She is in favor of a no fly zone in Syria, where Russian planes are flying and Russian missiles are falling.

If you can think of a more hawkish (D) then please share that name with me because I have been trying and can't come up with one.

If you agree with her on these things then supporting her because of her international experience is understandable. If you don't it isn't.




I am with Bernie. I like that he isn't trying to be "slick". His honesty and integrity are unique in modern politics. I think it can carry him through the entire process. If he loses because he isn't "slick" enough, then this country may be beyond hope.

particularly with climate change, incremental isn't going to be good enough, fast enough.

Sanders was the only candidate to say climate change is our biggest national security threat, which tells me he would push for the kind of transformation we need. What good is Clinton's polish and skill if she isn't aiming high enough to solve our problems?

Also, her skill in that debate allowed her to gloss over some real policy weaknesses. I am less impressed by someone who can divert attention away from a vote for the Iraq war than I am by someone who voted no in the first place.

So going with O'Malley doesn't have you at odds with the hubby. (And I say this as a Bernie supporter.)

I'm pretty sure she's a dem but other than that we don't talk politics.
I wouldn't want it to be any other way unless she was to want to talk politics
She's a good hard working, smart Nurse and I figure she can make up her own mind with out my input

National Nurses United have endorsed

Have you not heard? Yep, lots of "free stuff".

But he may not be your candidate though, because he's not all that into M$M
"horse-race" political coverage.

OK, I jest.

If you care about swift action on curbing Wall St. abuses & run-away climate change, I
honestly don't see any other candidate in the Dem. Primary who is making a convincing
case that they are prepared to do just that.

Check out Clinton's largest donors. Nuf said.

I've gone back and forth between Sanders, Clinton & O'Malley. I think all three have certain strengths. Right now I'm leaning more toward Sanders, for the reasons you describe.

To answer your primary question about Sanders, I would say that if he wins he would appoint an administration that has experienced and talented people. Maybe not slick in the Wall Street establishment kind of way, but smart and sensible and with a low tolerance for nonsense. If he wins the nomination, his choice as Vice-Presidential candidate is very important as it will provide insight into who he'd prefer at his side.

I will vote for the democratic party nominee in the general election.

He will go after the likes of Putin.

Here he is tearing Bernanke apart

I no trust what people say during campaigns, UNLESS they've been saying it for a few decades and they put their actions where their words are.

I don't think Bernie's cabinet eg, something I forgot to ask about during previous elections, willl be made up of Repubs, Corporate Ceos, Monsanto eg, or Wall St cronies.

For me that is now SUPER IMPORTANT. Who will be in the President's cabinet.

When we are asked to vote for a Democrat, I don't expect to be voting to keep Bush loyalists, see Clapper and Gates among others. I wanted to kick Repubs OUT not bring them back into power.

I like O'Malley but agree with your assessment. I think he would compromise too much with the loonies on the Right just because he like so many, thinks it's good politics. No more appeasing of the radicals who see that as weak and then push for more.

Bernie otoh, seems to be able to handle them, see his record on Amendments eg.

Hillary, sorry, she's too much of a war hawk for me. I'm not buying her swing to the Left, it will bounce right back if she wins.

We desperately need to start backing away from our Imperial wars and with Hillary, that's not going to happen, she's totally on board with PNAC view of America.

This site has devolved into a horrendous Balkanization, where candidate advocates have carved off "safe havens" where no reasoned discussion is allowed. If I am not correct, DU was always about reasoned discussion and about promoting the election of Democrats. Apparently things have gone off the rails. DU now is about infighting within the party and the promotion of perpetual presidential campaigns, while the rest of the political structure is in the hands of outright lunatics.

1. US House of Representatives. Check!
2. US Senate. Check!
3. Governorships. Check!
4. State legislatures. Check!

All in the hands of the GOP.

Granted, we will likely gain the Senate back in 2016. We could likely do so with eyes blindfolded. However, the extent that we ignore these other problems is the extent that one day the GOP will win the White House and we will have absolutely nothing to put against their theocratic agenda.

So, I will support and vote for any and all Democrats at all levels. The alternative is too horrendous to consider. And the GOP already has many chess pieces in place.

Meanwhile DU infights over the future 2016 nomination. Silly DU!

Far too much knowledge of detail beyond what even the more dedicated of us have to discuss all the senate, house, governorship and so on races.

Like it or not this is a national and even international board, the big national questions are the ones that are going to be most hotly discussed here.

You are correct: He is not slick. What you see is what you get.

He knows what is like to be a common man. And he shows a lot of love for common people.

I have found that best way to deal with snakes is to look them in the eye and tell them they are snakes and that if they want to get down and dirty - like a snake - well, let's get it on. I think Bernie is about the same.

And... he is a True statesman. Much like the founders of this Great Country.

It's funny. Every primary season I always knew who I'd support almost immediately. This is the first time I've actually been stumped. I am glad Bernie is in the race, because it is pushing Hillary more toward the left than she'd otherwise be, but...

