Why The Young Turks, and their viewers, love Bernie Sanders (WAPO)

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

“In the old days, TV had a lot of power, but that’s shifting now,” Uygur said in an interview at TYT’s Culver City headquarters, a former bar that’s home to two fully outfitted studios, a shelf of awards and an iguana mascot — Mayaguana — who just showed up one day. “So we’d better figure out how to use that power for the issues we care about, because cable TV is worse than propaganda. It’s marketing for the rich and powerful.”

(snip)

“MSNBC and CNN are horrible,” said Afton Tarin, 30, a photographer who attended the Anaheim rally. “Cenk is really big on making sure he explains what the media is saying, and explains the reality it’s not covering. I’m seeing these events from the same perspective. Nevada’s a good example. MSNBC said we were throwing chairs. I watched every video — nobody threw a chair. And Cenk was honest about that.”

(sniP0

Nearly 3 million people subscribe to TYT’s YouTube channel; for comparison, 1.4 million subscribe to CNN, and 100,000 subscribe to the millennial-focused and consciously hip Fusion. At Sanders’s California rallies, TYT personalities risk being mobbed by fans. On Sunday, as he tried to cover a Sanders speech in Irvine, Jimmy Dore was spotted by dozens of fans who turned and shouted his catchphrase — “Don’t freak out!” So many of them rushed him for photos that the event’s security had to shoo them away.

(snip)

Uygur himself sidestepped the crowd by speaking from the stage. “Do you trust the establishment media?” he asked a booing crowd in Anaheim. “Do you think they’ve treated Bernie Sanders fairly?”

When the boos subsided, he offered a theory of why Sanders couldn’t get fair coverage: “corporate media” and its advertisers.

“This cycle alone, they are going to put $4 billion into political ads,” he said. “You think TV wants to change that? They look at Bernie Sanders and say, ‘Whoa, that guy’s gonna rock the boat.’ We look at Bernie Sanders and say: ‘Damn right he is!’ ”

(snip)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-the-young-turks-and-their-viewers-love-bernie-sanders/2016/05/27/bd15e02e-2386-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html

[Garrett78]

1. Cenk and reality don't belong in the same sentence.

There's a valid leftist critique of the Democratic Party, but the likes of Cenk do a disservice by promoting falsehoods, such as the notion that Sanders had won Super Tuesday and would likely become the nominee.

[Uncle Joe]

2. The corporate media conglomerates only concern with "reality" is in trying to manipulate it.

The primary is still ongoing and Bernie can still win.

[Corporate666]

15. So can O'Malley.

Just because something CAN happen doesn't mean it is likely or even that it's remotely possible it will happen.

My phone CAN ring right now and it CAN be Jennifer Lawrence saying she has a crush on my and is deperate for a date. But if I spent my afternoon daydreaming and convincing myself it CAN happen and staring at my phone, I am only setting myself up for disappointment.

Just like sitting around convincing one's self that Bernie CAN still win is just setting one's self up for disappointment, and wasting one's time on a totally unproductive endeavor.

[Uncle Joe]

18. If the corporate media conglomerates; wanted O'Malley and weren't in the bag for Hillary from

the start, he would have done better.

[Corporate666]

39. The corporate media conglomerates are in the bag for Bernie

from O'Malley's perspective.

[Uncle Joe]

41. If the corporate media conglomerates had been in the bag for Bernie,

1. They wouldn't have blacked out coverage of him on the nightly prime time network news broadcasts for most all of last year, that was just blatant attempts at extending Hillary's name recognition advantage for as long as possible.

2. They wouldn't have included super-delegate commitments to Hillary beginning last summer in their total tallies. She had many if not hundreds lined up before any candidate Bernie or O'Malley announced, before the first debate was held, before the first votes were actually cast.

The corporate media conglomerates were warned not to include super-delegates in their totals but they do it anyway as a means of manipulating, discouraging and/or disillusioning the American People from actually voting for anyone other than Hillary. The corporate media conglomerates have ill served the Republic with this brainwashing propaganda much less the concept of democracy.

3. They wouldn't have knee jerk jumped at the fictitious "throwing chairs/violence crap" while instantly assuming any angry phone calls were indeed threats and were in fact made by Bernie supporters in Nevada without a shred of evidence, not to mention condemning Bernie for not condemning his supporters over this mass media fiction.

