General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe hypocrisy of the latest round of Bernie-bashing
In almost all American elections, only two candidates – the Democrat and the Republican – have any realistic chance of winning. A thoughtful citizen will usually have disagreements with each of them on one or more issues. Some people take the pragmatic course of supporting the candidate who’s better overall, even if not perfect. Others say “the lesser evil is still evil”; refusing to vote for a candidate with whom they disagree, they stay home or vote for a no-hoper minor-party candidate.
Bernie Sanders faced this situation. He came down on the side of the pragmatists. He voiced his support for the Democratic nominee because he looked at the Republican and said, “We’ve got to keep that guy out.”
Did he do the right thing?
Well, here’s where the hypocrisy comes in. Some of the loudest pro-Hillary people on this board are now spewing vitriol at Bernie because he’s supporting a Democratic nominee with whom he’s not in complete agreement, while ignoring that he did exactly the same thing by supporting Hillary last fall.
The hypocrisy is compounded with intellectual dishonesty, as they pretend that support for the Democratic nominee means deprecating the issue of reproductive rights. My view, and I think Bernie’s view, is that reproductive rights are important. So are issues of war and peace, international trade, economic inequality, etc. That all these issues are important doesn’t change the problem I described in the first paragraph: Sometimes, the choice is between two candidates, neither of whom is perfect on all important issues, but one of whom is better than the other overall.
People like Bernie and me voted for Hillary despite our major disagreements with her. That doesn’t mean that we suddenly decided those issues were unimportant. It means only that the Democrat was better than the Republican.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I'm afraid to say much else as to get a hide for re-living the primaries...
This is a joke, right??
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)A more honest exposition of my opinion would have involved elaborating on my disagreements with Hillary Clinton, but I thought it more polite to keep to generalizations.
Meanwhile, if you want to get beyond your hilarious witticisms, feel free to explain why supporting an imperfect Democrat is mandatory when it's someone you like but absolutely unacceptable when it's someone you don't.
I guess it depends on whose tri is being angulated, eh?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Amazing.
BrooklynTech
(35 posts)There are three posters I can count on to express their disgust with the OP if it's at all supportive of Bernie, expressed or implied, no matter how non-inflammatory that OP might be.
At the end of the thread I'll state whether those three posters were heard from. (I'm sure they will have been.)
retrowire
(10,345 posts)What you said is totally moderate thinking. It's on point. It is why I voted for Hillary. Sure Hillary told us free healthcare would never happen at one point and legalization of marijuana was not in her wheelhouse but I voted for her because it was the right thing to do, just like Bernie.
These purists are truly "too rich" and they're very similar to the Bernie or Busters in my opinion.
Response to retrowire (Reply #52)
Post removed
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)SOLELY with the last several months and have nothing at all do with Clinton or the primary.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)But he endorsed.
He endorsed this other guy who didn't perfectly align with him.
It's called being a big tent party. Just like pelosi said, there can be pro life dems.
Big tent.
Stop with the purity tests.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)Don't think we don't remember.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I remember that, dont you?
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Did you believe him? You were impressed with that off the cuff diversion and dodge? Wow.
arthritisR_US
(7,287 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)What? He doesn't want to? Then I don't give a fuck about his opinion as to what we should do. It's cowardly to stand on the outside and throw rotten tomatoes.
DownriverDem
(6,228 posts)Bernie did endorse Hillary, but it was too late for many of his supporters. He trashed the Dem Party and Hillary during the primaries. Then he expected his naïve supporters to switch to Hillary. In the real political world, that is what you do. In the naïve world of many Bernie supporters, they said hell no.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)
stopbush
(24,396 posts)the most-progressive platform in decades.
How'd that work out for us?
Now, he wants the D Party to embrace his ultra-progressive ideas and reshape the Party in the image of an Independent. Why would we do that?
Sanders. Bashing Hillary throughout the campaign, pulling the Party way to the left and now bashing the Ds as much as he bashes the Rs. Sounds like a winning strategy.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Oh I'm sorry, that is just too funny. So now we lost because we supposedly ran on Bernie's platform? Brilliant.. 
stopbush
(24,396 posts)He held up the whole committee process to get his progressive agenda into the platform, as if that would garner votes. All it did was highlight the divisions between Sanders and the Dem Party. All it did was give him an excuse to delay his endorsement of Hillary, which came very late in the process. All it did was fuel his fantasy that he would challenge the convention on the question of super delegates.
Some of us well remember the boorish and counter-productive behavior of his followers at the convention. That colors the way we view his actions and pronouncements now.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Also interesting to see people still supporting the super delegates system which is basically a kick in the face of democracy.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)that they did.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)And if you are saying that his "ultra-progressive" ideas, which are just normal moderate laws in every other western democracy, (single payer, maternity leave...) are unpopular, why was he the one with the least negatives? The one that got more independent popular support? And continues to have popular support?
Why would not the Democratic leadership, if they are smart, listen and learn from the popularity of his ideas and the appeal to younger Americans? Why would we NOT do that?
stopbush
(24,396 posts)1. Media giving tRump a free ride, billions in free ads and clobbering Hillary at every turn
2. James Comey
3. tRump collusion with the Russians.
It has nothing to do with all the "reasons" Sanders is citing for the loss.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)Yes those were factors as well. It was a compounding of elements into a perfect storm. I'd also add voter suppression, and Crosscheck, and gerrymandering to your list.
But it does no good denying to even consider that Democrats themselves also made mistakes. Or that Hillary, mostly through no fault of her own but the success of a decades long propaganda war against her, was a flawed candidate, (not a flawed person). And the DNCs assumptions and arrogance about their standing in key states.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)I voted for Hillary, I think she is one of the U.S.'s most treasured. But I do agree that Bernie Sanders rhetoric pushed her agenda more to the left. I think Hillary actually is more to the left, but she is pragmatic about having to juggle Corporate America, BigBanks etc, as campaign contributors and power brokers, with the needs of the middle classes and the poor. When people say ''way to left" I don't get it. Just what do you mean?
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Akamai
(1,779 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Do you want me to go on and on about Bernie's team hacking Hillary and his campaign manager's ties to Russia?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure at that point you won't want to be rehashing the primaries anymore.
emulatorloo
(44,115 posts)your fellow DU'ers are not your enemy, Jim.
Everyone here is on the left and shares the same core values.
I'm done with ALL of these divisive threads. My policy now is to let them sink.
You want to fight? Take it to the Republicans. Not your progressive and liberal brothers and sisters at DU.
onit2day
(1,201 posts)He speaks for all progressives by his idea that all dems should be heard. This riff with the DLC or corporate dems who think we need bankster and lobbyist money to survive should never dominate the voice of the people or the democratic platform. It's the issues and not the personalities we should focus on. As a Bernie supporter I don't bash Hillary and point to how she should act or be because the issues bind us together.n The alternative is destructive to democracy and valuable only to the 1% and a host of deplorables. Principles before personalities. Trump has neither. Bernie has both and brings a lot to the party and for the party.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)We will never beat the Repubs if we use our time and energy beating up the people on our side. Plus, it ruins our credibility.
I'm sure I'll get creamed for this statement, but that's part of our problem. Some people want us divided and on the right divided side, rather than united against the Repubs.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)This foolishness, this divisiveness is making DU suck. I'll renew it whenever the primaries end...
