Even though Bernie is an indy, it would be a very old school, traditional Democratic ticket.

There is no one in the Senate who are as liberal and loud as them. Relegating themselves to a position where they can only sign or veto legislation would be really stupid and counter to our interests.

You are definitely right.

You are so right. We really need both in the Senate.

Not likely that Sanders or Warren will be able to hoodwink the Republicans like Bush did the Dems and be any more effective than Obama. That's not to say that Obama/Clinton and Warren/Sanders represent the same interests, but as POTUS, they'll be equally ineffective.

Hmmm...

Sanders goes for the WH.

anymore than all the other lefties did. What a waste of money and time for him to run. Would be like the Rethugs running Santorum...not a chance.

I just hope he stays out there and preaches his views in hopes he can make some undecideds decided.

but sorry ---no Clinton love, money or time coming from me.
She's a waste of my time and my money.

Sorry, but she has nothing to preach. Nothing.

I'm sorry, but I will not vote for Clinton. She's a waste of time and money as far as moving ahead goes.
I'm notsettling for 'not the republican' any more. I don't give a crap about 'woman!1' either. I want what is best, and she isn't it.

She will not get a dime from me, nor will I work for her, nor will I vote for her.

But don't cry when we have another Conservative SCJ and women loose all their rights and Row vs. Wade is overturned and the Social saftey net is demolished.

As I said, I just love Sanders and Warren but Sanders is too far left to win a GENERAL election and Warren can do the most good for our country right where she is. We NEED them both in the Senate.

Something to consider is we don't know what Hillary's platform will be. We're all just speculating. Also I just had a scary thought. If Warren were to run and win...MA could vote in a ReThug Senator like when they elected Scott Brown. I hope they learned their lesson but who knows.

We don't NEED Clinton as a damn president.

There are more issues other than Roe V.Wade.

If dumbasses can't handle a more progressive platform, then oh well. Ol' girl Clinton ain't the be all and end all of everything. She sure as hell isn't who I want for president.

Too far left is a right wing myth. Look at the polls issue by issue. Bernie, dead center.

Re "She will not get a dime from me, nor will I work for her, nor will I vote for her."

From what he has said previously, I don't think he'd consider running if he didn't believe he had a fair shot at actually winning. I have already decided I will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton or any other corporate Democrat in 2016. No way, no how, not under any circumstances. Barack Obama's Trojan horse candidacy in 2008 cured me of that "lesser of two evils" bullshit permanently. I voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and haven't regretted it for one minute.

both will be in the Senate.

We need them in the White House, too.

It's a bit of a conundrum.

and I don't care what political party he represents (and no, he's not going to run as a Republican or Libertarian). The question is, if he runs, will he continue to be an independent? If so, we won't be able to discuss his candidacy here on DU which is pretty ironic when you think about it.

Even former Republicans running AS an "Independent" and EVEN WHEN THEY'RE RUNNING AGAINST A DEMOCRAT. We'll just have to see what the admin decides.

It would be nice if they would throw it open to a vote. I think that Bernie would win if they did.

I think the role and soul of DU is pretty clearly expressed in the TOS.

I think we all know this which is why, in my original post, I mentioned the irony of it. If/When the corporate-friendly Hilary is the "Democratic" nominee, the real progressive, Bernie Sanders, assuming he's running as an independent, can't even be discussed on DU. I'm sure you find nothing wrong with that but those of us who count ourselves as progressives can certainly see the irony in the situation.

matter, that's a short-sighted election strategy for the progressive cause.

of multi-tasking, i.e., currently, actively working for 2014 candidates while looking toward 2016. The beauty of it, of course, is that it serves as both a short-sighted and long-sighted strategy simultaneously.

but I have yet to hear from the candidate as to what she represents other than she's not a Republican. So, as soon as she is ready to put out some sort of position paper and if I find she represents at least some progressive policies I'm ready to support her with feet on the ground.

In return I get 3-4 e-mails a week wanting money (which I sent once). Additionally, she sent my e-mail address, unauthorized, to the DCCC in which I now get 8-10 e-mails a week wanting money. Three times I've sent a professional, respectful letter to her campaign asking her for position papers. All have been met with requests for money.