The corporate media conglomerates; wouldn't have ignored the fact that Bernie has always condemned violence while never condoning it and this all happening just as Oregon and Kentucky were holding their primaries.

That wasn't good enough for the corporate media conglomerates; they wanted Bernie to wear sack cloth and ashes for sins he didn't commit, it was nothing but a national smear job of which only a couple have come out and admitted that they were in the wrong, this only after Kentucky and Oregon had already voted.

From any perspective the corporate media conglomerates have been in the bag for Hillary long before she even announced.

[Enthusiast]

53. Thank you, Uncle Joe. Very well said.

But you shouldn't have to explain anything so completely obvious.

[randome]

56. So it isn't manipulation when Cenk proclaims Sanders will win Super Tuesday? Really?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Uncle Joe]

57. Cenk clearly lays out where his loyalties lay, unlike most of the corporate media conglomerations

which wear a veneer of neutrality or pretend to be honest brokers in delivering the "news" to the American People.

[randome]

58. But doesn't that put him on par with the likes of Rush Limbaugh?

Just on the opposite side of the spectrum? But I understand, there is no such thing as the Fairness Doctrine any longer and if we need to 'combat' right-wing hate media, it has to be with similar ammo, and Cenk is part of that.

He could use a little more dispassion, imo. That's not a major failing but it makes me take what he says with a grain of salt.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Uncle Joe]

59. Is Rush Limbaugh evil?

[randome]

60. He's prominent in the GOP gallery.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Uncle Joe]

61. That's not a straight answer, is Rush Limbaugh evil?

[randome]

62. Didn't think you were serious.

No, I don't think he's evil, just mean and obnoxious to an unhealthy degree -unhealthy to public discourse.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Uncle Joe]

63. Why do you believe he's unhealthy to public discourse? n/t

[randome]

64. This is becoming an odd sub-thread. I assume you have a point here.

Limbaugh is unhealthy to public discourse because objectivity gives way to emotional and virulent speeches that serve no purpose but to push a single-minded view that his 'side' is always right and everyone else is wrong.

A truly objective personality would be willing to say he/she could be wrong from time to time. Limbaugh seems incapable of saying that except as a means to illustrate his 'objectivity', which he then pats himself on the back for and proceeds to push his original point forward.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Uncle Joe]

65. The point is this, Limbaugh's speech and personal behavior are all about promoting evil.

That doesn't mean he's the most evil person in history, but evil nonetheless.

[cali]

7. Link please to his saying Bernie won super Tuesday

[Garrett78]

8. Sure thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1391090

[cali]

13. So he did not say that Bernie won Super Tuesday.

Why demonstrate that you were dishonest making that claim?

[Garrett78]

16. The title of his article is, "Why Bernie Sanders Won Super Tuesday."

And the article starts out, "Bernie won Super Tuesday! Let me explain why."

It doesn't get any more clear than that.

He went on to write another misleading statement, which is that CO and MN "are much more indicative of the states that are coming in the rest of the primary schedule." Demographically speaking, that was not true.

[TimPlo]

43. Oh you are on type of people that only read headlines.

I never really thought it was true when the editor at paper I use to work at would tell his reporters that people only read headlines. I always thought he was just thinking people where stupid because he was a very brill ant man. But I see he was right that there are some people who are silly enough to only read the headline.

[Garrett78]

50. Nope, I read the whole article. Did you?

I read it and commented on it back when it was first posted. I read it again today.

Cenk says, verbatim, "Sanders won Super Tuesday," and he then goes on to explain why he thinks that. The crux of his argument is that Clinton only won where she was "supposed" to win and that where Sanders won is more indicative of the primaries to follow (if the latter was true, her lead would have disappeared - and not grown - since Super Tuesday). He suggested, as many on DU did at the time, that Clinton can only win southern/"red" states and Super Tuesday marked the beginning of the end of her campaign ("tick tock, tick tock&quot . The Clinton-Red State meme was always bull sh*t, as I pointed out here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511559961. And the suggestion that CO and MN were more representative of the states to follow was also bull sh*t.

So, yes, he said Sanders won Super Tuesday and backed up his claim with faulty (to put it mildly) reasoning. The same sort of fantastical thinking that I wrote about here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512067838.

