A word from HRC about attacks from the left...

[PunkinPi]

Link to tweet

Let's not repeat the same BS in 2020.

[shanny]

1. re-fighting the primary again?

[SidDithers]

2. Were you here during the primary?...

Sid

[Cha]

215. Good Question!

[Eliot Rosewater]

257. deleted, im done

[PunkinPi]

4. Nope, looking forward to 2020 with some sage advice. nt

[George II]

5. That's not refighting the primary. You weren't even here back in 2015-2016.

[Apollyonus]

445. Or .. maybe ... he was?

As a lurker I mean of course

[Autumn]

451. Since you're asking that poster has "lurked" here longer than you.

Profiles are readable. Just click on it and you can see the join date.

[NurseJackie]

6. Oh brother! GMAFB!

re-fighting the primary again?

Hillary is right. Her giving historical context to the way that Kamala Harris is being treated is not "refighting".

[Kahuna7]

9. More like, fore warned is fore armed. nt

Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2019, 02:36 PM - Edit history (1)

[Wounded Bear]

83. Fore warned is fore armed...

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

10. Perfect example of what she just said.

Why don't YOU let up on HRC? This is a Democratic Page. Start IU, we'll come there and slap around Independents you adore and we'll see your reaction. Bernie needs to take a powder. So sick of his supporters. HRC is the model of grace in dignity under extremely disappointing times.
MAybe go somewhere and work on BS campaign and give us ALL here a break on hating a Democratic Hero?
P.S. Hillary looks wonderful. She is so intelligent and astute, and above all articulate.
She deserves the win she got. We'd be soooo far ahead right now.

[BlueMTexpat]

25. + a million or so! eom

[calimary]

42. And + another million or so.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

59. Ty Mrs mary.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

49. Ty.

[lunamagica]

44. + a million

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

50. Ty.

[lunamagica]

52. YW

[mcar]

64. She does look wonderful. Nt

[WeekiWater]

122. Wow.

You ain’t kidding.

[R B Garr]

65. Amen to everything!

Perfect message.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

69. Appreciated.

She makes me feel good. Ty. Have a great weekend.

[R B Garr]

72. You have a great weekend, too!

[c-rational]

78. Agreed and well said.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

82. +1

[allgood33]

93. You speak for me!! nt

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

96. Thanks allgood. Im humbled. How much more can a person be?

I wish I could write to her. She's been fighting off people for so long. If only I had half the steel in my spine.
President H Clinton..

[musette_sf]

107. + 1

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

132. COOL!!!

Ty.

[msdogi]

129. Agreed

Thanks for this

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

134. YVW

Have a good weekend.

[cwydro]

135. This!

Well said.

[GoCubsGo]

138. Yep.

It's sad that the poster ignored everything Hillary said, and chose to stir shit, instead. It's going to be a looooonnnggg primary. SMGDH.

[2naSalit]

157. + a kazillion and a half.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

169. That's a rousing endorsement. Ty. We ALL love her here.

I mean, i think we all love her.

[indie_voter]

195. +1 Bravo (nm)

[yardwork]

251. Brava!

[Cha]

252. Mahalo CCB!!

[Eliot Rosewater]

258. deleted, im done

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

297. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings Elliot. Are you joking around?

We're just talking man. Have a good weekend.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

278. 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾

[certainot]

317. some bernie supporters were russian and some were 'libertarian', which means they

got the general clinton buzz coming out of limbaugh's ass for the last couple of decades

[leftynyc]

413. +1000

Sick to death of Bernie and his supporters. Let the independents get their own board.

[honest.abe]

441. Well said.

[obamanut2012]

24. lulz

[TNNurse]

26. What part of Sanders is NOT A DEMOCRAT

do you not understand????

[sarcasmo]

84. +1

[Trumpocalypse]

105. Every part

He proudly proclaims that he is not a democrat.

[onit2day]

191. But he caucuses with the dems, promotes them, helps build their platform

fund raises for them, campaigns for them... but not "a single part of him is democratic? Never fails to amaze me that the mere mention of his name on this site and the posts triple. Face it, Bernie is a good, positive honest man always on the side of Democrats but witness the Bernie derangement syndrome and all the attempts to justify demeaning him. Never kick anyone to the curb who supports our principles. Especially in this time of foreign interference in our elections where thy attempt to divide us.

[LiberalLovinLug]

198. Word

[qazplm135]

204. attacks them

tells them that they just want a woman or POC and that's it, won't join them except because he has no other path to the presidency, lumps them in with Republicans as part of the problem...

[Trumpocalypse]

213. Yes he caucuses with Dems

because if he didn’t he would get committee assignments. But he doesn’t do anything but the bare minimum fund raising and has campaigned against Democrats. If he wants to be a Democrat he needs to join the party.

[Ninsianna]

236. when will he campaign for Dems? or support Dems? or just stop attacking Dems?

Never fails to amaze me how so many like to ignore what he says and does on this topic. Face it, his words, deeds, hacking, suing and all the things he has saidnans done prove the exact opposite. He does nor support Dems, there is nothing positive about his attacks on Dems (except for the GOP who enjoy funding his attacks). He kicks people to the curb who actually support our principles while dishonestly taking credit for work he has not done. The derangement of his supporters who attack Dems, is plain to whenever any woman who had done the work comes up. How many different incidents of foreign interference on his behalf are necessary to penetrate the derangement? All the FB pages, the Twitter bots and trolls? RT? All anti Dem, anti HRC/NDP and KDH.

[lapucelle]

270. BS needs to take responsibility and apologize to all the women

who were targeted and victimized by his campaign. He should also acknowledge that there are some who might think that his abysmal stewardship of that campaign has disqualified him from consideration for higher office.

Times up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexism.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-addresses-campaign-sexism-and-harassment-claims/
http://time.com/5490813/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexual-harassment/
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/30/bernie-sanders-campaign-harassment-1077014

[Ninsianna]

320. This really needs to be addressed.

[Eliot Rosewater]

259. im done

[lapucelle]

267. No. N/T

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

324. THIS!!!! +1,000,000!!!

[NinaNeon]

326. thank you

[ehrnst]

348. When does he fundraise for them?

By them, I mean the Democratic party.

[NinaNeon]

328. I'm not going to trade negative barbs with you

But you are breaking the rule about not attacking Democratic Public Figures, so I reported you.

[Trumpocalypse]

349. But I didn't break the rule

Because Sanders is not a Democrat and pointing out that fact is not an attack.

[leftynyc]

414. Bernie is NOT a Democrat

so your report is going nowhere.

[NinaNeon]

422. Lol rude

But that’s ok.
He only fundraises for them, stumps for them and bites with them. We need all the support we can get don’t you think? Instead of getting all bent about someone not beholding to corporate interests? It feels like you want me to capitulate and say it with you for your own need to control, and I won’t.

[leftynyc]

426. Don't care if you do or not

Just pointing out that in reading the rule, the poster did nothing wrong as Bernie is NOT a Democrat. I'll take the support from anyone who wants to give it but Bernie's behavior last time around turned me off completely.

[NinaNeon]

432. What if he was an official Democrat

Would you support him then?
I understand you being upset with the fact that he went negative in the primaries a few times. A fair point.
And to bring up HRCs negative ovatures towards him make it seem like a schoolyard thing.
It just underscores how important it is for no Dems to go negative in the primaries against one another. He was in the party at that time.

[leftynyc]

433. It wasn't just the negative

or that he's NOT a Democrat. It was waiting too long to concede, it was not releasing his tax returns, it was his not voting for russian sanctions or the Magnitsky act. He's be the WORST candidate we could put forward as it takes the tax issue and the russian issue off the table and that cannot be allowed. We're going to need every issue we can to make it the starkest choice we can.

[NinaNeon]

458. His tax returns and one Russia vote

Hardly make him the worst candidate. I don’t like candidates who are in favor of big pharma and the myriad of other shady industries like insurance companies. People are dying. I thought I was dying a few months ago and thought I was going to die like my best friend did several years ago having breast cancer with no health insurance. I make like $100 too much a year to get subsidized, and insurance through work is about $500 a month. I can’t afford that. I think that is the most pressing concern.
I don’t care for how you are so negative against him.
When you do that, you sure aren't going to convince his base to vote for someone you find more palatable.

[leftynyc]

460. If people are going to get

Swayed by what someone posts on the Internet, they're too simpleminded to make this kind of decision. I am SURE of how I feel, almost 60 decades on this planet has seen to that. I'm never going to agree with any candidate 100%, but I won't be USED by someone who only runs as a Democrat because it's too hard to run as an Indie.

[leftynyc]

470. Do you SERIOUSLY get swayed

by what an anonymous person posts on the internet?

[betsuni]

464. "The DNC only let him run because they had no intention of giving him the nomination"

[betsuni]

468. "commandeered"

[MrsCoffee]

473. Getting your BoB talking points in early I see.

Is this going to be a thing again?

[musette_sf]

111. + 1

[LongtimeAZDem]

36. No; gearing up for this one

[MrsCoffee]

87. Womp womp.

Truth hurts don’t it?

[elmac]

101. It would seem so, I'm sure HRC must realize that many of the online attacks claiming to be

"Bernie Bros" were Russian accounts. I was and still am a Bernie supporter but anyone who harassed HRC supporters is not a real Bernie supporter. I fully backed HRC after the primary. If he runs, and it seems he might, he is not on my top pick list, I do not foresee any male wanting to run being on my top choice list this time around.

[TexasBushwhacker]

114. Well, this is from an interview from Sept 2017

I would hope she would realize it NOW.

[paleotn]

120. "anyone who harassed HRC supporters is not a real Bernie supporter."

Is that anything like a true Scotsman?

[elmac]

158. All I know for sure is threads like this do nothing but damage the Democratic party. nt

[JI7]

197. the ones at the convention booing Hillary john Lewis and other democrats

were Russian trolls ?

[HootieMcBoob]

211. Thank you.

My thoughts exactly. I supported Bernie in the primary but became a vocal supporter of Hillary Clinton when it became clear that she would become the nominee. This was also my experience among the friends and acquaintances who had been Bernie supporters. It always seemed very strange when I heard Hillary supporters talking about “Bernie Bros”. Then later after hearing about the Russian Bots it all made sense.

Not for nothing, but let’s also remember the claims of Obama Boys from Hillary’s previous campaign. And, I’m having trouble remembering what the Hillary supporters who vowed not to support Obama after that primary called themselves. But, believe me they existed.

My point is just that there are always going to be people who are so emotionally attached to their candidate that they aren’t able to see beyond their nose and do the right thing for their country, their party and themselves. Unfortunately, this behavior coupled with Russian/GOP criminal interference have landed us in the dangerous position our country finds itself in today.

So, knowing this, it’s vitally important that we check those impulses to gang up on any Dem candidate who is running. Yes, debate issues, by all means, but we can’t allow anyone, candidate or candidate supporters, to attack other Democratic candidates. It gives ammunition to and strengthens the Republicans and we can’t afford that.

I know we all understand that so please forgive this “rant”. Just had to type it out loud.

[radius777]

313. False, I knew many Bernie supporters IRL

and online (not bots) who exactly match the characterization in this video.

There was a culture, similar to the Ron Paul campaign in 2012, of aggressively shouting down anyone who questioned the practicality of Sanders' ideas.

The culture operated like a hivemind, and aggressively sought to drive out any opposition from any space online and IRL. In their minds there was no debate to be had - they knew "the truth" and that was that.

Up to now, Bernie has made recent statements that imply we (regular Dem voters) all just voted for Obama and Hillary due to race/gender. Bernie doesn't seem to get that most Democratic voters are center-left pragmatists who don't view the world via the socialist class dystopia view that he does.

[yardwork]

254. I know a Bernie supporter in real life. He's become a hateful person.

It's very sad. He used to be very progressive. He probably still thinks he is. He hates black people, gay people, women (especially Hillary Clinton), and all the same people the Trumpsters hate. He wrote in Bernie in the 2016 general election.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

325. No doubt Hillary realizes this, given her extremely high level of political astuteness.

[WeekiWater]

121. "They are still out there"

Directly from the video. She is highlighting a current problem and addressing it as such. Your dismissive comment simply makes it clear that the topic is a bit uncomfortable for you.

[Hekate]

193. This is happening in the Here and Now, shanny. I am glad HRC is shining a spotlight on a dark place

That dark place is (or claims to be) to our left, and needs to be seen for what it really is.

I have a feeling that Hillary, who won the actual vote by millions and has to sit by and watch traitors try to destroy everything she has worked for in her life -- I have a feeling the lady has zero fcks left to give.

[Power 2 the People]

196. +1

[LiberalLovinLug]

206. Sounds like it to me

Give it a rest Hillary.

There is no Bernie Bros. An invented meme to create a fake impression that Bernie supporters were mostly men...bigoted men who didn't like the idea of any woman taking office. Thank you to Putin. While in reality, he had many woman supporters, of all races. And the vast vast majority of Bernie supporters (even the males!) voted for Hillary.

