not like Bill

I've seen this movie before. Same plot, different actors.

at first, I was ticked off at him, but reading carefully I saw that it's 'because of her ability to get her hands on money. '

Carter, but I disagree. This is going to be the first election where MONEY is going to become a MAJOR ISSUE and those who are funded for campaigns by huge Corps and Wall St, are going to find themselves having to answer an all-important questions: 'Who will you be obligated to IF you win using all that money you are taking from Wall St and Corporations? Do you now OWE these entities for your 'win'?

of her ability to get her hands on money.

we have in this country. I agree with him except for the fact that this time Money may become a BURDEN rather than the weapon it has been for so long.

be presented to Americans in detail what that map looks like up close. Bernie made a statement not long
ago about legislation that gets to the floor of the congress and why it is tainted from the get go.

This is what will need to be highlighted, the history of it, connect the dots, who has benefited
and then judge how you define a thriving democracy and what are you willing to do as an
American voter to change it.

When people fault Sanders as being ineffective were he to win the nomination and then WH,
they seem to over look an essential element to Sanders current message:

But he believes the president made a major mistake after running “one of the great campaigns in American history”: He left his activist supporters behind.

“The biggest mistake that Barack Obama made” was essentially to tell his supporters, “Thank you very much for electing me, I’ll take it from here,” Senator Sanders told reporters at a Monitor-hosted breakfast Thursday. “I will not make that mistake.”

The fight against Citizens United is daunting when you look at what is involved, but you can
prepare and lay the ground work ..we will need Republican support for it, their voters demanding
it. Approx 9 million Republicans voted for Obama in 2008, so it is not impossible to push back, but
one must remember there are many special interest groups that will do all they can to defeat
Sanders. The more he gets his message out there and they see people accepting him, you'll
see the pitch forks for Bernie and they'll come from many people some may find surprising.

With that said, I truly believe Bernie is prepared for this, and why we have an opportunity
better now than ever before. I do get concerned when I read how organizationally they seem
to be challenged..over whelmed by the response of the people but hopefully we can all help to remedy that.

It didn't help Cantor.

Let's hope Mr. Carter is wrong on this one.

In a perhaps cynical way, perhaps nudging way. He's saying Hillary is "inevitable" because of her Big Money. Hillary doesn't like the inevitable language nor would she come out and say she is likely to win because of her money.

Big Money in politics is the problem.

Not with the idea that Sanders isn't really a threat to Clinton, but with the reasons for it.

Let's remember how primaries work. They're not (entirely) about the popular vote; they're about numbers of delegates. And each state has a different way of choosing and assigning delegates, in both primary and caucus states.

So let's look back at 2008 as an example. Clinton and Obama were almost even in the popular vote (with Obama a bit ahead). So, calculating that vote by including caucus estimates and including Michigan and Florida, Clinton had 18,045,829, while Obama bested her by a hair with 18,107,587. With delegates, it looked at bit different: Clinton got 1,726½ of the pledged delegates (49%), while Obama
obtained 1,828½ pledged delegates (or 51%). And then there were the pesky superdelegates. With Obama ahead in both the popular and delegate counts, it would have been entirely unseemly for the superdelegates to flip the results, even though many were for Clinton. Enough changed to the other side to give Obama a secure win.

So, we know that the Democratic nominating process is a delegate game. Obama knew that well, and managed to run up enough delegates in early races to stay a step ahead, even though Clinton won decisively in some large states late in the game, such as Texas. The race went on until the very last minute, and indeed was very close. We tend to forget that.

Now let's say Sanders nips right at the heels of Clinton, and gets 18,045,000 to her 18,046,000, and almost as many pledged delegates. Do you think that the superdelegates, who are generally long-time Democratic Party stalwarts, are going to flip to someone who not only is slightly behind but has never identified with the Democratic Party in order to bring him across the finish line?

Indeed, this Democratic Primary is rather strange for it's lack of ... well, Democrats. Clinton and O'Malley aside, the other candidates are either recent converts from the Republican Party (Chafee, Webb), or an Independent who has always refused the Democratic nomination in his state. None of those guys has ever raised a nickel for the party or campaigned on behalf of other Democrats. The party owes them little to nothing.

I think it is inevitable that this party--and after all, the primary process is all about a political party choosing the candidate it wants to run on a slate--is going to make sure a big D Democrat is its candidate.

So short of another Obama-style outwitting of delegate counts (and even he had a tough time doing it), there is going to be a Democrat at the head of the ticket. And I don't think it's going to be O'Malley.

I don't think it's about campaign donations. I think it's largely about party interests.

is right on the money.