People who say Cenk was referring to the "media cycle" are full of crap. Cenk didn't write a thing about the media in that piece. He was essentially writing about demographics (that whole nonsensical Clinton-Dixie meme).

So, I ask again, did *you* read his article?

Please tell me you didn't write for that paper you mentioned. If so, you certainly kept your editor busy.

"Oh you are on type of people that only read headlines.

I never really thought it was true when the editor at paper I use to work at would tell his reporters that people only read headlines. I always thought he was just thinking people where stupid because he was a very brill ant man. But I see he was right that there are some people who are silly enough to only read the headline."

Wow.

[riderinthestorm]

19. Well that's a lie. Did you read what you posted? It's @ winning the media cycle nt

[Garrett78]

24. First lines of the article: "Bernie won Super Tuesday! Let me explain why."

The title of the article is, "Why Bernie Sanders Won Super Tuesday."

Another falsehood from the article was his line about CO and MN being "much more indicative of the states that are coming in the rest of the primary schedule."

[riderinthestorm]

26. Ok, so you didn't read it. Shrug. That's on you. Its @ the media cycle and momentum

I can't make you read the article but at least everyone can see you clearly now.



Carry on.

[Garrett78]

34. Yeah, I read it back when it was first posted and again today. Did you read it?

I also commented on it back when it was first posted. Cenk says, verbatim, "Sanders won Super Tuesday" and he goes on to explain why he thinks that. The crux of his argument is that Clinton only won where she was "supposed" to win and that where Sanders won is more indicative of the primaries to follow (if the latter was true, she wouldn't have grown her lead since Super Tuesday). The Clinton-Red State meme was always bull sh*t, as I pointed out here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511559961. And the suggestion that CO and MN were more representative of the states to follow was also deeply flawed.

So, yes, he said Sanders won Super Tuesday and backed up his claim with faulty (to put it mildly) reasoning. The same sort of fantastical thinking that I wrote about here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512067838.

[RAFisher]

14. How can an opinion be false?

Cenk never said Sanders won more delegates or more votes on Super Tuesday. He was referring to 'winning' the media cycle. Sanders get more press and that would translate into more votes. He seemed pretty realistic and level headed. He's not a 'Bernie or Bust' and said he's voting for Clinton over Trump. Jimmy Dore however is extremely unrealistic.

[Garrett78]

37. There's nothing in his article about media. Nice try.

Cenk was arguing that Sanders won Super Tuesday based on the notion that Clinton merely won where she was expected to win and Sanders did well in states that are more indicative of the states yet to come. It was part of a phony Clinton-Dixie meme, which he used to argue that Clinton was at the beginning of the end of her campaign (tick tock, tick tock). One doesn't need hindsight to know that was ridiculous, as evidence by comments I and others made back when Cenk's article was first posted. If Cenk had been even remotely right, Clinton's lead would have disappeared, not gotten larger.

[Snotcicles]

42. -1.nt

[Fast Walker 52]

55. do any of our media really promote reality?

The Young Turks do a great job showing the bias and corruption in the establishment media.

[Garrett78]

66. There's no doubt US media is lacking, to put it mildly.

It's mostly infotainment. Cenk is really no different. He's an entertainer first and foremost.

There's a valid leftist critique of the Democratic Party and plenty of reason to be upset with the US political system, but the likes of Cenk do a disservice by promoting blatant falsehoods.

[Trust Buster]

3. And to think I thought that Sanders' appeal was the $18 trillion in new entitlements that he

promised knowing all along the he couldn't deliver. Silly me.

[mmonk]

4. Republican talking point.

[Trust Buster]

10. No, it's a fact. All those college students don't flock to his rallies because they don't think that

there is a financial incentive in it for them. It's naive to think otherwise.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Apparently 170 economists agree with Bernie's economics.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html

[Octafish]

38. Including James K. Galbraith and William K. Black.

Thank you for the heads-up and your traditional outstanding OP and thread, Uncle Joe.

Rasta!

[Uncle Joe]

40. Thank you, Octafish.

[cali]

9. That is bullshit. He didn't promise it.

And he's starting off from a place that is both aspirational and doesn't begin from compromise.

Bernie is actually very pragmatic, which you would know if you knew his record as mayor of Burlington.

