Moving on...

which provide benefits to certain individuals, but which they are reluctant to disclose.

Those backroom deals will get us every time, and then there are those receiving temporary "perks" for promoting an agenda they know is harmful to their own interests in the long run.

Sanders would be destroyed in a general election contest on the socialism issue The Washington Post has a good article on one of Sanders' major weaknesses https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/12/why-bernie-sanders-isnt-going-to-be-president-in-5-words/

Pretending that an issue is not important will not make that issue go away. Not providing a good explanation as to how Sanders is a viable candidate means that the votes who have doubts will not be supporting Sanders and he will not be the nominee.

Absolutely 100% true.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Because it isn't the "Reality Based Community" that I am living in.

Let me see if I can give you a hint how to actually enter the Reality Based Community

Just like one might tell a teabagger, "Stop watching only FOX, and thinking that's normal."

Here's what I say to you: "Stop reading only the DU, and thinking that's normal."


Again, you don't have to believe any of this if you don't want to. But when Secretary Clinton wins the nomination, it's not some conspiracy theory. It's the natural result of her being an extremely popular Democrat.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

I was not impressed with her, especially after hearing from a former teacher about how her educational "reforms" were nothing but a prototype of No Child Left Behind and which may help to explain why the state has gone from reliably blue a generation ago when the "reforms" were implemented, to solid red today.

I also have relatives in Arkansas, and not a single one of them is for Hillary. Every one of them has something at stake in the next election, and no one has any faith that Hillary will work for anyone except her rich backers. Many of them really like Bernie, though.

And that is MY reality-based community.

...in exchange for accountability. Like many on the far left, you seem to imagine that Democrats can just get something for nothing from the public.

I'm quite sure that in your little anecdotal world of family members, you might be able to cobble together of a handful of genuine Bernie supporters that aren't just Republicans hoping to torpedo Democrats' chances. But they're very rare indeed. Arkansas especially has turned blood red, and it has nothing to do with her at all. It has everything to do with having a black man in the White House. And you know it too, if you'd be honest with yourself.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

The state almost always votes Republican in presidential elections, unless a Southern governor is on the Democratic ticket. However, at the Congressional and state levels, the transformation began long before Obama was on the political map. For example, in 1996 the state elected its first Republican Senator since Reconstruction, even though Bill Clinton easily won the state. The state also elected a Republican lieutenant governor in 1994, who went on to become governor when Ken Starr's witch hunt ousted the Democratic governor in 1996. That lieutenant governor was Mike Huckabee, who went on to serve 10 years as governor, once again before Obama was on the political map.

The state's Congressional districts were also in a state of flux long before Obama. Although the 3rd district has been solidly Republican since 1966/67, the other 3 districts had been reliably Democratic. But in 1992, even though Bill Clinton easily won the state, the Democrats lost the 4th district race. So even though Clinton easily won the state, we lost one House seat in that election. That had nothing to do with a black man. But it did have a lot to do with an increasingly dumbed-down populace listening to hate radio and actually believing that shit.

If you recognize that, surely you realize that there is simply no way the good Senator Sanders is going to win the state either. In fact, with your experience, I would have hoped that you understood where the Clintons have been coming from, how much all of their efforts have been to try to make the best of a bad situation for Democrats in general.

Sure, one might argue with that strategy. Claim it's the wrong one. But that is a hell of a lot different that what I see the DU bashers constantly do to the Democratic frontrunner, saying she's really Republican. Given her senate record, which is absurdly liberal, that only makes sense to people who are deliberately disingenuous.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. Despite the fact that he can't win, I've never said a bad word about Senator Sanders.

"...despite the fact that he can't win..."

You do not know that Bernie can't win. And you do not know that Hillary can win, either, because her only attempt at winning an election at the national level ended in failure.

Bill Clinton should have had some coattails in his freaking home state in 1992 and 1996, given that he carried roughly 70 out of 75 counties both times. But he didn't. What does that tell you? And he couldn't even pull 40% for Blanche Lincoln when he campaigned for her in 2010, in his home state.

And Hillary was defending corporations against ACORN and utility rate-payers when she was working for the Rose Law Firm in the '70s. Before that, she had attended the 1968 Republican National Convention as a Rockefeller Republican. She was quite comfortable riding around in Sam Walton's corporate jet when she was on the Wal-Mart board. And she was close with not only Walton, but also Republicans Jackson Stephens and Don Tyson during the 1992 campaign.

