Sanders Under Fire for Supporters' 'Whores' Remarks

[DanTex]

NBC ran the video this morning on the Today show. Ugly.

They also pointed out that Song's sister in law owes her freedom to Bill Clinton.

And they called out Song on his preposterous claim that he meant Dems in congress and not Hillary. Of course, if he did actually mean Dems in congress, I'm sure the superdelegates will be thrilled that they are being called whores at Bernie's campaign events.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sanders-under-fire-supporters-whores-remarks-n555846

[beam me up scottie]

1. Must. Remain. Outraged.

[DanTex]

2. Of course you don't care. The electorate? That's a different story.

[DanTex]

8. I guess we'll see. They certainly haven't been buying what Bernie's selling so far.

[TheBlackAdder]

13. Bindness obscures the optics: These OPs just reinforce the issue of corporatocrisy.

.


While trying to cast one in bad light, it draws attention to what and who the "corporate Democratic whores" are.


And the word is pluralized, meaning more than one.



wiki:

Corporatocrisy: is a term used to refer to an economic and political
system controlled by corporations and/or corporate interests


.

[PeoViejo]

14. Hillary's Pay to Play scheme

Bernie isn't selling anything. In fact, trying to triangulate Bernie's campaign with Money sounds like Projection to me.

[PeoViejo]

81. Influence Peddling was the term I wanted to use

, but then someone from Camp Hillary would alert, saying it was hurtful.

[kaleckim]

55. LOL

Is that why is he is far more trusted than she is, does better than she does versus all the Republicans (and has for months), and is far more liked than she is. He actually does much better with the general public and independents than with the "progressive" Democratic Party, which says a lot about the people in the party like yourself.

You all seem to think these fake controversies are what people care about, which is beyond tone deaf. They care far more about your candidate's corruption, record on trade and increasingly her hawkish foreign policy. If most of you were actually on the left, these things would matter to you too.

[DanTex]

57. For one reason or another, she's way ahead in terms of actual votes and delegates.

Maybe you need to open your eyes a bit.

[kaleckim]

60. For one...

most caucuses don't report voting numbers, so her lead in votes (often cited to be two million) is inflated (this is without question). She is ahead in your party, but he does better (much better) with independents and polls much better versus the top Republicans (and has for months now) and does better with the general public. She does better within your corrupt party, which again says more about people like yourself than anything else. You all seem determined to prove your party is not a vehicle for progressive change, isn't like there is any evidence of it under Democrats like the Clintons and DWS anyway, the macroeconomic data doesn't lie. Things have been getting progressively worse for working people for decades now, and people like yourself could give a damn. Clinton couldn't care less either, she continues to meet with corporate lobbyists and has all but announced she will not change this corrupt and inequitable system. You party has, to this point, said thank you, more please.

My eyes are open, I seem to have a better grasp of objective reality and you live in a bubble. Does he do better with independents? Yes or no. Does he poll better versus top Republicans? Yes or no? Is he more trusted liked? I think you know the answers.

[DanTex]

61. In other words, she's trouncing him.

[kaleckim]

63. You are simplistic

Yes, she is beating him in the Democratic Party and is the likely nominee. Care to analyze things beyond that? Of course not, cause none of you think with complexity or have convincing arguments. Just talk to each other in your own well off bubbles. You all have driven your party into the ground. Just to be clear though, he's won seven in a row, she has her lead thanks to the Confederacy.

[DanTex]

64. The math is pretty simple in this case. Hillary wins. Bernie loses.

[kaleckim]

65. Obvious why you refuse to think beyond that

Corruption, hawkish foreign policy, center-right record on economic issues, racists policies and rhetoric in the past.

Sure winners within your party and knuckle draggers like you.

[DanTex]

67. She's the stronger candidate on policy, but I've found that Bernie fans don't have much

understanding of policy issues. But losing the primary is something that they will understand.

[kaleckim]

69. "She's the stronger candidate on policy"

Maybe you should tell the general public that, the people outside your little bubble. He does better with the general public and independents.

