out of the way.

eom

Who our candidate is any more.

is based on an attitude that everything Sanders is trying to do is impractical or impossible. It can't happen; it's just too hard. We are fools for wanting single payer or a meaningful raise in the minimum wage or regulating Wall Street. Hillary says we're just dreamers and we should be happy just chipping away a bit at the edges.



I'm voting for Bernie because fuck that shit.

i supported Kerry and i support SAnders.

i would have supported Hubert HUmphrey proudly also.

(That's what "we can do it better" meant). He banned antiwar signs at the convention. He forced the party to water the platform down to nothing and wouldn't let anyone speak at the convention unless they agreed to unquestioningly defend the platform first.

Nobody who still backed the war agreed with Democrats on anything in '04, and no war supporters were even going to consider voting for Kerry.

There was no reason for any of the nominees to be overbearing in the way they were to progressives in any of those years.

he won the large majority of minority votes (black, hispanic, asian) and lower income white voters.

that's how he ended up winning the nomination.

i have seen the things you are always posting and trying to categorize people and put certain ones down.

He was largely imposed by the party leaders by the way they ran the primary.

That doesn't mean his right-wing stand on the war was popular or justified.

and other idiots were claiming he was losing and would not report his increase in polls.

he didn't have a right wing stand on the war.

maybe you just don't get minority voters. the only group he lost was higher income white people which went to dean and edwards.

He never even mentioned AA or Latino issues in the campaign.

If they supported him, it's because they believed he was the only electable candidate(a belief that turned out to be totally absurd).

"We can do it better" meant keeping the war going forever. And that was a right-wing position.

There was never any way to do the Iraq War right. The situation afterwords proves this.

And yes, he got AA and Latino votes(though it's a mystery as to why he did, given that there was an AA candidate in the race-giving that candidate a larger bloc of delegates would have forced the party to take a far stronger stand on racism than the nonthingburger position we did take in '04-and that Kerry had said nothing about AA and Latino issues, other than to give speeches calling on the party to stop supporting affirmative action)and voters in your communities had the right to make whatever choices you felt right.

But Kerry largely won the nomination because he was presented as "the frontrunner" by the party leadership...as the only Dem who could possibly win. And he was ruthless in keeping the platform as bland and non-progressive as possible(which guaranteed he could only be centrist as president-no Dem is ever governs to the left of the platform she or he is elected on).

So, while Kerry did receive AA and Latino support in the primaries, that wasn't the decisive factor. The party leaders were going to force us to back the guy, even though he stood for next to nothing, no matter what.

No disrespect to POC intended at all.

to be offensive.

people of color vote on many different things.

but most importantly, what he did was he actually went to POC themselves and asked for their votes. many poc are in the military which was a big issue back then so issues concerning veterans mattered a lot.

not every minority votes on "minority issues" and there are many issues you may not think is a minority issue but does matter to them.

(Not sure why my last post was offensive to you, as I was showing nothing but respect to you in it).

And I realize you are POC. My last post reflected that(or at least I thought).

The only thing I am guilty of is not accepting the idea that, if POC support HRC, that means I have to support her to prove I am in solidarity with POC.

And Bernie has never refused to go to POC and ask for their support.

He's been asking POC for your support for months now. He's doing everything he possibly could to get that support.

The plain and simple fact is that you can't fight institutional racism AND ally yourself with Wall Street at the same time. Corporations will always depend on the perpetuation of institutional racism to maintain their grip on dominance.

Let's ignore the fact that you're speaking down to explain why you think a group voted for Kerry in the primary, but there's this thing called the internet. We can use it to look things up. For example this article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-fact-kerry-strong-with-blacks/

I'm sorry, but the facts don't actually support your claim. Instead you have a claim "Sanders is the best" and then make declarative statements as "proof" that you're right.

Since Edwards was well to the right of Kerry, obviously he was going to do better than Edwards was.

And the OP wasn't even about AA voters...it was about progressives in general.

Why are we talking about race when race wasn't the point of this discussion?

I know you were for Kuchinich. The fact is that people who met Kerry understood he was not in favor of the war.

There was no reason for Kerry to listen to the party pros who insisted that Dems needed to distance themselves from the anti-Iraq War movement to win. Nobody who still thought the war was right in 2004 voted for Kerry or would have voted for any Dem.

The fact is other than having to vote - Dean and Kerry were not far apart and Kerry was clearer on how he would get out of Iraq. Through a regional peace summit, and likely withdrawing some troops by the end of 2005.

Consider the realistic choices in Iowa - only Dean was considered more anti war by some. Gephardt and Edwards were far more in favor of the war. Kerry's history in 1971 mattered. Dean and Gephardt damaged each other with pretty nasty attacks on mostly domestic issues.

