Sanders Unsure If Hillary Clinton Is 'Forceful Advocate For Working Families'

[Capt. Obvious]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) questioned whether a hypothetical Hillary Clinton presidential bid would be a boon for working families in an interview published Wednesday.

Sanders cautioned that Clinton has not announced any intention to run for president, but told Salon that "based on the kind of centrist positions that we have seen her take in the past … it remains to be seen whether she will be a forceful advocate for working families."

....

Sanders told Salon he doesn't "wake up every morning with a huge desire to be president of the United States." But if he ran, he said, he could put the spotlight on issues that he feels don't get enough attention, including wealth disparity and cuts to entitlement programs.

"We have a middle class that is disappearing, and somebody has got to be speaking strongly to defend our middle class," he said.

TPM

[LWolf]

1. Captain Obvious posts Sanders stating the obvious.

[billhicks76]

68. Of Course She Isn't

Duh. After the last ten years one would have to be foolish to believe in her.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

85. Bernie was just being kind by saying he's unsure.

[Cal33]

101. Correct. He was being very diplomatic. He's one of the people I'd like to see

running for president.

[NYC_SKP]

2. If the "working family" has a hedge fund manager and owns stock in Walmart, she'd be an advocate. nt

[sulphurdunn]

17. Bingo!

[rhett o rick]

3. We must get a progressive to challenge her. And we cant wait until 2015 like all the

HRC supports want.

Can you imagine the win-win for centrists if it turns out to be Clinton vs. Christie? They will be flipping coins and smiling.

If you dont want Christie for president, nominate someone other than Clinton.

[yurbud]

112. the progressive challenger would have to actually win

A challenge from within the party or even without like a Nader/Sanders/whoever will have zero impact on how a DLCer governs even if they make a slight dent on how they campaign.

[rhett o rick]

116. And to win, we must start now. nm

[yurbud]

118. If a progressive won, they could at best be Dr. No without a progressive majority in Congress

though that alone would be a nice change.

[tularetom]

4. He may be "unsure" but I'm positive

She absolutely will not.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. However, she is a "forceful advocate" for war....and Hillary.

[elehhhhna]

47. +1000. NO MORE DYNASTIC RULING FAMILY CRAP

[AlbertCat]

65. AMEN!

Can't we find some new blood.... new ideas?

[bobduca]

100. Reagan(Bush),Reagan(Bush),Bush,Clinton,Clinton,Bush,Bush

22 years with a Bush or Clinton holding the reins of power.

Quite a remarkable run, that has nothing to do with events in 1963 or Poppy Bush's job at the time.

[Whisp]

113. imagine Hillary in Kerry's position with Iran. Her with that 'obliterate' mind set...

no.

absolutely No for so many reasons.

[mother earth]

6. Loving Bernie Sanders more every day. We need more like him.

I hope he chooses to run, or whomever wins the nom is wise enough to choose him.

[HockeyMom]

7. Bernie running as an Independent,

against a Democrat (anyone) and a Republican (anyone), will give us a Republican President. Bernie would split the Dem vote. I love Bernie, but I do not want a Republican President. I will vote for the Democrat candidate, whoever he or she is.

[Capt. Obvious]

8. Just like Mike Gravel did

[AAO]

32. Mike who?

[totodeinhere]

10. You are correct. That's why we need to urge him to run as a Democrat in the

primaries and caucuses.

[HockeyMom]

13. That would be fine with me

In the primary, I would vote for him over Hillary, but whoever wins that, I will vote for. Yes, Democrat Hillary if she is the winner.

[Cal Carpenter]

19. Yeah, democracy is so inconvenient

What with all those people with differing views wanting to run for office...

[raindaddy]

20. I won't vote for another third way Democrat...

which really translates into moderate republican anyway. If we end up with another moderate Republican with a D after her/his name then the Democratic party can count me out!

The planet and the growing number of jobless/underpaid poor folks can no longer afford to wait around for another never ending three dimensional chess game...

[kath]

72. Same here. No more Trojan Horses running as Democrats.

I will not vote for one. Enough already!!

[sulphurdunn]

22. He ain't running.

I hope Warren doesn't either. It is my opinion that both are more effective driving the party leadership left from the Senate than either would be in the White House. We don't even need a majority of progressives in Congress to cause a seismic shift left in the party, only enough of them to be reckoned with.