Not to mention a laughingstock for other sites to enjoy.
In the meantime, I'll start trashing these threads.
I used to Trash 2-3 posts a month. Now I can't spend 15 minutes on DU without trashing a dozen or more Bernie/anti-Bernie posts.
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)I supported Bernie during the primaries because I had followed what he spoke about for a few years. When Hillary won the nomination, as a good Democrat, I supported her in the GE. Continuing the trashing of Bernie is counter-productive and if those supporters go and form another party, then Dems should not be surprised if they continue to lose elections.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)any current comments about Bernie based on his own current actions on current races is about the primaries. Spread the word. 
boston bean
(36,221 posts)yet others there was quite obstinance...
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Bernie's image. That remains the No. 1 goal...
grahampuba
(169 posts)pathetic. this is exactly why you'll keep losing and why im quitting this board.
They. You have your own little happy circle jerk going on we get it.
Bernies image? WTF. maybe we are all out of freaking salve for these DNC/loyalists that keep burning their hand on the stove and we just want it to stop. stop burning your hand. stop grabbing on to the that fancy Le Cruset that is exactly your color, and fits your perfect casserole just right and matches your table cloth and gets you into the enameled cookware club. im so sick of losing to corporations and shitty politicians. i could't give two squirts about anyone's image. goddamn people are dense.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)to justify everything that comes out of his mouth, and then pretending it's about the DNC. 
And corporations, now enameled cookware corporations, Le Creuset being French, but ice cream corporations or any other industry that he supports are just fine.
And "you"ll" keep losing is very telling.
moriah
(8,311 posts)... er, I mean, Welcome to DU! Sorry you didn't enjoy your stay....
grahampuba
(169 posts)Check the profile. and that was starting over from a discontinued email.
I just dont make it my priority to weigh in, on everything.
But this current infighting has become too hard to witness daily, a low point for DU.
Hillary lost - Bernies fault.
Dems polling more out of touch than GOP - Bernies fault
Im witnessing the same party loyalty and inertia bowl over the caucusing processes here in my and my friends and associates wards, where a groundswell of new and newly energized voters are showing up looking to engage more than in the primaries and generals but getting out-procedured if you will. I know its up to everyone to do their homework and get up to speed on the process, but the attitude of the officials has been so opportunistic, dismissive and trite, its pathetic.
Im lucky enough to live in a district represented by both Al Franken and Keith Ellison and a ward that is as diverse as Minnesota gets. But I dont let this bubble cloud my perspective of the sentiments of greater MN and the US.
Id like to think we are an enlightened society or species even, but where's the evidence. If the Dems do not figure out how to tap into the wave of global populism and channel that into directions that can align with core progressive values, then the GOP and whatever other factions will continue to appeal to the populist vote and channel it towards their agenda. If those allies would have been just a little too crude and slow to engage and hopefully sway over time, then I cant imagine surrendering them to 4 more years of bullhorned dogma and fearmongering is going to be the best answer.
If DNC loyalists are still able to dismiss the degree of mobilization that the Sanders campaign tapped into, when the door hits after next election they'll have their necks there to soften the blow.
moriah
(8,311 posts).... of a follower of Duck Dynasty's "Robertson Family Values".
Looks like some RWNJ in CT shares your moniker. You both seem to like pubs, though. 
Guess everyone except me likes beer or ale of some kind (I prefer hard cider unless I can get real imported German dark beer where a bottle is as filling as a loaf of bread.
grahampuba
(169 posts)My mothers maiden name, but it stops there.
The only use I have for Duck Dynasty is that it is a handy reminder that a good portion of our society prefers the spectacle, regardless of how fraudulent it may be, over the truth of the matter.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Chevy
(1,063 posts)wants him to be until like everyone else they will tear him down. And all his past will come out for all to see. Recall HRC at 65% approval?
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)accountable. HuffPo and others have written about this before. Now you see as he is challenged more, his conflicts emerge, like they inevitably do with every politician who isn't coddled.
stonecutter357
(12,695 posts)masmdu
(2,535 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Sculpin Beauregard
(1,046 posts)Dems or USA fascism becomes entrenched and intractable. The GOP are treasonous thieves who have loyalty only to money and power, and are pulling all the levers to make sure they keep it.
What's happening now is just a polite preview. Look at Turkey and Russia to see USAs political reality in a year or two if people/ Dems can't take the country back. The GOP are going to try to make protests illegal.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)He's at least as interested, if not more so, in attacking the Democratic Party as opposing Trump.
The example needs to start with him.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Paladin
(28,252 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Attacking the dems but also endorsing them?
Can't explain that!
/S
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 25, 2017, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)
And last week Sanders endorsed ONE Democratic candidate who was anti-choice and did not even give a generic positive statement about a Democratic candidate who is pro-choice but doesn't embrace Sanders economic ideology 100%.
Those are the literal facts you have to ignore to agree with the OP.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Just like in the primaries.
He's not tearing the party down. The party is clearly shifting but he's not the destroyer. It's this bullshit infighting that's the destroyer.
Drop the rope if you don't want tug of war.
But what am I saying, that'll never happen.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Calling a racehorse those things isn't destroying it. It's making a statement that begins the discussion of what kind of carrots we should feed it.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)She held her caucus together on that health care bill.
That was the ANTI-THESIS of feeble.
Sanders' comment was gratuitous. Totally unnecessary and completely false considering the facts of the matter.
No leftist or Democratic should support the insulting rhetoric coming out of Sanders' mouth nor his willingness to embrace pragmatism when it comes to women's rights but his insistence on ideological purity when it comes to economics.
Unless your goal is to tear down the Democratic party.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)and not an entity? Why'd you leave that detail out?
And hold your disrespectful horses. Your last sentence is uncalled for. This is a fucking discussion, have it or don't.
That said, Bernie's not perfect. NO ONE IS. But I still voted Hillary and that's all I need to say right there. Hillary wasn't perfect on all the issues I cared about but I voted her because....
It was pragmatic.
moriah
(8,311 posts)... which is often a sign that they fit into the group they don't like the implications of being in, but can just be the misunderstandings that happen often in text.
I try to replace "you" in those cases with "they" or "their".
Would you feel would have been less rude had the poster said:
Unless their goal is to tear down the Democratic party.
?
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Are you excusing someone else implications? How are you sure of what they meant? Do you know each other?
snort
(2,334 posts)
karynnj
(59,501 posts)He is fighting Trump - and doing so working with other Democratic Senators. The main thing he has done since Trump became President is the major effort that he and Schumer did together on health care, which really did get people out in many many cities. Ignoring that would be as silly as ignoring the woman's march which has led to resistance groups. These are two of the forces that actually complement each other. Although they have a big overlap, they compliment each other and each reaches some people that the other didn't. As have the march for science and the rallies against Trump climate change policy.
I can not say that the woman's march, the Schumer/Sanders healthcare rallies, or both made the difference on the Republican health care plan failing -- nor can I say that there is a way to win this issue outright, but I can say that both, in their own ways, have reawaken what had been a rather complacent left.
I suspect what you have reacted to is that - as in almost all elections where we lose, there is a reaction against the nominee for failing us. In DU's history, which started in the wake of 2000, there was only one campaign/election cycle where we lost - 2004. Like many, I was stunned by the nastiness and hid out in DU JK. Years, later, my friend, Tay Tay, explained that he was treated far better in Massachusetts than Dukakis was after he lost AND she pointed out that there were many times when he went about his job as Senator, there would be threads here where he was praised for who he really was. Sorrow and grief likely drove the anger of the posts that had sickened me.