In addition, Kerry had MA vets who supported him since 1984 who came out on their own and they and Kerry himself won people over one on one. The New England demand that politicians answer to citizens helped Kerry, as it helps Bernie. Dean was also from Vt but this was not his strength per many people who know him here.

I supported Dean and Dean was ahead of Kerry for much of the campaign. He lost it when Saddam was captured in December of 03. The notion that Kerry won on recognition or was imposed is ludricrious.

A lot of what he said AND what he said should be done going forward. Wrong war, wrong time wrong place.

You missed the first debate when he pointed out GWB was wrong when he said Saddam attacked the US on 911

Not to mention, before he won Iowa, Kerry did not have the most party support - Dean had more superdelegates, including Tom Harkin and he had the support of Gore, Clark had Clinton. Kerry had Kennedy. Kerry had less media support than Dean or Edwards and had less money from party bigwigs. He lent himself the money needed for Iowa.

Kerry had a strong civil rights record for any group. He also had two top AA campaign aides, one now on the Boston City Council, the other, Setti Warren, now the mayor of Newton. Kerry is the Godfather of one of Warren ' s kids so that is a pretty close relationship.

You might want to look back at Kerry's 1971 Testimony because even then he mentioned the inequity of more blacks being drafted and getting little help when they returned. You would also be surprised that he was the first to recommend action against AIDS in Africa eventually getting First to join him. Throw in that Teresa marched in South Africa against appartheid.

And Kerry would have won if he'd run as the man he was in 1971, instead of letting the party insiders force him to act as though he needed to apologize for turning against the war.

The OP wasn't even discussing how any particular races voted, so I'm not sure why this issue was injected into the thread.

In his acceptance speech he gave the same amount of weight to fighting for his country as he did to returning to fight against it. Even in 2006 having possibly lost because of those protests, he gave a speech on the 35 th anniversary speaking of the right and responsibility to protest.

More recently, he moved other diplomats when after the Iran deal was done, he spoke of having gone to war as a young man and wanting when he returned if he was ever in s position of power to prevent that happening. It is entirely likely that he more than anyone else prevented a very likely war with Iran.

I believe that- as Teresa said, he had hoped that they could push Bush from going to war , but instead merely delayed it about 5 months.

I'm a progressive Democrat. And I support Hillary, but I like Bernie too. Oh-k?

Where is she "demanding" that everyone throw their support to her immediately?

What are you talking about?

Are you just angry that she's campaigning and not giving up?

That's what happens in elections.

But she and many of her supporters keep acting like Bernie had no right to run(and raising the non-issue of his party status-a triviality that only right-wing Dems would really care about) and taking that "we are the grown-ups and you should all defer to us" tone, and continuing to spread the lie that Bernie doesn't care about bigotry(never mind that he's Jewish, which means he has a personal interest in stopping bigotry). And then, if she does get nominated, her supporters will simply DEMAND progressive support while making no concessions to progressives on the issues(we know, for example, that she will never challenge corporate power).

Nothing personal to you if you don't do those things.

And hell knows I realize tone is important, but progressives alone will not win this election. The Supreme Court vacancies alone are so vital for our rights, I am willing to take a practical moderate like Hillary. No candidate is perfect, but she has well rounded experience and a fighting attitude.

But so far the betting money is still on Hillary by a large margin. Oh well.

I support Hillary.

The only abusive relationship I see is that of Bernie supporters toward anyone who does not support their sainted candidate.

Only the rich benefit if we nominate HRC. She will abandon all progressive positions on Labor Day.

She did not abandon her progressive positions in the Senate and she won't abandon them in the White House.

Here's just one case where Clinton lets her political needs dictate her position. This is not "evolving", it's beholding to special interests. She says she can't be bought. Right. Starts around 3:05 if you don't want the whole 5 minutes.

I'm very scared she'll send my son to war.

She'll have us in so many quagmires that we may have to re-institute the draft.

Damn. She's awful.

the Clinton supporters.

Think: HRC will need all the help she can get from
the SBS supporters, should she win the nomination.

If her supporters are slandering Bernie's she will be
straight out of luck.

I've seen Clinton called an asshole, corrupt up to her eyeballs, etc here. You can't actually expect to be taken seriously if you're going to pretend in a thread that likens the Clinton campaign to a domestic abuser, that the smears are even remotely one-sided.

The original post is an embarrassment and should be treated as such.

Hillary supporter whose constant barage of anti-Bernie posts are obnoxious. Interestingly enough, he claims to support all of Bernie's policy positions but then throws out all the reasons he claims Bernie can't win, and therefore insists we should all support Hillary.

