Those powerful interests have a stranglehold on the Democratic parrty.

....ALL of US.

Hillary was one of those.
Bernie was not.

Powerful interests want him to win the nomination. That way, a republican will be President.

...I don't think so.

….Murdoch and friends are salivating over a Hillary nomination and are preparing a blitz bomb of scandals. They don't want Bernie because all they can fight him on is policy and that, they fear, they could lose.

Her weakness is her lack of trustability and they are going to drive a truck through it. It doesn't matter if the accusations are fake and empty like Benghazi—you exhaust and disgust the electorate and get a low turnout. Low turnout favors Reps.

that either way democrats lose.

I look at the fact that Clinton is the most admired female in the US and don't believe the republican hype regarding low turnout.

From the status quo...that is clear to me. And Hillary is not that.

Obama ran on that change and won handly...but never delivered...so Hillary can talk about it all she wants and will not be believed. Only someone new will be believed.

My prediction is that if Hillary is the nominee Jeb will be the next president...And if Bernie is the nominee Jeb will not stand a chance and they know it and will probably run someone new...a woman perhaps...and when the election is over you can refer me back to this post.

You are conflating people's admiration with their choice of candidates. The two are not interchangeable.

I didn't know that low voter turnout was Republican hype. I thought it was fact: I've seen a figure of something like 63% of eligible voters not showing up at polls as a fact rather than hype.

depresses turnout.

They don't necessarily change anyone's mind, but it can depress and irritate people to the point where they won't bother to go out and stand in line to vote.

This female has never admired HRC, and the idea that she could be "the most admired female in the US" is appalling to me. If true, and I don't think it is, it says some things, some not so complimentary things, about the mentality of this nation.

I think she has way more name recognition than other females in the U.S.; that much, I'd agree with.

I also think, that her superior name recognition is a double-edged sword. I think her presence on the ballot in the GE will galvanize the Republican turnout. I don't know that it will depress the Democratic turnout, although I believe it would depress the turnout of potential Democratic allies, and depress the turnout of those willing to work energetically for a Democratic campaign.

I'll vote for her of course if she's the democratic candidate but it will feel impossible to walk for her, send money, make calls—as I did tirelessly for Obama 2008 and somewhat in 2012. I don't know how to look people in the eye and advocate for her.

I think there's a serious schism in the party, created mostly by the Clintons themselves, in the 1990's when they pushed the center to the right and created the DLC. Wish her advocates would address this non-hostilely.

But my biggest worry is that without her we lose the Supreme Court for the next 20 years. Yowza.

She is a nice woman, but if she is elected, we will be hearing such nonsense, so many false stories, so many outright lies that people will be utterly turned off and not want to vote by November 2016.

That's their dream -- to disgust Democrats with their candidate to the point Democrats don't vote.

And they are setting up Hillary precisely for that.

I have a friend who is a liberal. She really is on the issue. But she has told me absolutely horrible stories about the Clintons that cannot possibly be true. She believes them. She has heard them over and over, and she believes them.

Hillary is doing well in the polls, but there is a very treacherous undercurrent to her campaign and to her reputation. It may be unfair, but it is very dangerous to her candidacy and, if she is our nominee, to the Democratic Party. It's unfair but that is the way it is.

I prefer Bernie because of his stances on the issues. But I also have to say that I prefer him because, while if the election were today, she might win, if it were November 2016 and she is our candidate, I don't feel confident she can win.

I do feel confident that if Bernie is our candidate, he will win. He wins Republican votes in Vermont. Has to if you look at the margins by which he is elected. He is a fighter but also a uniter. He is inclusive and loves people. His speaking style is better than any of the candidates for the presidency, Republican or Democrat. He knows the issues backwards and forwards and does not need a huge staff to help him decide where he stands on them. Bernie has been dealing with conservatives in Congress, both Democratic and Republican since the early 1990s. He knows their arguments. He knows their theories. And he can show you exactly where and why the Republicans are wrong.

If nominated, Bernie will win. And he will unite the country around his agenda. He is the strongest fighter for right in many, many years. And I don't mean to insult Obama with that statement. Obama has done a lot of good things (although his economic appointments leave much to be desired) and has fought for the American people. But Obama's focus necessarily was on just scrapping to get the economy at least hovering above disaster.

