Hey, Democrats, stop gloating — your party is imploding right before your eyes, too

[bemildred]

---

For the first time since the Great Society, a candidate has staked out authentically progressive positions: bleeding private money from politics, reforming our criminal justice system, insuring education and health care as rights. And paying for these programs by rolling back the massive tax breaks of the past few decades, and closing the corporate loopholes.

These solutions only sound “radical” because a deluge of corporate money has created a cloud of propaganda expressly intended to obscure just how far to the right our political discourse has lurched in the past half century.

Most people have no clue (for instance) that the top tax rate during the Eisenhower Administration was 92 percent. Nor that Richard Nixon himself once proposed a universal health care program.

The reason Sanders appeals to so many young voters is precisely because they have not been exposed to this Orwellian miasma of misinformation. They are not victims of the Stockholm Syndrome that afflicts so many so-called “pragmatists.” What young voters see is one party hell-bent on ravaging government so that plutocrats can run the show, and another devoted to a pattern of moral acquiescence.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/14/hey_democrats_stop_gloating_your_party_is_imploding_right_before_your_eyes_too/

[geek tragedy]

1. Ugh, another white Bernie Bro castigating Clinton supporters

as having Stockholm Syndrome.

No, Clinton supporters (a) think she'd do a better job and (b) think Sanders is peddling fairy dust.

Blaming the voters instead of the candidate gets it precisely backwards.

Here's some reading for Mr. Almond:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/pragmatic-tradition-of-black-voters.html

[beam me up scottie]

2. Oh ffs, give it a rest. He said pragmatists not minorities.

They are not victims of the Stockholm Syndrome that afflicts so many so-called “pragmatists.”

[Downwinder]

8. We have been captured by the Corporations.

[leveymg]

82. Many of those who defend it have not been captured so much as they were born into it.

Makes me sick at heart to see how some on this board are actually very reactionary. The attitude is: it's not fascism when we do it.

But, it is.

[bemildred]

4. I don't entirely like that about it, I think he has a point and ruins it by getting partisan.

But the "problem" is real, and is real in both parties, and I've thought so for some time. The public is annoyed at the situation and insiders are paying the price this time around. It's already affected the campaign(s) hugely. For 40 years or so the political elites have been stalling necessary change, now they are paying the price for their poor management. Roll the dice, let's see what's coming.

[geek tragedy]

6. There has been change over the past 8 years

Quite a bit.

Not enough.

Everyone agrees.

Vey rarely has the public been content and felt we are on the right track.

[bemildred]

7. The public is not that bright, but anybody at all can tell whether they are not being treated well.

The fact is the last 8 years have been great for the well-off, and lousy for everybody else. Until they fix that, and fix if good, this will get worse.

[geek tragedy]

13. That seems axiomatic--if the 8 years have been good to someone

then they're generally well off.

Lots of people doing better than they were 8 years ago. The disaster capitalism of the Bush years was designed to knock progress back.

This article relies too much on the idea that no one over 30 knows anything--other than Bernie Sanders of course.

Is now worse than the Vietnam War era or the late 70's-early 80's? I would answer no.

[bemildred]

18. Reason will only take you so a far. This the voting public, not an academic debate.

They want action.

[geek tragedy]

41. Which happens only if people know

what they're doing.

[bemildred]

47. Which happens sooner or later regardless.

The error is thinking the status quo can be maintained.

[geek tragedy]

58. President Obama is above 50% approval rating.

the appetite for drastic revolution is being overstated.

[bemildred]

61. Yeah, he is doing fine, I wish he could run again.

They don't want drastic revolution, they want economic concessions, jobs and paychecks and dignity and respectability, like everybody else. And do our fellow citizens deserve any less than that? I think not.

[geek tragedy]

62. yes, but the real problem is Republicans. Two party system can't function

when one party is a radical, insurgent outlier, and enjoys short-term electoral success based on that radicalism.

If people want big changes, that has to happen via Congress, which means the Republicans' fever breaking or getting punished by voters for their radical intransigency.

If people under 30 want a real revolution, all they need to do is turn out en masse during midterm elections.

I would so happily repeal the 22nd amendment.