I call bullshit. Of course a candidate can't win if those who think he has the best ideas so easily abandon their principles and vote for the preordained "frontrunner" who is cozy in bed with the 1% and offers nothing more than the continuation of the status quo.

If Hillary prevails, she is going to be a tough sell for many Bernie supporters. I'm in California, which is safely blue anyway, so I won't have to hold my nose and vote for her if I don't want to. The harm she and her minions are doing with their ridiculous unfounded attacks on Bernie may well come back to bite her in the butt when swing state Bernie supporters decide to sit this one out.

NOT change his or her position on things.

You're talking about absolutism. I've been around a while, and I talk with my uncle about politics all the time.

We've even seen Bernie walk back comments before.

I'm in my thirties and my Uncle is in his fifties, but I think a lot of Bernie supporters must be college age or younger. Certainly not all, since I know older people who love him too. But you and I might be ready for a revolution, like Bernie is suggesting, but the vast majority of the country isn't. That only happens when there is a cataclysmic event, like the Great Depression. You can argue that we've been we've had one with the Great Recession, but most people aren't ready to move as far left as Bernie suggests. And he has not been vetted for GOP attacks. I think you haven't seen or don't understand the GOP propaganda machine. It's full of lies and distortions, and is well funded. Hillary is not perfect, but she has been vetted. We know all the lies that have been told about the Clintons. And she has a good range of counter-attacks. And she too is well funded. She will be able fight back. See how she handled the Benghazzi hearings! Throw a billion plus dollars at Bernie of lies distortions and "socialist! socialist socialist!" and he'd be lucky to win a single state in the general.

Like my brother says, Bernie is like Near Perfect being the Enemy of the Good.

American voters, no?

Prepare to be surprised again!

Sanders is somewhat far left. Not all the way, of course, but he's no Obama.

The country is in no way ready for a socialist, and don't expect most people to make the effort to understand the various flavors of socialism.

then

1. you weren't there

2. this isn't an actual conversation

3. you are only arguing for the sake of it -so please go bother someone else.

Oh well.

I believe it is the Bernie supporters that need to stop their abusive relationship. You speak as if Hillary Clinton does not have experience on day one. Bernie supporters hate her with all intensity. All because you all think Bernie will fix it all. Where are all his endorsers in Congress. He should have some after all he has been there for 25 years. But yet he is not the Establishment. He gives the same answers to different questions and you all eat it up. Unbelievable.

Most of her "experience" is in getting people killed in the Middle East. She is one of the last people in the world who still pretends that war can be progressive.

He is a 25-year politician like all the rest. There is nothing special about him or unique.

What matters is that he organizes with Dems(only conservative Dems think it matters that Bernie started as an independent...why would anyone who actually cares about progressive change think it even mattered)in the Senate, as he did in the House.

It would only have served the rich if Vermont hadn't elected Bernie to the offices he held.

But unlike Hillary, I do believe he will at least try, and hopefully he will fix some.

"Where are all his endorsers in Congress." ... I do believe you just do not get it.

You're the child. Just because I disagree I am a child? Bernie supporters can scream and shout, but you are not winning any hearts and minds. You can take over the Gen Disc: Primary forum all you want with Bernie postings. I firmly believe Bernie supporters are just like him argumentative, one-dimensional, don't believe in compromise....

and then there is kowtowing. The problem is that the line between the two has been blurred horribly. The Aca with a public option was compromise, without one, kowtowing. The TPP, which would allows companies to sue us if we did not obey their mandates, is kowtowing. Immigration reform is compromise because there is give and take, h1b visa and outsourcing, both of which Hillary has been very very very vocal about supporting, are kowtowing because they allow corporations to circumvent our people.

This is not a tantrum, this is wondering how come certain ideas that have been proven harmful cannot be called into question anymore, under the banner of false compromise. A true compromise can always be revisited when things change; part of the whole appeal of compromise is the idea that, when things change, we can discuss and make a new compromise that fits the new circumstances. The compromises the left has had to make have involved very little take on our part, a lot of give, even as Rahm called us "retards" and many of our "friends" giggled.

Some of us want Hillary to be a good president if she wins the nomination, but frankly, it is not support to blatantly gloss over issues that can and will be exploited in the general election, by people who thanks to citizens united will have a megaphone to scream and shout with, as well as much more resources than a bunch of Bernie supporters renting a VFW hall and serving pizza. Then again, Hillary seems content to let the same people that wrecked her campaign, the Debbie Wasserman-Schultzes, the Mark Penns, run her campaign again, which tells us on the left that she would rather listen to people that lost than us.

Put up or shut up. It's that simple.

Look at any given post in Gen Disc: Pri, and read how your fellow Bernie supporters speak of Hillary and her supporters. Give me a break.