Bernie can lift the country up. He is a curmudgeon but his heart is for the people. His heart is in the right place. He is very strong and strong willled. He is loved and for good reason.

Bernie has the best moral compass of any candidate in the race.

Bernie is the best candidate in the race. We are so lucky he is running as a Democrat.

And did I mention that he knows our budget and veterans' issues inside and out. And that knowledge alone will win him the election. He can argue with any Republican on the details both of our budget and of our veterans' issues. Plus he is the strongest candidate on rights for immigrants and African-Americans. And you better believe that if he gets into the White House the police departments of America will either shape up or face consequences they can't at this time imagine happening. Because Bernie is dedicated to justice.

Hillary is nice but she is not the fighter that Bernie is.

is us. But maybe you can tell me how this more electable thing works? If more people vote for Bernie then Hillary, Bernie has a poorer chance because?

I've got a ton of respect for Hillary, but I still haven't meet a voter excited about her campaign. Hopefully, soon I will.

I have not met a voter who is NOT excited about her campaign.

My name is Ken. I live in Minneapolis Minnesota (actually northeast Minneapolis) and I am not excited about her candidacy.

There, now you don't have to say that any longer.

used to visit often. lots of working class folks. I imagine much has changed. U of m is my alma mater.

Not only do I know a lot of voters who are not excited by her campaign I know a number of long time DFL activists - several of whom were gung ho Hillary supporters 8 years ago - who are not excited about her or her campaign.

Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2015, 01:04 AM - Edit history (1)

But your site name seems to suggest you are from the emerald city in the evergreen state= Seattle, Washington. I was going to make an assumption but think it doesn't add anything.

In California, what I have heard is that Hillary will be the candidate because she is the only one who can raise enough money.

I hear that from the same mouths that berate Citizens United.

From my point of view, if you really oppose Citizens United, then you back the candidate who shows he opposes it by not taking big amounts of corporate money either in speaking fees or campaign donations.

That is yet another reason that I support Bernie. He is not getting the big corporate donations and speaking fees.

I think the Clinton Foundation is a wonderful thing. Sounds like they do good work. But it is to me unseemly to be accepting donations to your charity with one hand while shaking voters' hands as a candidate for public office with the other. Even if the Clintons are entirely careful and above board about distancing themselves from their donors and not working in elected office to please their donors, there is still somehow an appearance of corruption in what Hilary is doing as she has requested donations to the Foundation from people who will be wanting favors should she be elected president. That she does not see the problem suggests to me that she does not understand how corruption works. She sees herself as a good person (and she no doubt is) who wouldn't do anything "wrong" so it's OK. The problem is that when we compromise ourselves by accepting gifts whether or ourselves or for a family charity, we just don't realize how that compromises our judgment, how it subtly influences our decisions or how others will perceive that we have been influenced.

There are big problems with Hillary's candidacy.

wasn't quite voting age then.

But while you're here, maybe you could help me with my question. If Bernie gets more votes then Hillary and wins the nomination, how is it that Hillary is supposed to be more electable?

Allow me to wade in here ...

At this moment, don't you think Donald Trump is in a position to win the GOP Nomination, if all the primaries were held today?

Probably yes, right?

Now ... which do you think has a better chance of winning a national election ... Jeb Bush, or Donald Trump? You'd say Jeb, by far, right?

So ... you see how the idea works?

* note that I am in NO WAY comparing Bernie to the Golden Hamster, but only using him to illustrate the general principle in play. The candidate most popular with the 'base' of either party does NOT have to be one and the same with their most 'electable' candidate in the General.

if the primaries were held today, do you really think there would still be 16 republican candidates? Not going to happen, tRump might not listen to the PTB in the republican party, but most the other candidates will. Now if Bu$h lost between the two of them, that would make tRump the tougher opponent. Not going to happen of course, but still true. More votes, more electable.

I ask this question because I see it stated time and time again, that Hillary is more 'electable'. That's decided by voting, right? If you get more votes, you're elected. It seems really simple to me.

Nixon ran on racism and managed to divide the country. Also, the Democratic Party bigwigs handled the anti-war part of the party so awkwardly that many were turned off from voting. Then there was the 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy. A lot of young people were depressed and not voting by 1972.

