When he says he's a Dem, it's just another lie.

He might be running as one, but I think he has stated more than once he's a Democratic Socialist.

Sen. Bernie Sanders filed his paperwork without issue in New Hampshire Thursday to appear on the state’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary ballot.

The longtime Vermont independent senator faced no challenges at Secretary of State Bill Gardner’s office, despite earlier concerns about whether he legally qualified as a Democrat. Sanders declared himself a Democrat Thursday, and he said he will run as a Democrat in future elections. That was good enough for Garnder.

“I’m a Democrat and should be on the ballot, I don’t think I need to say too much more,” Sanders said.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-files-new-hampshire-state-ballot

The RULES for the Democratic party are that all you have to do is declare you're are a democrat and you are.

It seems that was good enough for the DNC that governs who can be on the Democratic ticket.

So you are just making false claims about Bernie since he followed the RULES and the DNC is satisfied with the fact that Bernie is a Democrat.

Nice try on the smear but it was a big fail on your part.

The party includes people like him from the Far Left, libertarians of mostly the left-wing variety, liberals across the liberal spectrum, moderate liberal-conservatives, and some conservatives for whom being "Democrat" is traditional in their area.

But never "at heart," for sure. He is rock-solid on that one.

By personality, Bernie is a left-wing radical, or extremist. He is a proud anti-Democrat by history and an anti-liberal.

By personality, although there are a couple important differences between extremists on the far right and the far left, Bernie is much closer and more similar to the Far Right than he is to liberals.

As for Bernie's morals, registering as a Democrat undoubtedly required rationalizing, of the "end justifies the means" variety. He was proud of not, nor never having been, a liberal or a Democrat.

Oh, yes, and like any extremist he believes his own propaganda, like being "astonished" that Bill Clinton would have raised taxes on the wealthy and lowered them for the poor. Profoundly dishonest. He may have been cynically lying or he may have come to believe that lie so much he regurgitated it sincerely at that moment, but in either case don't expect worries about dishonesty in the pursuit of righteousness to bother Bernie. Extremists are called that because they ignore lines that constrain others, knowing implicitly that their ends justify their means.

His most radical of ideas, none of which are radical are even founds in FDR's Second Bill of Rights. The only extremes in this country are right wing extremists and he is not one of them. Nor is Hillary, but she is on the right and authoritarian side of the spectrum.

If anything we have some very extreme right people, Clinton is firmly right (not center right even) and Sanders is barely center left




There are a couple in the UK because they use a parliamentary system, but even there only a couple are extreme left, most are center left, some a bit right of center right, right, and a couple extreme right

There is a great deal of overlap in the policies liberals and the far left embrace, but anyone who has been monitoring this forum can't have failed to notice that the differences go far deeper than just preference for one candidate or another. Personality comes first, and from that comes political orientation. Understand personalities as they influence politics, and a whole bunch of "of courses" follow.

Extremists identify themselves by extreme reactions, opinions, proposed solutions. The feeling that we can't fix our system because it is totally broken and corrupt but must destroy and replace is typical of many far-lefters here. Bernie is soft-pedaling currently because he is running for president, but there is little he would keep. Me too to a real degree, but we differ tremendously in destruction versus evolution.

BTW, these same people would be extremists if they were Danish or Swedish, sure those systems were too compromised to keep and don't go far enough. First comes the personality, then the political orientations. Extreme is signified by lack of acceptance of whatever is within a broad range of mainstream.

And, no, btw, some of my first extremist friends were planning to go shoot themselves a senator (apparently any senator) when The Revolution came, and others were sure they were going to overthrow the evil establishment and outlaw war. But that was the '60s. Me? I listened, traded smiles with others, shrugged. Even in adolescence I was never as young as you apparently imagine.

Not choose a personality to worship that has ever changing ideals.

There is nothing extreme about Bernie Sanders policies and they have remained constant and resemble most closely the policies put forth by FDR.

Again, there are no far leftists here, these things, these words have meanings, and do not change because Republicans become more Fascist and Democrats become more Republican. That is a fallacy, one you appear to be spreading and I don't know why, but it insults the intelligence of your readers.

You can keep your politics of personality and vote in a Kardassion or a Bieber or whatever "Personality" you feel you should follow, apparently Clinton at the moment, but I will stick to the same policies I have for decades, the ones that built a middle class and regulated wall St. Gave us The New Deal, The Great Society, Civil Liberties legislation, and before the party turned away from the people and toward the big money the last goal, the war against poverty which the right wing and right leaning Democrats turned into a war ON THE POOR with the blessings of Bill Clinton and the destruction of welfare as we know it.