And the same with this strange idea that Bernie supporters are attacking Kamala Harris. Other than the usual criticisms from the more extreme left, which is ongoing, and is naturally blamed on Warren or Sanders supporters simply because they are the most left/progressive in Washington. Of course there are always a few morons. Like the die hard PUMAs from the primaries before the last one. And Bernie had a few of those. But to say Bernie supporters would turn on Harris, an ally of Sanders, who co-sponsored the Medicare for All bill is ludicrous and only inflames the divide in our party between the new fresh progressives and the old established third way guard.



https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article167826072.html

“As someone who managed a campaign against her in a Democratic primary, I can tell you the recent criticism (of Harris) is probably the most ridiculous thing I have seen in politics in some time,” said Katie Merrill, a Berkeley-based strategist who represented Democrat Chris Kelly in the 2010 contest.

Moulitsas suggested some of the attacks have come from Sanders supporters, but one senior Sanders aide distanced the senator from the criticism.

“Nobody part of Bernie’s inner circle had anything to do with that, or would have any part of the criticism of Senator Harris,” said Mark Longabaugh, a senior aide to Sanders’ presidential campaign.

Like many Democrats, he praised Harris’ performances during a pair of hearings in June, when she questioned former FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Her performance drew widespread attention in part because of attempts by Republican senators to cut off her off, which endeared the senator to many progressive activists.


I was a big Sanders supporter, but now I think he should step aside for someone like Harris, who may not be as left as he is, despite her 'liberal' rating, but would energize the base. And I would have no doubt that Sanders would happily work with Harris, as he has done all along, if she beat him in a primary. And other than the few morons led astray by Putin, or were never Democrat voters anyways, his supporters would endorse her gladly.

[Cha]

214. You "give it a rest".. telling Hillary what to do.

[LiberalLovinLug]

218. I was not telling Hillary what to do

I was suggesting she NOT do something. There is a difference

And the same request is for others as well, to stop reliving the primaries and whatever slights or "attacks" you thought you were under. Bernie did not lose her the election.

And even IF it was that Bernie had a more progressive platform, and that is why he received the support he did. And she interpreted that as that he stole support from her by highlighting her more, shall we say, less progressive history, whose fault is that? Do you blame Sanders for having a platform of $15 minimum wage, or free college tuition? or single payer? Do you blame those that liked those ideas and so supported him over Hillary? (Until she won and they overwhelmingly pivoted to supporting her?). In other words, Sanders popularity, because of his more bolder platform, is not Sanders fault.

Its just not smart to go after what was once 48% of Democrats (Sanders primary supporters right before California results) who you now need for your party's chances going forward. They are not going away. So to stoke CTs and bad blood between the more left and the more right in the party is not helpful.

[Cha]

219. Yeah, just as long as you're Not telling Hillary what to do.

[LiberalLovinLug]

220. I doubt if my requests would ever get to her.

But I wouldn't attempt it in any case.

Expressing criticism, IMO, for one thing she did do recently, is far from "telling Hillary what to do". Is she is not to be ever criticized? Is that not allowed? Even though Sanders is daily insulted and his work with Democrats ignored, or scoffed at. People on this board that supported Sanders have to wade through those kinds of hateful pointless posts daily, and tolerate that, surely those that were opposed to Sanders during that primary, can tolerate a bit of criticism on her when warranted.

[fleabiscuit]

302. There's always time for a photo shot. But not always voting, or supporting. nt

[pnwmom]

207. Did you listen to the whole segment? She's concerned about recent sexist attacks on KAMALA HARRIS

and, I'm sure, other women.

[Cha]

210. Yeah, were you here, shanny?

[ehrnst]

224. Bat signal didn't work.

[Ninsianna]

235. How is adressing rancid behavior that has been ongoing for years

Refignting a primary? This is addressing what is going on right now. Democrats are not allowing this to happen again. Expect this behavior to be put down before it toxifes everything.

[EffieBlack]

276. Whoops

[SidDithers]

3. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Stinky The Clown]

7. ....

[George II]

8. Bazinga!

[LongtimeAZDem]

37. +1 /nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

39. Like Kamala, I'm with and for the people.

[crazytown]

140. Amen

[Autumn]

11. Only people who support Bernie are attacking Kamala Harris?

Okay, well lets go with that.

[George II]

13. Yes.

[Autumn]

14. Sure go with that George.

[boston bean]

15. They add their time and energy and effort to the right wing nut jobs. Enough. Hillary is right.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

18. +1 Hear me stamping my feet.

[JCanete]

222. What is an attack? If its an issue of voting record or tax returns or anythign else, that's fair

vetting if its Sanders. If its reversed, then its attacking Harris. Do people even try to have a consistent standard?

[malchickiwick]

56. That's your take away?? Might I ask what color the sky is in your world??

[Autumn]

74. Today it's blue with a few gray clouds. Yours?

Tell me the sky is forest green with pink rectangles and I'll tell you sure, go with that.

[treestar]

102. It is reasonable to go with that

When they are still supporting Bernie and still claiming the DNC "stole" the nomination from him. Still going on about "corporate Democrats" and saying they are no different from Republicans.

[Autumn]

116. There are people who have done that every election. Remember the PUMAS in 08?

Any Democrat knows better.

[treestar]

340. They weren't as loud or long lasting

It has been over 2 years now since the election. I don't think those Hillary supporters were still doing that in early 2011.

[Autumn]

343. Yeah it has been over 2 years now since the election. I think most people have moved on .

Other than on Twitter and I consider most of that noise to be Russian Trolls.

[Autumn]

353. I remember it differently. Of course I doubt there were twitter trolls back then nt

[NastyRiffraff]

178. On the left, yes, pretty much

I'll go with that.

[Autumn]

180. I'm a Bernie supporter on the Left among many others who support Harris so I'll go with that.

[Ninsianna]

237. sure, we Dems do prefer to go with the facts and it's a factual statement.

[Autumn]

240. Pretty broad brush. As a Democrat and a Bernie supporter I kind of like her.

But I'll wait to see what she says and does. That why a primary is so nice.

[Ninsianna]

318. It's pretty accurate actually, and it would be nice if primaries don't once

again devolve into character attacks due to a lack of a policy platform or a positive case. It's the same toxic elements engaging in the same attacks, now with more racism and going further into the brazen lies.

Such behavior will not be tolerated. We have seen what it does and these outside forces trying to divide Dems have never stopped. U am glad that as a fellow Dem, you are willing to be open to what Dems will be saying, I hope you'll join us in rooting out the toxic propaganda and the misogyny that characterized the process last time.

[Autumn]

337. As a Dem I have always been open to what Dems say because Dems and progressives

speak to my values. Sorry. To tell you the truth I have no desire to join you in rooting out anything. I have seen no attacks, toxic, racist, misogynist or otherwise on any Democrats who have announced they are running other than by the usual Republicans and bullshit from the media.

People saying they don't support a politician running and prefer another because they disagree with their past actions or whatever their reason is are not attacks. It's an opinion and a hope for more, it's up to any politician to win them over and gain their support and if that politician fails to do so, another candidate will. It's not owed to them.

Well, there are a lot of attacks on AOC by the usual, but then she's not running.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

12. We were ROBBED god dammit.

[DemocracyMouse]

106. Speaking of "robbed" - I wish everyone....

....would point the finger at the Russian crime syndicates that got under EVERYBODY’s skin and turned Americans against each other. We are so easily duped.

Eyes on the prize people.

[ehrnst]

229. I think that if it's Russians who are the ones dismissing women and POC as "identity politics"

then they have a LOT of agreement and willing help on the far left.

[DemocracyMouse]

246. I'm on the far left (and the deep middle!)

....and what you are saying sounds like it doesn’t describe me. I think BOTH Bernie and Kamala Harris are great!

Please help us focus on the realities of Republican moral rot (and Russian collusion), global warming, and hyper income inequality.

THIS “far left Democrat” is pretty darn sober about the need to reverse Citizen’s United, reform our prisons, remove voting barriers and jump start the Green New Deal. In fact dozens of major Dems who wouldn’t characterize themselves as “far left” support much of the same:

Ed Markey
Joseph Kennedy III
AOC
Cory Booker
Eliz. Warren
Bernie Sanders
Richard Ojeda
Ayanna Pressley
... and many others

Even former UN leader Ban Ki Moon supports a Green New Deal (which addresses job creation and other New Deal solutions with reversing the Greenhouse effect –which is going to ruin our children’s future if we don’t wake the fuck up):
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c4a32bae4b0287e5b893145

There is no bloody “left” and “right” – only rational and irrational.

[Chemisse]

245. We were ALL robbed of an HRC presidency.

But we are not calling for her to run again.

Her time has passed.

Bernie's time has passed too, in my opinion, but he doesn't realize it, and he is going to thrash around and lash out and do a lot of damage on his way down, I fear.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

279. Bernie has earned a second shot in 2020 based on his incredible showing...

just as Hillary rightfully got a second chance when she lost to Obama. It's now Bernie's turn to give it another go, should he decide he wants to run again in 2020.

[Chemisse]

296. My point is that nobody should feel they are entitled or that it is their turn.

That's how we wound up with Hillary being 'inevitable' and the damage to the Democratic chances that followed, and that's how we could suffer considerable damage from a Bernie candidacy this time around.

My hope is that his popularity fizzles early on, now that we have other candidates who hold broader appeal and also carry a progressive torch, before he can tear things apart too badly.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

323. I hear you, BUT the point is, Hillary DID get her second chance... and DID almost win.

I believe Bernie, should he decide to run, would do things a bit differently... certainly enough to "bring it home" for the Democratic Party, especially in the midwest and with a more populist progressive agenda, featuring medicare for all, a Green New Deal, a refusal to take corporate/Wall Street PAC money, forgiveness of college debt, significant tax fairness overhaul ensuring billionaires pay their fair share etc etc, issues that he has taken the lead on to bring front and center for a very long time now.

It's not like he's "late to the party," given the decades-long progressivism he has demonstrated... Bernie is the real deal and, thus, rightfully deserves his turn at a second shot at the presidency.

To your point, this is NOT the same as saying Bernie's entitled to it... he certainly would not take it for granted. No doubt, he'd work his tail off, every day, to make it happen, at least as hard as any other candidate, much his junior in age... maybe even harder. He has a track record for doing that.

[Chemisse]

335. You make a good point.

Even though I favored him, and voted for him, in the last primary, I became angry at his behavior and that of his more zealous followers, later in the primary season and beyond, because of how divisive it was and how it hobbled Clinton in the General.

So I'm not objective about it; my attitude toward him running is just 'NO!'

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

346. I see where you're coming from...

I've had mixed feelings, mostly bitter, coming out of the last presidential election that left us stuck with a madman and a traitor for president. I recommend to others to try letting go off those negative feelings... all I can say is that it's helped me deal and move on.

[NurseJackie]

356. "It's now Bernie's turn"

It's now Bernie's turn

[treestar]

467. Indeed!

Wasn't it wrong to think it was a candidates "turn?"

[NurseJackie]

471. When I read that poster proclaim "It's now Bernie's turn" I laughed and laughed...

Wasn't it wrong to think it was a candidates "turn?"

I know! When I read that poster proclaim "It's now Bernie's turn" I laughed and laughed... just as you.

[betsuni]

469. HIS TURN

[Renew Deal]

16. Hillary speaking the truth

I wish she could do this in 2016

[onetexan]

139. she did. Nobody was listening.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

17. So does this apply to all the "concern" about AOC?

Or just certain Dems?

[George II]

20. Why do you bring that up?

[watoos]

28. I think because Kamala Harris isn't the only D. candidate,

that is being attacked by the left. AOC isn't a candidate, she is too young, but plenty of people here have attacked her.

Don't even mention Tulsi Gabbard here or she will get troves of daggers thrown at her.

Not attacking Democratic candidates means just that, not attacking any. This isn't a pick and choose arrangement.

I have no problem voting for Kamala even though I feel there are better candidates out there. We have to keep our energy focused on cleaning up the Trump swamp, as far as I'm concerned 2020 can wait, whoever emerges as our nominee will be a worthy choice that we all can get behind.

[George II]

30. Cortez is running for President? I guess I missed that.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

126. So we only apply this to POTUS candidates?

Convenient.

Though I remember a form of this argument from you and others re: Pelosi and the Speaker position. So, you are willing to extend this to other Dems. Just not AOC. Wonder why?

[watoos]

144. Bazinga!

[karynnj]

190. In a primary, EVERY side will bring up the negative points of any person polling

as well or better than they are. Why? In the primary, the positions on issues will be more similar than different.

In 2015, it was allies of Clinton who put out a stream of negative analysis articles on Joe Biden when it seemed he was putting his toe in the water- speaking of gaffes and positions through he took over a long career. The sense of many here was that it was a signal of what he would face if he jumped in.

Not to mention, while Sanders DID criticize HRC on her Goldman Sachs speeches and his perception she was too close to Wall Street, there were attacks on Sanders, not so much by HRC herself, but by her surrogates. These attacks started with his Burlington announcement. In many cases, they attacked fake strawman issues - like arguing that his history of fighting segregation of public schools in Chicago did not make him good on civil rights. This BEFORE the Sanders campaign even mentioned it. They even questioned whether a man in a photo was really Bernie.

