CNN gets owned Bernie sanders break up banks

[dana_b]

This supporter is fantastic! I'll bet CNN won't invite her back! lol..

[peacebird]

1. Thanks! Tweeted!

[daleanime]

2. K&R.....

[wendylaroux]

3. BOOM!!!

[dchill]

4. Nomiki Konst OWNED Carol Costello.

She's actually qualified for Carol's job: a claim Carol can't honestly make.

[Rilesome]

103. One had cue cards.

One had brains!

[Xipe Totec]

121. She needed clue cards. nt

[Land of Enchantment]

5. BOOM! Excellent. What an articulate young woman

and Caaaarrol was no match for her. Thanks.

[Wibly]

6. On Bernie being Dem

Bottom line, aside from his decades long support of all things Demcrat, the DNC accepted Sanders as a candidate. That makes him a Democrat.
It's Clinton's true allegiance that should be questioned. She's neither Dem nor GOP. Hillary Clinton is an out and out corporatist.

[dana_b]

9. agreed

and oligarch too.

[sus453]

15. Agreed and

warmonger too.

[dana_b]

23. Bien sûr!

the list is long...

[bvar22]

89. and a MEGA International Arms Dealer...

...selling top of the line military hardware to fundamentalist Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia.
Many of the Arms Hillary sold wound up in the hands of ISIS.

[chapdrum]

58. I agree Wibly.

I'd go a bit further and suggest that not only are politicians like HRC corporatists, they are (perhaps more accurately put)
stateless.

This is usually seen more on the Repug side, e.g., the previous "vice president" (examples abound), Gingrich (we don't get what we want, so we shut down the country), DeLay, Hastert, ad nauseum.

Their primary allegiance is not to America.

[Zira]

70. +10000

[senz]

91. This is something Americans need to understand.

With the rise of corporatism and the passage of predatory trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT, the old paradigm of a world divided into nation states is shifting and dissolving.

I first noticed it with transnational/multinational corporations. They are still referred to as American, but they have no loyalty, no necessary connection, to America. Now we have influential individuals -- righting politicians, corporatists, possessors of great wealth -- who are similarly country-free. Their loyalty is to their money, power, and social set, not to a place.

So it is not too surprising that politicians like HRC aren't really concerned about the well being of the American people. As long as we still live under this "quaintly nationalistic" constitution, they have to play up to us every four years, but we are otherwise disposable as far as they're concerned.

Bernie Sanders is completely separate from and opposed to these stateless entities. His loyalty, his identity, is with the American people.

[Rilesome]

104. Multinational corporations, and their bought off politicians.

Hiding behind our military, that we pay for.

[Peace Patriot]

108. I wish I could K&R your comment, senz! Stateless pols serving stateless corp$ & billionaire$.

That is the situation. The stateless politicians hiding behind the flag. The stateless corporations and billionaires hiding behind superpacs and hiding billion$ in Panama and other tax havens--tax havens CREATED BY pols like Clinton.

Bernie is on to all this and has been for decades. His prophesy about the Panama scandal--U.S. "free trade" with Panama will create a big tax haven (Clinton voted for it, of course)--is almost uncanny. But if you factor in his intelligence and his integrity, it's not uncanny. It's just the common sense of an intelligent, honest public servant. And we don't have a whole lot of those any more.

[chervilant]

122. Taking your most eloquent observation

a step further: I'm reminded of an article in the recent past about Richistan (yes, there's the book entitled "Richistan" by Robert Frank--apparently a print version of "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous," but I am referring to an OP posted herein, which I now cannot find). Here is what I posted then (in 2012, based on substantial research):

The members of the Global Oligarchy are few in number (less the 370), yet they own and control more than 45% of the world's resources, including human resources.

The top 400 richest people are from Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Egypt, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea (South), Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Monaco, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.

Despite the geographic diversity of the uber wealthy, their common socioeconomic status renders each a member of Richistan, whose citizenry enjoy the rarest of comestibles, the finest accommodations, the most expensive trinkets, and richly appointed exclusive residences. Denizens of Richistan travel in private jets, yachts, and limos; and they NEVER discuss their wealth.

Fully one-third of the wealthiest 400 are from the United States. Almost half of the 50 wealthiest people are from the United States. (Bill Gates was toppled from his rarefied status as the richest person on the planet in March of last year; replaced by Mexican mogul Carlos Slim Helu.)

When you contemplate this radical income inequity, dear reader, please understand viscerally, that you are NOT a member of this exclusive club, nor are you likely to EVER be. You are an insignificant member of the vast hoi polloi. The denizens of Richistan comprise a mere 5.28 X 10^(-6)% of our planet's population. You are as likely to win the lottery as to join the ranks of the uber wealthy.

