2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI wonder if the endless attacks and smear campaigns against Bernie make Hillary sick to her stomach?
I know that Bernie has defended Hillary many times to the Corporate Media refusing to attack her, even when they attempt to provoke him to do so.
In one interview, eg, when the 'interviewer' asked Bernie if he agreed that Hillary's comment in a Black Church (she was being lambasted at the time by AAs for that comment) was extremely insensitive, he even grew ANGRY telling the interviewer 'I will NOT attack Hillary for the use of that phrase' making it clear he would not play their game
Shortly after, her supporters began a smear campaign against him, even though HE never used that phrase and could have done what her supporters did later. It was handed to him on a plate, to join in the firestorm against her for the use of that phrase.
He did not, and I respect him for that.
I know also he has no Super Pacs funded by Dark Money sending out smears against Hillary because he opposes both Dark Money in politics AND negative campaigning that is personal.
I would imagine she appreciates his principled stand and his repeated insistence that he respects her as a person, disagrees with her on some policies, but refuses to speak for her, sending the sensation-seeking 'journalists' to give her the respect of asking HER what she thinks rather than asking him.
Yet, I have not seen any statements from Hillary condemning the many smears, some of them pretty vile, anti semitic eg, implying 'dual loyalty etc, And then there is the red-baiting coming from her Super Pac which I'm sure she like everyone else, found to extremely offensive.
As a long time admirer of Hillary I wonder how she feels about all the nasty stuff being aimed at Bernie on her behalf.
It must make her feel very bad that her supporters are attacking someone she presumably respects. And his supporters!
One of many examples of Bernie defending Hillary.
Bernie Sanders defends Hillary Clinton against sexist criticism
The man has class and so do a vast majority of his supporters who I am proud to be among working to help get him elected.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)... if that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of a Super Pac working for him, smearing Sanders stating he did not approve of it nor did he have anything to do with it. I was glad he did that, because before he did, I did assume he knew about it.
Since he is my second choice, it was a relief to know he was not going to engage in dirty politics.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)And not just on the subject of your OP.
She's left it all so late that even if she does start nailing her colours to the mast it's going to be difficult to suppose the colours are really hers.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)learned about it. No candidate would want to have something like associated with them personally, especially from someone like Brock.
But I have seen nothing from her.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I could be wrong. Maybe she just doesn't like to dignify that kind of thing with attention, which I would respect. But the whole story of her anticipation of the Palin response to a policy decision sort of mucks that up.
senz
(11,945 posts)She'd love it. And they know it.
To quote one of the cool sayings from my parents' generation, "Let's not kid ourselves."
Who and what HRH is has long been established in the public record.
I wouldn't trust any Clinton one bit further than I can throw the Sphinx.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)slime that is. She and Bill know how to play the political game and how to make themselves out to be the victims.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'I'll tell you my position after the election'. And if Bernie, who is not a Corporate funded candidate had not entered the race, we would not be hearing much about issues which was probably the plan. It would be a battle of whose Super Pac can find the most dirt on whom and we would be engaged in trying to defend our team. At least that appears to have been the plan.
Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
7962
(11,841 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)After seeing what her official surrogates will do, I doubt there would be any complaints about the unofficial ones.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Endless smears of Sanders.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Pac smears, see David 'blinded by the money' Brock eg, all of them have backfired and ended up benefiting Bernie. Brock eg, unwittingly raised over 1.3 Million for Bernie. Now that's an epic fail if ever there was one.
However, I just wondered if Hillary feels okay with people like Brock, a snake if ever there was one, which she knows, representing her, and doing it so badly??
And the race card, the surrogates trying to raise the red baiting card.
Bernie just keeps talking about the issues and the people are LISTENING to him, ignoring the likes of Brock et al and his numbers just keep rising.
But that's not my issue, my question is about someone I admired, thought was a compassionate woman, being represented this way. How does she feel about it?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Which explains everything.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)oh, wait a minute. Actually she's been coordinating with them...and others
Hillary Clintons proxies ramp up attacks against Sanders
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-2016-proxies-attack-bernie-sanders-213359#ixzz3nS8SwjOY
The front-runners campaign is more closely guarding its talking points recently, briefing surrogates only by phone.
