when straws are all you have to work with, straws are what you grasp.

he wasn't sitting on the sidelines in 1962, and he isn't now.

He is a 73 yr old man working his ass off, and unlike some candidates he hasn't amassed a huge fortune based on his political career.

They have to take these sick angles of attack because they have nothing to work with.

that saddens me the most.

His record is too great to argue over or impugn, so go for the big lie. It's sad to see this mostly coming from the young. They're ignoring the history that they see as inconvenient to their goals.

I have no problem when his record is acknowledged but the argument moves on to "the fierce urgency of now". Every politician should be asked the tough questions about what they propose to do.

www.google.com/search?q=the+fierce+urgency+of+now

there are many urgent issues facing this country. I'm thankful that a 73 year old man is willing to put himself through this.

His long record shows his character, which is more important than mere campaign rhetoric which I personally never trust.

Character is the only thing that I trust.

.

Hillary has gender, which is a major marginalization issue. Her husband and some of her past choices.


Bernie is pretty solid, so attempts must be made to distract and cast him in a negative light.


Luckily, most are not buying into it.


===


Note: An acquaintance of one of those "Faux BLM' protesters on Saturday mentioned "Fuck Sanders" and talked about ratfucking him by throwing him a "sheepdog's bone" to keep him distracted until he realizes it, and by that time it would be too late to act.

Distracted from what?


.

wasn't going to be any "there" there. He's not even vain enough to have a combover.

Hadn't seen the comments by the acquaintance... sounds like a real winner.

Good point and good way to sum it up...thank you.

Go Bernie! Go Team Bernie! We Stand Together!

If you don't know a thing, make it up or blame god.

than his rivals, and even greater than his opponents. In the eyes of the public, the President is their heroic champion, and the primary winner will have to at least give the appearance of being better than all the other candidates in the field. Sanders must rise, he must actually be better than he ever has been to win presidency because that is what the job demands. Yes, that's asking a lot, but the office he aspires to demands a lot, and history proves that not all who attain the presidency can handle the rigors of the job because they are simply unable to do any better than they did before they came into the office.

Constantly comparing Sanders to Clinton, itemizing fault to fault, is detrimental to his brand and detracts from his message. If he is to be the better candidate, the best choice to win the presidency, if he is to succeed, then his followers should inspire him strive to be better than he ever was in the past so he can outshine ALL the other candidates and win the most voters to his camp.

The bar is high and the margin of error might hang on the razor's edge, so he can't settle for the status quo, or 'being himself' or resting on his laurels, because the stakes are too high and the goal is too valuable to lose due to complacency.

so it is going to be a tough row to hoe

luckily bernie is better,smarter and gosh darn it people like him!!!

i get a kick out of peops saying he just now is talking social justice when he has been doing it for 40 years but not every1 is as sick a political junkie as i am so they may not have noticed...and that is ok too



my personal complaint about his reform package is it does not specifically say, mj should be legal and hard drug users should be given the chance of drug court not prison...but if we ever get to the point bernie is elected pres i do believe he will listen to us so i am not stressing

Only in the last few days has he expanded his message to include more populist topics because the public has pushed him to embrace a broader message than just economic equality. He was complacent for a long time, content to lean on his past record, but now he's learned his lesson and he's growing and getting better because a rising public interest is forcing him to stretch out of his comfort zone. That's an accomplishment, and he needs to be recognised for doing so.

Last edited Mon Aug 10, 2015, 03:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Someone is wrong on the internet!

You always start from your core message. But maybe we're both right and events have quickened his pace.

Let's hope he improves going forward. The legislation he proposed is a step in the right direction.

There is no double standard. Most here hope all of the candidates can connect with all of the party's core constituencies.

Your use of "contemptible, obvious bullshit" to describe opinions of people with a point of view that is different than your own is now typical language used around here. Stomping out voices of those ẃho might have some constructive criticism of Sanders or his campaign using that kind of language is bad for the site.

But the same people will forgive all in the past of Hillary and claim she has evolved and that is good enough...they will be satisfied if she just speaks the words and forgive or make excuses for actions.

There is probably a name for that disconnect with reality but I don't know what it is.

I think if he keeps learning how to play at this level, he'll ultimately be a better candidate than Hillary.

He's already better from a policy and lack of overlords perspective.

He just needs to build a national outreach program that can pull the Democratic coalition together.

That has to be played. And the winner must be the pro.
When a democracy turns into a game we all lose.

And sorry, your double standard is precisely as I described it in.the op.

