A tale of two leaders of the left: New books by Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton

[Hassin Bin Sober]

Interesting review of two recent books by our leaders.

A tale of two leaders of the left: New books by Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton emphasize their differences


http://www.salon.com/2017/09/09/a-tale-of-two-leaders-of-the-left-new-books-by-bernie-sanders-and-hillary-clinton-emphasize-their-differences/

Well before folks could get their hands on Hillary Clinton’s new memoir of the 2016 presidential election, “What Happened,” word was out that VIP tickets for her book tour were running upwards of $2,000. In contrast, Bernie Sanders launched “Bernie Sanders’ Guide to Political Revolution” with a few media interviews and a slate of agenda items for the new Senate session to consider. Folks wanting a copy of the book could find it in the teen non-fiction section of their local bookstore.

[jalan48]

1. This should be interesting.

[calimary]

2. No kidding.

[NastyRiffraff]

5. Yeah, it's just the beginning.

Trolls a-trolling, media pulling shit out of their collective ass.

[lapucelle]

10. Sophia McClennen?

Didn't she recommend voting for Stein?

"Even as we watched Bernie concede and then campaign for Clinton, we weren’t on board. We turned to Jill Stein and began supporting her campaign."

snip--------------------------------------------

"We can go ahead and do the painful thing of voting for Clinton, while also supporting the Green Party and the progressive platform. There is no reason to not keep contributing to Stein, not to keep sharing her message."

snip--------------------------------------------

"I’m advocating for us to abandon the either/or logic that forces us to choose between helping advance a hawkish, pro-Wall Street neoliberal or living in Trump-land. Many of us can, in fact, vote for Stein, if we are in states where there is no toss-up. But you can’t chance a vote for Stein, if you are in a swing state where the race is close."

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/30/fear-is-a-great-motivator-how-to-reconcile-voting-for-clinton-while-still-supporting-progressive-candidates/

[clu]

12. there may be a lot she's glossing over

but for the third snip, a CA/NY stein vote should be treated with special consideration when comparing sanders/independent vote totals if looking back at the presidential election. I can search on my own to see what's been cited here in the past as a spoiled vote.

[lapucelle]

15. It's stunning to me

that any Democrat would reference an opinion piece written by a Stein supporter here on DU.

[Me.]

17. Me Too

[lapucelle]

20. So it's both literally and figuratively

stunning to Me.

[The Polack MSgt]

33. Well played

[Expecting Rain]

24. Me three.

Many posts here astound me.

[lapucelle]

28. ....

[Hortensis]

86. What?! "Word is out" that Bernie's book is relegated to the teen section of local bookstores?

All an evil Democratic Party plot? Do they imagine the booksellers industry is part of the Democrats' evil deep state now?

I'm just imagining our local Bible Belters' reactions if they found his book being specifically pushed at their children. Not exactly.

But not so funny: This post is a pile of slanders and misinformation: Hit job on Hillary and Democrats while feeding the paranoia of those who believe they were and are victimizing Sanders.

[George II]

23. Thanks for the research, the quotes, and the motives of the author of the article.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

29. No, from your link (did you read it or cherry pick it?) she says to vote for Clinton.

Four years of Trump will be long enough to destroy our universities, diversity, climate, press, economy and planet. I may not like the direction things will go under Clinton but she has a point when she asks us to imagine Trump holding the nuclear codes.

Put simply, we can vote for Clinton without liking her at all. We can vote for her because we are able to process the extreme differences between what she will do in the White House versus the apocalypse that is on offer from Trump.

Clinton will be bad, in my view. But Trump will be catastrophic. From climate change to education, from foreign policy to gun control, virtually on every single policy issue, there is a measurable difference. It’s the difference between a neoliberal platform and full-out fascism.

[Rob H.]

42. This is the most relevant part quoted above

Many of us can, in fact, vote for Stein, if we are in states where there is no toss-up. But you can’t chance a vote for Stein, if you are in a swing state where the race is close."