[Trust Buster]

12. College students want immediate debt relief. Younger people think in shorter time frames.

That's human nature and that is Sanders' appeal IMO.

[oldandhappy]

5. MSM is pollution

[msongs]

11. TYT is like a remora and bernie is like the shark. nt

[geek tragedy]

17. Nobody has spent more money on corporate media advertising than Sanders

He made a conscious choice to spend money on tee-vee ads rather than on training his activists to become organizers

[Uncle Joe]

20. Not if you count Hillary's super pacs and their unlimited spending which is what the

corporate media conglomerates want to protect at all cost.

[geek tragedy]

27. Yes, if you count SuperPacs Sanders has still outspent Clinton, and everyone else

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/478384978/on-ads-sanders-has-spent-most-but-trump-has-spent-best

Bernie Sanders has spent more on TV ads than any other candidate in the election, and without the aid of mammoth superPACs.

http://apps.npr.org/dailygraphics/graphics/ad-spending-20160517/child.html?initialWidth=764&childId=responsive-embed-ad-spending-20160517&parentUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2016%2F05%2F19%2F478384978%2Fon-ads-sanders-has-spent-most-but-trump-has-spent-best

A cynical person would note that maybe it's not a coincidence that Tad Devine gets a 10% cut of every single dollar the Sanders campaign spends on advertising.

[Uncle Joe]

30. A cynical person might ignore the fact that Hillary had universal name recognition from the start,

Bernie was vastly unknown by comparison.

This was a major reason the corporate media conglomerates blacked out coverage of Bernie for most all of last year on the prime time nightly network news broadcasts, if Bernie wanted to get his name out he had to pay for it.

This is also a major reason that Schultz cynically limited, scheduled and sanctioned just a hand full of debates for times when they would least likely be viewed.

They only added a few more as Bernie became competitive in Iowa and started leading in New Hampshire.

[geek tragedy]

32. DWS is a clown and should be fired.

Though, in fairness, Democratic debates were boring while Martin "Third Wheel" O'Malley was still there, so those watching probably didn't miss very much.

[Uncle Joe]

35. I totally agree with your first sentence but I believe the second sentence is a symptom

of long term corporate media conglomerate propaganda.

They have consciously tried to turn politics into a reality T.V. no wonder Trump excels under those conditions.

The corporate media conglomerates would much rather focus on the "horse race" or titillation versus policies and substance because the former can easily be shaped or manipulated by them whereas they have inherent conflicts of interest in regards to the latter which do not mesh with the best interests of the American People.

[pdsimdars]

21. The reason I started paying attention was that he always got to the heart of an issue

It was kind of miraculous. . .and that was over a decade ago.

[Uncle Joe]

23. TYT is my favorite news program although I do view CNN basically because of Sun Tzu's lessons.

[TwilightZone]

22. I love how an organization that took $4m from a 2012 Republican presidential candidate...

is the go-to for many for "news".

Sure, why not.


Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/04/buddy-roemer-firm-invests-4-million-in-young-turks-network-186934

[Uncle Joe]

25. Sometimes disparate political opponents can find common ground, this has been the case

throughout history.

The investment of $4 million, with an option to go up to $8 million, came out of a conversation Roemer and The Young Turks Network founder Cenk Uygur had backstage before speaking at a conference about money in politics last year. The relationship between the conservative Louisiana politician and the founder of the progressive media outlet stemmed from both making the removal of money’s influence on politics their signature issues.

“One thing led to another, and it turns out we’re terrific partners for one another and that’s how it came about,” Uygur, who also has a PAC devoted to campaign finance reform, said in an interview.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/04/buddy-roemer-firm-invests-4-million-in-young-turks-network-186934

[TwilightZone]

28. For a group of people who assume that every dollar spent has only one intent - influence...

I find it amusing that the same standards don't apply here.

Roemer is *still* a Republican, and he's a conservative. Always has been. If we're to assume that money paid by Goldman Sachs to Clinton has only one purpose - quid pro quo, then shouldn't conservative influence be an issue when it's TYT?

Or does it suddenly not matter because, well, Bernie?

If he'd thrown $4m into Media Matters, the roof would be blowing off of this place.

[Uncle Joe]

33. Have you ever seen TYT promote Republicans or conservatives for office?

I have not.

Campaign finance reform is a universal concern and the dominating role that money has come to play in politics has rang alarm bells with people of both major political parties.