Can you be more specific (no), which policies and why?

[DanTex]

71. The electorate has voted for Hillary over Bernie by a large margin. You're the one who needs

to try to do the convincing.

[kaleckim]

73. No, the electorate hasn't

the Confederacy within your party has given her the lead. The electorate include people outside your little bubble, and he does better than she does with independents and the general public. Is it the people outside your corrupt party that have given him seven wins in a row. The Confederacy has been good to your corrupt candidate.

[DanTex]

74. You know, it's very easy to count the votes and the delegates....

[cwydro]

122. You keep saying "your party."

Are you not a Democrat?

And if not, why are you here?

[brush]

85. You must not know how caucuses work. By their very nature, a limited time period of a couple of

hours for voters who aren't at work or in school to get into the premises, they have far, far, far lower participant rates than primaries that go on all day and allow voter to vote when their work or class schedules permits.

So forget your premise that caucus numbers are underestimated.

Not so at all, but nice try.

[kaleckim]

89. You are wrong

I am right. The difference wouldn't be huge, by the way, and it is beside the larger point anyway. Imagine if you wanted to talk to a Trump supporter and wanted to talk about WHY he was a bad candidate. You brought up facts, policies, his actions, and the person simply responded by saying that he got more votes and to eat dirt. What would you think of that person and their ability to think and make a coherent argument? So, go ahead and attach yourself to the fool above.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/06/is-hillary-clinton-really-ahead-of-bernie-sanders-by-2-5-million-votes/

The Clinton campaign often points to the fact that the former secretary of state has received more votes than her challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. But there is a bit of a caveat to her tally — it does not include the results of several key states which held caucuses, not primaries...Meanwhile, caucuses were held in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, Alaska and Washington that are not reflected in the RCP tally.

[brush]

91. I'm not wrong. I voted in a caucus state and most people are sick of the inconvenience of them

They severely cut down on the number of people who vote so Clinton's lead in total votes is real.

You can project all you want about what coulda, woulda, shoulda but the vote total numbers can't be refuted.

[kaleckim]

93. No

My point was that her vote lead over his is inflated a bit. Even it it wasn't anyway, doesn't get to why she is a horrible candidate, especially given the mood of the country. Bush got about 3 million more votes than Kerry in 2004. Did that make him a better candidate? What did him getting more votes mean to working people and the impact of the policies he supported? Didn't mean a damn thing. He got more votes than he did because tons of people didn't vote and those that did voted against their own interest, very much like this primary.

[brush]

94. OK, ok. what say we wait and see what's up after the New York primary

I don't agree. Clinton vote total kind of belies your premise. If the mood of the country is as you contend Sanders would be leading in votes.

[kaleckim]

96. She is almost certain to win

Unfortunately, I don't think we have to wait for NY. Having said that, she has huge net negatives, in fact if it weren't for Trump she'd have the highest net negatives of any candidate since polling began in 1984. She is not trusted. She does worse versus all the Republicans and has for months now. She also is a hawk (and extreme hawk if you ask me), is knee deep in corporate and Wall Street money and has a center-right record on many issues. Despite all of that, she is your party's likely nominee. Your party though has been moving steadily to the right, thanks in large part to the Clintons and their work in the 1980's and 1990's, so I am not surprised by any of this.

[brush]

97. My party? You mean you're not a Democrat?

Oh, I get it. That was a laundry list of repug talking points you just listed. I should've known.

BTW, Clinton has been on the national scene for 25 years and has been getting pilloried by repugs for most of that time so it's easy to sprew those things after being indoctrinated with them for all those years by FOX and hate radio.

Just think how long the laundry list against the socialist Bernie Sanders would be if he had been in the national spotlight for 25 years.

And btw, who on the repug side, with their y-u-u-u-u--u-g-e negatives, could possibly beat Clinton when their (your?) party splinters during their convention?

[frylock]

99. When Democrats comprise only 30% of registered voters..

you're likely to come across one or two disaffected liberals that are not members of your Party. The fact that people express shock and dismay when they do is laughable to me.

