How Not To Get The Best Possible Democratic Candidate For The White House!

[sabrina 1]

Right now is when the people have the upper hand.

There are no actual candidates yet for 2016's Presidential race.

But 'feelers' for one candidate have been out there for a couple of years now.

A whole lot of Democrats are not happy with Hillary as their only choice.

One way to guarantee that the people will get someone they really do not want is to say 'however, if s/he is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for her anyhow'.

Why on earth would they feel compelled to even care what the people want when they are being told 'go ahead and give me what I don't want because you know I'll take it anyhow'??

Telling them NOW that if this is the only choice we have, we will not vote for her/him is a far better strategy in order to persuade them that they need to present a candidate people WANT if they want to win.

We the people are supposed to be in charge of this democracy. Acting helpless and leaving up to politicians is an abdication of duty on the part of citizens.

Isn't it time for the PEOPLE to start strategizing in order to get what THEY want?

Do we really want a candidate who has shown themselves to represent Corporate America over the People as the only choice we are given?

No? Then let them know what we DO want and this time let them know we mean it!

We get what we deserve and what we are willing to work for.

Democratic voters have a right to expect a true Democratic Candidate who represents the best interests of the PEOPLE first.

That is a fact!

But keep on telling them you are helpless and will accept whoever they force on you and they will do exactly that.

It makes no sense to show your hand at this point.

They take votes for granted and those who are the most loyal get the least attention.

Watch how they try to win over those they know they cannot take for granted!

See how often we are told when they push things like 'SS on the Deficit Table: 'but we would not get the (fill in the blank) vote if we didn't compromise!

Politics is all about compromise!! we are told!

Good, we agree! Now let them start compromising for OUR votes for a change.

How about they try to get Bernie to run?

How about we pressure them to do that?

How about we tell them 'it's either HIM or NO ONE!

How about US telling THEM: This is your only choice for a change??

No more US doing all the COMPROMISING!

Just my opinion after watching this process repeat itself over and over again, then when we have the gall to point out broken campaign promises, we are told 'you should not have expected anything else, he made it clear he was not a progressive etc etc'. Iow, blame the voters! And to an extent they are right!

Shows one thing clearly, there is NO respect for Democrats who don't make their voices heard, they are merely taken for granted and told to 'go sit down and be quiet' and are then ignored.

Bernie or some other non-corporate Democratic Candidate who will put the people's needs first.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. He is not a Democrat

And he would do as well as Kucinich did.

[Rilgin]

10. What is a democrat

If you missed it, the following facts apply.

1. Sanders has said that he is contemplating running as a democrat. Discussing his potential candidacy as a democrat is not outside the TOS. If he said outright that he had rejected that path, you could have a claim although as we know this is not pure. There have been discussions throughout history on trying to pull independents and republicans to the democratic party.

2. When Hillary runs, she could also run as an independant. She was once a registered member of the Republican party. Can you state with certainty until she runs as a democrat that she will not run as either an independant or republican.

Of course we do not really expect HRC to run as either a Republican or an independant. However, I wished to point out that your argument against discussing Sanders candidacy as a democrat would only be valid if you were also arguing that noone could discuss or advocate for Hillary to run for president because she is not a democratic candidate for president.

The TOS if it applies at all applies would only seem to apply to actual candidates with declared parties in their candidacy not discussions of desire for people who they would like to run. Otherwise, you could have not have any political discussions of candidates before their declarations. I have not seen statements that they would only support Sanders if he ran as an independant (although I could imagine someone posting that as part of a discussion). The posts seem to only urge him to run or not run and discuss whether they would vote for him.

[Thinkingabout]

24. Hillary worked in Goldwater's campaign and became disillusioned with the GOP and voted Democrat

In the first election in 1968, the first year she was eligible. Elizabeth Warren was a Republican until a few years ago.

[winter is coming]

39. The mid-90's is no longer "a few years ago". n/t

[Thinkingabout]

40. I guess I missed your point.

[winter is coming]

42. Twenty years is not "a few". It's dishonest to characterize the two as equivalent.

Both Warren and Clinton were once Republicans, many years ago. The sort of Republicans they were is nowhere near as relevant as the sort of Democrats they are.

[truedelphi]

114. And just what sort of Democrat is Hillary Clinton?

Is she totally Third Way politican who is devoted to AIPAC or is she a FDR style Democrat?

And please don't forget that she served as personal attorney to Sam Walton, a fact that got buried beneath the awards and praises for her book "It Takes a Village."

How someone could oversee ghost writers on the topic of families and the need for support for families in order to bury her past as part of an empire that destroyed mom and pop businesses across America, I just don't know.

In any event, I cannot forgive her her damn support for NAFTA, or her being married to a President who signed off on an Act that destroyed the Glass Steagal protections. Within nine years of that signature, our nation was economically destroyed, and this catastrophe has basically wiped the middle class off the face of the earth.

She also supported the Bailouts for the Big Banks, and her middle name is "Big-Corporation."

[winter is coming]

134. Asked and answered. And I haven't forgotten any of that, either. n/t

[merrily]

180. Third Way is not even Second Way.

America's first New Democrat President, Bill Clinton, signed NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, DOMA and REPEAL OF GLASS STEAGALL, which brought the world the mortgage derivative crisis of 2008. He did not merely sign it, he and Greenspan lobbied Democrats in the House and Senate to vote for it.

And he got Congress to pass DADT, cooked up by his repulsive Republican advisor, Dick Morris and Republican Colin Powell. Could have done it with an Executive Order, just like Reagan had banned gays from the military entirely with an executive order, but didn't want responsibility, so he had Congress pass it, making it harder to repeal.

Now, he tries to blame it all on Powell. Seriously, what did a brilliant man like Bubba think religious right winger brass were going to do with DADT? Rhodes scholar, just totally deluded by Powell? To quote Bubba, "Give me a break."

[merrily]

187. Not only attorney to Walton, but on the board of directors of WalMart.

You know the group that sets WalMart policy, hires and fires the CEO, etc. Them directors. Hillary was one of them, while full time WalMart employees were eligible for food stamps and Medicaid. Taxpayers, then unwittingly subsidizing the employee compensation budge of WalMart, helping a family of billionaires get richer.

[cascadiance]

43. Elizabeth Warren started voting for Democrats in 1995... Not "just a few years ago"

... but almost 20 years ago.

Thom Hartmann also campaigned for Goldwater as a kid with his Republican father.

Michelle Bachmann campaigned for Carter back in 1976 when he was a born again Christian, and I supported John Anderson in 1980.

I suppose many of us regret some of our past choices now!

[merrily]

178. Hillary was never out of the GOP until she met Bill.

Last edited Wed Sep 17, 2014, 02:37 AM - Edit history (1)

Warren tried to make student loans more affordable.

Hillary co-founded the DLC which altered the Democratic Party into Third Way. She proposed a health care plan developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Hillary stood on the floor of the Senate and urged the Senate to vote for Bush's Iraq War. She ran a racially tinged campaign against Obama. During the 2008 primary, she said she and war lusting McCain were ready for the 3 a m phone call, but Obama was not. What Democrat says the Republican would make a better President than his or her Democratic rival.

Who's the Democrat now?

[TheNutcracker]

102. He's more progressive than democrats in office today!

[truedelphi]

120. Yes, Sanders definitely is more FDR-like than most high level Democrats.

Of course, even Richard Nixon would be too liberal for today's high level Dems.

[RoccoR5955]

142. He's NOT progressive.

He's L-I-B-E-R-A-L!
LIBERAL! So don't forget it!

[merrily]

185. He's like FDR, Truman, LBJ, a traditional Democrat, and not a New Democrat.

Truman was from Missouri and LBJ was from Texas, not liberal states, even then. "The Northeast was supposedly the liberal region of the country then. I think even California was going Republican in every Presidential.

FDR said he was not a liberal. To quote Hillary on whether she though Obama was a Muslim, "I take him at his word."

[merrily]

179. He is sure more like a Democrat than New Democrats DINOs.

I'm glad they were so anxious to distinguish themselves from every Democratic before Bubba that they even took a different name. That way, I don't have to resort to the "true Scotsman" fallacy.

[merrily]

177. Great post. Actually, Evergreen had no argument, only a mantra.

"He is not a Dem." Not even Evergreen's issue. Hillary is.

[sabrina 1]

87. Who says he's not a Democrat? What makes a Democrat in your view? It's definitely not the letter

after their names we know that.

Being a Democrat means representing the Working Class. I know a lot of people with a D after their names who work for Corporations against the interests of the Working Class.

[thesquanderer]

98. If he wants to be a Democrat, he can be one. It's not difficult. (n/t)

[merrily]

182. Unless you're Third Way.

Barum bum

So sorry. Could not resist!

[RoccoR5955]

140. Hillary is not a real Democrat herself.

She worked for Goldwater, and he was what?
AFAIC, she's a DINO (Democrat in name only).

[merrily]

188. Not even in name only. DLCers changed the name to New Democrat.

[A Simple Game]

155. It took just one post to prove the OP's point. n/t

[sabrina 1]

233. Lol, so true!

[merrily]

176. Tell that to the Senate Democratic Caucus, Chuck Schumer and the DSCC.

Last edited Tue Mar 6, 2018, 02:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Schumer, head of recruiting Dems to run for the Senate, call Sander an asset to the Dem Caucus and Dems run no one against him. He has been de facto the Dem candidate from Vermont.

You are not prepared to support him even if he runs as a Dem, so let's not pretend that this, for you, is about his not being a Dem.

[Thinkingabout]

2. Bernie has problems handling the heat in a townhall meeting, the questions

Only get harder. He may have thought Chris Christie sounded great telling people to shut up but this will not fly in the rest of the nation.

[sabrina 1]

6. Bernie does great when faced with the same old 'politics' from political hacks.

[Thinkingabout]

15. Perhaps you should tell him telling someone "shut up" is not acceptable.

He will need to control his temper better, the questions will be harder.

[sabrina 1]

19. Depends on who he told to 'shut up'. WE the voters are told to stfu all the time..

So who did Bernie tell to do the same and I will decide whether it was a good thing or bad thing to do.

[Thinkingabout]

27. Okay by me, it is not acceptable in the rest of the nation, he cant take the heat.

[sabrina 1]

50. Actually the nation loves someone who is tough enough to tell the RIGHT people to just stfu. Can't

tell you how many times I wanted to hear that. Cheney eg, told a US Senator to go eff himself. I didn't notice any freefall in the Bush Admin's ratings over THAT considerably worse behavior than simply telling someone everyone wants to tell anyhow, to shut up.

But you didn't say, who did Bernie tell to shut up so I can decide whether to cheer him on or advise him to be more careful?

[Thinkingabout]

61. Perhaps you did hear or read the aftermath but there was. Also when Biden told Obama this was a

Big ffing deal after ACA was signed, yes another big deal. I learned as a child not to tell someone to shut up, it was in bad taste to do so.

[merrily]

196. Bad taste is trying to smear a good man for a second you know nothing about.

You've displayed that all over this thread. And for what? You have not convinced a single reader that it is important or even close to Hillary advocating for the Iraq War in the Senate without first bothering even to read the National Intelligence Estimate. Or stating that her constitutency is hard working white people.

Not that Hillary's temper isn't famous, either. Just ask the Secret Service guys. But her cursing people out and diva behavior totally pales in comparison with things like those.

[tazkcmo]

55. Who?

When did this happen?

[Thinkingabout]

57. Bernie was in a townhall meeting and told some there to shutup, not cool.

[tazkcmo]

59. Your answer

Is someone? No context? What was the person saying? Were they interrupting? Were they shouting over people? What was the context? "Someone" is not an answer.