[bemildred]

63. Congress is the key, always has been. nt

[geek tragedy]

65. the key is to vote more when pissed off, not vote less

if poor people and young people voted with the same frequency as old rich people angry that their taxes might go up, that would be a revolution

[bemildred]

69. If you don't vote, you don't get a say. nt

[Admiral Loinpresser]

86. I disagree. The real problem is financial corruption.

Both parties are up to their eyeballs in that. So is the Corporate Media and most major institutions in this society.

No matter which party holds the WH in the age of Reagan, Goldman Sachs sets financial policy.

[geek tragedy]

87. Obama years and Clinton years were a lot better than Bush years.

There's always going to be money involved in politics, you'll need a constitutional amendment to change that.

And, even then, there's still the plain fact that a lot of Americans don't trust or like the government, and that our constitution is designed to prevent change from happening.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

89. That's like winning a tallest leprechaun contest. n/t

[geek tragedy]

90. that's democracy, worst form of government

except for all the rest.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

92. I disagree and so do many academics. We are an oligarchy.

Politicians don't give one shit about what you and I think. They govern for their puppet masters, according to independent studies on American government. We have a misinformed electorate voting on the basis of stupid reasons for corrupt politicians. That is why we invaded Iraq. That is why our foreign policy and our domestic policies are generally insane. Very little electoral accountability.

[geek tragedy]

93. there is an outsized influence of money on elections.

But they threw a lot of money at Obama in 2012, and completely failed.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

98. He threw a lot of money right back. He's a neoliberal, acceptable to TPTB.

Wall Street is very comfortable with HRC and the status quo. The two party system is PR cover for the elites. It provides the illusion of choice in elections.

[geek tragedy]

101. I disagree with all of that.

Cheers!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

102. Disagreement with good will and respect! n/t

[lagomorph777]

106. No Constitutional amendment should have been needed

but we have a SCOTUS packed with corporatist zealots, and they have declared that corporations are people, and money is speech.

I say let's pay them with speech instead of money.

[Ferd Berfel]

119. Wait till people feel the impact of TPP

History will not be kind - unless the corporate oligarchs he will elevate with TPP get to write the history

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. The problem is very real

Ds only trail the Rs, but both are ready to implode.

[bemildred]

132. Thanks Nadin, I've seen this before.

It looks different when you are twenty and when you are seventy, but you don't doubt it's the same thing.

Lots of people, young people in particular because they have the most at stake, are disaffected from our managerial elites, who richly deserve the contempt they are held in, and it's not going away until things are made to work properly in this country again. In particular all the corrupt weasels that have been using the levers of power to fatten their own wallets need to be put back in their place, and jail too if they don't behave.

[beedle]

5. Yeah, because Stockholm is

A city so often associated with African Americans?

[geek tragedy]

15. You must be new here. nt

[Carolina]

12. A better job?

She screwed up as SOS, was unremarkable as a Senator and before that, what? What did she do as FLOTUS? Oh yeah, health care... NOT!

WTF has she done? Vote for IWR and the Patriot Acts 1 & 2; leave Libya, Honduras and Syria a mess; sell arms to the Saudis and others; enrich herself by making yet to be disclosed promises to Goldman Sachs (already mightily aided by Bill's signing of Gramm-Bliley-Leach with her support)... So yeah, she'd do a better job... of fucking up more things/places and continuing to decimate the middle class.

That's the truth of HRC's record. She gets things done for herself and is in it for herself only

[Darb]

27. That's some rank tea you're selling.

Peddle it elsewhere. You might try foxnews.com message board, they understand that language perfectly. And, you might get a few more talking points ta boot.

[frylock]

122. You've refuted every one of Carolina's points.

[Darb]

133. I think you mean his bullshit opinions that, curiously

sound just like Rush Limbaugh's?

[frylock]

135. Anything short of praise for Madame Secretary sounds like Limbaugh talking points to your crowd.

I'm surprised you can hear anything with your head up there.

[Carolina]

129. You really can't handle the truth?!

Here is $Hillary's story. Read and learn something.

HRC rode Bill's coat tails to power. He had the intellect (Georgetown Univ, Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law), charisma, gift of gab, and natural ability to connect with people. She was smart, too (Wellesley, Yale Law). After law school, she went to DC to work on the Nixon impeachment committee, but her stint there did not last long because, among other reasons, she did not pass the DC bar. She tells the story that she went to work for the Children's Defense Fund (CDF) founded by Marian Wright Edelman as evidence of her advocacy for children and that's true... some 20 plus years ago. But recall that Marian’s husband, Peter Edelman who became Bill Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, resigned in protest over the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act better known as Welfare Reform because of the dire effects it would have on the poor, especially women and children. HRC supported Bill and the bill; but Peter Edelman was right.