[libdem4life]

62. They have way more power than does the President on single issues and we need both desperately

doing what no one else is doing or have done in recent memory...focused...vocal...and visibly taking on the Robber Barons and behind the Middle Class...I'm assuming he's behind empowering the Unions and a decent Minimum Wage.

The Party will begin to get the message...hopefully. What worries me is that, like it or not, it takes oodles of money to get to the national elections, so we'd best be quick like a bunny and get another, viable Democrat ...No Naders ... out there.

Imagine what a Republican SCOTUS, (two are awaiting a Republican administration to retire), a Republican House, an at-best non-majority Democratic Senate, and a Republican President. Oh, and 20 years of Bushes in the White House. This should keep us all up nights.

I will vote for any Democrat...of any stripe...to avoid having to explain that to my children and grandchildren.

[Maedhros]

24. Or, alternatively, progressives in the Democratic Party may wake up someday

and decide to stop voting against their best interests and elect an actual Progressive President.

I can dream.

[JDPriestly]

29. We've heard that before and we got Bush II.

Let's ALL GET BEHIND A TRULY PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE.

We compromised with middle-of-the-roader, hard-to-read, unable-to-fight-or-defend-the-middle-class Barack Obama. Much as I love him, much as I respect his foreign policy, he really hasn't done much for the middle class back home. Wall Street has flourished, but the rest of us . . . .

And Obama is not even a really strong, reliable supporter of Social Security.

Hillary would be far worse than Obama. And she would do it all with her condescending voice and her big grin.

No.

The right wing of the Democratic Party has used its money to take one swing at the middle class and compromise away the lives of the poor since Reagan.

It's time to recognize that, in those compromises, the right wing of the Democratic Party has betrayed and reduced the wealth and quality of life of the middle class.

It's time for Hillary to give way to someone new with better ideas for America's middle class.

I like Bernie Sanders. I like Elizabeth Warren. I'm done with pseudo-Democrats who could care less about anyone who isn't either extremely poor or a millionaire.

[ctsnowman]

63. This

"I'm done with pseudo-Democrats who could care less about anyone who isn't either extremely poor or a millionaire."
That's exactly how I feel. The Democrats are light years ahead of the cons on social issues but when it comes to economics... The good news is that you can marry who you like. The bad news is you'll be living in a tin shack in the decades to come if the economic policies are not turned around.

[Enthusiast]

77. +1 a significant amount.......nt

[TheKentuckian]

119. Now, that isn't fair. I'm sure Democrats care air the whole top 10%, maybe even the top 20.

Along with as mentioned but ever more begrudgingly, the bottom 20% or so.

[NorthCarolina]

43. So let me get this straight...

If Bernie did run, you know - the guy you "love", and he ran as an independent against a Wall Street Approved, DLC Style ">>>>>>>>centrist" calling themselves a "democrat"....you would NOT vote for the independent. Even though you LOVE the guy, you would not vote for him. However, the Republican calling themselves a "Democrat", now THAT'S a candidate you can throw your vote to because, policies be damned, they have that "D" after their name on the ballot.

No wonder this country is so F'd up.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

86. You got that right.

[99Forever]

96. Exactly. n/t

[backscatter712]

45. I would advise Bernie to run as a Democrat for President.

Yes, I know he's currently an independent, but if he runs for POTUS, he should challenge Hillary Clinton in the primary, and use his candidacy to push her to be more liberal.

I'd support that.

[JDPriestly]

74. I, too, would advise him to run as a Democrat.

That way he could debate Democrats which is what we need him to do. I would love to see Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren running in the primary. I think one or the other would get the nomination and the one who doesn't get it could run for vice president. They don't have to leave the Senate to run. There is no rule that requires it as far as I know.

[Whisp]

114. wouldn't that be beautiful.

Warren and Sanders debating with the Inevitable One from the Dynasty in the democratic primary.

I'm not sure what practical good it could do except just get some lost, good words out into the public airwaves, but it would be beautiful to see Clinton stammer and trap herself.

[JDPriestly]

117. The problem for Progressives has been just getting heard.

Obama excluded single-payer advocates from the health insurance talks.

