It's probably the stupidest strategy I have ever heard of coming from a so called Democrat.

Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

...you're looking in on this speech from the outside and you haven't got a clue, beyond your really insulting view.

And, omg! This is from a supporter of someone who's made a career out of keeping the Democratic party at a distance.

it does not exist.

...the mere mention of race and a vocalizing of concerns, issues, demographics, is treated like a threat and the cries of racism go forth, 'you're calling me a racist!' and the like.

Where, in all of that is a defense of something more than their candidate's sweet self?

it has been since its inception ... the solution is to speak TO IT not, pretend you can talk around it.

Dividing the party will just hand the election to the Republicans.

She is USING PoC for her own ends. It's the stupidest campaign strategy in Democratic party history.

But you already knew that. That was a horribly clumsy attempt at obfuscation.

and has been since the Big Switch. The solution is talking to the division; not, pretend to talk around it.

It's the most idiotic 'strategy' in Democratic party history.

... the PPP said she's leading there too.

So somehow HRC is the one dividing the party!?

really?!

... post doesn't agree with reality

It's stupid. She is USING PoC, particularly AAs for personal gain.

Unfortunately for her, she sinks a little lower every week, especially in upcoming primary states. The lower she sinks, the more bottom feeding she does, which makes her sink even more. She is in a catch 22.

I could show you all the evidence in the world and you would just keep obfuscating and trying to derail it, and never admit anything.

It's what Hillary partisans do. IT's what cognitive dissonance does. When the world you see doesn't match the world you believe in, you obfuscate, derail, change the subject, etc.

... in the past when the evidence supports it.

so, you're wrong on a couple of counts

and not giving specifics.... hmmm.... why does that sound familiar...

No more and no less than it is Sanders' strategy as well-- as many "so-called" supporters such as yourself accurately illustrate daily.





You're right-- unsupported, half-witted, sub-literate allegations are easy to make. I should do that more often (even though it illustrates us as half-wits, lacking objective evidence to support our allegation)

...but this thread's about Hillary's speech.

Is there not a Sanders speech thread (or a dozen) to promote him?

should be a part of this conversation.

I'm very familiar with Hillary's rousing speeches. It's her policies that trouble me.

...and it spoke to the hearts and minds of the attendees.

That should 'worry' you as well, I'd guess.

...I don't think you can make a campaign out of that complaint.

Was just making a point on a discussion board.

That's all.

Feel free to agree or disagree or ignore it.

...I saw he had a good reception at Morehouse. That's a good thing.

I'll leave you to your advocacy.

Last edited Thu Feb 18, 2016, 07:34 AM - Edit history (1)

HRC's speech went well beyond, anything Sanders has said ... even if you generously fill in the blanks.

dog and pony show when Sharpton met with Sanders at Sylvia's right mom?

Really nice article.

...it's what our party stands for; it's what our candidates are advocating.

No one understands the economic challenges for our nation more than black Americans who have trailed behind their white peers in income, savings, and personal wealth.

There's a real chance to turn the page, to change direction in a fundamental way. Some people deny it, but the opportunity is here.

...from the vast majority of legislators in Congress is going to be successful in implementing his agenda. That's the impact which would represent 'fundamental change,' not a myriad collection of interests and ambitions who believe dividing the party represents some sort of 'political revolution.'

Successful politics requires a united coalition, within and without the political establishment. It's not amenable to the 'with us, or against us' tactics popular here among Sanders' 'revolutionaries.' That's a reality which isn't going to change just because you've convinced yourselves of the rightness of your cause.

of electing Sen. Sanders? We'll see if these "representatives" can begin to respond to the people who vote for them better than they've been responding to the people who write big checks. That's the wish of most Americans, if you ask them, that Congress do their job.

Your "unified coalition," at this point in history, is a bought organization of influence, responsive in almost no degree to the needs of the people. Bernie Sanders' election as President, were it to happen, would challenge that sorry outfit in a way not seen in my lifetime, and I'll bet I'm older than you.

We may not take that bold step, of course, and simply allow Secy. Clinton to fine-tune the existing structure of the "vast majority of legislators" (no doubt then breathing a sigh of relief) who have zero support for Sen. Sanders.

Now if I'm wrong, and you're older than I, then I understand your timidity.