So after leaving DC, what did HRC do? She ran off to Arkansas! Yes, this dynamo of feminism whom so many women say could have done anything, been anything on her own… did not go back to her native Chicago, did not go back to New England (MA, CT) where she was educated. No, she ran off to Arkansas. She chased after Bill because she recognized his rising star. As I said above, he had the talent to go along with the intellect. He had held leadership positions nearly all his life: high school (Boy’s State) and college (class president for 2 years, etc.). He became Governor, chaired the National Governors’ Association and finally became POTUS. It was only through him that she was introduced to the nation and even then, it was rocky because of her abrasive, snarky remarks about baking cookies.

When she ran for POTUS in 2008, she cited her 20 years of experience. Really? First Lady of AK for 12 years and FLOTUS for 8 years. Oh, and she was a corporate lawyer at the Rose Law Firm where her client was Walmart – that champion of poor people – and where she relied heavily on the counsel of Vince Foster.

She could never have carpet bagged her way to the NY Senate seat had she not been FLOTUS. And once in the Senate, what did she DO? What legislation or amendments to legislation illustrate her initiative or activism on behalf of the people. The aye votes for IWR, the Patriot Acts 1 & 2 and Bush's Bankruptcy bill sure were a big help to us all

And let's talk about that IWR vote in depth because there was, and remains, no excuse or justification for it and here's why

Reason 1: Iraq did not attack the US; fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis while the other four were from the UAE, Egypt, Yemen. They learned to fly here in the States (Florida, Arizona). Bin Laden was also Saudi!

Reason 2: Iraq had been under horrific UN sanctions since the first Bush war on Iraq in 1991; so how could it have morphed into an imminent threat to the US in 2002 when IWR was being peddled

Reason 3: W's administration introduced IWR and demanded a vote on it right before the 2002 midterm elections. Wise men and women questioned the timing and the rush, but not those who voted aye... they had their eyes on being POTUS and cast calculating votes that reeked of political and moral cowardice.

Reason 4: Anyone who was paying attention knew about PNAC and therefore knew how the Bush cabal and Carlyle group had their eyes on carving up Iraq's oil fields. Clinton sure knew because the signers of PNAC policy papers wrote Bill seeking pre-emptive action while he was POTUS.

Reason 5: the Bush cabal STOLE the White House in 2000 because they had their PNAC plans. Then, they ignored all the warnings/chatter leading up to 9/11 including the August 6th PDB. They allege they were blindsided and could not have foreseen such an attack. But that flies in the face of the fact that the airspace had to be closed around the G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy in July 2001 precisely because of terrorists' threats to fly planes into buildings! So therefore, why would any sentient 'leader' of the opposition party trust or "have good faith" in ANYTHING proposed by W

Reason 6: Anyone who knew history, knew that Reagan sold WMDs to Saddam/Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war (recall the photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand). So when Cheney took to the airwaves in 2002 talking about WMDs and said he knew where they were and how they'd been used against the Kurds, he was telling the truth... about 1988. He was using his dirty past to foment a new war for oil

Reason 7: the Bush cabal withdrew the weapons inspectors because they were not finding anything. Scott Ritter (who was smeared) and his fellow inspectors' findings would not/did not conform to the desired Bush narrative, so Colin Bowel sold his soul and did his 'tube' presentation to the UN

Reason 8: Citing the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, Robert Byrd gave an eloquent and passionate speech about lies that lead to war, about the waste of war, about the unintended consequences of war... and he challenged the rush to war. Bob Graham (who actually read the documents available to Congress) and Ted Kennedy spoke as well. Why didn't HRC listen to them rather than Bush or Cheney? No, she gave Bush bipartisan cover with her aye vote, and so she has blood on her hands, too!

Clearly the rationale for IWR was all a LIE, and if millions of citizens could see all this THEN, why not Clinton?! She voted aye, ran for POTUS and lost in large measure because of that vote. Votes have consequences and there is no apology large enough to cover a cowardly, finger-in-the-wind vote that has caused so much death, debt, destruction and destabilization (ISIS)!