Do tell what you thought of Hillary's scary young black men in hoodies comment. Why do you think it didn't result in the kind of reaction Bernie has been getting?

Bernie has not had it together since NN. This article identifies two speeches where he could be better in getting AA and Latino support

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/01/us/politics/hillary-clinton-hits-jeb-bush-first-and-hard-in-speech-on-race.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

He only yesterday came out with a reform package that attempts to address BLM issues. His staff could be more diverse as well.

It’s fine to like the guy, but he is not above criticism. Both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton would have handled Seattle better. As I said, he does get it, but let’s hope he keeps getting better.

As far as Hillary goes, that clip shows nothing more than something our President might say. I don’t know what your point is. I would be fine if Bernie said it.

Hillary says all lives matter and that it's understandable that white people are scared of black men in hoodies, and you say it's presidential and slam Bernie with nothing. Bernie faces criticism and listens. Hillary walls herself off and has protesters dragged off as she did the other day with the man who dared ask her about Glass-Steagall.

Double standards are more like dog shit than bullshit. They stink to high heaven.

If Hillary is saying All Lives Matter in response to BLM, she should be criticized.

Your hoodie comments are unintelligible. All I said about it is that our President has made similar comments. If Bernie does so, fine.

Hillary walling herself off makes her a worse candidate. Isn't that good for Bernie?

In the end, you didn't even comment on my points. Likely did not read the article either. Just rage and swearing. Nice job! You must be in the Bernie group.

He made a mistake by not acting presidential when he conceded the mic and walked out of the venue. This is a question of leadership abilities and how does the public perceive a presidential candidate who is unprepared for hecklers and reluctant to assert himself in a fairly routine confrontation?

Don't be satisfied for settling for the status quo by just looking the other way when he repeats these avoidable, unforced errors. Sanders is not Clinton, and comparing them as birds of a feather, does not strengthen his standing, it drags him down and diminishes him. If he aspires to be president, to be the best candidate, then he needs to be pushed to live up to that ideal to win the prize, not praised for surrendering the stage.

He did just what he was criticized for not doing at NN. Furthermore, he deescalated what was a potentially violent and dangerous situation. They weren't just screaming in his face, they were threatening and shoving.

You are way off base.

No one is saying he did everything wrong...he should have stayed and spoken.

The disruptors ran out the clock on his speech. This whole "Sanders walked out" is made-up bullshit. Please stop spreading it.

Is it more important to project strength in the heat of that moment...or be a little late.

Not a close call...

And thanks for the cuss word too I'll definitely toe the line now...

If he'd stayed, the lament would be that he was mean or disrespectful to the protesters. When ANY outcome will be criticized, the details of the criticism are proven to be meaningless.

You have no idea what would have happened had he stayed. Your extrapolation comes across as sheer paranoia.

He could have stayed, continued to de-escalate until security got there, and given them a choice to be polite or leave. He could have done other things as well.

Staying was the answer. Bernie is, if nothing else, the most thoroughly decent politician I've seen. Had he stayed, he would have done nothing to hurt his campaign...and staying makes him look strong in the heat of the moment.

One more thing. If you can't handle a little criticism of your guy, perhaps you should stick to the Bernie group. I hear it's cuddly and snuggly in there.

And you stretch quite a bit!

The mike would not be relinquished till he recited the confession they composed for him.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/08/blm-activist-who-shut-down-sanders-is-radical-christian-sarah-palin-supporter/

If you care about Black Lives Matter, as you say you do, you will hold Bernie Sanders specifically accountable for his actions.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, I'll stand by mine.

The standard is that Sanders loses points for being less than perfect while endlessly engaging with the public, and making speeches, and expanding on his platform.

Politicians that remain quiet lose no points. Lol, they even benefit from the handicap they're given. "Evolved!" Well yeah, if you're scoring on a curve then many of Sanders rivals for the Presidency are making up tremendous amounts of ground. The Republicans don't fly Confederate flags, and formerly more conservative Democrats stroke all the right egos, hit most of the right talking points (and carefully remain mum on others).

Neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama would have handled it by leaving.

Google it.

It would be stupid of him to do that. There are more than two options.

and as such, he was obligated to make that event. He was under no obligation to submit to the bullshit demands of some grandstanding asshole. 4.5 minutes of silence? Who the fuck asks for 4.5 minutes of silence?!

he looked weak..and it will be exploited by his opponents.

But this lame spin is doomed to fail.