We who favor de-privatization, regulation and other such shocking policies that might bring our economy and our democracy into the 21st century are simply shut out of the conversation. Voters don't hear anything but the standard point of view and never really have a choice about whether some alternative policies would bring more balance and steadiness into our country and our economy.

I'm far from being what you would call a socialist, but I do not believe in deregulation of major industries and businesses, especially banking. At least I think we have gone too far with the deregulation and the privatization. We should not have any freeway in the US that is under the control of China or any private interest. That is shameful and dangerous. It is not good for our national security.

[Enthusiast]

78. Me too..........nt

[tomp]

91. he should run as a Progressive

Bernie Sanders is not just an "independent." he is s leftist independent. now is the time for establishing a separate progressive party. the establishment of such a party would be a huge step forward in breaking from the two party system against the worse than useless sell out democratic party, and this would be true even if the progressive candidate lost.

[totodeinhere]

9. Bernie needs to run for prez as a Democrat. He would have my full

support.

[AAO]

35. I would be behind him every step of the way! GO Boinee!

[Beacool]

11. Oh goody, the daily "let's trash Hillary" Thread.

What would we do without them?

Do we get a break tomorrow for Thanksgiving? That'll really be something to be thankful about.......

[JDPriestly]

30. Yes. Let's trash Hillary and the sold-out, anti-middle-class economic philosophy she represents.

I do not want Hillary Clinton. She is unelectable.

[AAO]

36. +$1,000,000,000,000.00

[Beacool]

48. On the contrary, she's the most electable candidate the Democrats have at this time.

That is, if she does choose to run.

[passiveporcupine]

60. That's what I'm afraid of

Don't get me wrong, I'll vote dem in the final election, but I'm afraid of the outcome if she is the result our our primary.

[pocoloco]

102. Wow!! Wonderful news....

....for Jeb!

[woo me with science]

55. [phone] This country cannot AFFORD

another corporatist and warmonger.

[Metric System]

66. Wait, so Hillary Clinton is unelectable but Bernie Sanders...is? Have I stepped into bizarro world?

[JDPriestly]

73. Bernie's message is far more appealing than a lot of corporate Democrats realize.

Corporate Democrats have no idea how much ordinary Americans have suffered because of our "free" market economy and winner-takes-all economic philosophy.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

89. You're being wayyy too kind. Hillary only looks out for herself and her corporate buddies, not the common folks.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

87. Seriously, the LAST thing we need is Hillary and her tired old Rethug-lite policies. Elizabeth or Bernie for me TYVM.

[Enthusiast]

79. We know what Hillary said to raising the cap.

Cutting social security is not on the table for any segment of the electorate except millionaires.

Hillary has yet to demonstrate that she has our best interests at heart. So far she has demonstrated that she is status quo all the way, Third Way.

Many of us see Hillary as a hawk.

We want to see the abuses on Wall Street reined in. Most of us can't envision Hillary being an advocate for more financial services regulation and enforcement.

These points do not constitute "trashing". They are observations.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

90. Couldn't agree more. Hillary only has Hillary's best interests at heart, making speeches at $500,000 a pop. Gimme a fuckin' break!

[Beacool]

120. That's not only nonsense, it's not even true.

Hillary cares deeply about people. BTW, her going rate is $200,000, not half a million.

[FSogol]

12. I've suspected that Bernie's run for the WH is nothing more than an attempt

to push Hillary toward the left. As I see more and more stuff like this, it only confirms my belief.

[awoke_in_2003]

41. Maybe during the campaign...

but once in office she we be the corporatist she has always been.

[truedelphi]

53. Exactly. n/t

[NorthCarolina]

106. Hillary may campaign left as a consequence, but she'll probably do that anyway.

It's the DLC way. Recall that Obama campaigned as though he were MUCH more Liberal/Progressive than he truly is. It's just window dressing that amounts to exactly squat beyond the campaign. Hillary would NOT change her right of center politics, would NOT abandon her Wall Street connections, and would NOT govern as a progressive. We know that from her political history.

Bottom line is, if you want a true progressive then VOTE for a true progressive. If all one cares about is voting for whoever has a "D" after their name, then they really have no business voting.

