O'Malley swipes at Sanders in Iowa

[sufrommich]

"I don't think it's a problem for the Democratic Party, but it might be a problem long-term for Sen. Sanders," O'Malley said when asked whether Sanders's self-declared socialism would be a problem.

Asked what he meant, O'Malley took another dig at the Vermont senator, suggesting that Sanders joined the Democratic Party just to run for president.

"I am a lifelong Democrat and I believe very deeply in the principles of our party. I believe very deeply in what Franklin Roosevelt was about, what John Kennedy was about, and that's why I choose to be a Democrat, not just in presidential years, but all the years of my life," O'Malley said.

The barbs come as Sanders is gaining momentum in the polls, coming out on top of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the first time in a poll of New Hampshire Democrats.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/politics/martin-omalley-bernie-sanders-iowa/index.html

[restorefreedom]

1. DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM

let's all say it together......

cripes on a cracker. did anyone pay attention in civics class?

on, wait, this is cnn. we know their drill....

[DonViejo]

2. Best save your frustration for if and when Sen Sanders wins the Democratic nomination....

Governor O'Malley's comments will fade into insignificance when compared to what the GOP will be saying.

[restorefreedom]

3. wise words. i actually like om a lot

disappointed that he is jumping on the socialist bandwagon.

on edit: looks like om is focusing on his lifelong democraticness

the big boo goes to cnn for sowing seeds of division in the dems and for fostering the false socialist bullshit.

[FSogol]

6. Sanders calls himself a socialist. Why does it matter if CNN or O'Malley calls him one?

Here's an article by Sanders on his .gov page where he refers to himself as a Socialist 4-5
times. Not once does he call himself a Democratic Socialist. Stop trying to have it both ways. If he calls himself a socialist, it is wrong to fret when someone else does?


http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/sanders-socialist-successes

[elleng]

8. Thanks, FS;

with you.

[restorefreedom]

9. at this point in the discussion,

and with Bernie's rising poll numbers, this distinction is going to become very important. There are still some people who believe the word socialist means the old-style communism that has been largely defeated around the world. That is not what Bernie's about at all. There are different types of socialism, and it's very important people understand the difference and what he stands for. his Democratic opponents and their surrogates have already tried to use this as a slam against him, and there's no question the GOP will if he's the nominee. we have to get the right info out now.

[FSogol]

14. Perhaps, but quibbling over "Democratic Socialist" vs "Socialist" isn't a winner

since Sanders himself used socialist much more than the term Dem Socialist. AAR, it is pointless because whoever gets the Democratic nomination will be called a socialist and much worse names by the GOP. There are just as many people who think that "Democrat" means the old-style communism too.

[restorefreedom]

17. so it will ultimately come down to issues

the kitchen table issues, as some like to say.

good. cuz all the dems have plans and the repubs have a whole lotta nuthin except more tax cuts for the rich.

and war.

[John Poet]

24. Socialism is as socialism does.

Last edited Thu Aug 13, 2015, 09:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Bernie's stands on most major issues have the support of majorities of the voters.

So when the "socialist" label gets thrown, we should talk issues... and perhaps point out that the Republican party *determined* long, long ago that social security, medicare, Medicaid and food stamps were socialist programs....

[daleanime]

29. +1

[FloridaBlues]

12. Well said!

[cali]

19. it really doesn't matter

[FSogol]

4. I'm curious. Why didn't you post O'Malley's "swipe" on HRC?

[sufrommich]

13. Because I've been saying since the day that Sanders announced

that him being a self identified democratic socialist and an independent running in the democratic primary was going to limit his appeal and I still very much believe that.Clinton doesn't have to mention that,O'Malley does and he's not stupid.

[cali]

20. you should be thankful. thankful that he isn't running as an independent. thanfful

that he won't play spoiler no matter what, thankful that however much he's baited he doesn't attack your candidate, indeed he defends her.

[sufrommich]

25. It's not a question of being thankful or unthankful.

Sanders doesn't need to attack Clinton,she's being attacked daily without his help,it's classy that he doesn't and I've stated that. I believe I've told you in a post when Sanders first announced that I didn't think he had a chance for the very reasons I've expressed,I still strongly believe that. I don't say Hillary has the nomination wrapped up,she doesn't,but frankly,if there's a sucsessful dark horse in this campaign,I think it's going to be O'Malley.Sanders is too smart to run as an independent,he doesn't want to be held responsible for helping elect a republican,and that makes sense,the problem is,is that his only alternative is to run in a party he doesn't belong to and there aren't enough democratic primary voters who are going to accept that.I've stated that from the beginning.

[cali]

27. you should be thankful. he could cause havoc for Hillary.

she'll almost certainly be the candidate, and he'll urge his minions of avid supporters to back her. And please don't pretend you ever thought he'd be as successful as he's been

[madokie]

45. Be careful there

you'll get those hurdles up so high that even you can't make it over them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Without getting into this internecine swearing match...

Without getting into this internecine swearing match DemocratSinceBirth heartily endorses this sentiment:

"I am a lifelong Democrat and I believe very deeply in the principles of our party. I believe very deeply in what Franklin Roosevelt was about, what John Kennedy was about, and that's why I choose to be a Democrat, not just in presidential years, but all the years of my life."