If anyone thinks that the decline of the US as the premier superpower Global Bully will have any real impact on the wealth and power of the denizens of Richistan, I have to offer you exclusive beach front property in Helena, Montana.

The numbers have changed, obviously. The oligarchy now controls more than 45% of the planet's vital resources, including human resources. At this point, Senator Sanders' message is critical, both in terms of climate change AND with regards to radical income inequity. We have this one chance to change our economic behaviors, and we'd best succeed.

[senz]

123. Thank you for sharing that, chervilant.

I've been picking up bits and pieces of information about this elevated class of individuals and of course have read the cold statistics on their outsized share of the planet's wealth, but about ten years or so ago I caught part of a BBC late night show that was covering what life is like within their ranks. At the time I was distracted and didn't pay close enough attention -- and didn't record it, didn't take notes, get the name of the program and the date it was run -- but some of what I saw and heard was shocking, and even as I watched it, I sensed that those people would not want this information out there. I only remember parts of it, but there were scenes of a social function of some sort where they were talking amongst themselves about how rarely they ever have to interact with the "lower" people, how they have their own transportation that takes them anywhere in the world, their own communication networks, medical care, ways of shopping and vacationing, places to stay, that never bring them into contact with the rest of us. They were smug and giggly about it, so very pleased with themselves, so glad to be away from us. It was hard to believe.

When I see photos of Hill and Bill smiling in that wide eyed delighted way with Trump, Kissinger, Blankfein and other famous personages, I am reminded of those completely separate people. Just so happy to be who and what they are, happy to be of and among the privileged.

Occasionally there is a news article about specially built safe rooms in the residences of some in this set, luxuriously appointed spaces with extremely thick, impenetrable walls where they can go to be safe from whatever may be occurring outside, supplied with sufficient food, water, and whatever they would need to survive in comfort during a cataclysm in the external surroundings.

One gets the impression that they couldn't care less about the rest of humanity.

When you think of what Bernie is up against, what he is taking on, it is sobering, almost frightening. As long as there is the pretense of democracy, Hillary's campaign simply needs to do whatever it has to do to manipulate public opinion in her favor and against Bernie.

But there must be some people of conscience and means who don't choose to be part of the privileged set, who have some loyalty to the human race and other creatures who populate the planet and the planet itself. And then there are mysterious groups like Anonymous and wikileaks. So it's not all bad.

[appalachiablue]

113. + 1 Zillion. Rise of an Elite, Global Plutocracy like Chrystia Freeland & others have described.

[AzDar]

7. Oh, the pinched look on the CNN anchor's face... while being SCHOOLED. That H20 sure is HEAVY,

Ain't it, CNN?

[stillwaiting]

18. She rolled her eyes when the point was being made about HRC at big donor fundraisers.

I'm sure it's all just a big joke to her and it's nothing to worry about (much less talk about no doubt).

She was cellophane in that interview.

[Peace Patriot]

109. Yes, the pinched look! Priceless!

Or I guess I should say, very expensive, indeed.

A gold-plated pinched look.

[SamKnause]

8. Awesome !!!!

[seabeckind]

10. The question asked of Bernie was how to break up the banks.

He answered by saying specific legislature by congress

OR

the Secretary of the Treasury doing it using the authority in the Executive Branch.

The followup question was: Does the Federal Reserve have that power?

Which is a different entity other than the two Bernie specified. It was a gotcha question.

Bernie answered the question truthfully. He doesn't know what kind of rules the Fed has. Whether they do or not is irrelevant.

Bernie will see that it is done without going on bended knee before the Fed. The Fed is a banking organization.

This "supporter" fell into the same trap by repeating the Fed. The Fed isn't a solution.

It is part of the problem. They made the rules the last time we had the failures.

[dana_b]

12. good points

but at least she did clarify that breaking up the banks versus the Fed ARE two different things and that Bernie did go into much detail about it. The problem is that CNN is too stupid or lazy to want to actually listen and HEAR what he said. Or - they didn't WANT to know what he said. It's easier and better for Hillary if they just say "Bernie doesn't know what he's talking about".

[seabeckind]

13. It turns out we have another thread along this line

And it includes this screen shot from Reich.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511663435

?1459968401

[dana_b]

22. man, he tells it like it is

pretzels... tiny twisty pretzels. That's what the Clinton camp has

[brush]

73. He said legislation could be passed to break up the big banks.

Why is that statement glossed over and accepted like it's a fait accompli?

News flash: Since when is the repug-Dominated Congress going to pass such legislation?

Has no one been paying attention for the last seven years — the repugs have obstructed Obama at every turn. It's pie-in-the-sky thinking to think that they are going to change with Sanders.

Come back to reality, folks.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

80. more no we can't from the establishment side

We vote the bums out, and elect more bernicrats

[brush]

84. How soon do you think that is going to happen?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

85. unknown. that doesn't mean we stop trying.

