My question of the month.

Why be antagonistic? A better way would be to acknowledge those accomplishments, then tell us how he's going to improve on them.

Democrats need to stop throwing this president under the bus.

Because I have no clue what youre talking about.

Read the title to this OP thread. It's antagonistic, so my message is to those who agree with that sentiment.

thats why I posted what Bernie actually said. I agree with him that we should build on what Obama has done.

Acknowledge and improve. This way he has of being caustic towards Obama spreads through his ranks of support. They follow him and are just as caustic and at times over the top and quite off putting.

Why would any progressive want to ride on Obama's middle-of-the-roadtails?

Obama is reducing sentences. I'm black so I care that Sanders voted for mass incarceration. So much for civil rights!!!

snookered our entire government. Federal/State and Local.

Its very profitable for Corps & private 'for profits' to have as many people in prison as possible, so to rake massive profits from the state/federal taxpayer money and fining systems.

There's money to be made for major Corps. from prison labor too. Even the wildfire fighting crews many are prisoners.

I think the answer may be to make our prisons, education, healthcare all NON-profit. I don't think that will ever happen in America. We can't even stop local police from stopping people at their wim and going through their pockets.

I find it false. I get why he did it, but I do not trust him. Or anybody really.

It really should be non profit. Really.

Who else supported it? Who opposed it?

When he says stuff like this it just reminds me of how he wanted Obama primaried. It is a pattern with him.

At the end of the day, he chose getting stuff done over reforming the political system. I think that was the right choice.

Who knew.

I can see why he has stagnated in support with the Obama coalition. I know quite a few folks like myself who have ONLY voted Obama for President. I skipped Gore cause I was very young, I skipped Kerry because he did nothing for me. I was ambivilant until obama just like millions of other blacks. I am a strategic voter too. Obama is a winner, I vote for WINNERS. I vote for peopke who can ORGANIZE people. Bernie lacks the community ties and organizational skills that Obama has and quite frankly Bernie SHRANK from two women yelling at him so I am not in any way beliving his 'I will fight republicans!' Tripe. How can he fight those maniacs if he ran away from a few black women?

Besides, Bernie is far far far to the right on me in social, racial justice and women's rights. Those things prevent our full econimic participation so in effect he is far far far to the right of me on economic justice as well, and it amazes me that those to the right of Obama and myself say thing like this about him.

He didn't shrink from two women yelling at him. He started his speech, was interrupted, asked the moderator what was going on, and then left the stage. What did you want him to do? Start yelling back at the women? How about asking security to drag them off the stage? They wanted to disrupt, to take over and that was all, they wouldn't have listened to anything anyone said. So tell me, great wise one, what should he have done?

Z

They accused the women of 'assaulting an old man'. It happened twice that he shrank from black women confronting him, how much better will he fare against the right wing who would try to eviscerate him? Not well, imo.

Bernie did not shrink from anyone. Have you seen the video?

The video proves it.

AND, his mojo is just fine.

Obama is OUR guy. Not Bernie. Insulting Obama on his 'weakness' cannot bring out the entirety of the Obama coalition, only the ones already mad at him get fired up. Which is not anywhere near enough to win. His acerbic nature is off putting to most who are not already feeling the bern.

I would call it a difference in political objectives. For example, when it comes to Wall Street, Bernie's position is more in line with Elizabeth Warren's. What he said was:

“I think we need to stand up to Wall Street in a way that the president and the vice president have not.”

No one can deny that, based on their policies, neither Obama or Biden wanted to take Wall Street by the horns. No one really expected them to because both are products of the same political machinery. Democratic response to failed Wall Street banks has always been bailouts, not regulation and certainly not investigations. In fact, Bill Clinton's deregulation policies is testament to the cozy relationship. Obama didn't do anything to change the pattern.

So, does loyalty to Obama mean resistance to a candidate who feels strongly about taking on Wall Street? That is what we're talking about here. Maybe you would prefer someone different to spread the message, and that's your perogative.

He also pointed out other political differences:

"he said several issues, such as rising college tuition prices and widening income inequality, were left unaddressed."

This is also true. What was Obama doing in the last eight years? Answer: His administration had some tremendous financial challenges to address because of the Republican's recklessness with the Iraq War that severely depleted our surplus, among other negative consequences. To his credit, Obama has done admirably. But now that this priority is getting under control, it's time to address issues that were put on the back burner for way too long. So, here comes Bernie with the message of easing college debt, improving income equality and going after the banksters. Facts continue to change in our volatile world and candidates need to change with them. Nothing wrong with that. That is how our system works well, if it works at all.

And Bernie isn't throwing Obama under the bus. This is what that article stated to show that he is being respectful:

"The Vermont senator said there’s no “tension” in his pessimistic campaign rhetoric and support of the president’s record in office.

“We should give Obama and Biden credit for what they have accomplished, and understand that we need to go much further,” he said."

