Period. End of story.

F minus.

This excerpt from FDR's 1944 State of the Union helps define our situation by giving a benchmark for measuring which candidate is a true Democrat:

But DWS and HRC are peas in a pod. How confusing!

Yeah. Didn't think so.

Are you saying that Dems in the Senate don't like Sanders? It's true that Hillary has gotten 40 out of those 44 possible endorsements. That doesn't necessarily mean these people don't like or support (in a general sense) Sanders. Preferring Hillary is not inherently a rebuff of Bernie. They can like both people, but are only able to endorse one, and they may feel Hillary would be the stronger choice for a variety of reasons... they may prefer her specific policies... they may generally prefer a less radical and more business-as-usual agenda... they may feel she's a virtual shoe-in anyway and want to be on the good side of the next president from whom they may want to curry favor... they may want to project party unity (which you do by supporting the favorite, not the obvious underdog)... they may want a woman president... they may think Hillary is more electable... they may not want to go out on a limb for a long shot... None of these things would indicate that they have issues with Bernie as a supportive Dem. If by some remote chance Bernie got the nomination, I think it's safe to assume that most would still support his campaign whole heartedly. (Unlike, on the other side, where many Republican members of Congress would not be eager supporters of Trump if he got the nomination.)

House Reps and ZERO Senators have endorsed Sanders.

Don't you assess an applicant by references, especially for higher positions?

Based on those, the TRUE Democrat is obvious enough.

this applicant seriously wanting. Then add the fact that he gets no support from his colleagues who know him best and voila! He's not a Democrat, true or otherwise.

But thanks for chiming in.

Okay then, if Albert Einstein were alive today, who would he endorse?
This might help:

http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

and nobody really knows you. They rely on references - and so do employers.

That said, in an election campaign, endorsements are very important to the success of that campaign. As was pointed out to me earlier by a Bernie supporter, an endorsement by State Rep. Tim Smith helped Bernie win New Hampshire in a LANDSLIDE against Hillary Clinton. He actively worked on the campaign. That's the importance of endorsements. It surprises me that you don't know that.

And I don't speculate what deceased geniuses would or wouldn't do. What I do speculate on is whether a candidate has the clout to get his agenda through...and Bernie has shown me he doesn't. So his wonderful promises and incredible platform (which I agree with) are moot points if he doesn't have any clout in the U.S. Congress. He needs Congress, but he hasn't shown he's willing to work in order to get the Congress he needs to help him funnel his platform through. He's raised exactly 0 dollars for down-ticket Dems. That's the writing on the wall for me.

I always say, one bird in the hand is always better than two in the bushes.

...the House of Representatives either, okay?

And it's not about getting stuff passed immediately -- it's about instead making proposals that can eventually be passed when the opportune time arises. For example, the Dems have been pushing to expand Health care coverage since the late 1940s. An opportune time (i.e., enough elected Democrats to pass the legislation) to expand health care coverage occurred first around 1964, and then later around 2010. But if you don't make the proposals even when you're not in power to pass them but only make them when you have enough congresspersons on your side, you notably weaken the chance of eventual passage, because you don't seem that committed to the matter. As it was, Obamacare just barely passed; would it have done so had the Democrats not persistently put expansion of healthcare coverage to the forefront of their agenda?

You seek merely another Bill Cllnton, a ho-hum presidency with not much good accomplished. I seek an FDR. Now to be sure "Is this the right time to be seeking an FDR?" I answer, "yes, it is, because polls show Bernie well ahead of Trump in one-on-one matchups."
Again, I realize that the Republicans are strongly in control of the House of Representatives. But should that change in six years or so, Bernie could have a small window of opportunity. (With Hillary, it hardly matters. She just seeks to be president, not a GREAT president).

Actually, Democrats were hoping that the fire Sanders was sending out would've pushed more Democrats to vote, but the numbers are down from 2008, which is another sign Bernie isn't getting the job done (aside from losing large swaths of the popular vote to Hillary Clinton and having immense trouble trying to get Blacks and Latinos to his side).

