and you have no defense you go on the offense. I truly am amazed.

Hill was a good purchase for them. A bargain.

please go do some reading.

I'm sure no one needs instructions to point out lies when they see them. The truth kind of has a way of making itself known.

go from there.

I think Bernie people collectively recognized bullshit and appropriately called it out when it happened and were shown to have done the right thing then!

indictment in this dem primary and it isn't Bernie. You need to actually get a detection system.

Play into the GOP hands

double down and attempt to blame those who were maligned in the first place. A classic maneuver

right outta KKKarl's Big Book Of Nasty Tricksies. Utterly FOUL.

Children find a bear to taunt by poking it with a stick or implement. When the bear becomes upset the kids run back to families and say the scary mean bear tried to attack them.

Not about them attacking Bernie BUT,, about anyone calling the 'attackers' out on it.

OMG, they attacked the civil rights 'icons' who attacked Bernie.., those heroic attackers are being attacked by Bernie's people...

Taking marching orders from Wall Street is not a democratic ideal.

I'm sure there are more tricks in the future. She'll NEVER win the GE. I despise cheaters.

script of her three golden speeches to the wall street bastards. it's only a matter of time now.

If so, I hope they're released SOON.

what is the matter with you?

and of course

Do they not have names?

"According to accounts from people in the room ..."

Again these "people" are unidentifiable beyond "people" who were allegedly in a room?

"Donors also voiced some frustration ..."

What donors?

"One donor also asked Mr. Mook ..."

Again , which donor?

When a reporter writes a story that can't name names, and can't be specific beyond "according to accounts", that's a classic case of some people are sayin' journalism.

Tuesday 2/16/16

... of the people allegedly being quoted in the article in the OP.

Ya know, the "big money donors who instructed HRC's campaign," "the donors who voiced some frustration", the "donor who asked Mr. Mook", along with the "people in the room" whose "accounts" are relied upon despite the fact that they remain unidentified.

Again: When a reporter writes a story that can't name names, and can't be specific beyond "according to accounts", that's a classic case of some people are sayin' journalism.

unless this is another group advising her and don't want their names out

He probably has something to say about her losing the lead to Sanders (?)

One journalist leaves names out, one puts them in. That's why the internet is hurting Clinton, there is no hiding this stuff now. Reasonable people can do the math. They aren't writing checks to hear her say "stop the shenanigans"

...about who what is spoken around Wall Street.

But where is Nance Greggs when there is a call for Clinton to release her transcripts of what she said to Wall Street?

Right....

/sigh

... asking who the "some people" are in a "some people are saying'" article equates to a "fact finding mission", I can't help you. Maybe you think that's viable "journalism" - I don't, and I don't know many people who do.

I've actually posted many times about the call for Clinton to release her speech transcripts.

What I have said, repeatedly, is that the only people interested in those transcripts are BS supporters who are desperate to find some "47%er statement" that they hope will damage Hillary's campaign - because her campaign being fatally damaged is Bernie's ONLY hope of getting the nomination.

If BS supporters actually believed he can win the nomination on his own merits, they wouldn't be hoping-against-hope to find something - anything - that could turn the tide in his favour.

HRC supporters, on the other hand, are totally confident that she will win the nomination on her own positives, and are therefore not desperate to unearth a negative about Bernie that will save her campaign.

find out a lot more of the details.

Just a funny feeling.

Lot's of people like Bernie. You'd be surprised who some of them are.

... or what passes for it hereabouts, to be true reportage rather than "a teaser", and to be based on facts rather than funny feelings.

Your mileage apparently varies.

They don't run unsubstantiated reports. And they have been big fans of Hillary all along.

But nothing she has done before has troubled you. Why this? Is just because it "looks bad?"

She probably gave those advisers a sneer as she told them "well duh?"

Because these plans have been implemented, successfully, in other nations. Wall Street wants these plans discredited in the eyes of American voters because it would seriously harm their profit margins (and help their small business competition).

have overlooked...The GOP congress. Bernie's plans were a non-starter from the get-go.