Stumping for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, a trip partly paid by Clinton's campaign, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy did more than defend the former secretary of State's email use -- he criticized Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders record on guns.
In Des Moines the same week, Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro, whose travel expenses were paid for by the Clinton campaign, knocked Sanders for a lack of outreach to Latinos.
And Thursday, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has endorsed Clinton, drew another unflattering contrast between the top Democrats in the race. I dont think theres any comparison between Hillary Clintons credentials and qualifications and positions, and Bernie Sanders, Cuomo told reporters. I do not see that as a close call.
Clinton camp sharpens attack on Sanders
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/246220-clinton-camp-sharpens-attack-on-sanders
Hillary Clintons supporters are attacking liberal rival Bernie Sanders more forcefully than ever before.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a Clinton backer, launched the sharpest attack yet on Sanders on Thursday morning. Appearing on MSNBCs Morning Joe, McCaskill assailed him for having an extreme message and being unrealistic.
Earlier this month, another Clinton supporter, Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), took the fight to Sanders on the issue of immigration.
I dont know if he likes immigrants, because he doesn't seem to talk about immigrants, Gutiérrez told Larry King on his show PoliticKING
The Bernie Sanders smear campaign has begun
A Hillary Clinton surrogate took the campaign's first real shot at Bernie Sanders last week. But it ain't working.
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/02/the_bernie_sanders_smear_campaign_has_begun_how_his_opponents_will_try_to_take_him_down/
Its a sign of Sanders success that one of Clintons hitters was set on the ascendant candidate last Thursday, with Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill appearing on MSNBCs Morning Joe to test out some new talking points to address Sanders astounding crowds and climbing poll numbers. McCaskill went with the acknowledge-then-conflate maneuver. Sanders crowds are at times dwarfing those of any candidate in either party. This cannot be denied. So Team Clinton has to try to make that clear sign of success a liability.
Well, you know, Rand Pauls father got massive crowds, Ron Paul, she said. He got the same size crowds. Pat Buchanan got massive crowds. Its not unusual for someone who has an extreme message to have a following.
Ooooh, gotcha: Big crowds mean youre an extremist. So the fewer people you have, the more reasonable you are.
Bernie Sanders Brushes Off Clinton Super PAC Attacks
http://time.com/4037944/bernie-sanders-correct-record-david-brock/
Clintons surrogates finally bared their teeth this week and attacked Sanders after months of watching him surge in the polls, linking Sanders in opposition research sent to a reporter with the socialist authoritarian president, Hugo Chavez. The research pointed to a program Sanders negotiated to buy discounted Venezuelan heating oil for low-income Vermonters; Sanders pointed out to TIME that Vermont was the sixth state to do so.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)these clearly orchestrated attacks. Which as the first link said, 'ain't working'.
This struck me as interesting: The front-runners campaign is more closely guarding its talking points recently, briefing surrogates only by phone.
Does that mean she is directly involved in these attempted smears?
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)to her email Meet The Press interview last week-end, when they came out with identical "time to move on" tweets.
Talking Point? Hillary Clinton's supporters all tweet the same thing: 'Time to move on' after she's grilled about email scandal on Meet the Press
*Five of Hillary Clinton's surrogates wrote almost identical tweets after she appeared on Meet the Press Sunday
*The coordination raised eyebrows as both a campaign spokesperson and the president of a pro-Clinton Super PAC said the same thing
*The Super PAC is coordinating with the campaign and testing federal election laws
*Clinton's allies are trying to push the press off the ongoing email scandal
Five of Hillary Clinton's closest allies, including her senior spokeswoman Karen Finney, and Brad Woodhouse, the president of two pro-Clinton Super PACs, fired off the same message on Twitter following Clinton's Sunday appearance on Meet the Press.