And you're wrong. I don't seek another Bill Clinton presidency, although he did a LOT of good for this country with 23 million newly created jobs, a balanced budget, and surpluses in the foreseeable future. His presidency had a lot of trouble with a lot of things, but the economy was incredibly good.

I want President Obama's policies to continue and expanded upon. Hillary Clinton has promised she will do just that. Bernie is calling for a revolution which tells me he's NOT going to continue with President Obama's policies. And President Obama has all but said he's endorsed her by urgently asking donors to support her.

And no. It's not Hillary who just "seeks to be president, not a GREAT president". It's Bernie who should get that labeling.

He's done nothing to elect down-ticket Dems for Congress and States; he's tried to primary our first Black president; his plans are vague on how he intends to deliver his platform - and he's not a Democrat and has never been one (his own words).

...getting impeached. Now did that have a positive effect or a negative effect on Al Gore's chances to win the presidency? (Even Al Gore himself thought it had a negative effect!).

And Hillary is much more deceitful than is her husband. Just what effect do you think that might have on "down-ticket Dems"???

Hint: think about her 54% disapproval rating -- that might help.

It's Bernie with bold ideas such as "college education for all." Hillary merely seeks minor incrementalism, or even no action at all. For example, she's not going to break up the "too big to fail" banks, no, since they're the ones who have been paying her off!

The Republicans are especially vulnerable with regards to the presidency; Independents aren't likely to go for The Donald. Now is our time to get into the Whitehouse an innovative Democrat with vision.

I'm astounded that I have to defend a prominent and well-loved Democrat on Democratic Underground.

That said, President Clinton was persecuted by men who had no credibility (Gingrich, Hyde, Livingston, and many ,many others), but what was hidden by U.S. Media who are all in the tank for Republicans. You KNOW this. That wouldn't have happened had we had the intertubes back in the mid-nineties. As such, Americans were inundated with whatever propaganda lots of money could buy - with here and there a mention of the hypocrisy (usually buried deep in newspapers, or quickly mentioned on teevee).

Al Gore didn't lose, but his campaign was hampered by the extreme-Left who pushed Nader (who was funded by Bush's pals) who, in turn, constantly attacked Gore and LIEberman of which one prominent Leftist, Michael Moore, propagated that "there is no difference between Gore and Bush" - but that turned out to be so godawful wrong, didn't it? However, it DID make Moore a multimillionaire AND an Oscar winning filmmaker. All good for him.

Those polls showing Hillary's disapproval rating high INCLUDE REPUBLICAN VOTERS who've drank the RW-propaganda for far too long to be saved and who hate the Clintons almost as much as people on the extreme-left. But a closer look at the facts shows that opinion doesn't gel with Hillary Clinton winning the top spot for being the most admired woman for a record 20th time in a row.

Clinton Most Admired Woman for Record 20th Time
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Americans again name Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama the woman and man living anywhere in the world they admire most. Both win by wide margins over the next-closest finishers, Malala Yousafzai for women and Pope Francis and Donald Trump for men.

[center][/center]
http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

She's done a lot for women's rights, gay rights she's evolved thankfully, immigration she'll hopefully push through a reform package, and aside from her accomplishments, she's withstood so much and is still standing. Plus following the Bush years, she helped to improve our international reputation, and she was most admired woman 7/8 years of Bush's presidency, sorry Barbara. And as of last year she passed her husband with 22 years being most admired to now 24 (in 2009 she almost lost to Sarah Palin 16 - 15, yikes!).

What puzzles me is when you're the most admired woman, why are your untrustworthy/honesty polls so high? Perhaps, if more people knew about her being voted most admired almost 20 years in a row, that would change?

Not going to happen with DLC candidates.

DLCer or not, he won both of his elections with over 51% of the vote - at the risk of repeating myself around here - it was a feat not seen since none other than FDR.