I see a candidate/volunteer relationship as being mutually beneficial. She provides me with reasons I should support her campaign and I, in turn, and if I feel I can support her, will be there with my volunteer hours and a little money (what I can afford to give). So far it's been a little one sided so, at the moment, we're at a stand off.

Unfortunately.

I don't understand your response.

I don't see why we couldn't discuss his candidacy here. Articles about him has been posted and discussed here before.

for president that I feel I can support - it's all good. As of now, there isn't.

The current "top" candidates - and by top I mean most viable, definitely not most desirable - are corporate Dems, such as Clinton, who are for big business, free trade and war.

Clinton hardly represents what the working people of this country really need, especially when compared to Sanders.

So do we support Republican lite values with the label of "Democrat" or do we support true Democratic Party values with a different label? Support the veneer or the substance?

I support true Democratic Party values. I want real and authentic Democratic policy enacted.

"real" Democratic values. I await the thread in ATA.

I'm not the one who brought up the subject and didn't complain, I'm discussing. Isn't that what DU is for?

is not. A 'discussion' would involve getting my views on that matter.

to be snide and combative instead. Why?

You are free to add to the discussion at any time. Just as you were free to do so after my first post. I'm really quite baffled by your responses so far.

assumption that precludes discussion on what is desirable. As for the TOS, I think it's appropriate to debate the TOS with the people who made it.

I know you're not stupid.

I posted my opinion. I even asked questions in my post. That's how discussions work on message boards. You are free to post your opinion and answer/ask questions if you like. You are free to ignore my post. You are free to act as you are now and attempt to pick a fight if you like.

But you are absolutely wrong in your criticism/assessment of me and I really don't know what your purpose in doing so is.

So I ask you again, why are you being so combative? You seem to want a fight. I don't get it.

I would want to know who will be in his Cabinet?Who will have his ear??

It wouldl be one of the few times I actually got to vote for someone and not just against the "R".

Happens again. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

From the eventual nominee if he doesn't get the nomination. Makes better sense

Concessions mean squat.

Hillary.

What I meant that it lessens his chances for being on the ballot because most likely Hillary will win, but also he would be put in the position of spoiler if he runs as a independent. I wonder what his game plan is to get around these two dilemmas? I would like to see him run as a democrat even if there's a good chance he will lose to Hillary.

I have to say, I'm just not enamored of the idea of a 'not the republican' kind of voting scenario. Either way, he has my support. His ideas are closest to what I would like to see, and I'm not up for any more compromising or 'inevitable' crap.

Even if he's not running.

it's the reasonable conclusion.

and he wants to run against Hillary- that's the whole point. he doesn't think he can win. he thinks he can influence the direction of the party and push the candidates into standing up for the 99%.

Most of brainwashed Middle America don't get Bernie.

If more progressive candidates don't start stepping up, I think we are kind of screwed.

have a candidate who has the moral guts to remove the screw.

I think Sanders is just that candidate.

It's the spoiler role in the GE that I worry about. But he has tremendously more sense than Nader and knows the consequences all to well were he the spoiler.

From http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/12/23-0

to push the issues he favors and which are right. LIke I said above, I'd like to see him get concessions from whoever wins the nomination, likely Hillary. And I really can't see him as a spoiler either He's not ego driven.

I read it on The Nation earlier, before it was posted on DU. Bernie hasn't decided yet whether he'll run as a Democrat or an Independent, but if he runs (which he also hasn't decided yet) he would run to win the presidency, not "to push the candidates into standing up for the 99%." That's the kind of objective Dennis Kucinich might have had, but this isn't 2008 or even 2012.

As Bernie said in the interview, he believes the time is ripe for a real political revolution in this country. I think he's right. As you can see from this thread, there is widespread disgust with traditional Democratic politics as usual among the Democratic grassroots, or at least the netroots. I believe there are a significant number of us who won't touch a corporate Third Way Democrat with a 10-foot pole. We've been betrayed one time too many, thank you very much.

He clearly wants to directly challenge Hillary- if she runs. He can't do that if he doesn't run as a dem. she'll just ignore him.

push all the candidates into pointed discussion of important issues rather than the social issues that have derailed real progress on economic reform. If he can do that, I'd be happy.

Nah it could not be third way policies...not at all.

By the way, Gore won, the presidency was stolen by five votes at the SCOTUS and all that.

that voting debacle.