As FLOTUS, she supported her husband's disastrous NAFTA agreement, welfare reform, and repeal of Glass-Steagall.

Her Senate record includes not only voting for the IWR, but even going so far as to shill for it on the Senate floor, even though it was being pushed by the same "vast right-wing conspiracy" that she had complained about 4 years before. In the Senate, she also introduced a ridiculous anti-flag-burning bill. As Secretary of State, she followed Henry Kissinger's playbook for regime change, and has shown quite a hawkish side. She also pushed for fracking around the world, was in favor of the Keystone pipeline, and called the TPP the "gold standard in trade agreements". In the meantime, she has also collected millions of dollars from financial institutions that benefited from her husband's repeal of Glass-Steagall.

And if she actually was as "absurdly liberal" as you claimed she was, she would not have had to co-opt Bernie's positions like opposition to Keystone and her "gold standard" trade deal.

And she herself has said she is "guilty" of being a "centrist/moderate", which is NOT the same as a "liberal".

So maybe you'll forgive some of us for thinking that Hillary is more of a Republican than a Democrat.

It is quite ironic that someone who proudly labels him/herself as a "Conservative Democrat" would so fervently defend Hillary as a liberal. If her views align with yours, then by your own definition of yourself she is NOT a liberal.

Guns, etc... but flat out, I prefer competence. Senator Sanders has Eugene McCarthy written all over him.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Senator Sanders more closely resembles Bobby Kennedy than Eugene McCarthy.

And Hillary is competent? Competent at what, exactly? Regime change? Pushing for crippling trade deals and fracking? Kissing up to Wall Street bankers? Wiping servers? Pretending to be all things to all people? Heck, even after 50 years of being involved in politics, she can't even decide if she's a progressive or a centrist/moderate. That's not the kind of "competence" I want.

But look, I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. So we'll just let the democratic will of the Democratic voters decide, m-kay?

I just, once again, don't want to hear any conspiracy theorizing about Hillary when she crushes Sanders like a bug in just about every state (other than where he is a favorite son).

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Bobby Kennedy not only ran in opposition to (the Vietnam) war, he also championed social and economic justice. Just like Bernie is doing now.

Meanwhile, your candidate seems to be having a major identity crisis. She's a die-hard progressive, no she's a moderate centrist. She's for the TPP, no she's against it. She's against gay marriage, no she's for it. She's for Keystone, no she's against it. She's for fracking, no she's against fracking. She's for private prisons, no she's against private prisons. And on, and on, and on, ad nauseum.

He's all about being angry at the business class in the U.S. Meanwhile, the most recent poll looks like this:

A majority of things surely look far left from your point of view, Mr. Conservative.

The guy is toast in November.

It's a two word DU search.

Barack Obama is unelectable.
"Deep down in your heart, you know it's true. He's not carrying the states that he needs to carry in the general election, the battleground states. He was rejected by PA despite his very best efforts. He was rejected by Ohio despite his very best efforts. Against John McCain, he loses Florida by an average of 11.7 points."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5641184

Is Obama already unelectable?
"We have a batch of new polls out for the key battleground states of Florida (PPP), Ohio (two polls), and Missouri (SurveyUSA). There is also a poll for Kentucky (SurveyUSA). These polls reflect what the national general election polls have shown: Obama's electability is tanking."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=334x9072

Obama unelectable? He is losing to McCain...in Massachussetts

"http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx
Nuff' said about his electability.

McCain 50, Obama 45
Clinton 49, McCain 45"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4171342


So lots of certainly spoken assertions with lots of 'supporting polls' and such. Hard to see how that material is really any different than the current iteration.

It's gotten to be pretty devoid of meaning. Clinton has zero appeal to the 63% who did not vote in 2014. This is the very demographic Sanders is mobilizing so successfully.

This "unelectable" meme is coming from terrified republicans and the 1% who see that they will not be able to control a Bernie Sanders Presidency. If he wins the primary he will be the next president. Republicans want to run against Hillary with all her baggage 'cause they don't know how to fight an honest man of the people. A modern FDR. Ask yourself where you heard the unelectable meme. It simply is not true.

Fortunately, Sanders will lose the primaries and Hillary will win the GE, thus insuring we have a progressive president.