This is not a poster who deserves to be taken seriously

I should have known that from the user name, LOL!

issues over social issues. The other thing is, Bernie's supporters on social media have been particularly insensitive to BLM, which rightly or wrongly Bernie ends up getting the blame for.

Bernie has said he's trying to create a social movement, that it's not just about him. So it's not so unfair that the problems with the movement on the whole are projected onto its leader.

well if the Democratic Party is about Social liberalism but not fiscal liberalism then count me out...I'll go to the political party that supports both social liberalism and fiscal liberalism.

But the Bernie Sanders wing of the party puts more emphasis on the economic than the social. This is pretty obvious. Most of Sanders's campaign stump speech is about inequality and billionaires and Wall Street. Look at the difference between the way white progressives treated OWS versus BLM.

All you have to do to come to that conclusion is to ignore his entire record in the Senate.

Pawns being played as fools, they are.

Obama has increased regulations and taxes, expanded the safety net, and would have done more if not for the GOP congress.

These issues are all debatable and arguable.

But they are all important and vital, and should be front and center in the upcoming campaign.Sanders has been immensely important in articulating and raising awareness of the ugly but long-ignored Neo-Liberal Elephant in the Democratic room. That has been his focus because it is key to so much else.

Yes racial issues should also be front and center too. As should many others.

And yes, in his still-formative, new campaign, Sanders has had specific focus. And he has needed address some others more clearly, and forcefully. And yes, with the sense of urgency that people feel about othr (but related) issues. (An urgency Sanders ahas also felt thoughout his life.)

But (IMO of course) short circuiting the going awareness about core economic issues and common hunger for reform by trying to bat him out based on phony differences on race is not good for Democrats or America in the big picture.

And I don't think the "neo-liberal elephant" has been ignored, I think it has in many ways been beaten back. Obama is well to the left of where Bill Clinton was, and Hillary is running to Obama's left.

It's true that Sanders (and O'Malley) are running to Hillary's left, but I don't see how Hillary's platform can be described as neo-liberal.

I don't think that the BLM movement is pro-Hillary, but I do think they have grievances with white liberals, whom Bernie has come to symbolize. When Bernie got up to speak, before he was interrupted, he started out by saying (paraphrased) "thank you Seattle for being one of the most progressive cities in America." Then the protesters started talking about how despite all its progressiveness, Seattle still has huge racial injustices. Of course this all got lost in the headlines because when the BLM activists were getting booed, one of them very stupidly lashed out and called the crowd white supremacist liberals, and that line pretty much got all the attention.

I think that BLM feels that racial issues are being given lower priority in the progressive grassroots movement that Bernie is building. That it feels like the Bernie movement wants to turn the US into Seattle, which would be a good thing in many ways, but they are saying, hold on, there's more going on here than just needing to raise the minimum wage and break up the banks.

And, in a way, pointing to Bernie's march with King and his sit-ins can even emphasize this feeling, because it can be perceived as saying that in the 50s and 60s was the time for civil rights, and I did that, and now is the time to take on income inequality. Obviously, Bernie isn't saying that literally, but I also don't blame BLM for getting that picture by listening to him and in particular his supporters.

IMO, the Clinton Administration and the DLC Third Way actively supported and abetted in a fundamental Neo-Liberal restructuring of our economy and related political system just as actively as the GOP. And they were worse, because they stifled and prevented the real policies (and debates) we should have been having as two distinct political parties back then.

In the 2000's, they allowed Bush and the GOP to solidify that -- with the inevitable results of the crash of 2008.

I basically like and support President Obama in many ways, But he came into a very different situation in the climax and aftermath of the crisis. In some ways he did restore some balance. And he made some great steps. But in many other ways he perpetuated the same conventional wisdom, and did not acknowledge that Neo-Liberal Elephant and assisted it in some ways (such as TPP).

What is needed is to take the more truly liberal (progressive populist) direction to the next level, if we are to truly tackle the systemic imbalances that exist. The main value of Sanders is that he is doing that.

Clinton 3.0 (the 2015 version) is trying to talk a better game, But she still is locked into the same underlying Neo-Liberal crowd and beliefs, and relying on the familiar placating small-bore solutions that have been used all along to divert attention from the larger distortions that are still occurring. (Crooked monopoly banks continuing to get bigger and richer, assisted by money we gave them.)

I basically agree with you about the Dem's shift to the right in the 90s, although that was sort of before my time -- my first election was 2000. But, looking back, yeah, deregulation, welfare reform, etc.