It would never had gone to the SCOTUS because Gore would have won beyond a challenge.

Not Mr Nader. In fact, both Mr Gore and Mr Nader wanted it to continue. They both understood the misstep of the Court. Perhaps we remember two alternate universes, in mine I prefer to blame the thief. In this case the United States Supreme Court.

But back to the original question, why does this keep happening? It started with the 1992 election, and since our guy won, I hear no complaints about Perot getting involved. But conservatives complain that Perot cost Senior the Presidency.

would have happened.

I doubt you really want to ask that question, at the core really.

Had nothing to do with Nader being the spoiler, and it can't be said too often.

I think what you are referring to is the Supreme Court effect.

It's called cause and effect. Nader ran, took votes from Gore. If ended up in the SCOTUS because Nader took votes from Gore. you know the rest.

The reality is, it was stolen. Gore won, he received more votes, the SCOTUS stepped in to give it to bush. When you blame Nader, you legitimize bush and whitewash the theft. Don't do it.

I don't know if it's guilt or what that they won't face the truth.

Btw, I was a gore voter. Just not a simpleton or an idiot.

of Representatives for 15 years and being a Senator for 8 years, just isn't enough experience.

what a laughable claim

Experiencing the corruption of DC for a few more years won't make him more ready. That's some epic point missing right there.

If he runs in the general, he'll certainly throw the election to the Republicans and I can't forgive that.

positions.

Will he primary Hillary or run Independent? By running in the primary he could at least force her to talk about the issues and state a position. The only thing I know she is for is women's issues. So is he.

and yes, if he runs, I'm 99% sure he'll run as a dem in order to challenge her and influence the direction of the party.

the people want. How does she stand on TPP? The Keystone Pipeline? Cutting back on our empire building? Climate change? Taking on Wall Street, the big banks and the corporations?

So often our leaders in the Democratic Party act like they think everything is just dandy. They seem to be ignoring our real problems. Bernie does not and that is why I wish he could win. We need someone like him on our side.

I am just cynical enough to wonder if Dems will just pay lip service to what the new direction would be, and then back to business as usual.

Which is one of my measures of how I vote.

Some would accuse him of splitting the Party.

Go figure.

It's time to stand up and make some waves.

I hope Sanders is prepared.

Just like how now they decided they "like" Bill Clinton and say they wish Obama were more like him.

If we get some real socialists in the race we can begin to move the political spectrum back over the left.

get dragged a little more left, but some will kick and scream the entire time.

Do they go straight to "Hitler"? Or just "al-Qaeda"?

If an actual socialist runs the language will be exactly the same. What's the difference really?

for the WH - Clinton.

To call that person a socialist is an insult to socialists.

The word has few real negative connotations anymore. It no longer has that "fear word" quality anymore...the GOP ruined it for themselves. They called Bill a socialist. They called Obama a socialist. They call Hillary a socialist.

For a lot of Americans, if that's what socialism is...they're not really opposed to it, not like they were when socialist looked like "Uncle Joe" and Cousin Lenin.

So there's that. I expect Bernie will start talking and a lot of what he's saying will sound good to a lot of people.

I imagine that's what scares the Right more than anything--or if it doesn't, it should!

It would be great to have Bernie as a presidential candidate 2016.

I won't be supporting him, but I absolutely do support his right to put forth his vision for the party and the country.

I will also be supporting the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. So if he does somehow manage to win the nomination, I'll do my best to see him made President.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Go Bernie!

Maybe neither would win, but it will change the conversation and bring the Dem Party back leftwards where it is supposed to be. Enough of this corporate Republican lite Dem leadership. It's not working.

That would be two voices that could pull Hillary to the left.

Can he stay in his senate seat, if he runs for the WH? Different states have different laws. I would hate to see him lose altogether. If he can do it: Please, Bernie run! The country needs an honest debate, if not much more.

I will e-mail him to find out where I can contribute to his run. I don't have much to spare, but this would be just too important for me to be reasonable.

-Laelth

You are a beacon of light in the dark corruption that is our government, Sen. Sanders!

Ever since Jimmy Carter, I just have been unable to give up on the ridiculous notion that a POTUS doesn't have to be a person who views murder as an acceptable option and who somehow seems to lose their ethics in service of "pragmatism".

But damn, it would be nice to have primaries with him and Warren.