Clearly HRC still feels that Sanders hurt her chances. However, she faced LESS primary pushback than Obama did in 2008 or Kerry in 2004. Obama made he SoS after her attacks on him - which were tougher than Sanders on HRC. You could say that it was because he won anyway, but I read Kerry's book and he does not have a single sentence blaming Dean, Clark, etc - both of which attacked him as much as Sanders attacked her.

It is absolutely normal for primary opponents to put their opponents' actions and positions in the worst light possible.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

327. BINGO!!! So why hold Bernie to a different standard?!?!

Oh, I forgot, he's Bernie... nevermind!!

[Apollyonus]

443. He attacks D E M O C R A T S

Doesn't simply highlight policy differences.

This time around, he has become even cockier because he thinks he is the front-runner.

[George II]

231. I guess it applies to NFL quarterbacks, too - LA fans are already attacking Tom Brady.

Hillary Clinton was speaking about presidential candidates.

[PunkinPi]

23. Afaik, AOC is not running for POTUS in 2020? nt

[Srkdqltr]

38. 2025 maybe. She isn't 30 yet.

Needs to be 35.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

125. So this rule only applies to POTUS candidates.

Convenient.

[PunkinPi]

130. Not what I said. The thread isn't about AOC and she hasn't declared candidacy for POTUS 2020.

(I know, she's too young to run.)

[treestar]

103. You're getting as obsessed with AOC as some were about Bernie!

This has Nothing TO DO with AOC. This thread has nothing to do with her. Yet you brought her up. That's a sign of obsession to an unhealthy degree.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

123. She's a Dem. She gets attacked from the left.

Seems on point. Especially when some in this thread that agree with the OP express great "concern" re: AOC.

[David__77]

280. The thread is about Democrat Tulsi Gabbard.

...

[George II]

298. "A word from HRC about attacks from the left..." - the thread has nothing to do with Gabbard.

[David__77]

299. It's about Gabbard and all Democrats.

......

[Cha]

310. Gabbard attacks herself..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[David__77]

311. Gabbard is part of a strong Democratic congressional caucus.

...

[Cha]

312. Gabbard.. "Both sides are at fault.." For #trumpShutDOWN

[David__77]

314. Gabbard: 100% NARAL rating.

https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/representative/tulsi-gabbard/

Thankfully, like so many other Democrats in Congress, like Nancy Pelosi.

[Cha]

316. Gabbard accuses Hirono, Democratic colleagues of religious bigotry

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211667067#top

Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard accuses fellow Democrats of 'religious bigotry' in questioning judicial nominee

Hirono’s office responded Wednesday that Gabbard was mischaracterizing her questioning of Buescher, and that the senator was voicing her concerns about the nominee’s past public statements rather than his religion.

“It is unfortunate that Congresswoman Gabbard based her misguided opinion on the far-right wing manipulation of these straightforward questions,” Hirono spokesman Will Dempster said in a statement.

He added that over the past two years, Hirono “has been attacked by right wing ideologues for her examination of Donald Trump’s ideologically-driven nominees to the courts.”

“Senator Hirono asks all judicial nominees — particularly those who have expressed very strong personal ideological views in conflict with Supreme Court precedent — if they can be fair,” Dempster said. “She asked Mr. Buescher, who has a clear record of anti-choice activism, whether he could separate his personal beliefs from decisions he would make if confirmed for a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hawaii-rep-tulsi-gabbard-accuses-fellow-democrats-of-religious-bigotry-in-questioning-judicial-nominee/2019/01/09/2c17ecdc-1467-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?utm_term=.97039859a6e2

[treestar]

338. The AOC thing is getting out of hand for some people

I just saw a meme where they inserted her photo in with the Founders! Soon there will be demands to carve her image on Mt. Rushmore!

[comradebillyboy]

19. Bravo Hillary!

[bigtree]

21. Bernie isn't the 'left'

...certainly not the Democratic left.

[ehrnst]

225. He believes himself to be.

Many many of his supporters identify as such.

[bigtree]

288. he also believed himself to be the head of a 'movement'

...when the vast majority of his primary supporters voted for Hillary in the end.

[ehrnst]

347. Indeed.

A campaign is not a movement, as Nader found out.

[Paladin]

22. Well said as usual, Hillary Clinton. Thank you. (nt)

[NurseJackie]

27. HERE'S A TRANSCRIPT... It's the best I could do on short notice.

Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2019, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1)

HERE'S A TRANSCRIPT... It's the best I could do on short notice. For those who can't easily watch the embedded video, and for those who like to read along, and for those who like to cut-and-paste specific quotes... I hope this helps. (Please PM me if I need to correct anything.)

Clinton: "I know what it's like to win, and I know what it's like to lose. And when I lost to Barack Obama, I immediately turned around, I endorsed him, I worked for him. I convinced my supporters to vote for him. I didn't get the same respect from my primary opponent. And a lot of his supporters continued to harass and, you know, really go after my supporters all the time."

"And that feeds-in, I think, to the whole sexism and misogyny part of this campaign. I had large groups of supporters who had to be private because if they lifted their head up online, if they were, you know, responding on a YouTube comment chain, or on Twitter to something, they would just attack! And the attacks were so sexist about "well you're supporting a woman cause you're a woman," and they just never really got to the facts."

Pauley: "They're called---these are the Bernie bros, so called---"

Clinton: "Well, yes. And they're still out there. And I also make the point that, look--"

Pauley: "Why give them, why give them material? Why not let them concentrate on the Trump administration?"

Clinton: "Well, I'm concentrating on the Trump administration. And I'm proud to be a Democrat. I've been a Democrat for decades. I have supported Democrats. I've worked for Democrats."

"Bernie's not a Democrat. And that's not a slam. That's what he says himself."

"And I think a lot of what he churned up on the primary campaign was very hurtful in the general election against me. And I see him doing the same thing. I see him, you know, with his supporters, he doesn't disown the things they say about, you know, some of my favorite Democrats. People like Kamala Harris who is out there speaking up and speaking out, and she's being attacked from the left."

"Enough! You know, if you don't want to support Democrats then go somewhere else!"

[PunkinPi]

32. Thank you for the transcription, NJ!

I have a feeling it will come in handy.

[NurseJackie]

128. I agree. Very handy. (It's already in my DU signature!)

hank you for the transcription, NJ!

You're very welcome!

I have a feeling it will come in handy.

I agree. Very handy. (It's already in my DU signature!)

[PunkinPi]

133. Love your new sig, esp the gif ;) nt

[NurseJackie]

292. I supposes that's one way to misinterpret her message. But thoughtful people...

I supposes that's one way to misinterpret her message. But thoughtful people understand exactly what she's talking about, and know that she's speaking out against the mindset that it's perfectly fine to intentionally attack and smear Democrats and the Democratic party and Democratic candidates... all while enjoying the benefits of the party... but without actually contributing anything of value to the party... and doing only those things that weaken the party.

I'm totally with her on this. It serves no good purpose for people to tear down the party and Democrats with divisive lies and cheap shots. I think she's making a valid point.

I think we can all agree that a weak and divided and suspicious and distrustful Democratic party only serves to benefit the GOP, and the Russians. I really don't understand why ANYONE would be opposed to that. But, whatever.

I supported her but she tends to put her foot in her mouth a lot.....

Actually, from where I'm sitting, she's not the one with the foot in the mouth.

[George II]

293. Bazinga!

[betsuni]

295. Ha!

[watoos]

34. Sorry but that's rehashing the primary, IMHO.

I voted for Bernie, if that's ok, then I voted for Hillary. Hillary had the election stolen from her, it wasn't because of Bernie. Heck, the Bernie Bros were even a Russian creation. We need to move on.

I don't plan on voting for Bernie in 2020, I have moved on, we all should move on.

[LongtimeAZDem]

41. If Hillary Clinton herself can't be quoted here, then we should just shut this site down

[sarcasmo]

85. +1

[NurseJackie]

181. Silencing DEMOCRATS often appears to be the goal. I guess the only positive...

Silencing DEMOCRATS often appears to be the goal. I guess the only positive takeaway from all of this is that I'm detecting a tinge of shame and discomfort. If so, that would also explain the frequent "get over it" comments and taunts.

All I'm saying here is that as Democrats, it's important for all of us to be MATURE and for us to ADMIT what happened, ACCEPT what happened, and be willing to EXAMINE what happened so that we can LEARN from the mistakes and PREVENT it from happening again.

I think that every reasonable person can agree with that. There's no good reason for anyone to try and shut down the conversation with false and contrived accusations of "That's refighting! You're refighting!"

[LongtimeAZDem]

183. Absolutely right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Apollyonus]

447. Correct. We shall not be silenced once again

to jog the path to the Nirvana as some people see it .... a path that Democrats built over decades and one person who is not a Democrat wants to use it for his gain while bitching about the quality of construction all along the way.

[NurseJackie]

48. No it's not. She's giving historical context with regard to what happened previously and ...

Sorry but that's rehashing the primary, IMHO.

No it's not. She's giving historical context with regard to what happened previously and what continues to happen currently. Namely, the way Kamala Harris is being treated. She's drawing accurate parallels and pointing out the similarities, the dangers and the consequences.

We need to move on.

That sounds like a euphemism for sweeping it under the rug. It's a lazy response to something that's uncomfortable, embarrassing, or maddening. All I'm saying is that it's very important that we not forget the important lessons that were learned. It serves no good purpose to pretend that these things didn't happen. It also serves no good purpose to pretend that they aren't happening now, or that the consequences will be any different.

[c-rational]

89. Agreed. The OP had nothing to do with rehashing and to move on is not to learn from our mistakes.

[TexasBushwhacker]

54. I agree. The elephant in the room is that RUSSIA

coordinated an attack on Clinton that included:

The "Bernie bros"

The "Black out" movement where African Americans were encouraged to NOT VOTE in protest

Jill Fucking Stein

Fake news far and wide including ridiculous things like Pizzagate

Furthermore, if we don't get to the bottom of the Russian involvement they will install Trump again in 2020. I wish she would get as riled up about RUSSIA as she does about Bernie.

[MrsCoffee]

91. You wish she would get riled up about Russia?!? Where the hell have you been?

This fuckng place....




BERNIE is the one who told us to ignore Russia. JFC.

[Kahuna7]

188. 100% +1

[PunkinPi]

68. She's talking about misogyny in the context of the campaign, and how

how the Russians helped amplify it via Bernie supporters. Bernie has entered the 2020 race and the Russians are still trolling -- that's why it's important not to "move on."

[MrsCoffee]

99. Russia trolled for Bernie. I imagined they don't want to talk about that ever.

[LongtimeAZDem]

118. We know they did, but you can't put all the blame for the actions Sander's supporters on them

[MrsCoffee]

127. You are 100% correct.

[MrsCoffee]

88. Sorry that excuse doesn't fly in the real world. Bernie will be vetted thoroughly

this time around.

[calimary]

55. Oh God, it hurts to revisit this. Hillary's right. AGAIN.

I wish Bernie would go AWAY. All he does is stir up divisiveness within our party.

And - um - did the results of yesterday NOT convince, once and for all, the tremendous value of Democrats sticking together and STAYING UNITED, DAMMIT!!!!!???

Bernie Sanders needs to GO AWAY.

[DURHAM D]

80. I would change two words -

Hillary - "and she's being attacked from the left."

Change to - "and she's being attacked from the so-called left."

[NurseJackie]

86. Yep! I wish she had actually said "so-called" ... but her meaning was clear nevertheless.

Change to - "and she's being attacked from the so-called left."

Yep! I wish she had actually said "so-called" ... but her meaning was clear nevertheless.

[treestar]

104. Don't get what the interviewer means about letting them

concentrate on Trump, that's the very point, they concentrate on the Democrat.

[NurseJackie]

113. I agree, it's difficult to know where Jane Pauley was going with that. My best guess...

I agree, it's difficult to know where Jane Pauley was going with that. My best guess is that she was about to suggest that Hillary should just fade into the woodwork and be silent. Pauley was giving legitimacy to the false notion that by Hillary Clinton's mere presence, she was "inciting" them.

I believe Pauley was about to make the argument if Hillary would just "go away" then the "Bernie bros" (as Pauley called them) wouldn's have Hillary to obsess about, and would instead focus their attention on Trump.

[treestar]

342. Yes, good guess

May not work though. Hillary could say nothing and some of them will still claim it was stolen from Bernie by the evil DNC.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

151. THANK YOU!

I can't see twitter video and was completely in the dark about what HRC said. Your transcription lets me 'rec'.

OT and BTW: If everybody who wanted to hug Hillary did so, she'd never have time to take a breath.

[DarthDem]

301. That Is Outstanding, NJ

Thank you!!!

[fleabiscuit]

304. Running as an independent or independent/Democrat can be very financially rewarding.

I liked that HRC provided tax returns. I wonder if anyone else will?