[Thinkingabout]

63. It really doesn't matter what someone was saying, Bernie lost his cool and told them to shut up.

But I did the search for you

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/08/20/answering-question-on-israel-bernie-sanders-tells-townhall-hecklers-to-shut-up/

[tazkcmo]

64. You didn't search for me

You made the statement so you should have provided the link when you made the statement. You searched for yourself.

And it does matter. Context matters. Always has. Always will. Some people need to be told to shut up. Disrupters, rude folks, willfully idiotic/ignorant folks, etc.

I haven't watched this video yet but I can see right in the link "hecklers" so I can guess he was being heckled. If that is the case he had every right to tell them to shut up and then have them removed.

Now, to the video!

[Thinkingabout]

65. A person in his position should have handled the situation in a diferent fashion. This proves he is

Not up to the task of being a senator, thinking of running for a higher office where he will have the spotlight on him all the time, HA, he will not be able to keep his cool.

I assumed you needed the link so I searched and added the link just to help you.

[tazkcmo]

67. Disagree

He did fine and with the approval of those present. I would also add, if this is why you wouldn't vote for Senator Sanders then I KNOW you won't vote for Hillary "I was dodging sniper fire/Me and Bill were poor, too" Clinton. Or do you have a different standard for her?

[Thinkingabout]

70. This is just one item, I am not like a lot of people, i dont vote for or against a person on one

Issue, Bernie is not new to town, I look at his record also. Besides, he is still an Independent, didn't sound like he was interested in changing, I vote for the Democrat candidate.

[freshwest]

79. On MTP he said he was considering going Dem because of the 50-state advantage they offer.

I don't expect him to win the primary. But a debate with him will energize those in our country who want their issues spoken. That will even cut across party lines, as he hinted in the MTP interview.

He is my first choice among the possibles, but then I was for Gravel in 2008, who spoke my sentiments about the Iraq War in the debates. It was HRC's response to him that enraged me in the debates and Obama's response that made me look into him. He was very clear and most that bash him didn't follow him that well or they'd never squealed about being betrayed. I feel that is trying to lock a black man into a box they want him to fit, not allow him to be what he is.

HRC's statements about Obama needing to pick his running mate early on because RFK was killed in the primary where OTT. Then the way her followers went on a rampage to diss Obama in the general, some I knew very well and voted for McCain because Palin is female, who stayed GOP, gave me a taste in my mouth that never left.

But they were not her, she is firm on women and UHC since the ACA, but keeps on putting her foot in her mouth. And she came out with support, not mealy mouth, either, for the nominee in 2008.

I expect Sanders will do the same after giving them hell on where he thinks they are wrong. I also feel that he may not run as the last speech I heard from him and posted here was more than a bit depressed. His main focus is not on the 2016, but this year. If he was elected, or any Dem was, with a GOP Senate, we can pretty much kiss our ass goodbye, period.

[Thinkingabout]

83. I have looked at his record and he is too far left for me on many issues. If he runs I am

Hoping they are not going to look like the GOP the last couple of elections. Also, he claims to be a Progressive Socialists and don't know how that title is going to enhance his standing. We don't need a circus primary.

[freshwest]

84. Most of the Democratic Party's history is close to European social democrats.

Bernie's focus has been protecting the pillars of the New Deal. There is nothing in that platform Bernie disagrees with. He wants, and allegedly most of the nation wants, to see that social contract expanded.

Bernie is not the pacifist that some may take him for, either, not a Kucinich nor a Gravel. The next great white hope for those who won't accept anything less, is now gone, Rand Paul. But he never was anti-war, he is a Christian dominionist in all the ways that count. You cannot be in that camp and not be for war against those not in that group, they don't believe in anything but surrender.

FDR said repeatedly that the greatest safeguard againt fascism is a just social contract. I believe HRC, Obama and Sanders believe in that but want to carry it out in differing ways. I don't see Democrats fracturing from Sanders being in the primaries, as he not as far to the left as he's made out to be at DU, neither is Warren. A careful look at records of their voting patterns and positions shows them to be little different than PBO on the issues most Americans care about.

America's best bet against demagogery and income inequality is to keep a Democratic majority in the Senate and keep the White House in 2016. From what I see online, I doubt either will occur. Too many have bought the Libertarian kool aid and are no longer in any sense that matters full Democrats, they are more for dissolving the federal government their own reasons. Thus they are not Democrats anymore.

The fall out when they get what they want will erase what Sanders wants. By the way, what is it that Bernie is for that is too far to the left for you? You don't have to answer here if you feel odd about it, you can PM and we can discuss it there.

[sabrina 1]

125. What are Hillary's positions on domestic issues? Where does she stand on the CPI eg?

Bailing out the corrupt Wall St Bankers who destroyed this and other countries' economies causing untold suffering for millions across the planet?

I have no idea of her positions on domestic economic issues. I know she is very Corporate Friendly AND funded. And I also know she out-Cheneys Cheney on Foreign Policy. That is huge no no for me. IF she truly cares about women, eg, there is NO WAY she could support our women destroying FPs.

[merrily]

193. "White hope?" Is it 1930 again already?

[ieoeja]

97. "Democrat candidate"? n/t

[navarth]

99. yeah, I noticed that too.

and then 'he's too far left on some issues for me'

meh.

[merrily]

235. Over 7000 posts, too.

[tazkcmo]

144. That's DemocratIC candidate

And he will run as a Democratic candidate. A real Democrat *I won't have to "hold my nose" to vote for.

[merrily]

191. Really? Yet that one second is all you've been posting about on this thread so far.

Bernie is not new to town, I look at his record also.

Really? What is it in his record that you cannot abide? Please be specific. Which vote? Which speech? Which action? Which bill?

[sabrina 1]

199. I'm thinking this won't be the first time we hear about 'Bernie's temper'. I see signs

of the expected smear campaign against him already. The talking points which will be repeated and repeated as is the pattern with smear campaigns. They pay a lot for them, and if Bernie does decide to run, they will have their smears all ready.

[merrily]

204. Did you happen to see the video of Barney Frank at a town meeting

that I posted upthread? He could not possibly have been more insulting and condescending to that woman.

Where was their outrage at that? Oh, wait. He got cheered for it. And, while I thought
Frank's comments were way over the top in terms of his own professionalism, she deserved it for holding up a picture of Obama made to look like Hitler.

But, because Bernie confined himself to "Shut up, you don't have the microphone," we don't know what pictures or signs they might have been holding up, just as we don't know how many times they may have previously disrupted that meeting.

In any event, other people who had come to that meeting to hear from Bernie had a right to be heard in an orderly fashion and also had a right to hear Bernie.

McCain has quite the temper and quite the foul mouth. We've never seen a video like that of him. Why?

If Bernie were richer or supported financially by the Dem Party--or anyone, for that matter-- the area by the mikes would have been full of cheering plants who would have drowned out the hecklers until security removed them from the room. That's why.

And if that one second of video is the only thing or the worst thing they have on Sanders--and it sure seems to be, judging by this thread--then, the College of Cardinals should have elected him Pope, even though he's Jewish. A politician with a record that spotless would deserves no less.

This line of attack could not be more petty, more meaningless and more full of it. But, it serves to take the discussion away from things about Bernie and Hillary that actually matter, like the Iraq War and a "racially tinged" Democratic Presidential campaign.

[sabrina 1]

231. I did, and I remember when it happened, and I remember how no one here thought

he should not have done it, we applauded him for it.

They are preparing the inevitable smear campaign which they do for anyone who dares to tell the truth.

This may be one of their talking points. So I expect we'll be seeing it again.

You can be sure they are searching through Bernie's life to try to find something they can use, out of context or however they think it might work, to use against him.

They are good at it, they spend lots of money on these dirty tricks, which imo, should be illegal, in order to influence elections.

So we will have to be prepared I suppose.

[Babel_17]

130. Agreed, he did great

Loud mouthed hecklers should not be allowed to win out.

[merrily]

198. Urging the Senate to vote for the Iraq War without even having read the NIE,

her "racially tinged" primary campaign against Obama, identifying her constituency as "hard working white people," trump even her bs.

A male poster here who said Bernie not Hillary is his candidate, actually insisted I was sexist for even referring to that airport story--and I wasn't even the one who brought it up. I simply corrected him on the facts when he mischaracterized the story. I should have alerted.

Anyway....Funny, he never posted one thing in support of Bernie that I've seen so far.

[LanternWaste]

118. You appear to confuse the words "proof" and "evidence"

You appear to confuse the words "proof" and "evidence."

But as you also make many unsupported allegations, I suppose I should simply give it no more credibility than I do the rest of your prophecies...

[sabrina 1]

122. Who is up to the task? Someone who doesn't run away from hecklers, remember the

Townhall meetings where heckling Tea Party stooges drove elected officials off the podium or one who handles them effectively, like Bernie? Seems the crowd were with HIM not the rude, obnoxious hecklers. Good for him. Treat people the way they treat you. Odd you find him rude, what about the Hecklers?

[merrily]

186. In truth, you have no clue what Bernie should have done. All you know about that

meeting is one second. This is such petty bs, it's not even funny.

Not up to the task of being Senator? You know better than Chuck Schumer, who selects DEMOCRATIC candidates to run for the US Senate and the entire Democratic Senate Caucus and the DNC? Wow, how impressive.

Schumer said Bernie is an asset to the Caucus and Democrats do not run anyone for Bernie's seat. That's how much the Democratic Party, Schumer and the Democratic Senate Caucus think Bernie is not up to being a Senator.

It's hilarious that you think you know better..

[tazkcmo]

66. OK, I watched it.

Funny how many of the folks there were telling the man in the audience to let him finish and then applauded when Senator Sanders told him to shut up. This is exactly when you tell someone to shut up. When they start shouting over you like a Tea Bagger.

[Thinkingabout]

68. I guess being tactful is not one of his best abilities. He cant handle the heat in a townhall

Meeting, he will need help to do a better job.

[tazkcmo]

69. Again

I disagree that he lost it. I would tell the guy to shut up too. But that's fine. I understand what you're saying and simply disagree. As I said in a previous post, I'm sure you'll hold Mrs. Clinton to the same standards of behavior, decorum and honesty.

[Thinkingabout]

71. We can just disagree, whoever taught him manners missed this lesson.

I look at the records of those running, I do not stop at one. And again are you holding Bernie yo the same standards as you do Hillary?

[tazkcmo]

72. Yes.

This is the only time I've seen Sen. Sanders tell someone to shut up and, as I've said, in this case I approve. Context STILL matters. As for his honesty, I've never heard him caught in a lie, half truth or misrepresentation of the facts. Can't say the same for Mrs. Clinton so I'll take Sanders over any Clinton and that's with out considering their stances on the issues.

Now, if you've some instances of Sen. Sanders being a liar, misrepresenting facts or telling half truths please share them. I do give integrity a major weight when judging candidates.

[Thinkingabout]

73. His record speaks for itself, dont think he will make it, he wont have the money

For a campaign and as much as those here want to rant about Hillary belonging to corporations, this is where the money comes from. Judging by one senator spending $42 million on a campaign, now multiple that times 50 states. This is reality, he will not be able to support a primary run. Reality

[tazkcmo]

75. That would be

over 2 billion dollars. You may be right. I'm sure Mrs. Clinton can get that much for her speeches to Wall St. execs. Reality.

I do not subscribe to the school of thought where you do not try something worth doing because it's hard. We'd still be earth bound, in caves or tied to our sewing machines with no breaks, 40 hour work week, etc. I'm willing to try because it's worth it.

[Thinkingabout]

77. This could apply on both candidates. Do you think Bernie would be able to get big

Bucks from any source for his speech? There is a starting point for you to ponder, can he do what is necessary in serving as our president. He doesn't have foreign affairs experience, and it takes a lot more than butting heads with Wall Street. BTW, check Hillary on her stand on corporations, bet it would surprise you.