Back to the narrative. Then there was her abysmal management and nasty conduct during the 2008 primary campaign. She had the money, she had the name, she was entitled, she was "in it to win it" and so arrogant that she claimed it would be over by Super Tuesday. But when it wasn't and she was losing, she resorted to the gutter. She praised McCain and derided Obama as someone who only gave pretty speeches. And when the Party urged her to bow out gracefully, she said that she was going to stay in the race through the CA primary because "you never know... remember Bobby Kennedy..." Her insinuation (a veiled wish?) that Obama might be assassinated like RFK was beyond classless and tasteless. It was evil (google Keith Olbermann on that atrocity). And when she finally, gracelessly bowed out, she did so on condition that the Obama organization and DNC pay off her campaign debt. Some management skills, just like her Wall Street benefactors who f--- things up, then expect others to pay for the disaster they created.

On to SOS, where Obama selected her because he'd been inspired by Lincoln's team of rivals and wanted to keep her busy and away so she couldn't be a quasi-backbencher sniping at him. In the end, she was also terrible in that position. Her Honduras regime change led many men, women and children, some alone, to flee the disaster that nation subsequently became. Same with Libya and Syria. HRC, the consummate pro-MIC corporatist, never saw a war she didn't like. And last I checked, war is not good for women, children or men! Oh, and also at State, she sold weapons to Saudi Arabia (home of bin laden and 15 out of 19 Sept 11th hijackers) while the Saudis donated to that slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation.

She is also part of the Clinton legacy (the two for one, the 8 years of reflected experience derived from Bill). She helped found the DLC and fully supported: NAFTA, the Telecommunications Bill of 1996, Welfare Reform (not), and overturning Glass-Steagall. She and Bill kept Alan Greenspan at the Fed, placed the then Mr. Goldman Sucks himself Robert Reuben as head of Treasury and hired as financial advisor that abominable Wall Streeter Larry Summers (who lost a $1.8 billion from Harvard's endowment!). This Clinton triumvirate wrecked the economy for main street, but saved Wall Street, especially Goldman-Sachs which has subsequently paid her handsomely. And as DUer tularetom once said: "They didn't pay her that kind of money because of her oratorical skills, her charismatic personality or her insight into current events. She has none of the first two and very little of the third."



We, the people, reaped the whirlwind of that 1999 Glass-Steagall reversal for which every repuke in the Senate voted AYE while every Dem -- save one -- voted NAY. Bill signed it into law anyway, paying no heed to the canary-in-the-mine Dems who said that this dastardly new law would lead to disaster 10 years hence. Sure enough it did, harming families throughout the land. And Wall Street, Hillary's BFF, continues to be such a benefactor for the people!

This is HRC's history. And I haven't even touched on fracking and the TPP. So please tell me, what she has DONE that is positive or constructive? How is she a better candidate who would do a better job? She's in it for herself, she plays sexist gender politics, she lies about her awful record, she changes her mind with the political winds, she panders, she pads her pockets, and she is a triangulator to her core.

[Darb]

134. Did you write that drivel? Or is the Time cover the link?

I get that some people have low opinions of Hillary Clinton. So does Rush Limbaugh. You are in league with Limpdick, so you got that going for ya.

Now sell that shit elsewhere. It's opinion, and as you know, they are like assholes, everybody's got one and they all stink.

[frylock]

136. You seem nice.

[Carolina]

137. Opinion?

Last edited Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)

No, TRUTH which you clearly can't handle and are willfully blind to. Get over your ignorance... as if that's possible

[Autumn]

59. Every thing she does is a stepping stone in her quest for the White House.

[Ghost Dog]

44. Disgusting racist sexist remark. n/t

[geek tragedy]

45. Your concern is noted nt

[Betty Karlson]

46. If you are going to rip anything out of context, how about this, "bro"?

Creating scandals out of thin air is like when you suck lemonade out of a lemon: it leads to sour faces no matter how many coats of sugar you put in your mouth first.

[LondonReign2]

50. Good job, you managed to imply racism right off the bat

You must be so proud of yourself. You hit that checkmark right off the top.

[Lizzie Poppet]

72. Not so much Stockhom Syndrome...

...as it is a case of being low-information voters.

[Sheepshank]

73. Imploding? a tad hyperbolic in a Scorched Earth sort of way.

No...the Dem party is not imploding, it's going through a energetic Primary Process, where the Indies are trying to call the shots.

[geek tragedy]

74. the Naderite left is attempting a hostile takeover much like the alt-right is trying a takeover of

the Republican party.