[brush]

103. What's laughable to me is when people want to vote in a primary of a party they don't belong to.

[frylock]

108. What's laughable to me is that my taxes go to pay for your Party's primaries.

Thankfully, I live in a forward-thinking state that allows people like myself who are registered under No Party Preference to participate in the democratic process.

[brush]

110. That's what the general election is for

If you want to participate in the democratic process, get behind a candidate, join his/her party and canvass, phone bank, do voter registration, fund raise — you know, participate in the democratic process.

Those that don't want to be bothered but still want to chose the candidate, I say they need to get off their butts and work.

[frylock]

111. So there should be conditions in order for me to exercise my right to vote?

[kaleckim]

113. What the hell are you talking about?

So, if I am not a Democrat I am a Republican? How simplistic. I am also a socialist and you are deluded if you think you can talk smack about the left and not pay a price, those days are gone. Without the actual left, your corrupt candidate is toast in the coming election. I hope you people realize that.

So, the rest of your post was nonsense. I was a life long Democrat, then in about 2007 I left the party. Not because of "ideological purity", but because of the impact of the policies that the center-right (and I am being kind) Clintons supported. The right's critiques of Billy and his wife are largely nonsense, not so with the left's.

[brush]

118. So you're not a Democrat, just as I guessed.

Last edited Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:30 AM - Edit history (1)

[kaleckim]

119. As I said to the other person

I was a long time Democrat, I am on the left and my critiques of the Democratic Party are factual. If you want to ignore me entirely, go ahead, but there are lots of people like me. There are very likely to be many more, because your party is corrupt and has moved to the right, which is why I left the party. You not listening is a problem, not a virtue.

[brush]

120. Ok, so you left the party — your choice. But do you still feel you should have a say . . .

in picking who the party chooses to run in the general?

[kaleckim]

123. Yes

and what a crappy mindset, given how many people have signed up to your party just to vote for the party's nominee. In a normal democracy, and with people committed to make the world a better place, you'd think you would applaud that and work hard to give people a reason to stay. Instead, you sit at the cool kids table and brag about how you were into the band first. You all live in a bubble, think beyond the tribe.

[brush]

125. I'm all for people who join the party and work for a candidate by . . .

canvassing, phone banking, registering voters, fundraising, doing signage — you know, actually working for a candidate and the party.

I don't care if the candidate is Sanders or Clinton, what I do care about is that they are a member of the party, then of course they should be able to vote in the primary to choose the party's nominee.

Those that aren't, wait for the general to vote, it was their choice to not join and work in the party.

Crappy mindset? Nah. Did you read your post before posting? You contradict yourself with this:

". . . what a crappy mindset, given how many people have signed up to your party just to vote for the party's nominee."

[kaleckim]

114. By the way

do you Clinton supporters have the capacity to recognize the differences between left wing critiques of your corrupt candidate and right wing critiques? I get the feeling from you people that you wouldn't see much difference between Noam Chomsky's critique of Bill Clinton, NAFTA and the WTO and Rush Limbaugh's tinfoil hat hysterics.

[Baobab]

90. He is ignoring the {long existing but hidden deal which I cannot name} and her husband signed it.

Thats the real reason she "has to" win.

[ScreamingMeemie]

42. It will be nice to see a DU scrubbed free of "media whore," "corporate whore,"

and "attention whore." These things have a way of coming back to bite the "outraged" hard.

[beam me up scottie]

43. Right? What will tomorrow's outrage be?

[ScreamingMeemie]

48. We are fast running out of them...

and will soon be left with puppy and kitten recipes.

[beam me up scottie]

49. There's a whole years worth of outrage to be recycled!

It gets churned up like compost.

[kaleckim]

56. Something fake and overblown

what was the last one, that she wasn't, gasp, qualified! The horror, how dare he!

Can't win on the issues and she is corrupt, so they go with one fake controversy after another. They have learned this manipulative stuff from the right.