I see the same things happening now with Clinton. There is praise when she speaks out on things she has always spoken out on, but as more "inside" stuff comes out, there are the threads on why she lost. Even with proof that the Russians helped the Republicans, there were also - as in any campaign - things that the campaign or nominee could have done better. From previous elections, those discussions will eventually become far less common.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)he has it. When you are the leader of an organization, people pay extra attention to you, particularly that organization's opponents who are looking to exploit what you say to undermine your organization.
If you are in that situation you say NOTHING that could undermine that organization.
Sanders is acting like he doesn't understand that.
Either that or its his agenda to undermine the Democratic Party.
Either way I don't care. He needs to stop or the party needs to cut ties with him completely.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)There's a small groups of centrists like you who are determined that you will drive this guy out of the party. He endorses someone and you scream and shout. He doesn't endorse someone and you do exactly the same. He calls for unity and you scream about how he didn't show unity during the primary. He calls out the party on issues that might cost us the next election and you accuse him of attacking us.
Frankly its pathetic. The guy could discover the cure for cancer tomorrow and you'd find a way to denounce him for putting hospitals out of business.
We need to find ways to heal our divisions and all you care about is ripping open old wounds and driving a significant part of the party away. Well done, have a fucking cookie.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)How can anyone "drive him out"? By HIS OWN WORDS, said multiple times, he is NOT a Democrat. That's not a slam against him; it's simply the truth.
Sanders can consistently and repeatedly trash the Democratic Party and that's okay. If we all him out on it, we're persecuting poor, poor Bernie.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)Had he done that Schumer would have taken that position away.
What you and others are doing is not far from attacks on Hillary where her actual response - purposely interpreted in the most jaundiced way possible. Did you see the WV town hall on health care that he did which MSNBC covered? It is things like that that he can do - and do well - that led to Schumer giving him that position.
First of all, where would you find the list of the official Democratic positions? If HRC had won, she would not have been constrained by the Democratic platform. (my answer - of course not) Is there a single leader of the Democratic party? (no) Second, even when we have the Presidency and one might reasonably say the President's position is the Democratic position, are you saying that no one in leadership can argue against that position?
Has Schumer always been quiet if he was against the party's position? His statements on the Iran deal were far more at odds with the Democratic position than anything Sanders has said. Yet, he was in the Democratic leadership then - and Menendez was the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Both leadership positions.
A Senator is really his own boss - even as they all say that their "boss" is all the people in their state. However, they are chosen to represent the state and they have the liberty to follow their own conscience. Note that people like Clinton and Kerry were completely free to give whatever opinions they had on anything as Senator, but were representatives of Obama during their years as Secretary of State. IMO, Schumer was 180 degrees wrong on Iran, but he was 100% within his rights as a Senator and in the Democratic leadership to completely oppose President Obama. Now, with no clearly defined Democratic position, I doubt you can find an example where Sanders is going against the party.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It's that simple.
If you do, you undermine that organization. If you are a good leader, instead of publicly criticizing an organization for any perceived faults, you are supposed to be working to fix any faults privately.
It's not complicated. If you don't see this, you are working hard not to see it.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)especially now that it's obvious he's willing to be pragmatic about some issues and not others.
He's head of Democratic Party Outreach. His negative comments need to stop but they won't.
Your entire post ignores his negative comments.
Your entire post ignores his willingness to forgo his ideological purity when it comes to women's rights but not when it comes to economic issues.
Your entire post ignores the fact the Democratic party has given him a national role and his words and deeds are NOT strengthening the Democratic party.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)That was a FAR more obvious case of working against the Democratic President.
I think your statement that Sanders is using "negative rhetoric about Democrats" shows evidence of cherry picking and ignores the very real outreach that he (with and without Schumer) did on healthcare. NO successful active politician can really have "ideological purity". They would be absolutely useless because they would never find any bill good enough to vote for.
If Hillary Clinton would have supported the same guy running to be mayor, you would NOT be making the case that she has given up her "ideological purity" on woman's rights. Some here had a problem BEFORE Kaine was picked, but very few people blamed HRC for his more nuanced support of abortion rights. Nor, did many object when Biden, who voted for the 2003 partial birth abortion bill that did not have a provision for women's health. So, if Obama and HRC are not faulted for selecting these people to potentially become President (who I like, but disagree with on this issue), why blame Sanders for simply endorsing or speaking for the DEMOCRAT running against a Republican who is not good on that issue?
I disagree and think that his efforts on ISSUES like healthcare have been positive. I specifically like that he was willing to speak to coal miners in West Virginia at a town hall, where everyone was civil and respectful - and issues were discussed seriously. That is getting our message out. If there are people - not on our side - willing to listen to Sanders, that is more significant than anyone throwing red meat to the base. Did you watch the Chris Hayes show that documented that?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)karynnj
(59,501 posts)And Sanders' own votes on that are fine.
The Iran desl, that Schumer would have killed, very likely avoided another war. I think that is as big a deal.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)And the BOBs are complicit.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)are at least as interested, if not more so, in attacking a member of the U.S. Senate Democratic Forum leadership team (and the winner of 45% of the votes nationwide in the last Democratic presidential primaries) than they are in opposing Trump. The example should be set here.
I am on record, on numerous threads, saying I agree it is both important and productive for us to have a wide ranging debate about what degree of adherence to an absolute pro-choice set of policies moving forward should be expected of any Democratic politician (but especially of those who hold personal "prolife" beliefs). Further, that to fully explore that issue we should look to our current attitudes toward current leading Democrats who hold personal "prolife" beliefs while promoting public "prochoice" policies. That can seem rather straight forward if they have been totally consistent about that throughout their entire political careers. But what about the cases where those Democrats have "evolved" over time toward reaching a 100% (or in some cases near 100%) embrace of those policies?
It has been my personal experience that some Democrats have adhered to supporting polices that I find at least highly objectionable while they are coming up in politics from the "local" level in Republican leaning districts - where voters hold hot button beliefs that tend to sink the campaigns of even highly respected Democratic candidates. One experience I had in that realm concerned Kirsten Gillebrand when she first ran for Congress to represent New York's 20th congressional district in 2006. I live just over the border from that district so I personally did door knocking for Kirsten that year. I was motivated by the urgent need for Democrats to retake the House of Representatives and to send a strong message to the world that America did not support "our President" regarding Iraq.
Kirsten was a good candidate for that clearly Republican supporting upstate district. Traditionally conservative, the district and its electoral offices had been in Republican hands for all but four years since 1913, and as of November 2006, 197,473 voters in the district were registered Republicans while 82,737 were registered Democrats - (those facts courtesy of Wiki) But Kirsten had star qualities, she is extremely bright and has strong leadership skills. She had also been a prosecutor. My problem was that she campaigned as a strong supporter of many NRA positions on Guns, among other issues. Again, from Wiki; "The American Conservative stated after her eventual victory, "Gillibrand won her upstate New York district by running to the right: she campaigned against amnesty for illegal immigrants, promised to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington, and pledged to protect gun rights"
When Kirsten entered Congress she joined the conservative leaning Blue Dog faction in the House. But she also voted to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House. I was pleased that Democrats had picked up Kirsten's seat though I wasn't thrilled by her then political leanings relative to other Democrats. I strongly opposed her on gun policies among other issues. And then, surprise, NY's Democratic Governor decided to appoint Kirsten to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. I gotta say I was pretty concerned about that move. It was one thing to support Kirsten for a up to then safe Republican House seat, it was another to elevate her to fill a safe Democratic Senate seat.
