Jennifer Granholm for DNC Chair!

[trumad]

Got this from Charlie Pierce today.

Couldn't agree more!

[tosh]

1. I like it!

Thanks, Charlie!

[HappyPlace]

2. I love her, but she's not independent enough.

She's too close to Hillary Clinton.

[haikugal]

3. I like her too but agree, she's too close.

[hifiguy]

5. +1

Side note relevant to nothing: Granholm was my first boss in the legal profession - she was the editor-in-chief of the journal I worked on when I was just a wee One-L.

Even then it was apparent she was definitely someone who was going to go places, and a very good boss.

[haikugal]

8. How cool is that!?

She seems like a really interesting person and I enjoy her enthusiasm. That must have been a great work experience for you, at least I hope it was.

[hifiguy]

10. Working on a law school journal was fun.

Except when studying for finals and checking 100 footnotes with impossible-to-find sources in two days both land in the same week.

She was very smart, funny, and did a fine job of keeping a bunch of Harvard Law egos in check.

[Aerows]

13. I have a lot of respect for her.

She seems like the kind of person that is fair and genial, but also puts up with no shit and demands the best from whoever and whatever endeavor she leads.

I'd welcome her as the DNC chair. We have some lazy asses in the DNC now and that's why we have gotten what we've gotten from the DNC since DWS has chaired it. If we keep her on, guess what we will get? More of the same. She needs to be replaced for the good of the party, the good of the candidates and the good of the electorate.

[hifiguy]

14. You got her precisely with that description.

Gave one hell of a speech at the 2012 convention, too.

[sheshe2]

18. She sure let it rip, didn't she.

I was standing and cheering. Love that woman!

[trumad]

4. Well what if she was to close to Bernie?

[MuseRider]

6. Exactly, I think it goes with the territory.

DWS is really not good at this. I don't believe the job is to work for your friends but for all of us and the party. What do I know? Still, in that position whoever is there is going to know these people.

[HappyPlace]

9. Then it would be wrong. It should be an uncommitted Democrat.

An awful lot of former governors and superdelegates have remained uncommitted.

Gotta love her Gung Ho support of Hillary, but it's simply a disqualification to not be able to remain uncommitted and run the DNC.

I don't think she's shown interest in chairing the committee anyway.

[Aerows]

16. I think she's ethical enough

that she could differentiate between "person I know" and "position I am accountable for".

[backscatter712]

32. Speaking as a Bernie fan, the DNC chair shouldn't be taking sides.

The DNC Chair should be working to make the primary process fair and open, and follow the wishes of the primary voters - the Democratic party base.

And that's what pisses me off about Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's recent actions. She's obviously maneuvering to give Hillary an advantage, and that's an abuse of power.

If the DNC Chair was maneuvering to give Bernie an advantage, that would also create a big shitstorm.

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. I got news for you, most Democrats are "close to Hillary Clinton". There's a reason for it.

[JDPriestly]

31. Yes. Her money.

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. Democrats are "close to Hillary Clinton" because she is a "Democrat".

[cascadiance]

43. More likely they are close to Clinton because they are paid now by campaign money to do so...

... by the corporate donors that don't want Bernie in as a threat to their power.

And likewise, those that might want to endorse Bernie at this point, are being threatened with opposition money if they choose to endorse him now too!

If and when Bernie wins the nomination, they won't be able to control the endorsements then, and that's when so many will move to endorse Bernie then.

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. The monied interests aren't the only ones who "don't want Bernie in". White liberals/libertarians

can't elect BS. The numbers are what they are, and all the hoopla about the two whitest states in the nation can't change the math. There aren't enough super delegates left for BS. HRC is playing the Obama ground game.

As far as BS being "threatened with opposition money", I could give a shit.

[cascadiance]

56. Koch Brothers work for white libertarians! Bernie does not! He works for OPPOSITE philosophies!

He wants MORE government regulation when libertarians want less! WHERE do you get this kind of connection that he's a product of libertarians, other than your wish to smear him.

Oh, I get it, since Bernie's a socialist and libertarians Koch brothers were supported by Joseph Stalin, then that must be the connection, huh? Some connection.

Bernie fought segregation back in the 60's when Hillary Clinton supported Goldwater for president who voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act then and called MLK a demagogue then too!

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/06/barry-goldwater-declares-that-the-1964-civil-rights-act-is-a-dire-threat-to-the-liberties-of-african-americans-and-will-creat.html

So, how does this make Hillary Clinton so much more historically supportive of POC than Bernie?

[Tarheel_Dem]

57. "I gave up Ayn Rand for Bernie Sanders: How I grew up and traded libertarianism for a progressive.."