[ornotna]

87. And yet why is that some believe

They will just roll over for Hillary. She'll get the same result, unless her "progressive" legislation is much more appealing to them.

[brush]

90. The obstruction will remain until the balance of dems to repugs shifts our way

But Clinton is not making the promises Sanders is.

[ornotna]

93. And that makes you feel better?

I would rather a politician be genuine and honest with me with what they want to do. Why is less hope a better thing?

[brush]

100. I'd rather he be honest and not get supporters hopes up about promises that won't . . .

happen. If you're on this site you know about the unprecedented obstruction Obama has dealt with for 7 years.

IMO it's disingenuous to make promises like free college etc. that will require a 40% tax increase that will never make it through Congress.

[ornotna]

105. Complete nonsense and you know it

The cost of the free public college tuition program would be covered by a tax on Wall Street speculation not a general tax rise. Are you a Wall Street speculator that needs to worry about this tax?

[appalachiablue]

111. Absolutely. Many other counties have imposed a small tax on financial speculation

for some time including Britain, France, Germany and China. FDR implemented it first in the US to fund the new regulatory agency he established to oversee the financial sector, the SEC. It lasted until the 1960s and there's no reason it can't be revived. America's citizens bailed out the banks; they can help the people now.
So love that gif..

[JDPriestly]

97. And because Hillary fails to even address these important issues like breaking up the big banks,

she will be unable to change the balance of Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for the status quo, for never getting back to the day when Democrats were in the majority in Congress.

I remember the time when Democrats were in charge in Congress. Those times were good.

And -- it would have been very, very easy to get the banks to divest themselves of some of their assets back when the Obama administration was making deals with the banks, when those huge settlements were being negotiated.

It would also have been easy to get the banks to break themselves up back when we were bailing them out. It was a failure on the part of the Bush and Obama administrations to negotiate deals that included breaking up the banks.

Bernie will hire lawyers who can negotiate on behalf of the government, and this "problem" will be resolved. The banks will either behave themselves and deal honestly with their customers and the public or they will face negotiators who insist that they divest themselves of assets and settle to be smaller and more numerous.

It is A MATTER OF PRIORITIES.

This is not a difficult problem.

Making a big fuss about it is merely due to a lack of understanding about how the world works, a lack of experience in dealing with the world!

Bernie knows who to go to and how to do this. That is why he is talking about it.

[brush]

102. None of that will happen without Dems taking control of the House and Senate

So why doesn't Bernie use some of the millions he raises to help down-ticket dem candidates?

Hillary does.

But she's been a democrat for years and knows the importance of that, unlike Bernie who has been a dem for what now, 9 months?

[dreamnightwind]

115. She takes millions from the banks

and will not even try to break them up. We get what we want (and need) by fighting for it, loudly and persistently.

The biggest voting bloc in the nation is now a party-less blob called "independents" because they have realized both parties are bought and paid for, and don't represent the interests of the people.

We turn things around by electing candidates on clean money who WILL take the fight to the monied elites. They won't immediately win, so what? Your candidate won't even fight, she'll fight for the other side, the monied elites.

There is a lot more sentiment out there than is readily apparent for limiting the power and influence of the financial industry. Once someone with some actual power starts fighting them in earnest, things will change. I don't know the timeframe, but I do know the timeframe if we elect corporate-funded politicians like Hillary: NEVER.

[brush]

118. I repeat, none of that will happen without down-ticket candidates getting elected

Get your candidate to help them like other loyal Democrats do. He raises millions. He should share it with those he will need to pass his proposals.

[dreamnightwind]

120. It's far more important now to elect Bernie

then we can monetarily support Democrats who want to represent us rather than corporate issues. Throwing the donations of Bernie's donor base to corporate Democrats is exactly what his donors don't want, they are working for a real change with non-owned representatives, not more of the same.

If Hillary had been willing to run this primary without using corporate funds against Bernie who refuses them, I might look more favorably on the argument you make, but it's a hevaily tilted playing field against Bernie and it's going to take all we've got to defeat the corporate takeover of this party.

[JDPriestly]

95. Most Americans want the big banks broken up or would want that if they knew how this

concentration not just of wealth but also of risk and decisions about risk affects them.

Bernie will apprise Americans of the facts behind his plan to break up the banks.

Bernie will get voters behind him.

And in so doing, Bernie has a good chance to unseat some Republicans and change the make-up of Congress.

This is not just about breaking up big banks. It's about a political revolution, and by that, Bernie means educating and involving more and more Americans in putting their two cents in and helping decide just how the big banks are to be broken up.

The Attorney General could have broken up the banks under Obama -- by demanding the selling off or transferring of assets of the big banks that broke the law when AG (or other departments in the executive branch that were involved in wrenching the big money settlements from the banks) made the deals.