[tazkcmo]

148. Corps like Walmart? n/t

[merrily]

205. Her stand, based only on her words or her stand based on her deeds and votes?

She was fine with WalMart and that is one of THE worst in the US. as far as exploiting people, putting little stores out of business, etc.

[Thinkingabout]

217. Are you fine with someone opposing women being promoted or would you rather women getting

promotions and not being passed over? Are you fine with not buying American made products or would you rather Buy America. I am fine with her votes.

Hillary on the issues:

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

I am not fine with being told SHUT UP.

[tiredtoo]

115. thinkingabout

Rest assured if Bernie gets support from the voting public the corporate money will soon follow. Corporations have no loyalty other than to the almighty dollar. They will and do support anyone they think has a chance of winning. Buy em early.

[merrily]

206. Nailed it. Wish I rec this post. Make a damned OP out of it and

you will get at least 200 recs. More, if people could rec more than once.

Conversely, though, if Bernie had a billion or more to spend on a campaign, a lot of the public and paid shills would soon follow. Sad, but true.

[Thinkingabout]

218. If he accepts money from corporations will he be a corporatist?

If any candidate on a national level they will need and get donations from corporations, then what will be his take on "fighting corporations", just like other candidates. Again, I don't see Bernie getting large support from the voters.

[freshwest]

85. He doesn't have the finesse that Obama has, is all. And it was in his own district. Saying shut up

in a contentious meeting ij his own state is not a disqualifier. He may become more nuanced when he goes on the road. I predict he will come off as firebrand as Gravel and Kucinich did in 2008 and 2012, be disgruntled, and not win. But I don't see that he did himself any harm at home. Just sayin'

[merrily]

219. Truman wasn't big on finesse, either. He makes everyone's top 10 Presidents in US history.

Every honest historian, that is.

If you want to know what LBJ looks like, look in the dictionary under didn't even have a clue what finesse is and you'll see his picture. He was lousy on Vietnam, but had a vision for America that gave us the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Great Society.

[merrily]

190. If one second is the best you've got against Bernie, he should be Emperor.

[Thinkingabout]

220. I would not count on Bernie being Emperor any where, there are many other lacking experiences

which he has not obtained so far, the display at the townhall meeting was telling, he lost his cool, plain and simple, he cries democracy but yet in the same meeting wanted to squash democracy. He also calls himself as a Progressive Socialist, the socialist title will not fair well in an election for president of the US.

[sabrina 1]

250. I love what he did. It shows he won't put up with stupidity and nonsense. Some of our

best presidents got things done by not wasting time and words on such low life rude morons.

Someone wants to act like a moron, do so, and expect to be treated the same way.

We need more people who can shut down these morons.

Great work, and the audience apparently loved it too.

That situation didn't call for tact, it called for exactly what he did.

Bernie is one of the most tactful people in the Senate so I am not worried at all about that.

[merrily]

189. You watched a few seconds of a meeting. We don't know how long the disruptions were,

or their nature. They could have been vile, and they were certainly loud and disruptive. Other people at that meeting had a right to hear and they were fed up already by the time of that clip.

All we know is what WAPO chose to report.

If it had been Sen. Obama or Sen. Schumer, or Sen. Clinton, or Senator McCain or Sen Graham, security would have moved in and escorted the hecklers out without a word from Sanders.

[Thinkingabout]

221. He needs to control his temper, it is his problem, he can't put this on anyone but himself.

He was very rude and unacceptable with his shut up remark, somewhere in his life this part of manner training lacked.

[merrily]

224. Again, you know nothing but one second. You've disrupted this thread

over and over with that nonsense over absolutely nothing. If you don't like being told to shut up, maybe you should stop disrupting, just like maybe those hecklers should have stopped disrupting the town meeting.

You are going to see lots of replies from me about your bs on that one second, because you posted about it a lot. But this will be my last reply to you about it. You disrupted the thread enough and tried to divert it from the subject of the OP enough yesterday. I am not going to help you continue that today.

[Thinkingabout]

226. I am entitled to my opinion, you cry one second, there will be others. He is rude.

[merrily]

184. Not really. you don't know how much those hecklers had been disrupting

that meeting or for how long before that one question.

Beside, you're the one spamming the thread over that petty bs. It's YOUR research to prove it, not the poster who raised the issue of context.

And if one second of "shut up" in over sixty years supposedly disqualifies Bernie from the Presidency, let's apply that same one second test to Hillary, shall we?

[A Simple Game]

157. And the Republicans have the police escort people out... what is your point? n/t

[Thinkingabout]

161. You can think it is okay for someone to tell you to shut up but it is not alright with others.

It is disrespectful. This isn't Bernie's only problem, he is intense on the issues which are probably important to him but there needs to be many other issues which are important to be a president of the US. BTW, if he decides to run there will be a lot of tough questions he will face, now he is known for loosing his cool, they will come out of the walls just to get him going.

[A Simple Game]

165. I noticed you still haven't gone back to the beginning and condemned the

heckler; is heckling OK with you? Is heckling a US Senator equivalent to heckling a comedian?

The initiation of the confrontation is OK but the response gets condemned, I see where you are coming from.

[Thinkingabout]

222. Is this a requirement? Have you condemmed Bernie for telling some one to "Shut up"?

[merrily]

194. This gets more ridiculous every time you post it.

Forty posts on one second in a town meeting you have no clue about except the second WAPO told you about.

If he were anyone else, security would have escorted those people out of the meeting. If he were anyone else, that town meeting would have been full of cheering plants from Ready for Bernie because no one else would have been admitted anywhere near him.

And then your one teensy weensy little fact about one second in a man's life would never have happened and your last forty posts on this thread would have been blank.

Trivial bs.

[Thinkingabout]

223. It might be trivial to you but it is not to others, this is only one point brought out, there are

others, I choose not to list the others. Do you have anything to post but continuing to reply to show Bernie is great?

[merrily]

225. I did not say your posting 40 times about 1 second was trivial. I said ridiculous.

You weren't even at the meeting and you've not persuaded a single person that you are factually in the know about what happened, let alone convinced anyone that this nonsense disqualifies Bernie from the Presidency.

Do you have anything to post but continuing to reply to show Bernie is great?

That comment shows how discerning you are not.

This is not me trying to show Bernie is great. I have barely posted anything about Bernie in these replies to you. This is me showing your endless efforts to disqualify him from the Presidency over 1 second for which you have zero knowledge or context is ludicrous and totally ineffective, except to disrupt discussion of the thread topic.

[merrily]

181. Barney Frank gave that story to media. No one lost his cool in town meetings more than Barney.

And Barney never mentioned what the person Sanders told to shut up was doing and saying.

[Oakenshield]

45. You don't speak for "the rest of the nation".

If history is anything to go by Americans are largely stupid and respond favorably to forceful public speaking, polite or otherwise.

[navarth]

100. They all LOVED it when Reagan did it

remember that very well.

[RoccoR5955]

141. What kind of problems?

You can't say that he has problems without giving at least one example and expect people to believe it.
Please elaborate.

[merrily]

183. Baloney. You don't take a comment from Barney Frank

claiming Bernie said shut up once and turn that into "Bernie has problems handling the heat in town meetings." That's dishonest.

You don't even know what happened at the one town meeting. All you know is a few seconds of that meeting that you got from the right leaning WAPO.

Maybe the constituent was so out of line that Bernie should have asked the constituent what planet he or she lived on and called him or a her a dining table, like Frank did.

Tell us what was happening during that entire meeting before Bernie said shut up, you don't have the mike" to hecikler. Cite one other incident in a town meeting involving Bernie. If not, you should really stop spamming this petty stuff about one second of one town meeting. If that's all you've got on Bernie, he's a frickin' saint.

[monmouth3]

3. This OP needs to go viral. Thank you for posting, great stuff...n/t

[JoePhilly]

4. Answer: Spend 6 years complaining while not developing ...

... alternative viable candidates.

Then blame others when those alternative candidates don't exist.

[sabrina 1]

7. And there it is, just as I pointed out in the OP:

'Blame the VOTERS!! Especially the ones WHO ELECTED YOU!'

When loyal party members give them what they want and then point out THEY are not happy with some of the broken campaign promises, bring out the 'Blame the Voters' Card, not even a thank you for those votes.

Thanks, I couldn't have given a better example of my point if I tried.

[JoePhilly]

16. I blamed WHINERS, not voters.

See, if you represented VOTERS, your preferred candidates would win.

And voters vote! They don't threaten to NOT VOTE.

You spent all of Obama's presidency complaining about him. Hoping for a primary in 2012 that was never coming.

Now, you want the new Messiah to just appear.

You project what you want on all voters. You should have been building new candidates for the last 6 years.

[sabrina 1]

18. Are you talking to me? Because once again you are doing exactly as I stated in the OP.

You are accusing voters who supported this president since 2004 throughout his career and right up to the last election, of being 'whiners'. Thanks, Rahm is applauding your attacks on Democrats whose votes, up to NOW have been taken for granted but many of whom will no longer tolerate THIS KIND OF ATTACK AFTER they put them in power.

Again, thank you. I forgot about the word 'whiners'. There is a growing number of these 'whiners/voters which the party needs to pay attention to or don't blame THEM as they tried to do in 2010, if those 'whiners/voters take their votes somewhere else.

I hope you are not working to GOTV, are you? Not a good tactic to call voters 'whiners', just fyi.

[zeemike]

60. 'Whiners' is what I call a blow off term.

If you complain about being mistreated you are a whiner...takes the eyes off of the problem and puts it on you.

[JoePhilly]

88. No, I'm acussing whiners of being whiners.

Look, there are a bunch of folks here on DU who spent the last 6 years doing nothing productive.

All they do is whine. Let's go back to 2011. Much of DU was clamoring for a primary opponent for Obama. How'd that turn out?

At the time, I suggested that those folks, rather than run around screaming about a primary opponent that was never going to come, should get busy and start developing alternative candidates for 2016, OR, they'd be here on DU whining about Hillary as we approached 2016.

And where are we now? Right where I predicted. The whiners are angry because they don't like the choices for 2016. Have they worked to build any? Nope.

And apparently, folks like you blame everyone but yourself.

If you want better candidates, you go MAKE them.

As for my GOTV efforts, I'll be fine. In the real world, I don't encounter many whiners. They tend to cluster here.

[sabrina 1]

92. Good, then your post isn't relevant here. I'm sure the world has plenty of whiners, which just so we

are clear, are generally people crying over nothing important which has no relationship to people correctly noting the right wing tilt of the Party of the People.

Ironically you seem to be whining yourself about something I haven't noticed at all.

[JoePhilly]

94. Ok

[Andy823]

93. Exactly!

Well said, thank you.

[rhett o rick]

131. Sounds to me like you are whining about whiners. Instead of defending the policies of the President

it's so much easier to try to disparage those that don't kneel and bow down.

By the way, in my book if one isn't pushing (whining to you) for better policies, one isn't a good Democrat. Those that simply go along, that simple mimic the president, that won't discuss important issues like fracking, are not Democrats. They are DINO's.

One thing the conservative side doesn't do it provide arguments to counter the "whines". They don't explain the good reasons we should sit down, shut up and accept H. Clinton as the pre-determined candidate. They choose ad hominem attacks.

[A Simple Game]

159. Nice post. n/t

[merrily]

210. Fact is, people did try to get Bernie and others to run in 2012.

Fact is, you know squat about what people who post here do IRL, politically or otherwise.

Fact is, if they had succeeded, they would have faced here the same thing people who are urging Bernie to run as a Democrat in 2016 are getting now, and then some. All the bs about challenging an incumbent being certain to elect a Republican.

Also, please stop pretending that having a staff, all the political and politically inclined celebrities a call away, having billions of dollars lined up via donors, the media in your pocket and an already established organization is the same as being someone who is unhappy with the direction of the Democratic Party since it became the New Democrat Party.