McClennen's not wrong. My state would've gone to Trump no matter who the Democratic nominee was, so I could've voted for Spider-Man or Bigfoot if I wanted to (Spider-Man because he knows with great power comes great responsibility, Bigfoot because he cares about the environment) and it ultimately wouldn't have mattered, anyway.

[guillaumeb]

126. The last snip presents a more nuanced view.

Where she said:
But you can’t chance a vote for Stein, if you are in a swing state where the race is close."

[lapucelle]

128. How calculated and self-serving to reserve plausable deniability for herself.

But don't forget to continue to support and chat up voters about Jill!

[guillaumeb]

131. One interpretation.

If I believed that Stein was at all serious about establishing a viable Green Party, which I do not, I might understand a local vote for a local Green candidate. But Stein is, in my view, a once every four year opportunist/publicity seeker who enjoys her brief moment of quadrennial national attention.

[lapucelle]

135. I take McClellen at at her word.

"We can go ahead and do the painful thing of voting for Clinton, while also supporting the Green Party and the progressive platform. There is no reason to not keep contributing to Stein, not to keep sharing her message."

I wonder how many hapless voters and in myriad states McClellen and her crew impacted by financing and promoting the odious Jill Stein.

People like McClellen knew exactly what they were doing. They are fully responsible and can neither absolve themselves of responsibility nor run from the concomitant contempt that they are now facing.

[elleng]

27. Didn't take long.

[matt819]

3. This is like the election

Commentators are trying to nitpick differences and differentiate them in ways that are fundamentally meaningless.

They have written two different books for two different purposes and different audiences. It's not a matter of Hillary looking backward or Bernie looking forward. Bernie is not writing a memoir and Hillary is not writing a political manifesto. It is the proverbial apples and oranges.

If Bernie chose to write a memoir and Hillary chose to write a political manifesto. The exact same commentary would apply, just to the other person

[George II]

22. And she did one in a negative light, the other in a positive light. Curious that.

[Lordquinton]

43. Mirrored the tone

Of the books perhaps?

[George II]

56. Nope. Sanders had some pretty negative things to say about Clinton and the Democrats, too....

....but that didn't make the headlines.

[Lordquinton]

94. Such as?

He had some harsh criticism, but that's allowed, isn't it?

[George II]

95. Not gonna fall for that...

[Lordquinton]

101. So you don't actually have anything to back up your claim

Again.

Duly noted.

[George II]

102. Sure I do, but you know how it is.

[Lordquinton]

107. Yep, I know.

The content of your post says everything.

[lapucelle]

59. One of the books hasn't been released yet.

It's a little tough to "mirror the tone" of something one hasn't yet read.

But that's no reason not to rely on the opinion of the Stein-supporting, Democratic Party-bashing prescient literary critic with a personal agenda contrary to our interests.

[Lordquinton]

97. So many qualifers show your bias

And makes me not take you seriously. One book is out, and one has strategically leaked pages. One is about encouraging future generations to get involved, one seems to be about shifting blame to the other author. True, we won't know for sure until all 400 pages are released, but encouraging future generations is great for the party.

[George II]

109. Have you read Sanders' book, or any of the many others that he's written?

[Lordquinton]

122. Have you?

[George II]

124. I've read more than two pages.

You can read Clinton's entire book starting tomorrow. Excited?

[lapucelle]

125. Revisionism can be so amusing.

Mrs. Clinton's memoir will be released tomorrow. She has made two excerpts available, one concerning the Trump debate stalking incident and the other concerning her marriage to Bill.

https://www.vogue.com/article/hillary-clinton-memoir-what-happened-how-bill-clinton-helped-her-cope-2016-election-loss

The purloined page in the twitter post that engendered privileged umbrage and righteous indignation to the degree that a book-burning was recommended was not an excerpt released by the publisher or the author. Funny how it quickly became the focus of the third party spoilers.