[daleanime]

77. Yes, I know, if Hillary finishes the purchase of the democratic party....

professional, even though retired, leftist like myself are unwelcome under the corporate 'big' tent. I can't speak for anyone else, but after decades of having my point of view marginalized I will leave the democratic party, no sense in staying in a party where the only one your 'leadership' is willing to fight is you.

[geek tragedy]

79. yeah, Hillary never fights with Republicans or anyone other

than the Green party types. Nope.

And leftist activists like Dolores Huerta just hate her.

[daleanime]

83. And I'm unreasonable?

To want a candidate who's not pro-war and not pro-screwing over the working class?

What I do not understand is people who claim to support the same goals deciding that it's better to not work toward them, but we know you don't think that way so have a lovely day.

[geek tragedy]

84. see, when you make stuff up like "pro-screwing over the working class"

that's just trying to bend facts to justify your narrative.

it's perfectly fine to say that Clinton is too cautious, or too willing to cut a deal, or too friendly to the status quo.

But to portray her as a combination of Ebeneezer Scrooge and Old Man Potter, come on.

[Phlem]

76. FFS.

[NurseJackie]

9. "Stockholm Syndrome" ... this again?

[riversedge]

14. over and over we see this silly drama!!. Boring

[Surya Gayatri]

21. Well, it's a lovely city...although I doubt that millions of Dem. voters know it very well.

Pity that such a lovely place has come to be assocaited with such a stupid, over-used cliché.

[riversedge]

10. Oh the DRAMA!! No fear!! Hillary will save you all

#ItrustHer

[Fawke Em]

31. Save us from what? Single payer healthcare? Peace? Good jobs?

[riversedge]

125. nah--perhaps from yourselves.

[daleanime]

37. Well, you are right. If she fails to lose the nomination....

a lot of us will be giving up.


At least on this election.

[B Calm]

67. Save us from marijuana legalization, gee thanks!

[m-lekktor]

11. It deserves to implode. nt

[Vinca]

16. There's some truth to that and maybe it's long overdue.

We - or I should say the "elected we" - have been edging to the right for decades and leaving much of the rank and file behind.

[bemildred]

19. Thanks, that's it. And the rank and file has finally figured out they've been had. nt

[bvar22]

111. "edging" to the Right.

More like Super Sliding to the Conservative Right", and accelerating.

[MisterP]

131. right: the party's rotted down to "send them BACK!" "kick their ASS and take their GAS!" "drill HERE

drill NOW!" "let them DIE!"

and it started with the "we need to IWR because NINE-ELEVEN" *turns on siren*; it made us so glad to be rid of Bush (enabled only because several Dems crossed the aisle every time out of venality, conservatism, or chickenshitness) we'd take anything Bush threw at us as long as it was our team doing the throwing

[NCTraveler]

17. This is simply the dream of Paul supporters who have been drummed out of the republican party.

Too bad, there is no room for them under out big tent. Democrats are overwhelmingly supporting Clinton. The party is very unified if one actually looks at the data. The narrative being promoted here isn't just false, it is nefarious ratfucking.

[JoePhilly]

23. + 1

[RiverLover]

24. Bullsh*t

This has been happening for a long time now. We are the liberal left & we want our party back.

This Truly Is A Battle For The Soul Of The Democratic Party

.......The problem with the Democratic leadership isn’t that they want shitty people in office that will enact shitty policies based on favors owed, it’s that it’s literally the law of the fucking land that money rules over people in politics thanks to Citizens United.

This is evident in every trade agreement that sent American jobs overseas. Every backroom deal struck by Congress and complicit Presidents ensuring no-bid contracts during war time. Every single politician that takes literal blood money from the NRA to keep gun show loopholes open and mental health checks unobtainable.

Progressives, for far too fucking long, have been categorically ignored by the Establishment Democrats as that bit of the voters they need to placate during election season, but shit all over when it comes time to put forth legislation. Hillary Clinton called herself a progressive during the first debate, then immediately walked that back when asked the same question by a group of investors er…politically active individuals and stated she was a “proud moderate”.


Add that to the fact that the military industrial complex has donated more to Secretary Clinton than any GOP candidate, and you can see the safe bet that the manufacturers of weapons of war have placed in the “safe” and “inevitable” candidate.