You and those who pretend that same thing while knowing better. Please. Stop.

[villager]

56. Your response about "projection" is... projection

Are you being meta?

Pulling some Derrida-like deconstruction on us?

[freshwest]

86. DU does not represent the real world, for which I am grateful. The vitriol expressed at times is OTT

and simply does not work with voters. We do have the blessing, though, of some members who work to enlighten others.

The online (not just DU) yells of 'OMFG! I can't believe that awful man did that!' each and every single time MSM spews a dishonest, biased story proves Americans are losing critical thinking skills and have not had civics lessons.

They are unable to get down to the nuts and bolts of running their own country. The number of times I've read demands that Obama should take blatantly unConstitutional actions to satisfy the gallery, the lack of basic logic and knowledge on branches of government, the difference between a law and a bill, much less the byzantine negotiations that go on, looking for a simplistic and once and for all solution, is depressing.

It's not just one poster or another. This is an online phenomenon where the veiwers and posters want instant gratification to satisfy their passions. It's not because what they say they care about is wrong. It's the insistence that any Democrat must immediately meet their demand that is wrong in principle. It does not respect the diversity of people and their opinion, without which there can be no just solution.

[JoePhilly]

90. Very well said ... I think that's why they jumped from Obama to Warren.

They take a simplistic view of the world.

I used to laugh at the right wing for claiming that the left saw Obama as some type of Messiah. Now I know where that came from. There was a segment on the left who saw him that way. And now they are pissed.

Its the segment of the left that for the last couple years jumped to Warren. "Obama didn't deliver Utopia, but Warren will!!" had been their cry.

Well, until the other day, when she supported Obama's ISIS strategy. That brought the train to a stop.

There is no Messiah, and trying to find one in any political candidate is folly.

[sabrina 1]

106. How do you feel about claiming that SS had ANYTHING to do with the Deficit necessitating

cuts to that most Democratic and Fiscally successful program?

[merrily]

212. Untrue. The 99% want the same things most of DU posters want.

Most Democrats out there have no fucking clue about the DLC, Third Way, No Labels, et al. and what they've done to the Democratic Party. They still think they're voting for the Party of FDR, Truman and RFK.

Both New Democrats and Republicans have made "liberal" a dirty word, almost the equivalent of a Communist with a bomb in hand. So, yes, they poll away from the word "liberal." On issues that are not labeled, however, Americans of all parties poll liberal by over 70%. And that's when the corporatists of all parties crank up their propaganda machines to try to dissuade them they're going to destroy the country with those beliefs.

Public option, Social Security, Medicare, taxing the wealthy much more-all polled at over 70% of all parties when Obama was about to take office.

And, of course, none of us likes Republicans, so we support Democrats in polls.

That DU does not represent the majority of Democrats is a meme, not a fact.

[Autumn]

35. We have been told for the last several years to shut up about 2016, we have an election

in 2014 to win and need to concentrate and GOTV. Now no one has done anything to push for alternative viable candidates we have all been just a bunch of WHINERS! How clear is that.

[sabrina 1]

46. I've noticed that too. Focus on the WH race, even if it's SIX YEARS away and distract

from the Congressional Races.

[merrily]

197. And you know this how? You know about Sabrina's life when

she is not posting?

Besides, most of America is not developing alternative viable candidates because they have two and three jobs and this is something they depend upon their respective political parties to do. Does that mean they have no right to criticize a politician?

Which U.S. Constitution are you reading?

[truedelphi]

228. In some places in this country, the ONLY way to have "D" candidates is to

Have the approval of the Robber Baron style of Democratic "Leaders."

In California, usually you have to have the blessing of Sen Diane Feinstein to run for office as a Democrat.

And how much of a Democrat is Diane Feinstein? Well, twice she threw the Office of the Governorship over to the Republicans, through deliberately choosing someone whom no one liked. The last time Ahnold won, it really was sad, as had Di Fi chosen Steve Westley, I think he would have made the race a very close call. But she shoved aside the wishes of the voters, claiming that Phil Angelides had done more for the party than Westley had, and so that guy ran, and lost resoundingly.

On edit: So all the many thousands of man hours that were spent getting Mr Westley in the Primary and getting voters to understand how good he would be for the state went down the toilet, as Di Fi insidiously choses people for high palces that voters do not want.

[merrily]

234. I wonder how many donors to the Dem Party know that the money might end up

helping a Republican defeat a Dem.

It's like taking money under false pretenses.

[arcane1]

5. "They will do exactly that" indeed!

[kentuck]

8. Hillary is the safe candidate.

She is not a threat to the status quo or the MIC...

[LittleGirl]

34. Best comment today.

Thank you. I want Bernie. I don't exactly agree with everything the OP mentions but he/she makes some great points. Apathy is a disease and we are drowning in it. We are the government. We the People.

[merrily]

236. We are not the government. We pay for it, though.

If the people were really the government, we'd dissolve Congress and each of us would vote on everything and this country would be one hell of a lot different.

[LittleGirl]

241. Sure

but the only way to dissolve congress is taking to the streets and we're cowards.

[merrily]

243. I am not, but I am sure I am in the minority. (So far.)

I wasn't actually suggesting we dissolve Congress. (So far.)

I was only trying to show the difference between the people really being the government, as they were in Ancient Athens, a democracy, and having a representative government, as they did in Ancient Rome, a republic. We are a republic.

They tell us we're a democracy because that gives us a warm, fuzzy feeling, but we're a republic, as the pledge of allegiance states.

Of course, almost every time I post that, someone else posts that we are an oligarchy, which I agree with. So, an oligarchy, structured as a republic, with an illusion (delusion?) of democracy.

[LittleGirl]

244. delusion indeed. eom

[cstanleytech]

52. Well imo who wins the whitehouse only matters on issues of nominating scotus judges atm

because if congress is still controlled by the republicans the country is screwed.

[sabrina 1]

80. All the more reason to make sure that any candidate for the WH is a real Democrat and that we stop

allowing the Billion Dollar WH race to take over all political discussion, now for six years before the election, rather than focusing on the even more important job of getting a Congress in place that will support such Democratic President, and, should a Republican win the WH, prevent them from passing legislation that is harmful to the people of this country.

Eg, we have heard more about Hillary during this election season than anyone running for Congress which is where the focus SHOULD be right now.

[navarth]

105. +1000 nt

[merrily]

237. As long as there is a 60 vote rule in the Senate, Republicans

will control.

[Maedhros]

9. Thank you, Sabrina!

I have been saying the same thing for some time now: if we keep rewarding weak Democratic policies and weak Democratic candidates with our votes, then we will continue to get weak policies and candidates.

[CakeGrrl]

11. The White House can only do so much if you let Teabaggers infest Congress.

Never mind the talking TV heads, people need the Congressional makeup to align with what the WH wants to do if they really want to see something happen.

Otherwise? Gridlock and compromise, lather, rinse, repeat.

[sabrina 1]

14. That's true. But demanding a non corporate candidate for the WH doesn't

preclude working hard to rid Congress of Corporate Funded Candidates and replacing them too with real Democratic candidates who work for us.

That is very important. I think we can do both. So long as the Dem Leadership understands that they need to stop supporting Third Way candidates and refusing to support actual Dems.

Take NJ's Gov Race eg, were you aware the over 60 elected DEMS ENDORSED CHRISTIE over the Democrat?

So my point is, not just for the WH, but ENOUGH of US being taken for a ride, having votes taken for granted, see again NJ, how do you think the Dems who voted for THOSE Dems felt when they turned around and used that power the people gave them to ENDORSE A REPUBLICAN??

[merrily]

238. There are not that many Teabaggers. It's the 60 vote Senate rule.

[Cleita]

12. K&R

[jwirr]

13. I wil be voting for Bernie in the primary. That is where I have the most power. But I will not throw

my vote away. My daughter is severely handicapped and much of the rest of my family are poor. I cannot afford to have the republics win. We do not have time to wait for someone to come and rescue us from another teaparty congress let alone a president who is going to get rid of all the safety net programs he can. I am going to vote to win. If I do not get my way in the primary I will vote for a winning ticket if one exists. And it will not be the same one McCain is in.

[sabrina 1]

17. I understand that. Why tell them in advance what your plans are? If you truly want a real

Progressive then why tell them it won't matter to you if you don't get one, NOW? Why not tell them 'this is what I want and don't count on my vote if I don't get it'?? THEY use these scare tactics on the people, isn't it time we fight back considering how little we get for our votes?

And Congress is the best way to make sure that even if a Repub wins the WH, he will not be able to push any Corporate Legislation that harms the people.

We DO have options. It's up to us to use them or remain as we are, which isn't working for a whole lot of people.

[justiceischeap]

20. Because they know loyal Democrats will vote for anyone with a D behind their name

It's not some huge secret. Yes, you're right, we can push now for the candidate(s) we want but that doesn't mean that at the end of primary season the winning candidate, if he or she happens to be pro-corp, doesn't know we won't vote for them anyway. You said it yourself, it's been going on for years.

What I think the Democratic party should really worry about is how they seem to pander to the minority voting bloc and then do nothing for them... keep screwing them over and they won't come to the polls and help the Democratic party win or they'll run their own Independent candidates that will take away from the two "favored" nominees and swing an election to show they have the power.

[sabrina 1]

21. I agree with your last paragraph, that is my point. People no matter how loyal, will eventually

grow tired of being taken for granted, it is human nature. And what is wrong with letting them know that maybe that time has come, unless they stop taking those votes for granted?

Polls are showing that more and more people are now registering as Independents, many of the life time Democrats making the Independent vote the largest voting bloc right now.

If smart Dems think that this is the vote their Party is going to be going after, then why would they NOT become a part of that voting bloc?

All I'm saying is to actually TELL THEM 'you got us regardless' is a super bad strategy as we have seen, over and over again. And things DO change, nothing lasts forever and this isn't ten years ago.

[jwirr]

25. Very good point.

[merrily]

239. Not to mention the kind of campaign Hillary ran in 2008.

I would not vote for her on that alone and I am not African American.

[jwirr]

22. One of the reasons I am so against not voting or voting for a 3rd party who cannot win in the

general election is that so many here on DU advocate this move as a way of protesting. I am old enough to have seen all the 3rd party candidates since JFK and it scares me - especially this election. We have so much to lose this time around.

[sabrina 1]

29. I agree, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying to lead them to believe they are going to lose

votes if they do not provide the people with an actual Democrat who has a record of working for the people.

It's campaign season, THEY say whatever it takes to get themselves elected, then often completely forget those promises after they win.

Is there anything wrong with the people using similar tactics since there is so much at stake for them?

Iow, even if in the end people intend to vote for the Dem, don't allow them to assume that, that only causes them to do NOTHING to properly represent the people and we will go on getting Corporate candidates who vote for Corporations, who vote for putting SS 'on the table' etc.

By saying 'I will vote for you no matter what' gives them no reason to respect those votes and they will then go after the votes they know they have to work for. What that means is, they have to cater to the more right leaning voters rather than the left.

We are not obligated to tell them what we intend to do with our votes. We ARE obligated to push our own party in the direction they should be going in and if telling them 'give us a real Dem Candidate who represents the working class or don't count on my vote', what do you think might happen? We haven't even tried to influence them to do what is right, we just cave without even fighting.

[jwirr]

31. On this I agree with you. I have good reps here in NE MN and I am pretty sure they know without

me telling them that most of us will vote for them again. For years in Iowa and Nebraska I was used to being lucky if we even had a voice.

[yeoman6987]

30. What worries me most about 2016?

The fickle populous. I think as a collective we are in constant unhappiness and believe that change is always necessary. We have typically gone Republican back to Democratic President and back again throughout most of history. That is what is frightening about 2016. Yes demographic change and always have but the back and forth has not.