Well, I feel the same way about Bernie that you do. I agree with him on most of the issues, but I don't really trust that he can execute things. He can make all the promises he likes, the real question is can he deliver on any of it? Assuming he were elected President he'd obviously have all the Republicans in Congress against him. However, he'd also have a good chunk of the Democratic Establishment working to undermine him as well. How does Bernie intend to push through his agenda?

He talks about a revolution, but if a revolution is what is required then why does he have to be President to lead it? Being President would only undermine the leader of such a revolution, because the job would require him to compromise in order to govern. That would be an anathema to the ideals of the revolution. Of course, we're making the assumption that the revolution would actually happen, which I highly doubt it will. Obama has repeatedly called for people to step up in the past, and where were all those activists when he needed them? It hasn't helped Obama one bit.

So, while I am closer to Sanders on the issues, I don't believe he could actually govern. In order to properly govern, it would require him to compromise, and without massive support already in the Congress, any compromise he makes is going to be massively against the ideals and values he holds. This is especially true as the Democrats will not have a super majority in the Senate, and the Republicans are likely to still control the House. This means he's not even compromising with other Democrats (many of whom would be opposed to his proposals), but Republicans--assuming they don't intend to just play obstructionists like they have for Obama. If they decide to be obstructionists, how does Bernie intend to break through that? He can talk about a revolution all he wants, but those House districts are Gerrymandered to hell and back making all those seats completely safe.

...and then there is Hillary. Sigh. Well, do we even need to discuss her? All her cons are obvious to anyone who is on the left, but the major pro she has going for her is that she likely will be good at governing. This means that she likely could break through Republican obstructionism, and she could also wield a significant amount of power and influence over the Democrats in Congress.

I agree with Bernie Sanders that we NEED a revolution. I just don't think that revolution is going to come from the ballot box. It's going to come from the streets. Until people are prepared to actively overthrow the Federal Government and likely force through some new Constitutional Amendments, I don't see anything that Sanders promises happening. It sure as hell isn't going to happen from inside the Oval Office. I'm sorry but the entire system is rigged. The system can't be fixed by working within it, you have to pull it down and build a new one.

It doesn't really *have* to be a President but an establishment President can really put the squelch on any non-establishment moves by anyone else in government. Getting even one non-establishment politician elected is going to be a huge chore that is by no means assured of success with the entire might of the M$M as well as the political establishment aligned against them, might as well start at the top.

revolutionaries. Or, of course, they can green light it, and have the FBI ad Homeland Security coordinating with local police to break up protests, tear gas and arrest protesters.

I see the benefits of having someone on our side controlling the Presidency, especially as Erich Bloodaxe BSN said it gives that person control over the FBI, Homeland Security, etc. The problem that I see is that Bernie Sanders believes that the system can be fixed by working from within it. When he talks about a revolution he is talking about people voting out establishment people. I think if we're honest with ourselves, we know the system is corrupt and broken, and if the system is corrupt and broken you can't fix it by working within it. Hillary Clinton is a creature of the system that we all hate, and that is why the left does not unify around her.

Bernie Sanders is a really nice guy. However, that niceness works against him when he is facing the corrupt system. He doesn't like attacking people, and he doesn't like calling people out. There are a million different ways that he could have absolutely cut Hillary to shreds during the debate. He didn't. It's not in Bernie's nature to do that to people.

However, a revolution--whether from inside the Oval Office or outside of it--is going to require people to go after specific individuals. It will require us to destroy their careers, and maybe even in some cases their lives and livelihoods. It would be politics at its most ugly, as Washington D.C. is ripped apart brick by brick, and the establishment completely crumbles.

The problem is that I don't believe Bernie Sanders wants the type of revolution that I am talking about, because such a thing is inherently messy, ugly, and damaging to the fabric of the country. It would also likely rip the Democratic Party apart. I think Bernie Sanders believes that the country can be changed through voting. But we all agree that massive amounts of money contributes to who wins elections. We all agree that we have a severe problem with Gerrymandering. We all know about the problems that exist within the system, and because we acknowledge those problems how can we hope to fix those problems by working through the system? We can't.

I feel like what Bernie Sanders is offering is hope and the promise of change. The question is can he deliver, and I don't believe that he can as things stand. However, if he gets on the debate stage and shreds Hillary to tiny bits and pieces, and starts calling for a real revolution, then I'm the first in line to sign up. However, I can't get my hopes up for something that I know isn't going to happen, and I believe that even if Bernie wins and becomes President, virtually every single person who has fought for him is going to be disappointed. Not because Bernie Sanders is a bad guy or that he wouldn't try his hardest, but because the system as it stands prevents him from doing anything that he has promised.

It's kind of how I feel.

I was worried that I was alone in this feeling.

Your OP states my stance, as well. One thing I can come up with is: who will Congress more likely work better with? That bar is now set so low that even if Dems can retake the House and Senate, there will be endless obstruction from a desperate, dying party.

I also compare their work across the aisle. Hillary has a little less bipartisan bill work than Bernie which is offset by her work and recognition internationally.