The Demoratic Party was severely and openly divided in 1968. And that hurt the chances of the Party in 1972.

Further, there was the Eagleton issue which cast doubt on McGovern's judgment and decision-making ability. I worked really hard for the McGovern campaign, but that was the time of the Viet Nam War. Nixon promised to end it with honor. He never did. And Nixon cheated during the election. Remember Watergate. Nixon cheated fairly often. I suspect we don't know the half of it. The media protects Republicans. Listen to talk radio. Mostly very right-wing Republicans are given the air time. Their bigotry and hate is protected by the media while a really loving, good person like Ed Schultz gets his time on MSNBC taken from him.

Bernie is campaigning in spite of and with full knowledge of the media bias toward conservatives. That's why he is using YouTube and has his own internet TV station. Great moves by Bernie. He is going to circumvent the corporate media machine, the propaganda wing of the Republican Party.

Is there any doubt that they will do anything?

You can see it in the media especially.

Goldman-Sachs would love a Walker-Koch Presidency.

It would be their wet dream. Doesn't take away from the fact that either Bush or Clinton would be o.k. with them, also.

just as Goldmund-Sachs has loved the Obama Presidency.
Hillary would be as effective as Obama at reigning in Wall Street.
She doesn't "Welcome their Hatred ".
She welcomes their MONEY.

Bernie doesn't.

The fundamental basis of that claim is that Clinton can attract Republican voters that would not vote for Sanders due to his "radical" policies.

In this plane of reality, Republicans hate Clinton more than they love life itself. They will rip their own arms off before they pull the lever for Clinton.

You think it's about Independents? You such as the guy with (I-VT) after his name? Independents are not halfway between the two parties. They are all over the political map.

The only alternative is you are claiming Democrats would not vote for Sanders, but with all the loyalty oath demands coming from Clinton supporters, we know they'd never vote against the Democratic nominee. SCOTUS!!

--and is not attracting, is the 63%. That is to say, the eligible voters who did not vote in 2014. Sanders is attracting them. Sanders will expand the universe of likely voters, and Clinton will not.

Thanks for adding to it rather than just being snarky. Do you talk to your mother with that attitude?

By how quickly they bring someone's mother into a snarky exchage. You're all class.

It appears that you know quite a bit about class.

Powerful big money interests have invested heavily in Hillary. If they want Bernie to win, why do they continue to do that. It really does not matter much tom big money whether a republican or Hillary wins. Both will just continue doing the bidding of the rich. Hillary is doing it now even before nominated.
I am pretty exasperated at Hillary supporters either buying this if we support Bernie a republican will win or just trying to shut down any discussion of Hillarys already visible tilt to big money versus the needs of the people. We progressives unlike Hillary supporters who have trouble in discussions explaining what they like about Hillary other than her divisive and almost fanatical obsession with But women voters to the exclusion of everyone else. Activist Women tell me Hillary is smarmy and I find her speeches to echo that concern.
But like Bernie says- it ain't about me. As a Hillary supporter, you deserve her explanations for many stances she is taking on TTP, on Glass -Steagall, on Citizens United, NAFTA,Medicare for All,. You deserve an explanation for your efforts on her behalf. Hillary must come out of the shadows and face scrutiny. Money will not do it and may become the albatross around her neck, rather than the savior so many Hillary supporters in their willingness to accept that you cannot fight money. Hillary supporter look sad to progressives. We have not given up, and we do not want the least of two evils.

That blather about Bernie simply being a stalking horse, that all he is or can do is elect a republican or 'push Hillary left'. And so another one goes on ignore.

I like to know what they have to say but when its all the same bullshit then why bother with reading anything by them at all. Bernie Sanders can and will win this election. Due to the fact he has a track record that is easily looked up and is exactly what I agree with. I'm only one vote but I have a mouth on me and I'm using it to talk to people about this candidate. I don't mention Hillary at all when I talk to people as I'm not worried about her. Most people I talk to are real receptive of what I have to say about Bernie and say, well, I'll have to check him out. My confidence is that once they do they'll be like me, a Bernie supporter.

Equals an automatic ride to my ignore list.

It's amazing how much more sane my DU experience has become when I blocked those few who live to sow discontent with the populist candidate.