[merrily]

240. The pattern since Reagan has been

two terms red, two terms blue.

The exception of course was Reagan himself, whose coattails were long enough to get Poppy Bush into office, so that was three terms red, two terms blue, two terms red, two terms blue.

[daschess1987]

23. I can relate.

I do have some concerns about how much austerity Hillary would throw at us, but the Republicans are without a doubt the biggest enemies of the poor that this country has ever known.

[merrily]

242. That is an election point, not a primary point.

If you are implying that only Hillary can win the general, I beg to differ.

Many on the left just won't vote for her; and, no, that is not only DU.

The right hates Hillary because of the Clinton years and things did not improve while she was Senator or Secretary. And then, there's Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. She has moe baggage that Louis Vuitton and Gucci combined. We are going to have to relive the Clinton years plus her record before and after that.

And there is the issue of her "racially tinged" 2008 primary campaign. If that costs her good number of African American votes as well, there could be a real problem.

So despite all the propaganda, she is not a sure thing in the general, or even the surest thing.

[Le Taz Hot]

26. Big K & R!

Excellent post!

And to the Democratic Party: I will never vote for a Third-Way Republican-Lite candidate, including and especially Hillary Clinton. Present a candidate that is committed to working for the poor and middle class and I will commit time and money to help elect that candidate. Present me with a Third-Way corporate toady and I'll find someone to vote for.

[tazkcmo]

58. I unsubscribed to the DCCC today

And that's exactly what I told them in the remarks section.

[brooklynite]

101. Well then, more influence for me....

Tell us, which DCCC candidate(s) do you object to?

And is there a more progressive candidate who would be competitive in the same district?

[sabrina 1]

123. Why did elected Democrats support Christie, the Republican, in the NJ Gubernatorial race?

There WAS a good, Progressive Candidate running against him but her party deserted her. Seems to me the answer is simple, the Party Leadership preferred what they viewed as a 'moderate Republican' (why they thought that shows a complete lack of political savvy) to a Progressive Democrat..

Why do YOU think the Dem Party abandoned a Progressive Dem in order to support AND even ENDORSE a Republican like Christie whose bullying and favoritism was WELL KNOWN?

[brooklynite]

126. Point 1: DCCC deals with HOUSE candidates

Point 2: Barbara Buono was supported by DGA, which is the unit tasked with electing Governors.

Point 3: the Democrats supporting Christie was State and local and had nothing to do with DNS or the national Party.

[sabrina 1]

128. Oh please! This is DU you are posting on.

61 elected Dems ENDORSED the Republican over the Democrat. I believe HER story rather than this one, sorry.

I am in NY and remember when Cuomo was running. So many prominent Dems came out for him. Didn't happen for Buono, in fact they studiously avoided her. I did see some nice photo OPs of the president with Christie and much praise for his 'handling' of the disaster. We were STUNNED that Dems appeared to KNOW NOTHING of the controversy surrounding that particular 'handling'.

See, here's what we who were watching from the next state noted. Christie WAS VULNERABLE. Already there were controversies swirling around him. We were waiting for the Dems to TAKE ADVANTAGE of this IN A BLUE STATE.

Instead we were seeing, even here on DU, praise and a whole lot of 'he's one of the good guys' nonsense coming from DEMS. He didn't even need his OWN party on board with his campaign, DEMS helped suppress the FACTS about that corrupt, bullying Republican.

And that has certainly raised a whole of questions about just who is running the Dem Party these days and makes it clear it badly needs new leadership. Among other things.

[brooklynite]

136. Name a non NJ Democrat who supported Christie

Or explain why what local Democrats did would affwct your aupport for the National party.

[sabrina 1]

139. Did the President appear with Buono during her campaign? How much money did the party

allocate to her campaign?

Are you advocating that elected Dems across the country ENDORSE Republicans over Democrats who are running for public office?

What I see here is an attempt to try to EXCUSE Democrats endorsing Republicans. I'm assuming then that DUers who state they will not vote for a Corporate Dem who does not represent them will no longer be attacked, especially since Dem VOTERS will never support a Republican as the NJ Dems did.

Did the Party Leadership contact those Dems btw, and use their influence to try to persuade them to support the Democrat?

Btw, this isn't the first them the Party supported a Republican over a Democrat. A lot of people have been noting this and wondering why THEY are pressured to support Dems while the Party does not.

[merrily]

208. Catch up. Quite a few Democrats endorsed him. It was in all the papers.

[Scuba]

28. Thank you sabrina, excellent post.

[WillyT]

32. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Enthusiast]

33. Kicked and recommended! Go, Bernie!

[daleanime]

36. K&R....

[pa28]

37. The labor left needs it's own caucus in the party.

Liberals and Unions sinking their efforts and cash behind Sanders in the primary is a good place to start.

Money is especially important. The left in general and especially unions need to stop funding candidates who undermine their interests once in office.

[sabrina 1]

47. That is an excellent idea. A Labor Caucus! Wonder why there isn't one?

[pa28]

54. My guess. Democrats like me swallowed the lesser of two evils argument too easily.

If rank and file Democrats pulled their money and most importantly their sweat equity away from third way candidates and toward labor friendly candidates we could force a seat at the table. We've finally learned we aren't going to be given one by being loyal voters.

Also, let's say unions had a litmus test for donations. They cut off money to candidates who supported free trade deals, erosion of historical labor rights or simply did nothing at all in support of working people. Panic would set in without that particular source of funding.

If we ever want a voice we'll have to force our way in or start thinking about third parties.

[sabrina 1]

127. Excellent response, thank you. We were all a part of keeping the system alive. I think

you are absolutely correct about not donating to the Party but rather directly to the candidates who will be outspent BY the party if they are at all progressive as we have seen repeatedly.

I remember the Unions and other Liberal Orgs warning the Dem Leadership just before the 2012 election that this would be the last time the party could count on their support unless they began to see some action against the Corporate policies that have worked so hard to destroy the working class.

Not sure what they will in the next election, but you are correct, they definitely should use their money to oppose those Corporate candidates, which would mean NOT putting into the Party coffers. Using it to take back this party for the working class is a far better idea.

[Thespian2]

38. Huge K & R!

As I have said before, I will never vote for HRC.

[lobodons]

41. Nose holders are needed

You will never get a candidate that appeals to the entire party. You need those nose holders to come out and vote for the party's candidate. IF ONLY we had 600 more nose holders in Florida in 2000 we would not have had 9-11, debt would be below 5 trillion, No Citizens United, Roberts and Alito would not be on SCOTUS. Just remember, next President may get 2-3 SCOTUS picks. 7-2 conservative court should be enough to scare the shit out of people enough to hold nose and Vote D (whoever the D is!!)

[sabrina 1]

49. Gore won the 2000 election without a whole lot of nose holders. The election was stolen

by the SC. Looking back though, with VP like Lieberman, what was Gore thinking? THAT may be why there weren't more nose holders. Sometimes even holding one's nose isn't an option, and I can't think of a better example than Lieberman. Which is why it is imperative that we get a real Democrat who is for the people rather than a Corporate tool. You just gave a perfect example of why.

[whereisjustice]

44. Right on! Time to stop accepting lower and lower expectations from "Democratic Party Authorites"

Hilary can run as a Republican where she belongs.

[truedelphi]

227. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

48. Amen! If we don't tell them when we disagree, they'll never learn

In fact, they'll have no incentive to learn.
Why waste your time catering to your constituency when you know they're going to vote for you regardless?

[Ruby the Liberal]

51. Excellent post Sabrina. K&R

[DonCoquixote]

53. Normally, I would trash this thread

As I am in FLORIDA, that one little purple state that seems to be the knife edge. I was there in 2000, and no, I do not care if Nader voters scream their innocence with their last breath, I will blame them with mine, because I had to listen to months of blatant outright celebration by the GOP that played the Nader votes like a fiddle. I saw Glenn Beck get promoted to his national stature because of the part he played in Tampa to make this mess, encouraging people to vote for anyone but Gore.

However, Miss Hillary has NOT thrown her hat in the ring yet. Frankly, we all know she is avoiding doing so, because then she has to start making commitments, and taking hard questions. The longer she is in this nebulous stage, the more back deals she can cut with precisely the wrong people, bet they Wal-Mart or those who want Syria invaded. Simply put, she needs to be dragged onto the stage, where she will either survive, or, AS SHE DID IN 2008, CRACK UNDER THE PRESSURE! With all the money she had, and the name recognition, the race was hers to lose, and thanks to mark Penn and her bigmouthed Husband, she LOST!

Encouraging Sanders to run will do exactly that. Let's face it, even Rand Paul gave up on the anti-war rhetoric, once she realized he would get no money unless he did. Someone needs to challenge Hillary, and do so on the hardcore issues that she has a talent for choking on (especially those pertinent to working class people, those who would have gladly been as "broke" as she was when she left the White House.)

So, for now, I say support Bernie, and frankly, if Hillary proves she has learned NOTHING from last time, she can go down in flames, AGAIN! Then we can finally start to buy back the soul that Bill Clinton put in hock. There are plenty of people that are worthy to be the first woman president: I would love to see the ladies like Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sibelius, Kirsten Gellibrand, Wendy Davis, and yes, Liz Warren, finally let loose after having to make their little "we will support you for President Hillary in 2008" statement.

[Docross]

62. It all depends on WHO votes..

What if..... it's Hillary for President, Bernie for Vice President, Bill for Counselor in Chief and a HOT LINE to Barack?

The problem is; Hillary is all we've got as a viable candidate. Everyone's ready for a Lady President. BUT, she has to stop waving in 'rhythm' like the Queen... stop rolling her eyes...and she needs to dress like a President. I know, it shouldn't matter, but it does. And for LORD sake, don't put Obama down. The base will not handle that. Maybe we could all help her out. ?

I wish all Americans were as informed as people are on this forum. Unfortunately, they're not like us out there. Like in my family; two of my grown daughters do not want to hear ANYTHING about war and politics. It's the way they are. They have too much going on in their own lives, jobs and children and you name it. ONE of my daughters is definitely voting Democrat. She and husband own their own business and their health insurance went from $1,200 a month down to $400 with Obama Care. So unless they feel it 'personally', they don't vote and they certainly don't understand how important this mid-term election is.

WE NEED REALLY REALLY REALLY GOOD ADS We have to show them how it will affect them. Probably a lot of good ideas in here...

[brooklynite]

74. "A whole lot of Democrats are not happy with Hillary as their only choice."

And a whole lot of Democrats ARE happy with Hillary, and have no objection to other choices...

YOUR problem is getting another candidate to seriously plan to run, not just dangle hope in front of you.

[sabrina 1]

82. I don't believe in 'hope'. Voters are realists. Voters are also way more mature now than they were

a decade ago, and know a great deal more about how things are done in the political world. The fact is few voters are hopeful at all, which is the problem for both Political parties. And which is why the largest voting bloc now are those registered as Independents.

Hillary is what most voters now understand to be the problem with politicians. This is a complete reversal of how voters USED to view eg, money in politics.

They know the poisonous effect it has on elections.

Young people especially who are the victims of Corporate Government policies and who do not get their information from the Corporate Media. They WERE OWS, and they informed millions of people about this aspect of politics which has resulted in little 'hope' of a future for them.

And what most voters know now is that whoever funds political candidates expect a return on their investments and their needs are so at odds with the Working Class that until we get candidates who also understand the deleterious effects of this 'system', there will continue to be no hope of a future for the working class for a long time.

Hillary has her supporters, most are wealthy people who are out of touch with the Middle Class. She doesn't represent today's generation, she represents the status quo.

Bernie Sanders otoh, is NOT out of touch with the working class. He understands the failure of a system that requires that a candidate must have millions of dollars to 'win' every two years which has corrupted the entire system making it impossible for the kind of candidate who WOULD represent the people rather the Corporations, from having any chance of winning an election.