A corrupt system does need to change, a system that is corrupted by big money is what is radical.

You can hold to personality politics all you like, but the saner path is to promote policies and politicians that serve the vast majority of the country rather than an elite few.

It is obvious you didn't actually read anything I wrote and are stuck on some personality politics tick of sorts, Goddess bless, and good luck with that, I vote for good policy and those that would put forth good policy and don't much care about popularity contests involving "personalities" you go your way and I'll go mine.

Fair Enough?

then acted on, sometimes mildly, sometimes dramatically by environment, but often moderately.

We can and should control our less desirable characteristics, but they are not something we choose or reject like clothes in a store. We are pretty much stuck with them.

But Bernie is not an extremist, even though he has said mildly disturbing things praising the Castros and Sandinistas (lots of misguided liberals have done that!), and he is enough a Democrat for me. If does the get the nomination I will back him in November, because whatever my misgivings about him, the country would be in much better shape with him in the WH than whatever the alternative will be.

Can we discuss something a bit more serious?

Most research has been on right-wing extremism because they've been more active, more funded by billionaires for evil purposes, apparently easier for anyone with evil purposes to put to good use than the far left.

Btw, as you say lots of liberals have praised revolutionary movements. There is a great deal of overlap between positions and goals of strong liberals and those farther left. The difference comes in the methods and acceptable timetables for achievement -- just how much damage they are willing to cause and how many they are willing to hurt, or just ruthlessly override the choices and rights of, to achieve those goals quickly. Extremists are called extremist for a reason.

And when they put Hitler to the left of major Democrats, they loose all credibility.

They advocate the ludicrous & outrageous position that Hitler is more liberal than Hillary Clinton & the Democratic Party. Nobody who "knows what they're talking about" would support such a moronic idea. The Political Compass - which you brought into the conversation - does.

Or you agree that Hitler is more liberal than Clinton.

Which is it?

You are the one that can't read a chart. You also appear to think her views are other than what they are, there is nothing I can do about either.

Is Hitler more liberal than Hillary?

Hitler was a Fascist and a Nationalist, Nationalists don't by into the neo-liberalism thing (free trade, privatization, that sort of stuff), they are into the nation controlling everything and taking other peoples stuff by force, not corporate trade, so not that surprising.

...that puts Bernie in the political center. Of course everyone else is on the far to extreme right in order to make Sanders a moderate, but what sticks out is that no one is on the liberal side at all. No one is to the left of the Great Moderate.

It's obvious that someone with an agenda created that bogus graph compiled from undisclosed opinionated data.

Then again, it's a graph! How can anyone argue with a graph found on the internet? Here's one that shows the probability of survival until the conventions for some candidates:



It's a chart made by a professional chart making think tank, so it must be true.

The person who made it stuck Bernie in the middle of the political spectrum to make him appear moderate, then arranged others around him. If one were to place Clinton near the center where she actually belongs, Sanders is nearly off the chart to the left.

Bernie people shouldn't shy away from his liberal stance, he's worked hard to cultivate it. Ask yourself... If Bernie stands in the middle of the political playing field as shown above, what US politician occupies the space to his left? No one? Of course there's no one, and he's not in the middle of anything except that absurdly fabricated chart.

pre-date the 2015/2016 primary season by years. Hillarys' position has not moved on it since I first saw this chart back in the 2008 primary.

What data did they use to compile it, Senate voting record? Polling? There's conveniently no key because it's totally made up from someone's imagination on their iPad. What's the source, Facebook?

Once again, if Bernie's in the middle of American politics, who's on the left? Who could possibly be in that vast empty zone on the left side of the chart? Saying that Sanders is a moderate, then sticking everyone else in from the right to the far right is agenda based. It's like saying if I were 4'9 that I'm average height, but everyone else is taller.

Embrace Sanders' liberal ideals. He doesn't run from them, why do you?

And if you say it's a chart that relates true data, that must be a fact.

I too found a chart on the internet. It's a real chart made by real chart makers that shows the likelihood of certain candidates surviving until the conventions. Since it's a chart in colorful graph form, it must be accurate:




I didn't just make that up either. No one can do that. It's just as valid as yours.

Who is the US is to the far left of Bernie.

And if he's in the center that would make him the dreaded and much maligned Centrist.

You make up some big stories. I bet your fishing stories are pretty wild.

Interestingly, this OP wouldn't use the same litmus test to compare the policies across time, beginning with the antebellum of this country's civil war Democratic Party up to and including FDR.

Certainly, if JFK had lived to serve through two terms, we were sure to have solidly infused the tenants of Bernie Sander's democratic socialism.