[MarianJack]

29. Well said, Madam Legitimate President.

Back Bench Bernie seriously needs to take a permanent powder.

RESIST!

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

35. +1

[calimary]

58. + another million.

[dlk]

31. There is Deeply Entrenched Misogyny that Rears its Ugly Head Every Time a Woman Takes Center Stage

We have never adequately addressed this ongoing problem that consistently harms women Democratic candidates and in the long run, harms all women. It gave us Trump and who in their right mind truly believes that was ultimately better than Clinton? I don't believe the misogynists are true Democrats. That level of hatred and ignorance is an anathema to basic Democratic principles.

[watoos]

40. Have you checked how many women Democrats are in Congress?

I find it hard to believe that Democrats are misogynists, statistics don't bear that out. You're going to have to shoot me out a definition of true Democrat. Was Al Franken a true Democrat?

[Wounded Bear]

90. Hell yes Al Franken was a true Democrat...

He was thrown under the bus by his fellow Dems without process.

[watoos]

146. Isn't that what's going on here?

[PunkinPi]

175. No...

1. Bernie says he's not a democrat.
2. HRC is warning us all again, about how misogyny/sexism was amplified in the 2016 election. The warning is applicable to the upcoming 2020 election.

[ehrnst]

227. Who is being thrown under the bus?

[fleabiscuit]

305. He held his own fate. He was weak and quit IMHO. He deserves no mourning. nt

[ehrnst]

226. There is a wide streak of misogyny and racism on the left.

It was on FULL display during the General election in 2016.

It's rearing it's ugly head again.

[Farmer-Rick]

33. Divide and conquer

Getting Bernie supporters all pissed off at Hillary supporters or vice versa, will result in losing yet again.

The reason Pelosi just beat Traitor Trump at the "hold government hostage" game was because Democrats all sang the same tune and stuck together.

When you are in the middle of battle that is not the time to take apart your weapons.

[Kahuna7]

43. From what I've witnessed on twitter, "bernie's supporters" are..

just that. Supporters of Bernie. Period. They will vote for bernie or gleefully rat-f@ck the Democrats, like they did in 2016. I haven't seen anything that makes me think otherwise.

[SidDithers]

53. +1...

Sid

[LongtimeAZDem]

57. +1 /nt

[calimary]

60. + another million.

[watoos]

62. So if by some weird happening,

Bernie becomes the Democratic nominee in 2020 he doesn't have a prayer to win because true Democrats will not vote for him?
How do you know those people on Twitter are really Bernie supporters? Maybe they are people from St. Petersburg trying to divide us?

I voted for Bernie then Hillary, do you consider me a rat-f@cker?

United we stand divided we fall.

ps/ Do I have to vote for Kamala in the primary, or am I allowed to vote for someone else?

[LongtimeAZDem]

77. That's not our concern; if he wins the primary, we'll rally around him. What scares us is what

he will do if he loses the primary.

[emulatorloo]

110. Everyone here will vote for the eventual nominee. That's what I always do

In the Primary, vote for who ever you want, then enthusiastically support the nominee by GOTV. That’s what I do too

[Farmer-Rick]

201. Exactly right

[Starry Messenger]

109. Isn't that the truth

Well put

[Farmer-Rick]

165. Just what Little Putin wants you to believe.

We have got to see past the propaganda this time or we are doomed.

[Kahuna7]

185. Oh please. Putin will do what putin will do. We shouldn't be useful idiots

as some are wont to be. We need to be aware of the divisive tactics and not be so pie in the sky. We need to push back at every turn.

[Farmer-Rick]

205. But why make it easy for him?

By dividing ourselves into camps, he merely has to throw insult grenades, propaganda and trolls at each camp. He doesn't have to create division, he merely needs to constantly stir it up.

And if we alienate a large enough percentage of our own support, there will be too small a push back.

[sheshe2]

233. Bingo!

[watoos]

45. Well said Farmer-Rick.

The M$M was pushing the narrative that Democrats were cracking right before Trump cracked.

United we stand divided we fall.

[PunkinPi]

46. "Democrats all sang the same tune and stuck together"...

Nice sentiment (would love to see it happen more often) and it proved to be effective when Democrats did it, however Bernie says he's not a Democrat.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

47. Why is it HRC who really won, has to gracefully admit defeat and go away...but BS supporters can

continue to tout their guy who didn't even get past the primary? Getting real real sick of Bernie. Great Senator, but, for the love of Gods..when will this page put an end to being able to burn down our heroes bc...Bernie caucuses w the Ds? You want the D juice? Become a D. in the meantime BS supporters, (or are you really?) re-read the rules of the page and follow them. PLEASE.
Or be the next Mr Skinner and start your own page. IU? I think a lot of provocateurs come in here under the guise of supporting bernie and just get away w murder. Starts fights almost every time and i'm sure many good Ds have been flamed and thrown out of here (and their voices) bc of same. As if it's not exhausting enough to deal w dt.

[calimary]

71. + ANOTHER million.

I'd just like to remind, AGAIN, about what it means, and what results it gains us, WHEN DEMOCRATS STICK TOGETHER, DAMMIT!!!!! For Pete's Sake! If yesterday (when trump CAVED - because DEMOCRATS REMAINED SOLIDLY TOGETHER) isn't enough to convince EVERYONE that this is true - AND that this is the way to even more Democratic victories, I seriously don't know what would be.

STICK TOGETHER, DEMS! Look what we can accomplish when we do so! Seeing is (or at least SHOULD BE) believing.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

73. Cumbaya.

[treestar]

463. [phone]

It is so annoying that they continue to claim he would have beat the Dotard or that the DNC robbed him of his rightful victory! Like that can ever be proven.

[mcar]

66. Bernie supporters have never stopped being pissed off

At HRC supporters or at anyone who cares mention Democratic 2020 candidates. Just check out Twitter some day.

[LongtimeAZDem]

75. Or Huffpo, or YouTube, or . . .

[mcar]

76. Yep

[Kahuna7]

79. Bernie never stopped running. He basically has been running

ever since 2015. He even ran alongside Hillary and Trump.

[mcar]

97. True

[MrsCoffee]

98. That was after she beat the five white guys who wanted to take her job.

She is a master at pulling people together even under the most difficult of circumstances. That’s why we just beat Trump.

Imagine the progress we could make without all the divisive bullshit.

[fleabiscuit]

306. The exodus from here by the radicals made this site better. No need for mission creep. nt

[Cha]

309. Tell that to BS.. he's trying to Marginalize Black, White, Gay, Latino or Women Candidates..

Bernie: ‘My Opponents’ Want Black, White, Gay, Latino or Women Candidates ‘Regardless of What They Stand For’

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11722251

Link to tweet

[lunamagica]

51. She's right as usual. Thank you, Madam President

[samnsara]

63. she IS right... our caucus became a yelling match...

..and HRCs peeps werent the yellers.....and for WHY??

[DURHAM D]

95. Same here.

Mothers with minor females had to leave, usually in tears.

[mcar]

61. So glad she's speaking out!

[R B Garr]

70. I'm so glad she is pointing this out. Letting the double

standards bully people again is not going to go unchecked. We are all aware of it and sick of it. Thanks to Hillary for calling it out.

[allgood33]

92. She is correct again. Sage advice from a real Democrat.

I am still with her and ALL the rest of the real Democrats, right, left and in the middle but real Democrats.

[Docreed2003]

94. If anyone has the right to say that, it's certainly her!

This isn't refighting the primaries as much as a warning to, hopefully, avoid the same pitfalls from 2016.

This idea of a liberal purity measuring stick is outrageous and we've seen it already this year used against Kamala, Booker, and Beto and ALWAYS by self professed "progressives".

[watoos]

159. If I wanted to,

I bet I can come up with dirt on every Democratic candidate who is running for president in 2020.

The problem is, I don't see the rationale for doing so.

The pitfalls from 2016 were Russian involvement in our election, Russian bots and trolls on social media, Republicans doing election fraud, throwing millions of legitimate voters off the voter rolls, cutting back on polling places and polling times, the use of electronic voting machines that are never independently audited, and finally, the #1 lesson learned is that we still use an age old Electoral College system that was designed to placate slave states. The United States may be the only country where the candidate who gets the most votes doesn't necessarily win. But Bernie, with all due respect, blaming Bernie for Hillary's defeat is pretty far down my list.

United we stand divided we fall.

[Docreed2003]

172. The 2016 primary infighting was brutal

and the Russians were certainly responsible for pushing nasty memes and stoking the infighting between the Sanders and Clinton supporters. Much of that infighting was driven by the idea that somehow Clinton wasn't progressive enough. There's no doubt that the Russian interference that Trump benefited from was actively in play during the 2016 Democratic primaries.

[fleabiscuit]

307. +1

[Hortensis]

100. HRC is speaking out as part of our battle for 2020 now.

America needs to understand how America fell to right-wing kleptocratic billionaires, to the religious right, to the Trump/trumpsters, and to Russia if it's not to happen all over again in 2020, and this time possibly fatally.

Many elections are being won and lost by razor-thin margins these days. Splinter groups and candidates are already being backed by American and Russian kleptocrats who intend to use every possible means to effect a right-wing takeover and turn ours into a sham democracy ruled by authoritarian right-wingers.

They already have taken over the Republican caucuses in congress and in many states. We could lose not just progressive government but democracy itself in 2020, unless we in the Democratic Party stand united.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

173. wish you had a megaphone big enough for all to hear your words

[DURHAM D]

108. Before BS became his client this was Tad Devine's client -

Ukraine's ex-president Viktor Yanukovych found guilty of treason
Exiled former leader sentenced to 13 years’ jail over 2014 protests and Russian invasion


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/25/ukraine-ex-president-viktor-yanukovych-found-guilty-of-treason

[Tom Rinaldo]

147. And before that Al Gore and John Kerry...

"Thomas A. "Tad" Devine (born June 11, 1955)[1] is an American political consultant. Devine was a senior adviser in Al Gore's 2000 and John Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaigns.[2] He was also the chief strategist for Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign.[3] He has worked on eleven winning campaigns for President and Prime Minister in Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East, as well as seventeen winning U.S. Senate races.[4] Devine is currently the president of Devine Mulvey Longabaugh, a Washington D.C.-based media consulting firm. In October 2010, he was recognized as one of "the nation's most respected media consultants" by USA Today"

First Paragraph in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tad_Devine Later it adds this:

"Devine has worked on the winning campaigns of New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine in 2005, and several campaigns of senators, including Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Bill Nelson (FL), Bernie Sanders (VT), John Kerry (MA) and the DSCC independent expenditure for the winning senate races of Claire McCaskill (MO) and Robert Menendez (NJ), as well as numerous statewide elections. Devine's work as a strategist and media consultant has been recognized by leading media and political consulting organizations. Devine has produced award-winning television advertising for Sen. Edward Kennedy (MA), Sen. John Edwards (NC), and Gov. Parris Glendening (MD). "

Bernie first used Devine to assist his run for Senate

Look, for all I know (or more correctly don't know) Devine may at some point have flipped and started focusing on helping bad guys, but his life long creds in the Democratic Party had been sterling back when Bernie first connected with him.

[blue-wave]

112. Thank you Hillary!!!

She just said what I believe we all should say loud and clear about anyone who wants to use our party as Bernie did: Bernie is not a democrat!!!!!

He used our party in the primary, then left it again after he lost. We should never allow this to happen again.

[TexasBushwhacker]

115. This interview is from Sept 2017 n/t

[PunkinPi]

119. So? It's relevant to 2020. nt

[fleabiscuit]

308. +1

[Gothmog]

117. Great comments by Hillary Clinton

[doompatrol39]

124. We now have major presidential candidates talking seriously about...

...things like Medicare for all and wealth taxes and 70% top marginal tax rates.

Does ANYONE honestly believe that would be the case if the left weren't "attacking" (I prefer to say prompting or pushing) certain candidates?

Would President Obama and/or HRC or the party in general have "evolved" on gay marriage if they hadn't been "attacked" from the left?

If anyone honestly and sincerely thinks that, then I've got a few bridges I'd like to sell them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

131. She didn't convince all of her supporters to back Obama

I grant that she tried very hard to do so which was highly admirable, but many P.U.M.A.s still refused to. I knew some at the time. But I didn't judge Hillary supporters in 2016, or subsequently, by the actions of the P.U.M.A.s.

For the record I'm a Bernie 2016 supporter (Hillary supporter in the General) who thinks very highly of Kamala Harris. She's currently in the top tier of my small list of Democrats who I now favor for the nomination.

[Autumn]

136. She's in my top three at this time.

I'm hoping for Inslee, then Brown and Harris. Warren is rapidly moving up to 3rd though after her tax on billionaires proposal.

[LongtimeAZDem]

184. But she tried, from just a few days after she lost the vote.

[Tom Rinaldo]

187. She did indeed. I attempted to give her full credit for that in my post above n/t

[LongtimeAZDem]

189. I know; I restated it to highlight the contrast, which was as much as I though I could say

without getting deleted.