Obama's administration missed opportunities that his administration had to pressure the banks into divesting of some of their assets.

Bernie will hire lawyers who know how to do these things. Hillary will not. That is simply because Bernie wants to do it and Hillary does not.

This is the reality, folks. The big banks can be broken up in many ways. Bernie can do this and will do it if he is president.

[Peace Patriot]

112. Thank you! Excellent post!

When there is a threat to national security as big as these too-big-to-fail banks, a President who views himself as a PUBLIC SERVANT will find the best way to break them up. Sanders already knows how this probably should be done--as many analysts of this "gotcha" interview have established. He will listen to lots of advice, of course. That's something he's very good at. He will solicit opinions. He will use the best lawyers. And he will DO IT.

And that, of course, is exactly what the NY Daily News and our Billionaire Transglobal Corporate Rulers are desperately afraid of, and why they are now shooting at him from every angle, with Clinton leading their assault. She produces for them, or she's history. And she has NOT been producing for them lately. Thus, the sniper fire from her and from all directions.

[tex-wyo-dem]

117. Obama inherited a horrible problem...

And chose to play the established game, even so much as hiring the same cast of characters that were instrumental in setting up the corrupt system that brought the economy down. Luckily this plan worked for the most part, but not before hurting millions of people in job loss, home loss, retirement loss, etc etc. the banks got their piece too in that they are bigger with more assets than ever before

Bernie isn't into playing along and is deadest on fixing the system so it won't be a danger to the rest of us 99%ers any longer.

[hopeforchange2008]

11. She was amazing and made numerous excellent points.

Democrats would not have passed a lot of legislation had it not been for Bernie!

[downeastdaniel]

16. Yep, you said it. Thanks also for the post.

[OctOct1]

14. Love this Women!!!

Hope to see much more of her!!!!,😍

[klook]

17. Great job by Nomiki Konst!

I will be on the lookout for her. She was very effective in batting down every lazy talking point.

"Owned," indeed.

[rhett o rick]

66. But that wasn't much of a contest. Someone that knows what they are talking about going against

a Fox News idiot. Ooops, did I say Fox News, oh well, same difference.

[Bubzer]

83. MSNBC... the other fox news...

[Jennylynn]

19. Owned

[thereismore]

20. Pownage. nt

[andrewv1]

21. Sanders Campaign needs to hire her full time!

[dana_b]

24. yes they do

she's quick, doesn't get flustered and can articulate his points very well.

[Armstead]

37. Yeah they should have her on more than Tad Devine and his campaign manager

She is great

[Skittles]

43. maybe he can learn from her

[dana_b]

47. why not? No one is too old to learn n/t

[underpants]

25. Marking for later watch

[tnlurker]

26. For Later reading

[appalachiablue]

27. Juan Gonzales who is a columnist for the 'New York Daily News' and co-host

of the Democracy Now! independent news program with Amy Goodman was at the meeting and said today that overall, Sanders did an excellent job with questions that were asked by the publication's editorial board. The analysis by CNN was included in the program. Van Jones, also a guest on Democracy Now! today confirmed that the mainstream media is going all out on Sanders like the Clintons who know how significant New York is in this primary season. Ruth Conniff, Editor-in-Chief of the Wisconsin-based magazine 'The Progressive' was also a guest on the program.



Today's, April 6, 2016 'Democracy Now' session including transcript, with Gonzales and Jones,
JUAN GONZALES WAS AT BERNIE SANDERS' 'NY DAILY NEWS' EDITORIAL BOARD MEETING. WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?
*WATCH, http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/6/juan_gonzalez_was_at_bernie_sanders