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. Duh!

[boomersense]

15. Excellent, Bernie. Her support for TPP

finally did it for me. I know not everyone is perfect but supporting a fascist trade agreement that ends US sovereignty is way beyond the pale. I am going for Warren if she runs.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

92. I'm with you. Warren or Bernie would be excellent choices.

[LittleBlue]

16. Who is paying her $250k per speech?

Not working families, that's for damn sure.

Is there any question who she will side with when it comes time to decide between corporations and families? Not even close.

[840high]

18. No doubt at all.

[AgingAmerican]

21. Is there any evidence she would do this?

?

Bill Clinton, for all his faults, championed the little guy when it mattered.

[Whisp]

23. yah, bill was for that 'little guy' in his pants.

his welfare reform wasn't so great for the real little people tho.

[Maedhros]

25. Nor NAFTA, nor GATT. [n/t]

[AgingAmerican]

28. Bill Clinton did a lot more than NAFTA and welfare reform

nt

[Capt. Obvious]

46. That's correct

He also signed DOMA.

He also took Sister Souljah down a peg but that was before he was President.

[AgingAmerican]

54. Unlike Obama, he stood up to the Republicans

He didn't throw unions and the middle class under the bus for the sake of 'bipartisanship'. He orchestrated the greatest economic expansion in US history.

[Enthusiast]

80. It was the greatest economic expansion

until the effects of NAFTA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley were seen. Then, not so much.

[AgingAmerican]

31. Ken Starr? Is that you?

nt

[AAO]

37. AA should be your permanent straight man!

[Cal Carpenter]

26. Right, NAFTA was great for the 'little guy'

along with welfare reform.

[LittleBlue]

27. Follow the money

The oldest rule in politics. Paymasters do not donate charitably, it's an investment.

Do you think Goldman Sachs spends money and expects no return? I've watched politics long enough to know what we'll get.

[Shemp Howard]

33. Bingo! speaking fees = bribes

And Goldman Sacks et al don't want just a reasonable rate of return on their political "investments". They want a hundred-to-one return.

And they'll get it.

[LittleBlue]

38. Precisely

As you eloquently said, when has Goldman ever sought a reasonable rate of return? They want all of America hostage to their economic perversions as repayment.

[AgingAmerican]

39. So you have no evidence?

NT

[LittleBlue]

42. Evidence for something that hasn't happened yet?

All I can do is point you toward those bribing her. Goldman Sachs, the Carlyle Group shareholders, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, etc.

If you won't recognize the link between political bribes as political influence, then this conversation has no meaning and I'll leave you to it.

[AAO]

40. Follow the money - the oldest rule of humanity. Money has corrupted the human race.

[JDPriestly]

34. Yeah! Bill Clinton was so much for the little guy that he did away with Glass-Steagall.

Do you know how much interest one of the major banks I shall not name pays on about $5,000. About 23 cents per month. 23 cents. I repeat, twenty-three cents per month.

How many beans can you buy for 23 cents a month. That's $2.76 per year. You can treat yourself and one child at McDonalds once a year for that. That's how well our economy is doing for the middle class.

And that bank is allowed to offer savings accounts.

Doing away with Glass Steagall was a huge blow to the middle class.

Hillary and Bill did that. Bill should have vetoed the bill that did away with Glass Steagall. Instead we see a picture of him proudly signing it.

So that is why we cannot afford Bill and Hillary.

Bill Clinton signed on the dotted line and championed the greedy banks when it mattered.

And don't get me started on NAFTA which he also signed.

Do you think that Republicans would allow a Clinton (Hillary or Bill) candidacy to slide by without stirring up the disgust that Americans feel at these huge mistakes or sell-outs depending on your point of view?

[Beacool]

50. Glass Steagall passed with a veto proof majority.

There's plenty of blame to go around on that one. NAFTA was Bush Sr.'s baby, it was already put in place by the time Bill became president, although it's true that he signed the bill.

Don't conflate Hillary and Bill. They are different people and she has a mind of her own. Besides, the 90s were a different era.

[bluestate10]

51. Stop trying to use reasoning and logic. The far Left is getting ready to try to Nader

American again. This time there won't be a Supreme Court ruling because the far Left's fucking stupidity won't work. A Democrat will take the oath on January 21, 2017, NOT a republican.