Well the rest is history. Kirsten's voting record in the U.S. Senate, representing all of NY, has been remarkably different than her voting history representing NY's 20th CD. Now I am really proud to have her as my Senator (and pleased that I played some small roll in launching her political career.) Gun issues are not the same as one's stand on Reproductive Rights - which strike to the root of the concept of equality for all. But when I reflected back on my involvement in support of Gillibrand on a local level, I began to suspect that there can be a correlation to how Democratic politicians "evolve" as they rise from representing conservative constituencies at the State level to the positions they take on the national level as Democratic U.S. Senators. And Tim Kaine came to mind. He's a good man overall, always has been, but Tim Kaine the U.S. Senator comes a damn lot closer to well representing my views on Women's Reproductive Rights than he did as Virginia's Governor, or before that as Mayor of Richmond.
Finally let me note that the irony that I initially thought the author of this OP was referring to was the fact that Sanders (who so many claim is constantly attacking the Democratic Party) has come under continual attack here for supporting the candidate selected and supported by Nebraska's Democratic Party - campaigning for that person in response to their request that he do so.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #126)
Name removed Message auto-removed
boston bean
(36,221 posts)bernie saying a pro life dem candidate was progressive.
LexVegas
(6,059 posts)They think it's important BUT. And, of course, what follows the but is: "other things are more important."
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)But this sub-thread led me to write more on the topic, please see
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028976448
Demit
(11,238 posts)I keep my home page set to Latest Threads. If your thread title looks interesting, I'll probably look at it later.
betsuni
(25,462 posts) 
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)
comradebillyboy
(10,143 posts)Your body, your choice. And it's a major economic issue as well since the costs of pregnancy weigh more heavily on women.
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Let it die down, I figured. But the stupid attacks just go on and on.
I decided to set forth my views so that I could read the substantive responses from the Bernie-bashers. Perhaps I'll have that chance. The day is young.
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
tecelote
(5,122 posts)No need to put this much effort in to it unless you're sincere.
betsuni
(25,462 posts)"Pssst ... here's a secret for you ... . Every time it gets kicked, I know I have stuck a nerve. Don't tell anybody."
ProfessorPlum
(11,256 posts)waiting for this very programmatic behavior to die down. In the meantime, ignore let's people who are obviously being intellectually dishonest eat static.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)
JudyM
(29,226 posts)seaglass
(8,171 posts)discussing how Democrats can win going forward without the mention of any of the former 2016 primary candidates.
Response to Jim Lane (Original post)
Post removed
Volstagg
(233 posts)
Response to Post removed (Reply #11)
grossproffit This message was self-deleted by its author.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Not at all how party politics functions in a bipartisan system, but interesting nevertheless.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)Keep telling yourself that's why we lost this election 🙄
Raster
(20,998 posts)And just as the Never Hillary clan threw their hissyfit and departed, perhaps it's time for the ALWAYS HILLARY clan to do the same.
stonecutter357
(12,695 posts)
padfun
(1,786 posts)Hillary cost Bernie the election.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Uh huh.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)...if he had lost, we'd have the same president we have now. So at least to that extent, maybe he could have done better, maybe not, but he couldn't have done worse!
JHan
(10,173 posts)he lost the primary.
All the "he coulda won" people are doing to distracting us from focusing on the real enemy - the GOP and Trump.
Demit
(11,238 posts)Which Hillary won by an almost 3 million vote margin, remember?
Response to Demit (Reply #169)
Post removed
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)As they say, close only counts in horseshoes...
chervilant
(8,267 posts)I just have to laugh...
I am so very thankful for the IL option...
retrowire
(10,345 posts)karynnj
(59,501 posts)It is completely conjecture that Sanders' supporters did not vote for Clinton. For the most part, they did. I would argue that more independents followed his lead and voted for Clinton than would have happened had he not existed. One thing that was rarely noted was that there were more Republican votes than Democratic votes in the MI and WI primaries. One state I know where the Sanders people helped is NH, which Clinton narrowly won after Sanders blew out the primary. In the general election, there were many Sanders Vermont people who went to NH and many spoke to people they won for Sanders (often against voting for Trump in the Republican primary.).
Sanders authored the legislation that improved the VA -- so, he did author legislation that actually passed. That was a joint bill of Sanders and McCain - they chaired the veteran's committee or were the ranking member, changing as control of the Senate changed. In fact, if you want to play that game, what significant piece of legislation did Hillary author that passed?
berksdem
(595 posts)about the Comey letter and it is an interesting read... it also did not help that HRC ignored entire states and failed miserably at gaining votes from white woman. It is time to move on. No matter if you like Bernie or not he has a voice in the party.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)"MY issue is different erp derp" I say welcome to the club of people who are principled! I, for one, am not comfortable with prolife/anti choice, candidates but I wasn't aware this guy is running for mayor and not a congressperson who will be voting in congress. You would think Bernie himself came out against choice. This is obvious just yet another excuse to go after Bernie. again. they are on a mission and nobody is fooled!
The hairsplitting to rationalize this from them is precious
JHan
(10,173 posts)
Cha
(297,137 posts)http://www.salon.com/2017/04/24/bye-bye-bernie-the-self-appointed-captain-of-the-democratic-ship-needs-to-stop-chasing-the-great-white-male/
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)but not when it comes to his economic class warfare message.
Clinton and most Democrats are pragmatists at heart when it comes to getting elected and governing.
Sanders is not.
That is the whole point.
emulatorloo
(44,115 posts)The hairsplitting to rationalize a problematic endorsement of an an anti-choice candidate is precious.
There is a sense among some here that Bernie is infallible. He's one of my favorite politician, but he's human and makes mistakes.
In a misguided mission to "protect" Bernie from criticism, some are twisting themselves into pretzles and realigning their positions on choice simply because Bernie illadvisedly campaigned for and endorsed Mello.
PJMcK
(22,031 posts)Donald Trump is our enemy. For now, all who oppose him are our allies.
End of story.
betsuni
(25,462 posts)From DU TOS: "The primary framing of Hillary supporters vs Bernie Supporters is a thing of the past."
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)betsuni
(25,462 posts)I need to go and buy a large package of patience because I have run out.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)I could be wrong, but I don't think TOS covers patience.
Kaye_NY
(71 posts)What an absurd post.
brer cat
(24,559 posts)Welcome to DU where we are being pushed back 40 years on reproductive rights. 
yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)Women, Minorities and Poor people wouldn't be allowed to vote. I am guessing they will be having meetings very soon, to figure out how to write it up, so Donald Trump will sign it.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)It's one thing to say that a particular important point is "not a side issue that can be compromised." It's quite another to say "I will never support a candidate who disagrees with me on this issue, regardless of what the political situation is."
Compromising reproductive rights would mean voting the wrong way on a bill in the Senate. AFAICT no one has accused Bernie of having done that. What he has done is to support Democratic candidates who didn't agree with him on all the issues.
