Clinton vs. Sanders

[Mr. Plumbean]

All right I've been stinking up this thread a lot. Frustration vented and I'll stop.

[Jaglavak]

What?!?? Nnnnooooooo!

[Wolf Larsen]

Originally Posted by silenus

I'm voting for Hillary for no other reason than she is so feared/hated by the Right that her election will cause any number of them to infarct. Sorry, Mom!

This isn't in the slightest bit true. She'll keep business working just like normal.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

Well, as I've mentioned, you're probably right but I still want to have someone force this conversation to be had for 4 years instead of ignoring it simply because it's hard to accomplish. The further out you hold the carrot, the faster the donkey walks. Big dreams result in slightly less big, but still worthwhile, accomplishments.

No, the donkey does not walk faster. It might, but also the donkey may ignore the carrot altogether or kick you hard in the knee.

And why is the default thinking that HRC will ignore this "conversation"? This is part of what I just don't get. Disagree with HRC as a choice, fine, but she is not Attilla the Hun. She's not Huckabee or Cruz or anything close to them. She's a progressive. Perhaps not AS progressive as Bernie would like you to think that he is, but she is a progressive. IF Bernie makes it into the WH, he has an entire country to govern, not just older white liberals. IMO he is promising stuff that he has NO WAY in hell delivering. Free college in less than 4 years in this country? It's a pipe dream of the worst kind--and I'd rather not see the fallout when it does not come true. It is very, very easy to make these statements and promise these things. It is incredibly hard to get ANY legislation through both houses and onto the President's desk.

Queries:
How come HRC's experience in public life and politics works against her, and yet (as has been pointed out) BS also has 35 years of public political life and yet he is considered untainted? I think that the rightwing tactic of slow poison dripping (when it wasn't coming in torrents) onto Hillary has had an effect that people don't realize. I don't care about her emails. She's being swift-boated by past masters of the art, and now the more progressive wing of the Democratic party is helping them to do their work.

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

What really turned me off was that Sanders' supporters sound like Republicans (or Communists): We have a party line and if you aren't 110% ideologically pure, you're a traitor. I find that sort of attitude stupid and very immature. The very nature of politics in a democracy is that you won't get everything you want.

Originally Posted by Bricka

I've honestly never heard this but I'm interested to see what is giving you this impression.

How could you have not heard this?! Even the MSM has mentioned the antipathy between the HRC supporters and the Bernie Bros or whatever they're called.
Progressive talk radio (and I've listened for a whole of two sessions while commuting this week; I'm not a habitual listener) has been inundated with complaints from Bernie supporters decrying the "hating on" Bernie and the support of Hillary. On the Stephanie Miller show (AMs) she says she's stopped saying anything because of the tweets, FB posts and calls she gets, calling her a Bernie hater. Somebody named Wayne something (another talk show) is a Bernie supporter and (the 5 minutes I listened to him) verbally beat up a caller who said he didn't think that Hillary should have to release the transcripts of her speeches. He asked where the precedent was for a private citizen to do so for the press and this talk show host went off.And the thing is, like Benghazi, like the emails, no amount of transparency will ever be enough. There is a faction in the party that has "decided" that HRC is in the pocket of Wall St (and Bernie helped push that meme, big time) and no matter what, she is not to be trusted. She is "Establishment". This is complete BS. 2 things: 1. of course she is establishment--so is Bernie! They're middle-aged politicians who know quite well how business gets done in DC and in the real world. 2. She actually anti-establishment, even as she is establishment. No, I haven't been drinking. So is Bernie. They are "anti" because they are progressives, but also because she is female and he is Jewish. They're both outsiders, for different reasons. How come Bernie's outsiderness is more valid than Hillary's? And then on Norman Goldman again tonight, again he was called out for "dissing" Bernie.