...that the republiscammers owned the Congress....

Many of them this fall...

on the ballott everywhere. Primary any corporate democrat, and have candidates ride on the Bernie wage on a local level...

This revolution must be executed at every level. Not just focused around one person as if he was some sort of messiah. Like Bernie said, this is a collective effort.

Just not this time.

elections this fall as well...

Holds hearings on Obama SCOTUS nominees. The seats of the congressional representatives will be difficult, if not impossible, to flip for a Democratic majority.

Sooner rather than later...

From way back.

Bohemians started somewhere. They didn't wait to start. They just started.

Predicting a GOP Congress, for eternity, seems to be Clinton's main point. Why do I want to support a candidate who is pushing for a GOP Congress or who has no plan to win us a Democratic Congress? I don't.

The reason she predicts a GOP Congress, is because she knows that SHE would be horrible down ticket for Democrats.

Republican incumbents. That's just a fact. Hillary and no other Democrat "enjoys" having to overcome that obstacle, but wishful thinking won't make it go away.

Somehow I don't see Hillary even trying to do that.

Bernie -- better chance of changing a few minds.

Bernie's plans.

And, by the way, the things he has plans for are, for the most part, already being paid for.

Higher education. We pay for that by student loans for the poor. We should spread that cost (which is already paid for) across the population and impose it on the trades on Wall Street which are made by people who have money to burn and gamble with.

Healthcare. If we end private, for-profit insurance company funding for healthcare, we can cover a lot more people. There would be some additional cost here, but it would be worth imposing slightly higher taxes on very wealthy people and corporations to get healthcare for people who now do not have it.

And Bernie plans to audit the military budget. The savings he will make possible are likely to cover many of the added costs for his worthwhile programs.

We are not a poor country. It's just that a lot of the costs that are covered by taxes in other countries are imposed on the poor in our country.

he would have an incredible hurdle to overcome in getting any item passed a GOP congress.

If by some miracle he got past Hillary for the nomination, he has put himself at a financial disadvantage by his refusal to accept Super PAC money. Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Bros. would pour hundreds of millions into thr GE to defeat him.

As things stand right now, Bernie has bleak prospects of moving forward any of his visionary proposals. Maybe after four years, if Hillary fails to meet the expectations of her base, someone else can carry Bernie's plans over into a movement to give her a primary challenge.

What more would Citizen's expect from the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks that fund Camp HRC.

eom

Release his proposals

maybe there are volume discounts?

Even with the spotlight on, Clinton can't stay away from her employers:
http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clinton-goes-back-to-well-hits-up-financial-industry-for-fundraisers/

You know.

One of those "Lonesome Rhodes" moments where she says what she really thinks of us rubes?

that Bernie's plans are unrealistic.

that conventional wisdom says are 'unrealistic.'

If we were to fall for that kind of ideological dreaming, we'd be as bad as this guy:

And if he didn't who did? And where's the NYT link?

Attribution fail.

At the facebook thing there is a link to a New York Times article.

There's no long quotation from Weaver in the NYT article. So did Weaver write the OP? Or did Bernie interview his campaign manager and do a little write-up?

nor is wallstreet sending me money or telling me i should view Bernie's plans as unrealistic. Like many americans I already saw that by myself.

Not that it would matter.

I deleted my posts. That said, there's a lot of sexism on this board, but I should have read the post more closely.

A new saying is coming to life, as rigged as a Nevada DNC caucus, just like the odds on gaming tables, the house always wins in Nevada. Boy is that Nevada caucus train wreck going to haunt Clinton, ugly stuff.

I like Bernie, but his plans are incredibly unrealistic. I've been saying this for months. He has a lot of pretty dreams and ideas, but I just don't see him getting too much accomplished. It's not only that he will probably have a divided Congress to contend with, but that he won't have the "full" support of his own party. The Democratic rank and file view Clinton as their leader. She'll get a lot more support from them in the GE, as well. That's not necessarily how I would like it to be, but I think that's the way it is. Since we can't transform Washington with the election of a President, I think we'll do better with Clinton.