This is especially odd because the very first personal memoir on the 2016 presidential election was rather insensitively released on November 9 to maximize publicity and profits, which might explain why the easily outraged glossed over this page:

Link to tweet

How very inspirational and statesmanlike! How measured, mature and self-reflective! Of course it is perfectly reasonable for a candidate to absolve himself from any personal responsibility whatsoever for an electoral loss; after all, he had only been inside the Beltway for the past 26 years. It's difficult to forge meaningful collegiale relationships in a scant two and a half decades.

As for the wisdom of sourcing the budding literary critic cited in the OP, well she was clever enough to urge others to support and vote for Jill Stein, while insuring that she reserved self-serving plausible deniability about having done so herself. It is the very essence of a profile in courage.

Because she is the "expert" you site, you clearly take Ms. McClellen seriously. I thank you for the compliment of not putting me in the same company as the self-serving, short-sighted, and shallow. It is exactly as I would want it.

[George II]

116. But everyone knows what it's going to say!

There have been several reports by those who got advance copies of the book and read the entire thing. They've said that overall it was a very positive book and spoke glowingly about Sanders. Unfortunately all anyone wants to talk about is the excerpts from just two pages of a 470 page book.

Sad.

[emulatorloo]

80. Tone? From Bernie Sander's "Our Revolution".

Link to tweet

[JHan]

84. My word, this should shut the thread down.

I remember the attacks on the women's groups, poor Dolores Huerta, lgbt groups , etc as establishment because they dared endorse HRC, the attacks on Dolores were particularly disgusting.

I've never seen or read anything like it in a Dem primary.

[emulatorloo]

85. Nor have I. When a women's healthcare provider under constant attack by Republicans is labeled

"Establishment" you gotta wonder if the term had any real meaning in 2016.

I am a Bernie primary supporter, I will no doubt be attacked for posting this because it counters DU orthodoxy.

I don't have any problem with Bernie saying these things, it is his story to tell. I just get tired of the gaslighting on DU

[JHan]

90. Yep, the revisionism doesn't help at all..This thread on the book issue is great:

Link to tweet

It's worth reading from start to finish.

I agree with you that the word "establishment" has lost all meaning.

As an example: Robert Costa tweeted this morning that Trump is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, he's a " freewheeling, transactional pol who looks for wins." - An embarrassing tweet given what we know of Trump and Acosta has access to the WH. On twitter Jay Ronsen remarked "I don't think laziness or talking points captures it. Any movement away from party creatures is a move toward the self-image of the press."


This is what we're dealing with - image making, superficiality masquerading as deep analysis, and facts count for little. You can't make sense of it because it's all about who controls narratives.... Gotham Girl accurately sussed out the "who" here..

[peggysue2]

110. Thanks for that!

I agree with everything GothamGirl said in that thread. Hillary Clinton called it, saw the Trumpster for everything he was and was not. But she was routinely ignored, harassed and ridiculed for the effort. How's that working out for all of us???

As for Costa?

There are too many journalists/pundits who are desperate to normalize Trump, to find a single pearl in a load of crap and call it a PIVOT. So now, the crazy and erratic is nailed down as freewheeling and transactional. The Trumpster just wants to have fun. And win.

Newsflash: There's nothing remotely normal about Trump. Freewheeling is just another word for reckless. And transactional? Yeah, it all comes down to the Art of the Bad Deal. Bad for us, not for the Umber Emperor.

I'm beginning to think these pundits are trying to shake away their complicity in electing the biggest fraud in history. Great TV, that was candidate Trump. Great for network ratings/money-making. But then there's the Trumpsters' distaste for women, POC, gays, immigrants, the environment, etc. Not so good for the bottom line. So maybe they can redeem all that unwarranted attention and focus before the election by suggesting that the man is now on the verge of a complete conversion, sees the light, gets in touch with his human side and . . . PIVOTS.