[Tom Rinaldo]

192. I figured that might be the case

This is my constrained comment on what you are seeking to highlight. I won't post about other aspects of the 2016 elections because for the most part I find this entire topic in general to be counterproductive to unifying left of center voters to defeat the Republican Right.

Hillary in 2008 set the gold standard for efforts to unify our party after the primaries. Or maybe I should say the platinum standard. She deserves great praise for that; in defeat it was one of her truly finest (among many fine) hours. But there is a built in limitation to using the platinum standard as the pass/fail mark. It is almost never achieved. Of course is is to be honored and acknowledged, but a lot of good to decent efforts fall short of that. Hillary did the best by far.

In 2004 Kerry chose the runner up for the Democratic nomination as his running mate, so that year is not informative. Gore obviously lost a very close election though in 2000. Bill Bradley was the Democratic Party nomination runner up, and he didn't particularly knock himself out helping Gore in the General. Jerry Brown came in second to Bill Clinton in 1992, and there wasn't a whole lot of help flowing to Clinton from Brown in 1992's General election. Relations between the two remained fairly chilly. And a Clinton win that year was far from a forgone conclusion.

Jackson and Gore came in second and third to Dukakis in 1988, and, if my memory serves me right, they of course endorsed Dukakis but were not major national surrogates for him. Gary Hart was second to Mondale in 1984, but he self destructed so no info gleaned from that example. And that brings us to 1980:

"1980 Democratic National Convention was one of the nastiest on record. On the penultimate day, Kennedy conceded the nomination and called for a more liberal party platform in what many saw as the best speech of his career. On the stage on the final day, Kennedy for the most part ignored Carter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

Sanders endorsed Clinton before the Democratic Convention. He held a unity rally with her not that long after she was the nominee. He asked his supporters to vote for Clinton. He did some (yes limited) campaigning for her. Agreed that he did not do nearly as much for Clinton as Clinton did for Obama. But he did a hell of a lot more than Brown did for Bill Clinton, or than Kennedy did for Jimmy Carter for example. And essentially at least as much as the likes of Bradley and Gore and Jackson did in support of Democratic nominees in the years when they were the winner's major competitors. Democratic unity was also pretty thin in both 1968 and 1972.

Throughout this entire thread I read numerous undifferentiated attacks on "Bernie supporters". Not B.O.B.'s, but simply Bernie supporters in general. This too is a disappointing display of fractures being stressed rather than healed

[jalan48]

137. So, let's start the new election cycle by attacking Bernie's supporters from the get-go?

Ironic.

[onetexan]

141. No. She's not attacking them, she's speaking the truth about the behavior of Berniecrats during the

2016 election, and the fact they're doing it again on perspective candidates like Kamala.
Hillary is absolutely correct - Bernie is no Democrat. He's a hypocrite and an opportunist.

[jalan48]

153. This interview is over a year old. Why are we pretending it's current?

[onetexan]

160. Nobody's pretending it's currently. I'm just responding to your post as i see it.

[jalan48]

162. "They're doing it again"?

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

142. This is a D page. Be sure to follow your own advice please.

[jalan48]

150. Well, if we want to go back to the hubris of "We got this" I think we're going to have trouble.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

170. No sure what you're referring to.

Never again.

[jalan48]

182. It was a term used on here a lot during the general election. The idea was no worries, we

don't need the Bernie supporters, we got this. If we can't pull together we will lose again. This doesn't mean questions about candidates can't be asked about their past positions on the issues. I really believe we won't see a repeat of the acrimony we saw in 2008 and 2016, especially if the primary is transparent with more debates. No Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile this time around please.

[pnwmom]

209. She's speaking up on behalf of Kamala Harris and other Democrats. n/t

[jalan48]

234. I'm sure she is.

[pnwmom]

239. Did you hear Bernie recently repeat his complaint about progressives voting for candidates

only because they were women or minorities, and not because of their positions?

He hasn't learned anything since he claimed that about Hillary's supporters.

[jalan48]

241. You don't think some people vote strictly because of gender and race?

[pnwmom]

244. I think it is very rare, and not a problem Bernie should be focused on. When he does, it insults

the progressives he's accusing.

But maybe he thinks so because he thinks some of the people who voted for him did so only because they couldn't stand to vote for a woman?

[jalan48]

248. Really? Why do you think it's rare, especially with identity politics being the mode of the day?

[pnwmom]

262. I never read a single woman here or anywhere else online or in real life

say she was voting for Hillary because she was a woman.

However, we know some misogynists decided to back Bernie. He's still dealing with the repercussions.

[jalan48]

264. I don't really know. Perhaps there is data online about it. Do you think Republican's vote

along gender and racial lines?

[pnwmom]

266. I think both male and female Republicans tend to vote for white males. Look at R's in Congress. n/t

[jalan48]

268. I agree and I would add I think there are a fair number of Republicans who would vote

against a candidate because of his/her race though they might not publically admit it.

[pnwmom]

272. Right. But Bernie was specifically talking about progressives --so the issue of R's is a side issue.

[jalan48]

273. Maybe so. I think in today's world of political tribalism some people are always going to vote for

the tribe they see themselves as being part of. It's human nature.

[aikoaiko]

143. Are you sure you want those who criticize the party or candidates to "go somewhere else"?

I thought this was why some HRC fans thought she lost the election.

[elleng]

145. Oh nice, slug it out, guys.

[Apollyonus]

440. The only one (badly) slugging

is the only one attacking democrats.

[Snotcicles]

148. "If you don't want to support Democrats go somewhere else"

Ok Bernie Hillary wants you to run third party.

[MrsCoffee]

155. So we shouldn't expect him to support Democrats?

A third party run would be a good way to prove that it was just all about Bernie. You really want to pull that threat out every time someone suggests he join the party?

[Snotcicles]

168. No, I'm still a Democrat I would like him to join the party. It doesn't look like he is being

welcomed to anyway. I feel he is by far the the best candidate of any party. And he is entitled to run.
My first allegiance is to my principles. Party affiliation is not worth sacrificing them.

[LongtimeAZDem]

177. And the threats start once again.

[Dorn]

149. This post breaks the DU rule: No divisive group attacks

Do not smear, insult, vilify, bait, maliciously caricature, or give disrespectful nicknames to any groups of people that are part of the Democratic coalition, or that hold viewpoints commonly held by Democrats, or that support particular Democratic public figures. Do not imply that they are fake Democrats, fake progressives, conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans, or the like.

[jalan48]

152. Ironic isn't it?

[PunkinPi]

166. Feel free to alert if you think it breaks the rules. nt

[DesertRat]

154. "If you don't want to support Democrats, then go somewhere else"

Amen!

[orangecrush]

161. Agree, 100%

[recentevents]

163. Where is it that Bernie supporters are attacking Kamala

I must have missed it.

This is more shit to divide the party. Bash the Bernie supporters, chase them from the party, go ahead see how that works out for the country. 4 more years of Trump making America hate again.

[LongtimeAZDem]

176. Other than Twitter, Huffpo, Salon, Slate, YouTube, Disqus, and Facebook, I haven't seen it anywhere

[recentevents]

223. would you like to provide links?

Tried finding something myself, got nothing. So once again it's just smear the "supporters" with no proof.


And Hillary's statement of "if you don't want to support Democrats then go somewhere else" is more destructive. Keep banging that drum and too many will leave. Support doesn't mean blindly following. It means the candidates must listen to US, what we want not the other way around. When they listen, we support their fight in D.C. when they don't we let them know about it.

[LongtimeAZDem]

247. If people who claim to be "liberal" or "progressive" go somewhere else, then they are neither

Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2019, 09:42 PM - Edit history (1)

"liberal" or "progressive"; they're just petty, self-absorbed fools.

This is what happened last time; many Sanders supported said "I'll vote for Stein". And so, we got Trump, and now they try and say "It's not my fault". But it is, and they deserve what they got.

[LongtimeAZDem]

370. The 28% number was from early anger over Clinton's concession, and did not hold to the election:

According to Gallup Polls from June 9 to August 17 McCain's cross-party support fluctuated between 10% and 13%. In the poll for August 18 to August 24 support for McCain among Democrats peaked at 14%. From October 13 to October 19 polls showed McCain's support among Democrats to be 7%, which was the lowest thus far. The CNN exit polls placed his Democratic support at 10% with the same percentage for liberal support. These results may not represent the general voters due to early voting.

According to exit polls on Election Day, McCain won the votes of only 10% of Democrats nationwide, the same percentage of Democrats' votes that George W. Bush won in 2004.

The PUMAs did not change the election; Sanders-Stein defectors did so, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

[LongtimeAZDem]

378. Oh, good god.

[Fuzzpope]

164. We need to do better than this. A lot better.

It's a depressing sight to see how easily it is to subvert the vanguard of the democratic voting public (us) with the base economy of a small handful of trigger topics.

We cannot afford to be manipulated in so predictable a fashion. If bickering and in-figting is your thing, table it until we are safely beyond 2020. Until then, EVERY individual is a vote against a genuine, bona fide Enemy who would utterly destroy you and everyone you knew if they could.

That enemy may have been a Russian bot program, or worse, a human disruption agent.

It may have been your own wife. Or brother, or best friend, who fell prey to the greatest feat of social engineering and psychological warfare in US history, and it didn't happen because that person was weak, or stupid, or even lazy. It happened because this shit they unleashed upon us *just works*, on a simple, gut level that uses your own rationale against you.

But, we are all of us forewarned this time. They will not have the luxory of first strike that they did in 2016, because we know better now.

And if we let that knee jerk descend again and neutralize us in pointless lateral conflicts and frictions against one another, that will be OUR fault, and no one else's.

This is bigger than all of us, what Trump and his cabal have already accomplished in this country beggars description. None of us could have imagined reaching the precipice we are at today, in so short a time frame.

We need each other. We need your support, not your engineered cynicism and witty internet shanks and self indulgence of toxic bitterness. Put useless things aside and find a way to deliver us all to the finish line, to do our part against this century's Great Evil.

Find a way past these things. You have a common enemy, channel your ire against it. Couldn't possibly be easier, just look for the assholes wearing the dumbfuck red hats.

[radical noodle]

167. If you don't want to support Democrats...

then go somewhere else. Yes!

[elmac]

171. Its interesting that DU allows "certain" divisive threads, hmmm. nt

[Cha]

319. Can't take the truth bomb, eh?

[KPN]

174. This isn't a good look for HRC. I understand and

believe there were and are some idiots among 2015/16 Bernie supporters, but criticizing Bernie supporters as a whole is wrong.

Enough!

[lapucelle]

407. I think it's a wonderful look for her.

HRC did not criticize BS supporters as a whole; her reference was to a certain culture of toxic masculinity that was embraced by some, not all. The pervasive culture was exposed in a letter a few weeks ago, and BS himself has issued a limited general apology to the members of his campaign who felt they were victimized.

Perhaps it's time to extend a sincere mea culpa to all who were affected. It is never a good look to avoid acknowledging responsibility for failures in leadership. It is especially troubling when it becomes a pattern.

[KPN]

430. She said "a lot of his supporters" not some,

which sounds more like “most” than it does “some”. On top of that, she ascribed it to the things you described and therefore all of those people she referred to. That’s a bad look and actually emblematic of some of the “likability” challenge that faced her.

It’s a huge mischaracterization and mistake to imply that a male who does not like or support a particular female is misogynist. It’s stereotyping. That’s not a good look.

[lapucelle]

449. You might want to invest in a good dictionary.

It is a huge mischaracterization to even suggest that this was about being "liked" or "supported".

Two dozen former campaign workers went to the media to voice their concerns about the untenable and dangerous dynamic of harassment and violence that developed during the last presidential season, as well as the pervasive predatory culture in evidence throughout and the danger of it happening again.

It's not a good look to trivialize what went by claiming it was anything other than what it actually was: the disgusting, ongoing, tolerance of the harassment of and the misogyny against women and the concomitant gaslighting of the victims.

Those responsible needsto take responsibility and apologize. And the enablers need to stop making excuses.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexism.html

[KPN]

453. Who's doing the gaslighting here?

[lapucelle]

454. Not the one with the dictionary...

some (adj)
- being of an unspecified amount or number

lot (n)
- a considerable quantity or extent

most (adj)
- greatest in quantity, extent, or degree
- the majority of

gaslighting
- a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity.

Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.

Denying, questioning, and trivializing, a person's lived experience is a hallmark of the technique.

[MFM008]

179. ANYTHING

That is responsible for dividing Democrats and allowing the maggot to wiggle into the white house to destroy democracy and the WORLD needs to be shutdown, especially when they dont know when to quit.

[lindysalsagal]

186. The ever-present Dem circular firing squad. We never learn.

If frump isn't a rich enough target to focus on, nothing ever will be.

We have to hold power, and if this gangster "administration" hasn't proven that, and some want to keep arguing minutia, then we're doomed.

Get over the purity and just be one party that wins, dammit.

Whoever gets the nomination, gets our support. Period.

And we all know full well it won't be Bernie. I love the guy, but it won't be bernie.

