotent woman who couldn't even draw 20% of the vote in a very liberal district for a seat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives in Boston.

    Or, once you and your fellow Sandernistas are done pouting and feeling sorry for yourselves after the purity ponies currently drawing the Sanders bandwagon are finally put out to pasture, you can direct your mothership to return to earth so you can vote this fall for Hillary Clinton, the one good liberal who actually stands a better than decent chance of winning the White House.

    This is entirely your call. And if you think that Democrats are going to be beating on your door six months from now to beg you for your vote, you're sadly mistaken. We're likely not going to waste our time with those who repeatedly show themselves to be unreliable to the cause, at best. Our efforts to get out the vote will be better spent elsewhere, talking to people who actually live in the here and now, and whose minds are open to all our possibilities.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I am sure Casey or Ruffian or (none / 0) (#147)
    by vml68 on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 01:08:57 PM EST
    Donald or Christine or.....can answer this question a lot better than I can.

    We stopped the Republican, yay! But what have you really accomplished?

    I will just mention trying to move the minimum wage up to $15 and Obamacare. While I have done my fair share of complaining about the latter because I think Obama should have started the fight with Single Payer or a Public option before negotiating down, I am not going to pretend that millions of people getting healthcare is not good. My hope is that Hillary will work to improve it. I am pretty sure no Republican is going to do that.

    Is improving peoples lives by just that much not a step in the right direction? Can we/should we do more? Yes, a thousand times yes! But, to pretend that things are equally bad or that there is no difference under Dems or Repubs is nuts.

    Parent

    You put it well (none / 0) (#156)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 01:54:39 PM EST
    I'll add that stopping the Republicans in 2008 and 2012 meant we got justices Sotomayor and Kagan rather than lord only knows what. And we have not bomb bomb bombed Iran as McCain was ready to do. Diplomacy is paying off in that realm.

    Despite the hyerbole calling Hillary a neo-con hawk, she is nowhere near what a Republican would be.

    We also released a few more prisoners from Gitmo over the weekend.

    So in my book stopping the Republicans on the executive side is a positive,even if only small steps can be made on the legislative side with the current congress.

    Parent

    To pretend the differences... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 02:07:49 PM EST
    between them are vast is also nuts.  The main differences are culture war issues, which we are winning anyway with simple time and demographics, in spite of the establishment Dems.

    Hillary wanted no part of $15 till localities started passing it...then she jumps on stage for a photo-op with Cuomo.  Gay marriage comes to mind too, very late to the party.

    If those are the only issues they're good for, we don't need them we're winning on our own.

    Parent

    That's (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:17:39 PM EST
    the problem, the vague sloganeering does need to get lambasted.

    The few detailed plans that Bernie has released do not appear politically doable or economically feasible at this time. Pointing that out is not lambasting.

    As to the money, it's an undeniable fact that the democrats will have to spend upwards of a Billion+ dollars to win the White House and 100 million + to retake the Senate not to mention House and local elections. Would you deny all Democrats the money that Hillary has helped raise?

     

    Parent

    The only response to the claim (none / 0) (#129)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 08:54:30 AM EST
    that the Hillary Victory Fund is taking in large donations, giving a little bit to state Democratic Committees and keeping the rest for herself and to fund the DNC is that she needs the money to win?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#135)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 10:24:10 AM EST
    HVF has spent 10% on her campaign, 90% to other Dems Link.

    Of course she needs money to win, what planet are you from?

    Parent

    That Link (none / 0) (#140)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 11:33:15 AM EST
    shows that, out of $44.7 million spent, only $10.5 million (24%) was spent on candidates (Hillary), Party Committees and PACs. Hillary got 42% of that money. The DNC got 36% of that money and all the various state parties (down-ticket help) got 22%. The big question is where did the other 76% of that raised money go?

    Thanks for the link, it makes my point better than I did.

    Parent

    Not sure how you learned math (none / 0) (#143)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 12:13:31 PM EST
    But the candidate received $4,400,000 out of $44,706,987 spent.  That's 9.84%

    I have no idea where the rest of your numbers are coming from.

    Parent

    Even (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 10:39:59 AM EST
    if you were correct which you are not, Hillary still would be giving more money to the state parties and candidates than Bernie has which is zero.

    Parent
    See above (none / 0) (#141)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 11:34:59 AM EST
    Raising more money and seemingly pocketing the lion's share for herself and the DNC (part of the Clinton campaign IMO).

    Parent
    Nice try, Steve. Sanders signed a contract (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 01:09:13 PM EST
    with the DNC establishing an identical Victory Fund committee for his campaign. Of course, since Sanders cannot be bothered with fundraising and campaigning for downticket races, he has not used his.