Nothing remains static in our world. Objectives that defined the Democratic party in 1950 are very different than they are today. A lot of it has to do with our changing demographics.

It's all about the money and benefits that I will not get a full share of because of my race. Millions of us will be left out of the college thing since we still have de facto separate but equal in outpr schools. Our men get left out if the raises and minimum wage, they are in prison, on child support, or suffering from ptsd and fear of institutional violence.

Anywho, it is merely my opinion that Bernie thinks he is in a competition with Obama. He cannot win. Obama has charisma. Bernie lacks the warmth and vitality to make millions of friends like Obama. The more he makes his digs, the less I like him and the more I just say fuck it, Hillary doesn't do that. She has loyalty. So do I.

Bernie is the antithesis of Thirdway, while Hillary Clinton's triangulation strategy is the pinnacle of Thirdway.

But, I understand what you're saying. In the Constitutional formula that addresses life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is nothing more important today for PoC than to stop the abusive, institutionalized racism that threatens life itself. Without that basic right, nothing else matters.

I hope the BLM group gets the audience they're looking for in the townhall meeting that the DNC has agreed to and scores lasting points with the candidates.

Trading off SJ for EJ = third way. It is being progressivd on economics and regressive on race and social justice.

Or is that your own design?

Thirdway is a term that describes a specific political movement. But it looks like you have adapted it for your own use. Which is fine, just a little confusing.

I don't want to go back into the economics versus social justice debate. I just want you to know, that although we disagree, I understand why you feel the way you do.

See, third way is left on sJ and right on ej. My third way cause I'm black and refuse the white supremacist view or white centered view is that third way is also right on sj and left on ej.
To me being an actual lefty is left on ej and left on sj. Left on BOTH. I am left on both. Being way over here in the left weeds helps me see the right wingerness of even the most vocal left on ej folks and i find them to nearly to a man be right on sj. The whine about social justice, say your own race shouldn't influence how you vote even though that's crazy talk.
They call us SJW's just like right wingers. They like to decide what black folks should want or need. They tell us they know what it's like cause they have a black friend or kid or nephew or know a black who thinks EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS THEM.

It's just another form of third way bullshit, placing their ideology above the wellbeing of others.

disenfranchises people.

We'll find out what both candidates think about this important issue at the townhall meeting. Can't wait.

Economic justice is one of the main pillars of the doctrine of social justice and has been for about 170 years. The phrase social justice was coined by a Jesuit and popularized by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical, Rerum Novarum. The two ideas, which can't be separated if one hopes to achieve either, are treated as separate by latter-day journalistic ignoramuses and the upscale DU intelligentsia. They fail to see that rights without the means to enforce them are rights in name only, just as others often fail to see that means alone are insufficient for full equality.

Sorry about the soapbox, but this is one of those things that irritates me. It's not just the fact that people haven't bothered to learn the history of the term, it's the inherent divide and rule that underlies the pretense that social issues and economic issues are somehow different. Maybe for the rich they are, but not for the vast majority of us.

Often the colloquial use of a word or expression replaces the original meaning in common use and it takes years for the change to be officially made.

I have no time for divide and rule from socially liberal fiscal conservatives, aka libertarians. Let them be original and make up their own phrases.

with all due respect the third way is conservative on economics and leftist on social issues. That is what you are buying into. If that's what you agree with - fine. Just be honest about it.

Apparently, to reply to posts in that group, one must believe that Sanders should run against Obama and his record.

Seems like a dumb idea to me ... to win the primary Bernie would need to convert a very large number of Obama supporters to his side.

But clearly I'm not as smart as the folks who run the Bernie group on DU.

turn a lot of people off. There's no reason for running away from that record. Work to improve it, but don't run away from it.

I can't stand the Clintons but they know how to play their cards right.

I'm for American business trade with the listed Asian pacific countries. I think our country deserves billions in commerce revenue with that part of the world.

See, I know that Bernie included glowing things about Obama in his comments, but no one who is criticizing Bernie seems to have read them; yet, you can tell he was talking about domestic and not foreign policies?

He's never had the publics ear like today, he has to flesh out the talk with specifics.

Now that it counts, he should absolutely do that.

“We should give Obama and Biden credit for what they have accomplished, and understand that we need to go much further,” he said.

This thread's theme is that Sanders was mean to Obama, therefore Clinton. There's no need to actually read and consider what he said, is there?

Mr Bernie Sanders supports many programs like the ones we have in France, which generally work well, despite the hell of French bureaucracy and the somewhat unreliable quality of our computerized systems.

instead of performing a vital capitalist function by breaking up and restructuring banks that are out of control.

People like Clinton even use the phrase "Too Big To Fail" then turn around and insist the banks cannot be broken up. The next time they hold an economic gun to the government's head support here for Clinton's band-aid strategy will be dead forever.