Much of the corporate media has been openly criticizing Bernie Sanders’ performance during an interview with the New York Daily News editorial board. The Washington Post ran an article titled "9 Things Bernie Sanders Should’ve Known About But Didn’t in That Daily News Interview." Former Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer tweeted: "The Transcript of Sanders’ meeting with the Daily News Ed Board is almost as damning as Trump’s with the WaPo." We get a different perspective from someone who was actually there: Daily News columnist Juan González.
TRANSCRIPT: This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: So, right now the race comes to New York.
VAN JONES: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: April 19th. And immediately, there was this New York Daily News meeting. Juan, you were at it. It’s being—the transcript has been released. Hillary Clinton has sent it to her supporters. What did Ryan Grim write in The Huffington Post? "A notion is rapidly crystallizing among the national media that Bernie Sanders majorly bungled an interview with the editorial board of the New York Daily News." CNN just said, "Several times during the interview, Sanders expressed uncertainty over facts, said he couldn’t give a proper answer to a question because he didn’t have all the relevant information, or simply stated, 'I don't know.’" CNN said, "In one exchange, Sanders acknowledged that he wasn’t sure exactly how he intended to break up the big banks, a proposal that has been a centerpiece of his Wall Street reform agenda." A Washington Post says, "This New York Daily News interview was pretty close to a disaster for Bernie Sanders."
But not everyone agrees. Juan, you raced out of here on Friday, because you were racing back to the New York Daily News to attend and question Bernie Sanders at this New York Daily News editorial board meeting.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, well, I certainly didn’t get that impression, tell you the truth. The editorial board is notorious, especially our editorial page editor, Arthur Browne, for his laser-like one question after another, and he bombarded, as several others of us also asked questions. I, overall, thought that Bernie Sanders handled the exchange very well. And I think that there were a few places where he stumbled, and—but I was amazed at his ability to parry the questions that were thrown at him and to, basically, for instance, bluntly say, when he was asked about the Israeli-Palestinian situation, that Israel needed to withdraw from the illegal settlements in Palestinian territory, which I was astounded that he was quite frank and clear on his position, while at the same time saying he would do everything possible as president to negotiate peace and security for Israel in an overall settlement. And I think there—he did stumble a little bit when he was pressed on how he would break up some of the too-big-to-fail banks. He clearly did not have that down pat.
AMY GOODMAN: Who would have the jurisdiction.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Oh, right, who would have the jurisdiction, and—but, overall, I thought his performance was excellent.

VAN JONES: Can I say a couple things here? New York City is the war to settle the score inside the Democratic Party. The Clinton forces understand there is a rebellion in this party. Under ordinary circumstances, it would already be over, because the big donors would have taken the checks back. There are no big checks. This is a people’s movement. They are going to have to bury this movement in New York City, and they know it. You’re going to see a vetting of Bernie Sanders like you’ve never seen. You’re going to see the mainstream media go after him. Now there’s blood in the water on specifics. They’re going to go after him on specifics, you know, way beyond anything any candidate has had to address. And people are going to have to—I mean, he’s going to have to step up his game, because you can’t, you know, write excuses for people. He’s got to be able to answer those tough questions.

But also, if you want for this Democratic Party to take progressive causes seriously, now is the time to speak out and get engaged. And for African Americans in particular, I want to say something. We are the only part of the so-called Obama coalition that has to give not 50 percent of our vote, not 60, not 70, not 80, not 90, but 92 percent of our vote in every presidential election, in order for Democrats to win. So, we are beyond a base vote. We are the decisive vote. If we give 85 percent of our vote to the Democrats, Republicans win. And so, we deserve to have a full hearing on all the issues that affect us, and hear from both candidates. And all of the history needs to be on the table to be vetted, for both candidates.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, it’s interesting. I went up to that South Bronx rally that Bernie Sanders had last week, first time a presidential candidate had been there in a very long time. It was electric.
VAN JONES: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: Sixteen [thousand], 18 [thousand], 20,000 people were there. When he raises money, he’s speaking directly to the camera or to the people and just saying, "Hey, send me $3," whatever—his average is $27. When Hillary Clinton raises money, she has to come off the campaign trail. Like last night, the big Wisconsin primary, she was at a fundraiser. And that’s done behind closed doors.
VAN JONES: Yeah. And part of the opportunity that we have—up until now, you could say to any candidate, "Why are you taking money from big people?" "Well, everybody does it. If I don’t take money from the big people, I’ll be obliterated. I have to do this." Guess what. You now have an example of somebody who didn’t do it and who’s been able to show real strength and resolve...Con't at the Link above.

[dana_b]

30. he did "excellent" but yet by the other reports one would think

that Bernie didn't know what he was talking about. Such b.s.!!

[appalachiablue]

53. The depth that Nomiki Konst went into clearly surprised CNN's Carol "voters want simple

answers and now" Costello. Doesn't work that way, read the full report in a real paper like the NYT. The truth from Nomiki and Juan Williams is critical for complex issues like dealing the TBTF Banks being posed and scrutinized with Sanders but not Clinton interestingly.

Clearly an urgent push by M$M and the Clintons to try to take Bernie out before New York, not happening. Nomiki also shot through the "othering" attempt against Bernie- 'is Sanders a real Democrat?' by affirming his solid, long record of voting with Senate Democrats and more. Trying to marginalize Bernie like this is a tired repeat of the religion issue with Obama the last time. Fail.

Another industry in need of reform is the consolidated corporate owned and biased media enabled by the 1996 Clinton Telecom Act deregulation. Who doesn't know that Time Warner, CNN's owner is one of the largest campaign donors to HRC.

[sorechasm]

106. Van Jones was sooo good today on Democracy Now!

In addition to the exchange recorded here, there was a former CNN recording of his debate against a Trump supporter's complacency concerning the KKK.

[appalachiablue]

114. Van Jones is excellent; I saw him come down on RW creep Jeffrey Lord on CNN, awesome..

[navarth]

28. yup. owned.