In fact, it seems that people like the OP are unable to define the many socialized components within our Representative Republic. How many components of our budget outlay socialize debt and the MIC? Christ, they ought to be examining the waste of THOSE socialized components.

An independent in name only in many ways

He caucused with the Democrats for, 16 years in the United States House of Representatives, 10 years in the United States Senate;

where he served on many committees Representing the Democratic party such as the:

Committee on the Budget (Ranking Member)
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Energy
Subcommittee on National Parks
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Subcommittee on Children and Families
Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging (Ranking Member)
Committee on Veterans' Affairs (chairman)

He has every right to expect respect from those he served with such loyalty and in so many capacities.
The Democratic party must consider him a true blue ally to have given him seats on so many committees.

He was also a founder of the Democratic Progressive caucus.

It appears to me the only one's that are offended by his Independent status are all the Moderate Republicans that are far less honest and register as "Democrats" while voting for Republican policy, those "Democrats" are most often both conservative and liars, among them Hillary Clinton.

Just like his officially becoming a democrat is a matter of mere convenience.

This is what he said in 1989, just before he ran for the House as an independent.

The more radical, and the position of integrity, is to declare who you are and not fool people. And assume they are smart enough to see your name and vote for you outside the democratic party. We had 15% of the people who were willing to vote outside the democratic and republican parties, and more who were tempted to do it I think. If you're talking about change you can't fool people. You can't say, "vote for me, I'm a democrat it's O.K. nothing will really change. But I'm really going to change the system. You are or you're not. I think when you salk inside that house of the democratic party, and you have all the conservative democrats shaking your hand saying we're all democrats, aren't we. Well I am a democrat but I'm not a democrat. You are or you're not. You don't change the system from within the democratic party.

all those committees (they are highly coveted positions you know), you are just spewing nonsense at this point.

You failed to note that it was more convenient for the part, and ignored his committee positions, it appears you are not so avid a reader and only wish to bend truth to a predetermined narrative.

Since you ignore me I will now ignore you, I only have time for honest discussion.

He is at best, on his best day..a freeloading hitchhiker of the Democratic Party. I'm not taking the bait.

he's pretty comfortable with the role of "entitled to anything he wants without putting in the effort, capital or work".

be, not where it has slid to.

I've been a Democrat since 1974 and this is one election I'm truly excited about. Hey in case you missed it check out this fabulous piece by Bill Curry. You'll love it!

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/29/we_must_smash_the_clinton_machine_democratic_elites_and_the_media_sold_out_to_hillary_this_time_but_change_is_coming/

Here's what I said:

The Socialist Democrats. USA would be Sanders natural home, but they don't run presidential candidates anymore.

So Sanders, despite hating on the democrats for years, as just one of the two parties of the ruling class

(see: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/sanderss-party-problem/460293/)

decides to run for president as a democrat.

Why?

Well, it's clear, the Democratic Party has a lot of intact national political infrastructure. If you could seize that infrastructure, and turn it into a militantly leftist party, you'd have your socialist party.

It's a long shot, to be sure, but that's clearly what Sanders is up to. He's trying take the Democratic Party and remake it in his own socialist image. Pretty daring move. He's gotten farther than you might have thought he would at first. But it's pretty clear that the powers that be within the democratic party don't want to see the party become an outright socialist party. Otherwise, they would have become that long ago. I bet they believe such a party is not likely to be a majority party anytime soon.

Yeah. I agree with part of what you wrote in your red baiting horseshit above, Sanders is trying to move the party to the left, which would bring it back to where it was circa 1966. And when we do that, if you can't stomach all the militant lefties, feel free to go vote for the Klown the republicans run.

The more radical, and the position of integrity, is to declare who you are and not fool people. And assume they are smart enough to see your name and vote for you outside the democratic party. We had 15% of the people who were willing to vote outside the democratic and republican parties, and more who were tempted to do it I think. If you're talking about change you can't fool people. You can't say, "vote for me, I'm a democrat it's O.K. nothing will really change. But I'm really going to change the system. You are or you're not. I think when you salk inside that house of the democratic party, and you have all the conservative democrats shaking your hand saying we're all democrats, aren't we. Well I am a democrat but I'm not a democrat. You are or you're not. You don't change the system from within the democratic party.

PS, not here to fight but to keep Repubs out of office

From an Interview he granted a Masters Degree Student in 1989

I'll vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination of course, but much of who she represents, what she does and did, I very much disagree with.

I'll trade you that 1989 Bernie interview for the 2002 Hillary Iraq war vote. Context matters for both of those.

And with that, I'm out of here to drink coffee and move firewood because we'll need it in 6 months.

He's a Democratic Socialist.