Given that he disagreed with Hillary on trade policy, foreign policy, economic inequality, etc., would you characterize his support for her in 2016 as an example of compromising on those issues? Do you think he did the right thing to support her?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You're missing the entire point. Pragmatism is necessary, but Bernie is not an across-the-board pragmatist. He's a selective pragmatist.
If someone disagrees with Bernie's economic agenda, Bernie either withholds or gives a tepid endorsement. But if someone disagrees with him on choice, he doesn't consider it a big deal.
And this is not new from him. For years he's been talking about how the Democrats need to hold the line on economic issues, but be more flexible on issues like choice, LGBT rights, etc.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)I am not sure what this is accomplishing.
dsc
(52,155 posts)He he endorsed both Mello and Ossoff virtually no one would have said a word. But that isn't what he did. He pointedly refused to endorse Ossoff until after this whole thing blew up and wholeheartedly endorsed Mello. That isn't remotely like the argument being made in the fall.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)Reading DU, especially the last week, has been painful. I hope posts, like yours, can help the some understand that ALL of us are devastated that Trump is President. Both Sanders and Clinton might be good, powerful voices in helping us regain some power. Not the only voices, but powerful voices because of who they are and the messages they have to speak. A party is NOT a soloist, no matter how good, but a chorus. A chorus would not work well if everyone had the same voice.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)this whole fiasco has nothing to do with Heath Mello.. and just more power struggles within the corporate DNC, it is sad really...
If anyone wishes to here the whole story;
[link:https://www.thenation.com/article/why-was-heath-mello-thrown-under-the-bus/|
scipan
(2,341 posts)Read the article, people. This...thing...was started by the WSJ:
Instead, on April 19, The Wall Street Journal ran a story noting that Mello, a practicing Catholic, is pro-life. The story also falsely claimed that Mello had co-sponsored a bill “requiring women to look at an ultrasound image of their fetus before receiving an abortion.” A similar error was made by The Washington Post, which claimed that Mello had “previously backed a bill requiring ultrasounds for women considering abortions,” and then again the following day by David Nir, political director of Daily Kos, who announced the site was withdrawing its endorsement of Mello—a move applauded by Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, who’d launched a 12-part Twitter storm linking to the WSJ article and accusing Sanders and Perez of kicking off their tour with the message “shame women; we’ll support u anyway.”
Here’s the truth about Mello’s record: Back in 2009, he co-sponsored a bill requiring a physician performing an abortion to tell a woman that an ultrasound is available (as most already did). It neither mandated that the ultrasound be performed nor, if performed, that it actually be viewed by the woman—although it did require abortion providers to position the screen in such a way that the ultrasound was easily viewable. Daily Kos member Nova Land—a Tennessean who had never heard of Mello before the controversy—posted a comprehensive, well-sourced correction to this effect the same day. That didn’t lead Nir to reconsider. Nor did it stop Perez from issuing a statement announcing that he “fundamentally disagree[s] with Heath Mello’s personal beliefs about women’s reproductive health,” which was worded in a way that appeared to cast doubt on the sincerity of Mello’s pledge that he “would never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care.”
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)
LOL Lib
(1,462 posts)[img]
[/img]
DownriverDem
(6,228 posts)What bothered me was that after Bernie lost, he quit the Dem Party. We have a two party system. We are not Vermont. Having said this, I hope I don't get banned from posting on this thread.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)During the 2016 campaign, all that was still true.
After the conclusion of the 2016 campaign, all that is still true.
The only thing that's significantly different about his role vis-a-vis the Democratic Party is that he's put time and effort into the unity tour, by making several joint appearances with the Democratic National Committee Chair.
I don't see what he did that constitutes quitting the Democratic Party.
Demit
(11,238 posts)When he filed with the Federal Elections Committee to run for president, he listed his party affiliation as “Democratic Party.”
Also, New Hampshire requires a candidate to fill out a form that states that the candidate swears “under penalty of perjury” that they are a registered member of the party. To get on the ballot there, Bernie swore he was a Democrat.
You're right, he didn't have to do anything official to quit the party. Once the advantage of being a Democrat was over, he just gave up the pretense.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)He didn't change his answers to any questions about party. All that happened was that governmental authorities like the FEC were no longer asking him the question.
What really counts to his colleagues in the Senate is whether he caucuses with the Democrats or not. He does. If a few more of the supposedly more electable "centrist" Democrats -- say, Patty Judge, Patrick Murphy, and Ted Strickland, all of whom won primaries against progressive opponents -- had actually won their general-election races, then the Senate would have been 50 Democrats (counting Angus King), 49 Republicans, and Mike Pence ready to break any tie in favor of the GOP. At that point, it would have been crucial that Bernie did not quit the Democratic Party. His continued his membership in the Democratic caucus would have given Chuck Schumer control over the Senate agenda and would have given committee and subcommittee chairships to a whole bunch of Democrats.
Demit
(11,238 posts)But he did have to swear he was so that he could HAVE his campaign. Then he loudly abandoned the Dem label when it was of no more use to him. That doesn't seem to faze you, but it bothers me a lot.
Yes, we all know he caucuses with the Democrats. But we have a two party system. Someday, not too far in the future, Bernie will be gone from the scene, and we will still have a two party system. Oh my, we'll say, Bernie sure stayed true to his fierce independence! (Well, for the most part.) But I can't for the life of me see what difference he will have made in strengthening the Democratic party.
samnsara
(17,616 posts)...that young black woman bravely running thru a gauntlet of protesters, the image of ppl throwing $bills at Hillary's car on her way to a fund raiser, the sound of the mans voice over the Microphone in front of thousands of young people, calling Hillary a 'corporate whore' and then cheers and applause for it. I thought we were all on the same side but apparently some supporters didn't and still don't get that message from their leader.
DownriverDem
(6,228 posts)to check out the Dem Party Platform that was full of Bernie's ideas. That is what Hillary ran on. Since many of those protesters were young, they are the ones whose lives will be a living hell with a right leaning Supreme Court. They were warned, but let naivety and foolishness get in the way. I wrote many time that this was a long ball election. Too bad folks didn't get what that would have meant for all of us. Now we just have total insanity.
Response to samnsara (Reply #49)
Post removed
ananda
(28,858 posts)We really are all against the corporate right wing
takeover now holding us hostage and attempting
to divide us.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)That is the point that those who criticized Bernie in the past week are making. I know it may not be a popular or pleasant but it is true.
And yes I have my own hypocritical moments in politics.
Fla Dem
(23,650 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 25, 2017, 10:06 AM - Edit history (1)
For God's sake the Dems have bent over backward to include him in their strategy. He responds by being a crotchety old man wagging his finger at the Democrats. If he has an issue with the Dems take it to the leadership and work with them. Don't disparage Democratic candidates who have a chance to take a Red congressional seat. It's his self aggrandizing, nasty, off the cuff, underhanded comments that are red meat to his followers and gets him exposure on national cable shows. That's why Democrats are upset.
The Vermont independent will be the chair of “outreach” for Senate Democrats next Congress, Senate Democratic Leader-elect Chuck Schumer of New York announced Wednesday. He will be the first independent to hold a party leadership position since the modern leadership structure began in the early 20th Century, according to the Senate Historical Office.
More>>>>
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/11/16/senate-democrats-tap-bernie-sanders-lead-outreach/93960822/
Mr. Schumer announced the leadership also is set to expand to include Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who ran a hard-fought primary campaign against Hillary Clinton, as well as Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia — who comes from the more liberal and conservative poles of the party.