B8 m8

Bernie. He is beating him in polls in critical states, which definitely should not surprise anyone who knows that a majority of the people support most of the issues he is talking about.

That claim has now been shattered, 'only Hillary can beat a Republican'.

would win the 2016 election. The people of America are ready for the Second New Deal. We don't want or need a Scott Walker, ready to go to war with Iran the first day in the Oval office, or another Bush, or any GOP/TP conservative.

I hated him at the time because of the VietNam War,
but his Great Society programs were built upon the New Deal,
and his Civil Rights Act changed America forever.

It stuns me that LBJ was the last Liberal President for over 60 years,
but the Civil Rights Act made many enemies.

Thing is, LBJ KNEW it was politically risky,
but, like Wellstone, he did the right thing anyway, despite the cost.


LBJ signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Yes, that is MLK standing behind his shoulder...smiling.
This was our LAST Great Step Forward.

Bernie is the disaster for the status quo, not Hillary. They don't care if it's a republican or democrat, they just want somebody who will play ball.

Wall Street, vote Clinton. She doesn't want Glass-Steagall. She won't hold the bankster accountable. Sen Sanders is our only hope. Dare to join the Movement and turn your back on the Oligarchs. They don't really love you.

Even after he had clearly won the nomination, folks spouting off about how he just couldn't win. I'll provide links if you don't believe me.

Just stop peering into your cloudy crystal ball. You can't possibly "know" what you pretend to know.

against GOP in swing states then?

I'm sure you have seen that poll, no?

One of the things he points out is that the powerful interests that hate him want us to be divided and that we have to work together.

I hope that if you did not listen to his speech you will.

I mean the 63% of eligible voters who did not vote in 2014.

The presidential candidacy of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has excited many liberals throughout the country, but there's been very little analysis of his foreign policy positions. This past Sunday Sanders criticized Hillary Clinton for her support of the Iraq war, declaring, “On foreign policy, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq…Not only I voted against, I helped lead the effort against what I knew would be a disaster." Sanders assertion about Clinton is obviously true, but the difference between the two candidates on war is hardly substantial and his political closet is filled with as many skeletons. Notably he supported NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, a stance which caused one of his staffers to resign in protest.

snip

The attack on Kosovo is hardly the extent of Sanders' hawkishness. While it's true he voted against the Iraq War, he also voted in favor of authorizing funds for that war and the one in Afghanistan. More recently, he voted in favor of a $1 billion aid package for the coup government Ukraine and supported Israel's assault on Gaza. At a town hall meeting he admitted that Israel may have "overreacted", but blamed Hamas for the entire conflict. After a woman asked why he refused to condemn Israel's actions, he told critics: "Excuse me! Shut up! You don’t have the microphone.”

In 2008, Sanders was elected to the Senate. This transition gave Bernie a salary increase with potentially even less power than that he had in the House. His voting record changed little: voting for some war authorization funds while opposing others; funding intelligence operations while voting to remove immunity for communications companies involved in government surveillance; supporting contraception funding and funding for children’s health insurance programs; and opposing John Brennan’s appointment to head the CIA while supporting Chuck Hagel’s appointment as Secretary of Defense. He continued authorizing grants and laons to Israel, even after Israel bombed Gaza, attacked the Mavi Marmara and supported illegal settlements in the West Bank. Most recently, Sanders joined ninety-seven other Senators and approved a $1 billion aid package to the coup government in Ukraine, a package that (when combined with International Monetary Fund loans) will most certainly further impoverish Ukrainian working people.

THE FIGHT around the F-35 came to define the political moment in Vermont that summer, with debate raging between activists fighting the imperial, economic and environmental consequences of the F-35s, and the Democratic Party operatives forcing the basing on the small Vermont town, with the full support of the Congressional delegation--including Bernie Sanders.

The basing of the F-35s promised to have devastating consequences for Vermonters, including plummeting home values and adverse health impacts that would disproportionately impact minority and low-income populations. This is not to mention the grotesqueness of the deal itself, with trillions of dollars being spent on aircraft meant to bomb foreign countries, instead of on schools, infrastructure or health care--a contradiction that one would assume Bernie would acknowledge.

But the lines were clearly drawn in Sanders' office. Constituent after constituent poured into the office to express dismay at the F-35 proposal, recounting stories of their home values being destroyed or of the terror that their child faced hearing bombers in school every day.