    Apparently, this is only "illegal" and "immoral" when Clinton does it. Standard Sanders bullsh!t. Bernie good. Hillary bad.

    Parent

    So you're (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 12:06:03 PM EST
    fine with nothing going to state parties? It would seem so. Bernie has been hogging all the money to himself and his family and his campaign managers but Hillary gave 22% to state parties? And Bernie is the one that has the FEC breathing down his neck for campaign problems not Hillary. The way Bernie's campaign is acting about this it sounds like they know the FEC is about to bring the hammer down on him.

    Parent
    Bernie Supporters ... (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 09:42:05 AM EST
    throw dollars at Hillary Clinton's car as it arrives at Clooney fundraiser.

    Having worked on campaigns, I find it hard to believe this was done without knowledge and organization from the campaign. You're lucky if volunteers remember to bring a pen.


    Don't have a link (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 01:40:24 PM EST
    But I read you are right.  The organizer of the next door counter-Clooney rally gave out one thousand dollar bills to the protesters.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 02:02:03 PM EST
    apparently he is some wealthy Bernie supporter or fundraiser.

    Parent
    Which just reinforced the idea (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Valhalla on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 11:30:22 PM EST
    That most of Bernie's supporters are speaking from a place of tome-deaf privilege, despite the rhetoric.

    Also, I wasn't really keeping track where I was, but most of social media today DID make the connection between throwing $1s at strippers and throwing them at Hillary's motorcade.  Many were definitely not Hillary supporters, as they thought the stripper thing was a fine joke.  For me, it does matter that it all came on the heels of the "corporate whore" debacle.  I'd guess the Sanders campaign must have seen some serious blowback on the corp whores thing since they turned Song loose, and they never apologize for anything.

    Anyway, wish them luck trying to trash George Clooney.

    Parent

    Whose ever idea it was... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 11:58:49 AM EST
    that's brilliant political theater imo...like when Abbie Hoffman and the Yippies threw dollar bills on the floor of the NYSE back in 1967.

    Parent
    Really?!? (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:27:19 PM EST
    IMHO, it's terrible, tone deaf political theater.

    And it reinforces the idea that Sanders' supporters are privileged out-of-touch individuals who don't mind being perceived as sexist.

    Parent

    Really... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:55:30 PM EST
    I love political stunts like that...they are under-utilized and could be used more as an alternative to begging for money on Wall St. to campaign...if the media covers it, it's cheaper than a 30 second ad, and more effective.

    Then again, I loved Abbie Hoffman's style, it may not be for everybody.  


    Parent

    The mexia DID cover it (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 05:28:36 PM EST
    It didn't get the reaction you hoped for. Most media reports and pundits I saw /read (even if not HRC leaning) basically had the attitude of "what a$$holes."

    Parent
    Tell us, dawg, did you (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 12:07:17 AM EST
    timely re-register so you can vote for your guy today?

    Parent
    No, it was horrid (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 01:38:26 PM EST
    After a Bernie supporter at an official rally calls her a corporate whore, dollar bills are thrown at her.   Dollar bills are thrown at strippers.

    Shameful.  I for one will remember that disgusting stunt and hold it against Bernie and his supporters.

    Parent

    That's some leap... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 02:44:14 PM EST
    to make it into something sexist MKS, as opposed to what it was, a protest of money in politics...hope you're wearing a safety harness.

    Besides, it's been years but I always placed the dollar bill awkwardly in the garter or G-string, throwing it an erotic dancer would be so rude.

    Parent

    Corporate whore sounds (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 03:38:41 PM EST
    sexist to me.  Surely you would agree with at least this point.

    Parent
    And chances are.. (2.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 03:16:42 PM EST
    you'd never bother to make a contribution, if you knew the price of a (metaphorical) lap dance ran into six figures..

    This playing the sexism card at the drop of a hat puts me in mind of Alan Dershowitz spinning any criticism of Israel into an expression of virulent anti-semitism..

    Parent

    You sound like a Republican (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 08:48:30 AM EST
    who cannot see racism or sexism anywhere.

    Parent
    AND you sound, again, (none / 0) (#174)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 02:55:55 PM EST
    like the hyper-sensitive petty bourgeois that you are at heart. Counselor.

    Republican. Please.

    Well, you've certainly come to the right place.  

    Parent

    Dr. Paul Song (none / 0) (#105)
    by Nemi on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 05:35:10 PM EST
    Good (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by smott on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 05:47:38 PM EST
    Disgusting comment and a sign how low we are sinking.