Nope. Hillary was right once again. There is no other Donald Trump. What you see is what you get--a narcissistic ignoramus who is hellbent on taking the entire country down with him. There's no redeeming that.

[George II]

112. Let me ask you this, and I'm being sincere, do you have a problems with Clinton saying....

....the things she's been quoted (selectively) as saying? Is it her story to tell?

Thanks.

[emulatorloo]

130. I have the book on pre-order

[LiberalLovinLug]

88. How is this in any way an attack on Hillary Clinton?

It is a statement of facts.

Thank's for reminding us of just how steep a hill Sanders had to climb. And not even mentioning the DNS shenanigins and DWS fingers on the scale.

[treestar]

115. That was because of all the work she did

As a Democrat, building all of those connections over the years. He's whining it was "unfair." When he just joined the party to run for POTUS. Dismissing all the work she did, and expecting it to go away because he'd decided to jump in.

[LiberalLovinLug]

132. You are such a great debater!

Of straw men.

When did Bernie ever whine that it was unfair? That excerpt just stated the reality he was up against. .....and even the courts concluded that the DNC did blatantly work for Hillary to win.

And when did Bernie dismiss all the work she did? ......As if Bernie did no work himself

[treestar]

133. right there in that blurb

he complains about how she had all the endorsements. And his work was not for the D party and often against it.

I hope no DNC ever lets this happen again.

[LiberalLovinLug]

134. He was stating what he was up against

In a matter of fact way. And only highlights the strength of his message and his awesomely successful campaign all things considered.

Frankly anyone defending the DNCs behaviour towards the Sanders campaign is pretty ballsy. Legally they scraped through. Ethically appalling.

I do agree with you on that "I hope that no DNC ever let's that happen again" Because the next time it might be the candidate YOU are rooting for that they step on the scales against.

[Rob H.]

129. You're right, of course

It's giving context for what the Sanders campaign's strategy would have to be as he headed out to the campaign trail. These are three paragraphs directly following the excerpt posted above.

In the face of this, our campaign strategy was not complicated. If the campaign was to succeed and gain momentum, we absolutely had to do well in the early states, Iowa and New Hampshire, followed by strong showings in Nevada and South Carolina. If we did poorly in the early states, the media would lose interest, our funding would dry up, and the campaign would be dead in its tracks. In the early stages of the campaign we did not have the luxury of planning out a national fifty-state strategy. It was all or nothing in the early states—especially Iowa and New Hampshire.

As we thought about New Hampshire, the first stop for us on the campaign trail and the second state up in the nominating process, there was good news and bad news. The good news was that I was reasonably well known in the state given its proximity to Vermont. The bad news was that Clinton was popular in New Hampshire and way ahead of us in early polls. In 2008 she had defeated Obama there, resurrecting her campaign after a loss in Iowa. Bill Clinton had also done well in New Hampshire when he was a candidate. In fact, in his 1992 campaign, amidst all of the allegations regarding sexual impropriety that were then plaguing him, he did well enough there to become the "Comeback Kid."

Our plan for New Hampshire was pretty simple. In the last contested Democratic primary there in 2008, when Clinton defeated Obama, 287,000 people voted. My thought was that if we worked really hard, we could hold a hundred town meetings and rallies in the state leading up to the primary in early February. We could accomplish that by spending thirty or forty days campaigning there, doing two or three events a day. If we were able to bring out an average of a hundred people a meeting, which I thought possible, we would be able to bring some ten thousand people to our meetings. And that’s pretty good. In 2008 Clinton won New Hampshire with 112,404 votes. If the voter turnout was similar in 2016, it would mean that almost 10 percent of the people I needed to win would have heard from me face-to-face. And those who attended have husbands and wives, brothers and sisters and friends whom they talk to. Word of mouth, after all, is the best form of advertising. If we were able to accomplish that goal, I believed we could do well there.


Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In by Bernie Sanders, Part One, Chapter 6, "On the Campaign Trail," page 131

[Lordquinton]

99. That's a description of what he was up against

And the lawsuit confirmed it was an "unfair system"

Narsisstic? How? He was listening the obstacles he had to surmount. He wasn't blaming anyone except the system, and he was vindicated in that.

People need to stop hating on one of our greatest members of the Senate, we're doing the Republicans job for them.

[mcar]

113. I thought

One is about encouraging future generations to get involved, one seems to be about shifting blame to the other author.

[Lordquinton]

121. Yes

You're following along.

[OilemFirchen]

4. "...the teen non-fiction section of their local bookstore."

[white_wolf]

14. What's wrong with trying to reach young people?

He wrote a book aimed at adults sometime last year.

[OilemFirchen]

57. Nothing at all.

Shel Silverstein did so when I was a teen. I modeled my life based on his insight.

But he didn't go on arena tours hawking his books to my mom and dad.

[LanternWaste]

96. Hawking a published book one wrote seems rather benign.

Hawking a published book one wrote seems rather benign, but I was rather certain someone would have the bias and the narrative to trivialize it as something else.

[George II]

19. Yep.

[lapucelle]

81. Maybe the adaptations will become

a lucrative millennial version of the oh-so-popular "Chicken Soup for the Soul" series of the last century. Who knew a revolution could be so successfully monetized?

[jalan48]

47. And to top it all off there's no VIP seating in the teen section.

[pennylane100]

6. I am a die hard Bernie Fan,

and I immediately supported Hillary after she won the nomination. I plan on reading both books because I admire them both and am disgusted about all the petty bickering that goes on about them on this site.

[shanny]

40. Amen.

[sprinkleeninow]

105. We were staunchly for HRC but would've voted for Sen. Sanders IF

he became the other option.

What the hell is going on??

Now, this made me utter a cuss word! 😣

[StevieM]

7. What a disgusting article. She belittles and dismisses everything HRC has worked for her entire

career and makes her out to be someone who is hopelessly cynical just because she felt some of Bernie's promises were unrealistic.

And, of course, if HRC has something to say about things she didn't think were fair then she is placing blame. Meanwhile, she hasn't even read the whole book, since it isn't out yet, but no need to wait when you have what you need to launch a personal attack.

This whole article was one long personal attack that dismissed her campaign and its supporters as antiquated members of the status quo with either no respectable vision or no vision at all.

[Control-Z]

11. A whole big bunch of jealousy -

professional and otherwise. The writer's life will never be a fraction of what Hillary's is. She needs to demean Hillary to feel better about her pathetic self.

[George II]

21. And some of it is false, too. Note that she said "word was out that VIP tickets...."

That's equivalent to "...it has been reported...", "...the rumor is....", "...according to unnamed sources...."

Ms. McClennen, where did the "word" come from?

[sheshe2]

37. Where?

Hmmm....never mind.

[Lordquinton]

49. You found it linked down thread?

Good, good.

[sprinkleeninow]

108. I know what you are thinkin' covertly! 😆

[Lordquinton]

50. It's linked down thread

I'm assuming a correction to your post is being crafted?

[George II]

75. The author conveniently left that out. I'll correct my post when Ms. McClennen corrects hers.

[Lordquinton]

93. "They go low, we go high"

Isn't that the motto?

[George II]

118. Your point?

[Lordquinton]

120. I'll let it speak for itself

[George II]

123. Hah!

PS - I see you're continuing to go after me in a group where you requested I be blocked and can't reply (and continuing to search out posts of mine to respond to).

And what were you saying about "high" and "low"?

Bless your heart.

[Lordquinton]

44. That's the problem with leaks

They are what the subject is judged on. Many "leaks" are strategic, so it has to be assumed that the content that was leaked was intentional.

[OKNancy]

8. Has she read the 473 pages of the book? Whatever, this woman is a Bernie person and biased

She could never write an honest review.

Example:


google her name and Sanders.