So again, stop being so pessimistic.

So there's no downside for these cowards to endorsing Clinton.

In this case, no, endorsements don't much matter to me. Regardless of who my two senators endorsed (or didn't), it would not affect who I intend to vote for. Nor would I care who the senators of other states endorsed. But I guess they do matter to some people. Probably not so many on DU, though. I don't expect many of us here would change our minds based on shifting or new endorsements, and I suspect that endorsements were not a major factor in why people here support Hilary. Endorsements do have a PR value, and I think they may help shift the votes of some people who don't, themselves, follow issues as closely as most of us here do.

But to get back to your analogy about assessing an applicant by references, in a regular job situation, the references provided by a given applicant can just as easily simultaneously be equally positive references for other candidates for the same position. Endorsements are different because (as I said) a Senator or House Rep can't endorse two people. So an endorsement of one does not inherently mean they don't also think highly of the other. So it is not quite the same as seeing, for example, two applicants for a job, both of whom shared a previous employer, who recommended one but not the other (i.e. where the reference *does* have the ability to recommend both, and chooses not to).

Think about that for a sec...

the 'currency' of credibility in this election cycle can be measured in the policies presented and the consistency of character over time within the context of defending those policies for each candidate...

so my 'assessing' is based upon that, not by fickle POLITICAL references that can change on a polling whim...

Yes, good for us all, both candidates are embracing values and policies that the left hold near and dear

One is making it the main purpose for running the other is being dragged into it embracing those same issues

Bernie isn't - on both accounts.

She's for expanding on ObamaCare - pushing for a Public Option, which I prefer.

She's for strong national security and fearless in her desire to protect the American people.

She's got the respect and clout of Congress people.

She has the support and unofficial endorsement of President Obama - the BEST president in my lifetime - and a powerful ally.

She's a woman, and is uniquely attuned to the problems women face in this country - even today.

She is the most qualified, the most experienced, and the most knowledgeable of all candidates currently running - on both sides.

She embraces my values and those reflect in her policies. Bernie doesn't.

then devolved into points that aren't

again, she's being pulled to the left, either willingly or not but it IS happening and for that I am thankful REGARDLESS of whom you support or not

In the end it's about policy elements, the more she moves left I would pose to you this... is her moving away to the left moving her away from your 'values' that you embrace?

Hillary Clinton has always been a strong progressive. She's not a Leftist and she's not perfect, so if that's what you're looking for in a candidate you can wait till Hades freezes over - but I'm not. Her record shows she's always been to the left of 90% of Senators when she was in the Senate, and that's as far as she should go or she'd otherwise alienate the vast majority of voting Americans who are pretty much in the center.

I don't see where Sanders has "pulled Hillary to the left". But I've seen where she's pulling him to the left - on that egregious PLCAA law he voted for, and away from the Republican stance on immigration the way he pontificated about on the Lou Dobbs show.

Her "moving away to the left" is a myth. She's where she's always been: left of center. Just like Obama.

"Hillary Clinton has always been a strong progressive" - her history disagrees with you on this point, easily provable is needed

"She's not a Leftist" agreed, see point above, that's why I stated she's being pulled to the left

"she's not perfect" agreement again, but she's being pulled into being a better candidate by her opponent

"so if that's what you're looking for in a candidate you can wait till Hades freezes over" - only waiting through this primary process to be played out, we'll see what happens through this progress and the results when it's completed

the rest of your post is an attempt at revisionism, knowing the history of each candidate shatters the facade there you're attempting to create

"Hillary Clinton has always been a strong progressive" - her history disagrees with you on this point, easily provable is needed

That would, of course, depend on YOUR opinion what's progressive. Her history shows very strongly that she's a progressive, but if you choose to ignore nuance, yes, she'll come across differently than she is.