    Parent
    Kdog, how about when they threw (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by fishcamp on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 01:47:47 PM EST
    joints out of an airplane at a Jimi Hendricks concert over in Hawaii.  I helped roll for about five hours the day before.  There were thousands of joints in the air for a good half hour.  It was spectacular.

    Parent
    Hendrix (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 09:55:26 PM EST
    not Hendricks. Just to show proper respect to the departed greats.

    Parent
    Now that's a political stunt... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 02:40:49 PM EST
    I'd volunteer for a campaign to be a part of!

    Parent
    That's (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 04:20:24 PM EST
    the problem, Bernie and his supporters are more interested in
    brilliant political theater
    than actually winning elections and governing in the real world.

    Sorry, but that kind thinking is just as much a problem for this country as Wall Street, I would say more.

    IMO it is the sheer ignorance of the American people that has allowed this country to reach this sorry state, an ignorance largely induced by the media fools promoting the "political theatre" churned out by the bucketful largely by the right wing.

    It breaks my heart, that now apparently huge chunks of the left have decided that "theater" Trumps(In both current meanings of the word)reality.

    Parent

    Political theater (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 04:45:59 PM EST
    has a price. See Cruz, Ted who is a pretty good master of political theater on the right. He's also accomplished nothing except making himself a pariah with some and a saint with others.

    Parent
    So the Demos have Hollywood and Soros (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 10:45:14 AM EST
    and the Repubs have Kooch...

    In the meantime media polls out at 6% and the elites of both parties fully intend to control who the candidates are even if the attempt destroys them.

    And us out here in fly over country have Twitter, Facebook, etc.,  and every newspaper has places for comments on letters and some news stories.

    Revolt ing, eh?

    There (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 11:27:23 AM EST
    aren't any elites deciding who the D nominee is. It's the voters. The one who is getting the most votes is the one who is going to be the nominee. Not the same as in the GOP who want to put someone up who did not get the most votes as the nominee. An equivalent situation to R's would be D's nominating Bernie.

    Parent
    Can you spell Super Delegates??? (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:59:56 PM EST
    But let's don't play word games. I'll give you Kasich and throw in Bernie to boot

    Parent
    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 01:12:44 PM EST
    so having the super delegates pick someone who didn't have the most votes like Bernie would be okay? Bernie is essentially advocating for the same thing the GOP elite are advocating---turning over the will of the voters. Hillary is leading in every category much like Trump is in the GOP. If the unbound delegates choose Trump are you going to say that it's the elite picking the candidate?

    Parent
    Look, I know you are all in for Clinton (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 02:07:27 PM EST
    and that's fine... But neither party is following "the will of the voters."

    You have "Super Delegates." The Repubs use "unpledged delegates" and other pieces of chicanery

     

    State GOP executive committee member Ken Gross was appointed by Ryan Haynes and a majority of his fellow committee members to represent Trump. This was done despite the fact the Trump campaign opposed him and because Gross did not run as a Trump delegate, did not support Trump in the election, and publicly criticized Trump as a liberal Democrat on social media.

    RockyTop

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 04:41:30 PM EST
    that talks of a bunch of stuff going on in the TN GOP and has nothing to do with your point. I fail to see how picking the person with the most votes and most delegates is failing to follow the "will of the voters". I mean we're not even talking close here and besides super delegates can change their mind which is why some Bernie Bros have been harassing the heck out of them and also why they have written letters telling them to cease.

    Parent
    You obviously didn't read. (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 08:10:01 PM EST
    The problem (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 08:28:54 PM EST
    is you're trying to say "they both do it" when you don't have anything to back up what you are saying other than super delegates exist. If you know anything about super delegates and their history they specifically were designed to keep someone who didn't get the most votes during the primary ala McGovern from getting the nomination. And then you have the problem of campaigns attempting to or literally stealing delegates like Bernie had done.

    Parent
    Look, you kid your friends (none / 0) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 07:39:49 AM EST
    and I'll kid mine.

    But when you create a group of people that are not elected by the people then you are subverting the democratic process.

    If you are worried about "most votes" then just demand run offs until one candidate has 51% and award that person all the delegates.

    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 08:05:55 AM EST
    Jim the super delegates ARE elected. At least the Democratic super delegates are. I have no idea about the Republican ones. Super delegates in the Democratic party are elected officials like here in GA John Lewis is one. In case you don't know he represents a congressional district and was elected by the people in his district.

    Parent
    If I understand (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 11:24:21 PM EST
    some of them are elected as legislators, governors, etc.

    But they are not elected as a stated delegate for anyone.

    That defines an elite deciding who the elites want to run. Not the people.
     