[Mosby]

194. anyone taken a peek at JPR lately?

The new "owners" have ruined the site with the new software, so a lot of them are probably going to head back over here (if they ever left)

It's going to be a long primary.

[yellowwoodII]

199. Let's Move On

We have work to do.

[oasis]

200. ImWithHer. I agree 100%.

[Nitram]

202. Damn, I wish she was president.

[spooky3]

203. I'm glad to hear her calling out sexism and misogyny

after having to tiptoe previously. She is also trying to help other women candidates.

[Initech]

208. And people wonder why I have such a problem with Bernie running again.

We cannot go through this again, or we will guarantee 4 more years of Fox News running the country.

[betsuni]

212. YES!

[Roy Rolling]

216. I supported Hillary 100%

I would support her again, maybe, and agree with her. What I don't get is the repeated, virulent anti-Bernie attacks. Why? Because like Hillary, much of the "Bernie-bro" and other primary conversation was started and amplified by Russian and disruptive sources.

To me, that makes any reference to the "Bernie atrocities" suspect, and repeating that propaganda is too broad for such a nuanced and complicated issue.

So instead of getting carried away I tell myself, "settle down, Beavis."

[GulfCoast66]

261. I'm glad you asked. And I only speak for myself.

I was ok with Bernie.

Until his delegates booed the great John Lewis on national TV at our last convention.

And did Bernie rush to the podium and admonish his supporters. Tell them John Lewis is on of the greatest living American who got his head bashed in on Edmond Pettus bridge while on the original Selma March. And then stood 10 feet from MLK at one of the 2 greatest speeches in the history of our nation as leader of the radical youth wing of the movement? Did he do that?

No. He sat there grinning like the cat that ate the canary, like a man savoring revenge.

You may find that forgivable. I don’t.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

330. Beavis, haha, yes! You said it! Thought we were clued in to these Russian sources, as you point out.

Guess not!!

[ucrdem]

217. Very timely reminder.

Great to hear her spell it out.

[JCanete]

221. wow...that's nonense. He did support her post primary. This is totally a winning

message that isn't going to be divisive at all. Division only exists when its the left that has negative things to say about the moderates...right? right?

Ah, yes, its the sexism. Forget that Sanders supporters tend to be really fond of Nina Turner, and most really fond of Elizabeth Warren. Oh yeah, and they all totally hate on AOC all day all night. Fuck this is weak sauce.

Ah yes, when he supports democrats in primaries he's not supporting democrats. This screed is just rife with mischarcterizations.

Forget that Clinton supporters did no better for Barack Obama than Sanders supporters did for Clinton in the GE.

"Bernie is not a Democrat...." oh my god. That's what she's got? Its a dumb complaint here on DU, its even worse coming out her mouth. Label politics? She may as well be saying your a "patriot" only if you have a flag lapel.

"Go somewhere else"? if you have issues with certain candidates over other democratic candidates? She's literally suggesting people should maybe not vote as democrats because they prefer some other democrat over harris? She's suggesting they should support what, 3rd party candidates and split the vote?

[Cha]

249. Enough of your WhatAboutism.

[NurseJackie]

250. Ha!

[Gothmog]

275. I am on a private facebook page for clinton delegates to the national convention s

Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2019, 11:29 PM - Edit history (1)

There are a ton of Clinton delegates who are not going to forget or forgive.

If sanders runs, he will face a ton of strong push back from people who remember sanders efforts to elect trump

[LongtimeAZDem]

287. "sanders efforts to elect trump"

[Gothmog]

381. Did enough Bernie Sanders supporters vote for Trump to cost Clinton the election?

The real world is a nice place even if magic does not work. I like the real world because facts matter i the real world. There are studies that back up these claims https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.972422d03243

New data is shedding light, however, on Sanders’s role in the last election — and on how many Sanders voters ended up supporting Trump. It’s a question many in the party will be asking about a candidate who may want to compete again for the Democratic nomination.

Two surveys estimate that 12 percent of Sanders voters voted for Trump. A third survey suggests it was 6 percent.

First, the political scientist Brian Schaffner analyzed the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which was conducted by YouGov and interviewed 64,600 Americans in October-November 2016. In that survey, Schaffner found that 12 percent of people who voted in the primary and reported voting for Sanders also voted in November and reported voting for Trump.

Schaffner examined only voters whose turnout in the primary and general election could be validated using voter file data. This excludes people who said they voted but actually did not — although it also excludes people who voted in caucuses or party-run primaries, for which validated turnout data are not as readily available.

Facts are good things. In the real world facts matter.

[LongtimeAZDem]

392. That shows that it was even worse than I feared.

I blamed Sanders and his supporters for helping elect Trump, but I based that on those that voted for Stein, or stayed home.

Any Sanders supporter that actually voted for Trump to stop Clinton deserves what we now have, IMO. Or worse.

[Gothmog]

400. There are a ton of hard core Democrats who will not forget or forgive

The conduct of the sanders campaign in not supporting Clinton and the conduct of sanders supporters will be an issue if sanders runs. There are some hard core Democrats who do not forget or forgive

[JCanete]

322. you always bring the content Cha, I can always count on you for the heavy lifting. As an aside,

I feel like we don't hear "you're a poopy butt" here near enough. Somebody should add that to their repertoire.

[Cha]

374. Hillary is Dead On.. deal with it.

[NurseJackie]

253. Not really. Not in any meaningful way. Everyone knows it.

Division only exists when its the left that has negative things to say about the moderates...right? right?

No, what causes the division to exist is when those "negative things" are completely false.

For example: It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "ideologically bankrupt". It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "feeble". It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "corrupt". It's NOT TRUE that the Democratic party is "the party of the one-percent". It's NOT TRUE that there's "no difference between Democrats and Republicans." It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "do-nothings". It's NOT TRUE that the Democratic party "doesn't care about climate change." It's NOT TRUE that the Democrats "focus too much" on diversity. It's also NOT TRUE that people who the refuse to vote for an African-American because of his skin color "aren't racists". It's also NOT TRUE that the Democrats who "are very big into diversity" aren't "particularly sympathetic" to the working class.

It serves no good purpose for anyone to say things like that. It certainly doesn't benefit the Democrats or Democratic candidates.

All I'm saying is that these types of divisive smears and attacks only serve to make us weak. They're divisive and they provoke anger and suspicion. A weakened Democratic party only benefits the GOP (and, Russia, of course.)

[Cha]

256. Thank You, Nurse Jackie!

[JCanete]

332. Its not true almost everyting that we just watched being said in the video and yet....

apparently that serves some good purpose?

[betsuni]

333. What is not true?

[JCanete]

360. one glaringnly obvious mistake is that its mysoginy from the left that was the factor that made

Clinton unappealing to that voting block. That's just low-hanging fruit...an easy characterization to declare without evidence, and the evidence to the contrary is who Sanders supporters are generally very happy with, like Warren and AOC. Plenty here who are obvious Sanders supporters have weighed in on Warren's campaign as a positive. That they love her, etc.

[betsuni]

410. LOL your low-hanging fruit is wrong.

[JCanete]

411. oh wow, I shall have to reevaluate based upon the information you've brought me here. nt

[betsuni]

412. ...

Information LOL

[Gothmog]

336. What is not true?

Everything in that video is a fact

[NurseJackie]

350. I see. So... you're calling Hillary a liar. Got it!

Its not true almost everyting that we just watched being said in the video

I see. So... you're calling Hillary a liar. Got it!

[JCanete]

362. Actually I didn't. I think she's wrong over and over here. I think she believes what she's said, but

that doesn't make what she said true, and I kind of already posted, addressing my myriad complaints with the thoughts expressed in the video. Got another meme for me?

[NurseJackie]

363. I see. So... you're calling Hillary delusional. Charming!

I think she believes what she's said, but that doesn't make what she said true

I see. So... you're calling Hillary delusional. Charming!

[JCanete]

366. well somebody is wrong. Its okay to call Sanders names I guess or to say he's the one

who's either lying or delusional(your options, not mine), I'd suggest you stick to actually proving your case rather than trying to operate from some dogmatic umbrage that you apparently feel is your intrinsic right to take when certain perspectives are challenged. Why not actually use evidence and logic to support why those perspectives are right and why my grievances with them are wrong? Your attempts at characterizing me rather than the content of my arguments is not helping either of us to better understand the issues or one another's point-of-view.

[NurseJackie]

369. I have done no such thing.

Its okay to call Sanders names...

I have done no such thing.

Your attempts at characterizing me...

I have done no such thing. I've characterized the words, the messages, not you.



A toast! TO DEMOCRATS!

[ehrnst]

351. Sounds as though what HRC said hit a nerve.

Think about why that might be.

[JCanete]

359. well, I already broke down the problems with the statements in the video. As usual, no takers on

debunking what I actually said. Easier to just characterize the whole than to dive in? Then you'd need actual refutations.

[ehrnst]

408. Tag. You're it.

[betsuni]

415. ...

[JCanete]

423. damn, love that piece. been years since i've heard it. Played it once in a youth symphony. nt

[Gothmog]

274. I saw the level of support that sanders gave clinton and it was weak or non-existent

Last edited Wed Jul 6, 2022, 09:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you really think that sanders did much to campaign for her? sanders endorsement speech was all about himself as was his speech at the convention. I was there when the sanders delegates booed Congressman John Lewis. I was warned about this stunt 30 minutes before it happened by the Clinton campaign whip. According to my whip, sanders was asked to stop this event and declined. That incident will be used against sanders if he runs in 2020.

I was at the Texas delegation breakfast when a group of sanders delegates marched in and demanded that we condemn Clinton and change our votes to sanders.

sanders spoke to the Texas delegation the next morning and his speech was again solely about himself. There was a mini-riot due to his delegates the prior morning and the only thing that sanders talked about was himself. sanders did nothing to deal with the fact that his delegates were out of control and did nothing to try to help Hillary Clinton win the general election.

Finally a group of sanders delegates yelled at my daughter and called her the c-Word because she would not try to get me to change my vote. Again sanders was asked to tell his delegates to behave during the convention and sanders refused

Many democrats do not believe that sanders really tried to help Clinton. Many democrats blame sanders for helping trump win Sanders clearly took a large number of actions that were designed to hurt the party and help trump.

[betsuni]

282. Susan Bordo:

"When he finally endorsed Hillary on July 12, speaking to a crowd in which many of his supporters jeered her name and held signs saying 'Won't Vote Hillary,' he looked grumpy and grudging and devoted most of his speech to congratulating himself and his followers on the 'fight to create a government which represents all of us, and not just the one percent ...' He boasted of the races he had won, and wasn't able to resist a jab at party leaders by citing Clinton's abundance of superdelegates (read, in Sanders' code: party hacks). ... It was not exactly a rousing call, designed to energize his supporters and redirect their passion toward Clinton.

"While Clinton had focused her endorsement for Obama on his accomplishments and abilities, Sanders returned once again to his own campaign, citing the impressive attendance at his rallies ... . Conceding that 'as we head into November, Hillary Clinton is far and away the best candidate to do that,' he then launched into what was essentially an accounting of the economic and social positions he and Hillary shared, which gave the lie to the vast gulf between 'revolutionary' Bernie and 'establishment' Hillary that he ran on." Then mentions only two of Hillary's qualifications, being First Lady and a children's advocate, "Stellar accomplishments, yes, but rather gender typed, and hardly doing justice to the myriad ways in which Clinton had served the country."

[Gothmog]

285. Part of the process of being a national delegate in every state is signing an oath

In the real world, real campaign carefully vet their national delegates. One reason for this is that these delegates represent the party and their candidate. I was vetted and I helped to vet other delegates.

In order to be a national delegate, the DNC rules requires each candidate to be a national delegate to sign an oath where they agree to support the party nominee. This form has to be notarized and filed to be consider. I take oaths seriously. I asked a BOB type in the Texas delegate if he read his application and he said yes but he did not care about that oath.

[betsuni]

286. I guess oaths are too establishment.

[Gothmog]

341. The sanders delegates who attacked Hillary Clinton ignored their oaths

Oathes are important. Under the new DNC rules, sanders will have to agree in writing to be a member of the party and to run as a member of the party. I am not sure if these agreements will be honored based on what I saw at the national convention

[LongtimeAZDem]

358. And many, many discarded that oath:

https://www.wsj.com/video/sanders-delegates-walk-out-at-dnc-after-clinton-nomination/66499214-241F-4372-B9F5-0CE61F1E357B.html

[Gothmog]

379. I saw this first hand

The Clinton campaign had a great whipping infrastructure. Clinton delegates were warned in advance of this and other stunts.

[Cha]

315. Bitter.. Thanks, betunsi.

[Gothmog]

339. There is a right way and a wrong way to endorse someone

I have attended a number of state conventions and I was at the Philadelphia convention. In 2008, Hillary Clinton endorsed President Clinton before the Texas state convention. As a result the convention was a positive event. The 2016 Texas state convention was not a fun event in part because sanders had not endorsed Hillary Clinton. There was a Texas sanders delegate who was elected in his senate district caucus but was removed because he would not state that he hated Clinton.

