you are a fucking moron. Seriously, you are as dumb as rocks.' Markos appears to have lost the civility he once had.

but I agree with him that Hillary Clinton can defeat Donald Trump.

It may be that she can defeat trump.

And his tone is a bit more civil than some I've seen here.

and I agree, 'a bit more civil' than some here, which is one reason I don't post here as often as I might. I certainly don't post all of my thoughts and feelings; that's part of the measure of civility and adulthood, imo.

first thing he called the rest of us. Always. Never liked anything about him or his site.

Par for the course. I have friends who write there but still, Markos. Nope.

I think I found one.

we have to settle for someone we don''t like just to stop the Trumpenstein.

Same flawed thinking that has gotten and kept the Democratic Party and America in this predicament for 35 years.

we don't have a 2 Party system, where 3rd party, write-in, and protest votes, work to ensure we get the worst possible alternative.

{snip}

Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who attacked him for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base.

Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton to respond to left critiques will likely not come again soon.

Yet Moulitsas recently endorsed Clinton in a column for The Hill. Moulitsas was one of the key bloggers who supported Dean in 2004 and helped create the Netroots in its infancy. His goal, he said often, was "crashing the gate" of the Democratic establishment. But his uncritical support for Clinton, the quintessential establishment candidate, has turned much of his own blog into evidence of how some progressives are dismissing recent history for partisan reasons. In the last contested Democratic primary, Moulitsas was extremely critical of Clinton. Now, he is helping her do to Sanders what the DLC did to Dean.

Why are the likes of Dean and Moulitsas so quick to embrace Clinton after years of battling with her and her allies in the so-called "vital center?" Only they know for sure. In the case of Dean, it may well be because he was never a real populist to begin with. In 2003, Bloomberg did a story asking Vermonters to talk about Dean's ideology. "Howard is not a liberal. He's a pro-business, Rockefeller Republican," said Garrison Nelson, a political science professor at the University of Vermont. This sentiment is shared by many Vermonters, on both the left and right.

But for other self-identified progressives who have embraced the establishment candidate, such as Moulitsas, the answers may be simpler: partisan loyalty and ambition. The fact is the odds of Clinton winning the nomination are very good. And for the likes of Moulitsas - who now writes columns for an establishment DC paper and is a major fundraiser for Democrats - being on the side of the winner will certainly make him more friends in DC than supporting the self-identified socialist that opposes her. Moulitsas argues that Clinton has dismissed "her husband's ideological baggage" and is "aiming for a truly progressive presidency." He is now a true believer, he claims. It is up to readers to decide if they find his argument to be credible, especially compared to the conflicting statements he has made for many years. Many on his own blog are skeptical.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33869-hillary-clinton-s-ghosts-a-legacy-of-pushing-the-democratic-party-to-the-right

why vote for a republican-lite just because they have a "D" after their name.

I'm tired of carrying water for the dems to keep them in power and then they do as little as possible for the public, but just enough to be able to say they aren't as bad as the Republicans.

ACA is a perfect example. They didn't even try to fight for single payer.
Refused to allow single payer advocates to testify before congress. They gave us the Heritage Foundation plan with a few tweaks.
Ya it's better that what we had but a far cry from what we should have.

It is her right to support TPP and capital punishment and fracking and privatizing social security and charter schools and making healthcare even more profitable for her friends and increasing domestic spying and trillions of dollars in wars. It is her right to oppose gay marriage and wall street regulation and put some abortion restrictions on the table. It is her right to change her mind on every major issue, as often as she likes.

It's my right to not vote for such a person.

I have the right to vote for OR not vote for, whoever I choose.

In a Hillary/Trump election, I am voting for the progressive -- Jill Stein (Green), and so are my friends.

the primary. This is my first primary and I can tell you that this process only confirms my skepticism in the political process.

Bernie only does good in white states...

And that was followed immediately with a story about Flint and how there is another polluted town in...Vermont.

How convenient that he's slammed about white people and then it felt like it was implication by association, about Vermont and that town's water.

I also think that the anybody-but-Hill factor is WHOLEY underestimated.

The vast majority of Dems will vote for whoever is the nominee... but Dems are a smaller group than Independents, and HRC will need Sanders' supporters much more than Sanders will need HRC's supporters should he win.

HRC is:

against $15 minimum
against Single Payer
against free public college tuition
For the TPP
For the Keystone pipeline
open to raising the SS age
open to continued regime change in the ME...

So, remind us what makes her so irresistible to middle class voters?

And ... I've left you alone amongst the tattered trail of mean nasty supporters of a certain candidate that have left my sight ...

But, the little snide asides are getting to be a burden ...

I'm going to rid that burden now ...

Gone

I wonder what job he gets if HRC gets elected...

He is free to sell his soul to corporate interests and the piece of shit bastards on Wall Street.

I'll pass, fuck you very much (Kos, not the OP).

Thanks, Book_worm!

...once he is selected as the Republican nominee, that is, since Hillary's should go down upon becoming our nominee. So if Hillary's goes down and Trump's goes down, that really doesn't put us ahead.