    Parent

    I've never known Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 11:37:31 AM EST
    To have good Kooch

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 11:39:31 AM EST
    I know

    I just couldn't stop myself

    Parent

    Hooecy Koocie! (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 12:58:22 PM EST
    lol

    Parent
    You know Jim (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 02:07:00 PM EST
    My phone accidentally incorrectly corrects, and spits out the word debaathification when I'm emailing my husband about a bathtub for the remodel. I've used that word on this device one too many times ;) Just sayin

    Parent
    One (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 03:23:22 PM EST
    more time for all you suckers buying Bernie's hypocritical snake oil. Please explain this
    In recent years, Sanders has been billed as one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's retreats for the "Majority Trust" -- an elite group of top donors who give more than $30,000 per year -- at Martha's Vineyard in the summer and Palm Beach, Florida, in the winter. CNN has obtained invitations that listed Sanders as a host for at least one Majority Trust event in each year since 2011.The retreats are typically attended by 100 or more donors who have either contributed the annual legal maximum of $33,400 to the DSCC, raised more than $100,000 for the party or both.

    and  
    A Democratic lobbyist and donor who has attended the retreats told CNN that about 25% of the attendees there represent the financial sector -- and that Sanders and his wife, Jane, are always present.
    "At each of the events all the senators speak. And I don't recall him ever giving a speech attacking us," the donor said. "While progressive, his remarks were always in the mainstream of what you hear from senators."
    and  
    In 2006, when Sanders ran for the Senate, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pumped $37,300 into his race and included him in fundraising efforts for the party's Senate candidates.
    The party also spent $60,000 on ads for Sanders, and contributed $100,000 to the Vermont Democratic Party -- which was behind Sanders even as he ran as an independent.
    Among the DSCC's top contributors that year: Goldman Sachs at $685,000, Citigroup at $326,000, Morgan Stanley at $260,000 and JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $207,000.
    and
    and Two years later, when then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was being nominated at the Democratic National Convention in 2008, Sanders was among the senators who met with Sen. Chuck Schumer's "Legacy Circle" donors who had given the legal maximum to the DSCC five years in a row or $500,000 over their lifetimes.
    He paid dues to the DSCC, too, with his Progressive Voters of America political action committee cutting checks for $30,000 to the group during the 2014 election cycle.
    and the cherry on top
    During that 2006 campaign, Sanders attended a fundraiser at the Cambridge, Massachusetts home of Abby Rockefeller -- a member of the same family whose wealth he had one proposed confiscating.

    Once again please explain WHY Bernie is not being extremely hypocritical with his attacks on Hillary's fundraising.

    Crickets !!! (none / 0) (#139)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 11:16:10 AM EST
    I thought you Bernie supporters could defend your man. Nope all you can do is attack Hillary for the same thing Sanders does.

    Parent
    Looks like Bernie is intent on (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by vml68 on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 03:49:25 PM EST
    The irony (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 04:46:50 PM EST
    is he's the one that has the FEC breathing down his neck not Hillary. They are threatening to come in an audit his entire campaign for finance irregularities.

    Parent
    Does Sanders think (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by smott on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 05:24:01 PM EST
    He will be allowed to speak at the convention now?

    Seriously. The guy has made a career of vilifying both sides of the aisle and making them come to him for votes.

    He co-opts the Democratic tag for his own personal gain, and since MI has been pi$$ing all over Clinton.

    Now this
    http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/18/bernie-sanders-accuses-hillary-clinton-dnc-violating-campaign -finance-laws.html

    I hope Clinton tell him to kiss her a$$ and shuts him out of a speaking role.

    The guy is burning down the village. And there are a lot of people who cannot afford his selfish indulgence. Like I said, we are well into narcissism and arrogance now.

    Eff him.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 06:57:23 PM EST
    he's kind of like talk radio and the tea party. People who run on outrage have to continually top the last outrage and now he's just flat out making crap up.

    Parent
    Howard Fineman, (none / 0) (#118)
    by sallywally on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 11:16:36 PM EST
    answering the question, "Does Bernie feel aggrieved?" as to why he would make such an accusation, noted that Bernie currently has three complaints about the Hillary campaign at the DNC and explained that Bernie is permanently and thoroughly aggrieved, "it's just who he is."

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 06:58:40 AM EST
    he's the King of Festivus. Continual airing of grievances.

    Parent
    Right on Smott! (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 08:52:07 PM EST
    Or Bernie can speak at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday--the same amount of time as his Vatican talk.  Maybe he can give the same talk.

    I have had it with these childish, destructive people.

    Parent

    It's as if (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Nemi on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 06:22:02 AM EST
    now that the media for what seems like the first time doesn't mention 'the e-mails' on the day of a primary, he has decided to take matters into his own hands.

    As he loves to say about Hillary Clinton:

    I think the senator is getting a little bit nervous.