We have WITNESSED good candidates receive NO SUPPORT from the Party they belong to. Again, SEE THE NJ GOVERNOR'S race where Democrats abandoned their own very good candidate and actually endorsed the hugely Corporate Funded REPUBICAN.

Dems LOVED Christie, he was so 'moderate', a 'leader' I recall being told.

The ONLY reason Hillary is the supposed candidate is because of the money that she knows she can count on. Take that away and let all the other more than qualified Dems run on a level playing field and she would not stand a chance.

But my point was not about Hillary specifically, it was about OUR VOTES being taken for granted and the practice of telling them THEY CAN BE taken for granted.

Now it's time for the people to get as tough as the billionaires are with the Party in terms of letting them know that we will use the one bargaining chip we have and not to think they can go on taking that bargaining chip as theirs unless we get something in return.

We have noticed that once an election is over we the people have NO SAY in the policies those we elected decide to support, eg, putting SS on the table!! I did not notice the Dem Party even acknowledging the huge, negative reaction to that shocking decision.

Yes, it's been removed, temporarily, from the table because they KNOW we oppose it, until AFTER the election.

So, now that we know not to believe the words, but look at the actions, we also know we need a candidate who has a record of protecting SS, NOT a record of either remaining silent or actually promoting such a totally wrong policy. Taking it off the table during an election season is so transparent a tactic, that it is actually worse than leaving it there. Because it demonstrates that they KNOW how opposed the people are to this travesty and are trying to deceive us into thinking we have influenced them. We are not deceived.

We are in the driver's seat ONLY for a few short months after which things will go back to 'ignore the masses' no matter what you promised during the campaign. UNLESS the people assert themselves as the obscenely wealthy do, by letting them know what they must do in order to buy, well, earn, OUR votes.

So where does Hillary stand on the Chained CPI eg? Not just now during the campaign, but what is her record on the one example of what the people are most concerned about?

[bullwinkle428]

76. Charlie Pierce wrote a beautiful piece on "Inevitability" this morning.

"INDIANOLA, Iowa -- It was a bright day in the fields, a day for swooping swallows and the fluttering of Monarch butterflies, and a blue sky that seemed to have started in Antarctica and worked its way north to this place, this farm, where the first public absurdity of the 2016 presidential campaign was taking place. It was Tom Harkin's last annual Steak Fry, one of those lost-in-time political goat-ropings that remain charming because so many of our political rituals are not any more. It was not the event itself that was absurd. In fact, it was a perfectly glorious way to spend a perfectly glorious Sunday with what appeared to be every Democrat in the state of Iowa. Still, there was an awful lot of the event that could lead you to assess the whole thing as an extended series of punchlines. First of all, it was a political event, with politicians, that was taking place in the National Balloon Field -- Yes, we have one. This is a great country. -- and, therefore, you could pick among approximately 997 jokes about hot air. The press was housed for filing purposes in a tin structure that appeared to be a repurposed manure shed. (Go crazy with that, if you must.) But it was in the last of the three obvious punchlines that we find the first true absurdity of the next presidential election. There were more than a hundred reporters, camera-people, a human centipede of boom microphones waiting by a chain link fence, waiting for Hillary Clinton to grill a steak. Yes, Hillary Clinton and dead meat. The conventional wisdom at the moment is that the Democratic presidential field for 2016 is pretty much the same thing.

It was a curiously joyful, if somewhat placid, affair in a country that seems to be sliding, inevitably, towards war with our current Hitlers du jour in the Levant. The national blood is up again, and, because nobody learns anything ever any more, the hard-won skepticism that the United States can do anything about a part of the world where the inhabitants insist on slaughtering each other, except, of course, make everything even worse than it was before, is being abandoned almost by the day. We once again are hearing talk about arming the local "moderates," as though anyone can truly still be moderate after you give them a couple of Stingers and an RPG launcher. We once again are hearing talk about coalition partners and multilateral governments in places where the basic idea of a coalition is getting everybody you hate together in order to hate someone else, and the basic idea of a multilateral government is a Cabinet composed of people who are all packing different sidearms. And the only thing practically everyone agrees on is that it is United States soldiers who are going to be the ones doing the fighting and the dying. The ISIS barbarians believe it because they want to kill them. Some of our staunchest "allies" believe it because they don't want ISIS to kill them. While everyone was lining up for steak and potato salad, and free beer and lemonade, the usual suspects were all over the Sunday shows, and the rhetoric seemed to be sliding inevitably toward American forces on the ground, somewhere, in that part of the world.

Hillary Clinton came to Indianola. She was smart and coy. Her husband, almost a rail now in his checkered shirt, worked the fenceline right behind her, and that's going to be the most fascinating part of her inevitable run. In 2008, it is said, Bill Clinton was a loose cannon rolling across the deck of her sinking campaign, spouting off, hogging the spotlight, and making the whole Clinton team look musty and fusty and old compared to the dynamic new stylings of the Obama team. But the fact remains that he is still the greatest natural retail politician of our time, and she is, well, not. As they walked along the fenceline, fielding questions, and getting hugged by Tom Harkin, you could see the difference, and the basic dynamic of how she is going to run for president with him around. She was perfectly pleasant, crisp and businesslike. He was, once again, the man who came to breakfast, lunch, and dinner. You would have needed the Jaws of Life to pry him away from the people he'd found to talk to. She spent a lot of time not announcing her candidacy. He talked about how he thought Mark Pryor was going to hang onto the Senate seat in Arkansas, citing demographic numbers in a clickety-clack fashion, while joking about having to eat a veggie burger. "He's done great, ever since he had to change his diet," Ms. Clinton said. "I, on the other hand, am still a meat-eater. I'm going to go enjoy some of that beef now." And she left. He stayed.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/One_Day_In_Iowa

[NanceGreggs]

78. You are leaving something key out of the equation.

You do not represent “we the people”. We people (Democrats) are in the millions, and include centrists, far-leftists, and everything in between. You are not speaking on behalf of all of them.

“A whole lot of Democrats are not happy with Hillary as their only choice.” First of all, Hillary hasn’t even said she’s running yet – and if she does, she won’t be the only choice when primaries begin; there will be others in the field.

As the polls/surveys have shown, a whole lot of Democrats are NOT unhappy with Hillary as a potential POTUS. You seem to want to ignore that fact, and instead pretend that everyone in the Party thinks exactly as you do, and wants exactly the same candidates you want. Being part of the Big Tent, Democrats have different opinions and different priorities, often dependent on where they live, their financial situation, their race/ethnicity, their sexual orientation – and a million other variables that shape an individual’s views.

“One way to guarantee that the people will get someone they really do not want is to say 'however, if s/he is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for her anyhow'. Again you completely dismiss the idea that some people are willing to support and vote for candidates that you find not to your liking – and vice-versa.

Your entire OP seems to be premised on the idea that (a) every Democrat wants exactly the same nominee, and/or (b) you know what’s best for everyone, and anyone who disagrees with you should be dismissed out of hand.

“Telling them NOW that if this is the only choice we have, we will not vote for her/him is a far better strategy in order to persuade them that they need to present a candidate people WANT if they want to win.”

Exactly who is the candidate “the people want”? Again you are assuming that you know, unequivocally, the perfect candidate that will unite every single Democrat in their support for one person. Who IS that person, Sabrina?

No doubt that if you call the PTB in the Party (whoever you believe those PTB to be) and threaten to not vote for (D)s you find unacceptable, that is the question you will be asked. So what’s your answer? I assure that “none of the above” would be rendered meaningless the minute you uttered the words. Bernie Sanders? There are Democrats who don’t believe he’s electable – and with good reason. Elizabeth Warren? Again, there are Democrats who don’t think she can win. So what’s your fallback position? “I KNOW either one of them can win, so just trust my better judgement”?

“Democratic voters have a right to expect a true Democratic Candidate who represents the best interests of the PEOPLE first.” Does it never occur to you that the person you see as “a true Democrat” is not the same person someone else sees as such? Does it never cross your mind that the concept of the “best interests of the People” is a perception that can vary widely between one voter and another?

“How about they try to get Bernie to run? How about we pressure them to do that?
How about we tell them 'it's either HIM or NO ONE! How about US telling THEM: This is your only choice for a change?”

Yet again, you assume that YOUR ideal candidate is what everyone wants, everyone needs, everyone will get behind. Do you have any facts, any statistics, any poll results to support that idea? Of course you don’t. Your entire argument seems to be based on “I want what I want, and what everyone else wants is of no consequence.”

You (and your buds here) consistently label anyone who disagrees with YOUR ideas as Third Wayers, New Democrats, Conservadems, DINOs, etc., in furtherance of the naïve notion that YOU are the voice of the Democratic Party, and speak for the majority. In truth, you don’t speak for anyone other than yourselves – and your numbers among Democrats as a whole are minimal.

Your first mistake is assuming that every Democrat thinks exactly as you do – they don’t. Your second mistake is assuming that Democrats as a whole are dissatisfied with the Party – they’re not. Your third mistake is assuming that participants on DU represent the opinions of Democrats across-the-board – they don’t. But your fatal mistake is your assumption that the Dem Party is a matter of “them” versus “us”.

Although I realize this is a popular misconception on this particular website, the fact is that WE ARE THE PARTY, and many of its failings are the direct result of people who, like yourself, are more interested in whining that the Party is some distant entity comprised of powers-that-be instead of admitting that the Party includes people whose ideas and ideals you personally object to. You find it more convenient to complain about the direction of the Party than to acknowledge that you contribute nothing to changing that direction, because you're too busy pointing your finger at people who DON'T think as you do and declaring them as outsiders.

By all means, Sabrina – encourage Democrats to whine to the “powers that be”. Tell them to recognize that the millions of voters who elected Barack Obama – twice! – are actually dissatisfied voters too timid to speak up. Tell them that you KNOW better who should be elected, and who shouldn’t. Tell them that you WON’T vote for any (D) unless your personal demands are met.

Then get back to us, and let us know how that worked out – how the Party has decided to cave to your personal demands, how the Party has recognized you and a bunch of disgruntled DUers as their “base”, how all Democrats should just bow to your superior knowledge as to how things should be done, how the entire country will get behind whoever YOU decide should be in the running in 2016.

I’m sure every Democrat in the nation – all being of ONE mind and ONE opinion – will rally behind you in whatever decisions YOU make.

DU stopped being reflective of the voice of the Democratic party years ago - and pretending otherwise, pretending that those here who never stop whinging is representative of the Party as a whole, is just another bit of insanity that people like yourself cling to in hopes of being somehow relevant.

[Number23]

81. Every word... truth.

Your first mistake is assuming that every Democrat thinks exactly as you do – they don’t. Your second mistake is assuming that Democrats as a whole are dissatisfied with the Party – they’re not. Your third mistake is assuming that participants on DU represent the opinions of Democrats across-the-board – they don’t. But your fatal mistake is your assumption that the Dem Party is a matter of “them” versus “us”.

Poetry. Seriously.

But this bit

DU stopped being reflective of the voice of the Democratic party years ago - and pretending otherwise, pretending that those here who never stop whinging is representative of the Party as a whole, is just another bit of insanity that people like yourself cling to in hopes of being somehow relevant.

is where the rubber hits the road.

A "Democratic" web site that works its hardest to shut up black people and women is not in ANY way, shape or form indicative of the ideals, policies or beliefs of the Democratic Party??? The Hell you say!

[Comrade Grumpy]

121. I don't think DU "works its hardest to shut up black people and women."

In fact, I find that statement quite wrong-headed. Posters may not agree with every ultra-rad pronouncement of other posters, but that's hardly shutting them up.

[sabrina 1]

124. Well said, DU does no such thing. You are correct, I have learned to not engage people who

make false statements like that.