[liberal from boston]

77. Go Bernie

Just imagine if Senator Sanders pointed a finger in a young woman's face for asking about climate change--the outrage from Hillary supporters would be non stop. Huffington Post last weekend posted disgusting tweets from Hillary supporters attacking Jane Sanders---no media reaction.

[kaleckim]

80. Well

they'd be outraged for a day, then they'd move on to another fake non-issue.

Now, they are welcome to talk about Honduras, or Haiti, or her and her campaign once again meeting with corporate lobbyists, but they could give damn. They'd rather ignore real issues and controversies and pretend to be outraged by nonsense. Now, I am sure they were almost collectively committed to rooms with padded walls in 2008, cause they are principled, have uniform standards and were probably outraged by her horrific (and sometimes racist) behavior when she ran against Obama. If they are oh so outraged by this fake, non-issue, I am sure they can barely function when real issues come up.

[frylock]

100. Frankly, I'd be disappointed if Bernie did that.

But I think that's just one of the many things that set the two camps apart.

[Zen Democrat]

92. The way I see it, the media whores are underpinning the political whores. What's hard about that?

The people are MSNBC are doing the bidding of Comcast. That's why the TPP is never mentioned. Why people like Ed Schultz are gone from there. Why nothing positive is ever said about Bernie Sanders without a corresponding negative.

Corporate whores are REAL. People who do the bidding of corporations for a slice of the pie are actually prostituting themselves. Nothing says it better. It's not gender-based. There are a plethora of male prostitutes in the media, and I'm sure we can all name a few.

[DanTex]

5. So why do you think Paul Song apologized?

[Bohemianwriter]

16. He shouldn't have...

He should have doubled down, and pointed out the idiotic poutrage from over sensitive Hillary supporters who have a blind eye and deaf ears when it comes to her own transgressions...

Bernie attacks on substance. Hillary attacks with feces.

Why should Bernie Sanders be held responsible for the remarks of someone else, and Hillary get a free pass on her own statements, and statements from her own surrogates?

[redstateblues]

29. His campaign is becoming like Trump's

[JTFrog]

68. Exactly. n/t

[frylock]

101. Yeah, exactly.

Berners physically assaulting people at rallies... oh, wait.

[kaleckim]

75. Remember her behavior in 2008?

Want to compare this overblown, fake controversy, to her racist and horrible behavior against Obama when she last ran? Do you Clinton supporters pretend to not remember this, or hope no one else does? Give me a break with this manufactured outrage.

[frylock]

102. Many of the more outspoken Clinton Supporters here hated her guts in 2008.

[liberal from boston]

95. Go Bernie

Of course you are joking-- There is a sharp contrast between the 2 campaigns. Watching Senator Sanders NY Rally last night was for me an emotional experience -the joy, energy, enthusiasm, diversity of the crowd was astonishing. Local news reported Hillary spoke last night to her supporters & then left. Sad that Hillary used a noise machine when she spoke to her donors. The response of the Clinton Campaign after Bernie's Wisconsin's win revealed that Hillary is losing patience with Sanders. BTW, Senator Sanders is in this Campaign till the Convention.

[Bohemianwriter]

98. Between Hillary and Bernie....

Hillary is the liar...She's the one palling around Trump, taking his money, being ordered to attend his wedding.

Bernie has got nothing in common with Trump. Hillary however, are using republican dirty tactic, and there are things that leads us to believe that DLC are involved in election fraud to hand over the nomination to their favorite dirty politician and compulsive liar Hillary.

[mariawr]

28. Hell, that's the DLC ..er "New Democrat" platform. What's the fuss? nt

[WDIM]

59. The media wants to focus on one word

Instead of the larger idea.

Our politicians are bought and paid for and should wear their sponsors on their suit.

We dont have universal health care. We have manditory private insurance. We are forced to give our money to private corporate billionaires or pay a fine they call a tax. It is corrupt and Obamacare was written by the insurance industry. Its a scam to make billionaires even richer while our level of healthcare or the cost associated with it has not improved one bit. Just the rich getting richer off our hard work while they hoard all the wealth we the people created.