Again in real campaigns, a candidates delegates represent the candidate. The 2016 national convention had some really poor behavior by sanders delegates. I will not forget the fact that sanders did not try to control his delegates at the national convention. A group of sanders delegates called my daughter the c-word because she would not try to get me to change my vote. My daughter was not surprised about the reports of sexual harassment inside the sanders campaign.

If sanders runs, there will be ads about this conduct. The fact that sanders refused to stop the planned stunt of booing Congressman John Lewis will be used in some ads. Congressman John Lewis is a national treasure

[Cha]

376. It was disgusting and pathetic.. and

we saw the outcome.

Thank you for your on the ground report, Goth!

So Sorry about your daughter's treatment.. not at all surprising unfortunately.

[NastyRiffraff]

283. Total BS that Clinton supporters didn't support Obama

I was one of them, and once the primaries were over I pivoted to Obama and never regretted it. So did most other Clinton supporters after a very brief mourning period. As for Clinton herself, Obama couldn't have asked for a more complete support after she lost. He even asked her to be Secretary of State.

Bernie gave Hillary at best tepid support, and I will never forget his grumpy slump all through the Democratic convention, ignoring his shitty supporters who tried to disrupt while he did nothing to stop it.

[Cha]

291. Thank You, Riff!

Hillary is Dead On in the OP.

[sheshe2]

294. I was not here in 2008.

However I was an Obama supporter from day one. When he won that primary I never saw anything but total support from Hillary. She has always been for our Democratic party and all the people.

[JCanete]

321. the numbers are the numbers. I didn't say Clinton supporters didn't support Obama. Maybe

Last edited Sun Jan 27, 2019, 03:35 PM - Edit history (3)

reread my post. I said they voted for Obama at the same ratio that Sanders supporters voted for Clinton. Unfortunately for you, the point remains, unless that 2008 primary was divisive by virtue of being a primary, then this one wasn't either, or at least the numbers don't support that narrative. Is that still confusing to you?



Uh, yes Obama did ask her to be that didn't he...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

331. Well said JC!! +1,000,000!!

[joshcryer]

345. It took Sanders 8 weeks and 3 days to endorse Clinton.

Contrast that to the 4 days it took Clinton to endorse Obama.

That's 8 weeks and 3 days without campaigning for the presumptive nominee.

Read this post: https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512681335

[NurseJackie]

352. You make a valid point.

You make a valid point. That's something that shouldn't be glossed over or swept under the rug.

[LongtimeAZDem]

357. +1 /nt

[JCanete]

365. contrast being a powerful insider who was going to get offered a position in the administration and

a lefty who the Senior Democrats would have much preferred to bury under his loss and never speak of again(because as Clinton says, and as Boxer has said early on during the primaries, "he's not a Democrat." Sanders knew that this was THE only leverage he was potentially going to have to shape the Democratic Party Platform. From my perspective and that of his supporters, he did what was right because he didn't let our biggest issues and ideals ride off into the sunset, or die in a ditch somewhere. From my perspective, there's not a shred of evidence out there that suggests that his presence in the race, even extended, did any damage to Clinton in the GE.

[NurseJackie]

371. In that case, I recommend a different perspective.

From my perspective, there's not a shred of evidence out there that suggests that his presence in the race, even extended, did any damage to Clinton in the GE.

In that case, I recommend a different perspective. In the future, it's best to avoid the "nosebleed" cheap-seats at the top of the arena... the ones with an obstructed view and poor acoustics are the worst!

[Cha]

373. Boooom!

[Cha]

375. Of course it did.. someone trying to spin

that will make themselves dizzy.

[Gothmog]

380. Here are some facts about sanders helping trump win

Here is some more on this topic http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

Bernie Sanders supporters switched their allegiance to Donald Trump in large enough numbers last November to sway the election for the real estate billionaire, according to an analysis of voter data released Tuesday by the blog Political Wire. Since Trump’s shock victory over Hillary Clinton, much discussion has focused on the degree to which passionate Sanders supporters’ refusal to embrace Clinton led to the Republican winding up in the White House.

Here is some more https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study

About 12 percent of Bernie Sanders supporters from the Democratic primary crossed party lines and voted for Donald Trump in the general election, a new analysis says.

In several key states — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan — the number of Sanders to Trump defectors were greater than Trump’s margin of victory, according to new numbers released Wednesday by UMass professor Brian Schaffner.

Link to tweet

[JCanete]

382. I've addressed your facts over and over.......and over and over and over. You never respond to my

refutations. You just talk past them. So I'm not going to bother again with you here.

[Gothmog]

383. LOL-the fact are the facts and ignoring these facts will not change them

Denial is not just a river in Africa. Ignoring facts will not make these fact go away

The article from the Monkey Cage experts was well done. It would be amusing to see if you can convince the Washington Post's experts about your claim. Here is the link to the Washington Post article https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.52c2907a3381

[JCanete]

384. you are trying to make them mean something they don't. I've explained why they don't

mean what you want them to. You can find like 20 threads of me doing so, hell maybe more. Nobody ever counters my argument. Ever. If you can find one thread where I've spoken directly to the ratio of Sanders voters that either voted for Clinton or didn't where I actually received a response challenging the argument I made I'll be so damn giddy. Hell, even if its so solid it forces me to reconsider my own understanding, that would be soooo much more relieving than this pulling teeth agony of getting anybody here to put their money where their mouth is.

[Gothmog]

385. And yet the Washington Post disagrees strongly with your claims

I live in the real world and deal with arguments. The fact that you think that you made a valid argument about these facts is simply not accurate. The Washington Post actually digs into the numbers and disagree with your claims. I trust the Washington Post here.

Again, denial is not just a river in Africa

You can ignore these facts and ignore the experts cited in the Washington Post. I like relying on facts and the experts cited in the Washington Post correctly state the facts

[JCanete]

386. no it doesn't. it simply doesn't address my issues with its own journalism and reporting.

it simply doesn't talk about how those numbers fall squarely in line with our most previous election that had a hotly contested democratic primary. They aren't interested in that. There is an agenda here, or if not an agenda(lets be fair), a tunnel visioned perspective that is curated and cultivated by major media institutions that churn out voices in their preferred mold. So of course they don't address my issues in their reporting. You could. If you could. I invite you to.

[Gothmog]

388. LOL-I live in the real world and I trust experts and facts

You claim to have disputed the experts cited in the Washington Post article by claiming that you do not trust the media. In the real world you need facts to support an argument. The fact that you personally disagree with the facts cited or the expert opinions or conclusions cited is meaningless with out facts to support your claims You are free to have your opinion but such opinion would not be admissible in court in the real world and would not be given any weight by a fact finder without facts supporting that opinion.

I like living in the real world. It is a nice place where facts matter. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[JCanete]

391. good to know the experts never lie. And how long was it before we finally abandoned the totally

falacious 4 food-group diet, entirely designed to promote our industries and not our health?

And no, my arguement against the poorly founded interpretation that Sanders foray into the primary cost Clinton the election, is not simply that I don't trust the sources. It is their glaring omissions. It is their correlation to causality leap in the face of evidence that would easily undercut it. I've stated my argument too many times to bother counting. I've stated it to you in previous exchanges. What I would hope from you, is that you never trust something so wholly that you don't use your own critical thinking to challenge the narrative of the so called "experts," if for no other reason, to be certain that they are right. Sometimes those experts have blind-spots. Sometimes they have agendas.

[LongtimeAZDem]

393. Gothmog gave you numbers and links; you have done nothing to refute that information, other than

make vague complaints about the sources and the methods, and veiled insults about people reasoning skills.

If you can point to any real analyses that refute the assertion that Sanders voters switched allegiance in high enough numbers to throw the election to Trump, I would love to see it.

[JCanete]

395. you are jumping into a converation you don't have context for. You don't know how our conversations

go and their typical tone, nor do you have any idea, clearly, what my complaints about the numbers are, since I wasn't going to be arsed to go through them all again with Gothmog.

If you're interested, maybe you can make the cause for causation versus simple correlation.

The reality is Clinton voters came in for Obama at the same margin that Sanders voters came in for Obama in 2008. We don't know the reason that so many defected to McCain, but it is a fact that more Clinton supporters voted for McCain than Sanders supporters voted for Trump. Was that Clinton's fault that they defected to McCain? Was it something about vicious campaigns or divisiveness that resulted in this? Do you have any idea?

Further into the realm of reality for you, there is no evidence whatsoever that had Sanders not been in the race, those who ultimately voted for him but not for Clinton would have voted for Clinton. Do you have anything to support such an assertion?

Do you have any evidence that suggests that we would have had a better turnout for Clinton had there been no excitement generated in the primary?

Does it bother you at all that the sources Gothmog uses dont even make an effort to address these problems if at least to demonstrate why they are not actually problems with their presentation?

[LongtimeAZDem]

396. I've read every post you've made, and the search function works. I'm well aware of how your

conversations go.

If you're interested, maybe you can make the cause for causation versus simple correlation.

Easily, we have the numerous public statements of Sanders supporters, and delegates, saying they will vote for Stein instead of Clinton. One would have had to been in a coma to miss it, or willfully ignore it.

The reality is Clinton voters came in for Obama at the same margin that Sanders voters came in for Obama in 2008. We don't know the reason that so many defected to McCain, but it is a fact that more Clinton supporters voted for McCain than Sanders supporters voted for Trump. Was that Clinton's fault that they defected to McCain? Was it something about vicious campaigns or divisiveness that resulted in this? Do you have any idea?

I don't concede that "more Clinton supporters voted for McCain":

According to Gallup Polls from June 9 to August 17 McCain's cross-party support fluctuated between 10% and 13%. In the poll for August 18 to August 24 support for McCain among Democrats peaked at 14%. From October 13 to October 19 polls showed McCain's support among Democrats to be 7%, which was the lowest thus far. The CNN exit polls placed his Democratic support at 10% with the same percentage for liberal support. These results may not represent the general voters due to early voting.

According to exit polls on Election Day, McCain won the votes of only 10% of Democrats nationwide, the same percentage of Democrats' votes that George W. Bush won in 2004.

Again, the numbers used to support that assertion come from polls right after Clinton lost the primary vote, and did not hold until the election.

Further into the realm of reality for you, there is no evidence whatsoever that had Sanders not been in the race, those who ultimately voted for him but not for Clinton would have voted for Clinton. Do you have anything to support such an assertion?

Completely irrelevant to the discussion, as it calls for speculation based on conditions completely divorced from the actual situation.

Do you have any evidence that suggests that we would have had a better turnout for Clinton had there been no excitement generated in the primary?

Impossible to answer, and irrelevant, as above.

Does it bother you at all that the sources Gothmog uses dont even make an effort to address these problems if at least to demonstrate why they are not actually problems with their presentation?

I don't concede that those are problems with the article proffered, or the underlying studies cited in it.

[JCanete]

397. How would those be completely irrelevant to the discussion? They are entirely relevant. How

come when I say you can't draw conclusions as to whether or not voters who voted for Sanders but did not vote for Clinton would have voted for Clinton, that is speculation,

but when somebody uses the numbers of Sanders supporters voting for Trump to suggest that oh yes, Sanders primary run cost Clinton the race, that is "factual" even though you literally just conceded that my questions that go right to the heart of whether or not voters choices were changed by Sanders run were impossible to answer. If its impossible to answer then how are you accepting the narrative that Sanders cost Clinton the race? If you can't answer and don't even think its relevant whether or not Sanders getting involved changed GE votes, then why would you let declarative speculation to that end, presented as a certainty, stand? and how is it divorced from the situation exactly?

l'm not the one claiming I can tell from these numbers what effect was had, but others certainly are. I'm claiming that they are rushing to a judgement based upon nowhere near conclusive evidence to the fact, and that's still me being generous. I'm saying the evidence in itself is not sufficient to actually make any kind of claim whatsoever. Too many factors are not being weighed.

Also, your anecdotal evidence that you can find people on record saying something is precious.

Regarding context, I"m not talking about this particular thread. I assure you you have not read every exchange between me and Gothmog, and not even on this subject, but feel free to search for them.

As to your own refutation of my numbers, I appreciate you taking the effort and I appreciate you actually attempting to address my issues with the conclusions being drawn, to boot. I'll do some follow up research to see if I got something wrong here, because its always possible. I'll respond once I've done so.

[Gothmog]

405. I trust the experts at the Washington Post

The real world is a nice place where facts matter

[Gothmog]

399. Facts matter in the real world

I like the real world because I like facts

[Gothmog]

404. The experts at the Washington Post disagree

The real world is a nice place where facts matter. The fact that you do like the fact presented does not mean that these facts are wrong

I like living in the real world. Facts matter in the real world

[JCanete]

406. they don't disagree, they simply don't address these issues. Can you? no?

