Bet it's not her biggest donors. That leaves the rest of us.

I don't remember if that was Molly Ivins or Ann Richards.

Rolling Thunder ? I think

She was hairless - cancer - she was still engaged

about our social issues. You know. Dance with the voter that brought you. Clinton has the overwhelming vote from Democrats. Sanders only chance of a win is cross over vote from Republicans, Libertarians and Teabaggers. Per your theory, that puts our social issues to the side, and dealing only with middle class $.

Right?

He's impeccably pro-choice...impeccably pro-LGBTQ...he has been an uncompromising opponent of racism his whole life. What more do you need?

It's not progressive to pretend to be socially liberal(as HRC does) while supporting Wall Street on economics and Kissinger on foreign policy.

issues to the side". But, he has stated, when talking to Repugs Libtar Baggers to put the wedge issues to the side.

So, you tell me? Just rhetoric when making that statement? Is he gonna dance with those that brung him?

He stated in clear, unambiguous language that he was opposed to marriage equality for Vermont as it would be too divisive. His entire history is putting social issues aside in favor of economic ones.

K & R

is BS taking money from any of them, much less on the scale HC is from those cited?

of course not.

Of popularity, small scale good, large scale (winner) bad.

the simple fact of the matter is that like with BHO, he's not gonna be holding any town halls with the hooded ones, he's just making the case that scooping some up from the right is desirable and might just be incidental to his policy pursuits/campaign.

again. You are incorrect.

your integrity, not his

are all "just like" the KKK, skinheads, etc.

Hell, was BHO pandering to racists, etc, when he did an interview with O'Wiley?

by your standards, of course he was... That's the point in a nutshell here -- the charge that Bernie has (it certainly didn't happen at Liberty. Need a transcript?) or is gonna pander to, as opposed to simply gladly accept whatever rightwinger support incidentally arises from his advocacy for this and that, is an untenable charge that only the most ....

Well done. You've distinguished yourself quite nicely with this one.

At least Bernie never ran a racist campaign, supported a ban on late term abortions or crusaded against marriage equality like your candidate did.

Not all candidates are equal

that many see her as the inevitable nominee.

I do agree that the one with the overwhelming support from almost every entity on the left is the one most likely to win the democratic primary. Obvious is obvious.

Many of Sanders' top donors are unions. Endorsements aside, he may be leading in terms of union support.

"Many of Sanders' top donors are unions."

I agree again. Clinton is also leading him in that category.

Your er' actually is actually an agreement with me. Clinton is receive more monetary support from unions and endorsements.

How about Planned Parenthood?

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000528

Just look at all that PAC money Bernie has gathered during his political career.

See the special meeting in Tampa with Hillary for a Clinton family friend, for deep sea mineral mining rights. A process every nation agrees, is not good for mother earth! What's up with this woman, to do this during an election? This smacks of 'I'm untouchable".

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/hillary-clinton-intervened-for-a-st-petersburg-firm-after-request-to/2257053

It is bb that wants deep sea mineral mining. And for her it means more corporate money.

and for that to dictate her conduct and political pursuits, which means she'll do what's necessary to placate the masses/give the dogs a bone just enough to keep the corp dollar spigot open and freely flowing.

that represents nothing but the dog bone I referenced, or when she's in the good cop role, as opposed to supporting say, bombing the Palestinians back into the stone age as the bad cop.

try again, no?

When Israeli forces attacked a UN school housing refugees in the Gaza Strip in July 2014, killing dozens of civilians, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) condemned it and the U.S. State Department issued a statement saying that it was “appalled” by the “disgraceful” shelling. By contrast, Hillary Clinton—when asked about the attack during an interview with The Atlantic—refused to criticize the massacre, saying, “t’s impossible to know what happens in the fog of war.” Though investigators found no evidence of Hamas equipment or military activity anywhere near the school, Clinton falsely alleged that Hamas was firing rockets from an annex to the school.

More tellingly, she appeared to argue that since Hamas had been firing rockets into civilian-populated areas of Israel, the Israeli government was not legally or morally culpable for their killing of Palestinian civilians, claiming that “the ultimate responsibility” for the deaths at the school “has to rest on Hamas and the decisions it made.”

In reality, however wrong Hamas has been in firing rockets into Israel, such actions simply do not absolve Israel of its responsibility under international humanitarian law for the far greater civilian deaths its armed forces have inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza. Indeed, it has long been a principle of Western jurisprudence that someone who is the proximate cause of a crime cannot claim innocence simply because of the influence of another party. For example, if someone starts a bar fight and a person ends up shooting him and a group of innocent bystanders, the shooter cannot claim innocence because the other guy initiated the conflict. http://www.juancole.com/2015/12/when-did-justifying-large-scale-civilian-deaths-in-bombardments-become-a-bipartisan-consensus.html

The sole purpose of that group was to make sure that Democrats totally renounced the powerless(nobody who wasn't a corporation mattered in the first Clinton administration, as you'd have to concede).

You can't found a group that wants Wall Street to run the Democratic Party and still care about the poor.

If you're DLC you CAN'T care about the poor. It's simply impossible.

They out her life. That is reality regardless how you choose to spin her service to others. It is well documented. You cannot change her reality.

GASP as Ken demonstrates that what you thought were hyperbolic political opinions are actually deep mathematical proofs, using only a wave of his hand - no actual cogitation required!

The problem with arguing the point against many Hillary supporters is that they think that they have found an exception. Why should they not believe her? They have her for it.

Her biggest contributors are Wall Street banks. However, according to Hillary's most voval supporters on the matter, it must be a coincidence that she will make no move to reinstate Glass-Steagall if elected.

eom

She will toss a bone now and again but people will loose.

Bill. Triangulation allowed him to give a lot away in order to win some little issue. Now when we look back on those years it is usually something that took place behind the scenes with little discussion.

How many times do you do the same thing over and over expecting different results before you realize it's INSANE?!?

You get what you pay for.

anyone except the corporation for which he/she works?

More ridiculous than this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=947481

I also saw one from a few weeks ago arguing that Clinton supporters on DU were getting talking points directly from the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

This OP is certainly ridiculous, but so is a lot of stuff on this site these days.

I can't wait until Super Tuesday. . .

😉

And you're not entitled to talk down to anyone.

... but "Bernie Predicted to Win All 50 States!" should be in the ten.

My personal vote for No. 1 would be "The Arrow in Her Logo Points The Wrong way!"

"If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, ---- their women, take their money and then vote against them you've got no business being up here."

It is what it is...we can try and make changes but need to win the Presidency first....

Why would someone choose to aid and abet corporations over their neighbors and our shared planet?

For some, being a liberal means more than empty words. It means standing against assured suffering.

No matter how well it pays. And there is the rub. We have those who willingly balance profits against pain, as long as it makes them, well, judging by their yardstick, middle class.