Or is it more 'hurr durr realism' horsepoo like usual?

PS, Hillary couldn't bring together two horny teenagers. Can we remove these suckups who blatantly, obviously, intentionally lie to our faces also? I'm starting to feel like cleaning house, top to bottom.

this is 2008 all over again

We heard that an Obama Presidency would be frightening.

We heard that Clinton had the experience and Obama didn't.

This is 2008 2.0.

Didn't work then. Won't work now.

Sanders will be a great President.

It doesn't matter what entrenched politicos have to say. Bernie is running for us, "We The People". We will get him into the White House. These governors are more than welcome to join us, but we certainly won't be impeded if we don't have their support.

Who will, of course, drop him even faster than they dropped Obama when he's actually in office. But, hey, one bridge at a time.

Cause it's "her turn" and the millenials who clearly can't be arsed to believe her because she spins more than a sideshow dervish are clearly just ultra-left, fringe lunatic liberal tea-partiers and all that. I do not sip coffee with the enemy. Anyone who I can't trust, who laughs at the deaths of other human beings, who habitually lies and connives is the enemy.

Move?

Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, Peter Shumlin, has shunned his fellow Vermonter for Clinton.

not an insider.

not as a member of a bought and paid for party. As the only candidate without a Superpac, and judging by who corporations are giving to, I don't think he qualifies as "establishment" at all.

It takes more guts to call yourself a Democrat or Republican than an Independent. You don't have to worry about being hurt by the real politics of this country, like being a victim of anti-party waves that happen all the time. You're even insulated from anti-establishment waves because, well, what IS an independent? Conveniently, not one of those major party types who screwed it up.

Out of the firing line, hiding out in plain sight while the parties that actually get things done take the flack.

Bernie - introduced over 300 pieces of legislation in 25 years and has had all of three enacted into law...oh yeah, two of them were to rename post offices. But he gets things done.

I think that takes a lot more guts, and in a system that amply rewards you for being part of one of the two major parties it's not some advantage. Clinton benefits enormously electorally for being a part of a major party, in terms of visibility, corporate contributions, party rules being bent in her favor, the entire party apparatus pushing her, super delegates, etc.

I don't really care who "gets things done" if they're bad things. The Democratic Party hasn't gotten much done in that regard in the last couple decades. And they've passed some truly heinous stuff in the name of electability, and it has cost the whole party's image.

Given the congressional makeup, I don't see how lots of legislation coming from a democratic socialist could pass, but his voting record reflects he is willing to support the lesser of two evils, I just am sick of that being the only option. I can't respect a party that couldn't even debate the public option for healthcare because so many members were bought and paid for by the health insurance industry, for example.

I don't want someone who is good at working within the current corrupt system to make incremental changes, the corrupt system is at the root of the problem. That has to be addressed or there can't be any meaningful change going forward. Nothing that is in opposition to what corporations and lobbyists want, at least, and I'm sick of waiting around for their interests to align with mine, that's not what I call a courageous strategy.

a major achievement for any party. Or perhaps you consider the ACA to be heinous?

And of course, marriage equality would have passed anyway, even if a Bible-thumping R was president speaking out against it. Detroit would have miraculously made a comback without the Ds. President McCain and VP Palin would have saved the economy through their tax cuts.

Then, there's all those heinous jobs the Ds created over the past few decades.

Seriously?

to be the biggest achievement of the party in the last couple decades, I volunteered with Organizing for America in 2010 to help push it through as a piece of legislation, and I think it's an improvement on the previous system, but it is just an incremental change, millions remain without health insurance, and that won't change as long as the party is beholden to corporate interests, the whole public option debacle made very clear. I knew it as I was pushing it, I hated that it didn't address the core problems, and the reason it didn't is because the party was, and remains, legally bribed.

Gay marriage would've passed without the president, I give the Democratic Party, as an organization, zero credit for that, they were as likely to throw gays under the bus as to support them depending on electability, fucking Rick Warren at the inauguration? Gay marriage was secured in spite of the party, and I'll never forget that.