[NurseJackie]

29. They're dreadful.

[floriduck]

31. Thanks Uncle Joe. Been a TYT listener since about 2007.

[Uncle Joe]

36. Thank you, floriduck.

Peace to you.

[BzaDem]

44. While I am happy that HRC will be the nominee, a Bernie win would have been a teachable moment.

Ultimately, the subset of his supporters that are "Bernie or Bust" likely would have become just as disenchanted with him as they became with Obama, since it will become clear pretty quickly that he can't really accomplish much of what he is claiming he will accomplish.

Of course, for Obama, they just started blaming him (rather than re-evaluating their own premises). Perhaps they would have done the same for Sanders. But one has to hope that eventually, they would be more willing to take an objective, clear-eyed look at how progress is made in our political system.

[Uncle Joe]

46. Hillary hasn't won yet and Bernie can get much more accomplished than Hillary would be able to do.

I don't believe anybody expects Bernie to get all his proposals passed 100% but he is aiming much higher than Hillary and he knows how to energize the people.

The thing about Bernie is, the people know he will try.

[BzaDem]

48. Let's imagine hypothetically that he can't get any more accomplished than Hillary would.

Whether or not you agree with it, let's just assume so for the sake of argument.

At that point, what's the problem with Hillary saying "I knew X wasn't possible, so I'm going to devote my time to Y, which is possible?"

In other words, if someone knows (with very high certainty) in advance that something is impossible, what's the problem with focusing on what can happen?

Ultimately, the question of what is possible is a factual question, and a hypothesis of what is possible can in fact be falsified. (In my opinion, the impossibility of most of Bernie's proposals is so obvious as to not be worth discussing much, and frankly it isn't debated much among most people who study political science and history. But I acknowledge it is a factual question, and I may be proven wrong. If so, no one would be happier than me. It sometimes seems that Bernie supporters don't even acknowledge that their hypothesis could be falsified.)

[Uncle Joe]

49. Okay to begin with if Bernie were to become President and upset the prohibitively favored Hillary

and the vastly over hyped Trump that would represent a major sea change in American Politics.

1. By upsetting a heavily favored establishment Democratic candidate, Bernie's progressive mandate would become crystal clear to the Democratic Party and those members in both houses of Congress that wished to see their political careers extended would see the writing on the wall.

The Democrats in Congress would be compelled to actually represent the best interests of the American People as a whole versus just that of their wealthy benefactors and mega-corporations funding their next elections. Bernie's victory would blaze a new path for them.

2. By triumphing over the anti-establishment, divisiveness of Trump, Bernie's message of inclusiveness would also carry extra weight.

Bernie sets the bar high but from his long years in the Congress he knows how to negotiate from a position of strength and has shown the ability to work with the other side to get critical policies passed which in turn benefit the people.

As for what's possible and impossible, in many cases that depends on the person trying to achieve it and the environment such actions are attempted.

History is rampant with examples of people achieving what many others said was "impossible."

[BzaDem]

52. Having a "mandate" means very little.

People said the same thing about Obama. The very same thing. He then proceeded to win what in the modern era was basically a near-landslide victory. On top of that, the Democratic party won large majorities in both houses of Congress.

To be clear, I believe Obama and the Democrats used those majorities to pass monumental legislation that will have an impact for decades. But if you listen to the very people who are most critical of HRC, Obama and the Democrats were massive sellouts that passed corporate-friendly legislation, which supposedly either didn't help the situation or actively made things worse.

So now, you are saying that this will all be different with Bernie, because... he's Bernie! And he defeated HRC in the primary! Democrats and Republicans will be quaking in their boots! There's someone else who also defeated HRC in a primary, and that is the very president who those most critical of HRC call a sellout.

So let's look at the actual constraining factors on policy during the Obama presidency. Republicans made clear from day one that they didn't care at all about Obama's mandate. They were not going to vote for any piece of legislation that Obama proposed. Not only were they going to oppose Obama, but they were going to gain electorally by doing so. Why? Because their constituents by and large didn't vote for Obama. What about Democratic legislators? The vast majority of Democratic legislators wanted more progressive legislation to pass than eventually passed. The remaining Democratic legislators came from conservative areas, where many voters did not vote for Obama or had only lukewarm support for Obama (and quickly turned against Obama after the first few months).