'Questions on Hillary Clinton's emails on this morning's [Meet the Press]? Asked and answered. Time to move on,' Woodhouse and Finney both wrote, leading a number of online spectators to call out coordination between the campaign and Super PACs.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3252434/Talking-Point-Hillary-Clinton-s-supporters-tweet-thing-Time-s-grilled-email-scandal-Meet-Press.html#ixzz3nSOam7BO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
merrily
(45,251 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)This really should be an OP.
Very good research! Thanks!
LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)wealthy to non-wealthy attitude. No big deal, just the way it is.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)other things she said.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Just like he has already.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Because they aren't working.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)in my mind...her history and baggage, is her own worst enemy.
Not to mention who she rubs elbows with.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)I wish I could be more like you. You exhibit such extreme patience and reason even when none is really deserved.
Like our candidate, you carry yourself with class.
I am proud of our wonderful People's candidate and to be working with people as fine as you.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)on the same side as people like you!
Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)
Post removed
JohnnyRingo
(18,581 posts)I read a lot of political sites and a newspaper every day, but I haven't seen this conspiracy of supporters running a "smear campaign" against Sanders. Are you talking about national journalists, or some cranks on Facebook? If it's the latter, there's no reason on Earth to think it's coordinated by the Clinton campaign. You noticeably offer no examples of this national smear campaign, so I'm lost here.
I'm far from being warm to another Clinton White House, but I'm also a bit tired of Sanders fans here playing the victim card. In one post he's an unstoppable force, on another he's doomed to be taken down by the establishment. I swear, if he doesn't make the cut, and one person pipes up and compares it to the Holocaust, I'll fucking scream.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and elsewhere. Take David Brock's little smear campaign eg, done through the Hillary Super Pac he runs funded by Dark Money. He THOUGHT he could get it started by sending it out to reporters while he remained anonymous.
Fortunately two of those reporters did not feel they had to hide who was spreading this garbage around IF they were going to be asked to do it.
So he was exposed, rightfully, caught in the act as it were. His Super Pac is working in coordination with Hillary's Campaign.
Surely you didn't that LATEST one since it actually made the Foreign news.
No we are not imagining things. This OP is in response to the other one claiming it is Bernie's campaign and supporters doing this kind of thing.
Btw did you go into that thread and admonish for have zero, not a shred of evidence of anything like what Hillary's campaign has been doing.
Did you also miss the coordinated red baiting by Claire McCaskill, Gutierrez, a member of the DNC, Brown I believe his name is all on the media practically together, all with the same talking points.
Bernie doesn't use Super Pacs so nothing of the kind that was just exposed re Brock will happen via his campaign.
He doesn't take that dirty money either, thanks Citizens United where we don't know WHO is paying Brock for his lies and deceptions.
I hope will go into the thread that inspired this one. I would not have written this except the Record needs to be constantly corrected.
Every action has a reaction. We learned from the Swift Boaters that the minute a lie starts it needs to be crushed, exposed, destroyed before it starts gaining traction.
Iow, it was Hillary's supporters who posted the OP here accusing Bernie supporters of all kinds of nefarious deeds, I didn't read it, just read the title.
THIS is a reaction to that, showing that they are not all innocent and if they continue to attack Bernie wrongfully and/or his supporters, wrongfully, THERE WILL BE A RESPONSE.
Or, they could decide to do what we do most of the time, talk about ISSUES and stop with the smear campaigns. It's up to them
JohnnyRingo
(18,581 posts)You seem to know this because he's spreading nasty rumors to reporters. If you have evidence that his actions are being dictated from campaign headquarters you are remiss not to offer said proof to the FEC. I believe this is a felony subjecting David Brock to at least a heavy fine.
If you just assume everything originates from Hillary Central because you don't like the message, you're just another conspiracy theorist. I see posts here on a near daily basis ripped straight from Free Republic denigrating Ms. Clinton for everything from being a DINO to outright treason, but that doesn't mean it's coming from Bernie Sanders' campaign. She's very polarizing, and some people just. don't. like. her.
The political in-fighting is getting so ridiculous here I quit posting comments on DU for nearly two months. Your post about the Great Slime Conspiracy of 2015 just put me over the edge. I'm sure many people see Bernie as a flavor of the month, learn to deal with it instead of making tenuous rants that Hillary and the evil corporate world is plotting against him.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)support Bernie Sanders.