Hell, Tinder just shut down 2 women's accounts because they were using their Tinder platform to badger potential dates and strangers about Bernie!
This is beyond favoring one candidate over another. This is zealotry and ANY zealotry puts me off in the worst way. We cannot afford to have blind faith or hope in this election--not with SCOTUS on the line. We must be pragmatists. We are still progressive. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

How could you have not heard this?! Even the MSM has mentioned the antipathy between the HRC supporters and the Bernie Bros or whatever they're called.
Progressive talk radio (and I've listened for a whole of two sessions while commuting this week; I'm not a habitual listener) has been inundated with ...

Well now i've learned something. I dont listen to political radio but for a few minutes of npr on the way to work at 630am. Thanks for your comprehensive explanation there.

When i worked in the restaurant business, i had a particularly energetic coworker named Steve. In the chaos of the dinner rush, we would often have under-experienced cooks absolutely drowning in orders, putting an enormous burden on Steve since his job was to help whomever was deepest in the weeds. When the shit hit the fan, and the cooks stared at their order screens like deer in headlights at the seemingly unending flood of dishes to be made. ..Steve had a way of speaking to"snap people out of their stupor". His mantra, "somebody do SOMETHING, even if it's wrong! Better yet, definitely do something wrong, because then we'll know where to start from! "

Basically, change course because the only thing you know for sure is how screwed you are doing what you're doing, may as well gain the perspective offered by a totally different viewpoint. Eliminate the shock of the challenges you face by turning things on their head.

I don't really want to see another politician do things the way they've always been done. I'm not happy with the direction we are headed. I would sooner see Trump in the white house than another person thinking the same way all the rest of them do. You ever watch Black Mirror? An episode called The Waldo Moment sums up my feelings nicely. The ending shows a bad result for the protagonist, but a decidedly good result for society at large.

Somebody do something, even if its wrong...

I dont have much else to add to this really.

[eleanorigby]

Wait, so is Bernie Steve? I don't see Bernie as Steve. I see Bernie as one of those undercooks--he has to get things DONE while in the WH, not just dream big.

Don't get me wrong. I think Bernie is very capable, very smart and yes, more honest than your average politician (I don't see HRC as average). There is much about him that is admirable, truly.

But governing a small, homogenous state is not at all like governing this sprawling, heterogenous, crazy-ass country. I do think he would probably get more respect out of the Republicans in office than either Obama or Hillary, but that's a reflection of their bigotry and sexism. It doesn't mean he'd get any further forward. Honestly, I want HRC as Pres and Bernie somewhere in the Cabinet (NOT Sec of State; man has no subtlety that is vital for international diplomacy).

All I can hope for is that all these Bernie supporters will then support HRC if she gets the nomination, and right now, I see the Dems cutting off their nose to spite their own face. This is tragic.

[SmartAleq]

Bernie voted against going into Iraq, Hillary voted for it. Who knows more about foreign policy again?

I was talking with my BFF last night and I came up with the right illustration. You're looking for a job. Hillary is the call center job, the administrative assistant position, the cashier job. It'll pay the bills, the benefits exist even if they aren't super great, it's the job you know you can get but nobody's all THAT excited to get it. Bernie is the dream job, the one that offers good money, great benefits, lots of room for advancement with an up and coming company in a super cool field. You know there will be some risk holding out for the amazing job, you know the competition will be tough, you realize you might not be completely qualified for it--but how beaten down do you have to be to just take the sure thing bullshit job knowing that if you'd held out and worked a little harder you might have had the dream job?

I'm not quite that beaten down yet in spite of every effort to make our society as deadening and hopeless as possible. #FeelTheBern, y'all!

[eleanorigby]

One vote is not (or should not) be the sole determinant of someone's foreign policy experience or judgement.

I don't understand how a vote for HRC is a vote for loss-of-hope, for more disemboweling of the middle class, for apathy and despair. I also don't understand how a vote for Bernie somehow suddenly transforms this nation, with is its formidable (even overwhelming) problems into a love fest where we all get along, racism/sexism/homophobia/poverty no longer exist etc. Bernie doesn't seem to understand that the USA (and the world) needs Wall St. Should we prosecute those who have speculated like the whole housing market bubble? Absolutely. But we need somewhat fettered capitalism, NOT pure or even concentrated socialism. Hello, my name is Rigby and I'm a moderate.