[Beacool]

58. It's negativity 24/7 around here.

If they want to see what Hillary is doing, they should check her initiatives at the Clinton foundation. She's been quite busy, and nor just giving paid speeches (which seems to be all they mention over here).

[Enthusiast]

81. There is no FAR LEFT.

There are centrists that you call far left.

The American people want Wall Street abuse reined in. The American people do not want additional trade deals. The American people do not want more war. The American people want social security and medicare preserved. The American people want to cut military spending. The American people want to raise taxes on the wealthy.

These positions are CENTRIST. They are centrist because they align with the wishes of most of the American people.

Calling something far left for convenience sake doesn't make it so.

[JDPriestly]

52. The 90s were a different era, and true or not, Hillary represents going backward to the 90s,

not forward. We do not need Hillary Clinton.

[Beacool]

57. That's your opinion.

It's not mine.

[closeupready]

44. NAFTA, GATT, China's permanent Most Favored Nation Trading status,

welfare Deform ... and on and on.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

94. Are you being sarcastic? Bill Clinton for the little guy? Great job reforming welfare (now I'm being sarcastic).

[Beacool]

49. B.S.

Zero correlation.

[pscot]

61. The giant vampire squid, that's who

$400,000 in October alone.

[antigop]

99. but, but, but...she's just trying to make a living! nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

121. LOL, hell no. For her last speech, Hillary got paid $450,000 by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s Global Financial Leadership Conference.

Gee, I wonder if the corporate interests funnelling her money expect anything in return. Hmmm. Does anyone seriously believe she's looking out for the "little guy"?

[riversedge]

56. My only hope is that come Nov 2016 that

Democrats will come out and vote for the Democrat in massive numbers. I do not think the Republicans will sit home.

[bvar22]

59. Hillary herself has confirmed Bernie's suspicions many times.

Video is forever.

[JDPriestly]

75. Thanks. This video shows precisely what is wrong with Hillary Clinton.

[CrispyQ]

104. Wow, who was that black guy talking about lifting the cap? -nt

[libdem4life]

64. No Naders, even if they are politically correct. So was he.

No money...no organization...not well known...from way up in the NE...nice, fatherly, liberal guy...not going to happen.

[dotymed]

97. Sanders will only be a "Nader" if you allow it.

With Bernie's continuing POTUS announcements, I believe that he may run in 2016. I hope he does, not to move democrats to the left, but to win.
If all of the "party first" people would vote for what is best for America, Senator Sanders can win.
If Americans are educated about his proven political record, and Democrats who are actually ready for positive "people first" changes
realize that Bernie, no matter what letter is behind his name, is the best hope for average Americans since FDR, Bernie would win in a landslide.
It takes people who use the "spoiler" meme to organize behind Bernie and get this great American elected, because he has already proven himself.

The 2 party system has morphed into rich and richer. It is time to actually vote for the best person, not promises. Yes the time is now for us to persuade party first democrats that party is secondary to the policies (which used to be the Democratic platform) which Senator Sanders governs by.
With the proven political record of Senator Sanders, WE can change the current political landscape for future generations as well as ourselves.
IMO, the "spoiler" meme means that you buy in to the corporate "wisdom."
Again, IMO, anyone who has the opportunity to vote for Bernie Sanders as POTUS and doesn't, is a person happy with the status quo.

[CrispyQ]

105. This: "The 2 party system has morphed into rich and richer."

And this: "...anyone who has the opportunity to vote for Bernie Sanders as POTUS and doesn't, is a person happy with the status quo."

I will vote for the most liberal candidate, regardless of party. It's time to think outside the two party box.

[dotymed]

108. Wel said CrispyQ.

I was trying to think of a way to say that without "breaking the rules."

Previous generations knew and practiced this voting truth.
In America Inc., that type of thinking (and voting) is heresy and all who vote their conscious are "spoilers."

BTW, our population is majority Progressive although we are not allowed to vote that way.

[libdem4life]

111. I agree with your subject line. Disagree with the second. People should vote their best decision,

which is not always their heart, or even a settled stomach.