Nothing anyone says on the Internet puts me 'over the edge'. I simply respond with facts.
I assume you went into the OP that inspired this one and admonished the author of THAT OP also. Otherwise it would seem that you are unaware of how the 'slime' that is posted here on a daily basis about Bernie and his supporters affects other DUers. It isn't all about you, a little empathy for those who are treated to daily, nasty attacks by a few of Hillary's supporters would be more impressive than to post a comment completely ignoring what a majority of people have seen here.
Most of my OPs are about issues. But when I see 'slime' to use your word, against a decent candidate or voters exercising their right to decide which candidate they believe is best for this country, I will respond to it, as I have here.
If you think that lies and distortions will be left to fester without a response in THIS campaign, you could not be more wrong.
And if you don't like THIS OP then have a chat with those who insist on attacking Sanders and his supporters about maybe not giving in to the temptation of slamming Democrats on this forum every, single day.
This OP exists ONLY to respond to yet another attack on Bernie's supporters.
7962
(11,841 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,581 posts)If I had, and if it was as conspiratorial in nature as this one, I well may have responded in kind. If that post cited Bernie's campaign as amassing a network of dark money political assassins to go after Hillary, I would have been just as disgusted with the accusation. I'm guessing it was just another post stating that Bernie is in one way or another unelectable, a fair statement of opinion.
You assumed that since I'm not with Bernie, I must be for Clinton and lashed out against her and myself as his supporters tend to do.
Personally, I'm looking for a moderate candidate to arise from the background who isn't as polarizing to take down a likely GOP candidate as John Kasich. I only mentioned the attacks on her here because they've been particularly caustic for a fellow democrat.
I get that many, many, people dislike Clinton, but if someone thinks Sanders can win because he's extremely to the left, they may believe the GOP will put up a right wing whack like Trump, Cruz, or Rubio to run against him. That isn't going to happen, and the republicans will filter down to their most moderate candidate as they have done in every election since WWII.
I hate to state what should be the obvious, but when you take away the far left and the Tea Party right, Americans look for a president who will kick the can down the road. That isn't a prediction, it's an observation of a lifetime of past elections since I voted for George McGovern in '72. When it comes down to election day, voters in the vast 66% in the middle will always opt for the "do no harm" candidate. So far, neither Clinton or Sanders fits that bill and wouldn't stand a chance against a carefully measured Kasich or Jeb Bush campaign.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)origin, Cass Sunstein's 'advice' on how to try to dismiss those who question the 'approved messaging' of the state. That was quite a revealing piece of writing, but it did explain why we were suddenly seeing those two words flung around like old rags every time someone asked a question about a subject we are not supposed to ask questions about, well accIording to some.
So, since you chose to go the Cass Sustein route in this discussion, maybe you can detail the 'CTs' you are referring to.
Also, I don't dislike or like Clinton, I don't like her record on the issues, period. She has been wrong so often, by her own admission, that it is extremely worrying to think that someone who hasn't gotten it right on some of the major issues of her time might do it again, which is fine if she is a private citizen, but with the awesome of the Presidency? We can't risk another 'mistake' or 'error of judgement' on the scale of the errors she now admits to, the Iraq War eg, or NOLA or the Welfare Reform legislation, which have caused so much harm to so many people.
If you are a person who is prone to be on the wrong side of history on major issues, then later tend to see how wrong you were and have the good sense to evolve, that is laudable. But in a LEADER it is a major flaw.
JohnnyRingo
(18,581 posts)...but I don't understand the reference to "CT". I searched my reply for a phrase that began with those coded letters, but came up empty handed. Nor am I certain how those two letters make me immature, to cite your early reference to an "adult discussion".
As for your opposition to Clinton's policy decisions, I fully understand how many would be against her positions, myself included. I believe that view is directly dependent upon how far to the left one stands. If someone believes the entire country is also suddenly left of center however, I believe it may be a fatal error of judgment to a campaign.