I totally get that Bernie supporters want to feast on hope and change (to coin a phrase). I sympathize with that longing for a better world. I just don't see it playing out that way.

However, it is "only" NH. We have a long way to go. I just hope that we don't infight ourselves out of the WH. Really, that's all I care about. I admire the passion shown in this thread. Let us all hope (and work) to keep that momentum up so that we all vote in November.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

Wait, so is Bernie Steve? I don't see Bernie as Steve.

Nah. Bernie isnt steve. But voting for him, in my mind, would be saying "somebody do something, even if its wrong!"

I think our country would benefit more in the long term by getting off script for a term or two.

[Nonny J. Nonnington III]

Originally Posted by Khampelf

I'll vote for Sanders in the AZ primary and hold my nose and vote for Hillary if I have to.

That pretty much sums it up for me as well. I'd like to see Sanders elected, but I don't know that it will happen. It won't stop me from voting for him in the primary, though. Unfortunately, since the day I registered to vote I have had to listen to people who would rather be on the winning side than vote for someone who better represents their own values, so there will be a lot of people who vote for HRC in the primaries because they think she will win.

Some other reasons to vote for Sanders:

When HRC thought herself the Democratic candidate, she seemed to be happy to drift farther and farther to the right if she thought it made her electable to independents. Since Sanders gave her credible opposition, she has suddenly started to promote her "progressive" values. The more votes for Sanders, the more she will stake out positions on the left, and she'll have to make good on some of them if she wants reelection in 2020.

And right now, many young Democrats consider Sanders to be "their" candidate. If they see the nomination go to HRC without at least some opposition this could well cause them to feel that, along with crippling student loans and a terrible labor market, their votes don't mean anything and their voices are ignored. What would that mean? Boycotting Presidential elections, potentially handing the Presidency to Republicans? Boycotting interim elections, giving Congress to the Republicans?

Or maybe worse.

In some ways, I am getting a sense of youth anger that led to the riots at the Chicago Democratic Convention in 1968. That's the event that partly led to states adopting primary elections, for gawdsakes. Prior to that party bosses would select the nominee, and that seems an awful lot like DNC trying to do until people starting to hold their feet to the fire. I don't see the organization in place (yet) for something like that to take place (think Occupy Wall Street's lack of a clear message). But with social media these days it is a lot easier to get the message out, and I see a lot of energy and a lot of motivation and a lot of idealism in young people that could be put behind a movement. And if that leads to a third party, that would in turn hand everything to the Republicans.

I dunno, it seems that young people should have a voice in voting for someone that will set policies for a country that they will be growing older in, and I am happy to help them do it.

[BJMoose]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

All I can hope for is that all these Bernie supporters will then support HRC if she gets the nomination, and right now, I see the Dems cutting off their nose to spite their own face. This is tragic.

Do you really think any Sanders supporters will vote Republican in the fall? Trump, Cruz, Rubio? No way. Some may well sit out or vote for the Green Party or whatever, but most will get in line behind Clinton.

When Obama finally sewed up the nomination in 2008, eighteen percent of Clinton's supporters promptly said they would vote for McCain, which made little sense to me. (Not that it surprised me that a number of Clinton supporters would be sore losers. . . .) I figured it was more an expression of the latent racism still to be found in this country. (Of course, how those folks finally voted, I don't know.)

For some reason I get the feeling that independents will be deciding this election.

[AuntiePam]

I just can't get past the feeling/belief that Congress will be just as difficult for Hillary to work with as it has been for Obama.

Rather than think of another four/eight years of little or no progress on anything of substance, I'd consider voting for Kasich. But none of the others.