    Parent
    Armando sounds (none / 0) (#104)
    by smott on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 05:32:12 PM EST
    Robin Alperstein (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Nemi on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 07:24:35 AM EST
    has written an amazing piece On Becoming Anti-Bernie.

    Thorough, well researched, clear headed, just ... amazing!

    '42 min read' it says - it took me a little longer but was worth every minute. A few random excerpts:

    Suddenly, as the country is on the verge of possibly, finally, at long last, nominating and even electing a woman, the most important thing ever is that we ignore that possibility and instead once again put a white guy in the office because he correctly observes the obvious -- that we have a broken campaign finance system and we have income inequality?

    Really? The first woman who might win the presidency is "unqualified" because she participates, perforce, like President Obama and everyone else, even Sanders himself (admittedly to a lesser degree), in the broken system? (Never mind that her campaign addresses the same issues and never mind that Sanders' plan is not viable.) It is amazing that this simple diagnosis makes Sanders a truth-teller whose nomination is groundbreaking, while electing a woman for the first time in history is somehow not.

    [...]

    What all this says to me is that Sanders is unwilling, unable, and temperamentally unsuited to actually govern or to engage in responsible executive decision-making. This is not a person who listens and learns or works with others or compromises; this is a person whose entire life has been dedicated to making points from a place of ideological purity. Those points are important, and I agree with most of them, but they are not a basis for electing him to the presidency.
    [...]

    I don't want a leftwing analogue to the extreme right's lunacy. But that is what Sanders has unleashed among some of his supporters. In fact he's stoking and exploiting it, and it's dangerous.

    And so, although I will vote for Sanders in a heartbeat over anyone in the GOP (whose candidates and platform are awful in every respect), because of his words, deeds, and temperament, Bernard Sanders is not worthy of the Democratic nomination.



    Wow, laughable thread (1.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 09:06:47 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton has made her ENTIRE fortune kneepadding the likes of Goldman Sachs, WalMart, while doing, in comparison, zilch for average Americans. Aside from that, she has neoliberal blood all over her hands from Libya (a "regime change" argument she WON within the administraion -- -- and she is the Queen of RC -- and isn't a big enough human to own) and Honduras (where she is simply a cowardly bald-faced phucking liar about what her role was and what it meant). I would LOVE to have the first female president of the U.S.. But, sorry, I cannot excuse her miserable failures and comprehensive corporate corruption (and immense lack of political imagination). I will never be caught dead in a Feel the Bern shirt, but on policy and record, and financially uncorrupted nature (but that means nothing, right?), I cannot vote for her. Sure, I will have to pinch my nose and approve her incompetence in the General. But until then, her wretched record speaks for itself. That is just fact, and it sucks, because, again, as a guy raised by a woman with whom I lived on welfare and stamps in the hood for awhile, mother who worked her way to a PhD and is world renowned in her field without having to excuse mass murder to do it, well, Hillary can jump in the ocean for all I care.

    Peace & love, all ye TL peeps. Now downrate my ass, please. I'd feel like a failure otherwise.

    Wow, knee pads (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by smott on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 10:08:15 AM EST
    Going for triggers much?
    You deserve every down rate you get.

    Argue on issues, not whore-euphemisms.

    Parent

    Knee Pads are unisex... (none / 0) (#136)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 10:33:13 AM EST
    sh*t, Schumer needs two pairs he's on his knees so much.

    Don't be so heteronormative...you might trigger somebody.

    Parent

    Be less disingenuous (none / 0) (#145)
    by smott on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 12:54:46 PM EST
    The term "whore" invokes a woman and you know it.

    Parent
    The term is corporate whore.. (none / 0) (#157)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 02:03:14 PM EST
    and in my mind that invokes Congress, which is sadly still predominantly men.  

    Parent
    Du ist "tone deaf." (none / 0) (#161)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 02:47:56 PM EST
    'bist' :) (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Nemi on Wed Apr 20, 2016 at 06:26:56 AM EST
    Think of me what you will... (none / 0) (#164)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 03:15:56 PM EST
    but a whore is a whore is a whore Oculus...and I should know, I am one.

    Parent
    I know it's a work day for you. (none / 0) (#170)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 20, 2016 at 11:34:14 PM EST
    But--"Father" was an excellent theatrical experience. Dementia from the standpoint of the person who is losing it. In this case portrayed by Frank Langella.  

    Parent
    Dude please (none / 0) (#162)
    by smott on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 03:00:06 PM EST
    The knee pad reference was made directly re Clinton.
    You're being disingenuous and you know it.