But the premise that Hillary's unfavorable score should go down has not been established by Moulitsas. If a sizable portion of the electorate regard her as crooked, why should the score go down once she becomes the nominee?

Moulitsas himself realizes that his argument is at a minimum insufficient, for he goes on to say, "you can’t argue 54 percent unfavorables makes her unelectable while claiming that Donald Trump can win with unfavorables of 58 percent." But no one is arguing that 54 percent unfavorables make her completely unelectable. What is of strong concern is that that 54% is not all that much above Trump's 58% -- just small fluctuations caused by yet unknown future factors could easily place her unfavorability score above his!! Her edge over Trump is too tenuous, especially in light of the immense problems that would ensue should The Donald become president.

Another thing overlooked is that Bernie has gone easy on her, and she's still at 54% unfavorable. The Republicans will use all kinds of ammo against her, and she's certainly provided them with a lot. We need only recall how a fine candidate, John Kerry, was swiftboated.

The best thing to do is to support Bernie (with his 49% favorability rating) and thereby take much fewer chances!

We've had weeks of angst over DWS. So this is brilliant.

O'Malley and Sanders knew what they were doing when they asked for more.

HRC is nationally famous. O'Malley and Sanders aren't. People aren't going to vote for a candidate they never heard of over one they have in a primary.

Miles to go before we sleep (ANY of us).

The HRC campaign knew what it was doing when it requested of DWS to schedule only 4 debates (DWS scheduled 6).

In 2008, HRC and Obama debated 25 times, and that helped him.

A candidate who is nationally famous, such as HRC, is helped by having only a small number of debates.

Kos' claim that debates don't matter because of social media is absurd. Most Americans aren't going to Twitter to read about politics.

Sorry Markos... Clinton CAN'T beat Trump, because there is 0 enthusiasm behind her campaign. She is just politics as usual.

No matter what the unavailability ratings Trump will get votes from people who want to shake up the system.

Clinton won't.

So UNLESS they leave the Supreme Court seat open and give Clinton a wedge issue, she can't win.

NT

In every respect.

calling us all white racists seem to be the memo of the day.

your really crazy if you think bernie running is what has called her negatives to rise.if you think GOP won't be much much harsher
on her your crazy.many bernie supporters think he has been too nice to her while she has been lying like crazy on him.

we have been called racists and sexists by clinton supporters.Bill CLinton called us all tea party.you think after all the bashing by
clinton we will just forgive and forget like nothing happened after all the personal attacks?

Clinton is no progressive.Moulistsas has proven he is none by supporting clinton and attacking bernie and his supporters.

I have plenty of reasons to oppose clinton

she supports more war In middle east and is loved by henry kissinger

she supports free trade bills no matter what she claims at present.evidance is there.they kill unions and working class

as disabled on social safety net she won't defend them.she already opposes rasing cap on wealthy which means SS and medicare will continue on path to bankruptcy.Republicans can't wait to cut food stamps and medicaid under pretense of fighting "fraud"
with her you can kiss any cost of living adjustments goodbye.

Clinton only cares about top 1%

The data has been clear: as Sanders name recognition increases with minority voters, so does his support among minority voters. Carl Beijer, linked from Naked Capitalism, explains the name recognition gap as a result of media coverage. Nobody would dispute Clinton receiving much greater, more favorable coverage. The fact that Clinton competes point for point in unfavorability ratings with Donald Trump says lots about her vulnerabilities. Clinton, like Trump, is a treasure chest of scandal and political disaster and although Sanders has been mild and dignified in his criticisms, Trump would be ruthless. Good luck thinking all Sanders supporters will vote for Hillary. Disgust of media, political and corporate elites is finally catching up with all the economic data pointing to Gilded Age suffering.

remember how the media just LAUGHED & pointed cameras at the tea baggers????

When was the last time SC went Blue in a GE? What would have happened to SC if the vote went the other way and Hillary eventually won anyway? Could they be left to the wolves in in elephant suits for the next 4 years? We all watched her use the fear of a republican takeover to scare the vote out of SC.

How much effort has the DNC made to register new voters? Haven't seen much going on on campus, wonder why that is? How many seats did DSW lose on her watch? She lost the house/senate, and if her and Hillary aren't more careful how they portray Bernie while Hillary cops his actual shtick, they will lose the White House too.

MSNBC, the channel that basically acted as the Democratic Party's unofficial cable network for Obama has chased out or "sat down" anybody vague suspected of possibly backing Bernie against Hillary. If John Roberts wants to be the next Rupert Murdock, he's off to one hell of a start.

And, if Hillary Clinton was sooo principled, she would not have hired David "Anita Hill's slut... sike" Brock.

Oh... one other thing. FBI INVESTIGATION and CLINTON STAFF ORDERED TO TESTIFY BY CLINTON APPOINTEE!

Duces.

The Democrats simply could not nominate a worse candidate than Clinton in terms of completely misreading the anti-establishment mood of the electorate as a whole, firing up the Republican base, driving Independents into the Republicans' arms, leaving the Democratic base stone cold, and ensuring that highly liberal millennials stop participating in politics completely.

Seriously. I can't think of a worse candidate the Democratic and corporate establishment could have possibly shoved down our throats.