In the debate tonight, Kasich talked about helping the people who are hurting the most. He specifically mentioned drug addicts, the developmentally disabled, the indigent. He's the only one on the stage who recognizes that there's a class lower than middle and that they need help.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

Rather than think of another four/eight years of little or no progress on anything of substance

I like you; but, you can't possibly be serious.

[SmartAleq]

Not only is basically every seat in the House up for grabs this year but a whole bunch of the Teahadists from the class of '10 are not running again, facing serious challengers and I think a couple are getting primary challenges as well. If we can get the Dems out to vote--which I firmly maintain Sanders will do WAY more than Hillary would, we stand a pretty good chance of tipping Congress back the other way from where it's been the past couple terms. So Sanders is important from an enthusiasm standpoint as well, momentum gained for the big race assists on the downticket too.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by Nonny J. Nonnington III

That pretty much sums it up for me as well. I'd like to see Sanders elected, but I don't know that it will happen. It won't stop me from voting for him in the primary, though. Unfortunately, since the day I registered to vote I have had to listen to people who would rather be on the winning side than vote for someone who better represents their own values, so there will be a lot of people who vote for HRC in the primaries because they think she will win.

Some other reasons to vote for Sanders:

When HRC thought herself the Democratic candidate, she seemed to be happy to drift farther and farther to the right if she thought it made her electable to independents. Since Sanders gave her credible opposition, she has suddenly started to promote her "progressive" values. The more votes for Sanders, the more she will stake out positions on the left, and she'll have to make good on some of them if she wants reelection in 2020.

And right now, many young Democrats consider Sanders to be "their" candidate. If they see the nomination go to HRC without at least some opposition this could well cause them to feel that, along with crippling student loans and a terrible labor market, their votes don't mean anything and their voices are ignored. What would that mean? Boycotting Presidential elections, potentially handing the Presidency to Republicans? Boycotting interim elections, giving Congress to the Republicans?

Or maybe worse.

In some ways, I am getting a sense of youth anger that led to the riots at the Chicago Democratic Convention in 1968. That's the event that partly led to states adopting primary elections, for gawdsakes. Prior to that party bosses would select the nominee, and that seems an awful lot like DNC trying to do until people starting to hold their feet to the fire. I don't see the organization in place (yet) for something like that to take place (think Occupy Wall Street's lack of a clear message). But with social media these days it is a lot easier to get the message out, and I see a lot of energy and a lot of motivation and a lot of idealism in young people that could be put behind a movement. And if that leads to a third party, that would in turn hand everything to the Republicans.

I dunno, it seems that young people should have a voice in voting for someone that will set policies for a country that they will be growing older in, and I am happy to help them do it.

Yes, this. I agree. This is essentially my POV. I LIKE Bernie and I like that he is driving the party to talk and consider and stand the hell up for progressive values.

Originally Posted by BJMoose

Do you really think any Sanders supporters will vote Republican in the fall? Trump, Cruz, Rubio? No way. Some may well sit out or vote for the Green Party or whatever, but most will get in line behind Clinton.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, that's what I fear: that enough of the young and the ultra-liberal will stay home and the GOP will elect Cruz and we'll all end up in hell.

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

Not only is basically every seat in the House up for grabs this year but a whole bunch of the Teahadists from the class of '10 are not running again, facing serious challengers and I think a couple are getting primary challenges as well. If we can get the Dems out to vote--which I firmly maintain Sanders will do WAY more than Hillary would, we stand a pretty good chance of tipping Congress back the other way from where it's been the past couple terms. So Sanders is important from an enthusiasm standpoint as well, momentum gained for the big race assists on the downticket too.

And I'm fine with that. Let Sanders stir up the base and get 'em out. But he wins the nom, we will have an mountainous journey, unless he tempers his proposed legislation to something that moderates, Dems and Reps (they do still exist) can see as practical and possible. I just want a Dem in the WH. I don't care how we get there, at this point.