[Number23]

169. And you would know better than me, a black woman, whether black people and women are made

to feel welcome here. Right?

And your use of the term "ultra rad" is very telling. Not surprising, but telling as is the support you received from a very typical and unsurprising source.

[FSogol]

91. Bravo!

[sabrina 1]

135. Let me join you, for a Straw Man post it definitely is right up there and deserves

some applause for the sheer effort to create a straw man then try to knock it down!

[Bobbie Jo]

95. Nailed it.

Thread over.

[sabrina 1]

137. Lol! Apparently not! n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

143. Lol!

Last edited Tue Sep 16, 2014, 09:46 PM - Edit history (1)

No, in my opinion she nailed it, just like I said.

Thread over, AFAIC. Continue as you see fit, or whatever.....I truly don't give a rat's ass.

[sabrina 1]

147. The post definitely earned applause from me. I love watching people erect straw men

then trying to knock them down. The problem is when you don't actually have any straw, it's hard to build a straw man. But any effort to do the impossible always gets my respect.

Thread apparently far from over so I'm off to respond to those who took the trouble to continue posting their opinions.

[Bobbie Jo]

149. You do that

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[sabrina 1]

150. You can count on it. Nice picture, who does it represent??

[NanceGreggs]

170. Where is the strawman, sabrina?

I said you don't speak on behalf of all Democrats. Is that a "strawman argument", or a fact?

I said that polls/surveys have shown that a whole lot of Democrats are NOT unhappy with Hillary as a potential POTUS. Strawman or fact?

I said that Democrats have different opinions and different priorities, and not all Dems agree with your personal choice of candidates; strawman or fact?

I said that not all Dems think Sanders and/Warren are electable; strawman or fact?

Perhaps you don't understand what a "strawman" is - which doesn't surprise me in the least.

[sabrina 1]

172. Sure, I'm more than happy to explain to you what a strawman is.

You ask, after constructing the very strawman you claim is not a strawman: 'Is that a strawman or a fact?'

It IS a strawman.

Here, let me try to help you understand.

Apparently from some imaginary OP written by ME, I am assuming, certainly not THIS ONE, you IMPLY, but noticeably do not QUOTE, that somewhere in this imaginary OP, I claimed to speak for the entire Dem Party.

Are you with me so far?

We can make this easy simply by playing a sort of 'show and tell' after which it will all become clear.

Post the quote you are referring to where I claimed to 'speak for the entire Democratic Party'.

IF you DO post such a quote, I lose, you are not trying to erect a strawman.

But if you CAN'T post such a quote, THERE is your strawman!

There, lesson on strawmen simplified.

I love these games, so look forward to your response.

[NanceGreggs]

175. Oh, you went far beyond ...

.. speaking for the entire Dem Party - you deigned to speak for "We the People".

"Telling them NOW that if this is the only choice we have, we will not vote for her/him is a far better strategy in order to persuade them that they need to present a candidate people WANT if they want to win."

Who is "we"? If you are only speaking on your own behalf, why the reference to "we"? Who are the "people" who they - an entity still not identified - need to present a candidate to satisfy?

"We the people are supposed to be in charge of this democracy. Acting helpless and leaving up to politicians is an abdication of duty on the part of citizens."

Who are "We the PEOPLE" you refer to, and who appointed you as their spokesperson?

"A whole lot of Democrats are not happy with Hillary as their only choice."

Says who? You? If a "whole lot of Democrats are not happy with Hillary as their only choice" - (and again you fail to explain how someone who isn't even yet in the running is an 'only choice') - who are you to make such a statement without a single iota of proof that "a whole lot of Democrats" are happy or not happy with anything?

"Then let them know what we DO want and this time let them know we mean it!"

Again, who did you mean to refer to by "we"?

"See how often we are told when they push things like 'SS on the Deficit Table: 'but we would not get the (fill in the blank) vote if we didn't compromise!"

There's that pesky "we" again - did you mean "me"? Is that a typo?

"When we have the gall to point out broken campaign promises, we are told 'you should not have expected anything else ..."

"Shows one thing clearly, there is NO respect for Democrats who don't make their voices heard, they are merely taken for granted and told to 'go sit down and be quiet' and are then ignored."

Who are these Democrats who aren't making their voices heard? Seems a LOT of Democrats made their voices heard in 2008 - and again in 2012 - by electing and re-electing a Democrat to the White House. And a LOT of those same Democrats have made their voices heard by stating their support for Hillary's candidacy, should she choose to run.

So when you go on and on about "We the People" who are soooo dissatisfied with the Dem Party and its potential candidates, exactly WHO are you speaking on behalf of - other than yourself?
And if you are only speaking on behalf of yourself, why the use of the royal "we", as though you speak for everyone?

[sabrina 1]

192. Just as I thought. You tried to build a strawman but didn't have the straw. It was a

heroic, though failed, effort. but why someone would go to so much trouble to do so is what interests me.

You seem peeved that voters DARE to speak to the party they have supported all of their lives and let them know what their concerns are.

I have to say, that is too bad. As far as I know voters still have the right to speak up when they are not happy with the way they are being represented.

I speak for me, and if anyone agrees or disagrees they are free to say so. That is what happened in this thread.

Looks like most people who responded to the thread, have spoken for themselves and agree.

I hate spoiling people's fun, but facts are facts so all I can say is that next time you want to build a strawman, make sure in advance that you have enough, or at least SOME straw.

[NanceGreggs]

200. If you ever get around ...

... to responding to what I've said, as opposed to yelling "strawman, strawman" as your reply, please let me know.

[sabrina 1]

201. I did respond to what you said. I described what you said appropriately.

[NanceGreggs]

202. No, you didn't.

But keep telling yourself you did, because that's what you NEED to believe.

[sabrina 1]

249. Okay, I will!

[sabrina 1]

103. 'Darth Vader Polls Higher Than All Potential 2016 Presidential Candidates'

Darth Vader Polling Higher Than All Potential 2016 Presidential Candidates

You'll note that there is only ONE Democrat in that poll.

Your fatal mistake is assuming that Partisan Dems speak for the rest of the country.

It's just not worth responding to straw man posts no matter how long they are.

It's certainly interesting and rather flattering I suppose that you took the trouble to write such a long post that is ALL ABOUT ME!

I'm not running for anything, just so you know.

But, to stick to the ACTUAL topic, which is NOT me, there is only ONE candidate being pushed on the people. So the out come of polls asking Dems 'who do you prefer, Hillary or Mike Huckabee' are rather predictable.

Just fyi, no candidate can win an election with just their party's base.

[NanceGreggs]

171. The only "strawman" here, sabrina ...

... is the one you've raised in your OP.

"there is only ONE candidate being pushed on the people." Really? Who would that candidate be? I'm assuming you mean Hillary - so who is "pushing" her on the people, and how? I've seen endless posts on DU about Hillary being declared "inevitable", but the only references I can find to her inevitability are from articles written by political pundits, not by anyone in the Party.

You rail in your OP about "a whole lot of Democrats are not happy with Hillary as their only choice." Who said Hillary is the only choice? Has anyone in the Party stated that there will be no primaries in 2016, that the Party has decided that Hillary IS the nominee, and therefore no one will have a choice? If so, please provide links.

"Do we really want a candidate who has shown themselves to represent Corporate America over the People as the only choice we are given?"

Again, can you provide some factual basis behind this notion that Hillary (or anyone else, for that matter) will be the only choice Democrats are offered?

In truth, your OP makes no sense; you contradict yourself everywhere. You state "Then let them know what we DO want and this time let them know we mean it!, followed by "It makes no sense to show your hand at this point,", followed by, "Watch how they try to win over those they know they cannot take for granted!"

So what's your strategy here? Let "them" know (whoever "they" are, which you never clarify), but don't show your hand at this point (so people should let "them" know while not letting them know?), and then watch how "they" try to win over those they know they cannot take for granted!"

Well, how can you let "them" know what you want, without showing your hand as to what you want? And then how are "they" going to try and win over those who they don't know they can't take for granted, because those voters are not supposed to show their hand?

The mind boggles.

But let's get down to the nuts-'n'-bolts of what you're proposing here. You think Democrats should be "telling them NOW that if this is the only choice we have, we will not vote for her/him is a far better strategy in order to persuade them that they need to present a candidate people WANT if they want to win."

Who is "them"? If you are promoting the idea that Democrats should be telling "them" something, it would seem obvious that "they" should be identified. Exactly who should disgruntled Dems be sending their message to? You persist in the notion that there are nefarious powers-that-be within the Party who need to get this message - who are they? Can you provide names, email addresses or other contact information for those who want to let "them" know what's on their minds?

Exactly how do you propose to "let them know what we DO want and this time let them know we mean it"? Again, who is "them" - or should letters/emails simply be addressed to "To Whom It May Concern", and sent to -- well, sent to where?

"How about they try to get Bernie to run? How about we pressure them to do that?
How about we tell them 'it's either HIM or NO ONE!"

Could you provide a helpful sample letter/email explaining to "them" exactly how they should get Bernie to run, and how "they" should pressure him to do that, e.g. "Dear THEM - We demand that you run a non-member of the Democratic Party as the Democratic nominee for POTUS in 2016. It's either him or no one!" You can also add some pointers as to how Bernie should be "pressured" into doing the bidding of a Party he has chosen not to be a member of - and I'd be really interested to see what you propose in that regard. You could also dazzle "them" with the anecdotal evidence that you participate on a - cough - "Democratic website" where literally dozens upon dozens of (alleged) Democrats have said they will vote for him.

"It's certainly interesting and rather flattering I suppose that you took the trouble to write such a long post that is ALL ABOUT ME!"

Sorry for being the one to break it to you, but there is nothing "flattering" about being told you are totally out to lunch when it comes to the facts about the Democratic Party as a whole, and the fact that you (and your buds here on DU) are in no way representative of that Party.

"Your fatal mistake is assuming that Partisan Dems speak for the rest of the country." I never said that partisan Dems speak for the rest of the country (and that, by the way, is a classic example of a "strawman argument", FYI: implying that someone said what they didn't say, and then arguing against it).

As for the length of my reply - well, sabrina, when there's that much FAIL in one OP, it's difficult to respond to all of it in just a few short soundbytes.

I await your reply as to who "they" are - you know, the "they" who are giving Dems no choice in 2016 other than a candidate who has yet to announce she's running. I'm sure your buds here want to send "them" a piece of their mind - so identification of who "they" are would seem to be in order.

[magical thyme]

89. excellent, excellent point.

I've been roasted alive here, metaphorically speaking, for stating unequivocally that I will not vote for Hillary.

So I'll say it again. I will not vote for Hillary. If she is the democratic nominee, for the first time in my life I will write in or leave the presidential slot blank and vote state and local only.

[sabrina 1]

110. And she isn't even a candidate yet, we are told. I won't support her either.

So stating you would not support someone who is NOT a candidate causes so much angst it makes you wonder WHY?

[nationalize the fed]

96. k/r Another great post Sabrina. Thanks.

You and a few others are what is left of the soul of the party.

[sabrina 1]

160. Thanks ntf, we can get this party back imo. But it will be a lot of work.

[ymetca]

104. I would vote for Hillary...

... if she has Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren as her VP pick.

But somehow I think that is not going to happen.

[ladjf]

111. To me, Mrs. Clinton's public speeches sound like a second rate act

at the comedy club, all cuteness and no substance. nt

[rhett o rick]

133. Sorry but I don't understand that at all. The VP has zero influence. To take either Sen Sanders or

Sen Warren out of the Senate and make them the dog-walker for H. Clinton-Sachs would be a terrible shame.

[ymetca]

245. Yep, I think you're right on that one.

So that puts me back in the same pickle. Hold nose and vote the status quo? Or watch the Republicans burn the whole house down?