[Broward]

4. There are many enablers of the corporate Dem whores. What a shame.

[LexVegas]

7. Thank god his "revolution" is just about put out of my misery. nt

[kaleckim]

58. Yes,

so you can get back to corruption and maintaining a corrupt and inequitable system, which leading us to ecological collapse. Thank god caring about the poor, wanting to change inequitable and failed economic policies, and wanting to do something about corruption are about to go away. It isn't as if any of you really mean it when you pretend to be progressive.

[DrDan]

10. even Bernie finds it offensive

Bernie Sanders ‏@BernieSanders 8m8 minutes ago

Dr. Song's comment was inappropriate and insensitive. There's no room for language like that in our political discourse.

[salinsky]

12. Looks like the purity candidate ...

... is about to get down and roll around in the gutter.

He has really diminished himself with the way his campaign has been run.

[PeoViejo]

19. My opinions are my own

Trying to triangulate them with Bernie's Campaign is irresponsible, if not malicious.

[CrowCityDem]

21. Do Bernie fans not realize

that even if you think the term is 'common', the connotations are very different when you're running against a female candidate? You simply can't say these sorts of things without it coming off as misogynistic.

Bernie at least did the right thing. I don't know how the 'progressives' here can possibly defend it.

[randr]

25. I personally know plenty of male whores

Could name several hundred for you who are serving in Congress right now.
It is a common term and not taken as misogynistic by most people.

[CrowCityDem]

39. Then why did Bernie ddo the right thing and apologize?

[nichomachus]

66. Because unlike Mrs. Clinton, he has some class. nt

[kaleckim]

70. Because of fools like you

that pretend to outraged by nothing. The things you should be outraged by (her corruption, her hawkish foreign policy and horrible foreign policy decisions, her record on trade and past racist comments), you could give a damn about. He shouldn't apologize since this is a fake controversy, there will be another one today or tomorrow too. Anything but the issues.

[liberal from boston]

112. Go Bernie

Please explain Hillary supporters hateful tweets attacking Jane Sanders. The absolute hypocrisy of Hillary's fake outrage at Bernie's statement questioning her judgment & vote for Iraq War when she during the 2008 Campaign was the one promoting the birther, Muslim issues & stated that Obama was naive, not qualified to be POTUS. Will apologies be forthcoming from her supporters attacking Jane Sanders?? https://pivotamerica.com/ironically-jane-sanders-attacked-hillary-supporters-manner-sexist-comments/

[randr]

15. Knee jerk assumption that Hillary is who he refers to?

Why would that be the case?

[Renew Deal]

18. Because he mentions her by name

[randr]

22. Was Hillary one of the Senators who voted against Medicare for All?

Did she receive money from Big Pharma?
Two questions that would establish the veracity of the statement.
I assume Hillary did not vote against MFA, but I could be wrong.

[Renew Deal]

24. Bernie thinks its inappropriate language.

He's not buying your "she deserves it" excuse.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/720590717706506240

[randr]

27. The question of whether it was inappropriate does not excuse the knee jerk assumptions

The worries over Hillarys' ties to Big Pharma along with the corporate donations set her up like a pin and her supporters are overly sensitive to it.

[Renew Deal]

31. He mentions her by name

There is no question who he is referring to.

[randr]

30. I did not in any manner say she deserved 'it'.

Just try to answer the questions honestly and maybe we can have a conversation.

[Renew Deal]

34. The questions are your response to the whore remark.

So it's hard to separate one from the other.

[randr]

40. Allow me to restate the questions

Did Hillary vote against Health Care for All?
Does Hillary accept money from Big Pharma?
Easy to dismiss the accusation I would say.