    Parent
    Yeah written by Dadler... (none / 0) (#163)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    a commenter for over ten years without a sexist bone in his body...we've been calling representatives, senators, presidents Wall St. fellating whores, regardless of gender, for all of those ten years.

    Context matters smott.

    Parent

    Indeed it does (none / 0) (#165)
    by smott on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 04:10:44 PM EST
    "Hillary Clinton has made her ENTIRE fortune kneepadding the likes of Goldman Sachs, "

    Is fairly clear in both its context and it's sexist content.  As you know.

    You and Dadler can hate Clinton, knock yourself out - but don't play coy and pretend that Dadler was referring to some anonymous Congress in that comment.

    Parent

    Something tells me your mother (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    did not approve this comment.

    Parent
    Glad to oblige with the concluding request (none / 0) (#144)
    by christinep on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 12:19:15 PM EST
    The laughing part--as we know--is the oil-and-water blend you concoct ... heavy on the unsupported ugly adjectives whenever referring to HRC, followed by the familiar closing "peace & love."  What a way to render a could-have-been warmly human closing close to sterile....

    Parent
    George, that was immaaawwwwral!!! (none / 0) (#2)
    by ExPatObserver on Sun Apr 17, 2016 at 08:37:21 PM EST
    Bad George! Bad!

    Solutions (none / 0) (#18)
    by Myideas on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 09:05:01 AM EST
    We have a difficult choice.

    It is generally agreed that Bernie Saunders has identified the fundamental problems in our society that are causing significant dysfunction.  The complaint is that he has no solutions.  Really?  

    On the other hand, we are asked to support Hillary.  She isn't addressing these fundamental problems.  In a perfect world, these should be addressed but that isn't how Washington works.  She might be able to change something on the margin but don't get your hopes up.  Really?

    Both of them have identified these problems (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 10:44:38 AM EST
    Hillary has supported campaign finance reform long before Citizens United (which started out about her, if you recall what the full acronym used to be).

    Both have proposed solutions. But the first, and really only, solution has to be to elect more House and Senate members in favor of reform. Hint: no GOP candidates are in favor of reform.

    Parent

    How about income inequality, etc (none / 0) (#119)
    by Myideas on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 11:19:35 PM EST
    Campaign finance is not the only problem being discussed in this primary: try income inequality for a very fundamental one.  

    Watch the debates..  is all about change and how it can happen or not

    Parent

    What is a "moral economy"? (none / 0) (#19)
    by ExPatObserver on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 09:15:02 AM EST
    The only prescription for moral economy which I have seen is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"

    Parent
    Simple (none / 0) (#22)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 10:03:19 AM EST
    a moral economy is achieved by a cap and trade system. Caps are set on the immoral economic behavior of individuals and corporations. Any entity that wishes to screw over workers, gouge customers or ruin the environment beyond the cap will be able to buy credits from more "moral" companies.

    There are still a few details to be worked out, but give Bernie another 5 minutes with the Pope and it will be all worked out.

    Parent

    IMO a moral economy is never (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 11:51:03 AM EST
    Simple. That's why democracy is so vital.

    You will always have some high functioning psychopath, or what they are now calling industrial psychopaths, arguing for their rights to butcher all the rest of us for a profit. They will never just go away or give up.

    Parent

    Moral Economy what it is not (none / 0) (#23)
    by Myideas on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 10:05:19 AM EST
    I know what a moral economy is not:

    Your playing Monopoly.  (the game).  One player is given all the property except Baltic Avenue.  They are also given 95% of the bank.

    You are expected to succeed with what's left.  Of course, you fail immediately.  

    Why?

    It must be because you are lazy.

    Sound familiar?  

    Parent

    Just look at Scandinavia (none / 0) (#26)
    by Realleft on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 10:33:24 AM EST
    These are not communist countries. I have lots of friends in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and they are getting along just fine, living what the American dream used to be, many self-employed because you can do that easily there, not crushed in debt, time with their family, well-educated, and good incomes.  There are costs, and the countries are not only highly taxed but tight on some of their laws, but for most people, it seems to be worth it.  

    Parent
    Something (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 11:30:39 AM EST
    like that is not going to be achieved overnight and the Prime Minister of Denmark told Bernie to stop using his country as an example because they are "market based" economy not a socialist economy.

    Do you think that the overnight we could raise taxes to 40% of income? When you are arguing that people are still struggling to make ends meet?

    Parent

    No, I don't (none / 0) (#127)
    by Realleft on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 08:52:13 AM EST
    But that is also not what Sanders is proposing.  It's right on his web page.  It may not fund it all but starting somewhere and working forward from there is something I've heard is a good idea.