Your insults notwithstanding.

should be enough to prove it. Sen Sanders is progressive, Sen Warren is progressive, H. Clinton is way to the right of them.

You are friggin HILAROUS, claiming Hillary isn't progressive ike you're trying to get all "Liberaller than though"!!!!!

you mistaken, in your loudest voice...

Unless you mean progressively selling out to moneyed interests?

regularly. Perhaps there is some occult definition to the number of smiles...then a prize in a box of Cracker Jacks.

This was one such case.

for future use.

Type in the rofl code and a space. Do a Ctrl-A, then ten Ctrl-Vs and a return. Do another Ctrl-A and another ten Ctrl-Vs and voila!

Don't want to be totally derivative

Please accept my apologies for underrating you.

Let me try that..






Damn, it works..

The OP certainly seems to be spellier than thou,

You got some nerve to ridicule others. SMDH

shot in the dark vote for Hill. When she shows her real decision making and intent once if she wins, you and her other supporters will be sorry. But please don't bother looking for comfort from us Sanders people. You've had fair warning.

to intelligently show their support of Hillary sure is making me rethink my choices.....Nope, still voting for Bernie.

But keep up the good work, I'm sure it will persuade lots of other people to change their mind when they see such an intelligent contribution in support of Hillary.

Now for some reason I am reminded of back in the days of DU1 when a few people would disrupt threads by posting replies using very large font sizes.

I'd like to have some of what ever your having. Must be some strong sh*t.

You can't be both a progressive and a moderate.

I had you on ignore.

Like it or not, Hillary Clinton is a Progressive. People can choose to redefine "Progressive" but it won't change the concept.

Also, if you can't change the concept, why are you trying to redefine progressive?

Oh geeze, do we have to discuss THAT again?

Two can play the blame game.

soldiers are sent they still deserve a better chance of surviving in even wars you personally disagree with. Simple concept stated often by Bernie but which you seem to ignore willfully.

The "blame game"?

I can't believe you don't understand the difference between not voting for the Iraq war (Bernie) and voting for the Iraq war (Hillary).

THAT'S your argument?

Fuck.

when she support Prisons for Profits and tough drug laws. She isn't progressive when she wants to study medical marijuana's benefits. She hasn't been progressive on DOMA and LGBT rights. She isn't progressive on domestic spying and the Patriot Act.

She isn't progressive in taking money from Goldman-Sachs for her private fortune.

Sen Warren is Progressive, H. Clinton is not.

And when it comes to prosperity or progress, it ain't a hard choice for them.

How cute!

but just keep on stalking!

Welcome to the internet, MohRokTah. everything you say here is forever. So I suggest that you either make damn sure you mean what you say as you say it, or get used to apologizing for the shit you say but don't mean.

Remembering your contradictory bullshit and presenting it to you as argument is a righteous tactic, that's not stalking it's just talking. If your memory can't keep your own rhetoric in order, perhaps you should work on that:
http://www.lumosity.com/

The best. Another couple of Clinton picks for the SC will do so much good for us. Great job pointing out the importance of th SC and the type of brilliance Clinton will be looking for.

I don't expect her to fight hard for anything so much as accolades from the right-wing, that she's "tough" and she initiates war. The Republican right will enjoy the fact that her initial priority will be to publicly affirm US allegiance to Netanyahu's vision of Israel, to undo and overturn Obama's legacy. She vows to be even more firm than Reagan would be on the ME wars.

That's right wing hard core talk that she gave at the Brookings institute, if I recall correctly, and by the sound of that talk I think the right wing will like her, a lot, if she actually does win. Certainly she's got the full 100% dedicated support of every DU hawkish-type poster. The kind who're totally into the "War on Terror" and who hate Snowden, and who haven't much of a clue.

Really? Perhaps you have been elsewhere for the last 24 years?

You can argue that the woman who voted 93% the same as Sanders in the Senate is a right winger. You can argue the 11th most liberal Senator during her time in office by DW-Nominate rankings is a right winger.

You would be wrong, but at least you can spin things to make a semi-plausible argument as long as nobody looks too closely.

But you don't have a leg to stand on if you think that the right wing is going to love Clinton in any capacity after spending the last 24 years hating her.

So yes, they will love her.
They'll say she represents "the left", too, as they push for even more grotesque right wing extremism, more grotesque wars of choice and even fatter profits. Nothing like a foundation like THAT to stand on.