[redstateblues]

33. Hillary went up against Big Pharma when she tried to get

Hillarycare passed into law

[randr]

38. So why the worry?

[redstateblues]

44. Who's worried? Just helping you keep track of your smears

[randr]

46. No one has smeared anyone

[Renew Deal]

17. How did he mean the Dems in congress when he mentions her by name?

[DanTex]

20. Of course he meant Clinton.

[mariawr]

36. Could have meant Pres Obama...his reason for no PO was lame. nt

[Demsrule86]

50. The House is gerrymandered

And will remain so indefinitely if we don't get a few Dems in office at the state level...so Hillary is correct...it won't happen. WE better seriously work on the states or it will be another ten years starting in 2020 (census).

[Barack_America]

23. Your opinion. Was it 27,000 or 48,000 people?

I'm leaning towards the NYFD estimate of 48,000.

[geek tragedy]

47. NYPD said 11k only

[jmg257]

26. Did Song apologize for use of the term, or for

Inferring Hillary was a corporate whore?

[randr]

35. Inferences are like bait

They are only effective when you get a strike.

[mcar]

32. K&R

[Bonobo]

41. Wow, you found the courage -somehow- to not use asterisks?

[Trust Buster]

45. I have no more respect for the far Left than I do the far Right. Their temperaments are identical.

Sanders has been setting the tone for this kind of vitriol for two weeks now. Yes, the same guy that refuses to let the public see his tax returns has been running a slash and burn campaign. Those on this forum and amongst Sanders' supporters that engage in this sort of vitriol are welcomed by myself to vote for someone other than Hillary in the general. I really don't care to be associated with the far Left any more than I care to be associated with the far Right. And that's the truth, truth.

[kaleckim]

78. Define far left

Do Sanders supporters take positions outside the mainstream? If so, which ones?

When you say that he has been vitriolic for two weeks, in which way? Did he connect her to Sandy Hook? That isn't horrible, now is it? Has he acted a fraction as bad as Brock has or as Clinton did when she ran against Obama in 2008? Hell no. He said recently she was...UNQUALIFIED! The horror, the horror.

[nichomachus]

51. Good thing we don't hold Mrs. Clinton responsible for every remark her supporters use.

She would have to suspend her campaign to spend all her time apologizing for them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Like the Antisemitism on display

At Twitter last night? Ah surrogates

[WDIM]

52. We can debate one word or we can debate the larger idea.

We will never have universal health care as long as politicians are beholden to the private insurance industry.

[kaleckim]

53. Oh wonderful, another fake controversy

from the campaign that can't win on actual issues.

[revbones]

54. So sad Dan. I had hoped for better.

Still flogging a dead horse.

[DesertRat]

62. Many of the Superdelegates are who Song called "DemocraticWhores"

Interesting strategy, Sanders.

[NorthCarolina]

72. I laugh at the obvious desperation in camp Hillary.

There is absolutely NOBODY that truly thinks Hillary was being called a "whore" as opposed to a "Corporate Whore". This is manufactured BS and we all know it.

[senz]

76. Wishful thinking from destructive, envious people.

Sounds like you feel bad about your tainted candidate, so you want to drag the other candidate down.

That's a tactic of desperation and despair, DanTex.

[bjo59]

79. Not surprising at all. Everyone knows that corporate America supports Hillary Clinton.

[oasis]

82. A hint of misogyny has been an undercurrent of Bernie's campaign.

The "whore" comment fueled the crowd, many attendees having a similar mindset.

[athena]

84. Those of us who have experienced sexism recognized it early on in Bernie's campaign.

Women who don't see the misogyny should consider themselves lucky that they haven't been subjected to this stuff so much that it becomes like a familiar tune you can pick up instantly out of lots of background noise.

[oasis]

115. Women in a 21st century western society should never have

to endure these kind of remarks.

[senz]

88. No. That has never happened.

If that canard is all you're got, you've got nothing.

[oasis]

116. Okay, you go with that amidst the shitstorm.

[longship]

83. Try this one out: "Hillary has sold her soul to the devil."

Just look at her fucking donor list and then one only has to choose the proper metaphor for what's going on.

It is like the classic joke about how much one would accept to sleep with a person. Well, I agree that the "corporate whore" comment might be cringeworthy in context of Hillary's female gender.