I gave up Ayn Rand for Bernie Sanders: How I grew up and traded libertarianism for a progressive “socialist”


Most self-identifying "libertarians" actually subscribe to a bankrupt ideology. What if they all opened their eyes?
Edwin Lyngar


The rise of Bernie Sanders feels familiar to me. When I was a libertarian-leaning Republican, I was a delegate for Ron Paul in the 2008 Nevada State Convention. Paul’s supporters were passionate if a bit nutty, but change seemed, if only for a moment, possible. The problem was that the ideology behind the candidate was bankrupt. The experience was the beginning of the end of my affiliation with simplistic libertarian blather and GOP politics altogether, but Paul’s rise was driven by the same frustration and anger that is now propelling Sanders.

For too long, the anger and passion has been driven by Tea Party types and libertarians. Their solution seems to be throwing more gasoline on a trailer-park fire. Inequality? Cut taxes for the wealthy and implement a “flat tax.” Poverty? Eliminate the social safety net and cut food stamps. Those not actively making problems worse are obsessed with non-stories and fictitious “scandals,” featuring Benghazi, Jade Helm, e-mail servers or any of the other innumerable, invented outrages.

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/20/why_libertarians_should_love_bernie_sanders/

This is the crapfest that BS brings with him. Oh, and nobody gives a shit what BS was doing before most of us were born.

[cascadiance]

59. This is about a former libertarian discovering the hidden ugly truths about libertarianism...

... and seeing that Bernie provides many who are drawn to libertarianism with the well publicized aspects of them like ending the drug war, ending real wars, ending government spying, etc. that most of us on the REAL left also support instead of the corporatists who don't like those issues. This guy and many others like him are discovering that Bernie represents the real revolution that doesn't exploit the 99% like the HIDDEN Libertarian philosophies that the Koch brothers hold on to do.

Does that mean that Bernie only appeals to "white liberals" and reformed "libertarians" (that you seem to imply still are libertarians)? HELL NO! There's no proof here that his appeal is limited to those groups of people. Try again, but each time you do, you expose how weak arguments are against Bernie's campaign.

[Tarheel_Dem]

61. You said libertarians weren't attracted to BS, I just showed you they were. Deal with it.

As for his appeal outside the white liberal/libertarian enclaves, I'll let Nate tell you what's up.

Bernie Sanders’s Support: Even More Unequal Than U.S. Incomes
Nate Cohn | AUG. 27, 2015


The supporters of Bernie Sanders keep telling me that I’m wrong about their coalition, which I’ve written is too narrow to succeed. At this rate, Mr. Sanders doesn’t have nearly enough support among moderate, nonwhite and Southern voters to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

So here’s a different framework for thinking about Mr. Sanders’s challenge, perhaps one that will resonate with his supporters: inequality.

It is tempting to look at Mr. Sanders’s huge crowds and assume that he has a good chance. To me, that’s as convincing as saying the Connecticut economy is booming because the houses in Greenwich are so big and pretty.

.....It’s the same thing for the Sanders campaign. In places like Seattle; Portland, Ore.; and Burlington, Vt., more than a thousand people showed up to house parties. But in 12 congressional districts, there were no Sanders events at all.

The public opinion polls show the problem. While Mr. Sanders is in striking distance of Hillary Rodham Clinton in Oregon and Wisconsin — and a second New Hampshire poll shows him leading — there are vast swaths of the country where Mr. Sanders has little support at all. He’s down by 68 points in Alabama, 78 to 10. He has 11 percent support in Georgia. In rural Georgia, he has 6 percent. Many surveys show him struggling to get out of the single digits among black voters, who represent around 20 percent of the Democratic primary electorate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/upshot/the-inequality-of-support-in-bernie-sanderss-campaign.html?_r=0

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

[cascadiance]

62. No, you showed me an article where the guy was LEAVING Libertarianism for Bernie!

You have NOT made the case for a LIE that Bernie's primary supporters are "Libertarians". He's appealed to some here that used to be Libertarians, but are discovering the hidden truths of what makes Libertarians anti-government in all areas that he doesn't like and that many others who are drawn in to the more visible populist rhetoric don't and won't like. True Libertarians that believe in the not talked about tenets of eliminating government programs and spending in addition to drug legalization, ending domestic spying and warmaking do NOT want Bernie Sanders, and to imply that they do as you are doing is a disgusting LIE!!! I could make a stronger case that corporate Democrats have more in common with Republicans with their corporate serving agenda than Libertarians have in common with progressive populists like Bernie.

