Sanders thinks of having a revolution.

Is she "progressive" like Kagan and Nuland and Kissinger are "progressive"?
Which is like ex-VP Cheney is "progressive".

Do a million dead Arabs think Hillary is "progressive", and that their deaths are necessary for "progress"?
Have you interviewed any of the millions more refugees regarding their thoughts about this "progress"?
Have you asked the remaining Doctors and health workers, the ones who survived, about how gung ho they are for more "progress" of that kind?

I suppose that you, also, consider yourself to be a "progressive" in the way that your leader Hillary Clinton is a "progressive". How many more dead Arabs will satisfy your appetite for "progress"? Can you put a number on it?

Maybe you should explain this.

He's immensely practical and has accomplished much more than Hillary.

you forgot this:

except for collaborating with the republicans on foreign policy issues?

What successful progressive policies (that republicans hate) has she managed to get through her 8 years as senator and 4 years as SoS?

F-35 program which has not produced a functioning product, and what else?

in defending her "qualifications" and deflect instead by repeating the same smear tactic debunked a long time ago. As if Hillary cares an ounce for the Sandy Hook massacre but still used as in her dirty campaign tactics.

Why are Hillary supporters hellbent on being as dishonest and childish as herself?

I asked a question, but you don't seem to have the tools to be able to answer it!

It is part of a record which can not be rewritten. I have and will continue to defend Hillary's record, she has been a hard worker for a long time.

And you still deflect.

As if DU has been hijacked by freepers with the mentality of an adolescense.

I asked you and ask for the thid time. Focus on YOUR candidate's "proud record" rather than obsessing about the other candidate...

She's just like her fellow republicans. A freeloader with a spot at thbe trough of Wall Street, NRA, Big Oil, the Arms industry and the private prison industry.

So why don't you give us her top ten list of where she has proven to be a principled leader with successes that has benefitted humanity and not just her donors?
What civil rights has she trailblazed ahead of evertybody else?
What foreign policy can you say you are particalrly proud of?
What economic policy has she been leading a successful campaign for against the republicans?

Just to name a few:

She has been a long advocate of children's rights, went to migrant camps seeking children to get them into schools, health care so their life might be better.

She was successful pushing for CHIPS, health care for children.

She went to South Texas to register voters,
.
She has advocated for women's rights, not only in the US but around the world. Women's rights are human rights.

She has been in the Civil Rights movements and continues.

She turned down an offer with a law firm and chose to work with CDF.


She has fought for minimum wage increases.

She was first lady of Arkansas and US

She was Senator of NY.

She was SOS.

This is a short list, there is much more.

Iine debunction after another to take care of:

1. She has been a long advocate of children's rights, went to migrant camps seeking children to get them into schools, health care so their life might be better.

She called minority kids in the inner cities "superpredators" and advocated for a policy that destroyed millions of young AA lives.

She gets support from a former SoS who didn't care anything about childrens' rights when imposing a policy against Iraq that cost the lives of a half a million people.

2. She apparently does not want healthcare for all, since she is now against universal healthcare. Must be the dole she recieved from the insurance companies.

3. Registring voters is not an accomplishment, and sounds hollow coming from someone who supports voter suppression and election fraud on behalf of the establishment. If she was a real fighter for voter rights, she would have been on that case a long time ago. Now, she seeks to suppress Bernie Sanders supporters.

4. So has Bernie. The difference is that Bernie has gone furhter for women's rights. Hillary does not support women's rights saround the globe as long as she supports wars that kills them. Where is her feminism stance towards her Saudi donors by the way?

5. She did not turn down the millions from Wall Street. Turning down an offer is not an accomplishment. Apparently both she and her supporters are scared shitless of the content of these speeches. So far that they point to everybody else - in other words, deflection! Taking 225 000 for an hours speech is not an accomplishment to be proud of.

6. Only after Bernie turned up on the scene. She was never for 15 dollar minimum wage. Now, she seeks to take credit for it.

7. Apparently the bar is lower when you're a woman. Being a 1st lady isn't an accomplishment unless you consider screwing a serial adulterer an accomplishment a qualification to be president.

8. Bernie has executive experience and 35 years as such. First in local democracy and then on a national level. His experience in public politics trumps her by decades.

9. And look at what she did. Undermined Obama on the Iran nuclear deal, went behind his back in Honduras, and have apparently met with lots of money people to fund her future scams.