While I understand that most voters agree with liberal ideals, once they're told they support socialism, they strongly disagree. Sanders quotes about being a socialist is already loaded for endless loop at Fox News, and he may one day soon regret those moments of candor. I can't help but notice he no longer uses that word.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If not, I encourage you to look into it. It is a fact that Brock's organization IS supporting Clinton and raising millions in dark money for her SuperPAC. Whether it is coordinated remains to be seen. Even if it were the FEC is a toothless entity.
As to the messages you find offensive about Clinton, get over it. Those of us who aren't supporting her are doing so because she is and has been accepting large amounts of corporate money. Even the most recent quarterly report shows a large portion of Clinton's money is coming from donors who maxed out at $2,700 to her campaign. On top of that these people can give unlimited donations to her SuperPAC as well. This isn't conspiracy theory, IT IS A FACT!
Please if you want to continue to be naive enough to believe the candidate that takes money hand over fist will eliminate Citizen's United, go ahead. But the only flavor of the month is green, the color of money. Hillary Clinton's favorite color.
JohnnyRingo
(18,581 posts)You assumed I'm for Hillary because I hate seeing such nastiness here against her, so you tossed more crap on the pile, as most Bernie supporters seem wont to do.
Personally, I'm looking for a moderate candidate to arise from the background who isn't as polarizing to take down a likely GOP candidate as John Kasich. I only mentioned the attacks on her here because they've been particularly caustic for a fellow democrat.
I get that many people dislike her, but if someone thinks Sanders can win because he's extremely to the left, they may believe the GOP will put up a right wing whack like Trump, Cruz, or Rubio to run against him. That isn't going to happen, and the republicans will filter down to their most moderate candidate as they have done in every election since WWII.
I hate to state what should be the obvious, but when you take away the far left and the Tea Party right, Americans look for a president who will kick the can down the road. That isn't a prediction, it's an observation of past elections. When it comes down to election day, voters in the vast 66% in the middle will always opt for the "do no harm" candidate. So far, neither Clinton or Sanders fits that bill and wouldn't stand a chance against a carefully measured Kasich or Jeb Bush campaign.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I said if you find what is being said about her offensive. You also dismiss any criticism as attacking her.
You seem to excuse the fact that she takes unlimited amounts of dark money and runs a smear campaign via her Super PAC and her surrogates. This is the same thing she did in 2008. I for one thought she might have learned a lesson from how she ran her campaign then, but apparently she didn't.
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)they are not denying it, they say it is legal because of the "net" loophole
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and about Brock's 'friendship' with Hillary, which in itself should be quite shocking to most Dems. Mr 'Blinded by the Money' just can't seem to 'reform' as he claimed he had. Now when there's all that anonymous money to be made'. Leopards don't change their spots. This one sure hasn't, same old smear campaign dirty tricks that nearly brought down a Democratic administration.
The fact that the Clintons would have ANYTHING to do with this person, that they would USE him and his 'skills' for their own benefit, says everything that caused me and many others who spent years defending them AGAINST people like Brock, to finally get the message, we were 'had'.
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)the nyt and the washington post have both reported it and hc's campaign admits it so johney needs to walk back his response
btw
thank you for all you are doing for bernie, the peoples candidate
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)From the onion maybe?
Because this website has been anti Hillary Clinton central since the day Bernie declared!
I mean seriously there's like 10 Hillary backers left on here !
Lolololol!
Every crackpot reich wing attack talking point against Hillary gets posted here as God's honest truth!
But thanks for the laugh, you ought to do stand up! Lolz!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)attacks on Sanders and his supporters. THIS would not exist had it not been for yet another of those attacks on Bernie's supporters.
So if you don't want to see the responses, which is what most of those you call attacks on Hillary, eg, no Bernie supporter here has ever called Hillary and/or her supporters a bunch of 'White Supremecists'.
I would much prefer to talk about issues, but when I do I am accused of 'bashing Hillary'.
I certainly have never resorted to some of the 'cards' that have been played here by Hillary supporters and never would.