Unfortunately, these "remaining Democratic legislators" were numerically required to achieve a majority (given that all Republicans didn't care at all about Obama's mandate). In politics, there is no trophy for getting really really close. You either get the same bill to pass out of both houses (and signed by the President), or you get nothing. The path to victory runs through people who have every electoral incentive to not care about Obama's victory, whose support was already underwater once much of his legislation made it to the floor.

Given such circumstances, Obama won astounding policy victories. Many Democratic legislators (who previously ran as conservatives, to win in conservative areas) knowingly gave up their careers to achieve those policy victories. Yet all we hear about from the people who bash HRC is that Obama and these legislators are corporate stooges/sellouts/etc.

What can we learn from this? The main lesson is that having a mandate barely matters at all (though that was obvious to political science types long before Obama was elected). A mandate does not help sway legislators whose constituents did not contribute to the mandate, or were lukewarm about the candidate they voted for in the first place. And those are exactly the legislators required to achieve policy victories. This is not that surprising (or at least shouldn't be). In a democracy, you aren't going to be able to cause radical change in a country that is closely divided ideologically. This is doubly true in the American political system, where there are significantly more veto points (and therefore status-quo bias) than in most other political systems. No amount of Bernie magic is going to change that.

The main constraint on policy is the raw numerical balance between the parties. The more Democrats that exist in Congress, the more likely the median legislator will have progressive views. Yet the Bernie-or-Bust types learn precisely the opposite lesson. They want to increase the chances of Trump's election, with a result being a Republican supreme court that will be throwing out progressive legislation for a generation or more. That is not an example of sane behavior.

[Uncle Joe]

54. Candidate Obama never ran on a crystal clear cut mandate in the fashion that Bernie is.

In regards to health care reform Obama used qualifiers and wiggle room, anybody paying attention knows exactly where Bernie stands on this major issue.

Obama statements on single-payer have changed a bit

(snip)

In other statements, Obama has spoken favorably of single-payer in concept, but always adding qualifiers.

In February 2004, about a month before the primary election in the U.S. Senate race, the Associated Press reported the stance of all the candidates on universal health care. "Obama says he supports the idea of universal health care but does not think a single-payer government system is feasible. He says the government should be the health care provider of last resort for the uninsured." In a rundown of all the candidates' positions, the Associated Press summarized Obama's position as "Support, but 'probably not at this stage,' a single-payer government system."

In his book The Audacity of Hope , published in October 2006 when he was a U.S. senator, Obama described single-payer as the hope of the left, while those on the right wanted a market-based approach. "It's time we broke this impasse by acknowledging a few simple truths," Obama wrote, suggesting a system much like the one he supports today.

In April 2007, a few months after he declared his candidacy for presidency, the Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama has pledged that, if elected, all Americans would have health-care coverage by the end of his first term. He has said he is reluctant to switch to a 'single-payer' national health insurance system because of the difficulty in making a quick transition from the employer-based private system."

At his town halls as president, he routinely answers questions about single-payer by saying he would favor it if he were starting a system "from scratch." But he consistently adds that's not the goal of the current reform. "For us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive, and my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free-market system," Obama said in Annandale, Va., on July 1, 2009.

(snip)


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/16/barack-obama/obama-statements-single-payer-have-changed-bit/

Obama's 2008 victory gave momentum for the Democrats to win the Congress, it was primarily a historical victory due to his race and "it was a win for the team" but there wasn't such a clear cut delineation on the actual mandate as is the case for Bernie, health care reform meant different things to different people.

On the other hand, a Bernie victory under such unambiguous circumstances as he is running would not only send a clear message of direction but the energy from such a win would increase the number of progressive Democrats winning at all levels of government including the Congress.

[Todays_Illusion]

45. I read this as the Washington Post dismissing TYT as rock stars to their viewers and readers.

[Uncle Joe]

47. There is that element but I view the article as more balanced.

[enid602]

51. maverick

If traditional and cable media are so corrupt, then why did the Sanders Campaign pay Maverick Strategies of Arlington, Va $1.3 MILLION this year. That's a lot of scratch to a $250k/yr company with 4 employees. Maverick's principal is Kristian Denny Todd, and she also happens to be Chuck Todd's wife. Pops sure haz you all fooled.