I'm fine with that. They all have to distinguish themselves from Obama's Presidency.

words of the tea party, want to "take back the country?"
What is the plan? When does the revolution start?
I don't think Bernie is really interested in being President.
If we need to wait for tens of millions of people to get their act together before we can accomplish anything, we will be waiting for hell to freeze over.
What needs to be done is take the situation we face today and work with the tools we have today to make as much constructive change as we can. We can't wait until tens of millions to get their shit together.
As a matter of fact his supporters expect Bernie to lead the charge while he says he can't do it alone. Out of that nothing is going to happen.

We all talk about the things Bernie talks about. I will bet if we did a research effort we could find every idea on DU going back to 2000

Obama got people to the polls because he was visibly taking the party Left. Clinton will take it Rightward again, and she's obviously lying about her TPP and NAFTA support (she thinks the former needs to be tweaked -- how nice!).

Clinton constantly warns us about Republicans in Congress, and that is appropriate because there will be more Republicans in office when a cadre of third way status-quo-bots run for office with her.

Breaking up banks is a capitalist function. But Hillary and co. are crony capitalists who refuse to do so.

actually think this is something that will hurt Bernie politically?

Everyone who isn't living in denial can see that they Clinton/Obama, pro-Corporate, Republican-lite Democrats as so far up Wall Street's ass that they are making the Republicans nervous about losing their mantle as the pro-business party.

The thousands upon thousands of people who are ENTHUSIASTICALLY supporting Sanders can see it for what it is - that catering to the needs to the very rich at the expense of the poor and working class is literally killing this country and this trend must be stopped.

Hillary and Obama are both trying to pass the TPP (yeah, Hillary's really for it and we all know that) because their first priority is to make sure their big money donors on Wall Street continue to pump in the dollars. This strata of the Democratic party has done just as much harm to the American working people as the Republicans have (NAFTA, "workfare", mass incarceration, etc.).

since the time I became acquiainted with it back in the late '60s/early '70s.

the advent of the DLC and the domination of the pro-corporate wing of the Democratic Party. Now they are considered the establishment and the more liberal end of the party is considered too left to be electable in the general election.

I think Bernie will prove them wrong and this sad submission to Wall Street will finally come to an end. The American people need someone in office who is looking out for them for a change, and Hillary's not that person.

prior to putting the brakes on the progress? Rather than 'we need go no further' I would say we have delayed justice too long and that we have very far to go indeed.

And I'm not sure the trope 'we need go no further' really fits in with the activist nature of this cycle. How can any person call for pervasive change to institutional and systemic injustices and also take offense at saying we have much further to go and more to do?
Do we not have much more to do and much further to go?

Good luck with trying to do away with the banking and Wall Street.
Bernie was never a fan of this Preident that's why he wanted him primaried
2012. He will need his voters but so far not happening .

political environment right now

I think the entire Admin., including VP Biden are relieved the distraction of Biden 'will he or won't he run', is over.

Though Biden will speak-up like he just did, when Mrs. Clinton called Republicans "the enemy."

I do understand why she considers them 'the enemy'

what I do think may happen is many Rs will vote in the D primary for 'anyone but Mrs. Clinton'. The last time that brought us Obama, this time the tactic will bring us Senator Sanders and Sanders/Clinton will be our President/VP.

so no worries, whatever 'the enemy' tries they'll lose anyway

focus on that

LOL, republicans are really fucked this election

mandatory for profit health insurance, $7.50 minimum wage, fracking, and"common ground" with the republicans are voting for Clinton.

seems to bother people here. Why? Are you just
totally in love with the status quo?

Every candidate should aim to go further than
the last president has done. I cannot believe
that posters here don't want to deal with the
inequalities of social and economic issues.

A half dozen former Monsanto representatives received appointments from the FDA to USAID.

119 former lobbyists from finance to energy all shared top senior level appointments in through 2013.

Christ, a Rayethon lobbyist (William Lynn) was tapped for the position of deputy secretary of Defense...

Let's hope Sander's doesn't plan to proceed with the Obama legacy!

so he's talking pipe dreams. And he's not going to gain Obama's supporters with that.

of the Democratic Party.

Good on social issues, meh on everything else.

...because he won't be President.

it is going to take coming up with a new and bold agenda for Democrats to win. We are not going to simply win by default. Things like voter suppression and the strong possibility of Republicans tampering with vote counts will require large margins in swing states to ensure we win. Part of getting people out to vote is getting them excited about the issues. If we can't do that we are in trouble. That is why we need to move beyond what Obama/Biden have started. It is not an insult, but an acknowledgement that there is still a lot of work to be done to turn around the nation after 8 years of GW.

with right wing democratic Corporatists...period.

Not "pick up the mantle" of someone else.

We need to do better than propping up the power structure.

which is an example of propagandistic headline construction having little to do with the story (itself a matter of spinning a quoted passage)...

So far has no more than 22 recs.

Only sorry I have to kick it to say so.