I hope you will visit the thread that inspired this one, whose sole purpose to correct the misinformation posted in that thread, again attacking Bernie's supporters.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Sorry for the sarcasm.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)10..really? Hyperbole much?
Next you are going to tell me all the Hillary supporters got banned because of jury rigging. Come on, go ahead!
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)Vatican hands Kim Davis and Staver the Pinnochio Award.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)quickesst
(6,280 posts)..... but that is one of the funniest things I've ever read on DU. Classic pot meet kettle 2.0 The OP title I mean.
SleeplessinSoCal
(8,992 posts)The GOP is where you will find the big money spent on attacks of gun control action, of women's rights, of LGBT rights, of climate change action, of labor, all the while maintaining income inequality.
Here's hoping those with a high IQ and modicum amount of compassion for people over corporations take charge of the government in 2016. That includes Hillary and Bernie. Probably not Jim Webb.
stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)grandchild to become the first female president, she'll do that. Getting in bed with propagandist, smear artists, and attack dogs is second nature to dc lifers. Her career as a dc insider has rendered her completely soulless, as evidence by the constant flip flopping on pretty much every issue. Probably not much that makes her queasy.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)The man has class and so do a vast majority of his supporters who I am proud to be among working to help get him elected.
7962
(11,841 posts)How many times have we seen this happen on the right? A group will come out with something rude or stupid, and the candidate immediately comes out and says "That does not represent my views" or some such statement.
Why doesnt SHE do that?
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Proud to be your 103rd record.
azureblue
(2,129 posts)but your hyperbole does
DFW
(54,050 posts)He repeatedly had the chance to get nasty and declined EVERY time. I think Hillary is trying to take the same stance (I haven't seen anything ugly from her, either, but here in Europe, we don't see anywhere near everything).
They knew each other in the Senate for two years, so it's not like they are total strangers. Plus, I'm sure Howard is watching the whole thing and urging her to take the high road as well. In a presidential campaign, there is no way a candidate can oversee everything said or done on their behalf. Sanders himself has said flat out that it was inevitable that some people working on his behalf will do something from which he will have to distance himself. He is taking a realistic stance on this, which is the ONLY stance a candidate can or should have. If Hillary thinks no one on her team will do anything she would abhor, she is not being realistic, and this is a site that regularly bashes her for her mercenary pragmatism.
Though I have not seen anything like "endless smear campaigns" on Bernie from her campaign, I'm confident that if they occur, they bother he just as much as nasty smears on Hillary undoubtedly bother Bernie.
(What's Bernie done that anyone could possibly smear him WITH, anyhow? Not worked on his Brooklyn accent?)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)has been a steady stream of personal attacks, including anti-Semitic slurs, not just from supporters, from radio hosts, from Hillary's Super Pac run by David Brock, not to mention absurd, but continuing attacks claiming 'white supremecism' of Bernie (ludicrous I know) and his supporters.
We learned from the Dean 'scream' that lies and deceptions and dirty tricks and smear campaigns must be countered instantly or they will take hold/
This OP is in response to yet another one of the daily attacks on Bernie's supporters, this is a new meme, attack his supporters.
And today we're off to a new start of attacks.
And we will respond to them strongly to make sure they never have a chance of gaining the kind of momentum the Swift Boaters got or the Dean 'scream'.
And they ARE coming from organized smear campaigns paid for with Dark Money, see the Brock garbage eg.
Hillary has not made a public statement yet condemning this onslaught of attacks against Bernie and his supporters.
So it is really up to us to demonstrate that they will be countered strongly everywhere they rear their ugly heads, instantly whenever possible.
Her supporeters here are not helping her at all, she would do well to reign them in.
DFW
(54,050 posts)Like I have said before, I try to follow what the candidates themselves say, and try not to get distracted by what others say. You never know what someone's agenda is, so I find it pointless to even ask. White supremecism on Bernie's part? That one IS far-fetched. Sounds more like something Karl Rove or Frank Luntz would have tried to sneak in. But no matter. None of that kind of garbage has any traction with me, whether directed at Bernie, Hillary or even John P. Wintergreen.