So let's rephrase that with a non-sexual metaphor.

Hillary Clinton has sold her soul to the devil!
How's that?

Both metaphors are appropriate. I prefer mine because it cannot be twisted as being sexist, and nevertheless remains true.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. From the media whore outfit

Kind of funny actually.

[grasswire]

104. and you are embarrassing yourself

There is nothing you can do to stem the Bernie tide. Nothing. Might as well go smell the roses and enjoy life a little.

[frylock]

105. Sniper fire?

[Kittycat]

106. Oh look outrage!

(Repost from another thread)
You all know good and well having been the long time members of DU that you claim to be, what a Corporate whore is. If you have forgotten, here is the definition entered in to the Urban Dictionary in 2003:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=corporate+whore
One who has sold more than their labor to the corporation; one who has forsaken personal values and constitution for corporate $$; meaning of "whore" belittled when preceded by the word “corporate”; person who will sell their soul for $$.
My efforts are not driven by my passion for work, but by my own gluttony, my addition to money. I have become what I once despised—forsaken myself, sacrificed my values at the corporate alter of greed. I am a corporate whore.
by Syllabus September 28, 2003

And used quite often on DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1727002

(hat tip to Joe the Revelator for this small sampling)

A fun look back at the use of 'Corporate Whore' on DU over the years [View all]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x429981 (Bush)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x471829 (Michelle Bauchman)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3834259 (Huckabee)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x370897 (Obama)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026282102 (Prescott Bush was a NAZI whore. 115 recs)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x778732 (Michelle Ree)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7279334 (Rick Berman)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3989371 (Everybody)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x2014241 (anyone who doesn't support local buisness)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1481831 (Romney)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2072784 (The sierra club)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5393707 (Clinton, Obama, McCain)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x139160 (MSNBC)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1905122 (Jeff Landry)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125142040 (Huffpo)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014863175#post36 (Michelle Bauchman)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511580034#post33 (CNN)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023707036#post55 (Chuck Todd)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014537440 (The entire congress)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1175068&mesg_id=1175149

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5679089&mesg_id=5679933 (Obama)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8613952&mesg_id=8614150 (Rahm)

The list goes literally on and on and on.....

[Sheepshank]

107. Poor, poor Bernie, his supporters and surrogates keep undermining him.

Thefts, lies, harassing delegates, poor optics, pretend unsolicited invites, pretend meetings. OTOH, why isn't Bernie finally locking down the management side of things, finally acting like a leader and telling them all to knock it off? has he lost control of the Hydra he created?

[berniepdx420]

109. More corporate obfuscation ... way to support that Danny Boy.. what do you call this.....

Hillary's Top Donor List


Emily's List $907,510 $898,590 $8,920
Citigroup Inc $891,501 $883,501 $8,000
DLA Piper $852,873 $825,873 $27,000
Goldman Sachs $831,523 $821,523 $10,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $801,380 $798,380 $3,000
Morgan Stanley $765,242 $760,242 $5,000
University of California $686,509 $686,509 $0
Time Warner $603,170 $578,170 $25,000
Skadden, Arps et al $562,182 $557,682 $4,500
Corning Inc $492,750 $474,750 $18,000
Kirkland & Ellis $491,066 $474,066 $17,000
Paul, Weiss et al $430,919 $430,919 $0
Greenberg Traurig LLP $422,195 $414,095 $8,100
Akin, Gump et al $398,898 $395,398 $3,500
Sullivan & Cromwell $395,807 $395,807 $0
National Amusements Inc $386,698 $383,698 $3,000
Harvard University $384,769 $384,769 $0
Ernst & Young $377,082 $357,082 $20,000
21st Century Fox $373,482 $373,482 $0
Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000

[mhatrw]

117. This sort of idiotic manufactured poutrage is all our corporate whore media covers.

OMG!!! Somebody associated with somebody said something that could be construed to be offensive!!!

[reddread]

121. lets get real

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Anita_Hill

[Orsino]

124. Another goddamned "supporters" thread. n/t