"She's not a Leftist" agreed, see point above, that's why I stated she's being pulled to the left

I understand that Bernie supporters will hold on to this myth for as long as they can, but she's not being "pulled to the left" by him. Again, she's no Leftist, but neither is Bernie - based on their voting record.

"she's not perfect" agreement again, but she's being pulled into being a better candidate by her opponent

We agree on that. She's not a natural politician, as she's admitted herself. She doesn't overpromise, like her opponent does. But she has become a better candidate in terms of "explainin' stuff".

"so if that's what you're looking for in a candidate you can wait till Hades freezes over" - only waiting through this primary process to be played out, we'll see what happens through this progress and the results when it's completed

The process will be, she'll be the winner and she'll defeat Trump in the G.E. How can I be so sure? President Obama will be by her side, and the man who won both of his elections with over 51% of the vote - a feat not seen since FDR - is a formidable opponent and strong ally.

the rest of your post is an attempt at revisionism, knowing the history of each candidate shatters the facade there you're attempting to create

Hyperbole. So what you're saying is, Bernie didn't vote to give legal immunity against lawsuits for the gun manufacturers, gun distributors and gun sellers? Well, he did.

He didn't vote for the 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill? Well yes, he did.

He didn't vote FIVE TIMES against the Brady Bill? Well, yes, he did.

He didn't appear on Lou Dobbs' show after voting against the 2007 immigration bill? Sorry. but yes. He did.

No revisionism necessary. Just cold - hard - facts.

Thank you.

"you choose to ignore nuance"

You're correct, I choose facts. "Just cold - hard - facts."

your entire post is riddled with nuance so there is that...

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/hillary-campaign-ad/3001364

Comedy derived from this primary process and her shift left, enjoy!

"He didn't vote for the 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill? Well yes, he did." You mean he did not vote because of the guest workers program alongside one of the largest and most respected Latino/a organizations, LULAC and the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

"In May 2007, a few weeks before the Senate’s vote, LULAC’s executive director said the group “cannot support a bill that will separate families and lead to the exploitation of immigrant workers while resulting in widespread undocumented immigration in the future.”
"The American Immigration Lawyers Association called the bill “unworkable,” explaining that “political considerations eventually warped the proposal in ways that would bring more chaos to our immigration system instead of the order and rationality that this bill was intended to restore.”
http://www.latinorebels.com/2016/02/15/bernie-sanders-voted-against-immigration-reform-in-2007-and-was-right/

He didn't vote FIVE TIMES against the Brady Bill? Well, yes, he did. He's not PRO-GUN as much as a moderate and this reflects more so his responsibility to his state, who see gun's differently then those in large cities. Though yes, this hurts his progressive stance. There is more to it then just the Brady Bill and a reason he has around a D rating from the NRA (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/).

He didn't appear on Lou Dobbs' show after voting against the 2007 immigration bill? Sorry. but yes. He did. Nothing about what he said, just guilty by association?

justify voting against a comprehensive immigration reform bill that had the best chance of passing.

So to avoid all confusion, let's use HIS OWN WORDS at the time.

Here's what he said on the Senate floor at the time:

"It is not about raising wages or improving benefits. What it is about is bringing into this country over a period of years millions of low-wage temporary workers with the result that wages and benefits in this country, which are already going down, will go down even further."

The AFL-CIO is pretty much a Republican outfit, by the way. In 2013, they were urging then Speaker Boehner to push the Keystone XL pipeline through. The Keystone XL Pipeline is not very Democratic nor Progressive. But Republicans love it, and so did the AFL-CIO.

But back to immigration...The SEIU, with 40% of its members being minorities, is a strong Democratic union, and they were FOR the 2007 immigration bill. I guess they figured, better one bird in the hand than two in the bush, right?

As you can see above, Bernie had cited the guest worker language in the 2007 bill as the reason why he voted against it. His excuses changes over the years, but he can't run away from his Senate floor speech as noted above. Those are the facts.