Most of the time, these concerns were dismissed as unserious by office staff--they were often characterized as the concerns of "anarchists" who couldn't possibly understand the art of politics. Bernie has no influence on military decisions, they kept repeating--these people just really don't get it.

Your he bad too illustrations are hardly any reason to support Hillary. Again his platform resonates because the people are for the people. They want to vote in their own self-interests, not that of bankers, Wall Street , and billionaire donors to Hillary's campaign.
It is abundantly clear, her donor and her very likely controlling bosses will demand a return on their investment and she is already hoping that many of the common sheeples supporting her campaign will not notice or understand.

Yes. Many times. The real point, which is the topic at hand that you glossed over, is that he does go the way of "powerful interests" often. Blanket statements are often simply DOA.

Or only about your claim that Bernie is nearly as hawkish as she is? Seems disingenuous.

That while we're all distracted by the Wall Street banksters lighting their cigars with $100 bills, the Lockheed Martin crowd is snorting meth with thousand dollar bills.

No politician that I can see will ever do anything about that. Not Bernie. Not Hillary. And certainly no one from the right side of this Every-Four-Years Passion Play.

This appears to be the latest installment of the Great Cowboy Yankee War. That insufferable conflict between the earth-rapers and the vault-keepers.

All people "of color" (i.e. lacking in the "green&quot shall be crushed and melted!

Bernie can rail against the hedge fund brats all day, and I love him for it. But if he ever dares go after the guns 'n roses cartel we're likely to find his entrails hanging from a bridge.

Global Direct Democracy or bust! (I guess the bust must come first...)

Yeah that's the ticket...

Nowhere did I even mention "her" in my post.

My assumption that since you are one of the most pro Hillary posters on this board that you support Hillary most have been wrong. And attributing Roosevelt ' s successes only to the composition of Congress do nothing to engender confidence in your candidate since any Democratic nominee will face the same congress.

And they won't both face the same congress, as a Democrat, Hillary has a great chance of sweeping more Dems into office. An Independent candidate who says both party's are the same won't exactly create a blue wave. And btw, I actually support both candidates. I'm looking forward to ousting as many Teapublicans as we can.

"I support both candidates" is laughable. The rest of your statements are debatable.

I know, its hard to believe; someone that supports the Democratic candidates on a Democratic message board. Unbelievable!

That you think you're fooling anyone or if you actually believe you're neutral.

We're on each others team.

Will I vote for her over a Republican? Of course I will. That doesn't even come close to equating with me belie ing she will fight for issues important to me. She's not even close to good enough. She's just not a Republican

She has a 90% liberal voting record. Voted with Bernie 93% of the time. And was the 9th most liberal senator during her time. And I was talking about us, we're on each others team.

...but she is so close that their issues overlap.

"candidate who says both party's are the same" = bullshit.

Let's keep it honest, if you can.

Is this just a "feeling",
or can you support your claim.
I don't believe she has coat tails,
and her HIGH unfavorables will most probably keep Democrats from going to the polls.

I like Bernie, but it's a little shrill coming from him.

The Third Way and Republicans have been working hard to dismantle the Social Safety nets and Bank Regulations set up by FDR which worked for the People for so long and made this a far better society, protecting the elderly, children, the poor, the most vulnerable in our society..

His reocrd on this is flawless.

THAT is why they hate him. Privatizing SS, destroying Welfare, see the awful Welfare Reform Bill eg which he voted against.

THAT is why he is doing so well with the people once they get to know him. Because while the Third Way and Republicans are for privatizing all these programs, which polls show the People overwhelmingly support, Bernie is against that.

their lives and what he plans to do about it. Its common sense. This is the reason why me and a couple of my buddies love the guy! The average american doesn't give a damn about profit sharing. They want a wage where they can feed themselves and their families. Its the same thing FDR said and did!

record, they know he isn't just the usual politician spouting rhetoric during a political campaign, he is the real deal.

Then they look at all the other candidates and the difference is so incredible they realize that THIS is what they want, someone who KNOWS what their issues are, and it isn't just Democrats, polls show that all demographics support the issues he has supported all his life.

where we are and how we got here. And he is good at articulating where we could/should be. But he is thin on how to get there.