    And of course what is always left out is the reduction in other costs, because we live is such a "oh, taxes!" culture.  But you know what I would hope any Democratic president would do, which Clinton is surely not to, is cut the hell out of defense.  It is bloated so far beyond any explanation (not just or even primarily military, but the whole industry) that there is plenty of money to repurpose to something that actually benefits people, because having 800+ military bases around the world is something that causes us to create as many enemies as helps protect ourselves and allies.

    Parent

    And yes, Sanders is outdated (none / 0) (#128)
    by Realleft on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 08:54:25 AM EST
    in his terminology.  People I know in Scandinavia listen to him talk about socialist democracy as if it were the 1970s.  It's a choice of his that makes little sense other than he seems to be a mostly stubborn "principle" guy.  Just call it center-left like Europeans do and dodge the whole terminology/ideology base.  

    Parent
    If you're saying that Sanders (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by ExPatObserver on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 09:12:34 AM EST
    hasn't had a new idea in 40 years, and hasn't taken in any developments of recent history, that sounds about right. He needs a rocking chair and a "Get OFF MY LAWN!" sign to complete the picture.

    Parent
    I don't understand the hostility (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Realleft on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 01:22:49 PM EST
    Other than the cheering for Hillary, why are many people here so bitter and condescending toward someone who is trying to address serious problems in the country?  I get all the people who prefer Hillary Clinton, and I'll surely vote for her if she gets the Democratic nomination, but is your worldview so narrowly constructed that any variant deserves ridicule and disrespect?

    Sometimes I feel like talk radio and Fox news have even infected American liberals.

    Parent

    Speaking for myself only... (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by vml68 on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 01:40:22 PM EST
    I had no issues with Bernie running and was glad he was bringing up issues that might otherwise not have received as much visibility.

    But, as soon as Bernie Sanders and his campaign started seeing a chance at victory, their campaign became about demonizing Hillary rather than about the issues. For him to be using right-wing talking points against her, for him to be unable to explain how he would enact any of the things he wants to do and yet call her unqualified, etc., is unacceptable in my book.

    He reminds be of the kind of person who talks big, does nothing, so they can't fail, yet constantly criticizes the people who do try to accomplish something. I think most of us have encountered people like that in our lives.

    If Sanders had just stuck to the issues, I would not be feeling any bitterness towards him. And, I have a feeling he would have done even better in the primary than he is now.

    Parent

    He's had some missteps or overreaches for sure (none / 0) (#155)
    by Realleft on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 01:45:31 PM EST
    Just don't ignore the very similar things Clinton and surrogates have thrown his way, from even earlier on.  It's politics, it's a fight, and it gets ugly.  I don't approve of a lot of it but that's one of many reasons I am on the sidelines and not in the game.

    Parent
    Can you name one of those things? (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 07:30:33 PM EST
    Really, I can't remember anything nearly as egregious as 'corporate whore'.

    Parent
    For my part, I agree with the broad strokes of (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 07:28:11 PM EST
    his ideas, but his presentation of them is so angry antagonistic that it turns me off.  He acts like he is the first one that discovered and tried to address economic issues.  More substantively,  I don't agree with some of his solutions, like free college for all, even if it could be paid for. I'd rather encourage companies to hire people without college degrees that can still do the job then push more people into college and cheapen that experience.

    Of course that is assuming he would be able to get any of his plans enacted anyway.   I just cannot imagine his ..and here I always struggle for a word - temperament? communication style?  being effective as POTUS.  All in all I very vehemently do not want him to be president.

    Parent

    I think he's a phony. (none / 0) (#150)
    by ExPatObserver on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 01:26:58 PM EST
    He's an opportunist who will do anything to win.
    You might fairly aver that is the description of  a typical politician.
    Exactly my point.
    The best you can say is that Sanders, like some other people I can think of who were moral crusaders (legitimately), is a deeply unpleasant, self-righteous a**.

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#152)
    by Realleft on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    Okay, you're welcome to any opinion of anyone of course.

    Not sure what you base that on other than intuition, given the many years he's been advocating and working toward the exact same goals, but your reaction is all your own to have.

    I don't find him deeply unpleasant, or an a** at all.  Self-righteous? Maybe, but I think that's a matter of his commitment to a cause.

    Parent

    His tireless work for the NRA (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by ExPatObserver on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 01:35:24 PM EST
    and for dumping nuclear waste far away from  Vermont, regardless of what the affected constituents want,  speaks to his principled record.

    Parent
    I have (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 10:48:25 AM EST
    read Sanders proposals and he's saying ten years but that's so unlikely because nothing is static in 10 years. Does he think whatever he was able to do would be ingrained in stone and never changed? Has he not paid attention to what goes in Washington for the 25 years that he has been there?