More>>>>
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/16/chuck-schumer-named-senate-minority-leader/
Published: Nov 16, 2016 11:52 a.m. ET
By Robert Schroeder
Fiscal policy reporter
Charles Schumer of New York will take over as Senate Democratic leader in the next Congress, while Vermont’s Bernie Sanders is getting a key role on the Senate Budget Committee.
More>>>
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/schumer-to-head-senate-democrats-as-sanders-gets-key-budget-panel-spot-2016-11-16
By Anne Gearan May 23, 2016
Sen. Bernie Sanders was given unprecedented say over the Democratic Party platform Monday in a move party leaders hope will soothe a bitter split with backers of the longshot challenger to Hillary Clinton — and Sanders immediately used his new power to name a well-known advocate for Palestinian rights to help draft Democratic policy.
The senator from Vermont was allowed to choose nearly as many members of the Democratic Party platform-writing body as Clinton, who is expected to clinch the nomination next month. That influence resulted from an agreement worked out this month between the two candidates and party officials, the party announced Monday.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-scores-platform-concessions-from-democratic-national-committee/2016/05/23/e9ee8330-20fc-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html?utm_term=.9a98a0cc6cb3
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)This covers most everything perfectly. This, of course, could be expounded upon with more details and examples... but as a brief summary, this is absolutely perfect.
Thank you.
Zing Zing Zingbah
(6,496 posts)tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)You nailed it. Reading through the replies pointed out a few that i suspect are trolls, here just to agitate.
Carry on, carry on.
betsuni
(25,462 posts)Think about it. How does this make sense? On a forum for Democrats, Democratic members who support Democrats are trolls?
Fla Dem
(23,650 posts)
betsuni
(25,462 posts)tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)Cha
(297,137 posts)nothing.
Nitram
(22,791 posts)
Roy Rolling
(6,911 posts)CURRENT BASHING. That topic is not rehashing the election. From the responses I read here, the point that the Bernie bashing is CURRENT is ignored. It's the same same way for years leading up to the election there was a steady drumbeat of negative Hillary stories.
That is the effect of propaganda, it divides.
Stop the Hillary versus Bernie brawl when the real culprit is an opponent willing to break the law and commit treason.
Zing Zing Zingbah
(6,496 posts)I honestly don't give a shit about Bernie Sanders anymore. Can we move on? Not all of us are in love with Bernie Sanders. He is OK, but not infallible.
I honestly think he shouldn't have been allowed to run for president as a dem candidate without ever actually joining the party. I see that as something that was very damaging to our party and it came at a very bad time for the country when the dems needed party unity and strength. Bernie should have ran for president as an independent because that is what he is. That would have the right and honest thing to do. You talk about him voicing his support for the democratic nominee because he is a pragmatist and he wanted to prevent the repubs from winning. The thing is, he had an obligation to support the dem nominee because he used the party to run for president himself. He took too damn long to come around and support Hillary. That was damaging to the party.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)at other from his imagined high ground that only he occupies.
Sanders is the one who has trashed the Democratic party repeatedly for being pragmatic and not ideologically pure and then goes on to endorse a candidate who is anti-choice.
Cha
(297,137 posts)candidate, Jon Ossoff, who is in a super Important Congressional race in Georgia.. a "progressive"... it boggles.
He's bringing this all on himself.. there's no way they can spin this.. but they keep trying.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Being supportive enough of reproductive rights. Amazed because I don't buy these people actually give a shit.
It's not a priority- you'd think after the women's march and the hard work so many women have done the past six months we'd get better than this BS lip service.
I am pissed off.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... Disgusting.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I knew about that and his connection to banks, and stood in belwilderment that he was so damned popular with people despite that.
Response to Jim Lane (Original post)
betsuni This message was self-deleted by its author.
Orrex
(63,201 posts)
klook
(12,154 posts)I recently not only trashed General Discussion but also changed the link in my browser to point to https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=greatest_threads, not the DU home page. I've also put several more of the most persistent and obnoxious bashers on Ignore, which goes against my grain but I've had it up to here with the hypocrisy and toxicity (gestures at a point a foot above top of head).
Every now and then I succumb to the temptation to sneak a peek at the DU home page just to see what's there, which is the only reason I saw this thread today.
Sometimes the current favorite flamebait fuel makes its way into another forum, so then I resort to hiding individual threads. If this keeps up, I may make the Crafts group my home page.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)
RedWedge
(618 posts)
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)They're so boring and tiring.
Can we worry more about the midterms and on who's going to challenge the orange bastard in 2020?
Demit
(11,238 posts)Maybe all the other posters who are tired of these threads & comment on them anyway will be attracted to yours.
JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)get Bernie to stop attacking the Democratic Party.
Simple.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)The people bashing Bernie should be THANKING him!!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It's destroying the party and its ability to oppose Trump.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)The party has been destroying ITSELF... taking an HONEST look at why it's taken a beating at EVERY level of government for years is a GOOD thing.
Bernie wants it to stop... shooting the messenger is NOT the answer.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Before the changes that came to the party with the Clinton's in 1992, the Democratic Party had lost five of the last six elections and by landslide margins. The one election they won in 1976 they won by a small margin and that was because of threat of impeachment/resignation/Watergate. Otherwise we would likely have lost 1976 as well.
From 1992 until this last election in 2016, we won the popular vote in six of seven Presidential races, winning four of the seven races electoral colleges as well.
The Clintons and the changes they made saved the party and made it competitive. That's why the Republicans hate them so much.
What you and Sanders are working to do is undo that and return us to the time where we lost by landslide margins every four years.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)It is possible that the tact that started winning elections in 1992 may not be the best approach by 2022. Pendulums swing both ways.
You talk about elections that go back to 1968, but in many respects, Nixon would be left-ish by today's standards. (Founding the EPA? Wage-price controls?)
Hopefully, even the right will some day become more moderate again, but it's not going to happen by itself, the leftward pressure has to come from somewhere, and it's not lkely to come from their side.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Response to stevenleser (Reply #127)
Post removed
katmondoo
(6,454 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Follow him and the rewards will be sweet.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)..."some of he loudest pro-Hillary people"?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You'll find some of it in this thread, and even more in the barrage of threads criticizing Bernie.
I won't give specifics because (a) it would arguably be a ToS violation to call out individual DUers, (b) it would take up more of my time and I've already spent too much on this thread, and (c) opinions have hardened so much that I don't think a long list of links would change anyone's mind on the subject. (The worst thing about the Clinton-Sanders divide was how many people on each side saw only virtue among their allies and thought all vice was on the other side. That tendency persists.)
If you piously believe that none of your allies have spewed vitriol at Sanders, and take my failure to give links as proof that you're right, well, you can go right on believing that.
emulatorloo
(44,115 posts)By now you should realize that Democrats are independent thinkers and don't do the whole lockstep thing. I am a Bernie supporter. I find his endorsement of Mello problematic.
You don't really have the right to dismiss the real concerns that some DU'ers have about the need of some here to purity test everybody except when it comes to choice.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I'm so tired of this. Bernie is right on many things but not on all. But so is everyone else. And the most important lesson for Democrats is to return to being a party of all the people, instead of a party by, of, and for white-collar professionals. I'm not saying white-collar folks do not have legitimate concerns. We do, especially when it comes to health care and various job-issues. The grassroots gets it. The DNC and DCCC, especially, not so much.