God, I hate primary season. It is just like a nasty family fight and face it, we're the helpless and hapless kids being asked by the judge which parent we want to live with...

[eleanorigby]

Oh, and Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright will fuck this up for HRC well and good if they don't STFU. But again, there is that old double standard at play... look at the use of the word "scold". Try to picture Bob Dole attempting to school his party through their primary nonsense, and that word being used in the headline. Can't be done.

WhoKnewGloriaSteinemWasn'taFeminist?

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by Chacoguy

I like you; but, you can't possibly be serious.

I am. When I think back, all I come up with is the ACA, Cash for Clunkers, and same-sex marriage. Planned Parenthood is still under attack. Congress still threatens to shut down the government when it's time to pass a budget. Veterans are still getting shortchanged in medical care and other benefits. Good jobs are still going overseas and I still hear Indian accents when I call customer support.

There are still too many young black men in prison and way too many people going to jail for drugs instead of getting treatment. Still too many homeless families and empty foreclosed homes. Still too much consumer debt. Not enough mental health care. Nothing's been done about gun control. Cops are still trigger-happy. College students still have staggering debt. CEO's still make 300 times what their employees earn.

The unemployment rate is lower but what kinds of jobs are people finding? In my newspaper, the ads are predominantly for truck drivers and health care.

What am I missing?

[Mr. Plumbean]

I think I gained insight into the enthusiasm for Sanders; he really seems like the only candidate who has no personal ambition and possibly zero interest in being president (I don't think Trump has any interest in the responsibilities of the presidency, but he's driven completely by egomania). Sanders really is driven 100% by ideology.

But the thing is, besides the practical considerations of how much we can expect to actually get done in a Sanders presidency (which his supporters here admit is nil), I don't really trust ideologues.

[Detroit Hoser]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

When I think back, all I come up with is the ACA, Cash for Clunkers, and same-sex marriage.

The ACA and SSM? Those two things alone changed my life for the better in ways nothing else ever will.

[SmartAleq]

This supporter does not admit to "nil" in any way, shape or form. And if a person's only knowledge of what a president can and/or does accomplish is based solely on what comes up on Faux Noise or CNN then of course the perception of "getting nothing done" is going to be the prevailing impression. Take, for example, what President Obama has actually managed to get done IN SPITE OF a Congress that has baldly stated they were going to oppose every move with every fiber of their being. I invite every doubter to click that link, considering that every single point is supported by a citation.

President Obama has managed to do more for vets than anyone gives him credit for, working around the bullshit in Congress and quietly managing to fund programs that have resulted in ZERO homeless vets in more than one city--and the fight to get every vet a roof continues unabated.

That's the kind of work a determined executive leader can manage in spite on an intransigent Congress. If we get Sanders on the ticket and keep the enthusiasm going and spread it downward to the congressional races we might be able to hand the man a majority, or at least a much slimmer gap anyway--and Sanders has an incredible track record at getting people to work with him to Get Shit Done. Hillary is more likely to get defensive and alienate people, Sanders has no pride to lose, he just wants the job done.

And a Sanders vs tRUMP race would be pure superego vs pure id--maybe for once and for all we could prove to ourselves and the world that this country is not actually inhabited solely by children playing with toys. That would be cool.

[SmartAleq]

Oh, and if it helps any, Bernie don't dig the Berniebros either, tells them to knock off their bullshit. Here's hoping they feel THAT Bern!

[eleanorigby]

I think Bernie will win NH soundly, but will struggle in SC and Super Tuesday.

Re the GOP, it's anyone's guess. Ebb, I mean Jeb, is pretty much done; as is Carson (an embarrassment to the title doctor, IMO). Rubio is too young and too arrogant to get out of the race and come back next time for serious consideration, and Christie doesn't have real staying power. Cruz has managed to feed his zealot base, but Granite Staters are not impressed by his personal line to God (it's amazing how tone deaf certain regions are to other regions in this country), but Trump is the Loki in the crowd.