I don't consider the fact that the Democrats aren't as much of a train wreck as Republcians a good reason to respect them, I know that's true.

when she had to have a mastectomy after being cancer-free for 6 years.

I was unemployed, she was working part time. Our COBRA had expired. We qualified for the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. She was able to have her surgery at $0 cost to us. Without the ACA, she wouldn't have been able to even get insurance due to her pre-existing condition.

Sometimes, incrementalism is all you need to save lives.

Or maybe we would have been better off waiting Bernie's Medicare-for-all to kick in. You know, on principle.

Incrementalism worked for your wife, but it hasn't for others, and I'm fine with taking what we can get in chunks, my problem is that we will never address the core problems as long as our party is able to be legally bribed. It doesn't require waiting for Medicare for all on principle, it requires changing the political system, and Clinton won't do that. Sanders will take what he can get, but he'll actually push for more, and he'll push for change in our electoral system. The status quo isn't good enough, and Clinton is part of it.

than 4.

Hillary Clinton has a character issue. She's untrustworthy, manipulative and will do anything to hold her grip on power.

She's untrustworthy, manipulative and will do anything to hold her grip on power.


And that kind of vindictive personality scares the average party politician.

See Senator Clyburn for the latest example.

Sad, isn't it?

My concern is WHICH PEOPLE she is bringing together--Goldman Sachs? TPP supporters? Etc.

Corporations own our political system. Governors, state reps, they're terrified that the only system they know is slipping away from them, and the power they enjoy may go with it if they can't raise the funds needed to compete. Real finance reform takes guts, you have to trust that the people you represent truly want you in that office enough to not only turn out in large numbers to support you, but to fund you until the system can be changed.

That is the real story here. They simply lack the courage, and enjoy the comfort too much. The people be damned.

I would expect nothing different at this point. Hillary is the "establishment" choice. I see their comments, and the comments of other sitting office holders through that lens.

He IS an establishment politician when it suits them. NOT an establishment when it suits them.

It changes based on the situation. Its ridiculous

and who big banks and corporations are giving to establish that he's not establishment at all.

The disconnect is people who think you have to be backed by the establishment to be ready or experienced, and that idea is pushed by none other than... The establishment.

...

U.S. Senate is more ready than a man who has spent 25 years in Congress?

Kiss my ass. He WILL BE PRESIDENT - deal with it.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

And issue positions are not really a qualification either. Sanders does not come off as an executive type of leader. He comes off as a legislator who is more comfortable as 1 out of 100.

"executive type" of leadership.

Cabinet positions are executive level and Secretary of State is pretty important. I'm not sure how you think Mayor of Burlington, Vermont is a higher position than Secretary of State, but I won't argue with you about it.

more executive-level experience?

I directly refuted your point and that's your rebuttal?

I'm sorry if I offended you. I was talking more about style, in the debates he comes off more like a legislator than an executive. Again, I apologize profusely. I didn't intend to offend you.

There are towns that have a larger government and more municipal workers.

1. I disagree.

2. I disagree.

3. I disagree.

4. I disagree.

Bernie is ready, he is more then ready.

I am past ready for President Bernie Sanders.

I was 10 years old when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

I still remember that day.

The TV images are still in my mind.

I won't live to see another chance for this country to change directions.

This country needs Bernie.

Kennedy said to McNamara: When asking McNamara to be Secratary of Defense and McNamara said he did not have the experience for it.

" Look, Bob," he said, "I don't think there's any school for Presidents either. ..."

I'm sure these same governors supported one time senator Obama just fine.

probably never will be.

Mmmm, yeah, she's got the whole lying Republican sleaze thing DOWN! And of course none of these Dem gubernotorious types owe HRC and the DLC ANYTHING.

Who can work with the sucky Congress.

Gee. I wonder what great things the sucky Congress and the woman who supposedly can work with them will do for the American people.

Now that's an argument I can't get behind.