...there are many legislators in Congress who aren't just sitting on their hands waiting for the signal from one of these candidates to push for changes.

For example, the Progressive Caucus, of which the vast majority of members are supporting Hillary Clinton in this primary, would take exception to being called "a bought organization of influence, responsive in almost no degree to the needs of the people."

The same with the Congressional Black Caucus, whose members fought long and hard to be included in the legislative arena. Their membership would take exception to the notion that they've "they've been responding to the people who write big checks."

To me, a working class American, both candidates represent the establishment. They both have access to the levers of power and influence in the government and both are accountable for their actions, to some degree, while working within that political system.

I don't have any illusions that I'll be any closer than I am today to influencing the political establishment with a Pres. Sanders in charge. If Bernie Sanders becomes president, he doesn't automatically assume the role he's promoting as candidate as an opponent of the establishment. In that instance, he'll actually be the establishment that Americans will leverage their own aspirations and interests against.

Indeed, a Pres. Sanders would also be challenged to enlist the aid and support of the political establishment in carrying out his promises. That point is made more profound considering the political pressure his 'revolution' has attempted to exert in his campaign on institutions already determined to advance progressive ideals; like Planned Parenthood or the Human Rights Campaign.

Legislators, politicos, and other Democratic allies will be needed to help advance any progressive agenda into action or law. It makes no sense to engage in politics which seeks to divide these forces among themselves; among ourselves. All of the members of our Democratic coalition are challenged to reconcile their differences and unite, at some point, to advance our ideals through our political system. No one ideology is likely to prevail unchecked in our national legislature.

One thought which occurs to me as I observe the debate over who's a better progressive, if at all, is how relatively sparse the pool of candidates to fill positions in a Democratic administration can be when it comes to fleshing out a new government. The Obama administration rightly pulled from veterans and refugees from the Clinton administration when filling their offices; the Clinton administration relied on Carter folks. There really isn't going to be some mass exodus of 'establishment' operators and managers in the next administration, no matter which of our Democrats assume power.

That's what makes the present framing about a 'fight' against the political establishment in Washington seem so misdirected. When talking about republican opposition, it's clear and evident where their obstruction to our progressive agenda lies. When arguing against members of our own Democratic coalition, however, there isn't going to be an absolute line to draw between the politicos involved; not if there's going to be any hope of uniting behind one solution or the other.

I suspect that your dismissal of the realities of our national legislature is due to your relative youth.

in the White House. It would take the force of his successful campaign, along with an effective "bully pulpit" on his part AND a new level of political involvement by millions of people realizing that their role of "citizen" is at least as important as that of "consumer."

I'm not a big fan of traditional "progressive" action groups, especially those without chapters of active members. Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone comes to mind when I think about some of these K Street organizations who've come to stand in for people too busy working that second job to attend local meetings. What Bernie's candidacy holds for me is the prospect of progressives starting to participate in local activities as eagerly as conservatives do: Running for local office, making school board meetings, serving on city and county boards and commissions. And in the process, realizing that those of us on both sides working to make better communities have more in common than the wedge-issue fear mongers would have us know.

I'm paying attention to people like Gar Alperovitz and David Korten, thinkers who imagine a connected and sustainable future. And I keep coming back to the knowledge that, under another President Clinton, we are as far from the path of real change as we've ever been. Something from the bottom up may be chaotic, but it has a chance to be smart. I don't dismiss the realities of Congress, but I no longer accept them as immutable.

Thank you bigtree.

...it captures perfectly the atmosphere and substance of the appearance.

It's a good demonstration of how at home Hillary is among the black community, and how powerful her commitment is to our well-being and success.

Sad that it's getting negative comments.

...I'd suggest they explore what she said in her address and try and discern where their own perspective is lacking - but you can't have that discussion around here because Sanders supporters have devalued Hillary to the point where SHE'S their main concern, not the issues which unify the black community and others.

...for too long, blacks have been struggling for representation in the political mainstream.

...

The two state Senators endorsed Bernie even though that's where Bill's foundation had it's office in 2000. LOL, some win!

...is that Obama decided in 2011 to overrule the EPA's clean air rules.

Hillary Clinton would give us more surrender to polluters.

Bernie Sanders wouldn't.