In short, the GOP does not have a truly serious candidate in the race for President. Kasich is about the only one, and I don't see him winning NH or SC.

And to think we Dems could effing LOSE this election. That would be the ultimate tragedy.

ETA: Now THAT is true leadership! Sanders just went up in my esteem.

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

This supporter does not admit to "nil" in any way, shape or form. And if a person's only knowledge of what a president can and/or does accomplish is based solely on what comes up on Faux Noise or CNN then of course the perception of "getting nothing done" is going to be the prevailing impression. Take, for example, what President Obama has actually managed to get done IN SPITE OF a Congress that has baldly stated they were going to oppose every move with every fiber of their being. I invite every doubter to click that link, considering that every single point is supported by a citation.

That's an impressive list -- thank you, consider me enlightened.

Which makes me wonder why Hillary hasn't mentioned some of those accomplishments when the opposition says she'll just be another Obama. She should take that as a compliment and run with it.

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

Oh, and if it helps any, Bernie don't dig the Berniebros either, tells them to knock off their bullshit. Here's hoping they feel THAT Bern!

That was a theme at my caucus too, and at the caucus training. We're all Democrats, respect each others' views, don't denigrate. It worked too, at least in the small group I was in.

[JackieLikesVariety]

I'm glad he is speaking up, Bernie is a class act and sets a good example; pretty much the opposite of Trump.

[eleanorigby]

She will, once the primaries are over (and I think she has to some extent), if she's the candidate. This is this weird time when a candidate can't be too hard on the outgoing Pres, if he's of their party, but also has to distinguish themselves enough to appeal to a broader sector of the voters.

It's like trying to do hip-hop when you only learned the waltz--it's like that for everyone, really. Unless you're a clueless windbag and/or a member of the Opposition, and then you have to step carefully because the candidate you diss now may be in your cabinet later.

Even Sanders has to step carefully, and he is not nearly as closely aligned with Obama as HRC.

[SmartAleq]

Elizabeth Warren quite firmly places her polite and well groomed finger on one of my major caveats about HRC as a candidate and potential president--she's been handsomely paid for access and she'll have to give it or face some steep consequences. I don't think she has the will or the inclination to distance herself from her donors no matter what the actual citizens of the country want and need.

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

Elizabeth Warren quite firmly places her polite and well groomed finger on one of my major caveats about HRC as a candidate and potential president--she's been handsomely paid for access and she'll have to give it or face some steep consequences. I don't think she has the will or the inclination to distance herself from her donors no matter what the actual citizens of the country want and need.

There's no place to go in politics after being elected President, especially for someone in their 60's. They've reached the pinnacle, they have a place in history. And they have enough money to live more than comfortably for the rest of their lives.

Can we hope that HRC, if elected, could say "Screw it. I had to get in bed with banks to win this. Now I can do what's best for the country."

American Experience just did an episode on James Garfield's presidency. Garfield had to make a deal with a powerful and corrupt New York senator -- Roscoe Conkling -- to get elected. After the election, Garfield kicked Conkling to the curb and went his own way.

Is there a chance HRC would do the same with the banks? Or is the risk too great? The powerful lobby would make sure her presidency is a failure?

ETA: I love Elizabeth Warren. My dream is a Sanders-Warren ticket.

[Nonny J. Nonnington III]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

Can we hope that HRC, if elected, could say "Screw it. I had to get in bed with banks to win this. Now I can do what's best for the country."

"If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them you've got no business being up here."

An interesting discussion about the Sanders phenomenon I heard today that addresses some of the issues that I brought up, but more eloquently. That many of today's youth think of themselves as the proletariat class and have little in common with today's comfortable Democratic elite.

[SmartAleq]

I'm all for the younguns getting up and getting riled and all feisty-like. They're the ones who have to live with this shit the longest and they have the most invested in the future. Gen X gave politics a pass, pretty much, just finally getting sick of being told by Boomers that they "don't understand how politics works" so they should just "shut up and vote the way we tell you to." But with the Millenials now a significant demographic, the Gen Xers are getting their chance to say "fuck you" to the Boomers and skew toward the younger crowd.