[Mbrow]

29. k&R Thank for posting

[zentrum]

31. Wishing Bernie well in the

…..debate. Wish he would practice with this great debater.

[stuffmatters]

32. So glad she mentioned Hillary's recent triangulation on abortion

When I saw Hillary in her Town Hall say that third trimester abortion protections (probably the most needed, and tragic due to late developing life threats/suffering of the mother and/or fetus) should be weakened/reexamined/"relegislated I couldn't believe my ears.

Had she said this in an actual debate instead of one of these tongue bath Town Halls, Bernie would have leveled her immediately and it would have been a major moment for Clinton's credibility.


With Obama we later found his obscene bargaining chip with Repubs was to weaken social security; with Hillary it sounds like hers will be to weaken Roe vs Wade. And Soc Sec not so safe from her triangulation either.

[SammyWinstonJack]

33. KnR

[basselope]

34. AAAAAAAAAhhhhmazing!

[Jack Rabbit]

35. K/R

Thank you, dana.

Hillary Clinton has nothing on Bernie Sandaer that she can throw at him and make stick. She has a great deal of baggage that throw her own fitness to be president into question.

Fellow Sandernistas, while we should be appreciative of the New York Times fact checking of this matter, we would be foolish to think we can depend on it. We, ourselves, must be ready to take the responsibility to roll out the facts over social media about whatever lies and half-truths Hillary Clinton and her staff want to throw at our candidate in the coming days.

[Armstead]

36. MEMO TO BERNIE: Get that woman out there as much as you can. She is GREAT!

[Stryder]

62. I second that.

She's scrappy. Good luck talking past her.

[rhett o rick]

67. She knew her stuff. No contest with the airhead interviewing her. nm

[AlbertCat]

38. Blah blah blah... who cares what laws need to be passed....voters want dumbed down shit...

....like we present....


I cannot believe she expressed such things! No, Deary, the media is who doesn't want to hear it.

Trump, Cruz....and Clinton.... are DEPENDING on dumbed-down, low info voters who just half heard some out of context sound bite. Sanders treats voters like adults and tells them what asked about instead of the Cliff Notes, skewed version. (In this instance not knowing what the Fed is or what's in Dodd-Frank is key to the smears)

That alone should be enough to make one want to vote for him. He's the only one who shows any kind of respect for voters.

[SalviaBlue]

63. That was the most jaw dropping for me too!

I don't watch this stuff much and when I do I can't believe how STUPID these tv people are.

[AlbertCat]

94. I can't believe how STUPID these tv people are.

"It's gonna hurt Sanders because he didn't know how he was gonna do something"

"Voters don't care about legislation or how the candidate are gonna do things."

Which is it? It can't be both, but she just made that argument. STUPID.... and they got nothin'.

[hedda_foil]

110. Did you notice Costello interrupting to say she read the whole quote?

Well yeah, Carole, but the quote you read cut off in mid sentence. It's so DNC obvious that she not only didn't read the whole interview, but just read what her script said , followed by lame. attempts at gotcha questions.

[99th_Monkey]

39. How very refreshing to hear such a fine example

Of journalistic integrity and unabated truth-telling.

[Fuddnik]

40. Agree with the guy at the end.

OWNED!

[passiveporcupine]

41. Voters want simple answers?

No, we don't. We already know simple answers are not complete, or they can be dishonest as portrayed here, or they can be misleading. I personally want honest answers that let me know some real thought has gone into it, and shows that even if complicated by years of old dead laws, there is a path to fixing things.

Come on with the complicated answers...any time...Please. Just don't give me bipartisan crap like most news stories do on TV.

[Nanjeanne]

42. OMG - how stupid is this CNN person! She wants Sanders to dumb it down for her because

as a journalist she's too stupid to do her job.

Yup - this is why we have such an ill-informed voting electorate! Voters don't want detailed explanations - blah blah blah. Just lie to people folks and give them 3 letter words in simple sentences.

But this supporter is fantastic! Nomiki Konst should be on every program for Sanders! BOOM is right!

[passiveporcupine]

44. Basically, yeah!

how stupid is this CNN person! She wants Sanders to dumb it down for her because as a journalist she's too stupid to do her job

Voters aren't the stupid ones. It's the pretty anchors who need the simple answers.

This reminds me of one of my favorite movies. Broadcast News.

[dana_b]

48. 140 characters otherwise... bleh!!

She's a busy journalist, dont cha know?!

[Doctor_J]

45. "Don't tell me what laws have to be passed , blah blah blah"

[Roy Rolling]

46. Totally controlled the interview---great job

I think a big advantage progressives sometimes have in the media is they startle their opponents by being well-prepared, articulate, and forceful. GOP ideologues sometimes think some hippy tree-hugger from 1969 (yay hippy tree-huggers! But you know what I mean) will just lay down and be steamrolled by their superior, echo-chamber rhetoric.