    There are easier and simpler ways like opening up Medicare and probably achievable but Bernie skips over that kind of thing and goes straight to upturning everything. But he's advocating a revolution and that's what revolutions do.

    The problem is Sanders is trying to sell a pig in a poke to people in exchange for higher taxes. Do people know they are really going to get better medical for all the taxes they are going to pay? At first he had the states doing it which would leave a lot of people in the country at the mercy of their governors and I guess he never paid attention to what happened with the Medicaid expansion on that account. Then his next proposal was completely changing everything for something people don't know what they're going to get. Well, that's probably fine with about 25% of the voters out there who currently have basically nothing but it's not going to wash with the other 75% of voters who currently have coverage.

    Parent

    Unlikely, yes, but not without reason (none / 0) (#151)
    by Realleft on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 01:28:39 PM EST
    Of course Sanders is proposing things that are beyond what could be achieved.  Generally, you better start pretty far out to end up with something more reasonable after compromise.  A big mistake Obama made IMO for the first term was to pre-compromise, a concern I have about Clinton's current way of talking (and especially knowing that her ideas will go even more conservative after nomination, should it go her way).

    Parent
    I completely (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 02:16:06 PM EST
    understand the frustration with Obama but the fact of the matter is Obama was good at giving away the entire store. However that doesn't mean that Bernie could actually accomplish anything because frankly his purity stance has shown that he has been unable to to produce much of anything in 25 years in Washington. He's almost like the polar opposite of Obama but the result would be the same--nothing. Inability to compromise is just as bad as willing to compromise it all away.

    Parent
    C'mon man... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 10:46:30 AM EST
    do you oppose the concept of a minimum wage?  overtime pay?  right of workers to collectively bargain?

    In the past our country has found ways to make the economy function better for all when wealth was concentrated in too few hands, without the state seizing the means of production.  

    I have a suggestion that no candidate is discussing, not even The Bern...let's talk about guaranteed income.  

    Parent

    Of course he has solutions (none / 0) (#24)
    by Realleft on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 10:31:16 AM EST
    He talks about them all the time. It's a popular media meme and Clinton meme to say otherwise, but just like Al Gore and the internet, people develop a belief system and just keep on believing...  

    Parent
    Get back to me when we have moral people (none / 0) (#25)
    by vicndabx on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 10:31:32 AM EST
    that's not something any pol can solve.

    RE: it's generally agreed...by who?  People have talking about money in politics for decades. Bernie isn't saying something people haven't known about for...ever.

    Again, your fellow citizens have to be on board w/tax changes to support keeping money out of elections.  

    Parent

    In what I believe to be (none / 0) (#90)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 03:59:41 PM EST
    a thought provoking essay by Michael Lind (NYT, April 17), Trumpism and Clintonism are in our future. Whatever becomes of Trump's bid, Lind posits, he has exposed the gap between what orthodox conservative Republicans offer and what today's Republican voters actually want--middle-class entitlements plus crackdowns on illegal immigrants, Muslims, foreign trade and free-riding allies. (and, I might add, a general fondness for nostalgia and their thanks for the memories).

      Democrats, too, are undergoing a process of policy realignment. But, not withstanding the enthusiasm of the young for Sanders, the major tension is not between Sanders and Hillary Clinton, but between Hillary Clinton and the legacy of Bill Clinton. Policies now need to be adopted/adapted to the core constituencies, such as criminal justice, racial disparity.  Indeed, Sanders' single-issue focus had to be broadened to include other issues, such as environment, immigration and disparity in policing and sentencing.

    Lind claims that because the Sanders wing objects to Wall St. and Silicon Valley funding sources, that it will not translate into a democratic socialism in America, citing the Age of Aquarius. giving way to the Age of Reagan, with many hippies of the 60s becoming yuppies of the 80s. The larger perspective he sees is that the Roosevelt Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans are gone.  

    Makes a lot of sense on the surface at least (none / 0) (#130)
    by Realleft on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 08:58:52 AM EST
    Have to look that up.

    Sanders does seem to be trying to tap into a kind of higher moral consciousness, which doesn't have much of a history in the US in the past 40 years since Jimmy Carter was bumped into the annals of political history.  

    The thing about many of the Scandinavians I know is that they're not particularly altruistic (not saying they're not generally altruistic, just not especially).  They just demand that their taxes are used to make their lives better.  It's a strange concept in the US where we've had a "conservative" led assault on the idea of taxes for decades with relatively little discussion about how the taxes are actually used (except for  wedge social issues).

    Parent

    Yelling at me is the absolute worse way to tap (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 07:33:14 PM EST
    into my moral consciousness. I seriously doubt that is what he is really trying to do.

    Parent