[lunamagica]

9. UNITY!!!

[DURHAM D]

13. Tripe

[Me.]

16. Well I See Salon Hasn't Changed Its Stripes

Wasn't HA Goodman available? And didn't the Senator make a profit on his previous book? But let's scatter the old false equivalence meme around again.

[George II]

18. The Salon article is incorrect. For example, two nights ago Clinton appeared at Riverside Church...

....(the same church where Sanders appeared a week or two earlier)

Seats were $75 each, and every single penny was donated to a summer camp for NYC children. On the other hand, admission to some of Sanders' events required purchase of a book. So that excerpt cited above is incorrect.

[leftofcool]

31. Salon never allows facts to determine what goes in their articles

[BainsBane]

36. $50 is the beginning ticket price

and they sell out very quickly. Still high of course, but she is a private citizen, not a politician looking "forward" to 2020.

I'm assuming the money goes to Onward Together, which advances Democratic candidates and issues, and of course that only further upsets the Stein/Trump coalition.

[ismnotwasm]

26. Ew. That Stein/JPR stink.

Nasty.

[leftofcool]

30. I think it's adorable that Salon believes Hillary gives a fuck!

[George II]

32. +1,000,000

[Demsrule86]

34. Why another deserving person made a great deal of money last years. Good for Sen. Sanders!

It is nice to see progressive books enjoying this much success.

"...The popular Independent(Bernie Sanders) who was further catapulted into the spotlight during his 2016 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination made more than $1 million last year, according to his most recent U.S. Senate financial disclosure released Sunday. The majority of his income came from book royalties, most notably a $795,000 advance for his recently published "Our Revolution." Released a week after President Donald Trump was elected in November, the book quickly became a best-seller."




http://time.com/money/4805379/bernie-sanders-2016-income/

[George II]

38. 1%

[BainsBane]

35. Always nice to read a Stein/Trump voter's perspective on things

Because that is who the author of the linked article is. Expectedly, it bears little relation to the truth. Anyone who watched or read any news coverage since the GE knows that Sanders' has made a continual string of criticisms of the primary, Clinton, and Democratic voters.

It is fascinating to see Sanders' fans take a sudden interest in moving forward, after many months of nothing but complaints about the primary. And while it's obvious it is motivated by the determination not to be subject to even a fraction of the criticism they have directed toward the rest of the population, I suppose we can hope they have had a sudden change of heart and will try to move forward. I do hope that means we will stop seeing the repetition of Kremlin propaganda, refuted by reputable news sources.

I also hope it means that Nomiki Konst and others will give up on their voter disenfranchisement efforts, which may, in the most charitable explanation, be an effort to remake the eligible electorate in ways they think will benefit Bernie in the a potential 2020 run. Of course, it is possible that the effort to replace primaries with caucuses comes from a genuine opposition to the voting rights of the poor, people of color, the elderly, disabled, shift workers, and women with childcare obligations, so that voting once again be the sole province of white people with property, in keeping with the Jeffersonian ideal. We wouldn't want Sally Hemmings descendants mucking up the system by voting in their own interests.

[pnwmom]

39. Another Salon hit job. Salon has been among the media people who have been damning

Hillary for not beating Trump. Now they're criticizing her for defending herself, of course.

[comradebillyboy]

76. Salon has been non stop Hillary hate for the last two years.

I don't give them clicks for any reason now.

[Rob H.]

41. So, Google is a thing...

for people saying VIP ticket prices have been exaggerated. Full Newsweek article here.

Excerpt:

VIP TICKETS FOR HILLARY CLINTON'S BOOK TOUR COST OVER $2,000
BY JOHN HALTIWANGER ON 8/31/17 AT 4:13 PM

Hillary Clinton is set to travel across North America this fall to promote What Happened, the former secretary of state's new book about running for president against Donald Trump.

Those who wish to attend Clinton's book tour appearances will apparently have to dish out a fair amount of money.