The only element that you possibly omitted, IMO, is that between two very personable "minority" group Dem candidates (one African-African and one women) in 2008, the charismatic Barack Obama won, even though Hillary came very close.

In the Dem field, those who voted for Hillary over Obama in 2008 will STILL support her in 2016. If anything, they are even more behind her this time. But they will also be joined by many - if not most - who voted for Obama as well.

I don't think groups are as much in lockstep as is assumed.

the first time. But those who were truly pro-Hillary in 2008 have not changed. At all.

Everyone that I know who voted for her in the primaries in 2008 is even more solidly behind her now than they were then. And I also know a lot of people who were behind Prez O in the primaries in 2008 who will not be torn for the same reasons this time as they were in 2008 - he was outstandingly charismatic and an excellent candidate - and the appeal of voting for an African-American Prez was truly a watershed moment. I am proud that we all united behind him.

But those I know who were torn for that reason are behind Hillary this round. It's nothing against Bernie - or Martin - or even the other candidates (Webb, Chafee, whoever), who likely won't even register with the Dem electorate at all. It's in part a sense of this 2016 election being another watershed - LONG overdue. Please do NOT discount that or try to distort it because it is there, it is resonating, and it will continue to resonate - despite all the GOP smear tactics and the slurs of those - presumably Dems - who are almost as bad.

The people I know are not basically anonymous people on an internet board. They are people who actually worked on the candidates' campaigns in 2008 and who have been working below the radar for Hillary for more than a year already.

Since 2008, Hillary has certainly burnished her foreign policy credentials - by far the best, by any measure, of ALL the candidates - and she has added those to an already stellar portfolio, IMO. Foreign policy is the absolute clincher for me.

Money helps, but money alone will get you neither the candidacy nor the presidency.

The focus on big money is more than the electoral football game in primary season. It is about leadership and whether we can trust someone who cases the checks of the banks and Wallstreet on Tuesday to be able to go after them on Thursday.

Democrats get that and progressive Democrats get that all the more. Senator Sanders is generating a hell of a lot of energy in excess of what any other candidate currently running is.

In that way, I hope you are right that money is not everything. The problem is that I am afraid that it will be.

It is also the first that I have seen that speaks of a popular vote in the primaries, which actually never really was spoken of until 2008, in a way that makes sense.

In fact, in hindsight, it explains why immediately after super Tuesday the NYT and other papers started speaking BOTH a out the super delegates and the popular vote. I agree that the super delegates would not change the race for Bernie even if he won the popular vote. In fact, in 2008 they would not have done that for Obama. In fact, that allowed Obama delegates, like Kerry, to state that he thought that the super delegates changing the winner from the one with the most delegates would be unacceptable. ( it was also a way to effectively change the question from whether he would cast his vote as MA did. )

I don't think it will happen, but I suspect that in reality, if Bernie gets more regular delegated, he will get the nomination. The same argument that doing otherwise would be unfair that was articulated in 2008 would be there now. Not to mention, it could only happen if Bernie with FAR LESS MONEY actually generates the enthusiasm and interest that get voters out. Especially because Bernie is not a mainstream or typical politician, taking the nomination from him would cost us the election.

Given the support the party has given both Clintons since at least 1990 and the fact that she has been the favorite of the powers that be for 2 nominations and the HUGE amount of money behind her, if she can't cleanly win the nomination, she really is not a strong candidate. ( I think she is strong enough that she will win enough regular delegates to be the nominee. However, as said, if she doesn't it will be because , in spite of every advantage and the desire for a woman to win, she failed.)

Bernie is just pointing out the facts that makes Hillary wrong.

but I don't agree with him.

don't underestimate me. His words

Bernie will win this election

This isn't the first time fascists have tried to take control, not will it be the last. In the end, we won and they lost. I firmly believe we've passed the tipping point.

you calling fascists?

or if corporate money is the new American 'democracy'.

to create it from scratch. I have no illusions that we will ultimately accomplish that goal in this one. I read Carter's comments as spot on.

However, it's worth fighting tooth and nail for it and I'm beyond excited to have a candidate such as Bernie as our champion in that cause.

In a word, HRC represents the same exact thing as every single GOP candidate does, the status quo corrupt Corporate takeover of our governance and wholesale destruction of Representative Democracy.

And he has earned the right to his opinion.

I just think he happens to be wrong.

"there won't be any problem with Hillary getting the nomination because money dominates and she has an inside track to the massive amounts that are going to pour into the Democratic party side,”

She is a nice enough lady, smart and driven. She is just part of the problem. Not her fault, just a cog in the wheel

sounded more positive about Senator Sanders' approach to issues than headlines lead me to expect.