But I honestly don't think it's the same today, and I think progressives don't give enough credit to the Democratic party for moving back left since Bill Clinton.

OK, in some ways Obama did perpetuate neo-liberal conventional wisdom. He did talk about the government "tightening it belt". He did very briefly offer cuts in SS as a negotiating tool. And there's TPP, but that's a complicated issue, it's not the same as NAFTA. But in much larger ways, he has bucked the neo-liberal trend, even if he didn't actually say "neo-liberal". He saved the auto industry, passed a substantial stimulus, re-regulated banks in ways that are showing to be effective, is willing to circumvent congress on things like climate and immigration.

What's more, if not for GOP obstruction, he would have done a lot more. More infrastructure spending and jobs bills. More investment in clean energy. Raising minimum wage, etc. Basically a large-scale repudiation of the austerity/neo-liberal program.

And I see Clinton as a continuation of Obama policies, though like a said she's running a little to his left. So I don't agree about the neo-liberal criticism.

I do agree that Sanders is proposing a more bold populist economic program. Single payer, free college, significant tax raises on the wealthy, $15 minimum wage nationwide, etc. I don't think much of it will get through congress, but regardless, I don't think the Hillary is neo-liberal, she just doesn't go as far as Bernie in the progressive direction.

I appreciate the response, based on actual issues. Seriously.

We all (me included) get caught up in the gotchas and hit and runs, personality driven stuff.

But we also need more civil debates over actual issues, even when there are strong disagreements. (especially when there are disagreements.) It'd help reduce the rancor, and ultimately help to make it less likely to see a President Jeb Bush.

Nice to have a civil discussion on issues, like you say especially when we disagree.

The Third Way Clintonese approach of rah-rahing incremental socially progressive advancements while allowing the corruption and exploitation at the top of the financial world to remain the status quo is like putting a band-aid on a broken limb.

Bernie's approach goes right to the heart of the matter. He is not afraid, and not beholden, to those same big financial players that like to think they are in control. Bernie is the only one who is smart enough, or not bought off, to realize the connection.

If Bernie ever does get elected and is successful at dampening the corporate dictatorship and unfettered financial malfeasance, THAT will, in the end, be a much more effective and long-lasting positive effect on America's ability to support the social progression that Hillary and the Third Way sounds out in their talking points that sound so great.

... to fixing the racial divide in America today. That statement is from Dr. Cornell West, chairman of the NAACP, yesterday on Face The Nation. We CANNOT address the race and class issues separately - as Dr. King came to realize towards the end of his life.

Yes, Black Lives DO Matter. But if you are going to try to convince me that a black life matters MORE than an Hispanic life, or an Asian Life, or a Female life, then you're going to lose me. In fact, ANYONE who says "You must support MY cause over ALL OTHER causes, or you are nothing but a POSUCS," (with apologies to W. R. Pitt), is gonna lose me.

He has spoken at most of his events on racial matters.

He does put most of his focus on economics because that is the centerpiece of his candidacy. Most candidates sort of have a few big policies that they push.

Why is this a problem?

Why are you making this a false choice fallacy?

are free to take issue with it.

Clearly you are interested in debate and informed discussion.


Oh, by the way that was sarcasm.

Trying sooo hard to keep this going. He keeps winning people over and will continue to do so. He will also continue to highlight racism and police brutality while Clinton charges $2500 a plate. 6 months to go to Iowa and trends are on the upward trajectory!

As far as the trends, if they continue, then Clinton will sail to the nomination:

And is she ALREADY ahead of Lincoln Chaffee (assuming she HAS announced , then deservedly so)?

... that in 2008, Obama's stance on Gay marriage was "evolving" (a valid statement, if evolving = triangulating!), and seems to have remained so, until what was initially covered as another massive gaffe on the part of Joe Biden.

Yet, when SCOTUS ruled in favor of gay marriage, all the kudos when to Obama. Funny, ain't it?

Well before, in fact. It was historic because no president had ever done that before.

Triangulating is splitting the difference. Evolving is evolving.

But that's beside the point. Joe Biden spoke out FIRST, and the media jumped on his case (gaffester-in chief, etc.) and ONLY THEN did President Obama's "evolution" on the issue become complete. Funny how that worked out, no?

But what is more likely is that they work closely together, speak every day, and probably evolved together on the same issue. If Biden spoke first, is that really that unexpected?

... that Biden made the original statement from the administration, and it was touted across the MSM as another of Uncle Joey's Gaffes, but when it became the law of the land, all the attaboys went to Obama. Has ANYBODY congratulated Joe Biden on the Gay Marriage ruling?