Rigged debates, a virtual traditional media blackout, fake scandals. All to get the corporate-friendly, centrist candidate the nomination. Knowing that it will be an uphill battle to win the White House in the general election. Because protecting the interests of the real owners of this country is, and has always been, way the fuck more important than the will of the rabble.

http://www.morningnightcap.com/this-truly-is-a-battle-for-the-soul-of-the-democratic-party/

[NCTraveler]

29. No bullshit about it. The facts are clear. Dems are voting overwhelmingly for Clinton.

Pauls little shitheads are attempting to force their way in. It's extremely clear. It's why the Sanders camp was sending volunteers to Paul rallies before he dropped out. Sanders knows where his bread is buttered. It's also the reason Sanders joined with Paul and republicans in their attempt to politicize monetary policy. Literally one dem voted for it. Sanders was all on board. He was simply pandering to the Paul crew.

Dems are supporting Clinton in big numbers. This narrative is simply an attempt at ratfucking.

[Darb]

30. So says the morningnightcap.com?

Wait, who?

[Silver_Witch]

56. Standing ovation!!

Turth! Every word truth!

[Fawke Em]

32. Nope. You'll see this fall if she's the nominee.

Good luck with that.

[Bobbie Jo]

42. Exactly right, all of it. nt

[democrank]

20. Key words....enable and sponsor

Almost any Democratic politician seems progressive if compared to almost any Republican politician. The important distinction to me happens when I compare some Democratic politicians to other Democratic politicians.

Zell Miller to Paul Wellstone
Claire McCaskill to Elizabeth Warren
Joe Manchin to Russ Feingold


I`ll be very interested to see what happens with the progressive wing of the party after the general election. Will they stay or build something new based on their collective enthusiasm and unified positions on social and economic issues?

[bemildred]

22. Yes, a lot of the action is in the primaries now. That's the gatekeeper in the system.

To reform the government, you have to take over a national party first, the Congress is rigged that way, and you need the Presidency too. The court can be managed with those two in hand. The conservatives have done it a couple times now. So have the radicals. When the public demanded a say in candidate selection back in the 70s, the gatekeeping was moved to primaries and money was allowed to flood politics, and THAT was used along with the Mighty Wurlitzer (TV news) to perform the function of keeping "radicals" out. (Back then we were called radicals, like we were square roots.)

[Fawke Em]

35. After the general election?

I think you'll (finally) see the exodus before this year.

[Jefferson23]

25. Depending on how this primary ends a split could arise at some point.

The level of indebtedness of elected reps is palpable and I disagree that voters are not that bright.
If anything, they have learned to connect the dots and they correctly see the writing
on the wall from this administration. The lobby money is not a Republican only issue.

Can the Dems reform it from within, I don't know..what takes place on the Republican
side will impact our side too.

[bemildred]

28. Yes, I expect split conventions and things like that, not seen in a long time.

Sophisticated is a better word, you are right that the public is plenty smart. They have to be to survive, but it's not academic smart or intellectual smart.

You have to be pretty smart AND have a lot of experience to see through the bullshit, as long as everybody around you still has faith. Everybody was cheering the naked Emperor except the little boy. That's because the little boy was naive and didn't know he was supposed to cheer yet. It is very difficult (and expensive) to challenge social consensus, and even the appearance of that restrains people greatly.

Now we have a situation in both parties where that has broken down. It's mean and nasty now.

[Jefferson23]

33. Ok, I can see that distinction. I think the party may split for good. This "conversation"

Bernie has been having for just about his entire career is not going away...it's not really possible.
It's not about Clinton, nor even Obama, per sey...it is deeper and broader within the system
and whoever makes it to the WH will have the burden that comes from a populace that understands
that pretty damn well now. Then there is the practical side, how does one get elected? Well look at that..
Bernie did it with small campaign donations...I know they never saw that coming, he was not ever
going to be able to lift people up to become a threat, until he proved them wrong.

[bemildred]

36. Yeah. If somebody wants to lead, they better get out in front. nt

[bemildred]

38. See, I think that message is getting through:

Clinton, Rallying in the Bronx, Riles Up Her Democratic Base

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141414063

And that's good for all of us. I think the Democrats are actually in a lot better position to unify though, if they can avoid a nasty convention, I don't think the Republicans have that option any more.

[Jefferson23]

53. Yes, we're not anyhere near as off the cliff as the Republicans. I did not mean to suggest

we were and why I think we'll get a better idea when the primary ends.