[FSogol]

7. Same here. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

37. The thing is, you and Marty are not even mentioning Chafee and Webb, both long term Republican

officials who are now converted to 'Democratic' candidates. Webb was part of the Reagan administration, but you are Martin are fine with that. Chafee was a Republican until very recently, heir to a fortune and a chain of great Republican political power. Marty does not give that a moment's time, all his snark is saved for the founder of the Progressive Caucus. Jesus, even Liz Warren was a Republican when Bernie started caucusing with progressive Democrats. But of course, years of devotion to Reagan/Bush are of no concern compared to that socialist caucusing with Maxine Waters and that lot.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. As I said I'm trying to avoid this internecine swearing match...

Last edited Sat Aug 15, 2015, 10:02 AM - Edit history (1)

As I said I'm trying to avoid this internecine swearing match . That being said I am decidedly not a fan of the former Republican senator from Rhode Island and the former Republican senator from Virginia.

If I put on my pundit's hat on I would say Governor O'Malley isn't mentioning them because they aren't a threat.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Maybe. But maybe it's professional courtesty or about their mutual faith. I don't know Marty.

Don't know him well, so when he goes after the progressive while giving a pass to right wing bigots I am not impressed with that choice.
Maybe it is because Marty has never been in Congress that he has no idea about the backgrounds of these guys?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. He knows they are both former GOP.

He knows they are both former GOP. IMHO, he is ignoring them because they aren't a threat.

[delrem]

10. That's fair game.

Nothing comparable to the 2 months of attacks suggesting Sanders and supporters are racists, that Sanders' economic message is irrelevant, that there's no connection between economic and social issues, and that Bernie Sanders' history is irrelevant and that mention of it is paternalistic and condescending. That's OTT stuff, purely slanderous swift-boating stuff and not "debate", in my opinion.

But O'Malley's commentary was perfectly fair.

I look forward to the debate between O'Malley and Sanders. They're both honest. Neither tries to hide their history -- in fact both are running on their histories. That's as it should be and both have much to be proud of. Sanders isn't running from the fact that he's a Democratic Socialist (which means embracing policies re. eg universal healthcare, education,... somewhat similar to democratic socialist policies that have been enacted and work in countries like Canada, England, and the Scandinavian countries). In comparison, try to pin a Hillary Clinton supporter on what "third way" and "dlc" mean and the denials and evasions are bloody well hilarious. So I look forward to a debate between O'Malley and Sanders because neither has a "believability" problem, a "trust" problem. What I want to hear in the debate is how each would tackle the same recognizable problems, how their approaches differ? I want to learn about how integrated their plans are (eg. in the extreme case, do either of them believe that economic justice is separable from social justice, eg racial justice? Because if anyone thinks *that* then they're crossed off my list of serious thinkers.) O'Malley and Sanders agree on the existence of a whole range of problems and - once again - I look forward to the debates because I think both will speak in depth and with substance.

So I also agree with O'Malley regarding the fundamental unfairness and anti-democratic (small 'd') tone of the DNC/DLC program to severely limit debate, and forbid debate outside their well-controlled bubble.

[FSogol]

16. +1, Well said. n/t

[uponit7771]

44. From OMalley or a relative few blacks? tia

[AtomicKitten]

11. He's running in the Dem primary so as not to be a spoiler.

[restorefreedom]

18. exactly. hate that term.

it suggests that some in the party are more deserving of the nomination than others, and that the others are the spoilers. It's blatantly biased.

[frylock]

15. gooble gobble

[azmom]

21. Whatever Bernie Sanders is, that's what

I am too. I took the who do you side with and got a 98%.

[DesertFlower]

22. i'm a bernie supporter, but i do worry

about the word socialism. i understand democratic socialism, but many people don't. that's how i identify myself on my facebook page. one friend said "can't you just call yourself a liberal democrat".

to be honest most people don't even understand politics. i asked my hairdresser if she knew what "citizens united" is and she didn't. my close friend is an independent. he doesn't understand why i will only vote for dems. i tried to explain that it has to do with democratic values and mentioned appointees to the supreme court. i don't think he understood what i meant.

i've known people who vote for a candidate because they think he or she is a nice person.

[delrem]

28. I find it easier to worry about the word 'liberal'.

For example, how is a "neo-liberal" distinguished from a "neo-conservative"?

Def of one: relating to a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.
Def of the other: relating to or denoting a return to a modified form of a traditional viewpoint, in particular a political ideology characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy.

So the only difference is one definition adds "interventionist".
However, a quick study proves that military interventionism is necessary to provide the ground for an unqualified free-market capitalism, since people the world over will always unite to oppose unrestrained predation. So there's no difference whatever between a neocon and a neolib, with respect to economic and military policy. The orientation, the center, is always the same.

When I talk to someone who says that they're "liberal" I always wonder what that means, and I'm a lot more doubtful than when someone says that they're "democratic socialist". The democratic socialist can always easily explain the meaning -- tho' it's always easier when not discussing politics with someone who believes that "socialists" are akin to Stalin, or Hitler or Mao, and want to steal your dog to give to the commune.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

31. in time people will realize that they have socialism already

but the GOP wants to take it away. Medicare, the fire department, public libraries etc.