Or just giving his personal opinion?

"Saying he doesn't get it, doesn't handle it well and holding him to a higher standard, continuously moving the goalposts, is contemptible, obvious bullshit. And it stinks to high heaven. "

Politics as usual

He is a white man from a white state (95.2% white) where he has never made an efforts to address any of the issues relating to BLM because so few of his constituents are minority as to not matter to him, statistically.

He wants America to look like Scandinavia (94.3% white) where they share a common cultural ancestry and history.

And you can possibly look at the reaction from AA communities and BLM and blame THEM for Sanders reception?

Really?

to appeal to African Americans now. His recently released plan to combat racism is an indication.

But it is tough for him and it will continue to be tough. He's from a very sheltered state with very few minorities. It's a bubble state which really isn't representative of America. He thought he could only talk about income inequality, but he's discovering that's not the case.

At least he seems to be getting it now.

“I can hear the Republican attack ad right now,” Stephanopoulos said. “He wants America to look more like Scandinavia.”

“That’s right,” Sanders said. “What’s wrong with that?”

you think he wants to bleach people white? Better luck tomorrow.

Too many minorities with all their concerns about redlining, police brutality, and equality mess up his pretty campaign for "economic reform."

or is this just the lowest form or partisanship?

keep sending those letters.

I think you might've gone 'round the twist here...fereal.

So let me get this straight. If Bernie likes how some other country is handling some particular sector of the economy, because it makes sense both financially and socially, he better damn make sure its a country that has the same (or greater) black demographic as the US in order to not be a racist. Gee, I hope he doesn't start praising Canada's healthcare system...I mean that's for a population that is only 2.5% self-identified as black. That cannot work in the US where it is at 13%!

he was obviously talking about Scandinavia as an economic model for the US to emulate not about their racial makeup.

Him wanting to legislate social benefits as they do in Scandinavia equates to him wanting to alter our societal ethnic makeup? How do you even get there from reality? And for a guy who hails from a "white" state (funny, I didn't realize AA's were prohibited from settling there) he has a remarkably excellent civil rights record.

So excuse me for "whitesplaining" this to you, but your argument doesn't even begin to pass the laugh test.

in the shadow of the Holocaust. His father's family was destroyed in the gas chambers and by execution squads. He gets it in a visceral way. That is obvious.

He went to college in a large diverse city and worked for years in the civil rights movement, including dropping out of college for several months to do so. He didn't just emerge from Vermont full grown. He moved there when he was around 30. And throughout his political career he's been a staunch supporter of civil rights. John Lewis has said so. Cory Booker says so. Just what is your background that makes YOU the expert?

And you clearly haven't a clue about Vermont.

on the standard processes of evaluating demographics to determine a broader national appeal.

Every candidate and VP candidate is vetted according to their regional/demographic appeal. Match-ups are determined to maximize the broadest appeal to the various regional voting blocs. That's why you won't see two New Englanders on a ticket, etc. Yet, here, any mention of Bernie's limited experience in a sparsely populated New England state is met with guffaws as if it's a new-found thing. It's hilarious, but in a pathetic way. Bernie must be sheltered from everything that has been going on for decades before.

Really? He had half his family wiped out by actual White Supremacists in 1940's Germany. Think before you post.

He already holds himself to a higher standard than Clinton or any Republican.

Bernie will rise to meet whatever challenges they throw at him.

Hey rat fuckers? Bring it.

the facts at this point. They are cheering on a woman whose movement is called "bowdownbernie". If you're seeking a rational way to explain, or end, this, you're going to have a long wait.

I read today that in the DU AA group, suggestions have been made to storm the stage at and/or shut down EVERY Sanders rally. Do you think polite requests are going to change the trajectory?

And it won't take endless patience to see people who are in it mostly out of ego to no longer get the level of gratification they need for them to sustain their efforts. People in it for the long haul, people fighting the good fight, will replace them as the prominent faces for change.

it's her policies and executive actions OTOH ...

Loved reading the responses to your op, cali.

Some people don't get it at all, and it's not Bernie or his supporters.

Obvious concerned posters are obvious.

He is at a big disadvantage being who he is and where he is from. It may not be fair but many cant imagine how an old white jewish guy from a pearly white rural state can possibly understand the plight of inner city black people.

That's the hill he has to climb.

whose life's work has been devoted to economic and social justice, the way you have. People would think I was being dishonest.