She has a long history of lying on day 1. She has flip flopped on vital issues, so who knows what she'll do on day1.

just reading the responses here by hillary supporters chastising bernie supporters as if we are all a bunch of weak idiots - demonstrates how they emulate the queen's attitude & views toward the peasant subjects of her realm.

As a Bernie supporter this primary has made me literally sick. From BernieBots & HillaryBots a like. While it's not as bad as the GOPEE Trumpzi's, I think we need to get back to when we debated the ISSUES and NOT the candidates personalities. I believe Bernie Sanders wins on the issues. I believe Hillary Clinton is a pragmatist who issues are just that.

The bare minimum. I support Bernie because I want a bankers perp walk, because I want single payer & I want real changes not just hoping for the best & let a REPUBLICAN win. I beg you, Hillary & Bernie supporters, remember, we are supposed to be the tolerant ones, & the people who don't write off ANYONE.

I'm a Bernie supporter who has been blocked by Bernie supporters for not loving all over his campaign ads. I rarely post because no matter what I think, its not good enough for anyone here.

Last edited Sun Jan 24, 2016, 04:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Their words are always pure BS.

Period.

Sorry...that type of crap just makes me work harder for an alternate.

You don't speak for me!

And in hiving those issues off from an overall progressive program(which has to include economic justice and support for sharp restrictions on corporate power to actually lead to sustained progressive change) you weaken the chances of victory for your own liberation struggle(a struggle Bernie has always backed more loyally than HRC, who only stands with you when its too late to matter).

Meanwhile, the actual progressive movement will always stand with LGBTQ people, while the centrists will always desert you when they see you as an inconvenience. Sad that you trust your fair-weather friends more than your true allies.

But that's your call.

Name them.

that you are fine with trade globalization, think it's perfectly ok for corporations to dominate politics, and buy into the "liberal hawk" view of foreign policy.

In short, that you are a socially liberal economic royalist.

(people who don't hold those views don't support HRC. There would be no reason for them to do so).

Oh wait you can't!

You don't know a damn thing about me or my views and you are fool if you think Hillary supporters are corpratists.

Most of us don't have a pot to piss in but we think she is the better candidate and we don't buy your argument that Sanders is the best candidate.

exposing their positions like this. It makes it almost too easy to know who we need to replace in the house/senate. 34 Sen Seats open and all 435 house seats.....

TPP Dem Sen Wyden is up. He's lost at Least 17 votes from just my family, alone. We've been solid supporters at the ballot box for him since 1996. #FedUp

Peter DeFazio could beat him, but I don't think he's going to do it.

When is the filing deadline for the Oregon primary, btw?

She's going to be sent packing ... Very, very soon.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

DID KEN BURCH PUSH THE ALERT BUTTON?? SEE COMMENTS BELOW.


"Another ridiculous post from you."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1057030

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (Edit: HARDLY)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Rude personal attack. ( Edit: OH COME ON!)

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:34 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Called post ridiculous, not poster.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I've read FAR worse things here. If it was "Ken Burch" who sent the alert then "Ken Burch" needs to see that his initial post could be defined as insulting to "H" fans so you need to give the "H" fans a break. Keep the alerts to actual "over-the-top" insults, alright? What a waste of time..
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Grow some skin and stop being offended with every post! You really need to take a time out from GDP!
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I wouldn't have responded to that post if I had alerted on it.

I can take personal attack as well as anybody else.

If I do alert on a post, it will probably be because I thought someone else was unfairly maligned or that the candidate or cause I support was being lied about.

Yes, sometimes the person being attacked alerts, but just as often it is someone who feels someone else is being treated unfairly.

Seems like every post from them lately is a threat against the party and/or Hillary.

And extra crunchy Arrogance bits in a Condescension Swirl!

a struggle, as with Bernie's campaign, she wants to create one. Truly, it is where she is at her best. It does not bode well for this particular campaign, and I don't think it will serve our country. This need to struggle...which is of course the need to win...is what adds to the hawkish nature of her foreign policy and willingness to get us further into the ME.

We may be seeing a Sea Change in how politics in America is practiced. It's how the unlikely Senator from Vermont ended up, almost unintentionally, in the biggest political event of the campaign. He does not go for struggle...I watch the frustrated news people desperately trying to get him to "do the political tango with Hillary" and he won't do it.

So, Bernie is about inclusiveness and cooperation and bringing in the dropouts and youth and Independents together. It's the Oligarchy vs. Reformers. That's where we are, as I see it. It is not about political parties this time...vis a vis Trump and Sanders...the only thing similar is that they are only using a party apparatus for their very popular un-establishment campaigns.

I hope more Democrats are paying attention too.

Yeah, that is a bit creepy.