The "platinum VIP ticket" to Clinton's talks in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal costs $2,375.95 (or 2,967 Canadian dollars), Fox News reports. For those who can afford it, the ticket brings two front-row seats, a photo with Clinton backstage and a signed book.

VIP ticket prices for Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver are $3,000CDN via the website selling the tickets.

You're welcome.

[Beaverhausen]

45. And?

VIP tickets exist. How much are the other tickets?

How often are you able to attend a live event to hear a former presidential candidate, one who got 3 million more votes than the opponent, for free?

[Rob H.]

46. "And" the OP quotes the article, which says

"word was out that VIP tickets for her book tour were running upwards of $2,000" and multiple people in this thread are saying that isn't true, only it is true, which people would know if they bothered to take a minute to Google.

Again, you're welcome.

[Beaverhausen]

51. ok but I was trying to make a point

The price of tickets to her live events is the least of the ridiculousness of this "review"- considering the author hasn't even read the entire book yet.

[yardwork]

55. Do you understand the difference between a VIP ticket and a regular ticket?

[Autumn]

58. A 2,911.00 difference in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.

General admission is $89.00 and the tickets go up from there. I wonder if that includes a copy of the book.

[yardwork]

60. It's a fundraiser. And 90 bucks is a very reasonable charge for a fundraising event.

It's flat out untrue that tickets start at $2,000, as the poster I responded to has asserted.

[Autumn]

66. The poster didn't say the tickets start at $2,000,the poster said the ticket run upwards of $2,000,

unless I missed an earlier exchange between the two of you where he asserted that they started at $2,000. As I said in my post, the tickerts in Canada start at $89 and go upwards to $3,000.00.

[yardwork]

68. "Run upwards of" means the same as "prices start at" and that's patently false.

[Autumn]

70. The poster quoted the article. Anymore journilism sucks. It sounds like the writer

went with toward a higher place, point or level. What's the fund raiser for? I didn't find what she is raising money for at either link.

[emulatorloo]

78. Well said. In my book a half-truth is the same as a lie. Typical for click-bait "journalism"

[leftofcool]

127. It goes to "Onward Together"

That is the Clinton/Obama charity for down ticket Democrats.

[Rob H.]

69. Do you understand that the Salon article states that

"word was out that VIP tickets for her book tour were running upwards of $2,000," which people in this thread are trying to claim is untrue, but unfortunately for them, is very much true?

Here's what I said in post 41, with bold and italics added for emphasis: "So, Google is a thing...for people saying VIP ticket prices have been exaggerated."

[yardwork]

71. The assertion has been proven false in this very thread.

Ticket prices for these events start at under $100. The Salon article makes a false assertion.

[Rob H.]

72. No, it hasn't, and the Salon article doesn't. Nice try, though.

"run upwards of" ≠ "starting at"

[yardwork]

73. Link to $89 tickets here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9578105

[Rob H.]

74. LOL

You trying to ignore it doesn't change the fact that the article in the OP is talking about VIP tickets, the prices of which were the ones being disputed. You have a nice day, now.

[LanternWaste]

98. I especially enjoy your deft and dexterous moment of the goal-posts.

I especially enjoy your deft and dexterous moment of the goal-posts.

[Rob H.]

106. Do you like unicorns and leprechauns, too?

Last edited Mon Sep 11, 2017, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Because those things don't exist, either.

[Autumn]

79. That's also the link to the $3,000.00 VIP tickets. You seem to be ignoring that part of my post,

the $89.00 tickets are general admission. The VIP tickests are at the 3,000.00 level. Now what is the funraser for?

[Lordquinton]

48. Ah, facts...

What can't they do?

[yardwork]

61. The facts show that the tickets start at under $100.

[berni_mccoy]

62. The poster called out that these were VIP tickets, so not sure what your point is.

The fact is, she's making a great deal of money off of this.