[Gothmog]

419. Read the article

The real world is a nice place where facts matter. The fact that you are unable to dispute the facts and expert opinions set forth in that article is amusing

[JCanete]

424. I DID. You have failed to challenge my dispute. The fact that I haven't gotten WaPo to acknowledge

my isssues is not so weird Goth, for your average citizen. Did you think if I sent them a sternly worded email or letter they'd immediately address the assumptions in their piece? It is kind of incumbent upon you to prove to me that you actually CAN address my argument. If you can't, and hell, the way you put it, it should be easy, I'm ready to rest my case.

[Gothmog]

425. The real world is a nice place where facts and expert opinions matter

The Washington Post article looked at the facts and the experts cited in that article were clear on the fact that sanders supporters are the reason why trump was elected. You may not like these facts but that does not really matter in the real world

[JCanete]

427. okay, case rested. nt

[Gothmog]

429. Seriously, your posts would be better if you used facts or attempted to back up claims

In the real world facts are used to back up claims. Opinions of uninformed laypersons are not admissible in court. I am sorry that you dislike the facts presented in the Washington Post article but the facts that you do not like these facts will not change these facts

[ehrnst]

431. +1000

[ehrnst]

459. "Sternly worded email or letter,"

Isn't that the perjorative of choice of some of the far left towards "establishment/corporate Dems" who communicate a policy or disagreement via channels that aren't day long twitter feuds, and/or shaking a finger while yelling and spitting on talk shows on a topic?

I rest my case.

[Gothmog]

398. Denial is not just a river in Africa

In the real world facts matters. You have not made a single argument that you have backed up with any facts or authority. I am amused that you think that your opinion is superior to the opinions of the experts cited in the Washington Post article. Your claims seem to boil down that you dislike the facts cited in the Washington Post article and that media is evil and so this article must be wrong. That argument does not work in the real world.

You may want to read the Washington Post article and then try to find facts that contradict the facts and expert opinions contained i the article. The fact that you disagree with these facts is amusing but I trust the Washington Post.

I like living in the real world. I am actually working on issues in the real world.

BTW, I am on a private face book page for Clinton national delegates. There will be some fun John Lewis being booed ads runned in some key states if sanders even tries to run in the South. The fact that sanders refused to stop his delegates from booing Congressman John Lewis will be an issue if sanders actually runs.

[LongtimeAZDem]

402. +1

[treestar]

465. He didn't support her very strongly and many of his supporters

simply failed to transfer. You see them everywhere complaining that the DNC caused Hillary to win (rather than the voters) and claiming that he could have beat the Orange Idiot. Two years later, there are still people (or bots) claiming this out there. Thus Bernie did not do a good job of convincing his supporters.

[Scurrilous]

228. K&R

[aeromanKC]

230. Putin rick-rolled the Bernista's

They got trolled and punk'd.

[zentrum]

232. Bernie is not

.....why she lost. I know it's part of narrative but it isn't why.

The primaries worked as they were supposed to and made the final candidate a better candidate.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

243. Bernie equals Trump? No. I don't know what motive you'd have to call him a Republicon.

Claiming that Democrats are members of the Trump cult just because they like Bernie Sanders is way over the top and not the kind of claim I'd have thought somebody would try to stand up on DU.

Don't bother defending the indefensible.

[Still In Wisconsin]

242. I was a die-hard Bernie supporter in the last primary.

I was very sad when he lost the primary. It took me a while to come around but I did. But now, he's not helping and any of his supporters who go after Harris can go fuck themselves.

[Cha]

255. Hillary is Dead On!!

Mahalo, PunkinPi!

[PunkinPi]

334. She is, and you're welcome Cha!

[Miigwech]

260. Listen up

[TryLogic]

263. I was a Bernie supporter. Then I certainly did vote against Trump. (For Hillary)

I DO NOT WANT to hear or see any more 2016 stuff -- other than Russia related indictments, of course.

Ease up on old loyalties and help pick a good candidate among the MANY good candidates for 2020.

And, absolutely no preordained selections. Absolutely no preordained selections! No nasty attacks (on other Democrats). No misrepresentations. No disinformation. No hostile stuff. Let's engage in clean democracy, which is what the Democratic party should be all about, right?

[lapucelle]

265. Bravo, Madame Secretary!

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong woman stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.

The credit belongs to the woman who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends herself in a worthy cause;

Who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if she fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that her place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

Adapted from an excerpt of the speech "Citizenship in a Republic", given by Theodore Roosevelt at the Sorbonne in Paris, France, 23 April 1910.

[wasupaloopa]

269. I did not know he spoke about trump women

[lapucelle]

271. Who is "he" and who are the "trump women"? What are you talking about? N/T

[Galraedia]

277. As someone who supported Hillary over Bernie, I prefer Bernie now over Hillary or Kamala Harris...

Sure Bernie supporters are annoying but the establishment seems to be trying to push a women nominee for the sake of having a woman nominee. The last time we did this we got Trump. Kamala Harris isn't a progressive, so progressives are going to support a progressive candidate.

[Snotcicles]

354. Word nt

[Liberty Belle]

281. No Democrat should attack ANY Democratic candidate, period.

Sanders people should not attack Harris.
Harris people should not attack Sanders if he does run as a Dem.
None of them should attack any other Democrats, either.

Here's the thing. California is voting EARLY this year and will be a major force in choosing the candidate. Since Harris is our Senator I personally believe she's likely to prevail.

But a lot of Californians love Bernie. In the past 2 days I've had total strangers comment to me that they were excited Bernie may run again. The guy who came to install my new computer, for instance. Young, smart, savvy young man who liked Bernie's messaging on student debt and healthcare mostly.

Remember, if you attack a candidate you also alienate their supporters who you will need either way -- if your candidate wins the primary, you want those voters to feel respected and want to come help get out the vote in the general for your candidate.

And if someone else's candidate, even your least favorite one, wins the primary you should get out and campaign for them. ANY Dem among those talking about running would be far better than the traitor we have in the White House. Yeah Bernie switched parties to independent and back and forth, but he's more liberal than many Dems.

Sniping at other candidates and their supporters in the same party only helps Trump and Putin. Remember that. So go campaign hard for why you believe your candidate is best -suited to beat Trump, but do it without trashing any other candidates. They just might pull off a primary win, and we should not be giving ammo to The Trumpsters.

[democratisphere]

284. Everything HRC said in this interview was absolutely true.

Progressives had better make certain they are onboard the Democratic Bandwagon AFTER the 2020 Democratic Convention unless we want a repeat of 2016. If our candidate of choice does not win AFTER the primaries, it is imperative that ALL Democrats, Liberals and Progressives get behind the winning candidate to insure a win for our collective political party.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

329. Progressives WILL be on board in 2020, no matter what, just as we were last time in record numbers.

[democratisphere]

344. Way too many were NOT onboard.

2020 must be 110% different. Remaining hopeful!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

361. Telling a sizable portion of the electorate to go somewhere else is really fucking smart

[NurseJackie]

364. I suppose that's one way to misinterpret her message.

I suppose that's one way to misinterpret her message. But thoughtful people understand exactly what she's talking about, and know that she's speaking out against the mindset that it's perfectly fine to intentionally attack and smear Democrats and the Democratic party and Democratic candidates... all while enjoying the benefits of the party... but without actually contributing anything of value to the party... and doing only those things that weaken the party.

I'm totally with her on this. It serves no good purpose for people to tear down the party and Democrats with divisive lies, and sexism, and racism, and cheap shots. I think she's making a valid point. People who promote and engage in that type of destructive behavior really SHOULD go somewhere else.

I think we can all agree that a weak and divided and suspicious and distrustful Democratic party only serves to benefit the GOP, and the Russians. I really don't understand why ANYONE would be opposed to that. But, whatever.

[democratisphere]

368. Who said anything about going somewhere else in 2020?

We've already been down that road in 2016.

[fleabiscuit]

300. Bump.

[betsuni]

303. "Why not let them concentrate on the Trump administration?"

Because they don't care about Republicans, their enemies are Democrats. Duh.

[NurseJackie]

355. Sounds like you're describing Cenk Uygur's "Justice Democrats" when you say that.

Because they don't care about Republicans, their enemies are Democrats. Duh.

Sounds like you're describing Cenk Uygur's "Justice Democrats" when you say that. The also have a "destroy the Democratic party" philosophy. I guess that's why I'm suspicious and distrustful of anyone who's ever had (or who still has) any sort of association with that GOP-funded asshole, Cenk Uygur and his so-called "Justice Democrats" (what an offensive name!)

[Scurrilous]

377. ...

[KayF]

387. we have a good rule at DU

don't keep refighting the 2016 primary. I had a post removed from this thread for a comment I made, which I accept.

Obviously Hillary is not subject to this rule, but I really hope the entire 2020 primary isn't dominated by discussions like this. Look at the number of views this thread has, and people are still kicking it.

[PunkinPi]

389. Thanks for kicking the thread.

[KayF]

390. congrats on the big numbers

389 replies (which I just added to again) 181 recs 12045 views

But don't you agree this won't be great if it keeps happening over the next 15 months?

[PunkinPi]

409. I think we should listen to the sage advice of our 2016 candidate, so we don't repeat the same

mistakes in 2020.

[LongtimeAZDem]

394. In 2016, we had possibly the most qualified candidate ever, who lost to a reality TV host

If we cannot fully examine every aspect of our process that led to that outcome, then what is the point of this site?

[RandySF]

401. Some the attacks against Kamala are dirtier today than against Hillary in 2016.

[Gothmog]

403. I agree

I saw some really nasty attacks on Senator Harris today by the lawyers in the totally bogus DNC fraud lawsuit. I will not name these lawyers or link to their tweets because I am so disgusted with these attacks

[Blue_Tires]

416. Too late:

Last edited Mon Jan 28, 2019, 03:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Seriously... I gave Bernie a pass for 2016 because it was the first time he and his fanatics got invited to the big dance, but now I'm not playing... Bernie *MUST* find a way to put a fucking muzzle on his zoo this time around. Because if he doesn't then I'm just going to assume that smears like this from his most prominent followers/former staffers come with his approval and blessing:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[PunkinPi]

417. Wow, that is disgusting...

I truly hoped the lessons would've been learned, but I'm afraid they have not. SMH

[Blue_Tires]

418. Ironically, it's the "zoo" that repeatedly

cost him any reasonable chance of winning the 2016 primary and he doesn't even know it, sadly.

[Gothmog]

420. I saw these and worse on twitter yesterday

The husband and wife attorneys who are representing some JPR posters in the DNC fraud lawsuit had some disgusting posts on this yesterday

[Blue_Tires]

421. I don't doubt it....

They have to start out playing dirty because the biggest advantages that helped propel Bernie in 2016 won't be there in 2020...

[mcar]

428. Disgusting

I guess this gaggle of sexist losers want Dotard re-elected. They've either learned nothing from 2016 or they don't care. I'm opting for the latter option.

[Cha]

437. So Creepy.

[honest.abe]

439. Good grief.

They must really fear her.

[NinaNeon]

434. She's making it worse

Attacks need to stop not escalate. What a shame.
It’s his supporters not him.
There are reasons people feel that way and it all stems from the negativity of the 2016 primaries. Everyone , and I do mean everyone needs to put that behind.
Literally the safety of the world is at stake.
Revenge within the Democrats for 2016 is inconsequential now.

[Cha]

436. Hillary is telling the truth.. that's shining

a light.. Not "making it worse".

[honest.abe]

438. Exactly.

+1

[KayF]

442. this is from 2017

I was fooled too, it really looked like Hillary was dragging the 2016 primary to this one. I was worried she was going to keep making comments like this through the whole primary. But there is no sign that she's going to do that. I actually don't expect she will.

So it isn't her, it's the person who tweeted it without saying it was an old clip.

And it was the two (at least) people who posted it here.

And it's DU for letting themselves be used to trick us and stir up shit.

[Blue_Tires]

450. Then you tell his supporters to calm the hell down, please...

[NinaNeon]

455. It's both sides

On Facebook it’s a bloodbath between the two groups

[betsuni]

456. LOL BOTH SIDES.

[NinaNeon]

457. Well it's accurate isn't it

The centrists and the far left?

[MrsCoffee]

472. Worse for those who can't handle the truth.

She is, as usual, spot on.

[betsuni]

474. LOL

[Cha]

435. What Hillary is up to...

Link to tweet

[KayF]

444. we got punked

this clip is from 2017.

Hillary isn't doing this divisive shit, some people on Twitter, god knows who they are, is doing this divisive shit.

And they're going to keep doing it through the whole primary. The question is will we, and DU, keep helping them do it.

[PunkinPi]

452. No "we" didn't get punked...

it was discussed up thread this clip was from 2017. HRC's words are still relevant to the 2020 election, especially since Kamala is now in the race (see post #416 for the disgusting stuff that has already started).

[NewJeffCT]

446. what does the tweet say?

No idea why, but @notcapnamerica is blocking me on Twitter, so I can't see it. I don't think I've ever interacted him with him?

[KayF]

448. you're in luck

someone else also happened to Tweet that same 2017 clip, also without saying it was from 2017

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1089018976124907520&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2F100211733115

And we're all in luck, there is a separate DU thread posted about THAT tweet!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211733115


We're such suckers!!!!!