[cali]

23. I think it's understandable that he's lashing out and trying to marginalize Bernie, calling

him a protest candidate and calling him angry. he comes off as frustrated and he almost surely is. He's gone nowhere in any poll that I know of and he's struggling raising money.

I think he comes off a bit petty here, but I can see why he feels bitter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slogging-through-iowa-omalley-insists-he-is-still-in-the-game/2015/08/13/507e1570-41ce-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html

[Picking Dem]

32. And O'M is lashing out to the wrong candidate

[Jim Lane]

33. I don't see this as lashing out

The Clinton people really tick me off when they treat any criticism of Clinton as "Hillary hating" or "Clinton bashing" or right-wing trolling. She's in a competitive race and Sanders is allowed to criticize her.

Well, the same applies to Sanders. He has to expect legitimate criticism.

In this instance, O'Malley was asked a question and gave a reasonable answer:

"I don't think it's a problem for the Democratic Party, but it might be a problem long-term for Sen. Sanders," O'Malley said when asked whether Sanders's self-declared socialism would be a problem.

When he was asked what he meant, he stressed that he was a lifelong Democrat. Sanders isn't. Is that, in fact, a possible problem for Sanders? Absolutely it is -- plenty of posts just on DU have criticized him over his party affiliation.

O'Malley would have been petty or bitter if he said that the "socialist" thing was a problem for the party, but he expressly disclaimed that view.

[cali]

35. I think it is. I think this comment is undeniably lashing ou

"if I had gotten in in January, if I had gotten in the day after I got out of being governor, I still wouldn’t be a socialist,” O’Malley said, referring to Sanders. “I wouldn’t be calling for a political

[Jim Lane]

41. The context is that he's answering second-guessing about his own timing.

You cut off in mid-sentence, evidently a posting error of the type that I myself never make (and if you believe that....).

I found the quotation in this WaPo article, where the passage is:

Lagging in the polls and struggling to raise money, the former Maryland governor insists he doesn’t regret waiting until late spring to launch his candidacy — after Sanders’s crowds had started to swell and Clinton had survived initial criticism over her private e-mail account and her family’s foundation.

“If I had gotten in in January, if I had gotten in the day after I got out of being governor, I still wouldn’t be a socialist,” O’Malley said, referring to Sanders. “I wouldn’t be calling for a political revolution. And he’s able to do that, which makes him more attractive to some who believe the establishment isn’t listening and a message needs to be sent right now.”

He's giving a candid evaluation of Sanders's strengths in competing for the left-of-Clinton vote. He's also pointing out that Sanders would still have those strengths even if he didn't have whatever additional advantage there was in declaring his candidacy before O'Malley did.

O'Malley and Sanders are very close in their policy positions. The main difference between them isn't policy, but their personal characteristics. O'Malley is more in the conventional mode of people who are considered serious contenders for the Presidency. He's been a Governor (as have four of the last six Presidents), he's in the age range we usually elect, and, in the point at issue here, he's always been elected on a major-party ticket. As a result, O'Malley's strength is that he's more conventional, but Sanders's strength, as O'Malley points out, is precisely that he's less conventional. If you want change, as so many of us do, Sanders more obviously represents change.

O'Malley correctly identifies these differences as being more important than the minor difference of when each man entered the race.

[Blue_In_AK]

26. the D is only a letter.

What does it matter whether we call Bernie Sanders a Democrat or a Democratic Socialist or a Socialist? The Democrats have always been happy for his vote, so they shouldn't diss him now.

[slipslidingaway]

30. +100 "The Democrats have always been happy for his vote ..." n/t

[jfern]

34. It's really a non issue

Sanders has caucused with Congressional Democrats for 24 years. For both his Senate elections, he won the Democratic primary (but declined it). Vermont doesn't have party registration.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. O'Malley, standing with actual Republican cross overs Chafee and Webb, takes issue wiht Bernie's

Democratic roots? That seems odd. Chafee was a Republican until about 20 minutes ago, very rich and from a Republican power family, got his seat left to him by Daddy. Webb was an actual official in the horrifically right wing Ronald Reagan administration. O'Malley is fine with that, no mention of the actual Republicans he seems to now consider to be great Democrats?

That seems odd to me. His issue is with the founder of the Progressive Caucus, not the guy who was employed by the most viciously bigoted administration of modern times. Webb helped preside over the years of inaction toward AIDS. His presence on that stage is a disgrace.

[Jim Lane]

43. O'Malley answered the question he was asked, about that "Socialist" label

Right now, the media are almost completely ignoring Chafee and Webb. If either of them rises in the polls, then I expect there'll be questions asked about their Republican pasts, just as Trump has been asked about his donations to Hillary Clinton.

Also, O'Malley didn't say he had an issue with Sanders. He expressly declined to join the chorus of those who say Sanders has no place in the Democratic primary. He merely took note of the undeniable fact that it's a concern some Democrats have.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. I'm voting for the Socialist part of Democratic Socialist.