The reason why I think this is an excellent idea is because Millenials tend to be very socialist already--they know they won't get jobs or be able to afford their own homes and cars so they're quite invested in a sharing economy already, aren't in love with rampant consumerism and they see democratic socialism as simply a logical extension of how they already live and think. They don't consider themselves to be temporarily embarrassed millionaires and they're fairly impervious to the social red buttons too--my older grandson, turning twenty this year () remembers openly gay couples all the way back to middle school and nobody thought a thing of it as one good example. I like the way the kids are turning out these days, they tend to be socially responsible, cooperative, pragmatic and very invested in cleaning up the earth and keeping nature close as part of our everyday lives. I think it's high time we Boomers stopped 'splaining to the kids how they MUST do politics and let them get on with it--it's their world now, they should have the say. All we can do is to let them know they really DO have the power, should they choose to get out there and exercise it.

Interesting anecdote--on DailyKos a poll was run to counteract the "Berniebro" narrative, asking for gender and age range from those who support Sanders. The largest group by far was women over 50--on a site that runs about 75% male. I thought that was pretty trippy. Guess us old hippie chicks have just been waiting for another chance to get rowdy.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

<trimmed for relevance>

Can we hope that HRC, if elected, could say "Screw it. I had to get in bed with banks to win this. Now I can do what's best for the country."

Not even enough of a chance to entertain the thought, honestly. Our past predicts our future. Does she seem like the altruistic type?

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

Or is the risk too great? The powerful lobby would make sure her presidency is a failure?

Not only would they burn her at the stake politically, I'm certain she would face harsh personal retribution as well. All her money...is not sitting in a barrel out behind her barn. It's in banks. It's in the hands of those you're suggesting she shoot in the back.

[SmartAleq]

The Clintons, collectively, have received about 150 million from various industries since leaving the White House, and a similar amount channeled into the Clinton Foundation. Three hundred million dollars means being beholden to a lot of people, to an extremely high level. Those people are expecting something for their money--nobody gives you that much unless they expect to get a return on it. I'm pretty sure I know who Hillary works for--and it ain't me and you!

[SmartAleq]

Well, isn't this odd--a Salon article from 2008 decrying all the "Obama boys" who are being oh so meanypants to Hillary and how they're so very offputting to the young women and should back off. Sound familiar? You'd think since this line didn't work the last time they'd have abandoned it, right?

[Mr. Plumbean]

While I've been annoyed by Sandersmania, I haven't seen anything especially sexist. I also saw Sanders supporters claiming there was all kind of antisemitic smears on Sanders from HRC supporters. No doubt both exist if you scrape the bottom of Twitter and trust that neither are faked to make the other team look bad, but it's bullshit that either is common or represents the general feeling among supporters.

[SmartAleq]

Anecdotally speaking I am no n00b when it comes to DailyKos piefights and so far all the Bernie supporters have tended to be a LOT more polite than Hillary supporters. A Bernie diary goes up and within five replies you'll have a Hillary supporter in there being dismissive and shitting all over the enthusiasm. It gets ever so old. I don't see the same happening in pro-Hillary diaries. Same with '08, when Hillary people were doing the same damned thing to Obama supporters. Annoying AF!

[SmartAleq]

Carl Bernstein has some harsh words for Hillary regarding accountability and transparency.

Commenting on her speaking engagements and her flipflopping on releasing the transcripts of her 700K Goldman Sachs speeches:

And they're worried that the Democrats could blow -- they are horrified that the whole business of the transcripts, accepting the money, that she could blow the Democrats' chance for White House. They want her to win. Obama wants her to win. But Sanders has shown how vulnerable she is. These ethical lapses have tied the White House up in knots. They don't know what to do. They're beside themselves. Now, you've got a situation with these transcripts a little like Richard Nixon and his tapes that he stonewalled and didn't release.