The middle class has been GUTTED. Income inequality is worse than ever. We all know this. Funnily enough, many people here were opposed (at one time) to NAFTA and similar agreements because of the effects on jobs and the failure to account for environmental problems. Now, of course, the talking point I see thrown around is that free trade doesn't cause job losses but automation does. This point is now espoused by the very same people (pundits) who shilled for NAFTA in the first place, people largely in charge of the Democratic Party then and now, so I am suspicious of its veracity.
The jobs that replace the jobs lost pay shit wages and no benefits and I see no one with any really good ideas as to what to do about it. People who are suffering are more prone to blaming others for their issues (helped along by a right-wing which has always been good at "catapulting the propaganda" . Why we can't see it for what it is (right-wing manipulation of people) and keep blaming voters for being stupid or racist (though plenty are), I'll never know.
Response to Jim Lane (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)certainot
(9,090 posts)instead of making some new stuff.
i don't know if i put too much cold water into the boiled water before i poured it into the grounds, or not enough.
siince it's a rainy day and i'm not working i'm going to throw it and make some more
all i know is democrats lose to a pack of ignorant lying assholes because they are fucking stupid about talk radio and even let their 'liberal' universities keep it going.
arguing about hillary and bernie? the real question should be why the fuck was trump even close? why is the gop so fucked up and irrational? how do they even compete except in alabama and mississippi?
putin rode 25 years of talk radio clinton hate that dems ignored. all those 1200 radio stations would have beeen screaming commie this and commie that the whole election if bernie was the candidate and his left supporters would be listening to music.
stupid fucking liberals.
emulatorloo
(44,115 posts)Just decided to stop posting in all of these threads. Gonna let them sink.
It has gotten ridiculous and toxic. Everybody here is on the left and shares the same core set of values.
So why are we fighting each other? Fight needs to be taken to Trump and the Republicans. They are the ones trying to take away choice, not DU'ers.
certainot
(9,090 posts)fights come up
maybe bernie and hillary should do a john and yoko bed scene!
emulatorloo
(44,115 posts)Would love to see Bernie and Hillary do a bed-in for peace! 
certainot
(9,090 posts)thinking of photoshopping-----
but it would take me many hours at my speed - can't do it
emulatorloo
(44,115 posts)Loved the bed-ins for Peace.
Saviolo
(3,280 posts)I'm always reminded of this from Will McAvoy's opening rant from HBO's Newsroom (written by the sharp-as-a-tack Aaron Sorkin):
Someone up above was talking about how the changes that the Clintons made to the party helped rebuild the party. Well, sure, Bill Clinton was hugely popular, and then there were 8 years of Bush, and then 8 years of actually progressive Barack Obama in the oval office.
But while Obama was in power, how many Congress and Senate seats did the DNC lose? Over the past eight years, Senate seats have fallen from 55 to 46, and in Congress it's gone from 256 to 194. Even Democratic governors have fallen from 28 to 16. Obama could have done so much more if he'd had a friendly Congress and Senate. Can't focus only on the big office, gotta get those state races front and center. So, Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3million votes. How was Trump not an also-ran?
And there's no simple answer, despite what everyone will say (and everyone's answer is different). Russia was involved, Comey was involved, bad messaging was involved, lack of outreach in key races, white nationalism and a racism, frustration with the status quo, and on and on and on. The analysis will go on for years, but if we don't learn anything from it, liberals will continue to lose, and lose big.
Here's the whole rant from Newsroom:
certainot
(9,090 posts)season or two. i think he even mentioned rw radio a few times.
we've been analyzing symptoms. talk radio is so invisible democrats can't even poll for it re trump, probably the closest association outside of 'white'. rust belt, wheat belt, cattle belt - what they all have in common is talk radio - they're all in the radio belt.
when liberals, even thom hartmann, blame money in politics, or media consolidation, they forget democracy was designed to counter or minimize money in politics and keep media honest. they forget that before the tel com act in 96 (and fox), reagan killed the fairness doctrine in 87 and was a decade where 1000 radio stations screamed money is free speech, corporations are people, deregulation will lower cable costs, liberal media are turning your kids into drug addicts, unions give as much to politics as corporations, etc.
so liberals have been getting their asses kicked by a few hundred ignorant think tank scripted and coordinated liars on 1200 radio stations while they listen to music and tweet.
Mr. Evil
(2,839 posts)KPN
(15,642 posts)peggysue2
(10,828 posts)Can we please stop talking, whining and speculating about freaking Bernie Sanders. Who, btw, lost the primary and was not nor ever would have been a contender in the General Election. Unless you really believe the Republicans would have pussy-footed around on Sanders' actual political history. Death by a thousand cuts was Hillary Clinton's unfortunate fate. Bernie would have been put in a meat grinder and spit out as cat food.
2016 has come and gone. Trump and his circle are the enemies that tunneled beneath the gate and are now intent on burning the house down. Water pistols of regret and resentment will not put the blaze out. Neither will Bernie Sanders.
Stop it already. We have more important things to concentrate on, things that will require our full attention and energy. Dividing the Democratic Party plays right into the Republican playbook. It's the way they win, even when they run a despicable and unhinged candidate.
Will we ever learn??? I'm beginning to wonder.
Omaha Steve
(99,581 posts)K&R!
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Hands down.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)and think you wrote it well, but it seems your point is best illustrated by the negative responders in this thread. Any of those is a vessel of unimaginable hypocrisy. The Derangement over Senator Sanders is sick and sad.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I've been away for months, only to come back and find the same cast of characters, stirring the same crap.
Good grief, people, let it go already. Think I'll show myself back out. Ugh...
TonyPDX
(962 posts)WoonTars
(694 posts)....
snort
(2,334 posts)THE OTHER TEAM HAS THE FUCKING BALL.
We must elect all the Dems we possibly can. Purity tests come later.
lovemydogs
(575 posts)a person he is not in lockstep with when I don't recall anyone in the party howling when Bob Casey ran as a pro life democrat for the senate.
There are pro life democrats.
I find this whole walking in lock step 100 percent to be silly and very republican.
You can be a real democrat even if you diverge from an issue or two.
Being in lockstep is what drove the republicans crazy and made them a cult rather then a political party.
Having a person who may have a different view on an issue is not evil.
I am pro choice but, if someone is pro life, as long as they are not Operation Rescue types, they have a right to their own opinion
Response to lovemydogs (Reply #180)
Name removed Message auto-removed
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)
Response to Jim Lane (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Jim Lane (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
zentrum
(9,865 posts)It's not just the hypocrisy that's shocking to me, but the degree to which they can tear down Bernie and yet, if there's any criticism of Hillary, there's an alert.
Do I wish the Democrats had been able to come up with a better candidate in Omaha? Yes. Do I wish Democrats had been organizing for years in these smaller venues the way the Repugs have been doing for 30 years? Yes. Will women be better off under Mello than under any Repug? Yes.
Let's hope all these purists have a practical, action plan ready to go, in case the Repug does win---and does typical Repug things, like reduce community oversight on police--not to mention how under assault Planned Parenthood will be, which they would not be under Mello.