[yardwork]

64. She's a politician. They raise money. It's what they do.

Democrats are better than Republicans so I want to elect Democrats. You are welcome to spend a lot of time wringing your hands over fundraising. You see where that gets us. Trump is making billions off us. Good work!

[berni_mccoy]

65. Not anymore she's not. And the last time she stopped being a politician, she made millions

Off of selling her association. This is just more of the same. That is the point.

[yardwork]

67. Where did Bernie get the money for his big lakefront house?

Why didn't he donate the money to charity? Or perhaps pay back some of the people whose lives were ruined when Jane Sanders drove an entire college out of business? Hmm?

[emulatorloo]

83. She has a PAC to help progressive Democrats win and mentor new candidates wanting to run for office

Similar to Our Revolution. It is called Onward Together. Also raises money for activist groups who are resisting Trump.

What is "more of the same" is your campaign of half-truths and innuendo about Democrats.

[Autumn]

82. Again I ask. Can you give me the link as to which Fundraiser she is selling the tickets for?

I can't seem to find that information on the Canadian or the US ticket site. I like to donate to worthy fundraisers.

[LanternWaste]

100. The goal of many, many accomplished authors.

"The fact is, she's making a great deal of money off of this..."

That being the goal of many, many accomplished authors being the only relevant reason for the inclusion of your statement I can infer.

[Autumn]

87. The general admission tickets are at $89. VIP tickets are much higher.

[LanternWaste]

103. Her general admission ticket prices seem equitable to the general admission prices for B-list pop co

Her general admission ticket prices seem equitable to the general admission prices for B-list pop concerts. Though VIP prices are much higher...

[Lordquinton]

92. And go up to the amount reported

Fact is fact.

[flotsam]

53. A-fucking-men! N/T

[Jakes Progress]

63. So when did russia get a reporter on Salon.

And just how many here are shallow enough to let them do this to them again?

[emulatorloo]

77. A tale of a click-bait "journalist"

Critical reading skills are important

[LiberalLovinLug]

89. Good article K&R

While the lawsuit that alleged fraud over the Democratic National Committee’s handling of the 2016 presidential primary came to an end a couple of weeks ago, the legal proceedings, along with the hacked DNC emails, showed that the DNC leadership exhibited a clear case of bias against the Sanders campaign. DNC lawyers argued that they did not have a legal obligation to be neutral. And so the case was dropped.

The lawsuit is really only the tip of a much larger iceberg that surrounded the #DemExit movement. From the debate schedule to superdelegates to the disputes over the DNC platform itself, Sanders and his supporters had plenty to gripe about.

But rather than write a book about all of the ways that he got screwed by the DNC, Sanders took the high road and helped campaign for Clinton, then, after she lost, he focused on advancing his agenda. Meanwhile basically every public statement Clinton has issued since the election has focused on how the presidency was stolen from her.


I think it was a mistake for her to gripe about Sanders in her book, after all the advantages she had going in. But I also think the media cherry picked that "mistake" and is trying to make a bigger deal out of it than is warranted. I was dismayed that even Colbert couldn't seem to stop trying to goad Sanders into reacting and badmouthing Hillary in his interview, by insisting on a response to probably one paragraph in the entire book. But Sanders, as usual, stuck to the high road.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

91. Sanders is a true leader on a mission. No time for petty bullshit

[LanternWaste]

104. I like Sanders. I certainly hope more of his followers begin to emulate him.

I like Sanders. I certainly hope more of his followers begin to emulate him.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

[BainsBane]

119. Did you ever read his book?

Link to tweet

/photo/1

[left-of-center2012]

111. I'm going to guess ...

I'm going to guess one author talked about the future,
and one talked about the past?

[BainsBane]

114. I don't think the author of that article actually read Bernie's book

Link to tweet

Of course, I suppose it's possible he's just truth-challenged, like the president he chose, Donald Trump.

[nolabear]

117. OFFS. She uses every disgusting tool there is to write a biased "article."

Jesus. I can't take any of this bullshit seriously. It's like a paid comments section.