By the way? That same guest worker language he was against in the 2007 immigration bill was also in the 2013 immigration bill - when there was no chance in Hades for it to pass with a Republican House and a filibustering Republican Senate - and he voted for it, and LULAC and the AFL-CIO were silent. Was it out of political expediency that he voted for it in 2013 - with an eye on the presidential election - or did he have remorse for voting against in 2007? Take your pick.

He's not PRO-GUN as much as a moderate and this reflects more so his responsibility to his state, who see gun's differently then those in large cities.

they endorse their own kind in their own club.

suspicious money coming from international sources. His "fans" donate beyond the FEC limts of $2700 per cycle, and he has to now return that money and justify those donations. The FEC sent him TWO notices. Hillary got ZERO.

And let's not talk about the millions Republicans are supporting him with in ads, with the latest Freedom Works ads paid for by the KOCH BROS.

And yes, they do endorse their own kind in their own club, and he appears to be in it.

refuse to take as gospel...and you should, too.

Clinton on the other hand... I don't know why you or anyone would think *she's* honest given her record. It honestly baffles me.

Gabbard herself said she was 'warned'. A statement from her about what has happened to her.


hearsay [heer-sey]
noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:
I pay no attention to hearsay.
2.
an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:
a malicious hearsay.

So like I said, either you don't understand the word you used or you are implying that she's lying.

should not be upheld as gospel. That's all I'm saying. YOU'RE making it into, "you're implying she's dishonest" or "she's LYING" when I've done NO such thing.

Unless or until her rumor is substantiated by naming names (reread my initial post wherein I ask it) it's merely hearsay.

Did you have a point?

Riiiiiiiight.

My point was pretty clear. If you can't understand that, it isn't me. It's you.

But it doesn't matter. Sanders' Campaign is all but over.

The first officeholder I saw stating it was Tim Smith, New Hampshire state rep, who put it on his facebook. I posted it when I saw it some months ago.

Passing that, where on earth do you see "conspiracy" in a statement that the DNC is pressuring people? The statement is either true or false, but it does not even allege a conspiracy.

Not that anything is wrong with alleging a conspiracy, but imagining such an allegation is telling. http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?1706-Conspiracy-theories-Give-Ockham-s-Razor*-a-rest-now-and-again-will-ya&highlight=Ockham

And, fyi, going on about CONSPIRACY, even if your comment were accurate, does not refute anything in my post.

Finally, please don't flatter yourself that I don't understand what you post. I've never seen you post anything deep, or even especially original or meaningful

endorse Sanders. That's a pretty tall tale - considering that none other than Sherrod Brown endorsed Hillary over Bernie early on and he was expected to endorse Sanders. Senator Brown isn't the type of man to be pressured into anything. But I know it must've stung really badly.

I don't give two squats about your anti-Hillary/anti-Democratic Party site. I tend not avoid sludge.

If there is any pressure, it's from zealous Bernie supporters trying to pressure Hillary supporters into supporting their candidate. Gabby Giffords, John Lewis, PP, NARAL, Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Sherrod Brown, and many others provide plenty of proof for that in the forms of the nastiest tweets and FB comments to be posted to Hillary endorsers outside of Teapublican Land. So I'll take your allegations as unfounded and having no basis in truth instead of a conspiracy. How's that?

Finally, your opinion of my posts or me matters as much to me as the opinions of Teapublicans. I hope that cleared it up for you.

Again I ask, how many U.S. Reps and U.S. Senators have endorsed Sanders? Two U.S. Reps and, IIRC, ZERO U.S. Senators. Of course you'll be alleging CONSPIRACY by the DNC to pressure anyone from endorsing Sander, although you're clever enough not to use that word. But we get it.

I've long ago learned that there's no talking to a closed mind, merrily, thus I had NO illusions engaging with you that you'd learn anything from my posts. I didn't write them for you but for food-for-thought for those who don't write things in stone in their minds.