I'll make my (completely irrelevant) choice about my vote in the Texas primary, and then I'll actively support the Democratic nominee (pretty sure it won't be Wintergreen) in the general. The last thing I want is for some Republican to nominate the next (probably at least 3) Supreme Court Justices. We have a chance to overturn Citizens United, cement Roe v. Wade, restore voting rights and maybe even enshrine single payer into a SCOTUS-approved law if we can restore a center-left majority on the Court. For that reason alone, anyone who sits the election out because "the right candidate" wasn't nominated is not our friend. Since Howard won't be running, MY candidate won't be the next president. But be it Sanders, Clinton or O'Malley, I'll support our side, because at the end of the day, we have a LOT to lose if the other side wins. I may not apply for citizenship here, but I will spend my 70th birthday (if I get that far) as a legal resident of Germany if a Republican nominee's Supreme Court picks are deciding the future of health care, voting rights, abortion rights and civil rights in the United States.
ashling
(25,771 posts)"Stuff happens"
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)when it happens.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)A copycat thread, how original.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251641866
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
40RatRod
(531 posts)..."As a long time admirer of Hillary I wonder how she feels about all the nasty stuff being aimed at Bernie on her behalf."
You must be selective in the posts you read. From what I see, it is certainly a two way street.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)been given the right to do so by the initiators.
Can you explain the 'Red Card' players all coordinated, all surrogates of Hillary, she could have done what O'Malley did, let it be known how much she condemns this kind of negative campaigning, however, she has not.
I do hope she asked about it so we can find out how she will respond to Brock, up to his old familiar tricks on her behalf.
Has she condemned that? It's a Hillary Super Pac funded by dark money. I think she is obligated, considering she SAYS she opposes CU, to speak out against that smarmy dirty trickster who was caught in the act this time. But she hasn't.
For examply, this OP would not exist had it not been for the one that attacked Bernie's supporters. So this was not the initiating OP, it was a response to an attack.
Here on DU we've seen some of the most vile attacks on Bernie now moved to another site where they are free to confirm and have, what many people suspected. But we will NOT allow lies and deceptions and smears to go unanswered, so if they don't want OPs like this, then the solution is simple. Don't initiate them and then whine when you get a response.
Report1212
(661 posts)Just remember 2008. Why would it make her sick?
marym625
(17,997 posts)And what it is, is obvious.
Love you, Sabrina, but I don't really have a fuck to give about what she thinks. Her words, or lack thereof, make it obvious.
#Bernie2016
#FeelTheBern
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,107 posts)Thanks for the thread, sabrina.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Who convinced John Kerry the day after the 2004 election to not "consider or worry about" the vote count in Ohio, as according to Carville, there just were not enough votes to make a difference.
In actuality more than 200,000 votes were uncounted, mostly from those sections of Ohio that were heavily Democratic.
I will always believe that Hillary was willing to have the election thrown to George W in 2004 so she could ensure her ability to run for the Oval Office and win it in 2008 - and Karma is a total bitch.
She has gone on to endure being snubbed by all of us who are true FDR progressives, first losing our votes to Barack Obama and now losing our votes to Sanders.
Ha Ha you little biddy!
jfern
(5,204 posts)People like Ted Kennedy were the top of the enemies list for endorsing Obama.
Of course she doesn't have a problem with smears against Sanders.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)It gives us a chance to show people the opposite of the accusations and to show our resolve and character and Bernies.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)up has backfired so spectacularly giving the PEOPLE an opportunity to USE them to get even MORE support to fight this exact blight on our electoral system, the Dark Money that has had a chokehold on our government, DEMONSTRATES exactly what Bernie's campaign is all about.
Brock? Conducting dirty trick smear campaigns on behalf of Hillary? This is GOLD for the people who have so disgusted by it all for so long.
The rapid response of the army of volunteers for Bernie's campaign, is destroying their dirty tricks game and exposing them for what they are.
So let them keep spending all that corporate money and WE will USE IT to the advantage of the PEOPLE.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Bet she sleeps like a baby😢