Response to zentrum (Reply #197)
Name removed Message auto-removed
zentrum
(9,865 posts)...and flaming points, trying to link Sanders with the Russians among other things, plus your final sentence of slur against him here on DU is beyond the pale, and makes this not worth engaging with. I'm done.
Response to zentrum (Reply #207)
Name removed Message auto-removed
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)I registered Democratic in 1974 and voted for Governor Brown on his firsr run. I have not given up on Senator Sanders perhaps you can dial it back and speak for yourself.
Response to zentrum (Reply #197)
Name removed Message auto-removed
dchill
(38,471 posts)I believe that you have successfully avoided refighting that which shall not be refought.
lexington filly
(239 posts)my issue doesn't involve either of them. What newly opened all this up is a Kansas candidate for mayor which has absolutely nothing to do with "war and peace" except within our party. Many times I've voted for a lesser of two evils candidate. This doesn't fall into that category. Too many people are trying to persuade women that what WE find extremely important, isn't 'that' important, in the balance, and perhaps in the interest of winning elections, we should 'go along to get along.'
This is a "our bottom line" category. Many of us on this Board know in our bones that there's no such thing as equal rights without reproductive rights. Women of means or access to means enjoy these rights in America as did all women until the ultra Religious Right took over the Republican Party. A willingness and duty to stand-up for Reproductive Rights aren't bargaining chips in our Democratic elections. Not in a local super red Kansas race or a state-wide or national race. Anywhere. The ultra Rel Right can't have our rights or our Party. And that's on my list of 'hills to die on' rather than a wish list or the lesser of two evils.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)One of the few Democrats ever endorsed by BS is one who is anti choice.
If BS actually endorsed many Democrats, this might be hypocrisy, but he hasn't and it isn't.
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)one's own body?
He may have wanted single payer whereas Hillary didn't. He may have wanted free college tuition.
Are you suggesting that any of those issues are equal in stature to a woman's right to control her own body? They are not in the same league.
Shall we discuss restricting men's rights to jacking off?
There are different levels of "issues" and some are certainly more personal than others.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)It's pointless to get into an argument like "is reproductive freedom more important than correcting a militaristic foreign policy, exemplified by the Iraq War" or "how important is income inequality" or "within the area of income inequality, how important are single payer and free college and Glass-Steagall and TPP compared to each other" or... etc.
You would also have to factor in the office. How much can a Mayor do about reproductive rights? I don't know the setup in Omaha. It's probably not as much as a President has to do with imperialistic wars of choice. If a Democratic nominee opposed single payer, I'd care more about that in a race for Congress than in a race for Mayor.
You ask, "Are you suggesting that any of those issues are equal in stature to a woman's right to control her own body? They are not in the same league." I don't think it's useful to try to reach agreement on such questions. If you want my view, though, I'll note that there are scores of thousands of Iraqi women who no longer have the right to control their own bodies, what with them being dead and all. For some people, Clinton's vote for the IWR, even with her belated confession of error, was a deal-breaker. They would say that, regardless of whether these issues are in the same league, they would not (and did not) vote for Clinton just because of that one issue. I'm saying it's hypocrisy for Clinton supporters to denounce those Stein voters as "purists" who helped elect Trump, but then turn around and proclaim their own single-issue deal-breakers.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)restrictions.
Late-Term Abortion Debate Reveals a Rift Between Clinton and Sanders:
***
Clinton's comments on Monday were largely in line with statements she has made over the years supporting bans, with exceptions, on late-term abortions. Last month, PolitiFact reviewed Clinton's statements on late-term abortions over the years and concluded, "Clinton does not believe that all abortion should be legal. Instead, she's said she supports restrictions on late-term abortions except in cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life and health are in danger." This would mean that despite being the nominee endorsed by the nation's leading pro-choice groups, she is more open to abortion regulation than Sanders.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Amaryllis
(9,524 posts)pecosbob
(7,536 posts)I urge you all to stop voting for centrist neoliberals. Those of use who have voted for Dems for decades have been ecouraged by the movement of millions of former Republicans to the Democratic Party. The Republicans' war on minorities, and women, and science and pretty much everyone else in the country that's not poor, white, uneducated and easily swayed to vote for them has driven many people to the Democratic Party in recent years. This will create problems for the Democratic Party in the near future as all of 'us' try to come to grips with what 'we' all want.
At some point some within the Democratic Party decided it was okay to cozy up to the junk bond salesmen and payday lenders of the world. They saw the Repugs raking all that money in from their benefactors like the Kochs and the CoC and the drying up of their own traditional funding sources such as labor unions and decided they would fight fire with fire. They cooperated with the Repugs in trade agreements that enable predatory corporations to ignore labor unions and wage standards and environmental laws. They helped to push moronic infrastructure investments on cities and small municipalities that benefited no one but the predatory corporations behind them. They've enabled the Repubs to begin wholesale privatization of our education system, dismantling of social security and Medicare and Medicaide.
TLDNR; If you're 'new' to the Democratic Party, try to remember that 'we' are the party of acceptance and inclusion. We do not exclude someone because their views differ from ours, up to a point. I agree that it is a mistake to enforce purity tests for the Party...the time for that is at the Democratic National Convention, where 'we' will decide on our platform. Until, then, again I encourage all of you to vote progressive.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)These are grown adults too! They know it, they'll loudly deny it, and they'll browbeat you bloody for calling them out on it.
It's absurd, confounding, and disheartening.
BrooklynTech
(35 posts)Which isn't completely surprising. Number 3 is probably too busy writing their daily column.
Ladygrey
(8 posts)I have been reading DU for years before joining last week, but this ongoing argument has been totally cray. Personally, I have been on Team Bernie since day one. But I get that for some there will never be anyone but Hillary. I just don't get all the teeth-gnashing & breast beating over who's the best, Mom or Dad. Can't we just praise & take joy in our favorite without feeling the need to trash the non-favorite? And, as far as I know, there has never been any kind of test to prove you are a 'true' Democrat. There's no rigid dogma. Do you agree with most of positions held by various Democrats you know personally or hear on TV or social media? Then you probably are a Democrat. I have pretty much considered myself a Democrat for more than 4 decades, but I only very recently actually joined. I would like to think I joined a big family that might have an occasional squabble, not one of those dysfunctional families where whisper campaigns & back stabbing are the norm.
hjh3rd
(25 posts)I am probably making a mistake. At the end of the day, Bernie and Hillary were not that far off on their positions during the primaries. One went further here and the other went further there but at the end of the day, one could support either candidate without feeling like they were selling their soul. I supported Hillary throughout but would have gladly voted for Bernie in the general. What I do take issue with from the original poster is the characterization that Bernie did nothing wrong by supporting Mello. I get that you are not going to get perfect candidates every time especially in Red States and you need to support the Democrat/Liberal even if they are not perfect. I also understand that there are people on the Left who do not support abortion as crazy as that seems to me. Tim Kaine is the perfect example. What I do not support is someone who actively advocates any legislation that in any way puts a roadblock up to a woman getting an abortion. That is the sin that Mello committed and it should automatically disqualify him from getting support from the Left. As a gay man, I don't really have a stake in the matter except that impacts over 50% of the political party I affiliate myself with, so if I want to have support for my issues which do not impact them directly, then I better damn well support them. There are just certain issues that you shouldn't be ready to compromise on and if that gets me tarred with the "identity" politics flag, so be it.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)If he hadn't ignored the GA race.