...

No, what I'm saying that if she stone-walls on them and does not release them and enables the Republicans to paint her again into a corner. This is not just a vast right-wing conspiracy that is causing her problems. She has caused herself these problems. The server is not the vast right-wing conspiracy. It's Hillary Clinton deciding that she could put a server in her closet, the same with these transcripts, the same with accepting this money in a presidential year when she knew that she was going to probably be running for president. To the people in the White House I talked to, it is unfathomable that she did this and has endangered President Obama's legacy. As I say, they are terrified.

Links to the full video interview and transcript in the linked article. He makes a strong case that Hillary, once again, is her own worst enemy with her prevarications and evasions--especially when you put her up against Bernie, who is so upfront honest he makes her look like a pathological liar if she even factually tells someone what time it is. She has all the ethical rigor of a sponge.

[BrickaBracka]

Acknowledging facts like those are part of the reason I continually ask (and never hear a satisfying answer from her supporters) if it is concerning that these things are true?

Does it matter, or not? Is it concerning, or not? The speaking fees. The email server. The legitimate, verifiable, not-at-all mudslinging facts.

However, I never hear from an actual HRC supporter any opinion on it. If it's "shrug" No Big Deal, I'd like to know why.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Bernie Sanders is coming to my neighborhood.

http://www.citypages.com/news/bernie...-event-8029805

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

Bernie Sanders is coming to my neighborhood.

http://www.citypages.com/news/bernie...-event-8029805

You gonna go?

[Mr. Plumbean]

I guess it depends on what time it's at but there isn't much window where it would work for me (job, kid). It does tilt me a bit in his favor, especially if Hillary passes on the same event. It's a poorer and blacker part of the city, and nothing ever happens here except house break-ins and police shootings. That kind of thing. For a politician to give a damn about us says something. (I know every presidential candidate does a photo op with kids in Harlem or whatever, but this seems more sincere... and challenging, because it's not a few black people being used as props).

[SmartAleq]

If you can possibly find a way to make it, please do! I'd love to hear from a sceptic--and I think you'll discover that Bernie doesn't use people as props. He genuinely feels the election is not about him, it's about the citizens of America and he's always up to learn about how groups he doesn't belong to think and what they need.

And for no reason whatsoever, one of the most hilarious memes to come out of this election:

[Mr. Plumbean]

All politicians use people as props.

[SmartAleq]

Well, we're still good then--Bernie's a statesman!

[Mr. Plumbean]

A statesman is a dead politician.

"Lord knows we need more statesmen." = Bloom County

[AuntiePam]

I was one of a group of Poor People Props for a gubernatorial candidate in Washington State in the 70's. If I remember right, it was Marvin Durning. His office called the place where I worked (in a low income housing project) and actually said they needed poor people for a photo.

A friend had a ticket for a Bernie event in Mason City. He was told (via a group email) that doors would open at 6 p.m. He arrived at 5 p.m., stood in line for an hour. Doors opened at 6. The place was already full, people seated, like they'd been there for awhile. Did they come in another door? Had they been there all night? WTF knows?

He and a few hundred others were directed to another location where they could watch the event on a 19-inch TV screen. He went home.

He's still a supporter but it was a disappointing experience.

[SmartAleq]

states·man
ˈstātsmən/
noun
noun: statesman; plural noun: statesmen

a skilled, experienced, and respected political leader or figure.
synonyms: senior politician, respected political figure, elder statesman, political leader, national leader
"Franklin was the great statesman of his day"

[Glazer]

[BJMoose]

Do try to go, Plumbean. And do take the boy - it's about time he learned the facts of politics. . . .

[Mr. Plumbean]

Originally Posted by BJMoose

Do try to go, Plumbean. And do take the boy - it's about time he learned the facts of politics. . . .

He's five. So: no.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

The line is a famous quote from, I think, Harry Truman.