Well....except for the fact that he said "I'm a Democrat".

He already told you. What you don't believe him? Think he's already been a Democrat at heart?

The more radical, and the position of integrity, is to declare who you are and not fool people. And assume they are smart enough to see your name and vote for you outside the democratic party. We had 15% of the people who were willing to vote outside the democratic and republican parties, and more who were tempted to do it I think. If you're talking about change you can't fool people. You can't say, "vote for me, I'm a democrat it's O.K. nothing will really change. But I'm really going to change the system. You are or you're not. I think when you salk inside that house of the democratic party, and you have all the conservative democrats shaking your hand saying we're all democrats, aren't we. Well I am a democrat but I'm not a democrat. You are or you're not. You don't change the system from within the democratic party.

including the DNC. The DNC agreed to it, remember? It was a mutually beneficial arrangement. Now that he's doing so much better than they expected all of a sudden it's not good? Come on. This is a very weak argument. By the way I'm a Democrat and I'm very happy to see change come from within my Party.

I don't care what he wants to call himself, his values line up with mine.

by Bill Curry

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/29/we_must_smash_the_clinton_machine_democratic_elites_and_the_media_sold_out_to_hillary_this_time_but_change_is_coming/

The third way democratic wing have all but turned the Democratic party into the Diet Republican Party. It looks to be a failed strategy considering the loss of more than 1000 elected offices across the country since 2008, when many thought they were electing a progressive with Obama (I abstained from that election)

by Bill Curry. You'll love it.

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/29/we_must_smash_the_clinton_machine_democratic_elites_and_the_media_sold_out_to_hillary_this_time_but_change_is_coming/

I think when you salk inside that house of the democratic party, and you have all the conservative democrats shaking your hand saying we're all democrats, aren't we. Well I am a democrat but I'm not a democrat. You are or you're not. You don't change the system from within the democratic party.

This doesn't count as "any kind of Democrat"?

This argument is spurious anyway. This non-Democrat advocates policies consistently that have been a part of the Democratic platform and are certainly popular with core DEM constituencies. He's also running a strong campaign against Ms. Ready to Lead on Day One, winning a good number of primaries and caucases with DEM voters.

Of course, dismissing a candidate of high integrity with a huge national following among new voters is always an option. Good luck with that.

when he has to run in closed primaries, where only democrats get to vote, he loses and loses badly.

Funny. Are you avoiding substance intentionally?

Since I am a rootless type too (a DEM-leaning independent) I must not be the type of voter sought in your purist approach to winning elections. Despite the number of DEM candidates that I have voted for, canvassed for, contributed to, one must declare allegiance at all times, for all issues? Not a winning strategy.

The few recent times there's been big tent DEM leadership that expanded the base (Dean at DNC and Obama's 2008 campaign) the eventual result was a supermajority. With Clinton, DWS, and yes, even Obama's political choices in the health care debate, a historic advantage has crumbled to the point where even a lunatic like Trump is competitive against us.

But no matter. Keep advocating for your vision of DEM purity. Enjoy the results!

with this new idea of what a Democrat is, fomented by Bill Clinton and his like and acquiesced to over and over and over again, till it truly hurts.

People like me think Bernie Sanders is more of a Democrat, as we understand it, as FDR understood as helped the Democrats be in power for decades and decades and decades, much more than any of these "new Democrats", including Hillary.

We are tired of the lies, the shuck and jive, the bullshit, the "swing to the center", all that kind of malarkey.

Because we know, and the polls show it too, that the Progressive ideas Bernie is talking about, and which Hillary is borrowing liberally just to stay in the race, are the ones that the majority of Americans prefer.

No, it is Hillary who is not a Democrat, in my opinion. I hope she continues to stay with the Progressive platform she has adopted now from Bernie if she is in fact the nominee, because if she doesn't I predict she will lose and lose badly, to Trump especially, when he swings further to the Left of her on issues that matter to average Americans.

He is more democrat to the ideals and true to what our party has always made our party great (FDR policies which set us apart), than Hillary, who is republican lite and Neocon heavy. Third Way is not democratic. They coopted our party, and we were wrong to adopt them. We've bled seats ever time we play their policy game.

If she were to magically steal her way through, I'm comfortable saying enough. If my party doesn't want to reclaim its identity, then I'll join the majority of independents seeking to form a new one.

From an Interview he granted a Masters Degree Student in 1989

If anyone is not in line what the Democratic Party had always been about, it is many of the mainstream Democrat politicians of the last few decades.

FDR, LBJ, Bernie - those are folks who are at the heart and soul of what it is supposed to mean to be a Democrat.