A second thing I can come up with is: how can I send a message to DNC leadership to realign its politics to strengthen the domestic economy through greening -- and thus deal with climate change -- better.

Primary time is my time to push for Bernie. If he wins the first two primaries I'll be a half donor. If he gets more out of super Tuesday I'll send the other half.

This probably doesn't help you at all, but I thought I'd share. Thanks for your OP.

Quite a few different points on how you will get to a decision and good things to think about.

Sanders isn't perfect but.....

I trust Sanders to do what he believes is the right thing totally. Of course, I say the "right thing" because he shares my own values, goals and frustrations with the system. And he's been doing it all along. he won me over in the 90's, when he was one of the few in Congress trying to point out the problems bubbling below the shiny surface and prevent the stupid shit that was being done.

Also -- and this what gets overlooked -- he's also below his fire a very effective administrator and legislator. Read about his performance as Mayor of Burlington. He walked into a situation where the "good old boys" were totlly against him, and he won them over enough to make the city run effectively.

but I don't see that "She's been in the fire of international and domestic political for decades". No, she was first lady of Arizona and the US. Being a spouse of someone with an important job is not the same as having the job yourself.

She does not get blamed for NAFTA - that was Bill. What she does get held accountable for is the speeches she gave where she talks about her support for HB1 Visas.

Everyone is saying "oh she's so experienced". I agree that being senator and Secretary of State are great experience and that is what we judge her on - not time as first lady.


As far as Putin and Cantor, Bernie will wipe the floor with those two.

Underdogs.

Happily, they DO sometimes win:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/95215/bye-bye-bernie-takes-nearctic-at-22-1

When it comes to politics, I WANT "what you see is what you get," and "slick" leaves me feeling a bit like I need a shower. I'm behind Bernie because of the "what you see is what you get" factor, because I prefer his positions and record on most issues, and because I like the way he is able to be respectful of all, and to reach for common ground without giving up ground already gained or backing off of his positions.

We're already swamped with local issues here in Germany. I already got bashed here on DU for stating the obvious: that an uncontrolled influx of immigrants from Asia would result in the federal (German) government telling the cities and communities, "here you go, deal with it," and start shaking their heads in bewilderment when the extreme right suddenly surges. It's already happening--check out the local news from Köln yesterday--scary stuff. An independent candidate for mayor was stabbed at a rally in Köln yesterday. If she has regained consciousness (haven't heard yet), she will know she won the election. Her attacker was from the far-right xenophobic scene (what a surprise), and didn't like her tolerant stance.

As for the US race, I agree with many comments about both Bernie AND Hillary. Which would be better for us in the medium term (as in 8 years) is a question I haven't yet answered for myself, but hysterics from either camp on DU won't sway me. The candidates will have to do that on their own. I don't even bother to read angry posts with the words "corporate" or "gun rights," as they get boring after the 999th time. I don't think there are new secrets being revealed on either score.

Like you, I don't dislike O'Malley, but he hasn't managed to raise his profile enough to be considered big leagues--yet. This could still change. I've been following him for about a year now, as he was mentioned as a possibility already back then. He is 15 or more years younger than Hillary or Bernie, and even Obama complained (only half in jest) during the 2008 campaign, when he was 47, that he hadn't slept in 10 months. The campaign is a grueling ordeal, and eventually frays the nerves of anyone who goes for the presidency (except, it seems, Trump, who thinks a run for the Oval Office is all part of some new reality show).

Bernie served in the House with Cantor, and Hillary confronted Putin and his pals as SecState. I think both know whom they'd be dealing with, and have no illusions. Neither one will be looking to the soul of an adversary and think they've found a kindred spirit.

And also because I absolutely detest it when I'm being told how to think.

The very last person that I'm going to listen to, if I ever choose a primary candidate, is any one of the candidates' unabashed supporters.

I have things that I don't like about all of them and I'm willing to vote for the one who's chosen as the nominee, without reservation.

My expectations of any of them while in office is considerate of the existing conditions of our country and out national politics. I'm not the mind that a single President in the White House will bring that dramatic a transformation in this country and especially not all by themselves.

We have this intransigent nature, a stubbornness, borne of this utter unwillingness to come to a consensus on anything, especial about things that make stark changes to the social and economic order of this country. Too many people are firmly invested in the way that things currently operate, even if it's not set up to be in their own self-intrests. Identity politics is set up to create harm for "others," even if they turn out to be themselves. None of our candidates are equipped to foster systematic change of this nature unilaterally.

Failure to enact change at some arbitrarily determined point in time is sure to create a sense of dissatisfaction and frustration, which will in turn whittle away support for whomever is sitting in the Oval Office.

Now is not the time for pie in the sky and overly-constricted thinking. When the nominee is chosen, it'll be time to rebuild bridges and take the fight to the GOPers in the General.

Picking a horse now, with the only reason to vehemently object to any of the other horses being eventually picked by Dems is short-sighted and divisive. We all won't get what we want right at this very second, that's for sure.

It's not a game that I feel like playing.