10. And still so revealing about how hollow she and her supporters truly are.

Now you have the truth.

What sorts of things are we talking about?

Demonstrating that small donors can drive a national campaign?

Confronting our destructive policy on Israel/Palestine?

Driving the discussion of a $15 minimum wage?

Invigorating the next generation of voters?

etc.

considering Bernie has been sucking the public teat all his life, while Hillary has been tremendously successful on her own.

Officeholders are generally supported with tax dollars, like Hillary when whe was in AR, as 1st lady, as a senator and as a SecState. Sucking up big bucks from banksters isn't some kind of accomplishment.

Same is true of Sanders, of course, except for sucking up to banksters.

Sanders has been a failure in the private sector and all of his earnings have essentially come from living off the public trust.

Being worthy of high prices for speeches most definitely is a worthy accomplishment. Who on this forum are turning away people who want to pay them hundreds of thousands for a speech? Nobody - because nobody's asking.

Cadging money from banksters isn't really work. They are paying her to buy favorable policy.

Not that it counts as an honest days work...

Prior to becoming Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Bernie had a successful educational film company.

What a joke. She became a partner in a law firm because she was married to the governor. She became a Wal-Mart board member because she was married to the governor. She became a household name because she was married to the President. She would have been brushed off as a carpetbagger in New York if she hadn't been the wife of the President.

And if you think that holding government office is "sucking the public teat", then Hillary spent 12 years sucking the government teat, while her husband spent more than 20 years at the public teat.

carpetbagged to a state with an open Senate seat, then ran unsuccessfully for president and got herself appointed to one term as SOS where she clumsily ruined parts of the middle east and Honduras but learned how to trade influence for money, which she later did with her "speeches."

That's a helluva record.

In the meantime, Bernie ran up a huge stack of worthwhile accomplishments as mayor, congressman, and senator.

He has worked for the PEOPLE all these decades in comparison to Hillary taking tens of millions of dollars as senator, SoS and private speaker for Wall Street.
Sanders has decades behind him. Hillary has 12 years alltogeter.. And she has used the office to enrichen herself. Bernie Sanders hasn't.
Big difference....

Why does Hillary supportes endorse arms deals with the Saudis but scorn Bernie for Sandy Hook as if he was responsible for the shooting?

Go away, sock puppet.

Always something more important than supporting people. But his words...oh man!

This will probably be used in the General against her if she is crowned by the DNC

Hillary is the one who has always worked with promoting what the people wanted. She is and has been with the people.

As a single example.. her vote on the Iraq war. Bernie voted against the overwhelming majority of what the citizens wanted at the time. Hillary joined all of the Democratic party leadership. Leadership including Biden, Kerry, Edwards, Daschle, Schumer to name a few of the 29 Democratic Party Senators, and 82 Democratic Party house members that joined in. No argument that it was the wrong vote (for which she has stated regret), and no argument that the whole premise of the war was a farce on an epic scale that nobody has been made to account for. BUT, it WAS what the overwhelming majority of citizens, at that time wanted:



Bernie works only for his own idealism, which at this point in time, resonates with a large number of others (still not a majority). He doesn't "support the people".

Hillary gets accused of "flip-flopping" because she DOES support what the majority in the country wants, and just as what the people want evolves, so does she.

The big difference isn't that Bernie supports the people and Hillary believes the people should support her.

The big difference is that Bernie will do what he wants, without compromise, regardless of the damage any outcome from it will produce (like being a do nothing, accomplish nothing president with a Republican held house of Representatives, and apparently almost non-existent support from within his own party.)

Hillary will work to pass what the people want, and since the 115th is pretty definitely going to be Republican held, and could be either Democrat or Republican held Senate, she will make compromising bills with parts that many here, and myself included will be less than appealing, but the end result, much like the results of President Obama will be a net positive for progressive and liberal causes.

Despite having received money for speeches, and the Clinton foundations, I for one fully believe that if the majority of Americans want tighter wall street regulation, and that's the hot issue, she will do whatever she can working with congress to help make it happen. If Americans lose their appetite on that issue, she will focus on whatever next whim the majority of Americans want.

Some here see this as a weakness. I see it as being a key characteristic of what I want in a Candidate I vote for.. someone who will focus on what the people who elect her or him to office wants.