People have breaking points and sometimes you don't know how they'll react, with that said,
I don't expect we'll lose the WH. The split if we have one may come as a progression away
from what a Clinton WH cabinet and administration will look like..see what I mean?

Sometimes I have a hard time being clear, sorry about that.

[bemildred]

57. I concur. So do I, no need to apologize, your comment was correct. That was the wrong word.

Sometimes I get too full of myself too.

Breaking points are very hard to predict. Catastrophic failure does not happen in an orderly manner. That's why it's good to stay far away from them.

I have no idea what will happen, but I have $20 bucks that says it won't be business as usual, or even close. This is still EARLY in the campaign.

[Jefferson23]

60. Yea, that is a good bet, my friend.

[Adrahil]

26. I am constantly amused.....

about how some fringe elements of the Democratic Party sound almost EXACTLY like fringe elements in the Republican Party.

[LondonReign2]

54. When you are over on the right wing anything towards the center looks fringe to you

[KoKo]

71. "Right wing pundits—a sad and desperate lot at the moment.."

From the article:

Right wing pundits—a sad and desperate lot at the moment — eagerly compare Sanders to Trump. The idea here is that the widespread disgust with Washington’s dysfunction has opened the door to outsider demagogues who spout lurid promises.

In fact, Sanders and Trump have about as much in common as George Wallace and Eugene Debs. Sanders isn’t trying to sell steaks or live out some Reality TV fantasy. He entered politics from the tradition of social justice .

The reason he keeps beating Hillary Clinton is because a huge portion of the electorate—particularly young voters—is yearning for the kind of explicit social justice he’s prescribing. To put it bluntly: he’s articulating a moral vision, not an electoral path to the White House.

And that, frankly, is what the Democratic Party used to do, back in the era of the New Deal and the Great Society. It offered as its essential pitch to voters a compassionate and responsive government that sought to combat — or at least mitigate — the corrosive values of a capitalist theocracy.

What does the modern Democratic Party offer? The strategy put forward by Bill Clinton was called “triangulation.” And while it may have worked in an electoral sense, the de facto result was a strategy of appeasement that left Democrats pushing conservative policies: welfare reform, tax cuts, financial deregulation.

[PeoViejo]

34. Destroy the Republican Party and set-up One Party Rule

The Neo-Confederate Wet Dream.

Of course, with Queen Hillary as Regent.

[Paladin]

40. "Queen Hillary as Regent"

Oh, well. At least you didn't call her a whore.

[disillusioned73]

39. K to the R..

Never has an article so precisely expressed my feelings - I will share this this elsewhere.. thank you Mr Steve Almond

[randr]

43. The big difference is

Democrats will end up with a candidate that is not bat shit crazy.

[Betty Karlson]

48. Debbie, someone just called your strategy what it is:

The center cannot hold. A growing plurality of democratic voters wants a true progressive agenda. If Clinton and party insiders ignore this reality, such voters will begin to look elsewhere. They will not view themselves as having left the Party. The Party will have left them.

F*ck you and your 20th century campaign.

[DebDoo]

49. They don't care. They don't need us little people anyway. We get in the way

[RandySF]

51. I'll save my gloating for January, 2017.

[Buzz Clik]

52. That is correct. I support HRC because I'm too fucking stupid to know I'm being duped.

[basselope]

75. Or b/c you are a republican.

Both are possible.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

88. Why do you support her actually?

For the global promotion of fracking? Perpetual war in the Middle East? Goldman Sachs running the economy?

[Buzz Clik]

91. War in the Middle East was going on before she arrived (for like 2000 years), and will continue.

No president has ever -- or will ever -- change that.

The Goldman-Sachs thing ain't my thing, but it seems to animate a lot of people.

Do I agree with her on fracking? Yes
Keystone XL? Pretty much
Health care? Yes
Gun control? Yes
Rational notions of college debt? Yes.

All those are "No" under the Bernie column for me.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

94. OMG, you support fracking??? n/t

[Buzz Clik]

105. Regulated and monitored (unlike now). Yes.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

107. I'm a geology buff. please explain why fracking could ever possibly be safe.

Cause everything I've learned says that's impossible.

[Buzz Clik]

114. IF a fracking well is properly designed, drilled, installed, and closed, it's safe.

That's a big if but clearly it's the norm.