People who put party over policy will NEVER get why we support Bernie. Stop trying to shame us, it's not working.

So i guess i have to leave the party after voting for him in May.

Thank you for helping me see the error of my ways

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]When this party was first formed it was about promoting Jeffersonian liberalism. Shortly after the federalist died out, it became corrupted and became super conservative and the party of slavery and treason.

Then, at the turn of the century it started to drift left with economically with Wilson and then Roosevelt. Then in the 1960's it shifted left socially. After that, it began to move to the right to counter the losses it had to Reagan and brought us the Clintons. Now, with Obama, it has SLOWLY begun to drift to the left again.

So which democrats are we discussing? The Jeffersonians? The party of the South during the 1800's? Wilson's party of economic liberalism and social conservativism? The Party following the LBJ years? The Clinton years? The Obama era? Or are we talking about the party of the here and now?

My point is this, parties are just vessels to winning elections.

We the people of the party are the ones who determine the ideology and the heart of the party. And as a member of the Democratic party I want this party to represent the ideals Sanders is promoting. I don't care that he was an independent till now, I care that he is a democrat now and want this party to follow the path he has set down.

I believe Sanders is the future of the party and I gladly welcome him![/font]

the hearts and minds of Americans, who by all the polls agree in the majority with Progressive values, not those of "the new Democrats", like Hillary.

He is our best chance to fulfill this poem that I've liked so long.

Let America Be America Again
Langston Hughes, 1902 - 1967

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed—
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There’s never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this “homeland of the free.”)

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery’s scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek—
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one’s own greed!

I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean—
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today—O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.

Yet I’m the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That’s made America the land it has become.
O, I’m the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home—
For I’m the one who left dark Ireland’s shore,
And Poland’s plain, and England’s grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa’s strand I came
To build a “homeland of the free.”

The free?

Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we’ve dreamed
And all the songs we’ve sung
And all the hopes we’ve held
And all the flags we’ve hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay—
Except the dream that’s almost dead today.

O, let America be America again—
The land that never has been yet—
And yet must be—the land where every man is free.
The land that’s mine—the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME—
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose—
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people’s lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath—
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain—
All, all the stretch of these great green states—
And make America again!

When he won't lift a finger for the party that he joined only as a matter of convenience? Being too pure to fundraise for the Democratic party is not really a way to help the party.

He'd be an idiot right now to raise money for those who seek to subvert him, and people like me would be royally pissed. It has gotten to the point where I don't support anybody but Progressive Democrats either, individually. I will give to major Democratic organizations again when they show they represent the people and not the elite.

and you expect what to happen if you follow that inclination?

A very cool teacher introduced me to Langston Hughes in 7th grade. That poem is very beautiful; in some ways, it makes me think of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, a true picture of our country, rooted in the people themselves.

I can't find anything that I disagree with in the statements.

Voting for labels is for Purists.

Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only, no matter how big its membership may be is, no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently. Rosa Luxemburg

The quotes in the OP expose just how far the Democratic Party has gotten away from representing the interests of the American people.

as Paul Wellstone liked to put it.

That's a hellava lot more Democratic than any ol' Third Way "Democrat."

maybe he just wanted an excuse to use his link?

I did like LBJ, but like Bernie Sanders even better.

Bernie would have exposed Nixon's treason and ended the war.

LBJ had racism and sexism issues... and then there is Vietnam.

I am old enough to remember the Rockefeller Republicans. They are pretty much gone now. Where did they go?
What group is liberal on social issues but kisses the butt of the wealthy?

Bernie harkens back to the days of FDR something that is sorely needed today.

Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson were Democrats too.

with never, ever criticizing the Democratic Party getting too conservative and agreeing with Republicans too much.

By that standard, on any given day 90% of registered Democrats aren't "Democrats at heart".

Republicanism has a way of ... getting around...

none of those labels make it impossible to be a democrat at heart or in actuality

That speaks volumes.

Those right wing Republicans hate Big Business and they loves their Social Security...and they're so eager to expand Medicare to Single Payer Healthcare.

Or by slinging mud at Clinton for 30 yrs & then crowing about how dirty she is.

It's RW propaganda in support of a fascist GOP victory that we see posted here on DU every day.

If someone thinks they get a bad rap from the GOP, that's fine.

But the Clintons have brought on many of these criticisms and mistrust among so many people of ALL political persuasions through their own behavior and actions. They do things that often run counter to common sense and basic ethics and accepted behavior.

To accuse anyone who criticizes them as "right wing" is simply wrong.

but they have certainly swallowed undiluted rightwing propaganda and BS. No true progressive or Democrat would let that happen to themselves.