Don't forget that he voted for the ACA, stating that the votes weren't there for a public option, and that the ACA is a good INCREMENTAL step. Canada does not have a Wall Street, yet they achieved their health system step by step, province by province, over time.

Bernie is appropriating the populist/progressive/liberal ideas of those that came before him, those that built governing coalitions. He is still a lone wolf in many respects, having spent all his public service in Vermont outside of party mechanisms.

But government is a system of laws, and laws are passed by consensus, and consensus has to be built, and consensus requires compromise. Bernie is all about point A and point Z. Hillary hasn't even started campaigning yet, really. She's gathering data and responding. People want her to REACT in the moment, but you know what?

Hillary is running her campaign; it's not 2008. This is the first time Bernie has been in the National Spotlight. Hillary has been here since the 90s, nationally AND globally. Bernie is just now coming out of his shell. FDR was President when he said those words.

And he was a member of the 1%. He was a blue blood who evolved.

its tainted with corporate money thanks to a branch of government that isn't elected. Laws require consensus but how do you find a consensus when several lawmakers are in the pockets of (insert corporation here) and have pre-dispositions regarding which laws should be passed that won't harm their donors? Bernie is and has attempted to weed out the corruption that has taken a stranglehold on our Democracy. He's passed legislation which gets shot down by Corporadems and Republicans since their owners don't like it.

The ACA is a perfect example of this since a public option would have negatively impacted the for-profit insurance companies since they would have to compete with the government. I fail to see how working with sell outs is in our best interest as a nation. Hillary might have such experience but it seldom ends well for the working american.

I find it odd that someone has to gather data on the problems of the world. Is she that detached from the problems americans face on a daily basis? At least Bernie has been on the forefront and walked with the average Joe to find out what their problems are. Heck he's a regular on the Thom Hartmann show every friday on the brunch with Bernie segment (not sure if he still does those segments since my new job keeps me busy). I listened religiously until my old company closed down (thanks Bubba).

I was ready to vote for Hillary since I didn't want another Republican president but then the old man decided to run. I've been hooked ever since. O'Malley's been piquing my interest but HRC would be my last resort.

Many thanks for the reply. I enjoy having these conversations every once in a while.

The rich and powerful don't want someone who's willing to break'em up to ascend the presidency. So far Sanders and O'Malley are the only ones talking about ambushing Wall Street. Another leading candidate who shall remain nameless wants to offer tax breaks for these companies if they share their profits with their workers.

Wonder which ones are for the people and which ones want a pay day.

Is the only candidate who hired a wall street watchdog on her team as well as nobel winning economists Stiglitz and Blinder. She also voted to strip tax subsidies from companies that ship jobs overseas.

The guy who started this derivative mess back during the Bubba years! Now he's hailed a hero because he came up with the weak Dodd-Frank bill that still allows wall street to gamble our future away! He wasn't good enough for Obama so he's taking his talents to the HRC team!

Many thanks to ProSense for this reply:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022999775#post4

And wouldn't you know it: Bernie Sanders put a hold on his nomination since he knew he was a Wall Street crony. Some watchdog indeed.

Stiglitz is a great catch BTW. As for Blinder...I'll need to read something other than "peeing down the ladder" or whatever terminology he uses for trickle down economics.

Off the table right after her "get tough on Wall Street" speech? Yeah not impressed

eom

eom

A Trump or another Bush? No way.

The last time The Democrats won was in the 60s.

Can I ask you guys - JaneyVee and Evergreen Emerald and Bigtree and the rest...

When did you guys give up? Like, was there a specific moment?

he is. He threatens their 'system' more than any other candidate I can remember. And he isn't ASKING them for help, he refuses their money, won't be bribed, so they have no monetary control over him as they do over all the others.

telling the truth about them.

I can't seem to listen to him enough. It's partly what he says, but it is also how he says it. He really believes it.

He is just the right balance between idealism and realism. He tells us what we could do and then tells us that we have to organize, forget our differences and fight and work hard to get the changes we want.

What a healthy message. I love it.

Some daily labor for a better world and some to make it worse.

Where your treasure is, so is ones heart.

I want a heart that beats for all lives, not a heart that beats lives.

It's not just right wing whackjobs that hate him.

Bring it on.

Go Bernie!