This is a nation of 300 million people. It's just a tad difficult to totally please even the 120 million or so who manage to vote. So to the Purity, Third Party, Stay at Home Magic Fairy Dust Wings of the Democratic Party ... let's just say "we aren't in Kansas any more", my apologies to the Kansas DUers but The Wizard analogy seems appropriate.

There are two guys behind the curtain...one is Republican and the other Democrat and they take turns. But the theater owners and the stagehands and ticket takers belong to Big Money/The Wizards in our Still Gilded Age. They don't care who pays them, but whichever backstage Wizard wins, has the discretion to pay them to keep the American Show going...for ill or for good.

Of course, the captured audience shells out the price of admission, based on the shows they like best. (includes taxes and donations for the analogy). However, during Democratic-owned years, I believe the owners get a pay cut and the stagehands and ticket takers and custodians and landscapers and repairfolk hired by said Wizards get paid better...that helps me feel a bit better. It's been that way, best I can tell, since the Industrial Revolution.

What to do other than wringing our hands? First and foremost vote intelligently...and we won't truly know what that might mean until down the line, with that I agree. But anything other than a Democratic vote, significantly changes the Playlist available and the new shows that will emerge...they won't be pretty or entertaining.

(I love your Peace symbol...was around and anti-war, anti-Republican then and today...just a lot older but still a student of people and politics.)

[libdem4life]

107. I hear you and, yet we can't change some things...like the Electoral College for one.

I also respect Sanders, Warren, and all of the other politically comfortable politicians and the many who share your view.

But Populists don't win. Sorry. That's American History for the past decades. Look down the list of Presidents since Eisenhower...WWII. That's reality...not me thinking negatively. (Maybe, Jimmy Carter) Populists inspire, they excite, they influence, they shift, they push, but they don't make it to President. It takes groups of said Populists to get him/her in the White House.

And for all the years since McGovern lost, the Liberals are no longer a wing. They/we are now Populists, as I see it.

The Progressives...time will tell as it's where many old Liberals have drifted and it seems to be of interest to the young and the Center Left.

And if Bernie seriously runs, we'll end up with 20 years of Bushes. I won't even go into the madness that 8 years of Jeb would bring...but start with stacking the SCOTUS for the rest of our natural lives (2 are awaiting said Republican administration and will wait 8 years, if need be).

You think corporations are in control and it is bad now...even with their newly deigned personhood? TPP is bad now? The follow-up acts are already set up. Voting Rights...what were those? Watch women's rights go away...down the tubes and back in the kitchen. There is some Republican speculation as to Jeb there, of course, but I'd bet on it. Oh, and a welcome back to the currently faltering Tea Party.

But I'll end here...if we don't have a Hispanic somewhere up there...like VP, and I mean Julian Castro of Texas, specifically, it's going to at least make it harder, not counting a Third Party challenge.

[dotymed]

109. Candidate Obama was a populist...

If we (United) cannot change things, then it is time to disband, IMO.

[libdem4life]

110. See, that's what everybody thought and are disappointed or angry about. Progressiveism is

Populist. As is Centrism, and Liberal and Blue Democrats, et al.

Same for the Republicans. No Tea Party candidate will make it, either. In fact, if the Democrats play their candidate cards right, the Tea Party will fall apart and we can begin to shift the country back a bit to the Left. That's what Populists do...pull the party to one side or another.

I see people here threatening the same thing. And it may happen to Progressives, as well. But others will come along and take up the slack. The Electoral College will forever forfeit Third party nonsense as it was set up to do...they just get their 15 minutes of fame and throw elections. Doubt you will see a Ross Perot-R this time around. They know better, at this point.

They All Do It ... have to promise things to all of the groups to get wide acceptance and election. You think he wasn't also making deals with Big Money. Of course he was. He had to raise 3/4 of a billion dollars and all that doesn't come from the internet or young people, no matter how excited. I do believe that the latter ... all the GOTV...helped put him over the top to win, however.

A good politician must have the ability to talk "out of all sides of his mouth", as they say, mean it at the time, and then deal with the pragmatism of monumental elements in governing.

We don't know, for instance, if Obama would have voted for war. That's a big one against Hillary around here...but she had to make a difficult decision and pull a public lever...and she was a New York Senator and experienced the horror and the overwhelming public demand and obsession for revenge.