...
When I was a libertarian-leaning Republican, I was a delegate for Ron Paul in the 2008 Nevada State Convention. Paul’s supporters were passionate if a bit nutty, but change seemed, if only for a moment, possible. The problem was that the ideology behind the candidate was bankrupt. The experience was the beginning of the end of my affiliation with simplistic libertarian blather and GOP politics altogether, but Paul’s rise was driven by the same frustration and anger that is now propelling Sanders.
...

Yes, Bernie will draw in many independents, registered Libertarians and Republicans, as they discover the truth about him supporting many positions that their parties don't support but they feel they need, which Bernie has solid majority support for from ALL Americans like raising the minimum wage, increasing the taxes on the rich and corporations, stopping the job outsourcing to other countries through "free trade" and "guest worker" programs, relieving student debt, etc.

And I think most people of color will ultimately learn that over a lifetime Bernie has always supported them, unlike Hillary who supported REPUBLICAN Goldwater who voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of the 1960's, and is poll-driven in about every response or "I'll respond later" response she gives when asked questions during her campaign.

[Tarheel_Dem]

63. I'm a "people of color", and I could not be less interested in BS, and I don't give two shits when

he marched, or how far. This is what most "people of color" will learn about BS, which might explain his struggle to get out of the single digits with "people of color".

Bernie Sanders: Let’s primary Obama
posted at 12:00 pm on July 24, 2011 by Jazz Shaw


President Obama is under attack these days from all manner of nasty conservatives who don’t care for his liberal, big spending ways. They seem to have found an unlikely ally, though, in the person of the only officially declared socialist in Congress… Bernie Sanders. (Emphasis in original.)

SANDERS: Brian, believe me, I wish I had the answer to your question. Let me just suggest this. I think there are millions of Americans who are deeply disappointed in the president; who believe that, with regard to Social Security and a number of other issues, he said one thing as a candidate and is doing something very much else as a president; who cannot believe how weak he has been, for whatever reason, in negotiating with Republicans and there’s deep disappointment. So my suggestion is, I think one of the reasons the president has been able to move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him and I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting what is a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing. So I would say to Ryan discouragement is not an option. I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition.

It’s hard to say how much impact this will have, because traditionally Sanders hasn’t enjoyed a tremendous amount of influence outside his own state. But it is a sign of growing discontent with the political arm of his party. For better or worse, Obama is offering up some spending cuts which will effectively take the legs out from under most of the advertisements congressional Democrats are planning on running next year.


http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/24/bernie-sanders-lets-primary-obama/

He's at 9% nationally with "people of color". Not a winning "coalition". Oh, and Hillary couldn't even vote for Goldwater, she was still in high school, unlike Elizabeth Warren who was damn near 50 when she "saw the light".

[Babel_17]

51. The reason they supported Clinton, is the reason they are leaving Clinton

The reasons for support of Clinton can be encapsulated into a nucleus that holds the key to the matter. It was all about competency, control, power, money, indebtedness, and "inevitability".

The Sanders campaign, like an errant particle, has hit that nucleus and caused a chain reaction. It's turning out to have been not all that stable a nucleus at all.

Once people question the competency, they are no longer as impressed by the money and power. Those things can't guarantee how the public perceives you. Indebtedness is a dynamic concept in politics, and nobody is indebted to a sinking ship. Everyone owes loyalty to the party, but as Sanders cleaves apart the premise that somehow the fortunes of Clinton and the party are one, so too is that neutralized.

These leaves left spinning separately, the notion of "inevitability". Seen by itself, for itself, it's not persuasive. It doesn't have the weight to overwhelm the desires of participants in the primaries to vote for what they believe in.

[JDPriestly]

53. That's how it works.

I saw a video clip of Hillary, I think she was in Iowa, talking to a young girl. The girl asked Hillary how she gets things done, and Hillary explained. I tried to find the video, but one of Hillary's tools was to give other members money for their campaigns.

That's how she gets endorsements. If you think you might one day get some help with financing your campaign from a candidate who is up in the polls and that candidate asks for your endorsement, you probably give it. How could you lose on that bet?

Doesn't mean that people necessarily agree with Clinton or think she would make a great president although many probably do.

That is why we need to have federal funding for federal campaigns. We need to get the money changers out of the temples of democracy.

[Babel_17]

55. ... and it partly explains why Senator Schumer is powerful

He's been funding other Senators as he's popular with investors and their dough moves through him. I think this has a lot to do with why he's likely to be our party's leader in the Senate.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/03/27/17008/schumer-s-road-top-greased-donations-colleagues

Schumer’s leadership political action committee, known as “IMPACT,” doled out almost $1.5 million from 2010 through 2014, according to data gleaned from the Federal Election Commission by the Center for Public Integrity. The total includes at least $720,000 donated to Senate Democrats.