We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on
drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report,
we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water
resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases,
however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/hf_es_erd_jun2015.pdf

[Viva_La_Revolution]

115. this addresses water. what about earthquakes?

[Buzz Clik]

116. Earthquakes result from injecting waste water into closed wells.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

109. Sweet Jesus. Before fracking Kansas and Oklahoma didn't have earthquakes. Now

we have them all the time. Your position on fracking is indefensible. Full stop.

[Buzz Clik]

113. It's not the fracking, it's the deep injection of waste water.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

117. I know that. It's a distinction with out a difference. Shame on you!!! n/t

[Buzz Clik]

120. No. If you complete the fracking operation, cap the well, and walk away -- no earthquakes.

If, instead, after the fracked well is tapped out you inject the produced water from another site down the well, the odds of producing tremors increases a lot.

The distinction is quite real, quite important, and easily preventable.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

121. Permanently removing fresh water from the biosphere.

You are now my enemy. I can't express my utter contempt for you. You want to fuck up the area where I live. Fuck you very much. You are now on my ignore list and I will never communicate with you again. You are dead to me.

[ibegurpard]

110. you said it not me

[Bonobo]

55. This is one of the best articles.

The intelligence of the voter has been doubted for too long.

The well is dry.

[Katashi_itto]

64. k&R!!! Down with the Vichy Dems

[Orsino]

66. Yep, just like the party fell apart in 2008.

Right. Me, neither.

[MrTriumph]

68. Implosion following 20 years of shrinking.

Starting with the 1996 midterms, the DP has done an amazing job of shrinking.

[Waiting For Everyman]

70. The FBI will have the last laugh.

Hillary is going down no matter how many votes she gets. The same way that chickens keep running around after their heads are cut off.... they don't know they're dead for a little bit.

Sanders is the only viable candidate. As this campaign plays out, that will become obvious.

If not, Dems are 100% screwed. It's really interesting to watch the most ardent of the party loyalists kicking sand in the face of the only person who can save it. People are truly preposterous.

[yourpaljoey]

78. I absolutely agree with all you say

[Punkingal]

81. Lemmings, running off a cliff, heaping scorn on those of us trying to stop them.

[Fumesucker]

85. They don't want the party saved if it means they lose influence

It's as simple as that, if they can't have their Democratic party then they will make sure it's not worth having for anyone.

[Iliyah]

80. Nope.

[workinclasszero]

95. "Stockholm Syndrome"

And there's the racism.

[bvar22]

112. What is "racist" about Stockholm Syndrome,

or "Battered Wife Syndrome".
Both are similar, and cross all racial boundaries.
I'd be very interested in hearing how you twist this into a "racist" remark.

[bettyellen]

96. "victims of the Stockholm Syndrome " Not that shit again?

[VulgarPoet]

97. Let it burn. The oligarchy has to perish, by ballot, blade, or blaze.

[PufPuf23]

99. Thank you bemildred kr

[azurnoir]

100. yes it is indeed

[catbyte]

103. There is a shocking decrease in civility between the 2008 primaries & today.

It got down & dirty in 2008, but nothing like today. I blame the Republicans for poisoning public discourse so badly that we have caught it, too. I am so sad and disappointed.

[carolinayellowdog]

118. With the same boomerang effect in both parties

Toxic discourse targeting "the Other" becomes the norm, and then the intraparty ugliness ends up being just as bad as interparty, with the enraged populace turning on their own party leaders. Can't think of a precedent in my lifetime.

[frylock]

123. We all know what the commonality between 2008 and 2016 is.

[carolinayellowdog]

124. yes, and what a horrifying prospect if 2020

is dominated by the same "rule or ruin" and "kiss up to Republicans, kick down at progressive Dems and Independents" dynasty.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

104. Stockholm Syndrome again. Disgusting.

[Lil Missy]

108. It seems to be doing quite well for Democrats - Hillary and her supporters

[cantbeserious]

126. This Revolt Has Been Building For Years - The DWS, DNC, DLC, Third-Way Has Only Themselves To Blame

eom

[SoLeftIAmRight]

128. Between 2000 and 2002 is when I saw that something new was going to buikd

it has been slow and should have started in 1981 when raygun removed the solar panels from the white house

[pat_k]

127. "...Stockholm Syndrome that afflicts so many so-called 'pragmatists'..."

AKA "Battered Democrats Syndrome."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1215197