Obama had no such actual public decision to make. And his record, as President, surely has not borne out any aversion to war and warlike activities. Again, it's easy to say what one would do until the factual realities present themselves.

And the anti-corporation drumbeat...no way, no how. See paragraph one; bailouts, stimulus, good for the economy, etc.

Obama is not now and never was a Populist.

[heaven05]

67. was bill?

[blkmusclmachine]

69. I'm not unsure about it. HRC is another 1%er.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

70. The Clintons used to take pride in being able to raise more corporate money than Republicans.

[WowSeriously]

71. Hillary will be the nominee, and we'll have to accept for these reasons:

1. Lesser of two evils
2. Not making the perfect the enemy of the good
3. Having to play the hand that's dealt
4. To avoid being bashed with the misogynist label.

[Democracyinkind]

76. When have the Clintons ever been forceful advocates for anyone else but their friends in high places

Right, never.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

95. Succinctly put. The Clintons only look out for themselves and their corporate buddies. It's time to look forward and move on.

[sendero]

82. I can clear that up for you Bernie..

... she most certainly is NOT, neither was her husband.

[cantbeserious]

83. Duh - Hillary Progressive - No Way -- Corporate DLCer Through And Through

eom

[Whisp]

115. The Clintons are very progressive...

They put one foot in front of the other, progressing toward their banks to deposit their bribe money for speechifying and other miscellany that packs their wallets.

Bill Clinton has made up to 100 million bucks just talking.
I'm sorry, but if anyone really believes this is all about his stage presence and words of wisdom that demand that kind of money. lol.

[mtasselin]

84. no way

Would I vote for her versus a republican, yes, but she is a shape shifter and will do or say whatever it takes to get elected.

[otherone]

88. Happy Thanksgiving to all my fellow Bernie lovers!

[RoccoR5955]

93. Sanders/Warren '16!

Or would you rather see another Clinton or another Bush in the White House?

[99Forever]

98. Bernie is diplomatic about it...

... I'm not.

Hillary Clinton is NOT an advocate for the middle class in any way, shape, or form. Not by a long shot.

Neither she nor any other DLC, Turd Way, Corporatist, DINO will ever receive my support or vote, ever again. Period. I will vote my conscience, and she doesn't qualify.

[JoePhilly]

103. Its funny how your source REMOVES part of what Sanders actually said.

Here's the entire exchange about Clinton from Salon, for those who want to know what Sanders ACTUALLY said.

Salon: You told Playboy that while you like the Clintons, they “live in a world surrounded by a lot of money,” and a Hillary Clinton candidacy would not offer an alternative for the country. Why not?

Sanders: Well, actually that was a – a) You don’t know and I don’t know whether Hillary Clinton is running for president. And b) if she decides to run for president, we don’t know the issues that she will be focusing on. I have known Hillary Clinton for a number of years, not terribly well, but I knew her when she was first lady and I knew her when she was in the Senate. I like her. She is extremely smart. But it’s — we will have to see what she has to say, so — but based on the kind of centrist positions that we have seen her take in the past, it remains to be seen — although I may be wrong— it remains to be seen whether she will be a forceful advocate for working families.

I've placed one of the key elements of his statement, the part that is dropped from your quote in bold with italics. Why would some one drop that? Probably because by dropping that phrase, the quote comes across as more forceful than it actually was. Sanders' entire statement about Clinton is pretty measured.

This is the very definition of manufactured outrage. TPM takes what Sanders actually said, crops out the parts they don't like, and then folks like you re-post their, edited quote. Folks have to click to TPM, and then click AGAIN and go to Salon, to see what Sanders actually said. Most won't. They'll just except the edited quote as is. Which is the real goal.

All-in-all, its a pretty good article, lots of information ... and yet folks are hyperventilating about what looks to me to be the shortest exchange in the entire article. And now, folks on DU are getting worked up about an edited quote that intentionally removes an important phrase from the original.

The full Salon article, for those who want to read everything Sanders said on multiple topics, is here:
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/27/bernie_sanders_why_i_might_run_in_2016/

btw .... You should update your OP with the real source of Sanders remarks ... if you want to be honest I mean.