When they are faced with an expert media person---who is academically detailed, yet knows how to use the modern language of media to her advantage---it surprises ideologues and they are like deer caught in the headlights.

That is what is so enjoyable to me about young Bernie supporters. Sure, they sometimes are blamed for youthful exuberance. That comes with the chronological age of experimentation and maturing. But they understand they will be the victims of continued near-fascism in America, and are willing to put the brakes on those responsible, more so than older people who are the peers of these right-wing clowns.

This is why it's important: to be able to see future suffering or feel others pain---pain that you are not currently experiencing yourself---is a core value that keeps societies glued together. Politicians who don't act on something until it affects them personally, do not have the vision to represent others. They are selfish, not humble.

[beedle]

49. "But I read the exact quote"

LOL ... yeah Carol, you read the exact quote and didn't understand a fucking word of it.

I bet you could read Hillary's plan on what to do with the banks and completely understand it though - "just cut it out, now where's my $250K?"

[DhhD]

50. Even though Republicans took a hatchet to Dodd-Frank Bill, that Bill was still being supported

by Hillary Clinton last week before the latest Primary victory of Sanders. Time for Elizabeth Warren to endorse Sanders ahead of the New York Debate.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/business/house-passes-measure-to-ease-some-dodd-frank-rules.html?_r=0


http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/wall-street-seeks-to-tuck-dodd-frank-changes-in-budget-bill/


Is the Clinton Campaign covering for TPP with the watered down Dodd-Frank issue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/05/11/elizabeth-warren-fires-back-at-obama-heres-what-theyre-really-fighting-about/

[renate]

51. wow! she was phenomenal!

[pdsimdars]

52. Yea, don't confuse me with the facts. . . . just give sound bites like Hillary and Trump

"I'm gonna make things better for Americans. Woo-hoo!"

As the guy shooting the video said . . . . "Owned"

[highprincipleswork]

54. BAM. Shut down that media bullshit right quick. That's how it's done. Intelligence wins out,

for a change.

Gimme a break, mainstream corporate media lackeys!!!

[RANGERMAN89]

55. CNN like Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq war..

So I trust both of them equally as in not at all!

[zebonaut]

56. WHERE IS THE SAME SCRUTINY FOR TRUMP??? OR CRUZ???

[grasswire]

57. NOMIKI KONST!!

Hooray!!

[JRLeft]

59. Hillary is a Republican with a D next to her name.

[ConsiderThis_2016]

60. That CNN lady, day after day...

...is a Clinton Cheerleader. She attempts to look intelligent with those glasses like S. E. Scupp... She is just a pawn protecting her paycheck hoping to see a women president before she dies... like all the other old ladies that like Hillary. They don't think twice about the blood on their hands pushing that war monger... cuz they're selfish and greedy, support a liar as they themselves most probably are... because "Birds of a feather...

[nc4bo]

61. Oh damn, OWNED indeed! I want to see more of this woman!

[highprincipleswork]

64. INDEED! Sign her up right now. Get her on the Sanders team. A few minutes and devastating!!! PWNED

[SusanCalvin]

65. Owned indeed! Now that was worth watching. nt

[brentspeak]

68. I have to give the CNN host here some credit

She didn't try to talk over her guest; she let the guest speak her piece.

And yes, Nomiki did great.

[ladjf]

99. .... only after she, the CNN lady, had made an entire propaganda speech downing Bernie.

[JDPriestly]

69. Americans want slogan answers to complex questions because the American media does not

do its job.

Bernie's revolution is about engaging citizens so that we want to and insist on hearing the full explanation and so that we, most of us at least, understand these difficult issues.

That crazy woman who said Americans want simple explanations wasn't doing her job. The job of a good writer, of a writer or speaker in the media is to explain complex facts and ideas in simple terms that viewers and listeners can understand.

Instead of doing that, our media just skips the complexities and issues slogans that don't make us any wiser than we were when we started watching or listening to them.

We on the left have some really good radio and TV hosts on independent and Pacifica radio who dare to go into the complexities the commercial media ignores.

Thom Hartmann, Cenk Ugyur, Ian Masters are just a few names that we who want more information than offered on the corporrate media turn to. Guess that's why so many of us who demand to be better informed support Bernie.

Thom, Cenk and Ian Masters (and I am leaving out a lot of good people for the sake of brevity), for example, interview people on all sides of the issues -- and for at least long enough for us listeners to find out what more we need to know to understand an issue.

Our media is not doing its job. The Bernie spokeswoman did a terrific job explaining why the media is wrong about Bernie's plan to break up the banks.

Breaking up the banks can be done. The US broke up Standard Oil and, at one point, Ma Bell. We have abandoned the work of breaking up corporations that smother competitors to the extent that it hurts our economy. But Bernie can carry that tradition on.