It's tempting sometimes to let that happen... but then, I think about how that's worked out in other countries, when people let the zealots take over.

Of course, it might be an illusion either way, as we are already so deep into the global casino that we may never find our way out.

[rhett o rick]

246. We have to draw the line some time and not continue to be manipulated with the

lesser of evils ploy. It might be rough but maybe the general public will wake up.

[GoneFishin]

107. I have always known about this posturing dynamic. I think they do it on purpose.

Some may do it out of ignorance, but I think there are Hillary boosters who know this and do it to try to shame or humble others into supporting her as the "lesser of the evils".

I will leave it blank if I have to. I will not vote for her.

[sabrina 1]

116. I know why I did it for so long, fear of the greater evil. I didn't like it, but fear of

a Republican winning the WH especially after Bush, was my reason. Now, I believe that caving to the fear-mongering rather than DEMANDING better candidates, is a mistake on the part of the people. THEY need to know we can no longer be taken for granted.

I see them pushing polls showing 'Hillary is very popular'. Well, if you are the only one in the poll with a D after your name, that is an inevitable outcome.

But put her up against OTHER DEMS and those poll numbers change dramatically. It won't matter though unless people make it clear who they want and that they cannot be counted on to settle for anything else.

[ladjf]

108. Our system is so rotten that I've just about lost all hope that

the "best candidates" could ever prevail.

All we need is an intelligent, honest and courageous person, who loves life and America. I know that there are thousands of Americans that meet those requirements. Why is their road to high office impossible to achieve?

[sabrina 1]

113. But we are told there is only ONE person who is 'qualified' to run for the WH!

And while we are being told that ridiculous story, we are also told that that one person is NOT a candidate.

I couldn't agree with you more.

The solution is to get the money out of politics but the problem is, to do so we need to get the kind of people you are talking about, elected. Which cannot happen so long as money is the driving force in our electoral system.

It may be that we have to start at the local level and build from there, as the Right Wing did. It took them a few decades to get the system we now have in place. Hopefully with access to more information today, the process can speed up.

But MONEY TALKS which is why right now, instead of talking about the upcoming Congressional Races where there are good candidates who need support, we are TALKING ABOUT HILLARY. Is that just a coincidence?

I am lookiing at the Congressional Races to try to find some good candidates who are not heavily financed by Corporate America right now. They will most likely fail as they will be outspent by the Corporate Candidates.

So the issue is, how do we get the money out of our electoral system? At least ONE potential candidate is talking about that, Bernie Sanders.

[Douglas Carpenter]

109. knr

[fbc]

112. I won't bother voting if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

What would be the point?

[Android3.14]

117. Maybe not Sanders, but certainly not Clinton

Many Democrats recognize that Hilary won;t win, and of she does it will nly be worse for the people.
The OP is correct. Expressing that we will swallow our bile in order to vote for Ms. Walmart du PATRIOT Act sends the wrong message.

[sabrina 1]

119. Thank you for getting the point of my OP. And yes, it doesn't have to be any particular

candidate, just not the one chosen for us by Corporate America.

[99Forever]

129. Thank you Sabina, well said.

I will not vote for another nonliberal candidate for any office ever again. I make no apology for this to anyone. If they choose to toss me off this website because of it, I will live with that. My conscience is far more important than pleasing TPTB at a website or in a political party.

[sabrina 1]

163. Me neither 'I will not vote for another nonliberal candidate for any office ever again'.

You don't need to apologize, nor does anyone, they do not own the people's votes which is the point of the OP. They appear to think they DO. Now it's time to show them those days are over. Either field some decent candidates or don't count on those, up to now, dependable votes.

[99Forever]

168. I wish I had the way with words you do.

I'm all in. Time to take our party back.

[Babel_17]

132. No explanations are needed

Just a resounding lack of enthusiasm at recycled triangulation. As a former donor, I toss the recent requests for support and money in the garbage. The Clintons are smart. They might heed the message and actually put together, and disseminate, a winning platform. They might gather around them a nucleus of reformers for some progressive change. HRC has every opportunity to do this.

Edit: Recommended because of your poise in dealing with criticism.

[rhett o rick]

138. I hear and agree with your message. The Conservatives in our party are going to vote for

H. Clinton-Sachs no matter what as if it's pre-ordained (which isn't totally wrong, but pre-ordained by Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street).

The Conservatives think they can badger the Left into supporting the Wall Street candidate. But the Left is tired of being manipulated by the Conservative representatives of the Power That Be.

The important message is for the Left not to give up so easily. Don't acquiesce so soon. Make the Conservatives understand that if they nominate H. Clinton-Sachs they will not get the taken for granted support of the Left. Therefore, if the PTB candidate H. Clinton-Sachs fails in the General, IT'S ALL ON THE CONSERVATIVES THAT NOMINATED HER. Don't blame Ralph Nader.

We must stop the momentum of the inequality gap and even the Conservatives among us don't think (at least they won't argue that) H. Clinton-Sachs will accomplish that. Therefore, we must draw a line and not fall for the PTB manipulation that will leave us with a choice of two Wall Street puppets. We may fail but I'd rather go down fighting that surrender to the Conservative candidate.

[RoccoR5955]

145. Well said!

Yep, we should put it on those in the Party who want the Dems to go farther to the right. They are already to the right of Raygun. It's about time that they went to the left. The FDR left.

And if HRC wins the primary, and loses the general, put it on those people, the CONservatives, who tried to con us into thinking that she was a good candidate.

[Madmiddle]

146. The Clintons are center right

Politically. I for one will not vote for her unless she is the very last resort. Democrats would be best served voting for Bernard Sanders...

[PADemD]

151. I can't vote for Bernie in the PA primary unless he is a registered Democrat.

He needs to run as a Democrat.

[sabrina 1]

152. That's up to the leadership of the DemParty. If they insist on pushing someone on the people

without giving them a realistic choice, not everyone is going to just go along anymore.

[PADemD]

153. PA has closed primaries. Democrats can only vote for Democrats.

[sabrina 1]

158. No party can win without the Independent vote. That is who they will be going after

and paying attention to. They take their own party votes for granted. The Indep. vote has been increasing every year as more and more people become more disillusioned with both parties.

Which is why I am saying that it's time for the party to stop taking our votes for granted and start catering to those who put in office because looking at the stats, they truly cannot count on those votes the way they could in the past.

What that means is democratic voters have a chance to drag this party back to the left and away from the Center Right, if they want to.

[sabrina 1]

164. He did say he was considering that. But will the party accept him? His views are in conflict

with the Party's leadership right now. Hillary is far more in line with the Party at this point.

[underpants]

154. I don't see my name in there at all

[sabrina 1]

162. Sorreee!

[underpants]

167. :-)

[yellowwoodII]

156. Yes

I agree with everything you said.

[LittleBlue]

166. K&R

[JEB]

173. K&R

[JEB]

174. Bernie is probably the most sensible person in DC.

Many, many registered Republicans would likely vote for him once they hear his well thought out agenda. As close to FDR as we can get.

&index=61&list=PL2085F08C33904174

[sabrina 1]

195. That's a great song, thanks for posting it. I have been watching the Roosevelt series

btw, and find it fascinating so far.

I agree that Bernie is the closest thing to FDR we are likely to get. I also agree, and believe I said so above somewhere, that he could attract voters from across the political spectrum.

[merrily]

207. Another simple, but great song, sung by a great human. Which side are you on?

It was written by the wife of a union organizer, but it's not only about unions.

It asks whether you are on the side of the 99% or on the side of those who exploit the 99%.

[sabrina 1]

232. That is a great song, I remember it was used quite often during OWS.

[Skittles]

203. um....plenty so us have been holding our noses and voting for some time now

hard for me to remember a true progressive

[merrily]

209. That would have been LBJ, but only on domestic policy. Maybe Carter on foreign.

Then, Carter's loss and Mondale's were used as an excuse to alter the Democratic Party to Third Way, which his actually 1.3 Way. Republican on almost everything but cultural issues and the occasional populist feint to placate union donors and supporters, plus the hippie types in the base who are aging out of it.

Example of feint (IMO, of course): The 2009-2011 Congress didn't give EFCA much of anything, but, once Republicans controlled the house and will never pass an increase in the minimum wage, the minimum wage became a big issue.

But, with our system, your voting choices are (1) nuts and corporatist, (2) lesser of two evils and (3) sure to lose.

The losses of Carter and Mondale were also used to alter the structure of the Democratic Party, including Super Delegates, who are always ready to make sure the nominee is "electible" (not populist) no matter who wins the primary. Democratic Party with a capital D, but not a small d.

Those changes were attempted after McGovern's loss, but failed. However, McGovern's loss was used to repeal reforms in the Party that McGovern had instituted during the brief time he was head of the Party.

[Skittles]

247. excellent assessment, merrily

[merrily]

248. Thanks. Very nice of you.

[DFW]

211. A few voices in the wilderness won't change anything

A massive number of voices pounding on the doors of the DNC will.

[merrily]

213. So will a massive number voting for who they really think

represents them, as opposed to voting out of fear of helping a Republican win.

I don't want to be afraid anymore. Or silenced.

[DFW]

215. But there has to be some to vote FOR

The DNC can support such a person and elevate them to candidacy. DU can't.

It's not a question of being afraid or silenced. It's a question of being heard.

During the protests against the so-called "German Democratic Reppublic," the former East Germany, which called itself a "people's republic" like the rest of the Soviet colonies in Eastern Europe, their rallying cry was "WE are the people!" There was no one except the SED, the army and the Stasi to say they weren't, and that couldn't hold back the tide of popular frustration forever.

[merrily]

216. There always is, and always has been, someone to vote for, if you are unafraid.

Of course, I get that being anointed by the Party, even co-anointed, is important. The second before I saw your post turn my My Posts yellow, I posted this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5548195.

Upthread, I posted to Philly Joe, or Joe Philly or whatever his name is, to please stop pretending the grass roots and the Party are on a level playing field. (I put the post in my Journal, if you are curious, but, like me, don't want to search the thread for my reply.) So I get it. I didn't just fall off a turnip truck.

But, no matter what, it still takes votes to elect anyone. And we are like Pavlov's dogs, trained to salivate over no food. All it takes is "Say hello to your next Republican President" or "Supreme Court" and we are lining up to vote. And until we stop doing that, they can anoint anyone. They have zero reason to cater to us.

If enough of us ignore the TV ads and voted out of affinity, not fear, we could, at a minimum, start influencing the Dem Party's choices. Maybe even the choices of the GOP. If we keep acting like any rightist can get elected, including by us, we may as well take up crotcheting and forget about politics. There is more than one way to get to make sure the country keeps going "righter and righter." Voting out of fear, not choice, may be one of them.

I think that is part of what Sabrina 1's Op is saying.

Besides, it's not either or. We can work at and on the Party to listen to us and also not vote out of fear.

Peace.

[merrily]

214. Thanks, Sabrina. People who never heard of Bernie but watched MTP Sunday are

very enthusiastic about hearing more from him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5541280

As long as people are given an opportunity to hear him, he will get their support. If he doesn't get that opportunity, the greediest and most selfish of the fascists will have won again.

[Rex]

229. I see you made the Jelly Team come out and hurrmph at your wonderful post.

It must be hard for them to cope with change. Thankfully they keep their braying to a minimum now, since most posters laugh at what they post like it was comedy.

[sabrina 1]

230. Yes, for some it is hard to cope with change, such as voters being a lot more

cynical now than they were just a few years ago.

It isn't going to be so easy to foist a Corporate candidate on voters as it used to be. I suppose if it's all about politics for you, that is all you think, a team win. But for voters there is so much more at stake and the political class is so out of touch with actual voters I guess they find it stunning when they realize their old political games just aren't working anymore.