Durbin’s Prairie PAC gave away $1.3 million from 2010 through 2014, with at least $675,000 going to Senate Democrats.

But the real difference is in party committee giving. During the same time period, Schumer, via his campaign committee and leadership PAC, gave $5.1 million to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, more than twice the $2.2 million that Durbin raised with, and contributed to the committee.

[hifiguy]

64. It's easy to find friends when you buy them.

And their friendship will last every bit as long as you keep paying them. No longer.

The big crooks own the little crooks.

[wendylaroux]

29. Yes

she is.

[DURHAM D]

7. That is funny. nt

[hifiguy]

11. Care to explain why? nt

[MoonRiver]

12. Yes!

[Triana]

15. YES! I love her.

She'd be a great DNC chair!

[Control-Z]

17. I love her!

She'd be great. I have no idea how they choose the position or how often but she'd have my vote over Wasserman any day of the week.

[Scuba]

19. Great speaker, but hardly a progressive.

[rhett o rick]

21. The Oligarchs that own the Democratic leadership don't like progressives. nm

[Scuba]

24. You noticed that too, eh?

[rhett o rick]

33. One would have to be a nitwit not to. Ooops. I don't mean anyone in DU of course. nm

[Le Taz Hot]

22. So, you want to replace one Third-Way corporate shill for another?

Why?

[antigop]

25. because they benefit from the status quo. nt

[rhett o rick]

34. Exactly. nm

[BeanMusical]

30. Good question.

[merrily]

36. Isn't the answer obvous?

[bigwillq]

23. No, thanks (nt)

[thatgemguy]

26. No Thanks!

Remember Rainbow Farm... if you don't know the story, Google is your friend.

[UtahLib]

27. Absolutely. k&r. nt

[brooklynite]

28. Inote that nobody has discussed why she'd be good at the job...

just "I like her".

[world wide wally]

35. Hell, yes!

[merrily]

37. So, after several petititons to replace DWS, including one on whitehouse.gov,

Pierce is finally all over the DWS issue like a cheap suit (whatever that means).

Among his reasons for wanting DWS out are things that happened in 2008--well before DWS was even made head of the DNC--and two more recent occasions when Pierce believes she was not supportive of President Obama. Unless Pierce has been calling for DWS's ouster since she became DNC head, I think we can pretty much assume that his older claims are not a big part of his motivation for calling for her ouster. Oh, and no mention at all of the current flap over limiting Presidential debates, starting them so late and making them exclusive.

Pierce is, however, excited about the prospect of replacing DWS with the Third Wayer whose name is currently being floated by the Party's PTB.

Cutting edge political journalistic commentary, for sure! Wowza, Wowza, Wowza!

Political journalism coming out of Egypt and Iran is less establishment than this --and they're risking jail or worse.

We Americans are being brainwashed and cheated by a press that is not worthy of the name. Thank heaven for internet writers.

[trumad]

40. Uh me thinks you know nothing Jon Snow.

[merrily]

42. Gee, what a brilliant rebuttal!

[trumad]

46. Almost as brilliant as saying Charlie Pierce is a hack.

[merrily]

47. Your false claim that I said he was a hack is even less impressive than your prior post.

[trumad]

48. Re read your original post...

Cutting edge Journalism?

He's an opinion writer..but you probably didn't know that.

[merrily]

49. You're so blissfully unaware of how much you are embarrassing yourself.

I don't have the heart to try to stop you. Enjoy.

[trumad]

50. Ha!

Yeah...you dissing Pierce makes you a paragon of brilliance in this here parts.

[leftynyc]

38. Great choice

She's a wonderful addition to any panel I've seen her on. She's quick, she's sharp. I don't ever see her having a hard time explaining something the way DWS does.

[MBS]

39. YES!! n/t

[Laura PourMeADrink]

45. Rather have Dean's brilliant strategic thinking. Granholm is sharp and a very

good spokesperson though.

[Romulox]

52. She was a *terrible* governor, though. Like, won't show her face back in Michigan bad. nt

[cascadiance]

60. She'd be better off trying to run for president...

... which will surely have the righties come out asking for her birth certificate and asking why she runs with her Canadian heritage. Maybe if they do, we can throw it back in their faces and ask why Ted Cruz is running too for the same reasons!

[trumad]

66. Really..and Kasich is that much better?

[Romulox]

67. Wrong state. This is our governor. He's as good as he looks.

[KamaAina]

54. Oh, you got it from Pierce.

I was wondering how you came up with something so brilliant!

[sufrommich]

58. I would love to see this happen!! nt

[moondust]

65. No thanks.

Plays favorites--too much like DWS.