But not to impugn a good man's reputation, State Rep. Tim Smith's endorsement was a solid endorsement since it helped win New Hampshire for Sanders (by a huge landslide) which tells me he did his job well. Only kudos to him from me.

But again, State Rep. Tim Smith is NOT a U.S. Rep nor a U.S. Senator - people who actually work and worked closely with Bernie and who know him well. Those are the endorsements he needed in my eyes because he's not running for Governor of New Hampshire or any other State. He's running for President of the United States. Endorsements by Federal-level congressmen and Senators are crucial if he wants to be president, and they tell me whether or not he can be a credible one. So far, it ain't looking good.

agenda does not limit my response. Surely, you've posted long enough to know that. However, that is not why I linked to Tim Smith's words anyway. Surely you knew that.

Smith should know better than you whether there has been pressure or not. That is the point for which linked you to his words--and his words show widespread pressure on Democrats, not only pressure on him.

As between a state rep who had a lot to lose by posting what he did about pressure and an anonymous poster on DU who starts flinging nasty as soon as he runs up against the least bit of resistance to his pronouncements, I'm going with Tim Smith's facebook post. Plenty of pressure, yet many down ticket Democrats like Canova and state people like Smith have been proud to stand with Sanders, as am I.

Now, if you continue not to care so very much that you keep responding to my posts, you'll forgive me if I don't reply any further. Have a great St. Pat's Day.

d anyone. With Hillary, Bill, and DWS you have a choice endorse Hillary or stay neutral.

Dems? He has been pulling in the multi millions, so let us see evidence of his Support, shall we? We shall wait while you go find your figures.

as I understand it. Not such an issue when your financial support comes almost entirely via small contributions from individuals.

But in general, sure, Bernie has participated in fundraisers for the Dem party. Some here even took him to task over it, saying that it made him as beholden to special interests as Hillary is. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

She out-raised Bernie Sanders ($55 million to his $34 million in the last quarter of 2015) but still managed to help raise $18 million for down-ticket Democrats. Then, in January, she raised $5 million more for down-ticket Democrats - and, as an aside, unlike with Bernie, the FEC has not sent her notices to justify those donations.

However, Bernie's campaign said that they plan on raising money for down-ticket Dems. Plan? Why not do it now? What's the hold-up? I'm certain he understands that the platform he's selling requires a Congress to funnel them into law, right? So why isn't he doing what he can to get that Congress?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251968425

So please don't get those two confused: yes, he raised money for down-ticket Dems before, but he hasn't since running for the Democratic nom for president.

"yes, he raised money for down-ticket Dems before, but he hasn't since running for the Democratic nom for president."

I think this is explained by the fact that (especially with no SuperPac), going up against a well-financed and establishment-supported candidate, he basically needs everything he can get. His focus is on getting the nomination. If, by some chance, he can get the nomination, THEN he can work on also fundraising to help get the Congress he wants to get. Up until then, he'd more likely be diverting precious resources from his own viability in order to give HILLARY the congress he wants.

There, I fixed it for you.

truly democratic principles which makes him unique among Democrats.

.....he represents himself for his two current, 2016 Campaign Committees:

S4VT00033 SANDERS, BERNARD 2016 BURLINGTON VT INDEPENDENT S - SENATE
P60007168 SANDERS, BERNARD 2016 BURLINGTON VT DEMOCRATIC PARTY P - PRES

Seems he wants the best of both worlds, or can't make up his mind.

You know, like wars, Goldman Sachs, big banks, being against Net Neutrality for starters.

....loyalty.

Sanders is a "democrat" when it suits him, an "independent" when it suits him.

I could have sworn he was an independent until it became politically expedient for him to become a Democrat. Or maybe you're being sarcastic?

He is a true democrat. The party has moved so far to the right that the current party is like Republicans. The current Republicans are nuts. The Democratic Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the most like FDR and that is the kind of Democrat I like.

That is just the bottom line about it all. As much as the current Dem party would like to claim the progressive label, it's a facade.