In that sense, Bernie is a better capitalist than the leadership we have had over the past 36 years.

[Peace Patriot]

116. Add Amy Goodman to your list of truly informative journalists.

And I love your last sentence!

Bernie is a better capitalist than the leadership we have had over the past 36 years.

Yes, that is exactly right. Capitalism only works when it is well-regulated to produce prosperity for all. Unregulated, it becomes PREDATORY capitalism, as it is today. And while today's predatory capitalism may create some cushy berths on the 'Titanic' for the uber-wealthy, it is an EXTREMELY destructive behavior, that today gravely threatens the very planet that we all need to live on.

A good economy is a healthy mix of marketplace and social decency, with opportunity for all, and safety nets for the most vulnerable.**

And that is what Bernie Sanders advocates--very in line with the policies of FDR and subsequent Democrats through, oh, Jimmy Carter. Democrats started "triangulating" with the Reagan junta. Now our party is a wholly owned subsidiary of our Transglobal Corporate Rulers. Our party does not even minimally oppose their interests and serve the interests of the rest of us. That is Clintonism

It is very, very dangerous to have NO ONE even minimally opposing the Transglobal Corporate Rulers on our behalf. For one thing, these interests and their political servants have already inflicted extraordinary damage on our sovereignty as a people. We will be SUED in secret tribunals for passing labor or environmental or food safety laws that cut into their profits!

For another, the danger is violent rebellion. That is where we are headed, if we continue with Clintonism, punctuated now and then by outright, Bushwhack fascism--chaos and civil war, as has happened in other countries assaulted and looted by these powerful interests.

It's very important to understand what the New Deal compromise was, between the rich and the poor. If the rich shared the wealth, the vast majority of the poor would NOT take the country's power structure down, as happened between the oligarchs and the peasants in Russia, in a very bloody revolution. That was the threat. The compromise was strong labor unions, good wages, good benefits, fair taxation (with uber-rich paying a whopping 90%!), good public services and safety nets, and socialist programs like Social Security that workers pay into, by law, for their own retirement. The fatcats and the bosses could get rich, but they couldn't have it all. Without this compromise between capitalism and socialism, we are staring at potential bloody revolution--even more likely with the added dislocations and hardships of the global warming catastrophe.

-----------

**(With global warming, that good economy must convert, almost immediately, to non-polluting energy and must help other countries to do so as well. Sanders is the only candidate truly committed to this, and the only one NOT beholden to the fossil fuel industry.)

[JDPriestly]

119. Thanks. And yes, Amy Goodman is definitely on the list or should be. Thanks for reminding me.

[SandersDem]

71. Absolutely Epic

EPIC!!

Bernie should hire this woman as his Press Secretary (no offense to anybody working on the campaign), but DAMN.

[john978]

74. Awesome -- Nomiki Konst should be signed up as a Bernie TV surrogate immediately.

[pnwmom]

75. Too bad Bernie didn't sound nearly as smart. Maybe she should be running instead. n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

82. this post doesn't make you sound very smart

[AlbertCat]

96. Too bad Bernie didn't sound nearly as smart.

But he did Dear. Try the Democracy Now link...


Or are you one of the ones who doesn't care about legislation blah blah blah.... that CNN was talking about? (Indeed, do you ever get anything right?)

[Skrups]

76. Boycott

We have to fo more than just vote. We need to stay actively involved in working against the establishment. Remind them every day who really is in charge. Boycott the advertisers of CNN and other corporate media outlets. Vote with our wallets daily.

[Dorn]

77. Wow, I've never heard of Nomiki Konst --- but Wow

[LS_Editor]

78. That was an awesome takedown.

And that CNN anchor has a very punchable face, especially with that shit-eating grin.

[RoccoR5955]

79. The Clinton News Network got totally PWNED! n/t

[redruddyred]

81. THANKS FOR REMINDING ME WHY I HAVE NEVER BOUGHT A CABLE SUBSCRIBTION, IN MY LIFE

:0

[Skwmom]

86. A simpler explanation? Sorry that a bubble-head like you can't comprehend. As a woman

I am embarrassed by your stupid comment!

[Uncle Joe]

88. That young lady is sharp!

Thanks for the thread, dana_b

[noretreatnosurrender]

92. Owned is Right!

And because the CNN talking head was owned she probably will not get invited back but that's ok because talent like that will rise above the corporate controlled media. She has a good future.

[ladjf]

98. The CNN lady appears to have no opinions of her own. She seems to be simply reading the talking

points that she was supposed to read. She's to totally transparent.

CNN has definitely sunken to their lowest levels of political ethics in their history.

[amborin]

101. K&R

[Armstead]

107. Kickety...She is too good to miss