A friend just sent this me and I see no lies…

[MrScorpio]

Face It Sanders Fans, You’d Turn On Bernie In a Heartbeat If He Actually Won the White House

Chez Pazienza on September 09, 2015

It’s tough not to admire Bernie Sanders. He’s a ferocious advocate for his constituents and the middle and working class as well as a guy willing to openly identify as a socialist in a country that’s always considered that a dirty word. Sanders is a genuinely decent guy and his voice in the Senate has been an invaluable one. He doesn’t mince words or pander and he doesn’t worry about much other than representing voters to the best of his abilities and sticking to his political guns as best he can. Even if you disagree with his worldview he deserves a good amount of respect for walking the walk in terms of being a man of the people.

With all of this in mind it’s easy to see why Sanders has a legion of supporters for his 2016 presidential campaign — and why those supporters are largely the kind of people you’ve already unfriended on Facebook because they won’t shut the fuck up about how Bernie is the Great Liberal Messiah come to save us all. The Sanders fanatics are hands-down the most insufferably self-righteous among the politically motivated these days, proudly aiming hosannas in the direction of any word that tumbles out of their candidates’s mouth and touting each and every poll that shows him gaining ground as proof that America is “feeling the Bern” and turning its back on literally everything it’s voted for up to this point in its history. Sanders is a far better person than, say, a Ralph Nader — at the very least he’s running because he genuinely wants to do good and not simply to hear the sound of his own voice — but his supporters love him for the same reason the left loves anyone who forcefully speaks anti-establishment shibboleths: because they believe anything else to be hopelessly corrupt, the product of a broken system.

But here’s the problem: The office of the President of the United States is arguably the most establishment position in the world and anyone who ascends to it automatically becomes the head of a machine the left, by its very nature, dislikes and doesn’t trust. The left, certainly the strain of the left that would get behind someone like Bernie Sanders, is notoriously anti-authoritarian and while this doesn’t necessarily mean it wouldn’t be thrilled to see Sanders become the ultimate authority, it would make it suspicious of his intentions and actions from that point forward. The benefit of the doubt likely wouldn’t last for very long and former acolytes would quickly become attuned to signs of betrayal. And that betrayal would absolutely arrive at some point.

If there’s anything we’ve learned from the presidency of Barack Obama it’s that a lot of self-described progressives are petulant children for whom no candidate will ever be good enough, fair-weather friends who are more than happy to support a candidate but who turn up their noses as soon as he or she is put in a position of actual governance. See, there’s no such thing as an elected official who will give you everything you want, and more than any other partisan bent it’s the left that reacts terribly to not getting every single thing it wants. The left loves to ignore inconvenient political reality — and the impact of political reality is simply an inevitability for elected officials.

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/09/face-it-sanders-fans-youd-turn-on-bernie-in-a-heartbeat-if-he-actually-won-the-white-house/

[irisblue]

1. Thx MrS

this article is very good

[Chitown Kev]

2. I've been saying this for the longest time

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/a-former-ally-says-bernie-sanders-has-changed/Content?oid=2775474

[MrScorpio]

8. I just sent it to my friend who shot me the blog post

Thanks!

[Tarheel_Dem]

111. OMG! Thanks. I needed that.

If this guy were a DU'er, he's surely been isolated and/or banned by now.

"There's no 'friends' there for me," said Diamondstone. "There's nothing, from my point of view. He went in a certain direction, and that was the opposite of mine. Sanders and I suffered a hostile divorce. He was moving to the right, and I was moving to the left."

Diamondstone did admit feeling annoyance that Sanders gets credit, in Vermont and nationally, for an unwavering dedication to his beliefs — as the guy who has been saying the same thing for years, no matter how unpopular.

If that were true, Diamondstone said, Sanders' career would look an awful lot like ... Diamondstone's. He views Sanders as just another sellout who moderated his image and compromised his beliefs to win elections.

"He's a different political person than he was in the good old days," Diamondstone said. "It's changed, big time. It's two different people."

A friend alerted me to an article over at the Socialist website, which I've lost track of, but there ain't much love for him there either.

[progressoid]

132. Wait...

There seems to be a big contradictory statement in that article.

Diamondstone hasn't budged an inch politically.

-VS-

Sanders and I suffered a hostile divorce. He was moving to the right, and I was moving to the left."

So, which is it? Diamandstone hasn't budged or Diamondstone moved to the left?

[cui bono]

3. If there’s anything we’ve learned from the presidency of Barack Obama

it's that the Dem leadership is way too far to the right and treats the Republicans with kid gloves, no, actually, with the respect they don't deserve. Obama gave in to their demands way too often and too often before he even started negotiating.

He installed Wall Street in the White House and put Monsanto in the EPA. He ignored war crimes that we all know did happen and called torturers "patriots". We can and need to do a lot better than that.

Progressives didn't turn on him, they were disappointed by him when he turned on them.

If we get Bernie in we will have someone who will fight to bring back the real values of the Democratic Party. Not the Third Way corporatist bs we keep getting shoved down our throats.

No, just because some don't like to hear any criticism of their beloved Obama doesn't mean it isn't deserved. This blog post fails to realize that. Again, another case of thinking people are "haters" just because they can't fathom that there is a real problem with the policy stances of Obama and the way he embraced the banksters and brought them into his administration. How can anyone NOT criticize that?

[Recursion]

4. No, he will not "fight". There isn't anyone he can punch

Who do you want him to go up and punch (or wrestle)? That is what "fight" means, you know.

A President gets to make some appointments and sign or veto some laws.

[cui bono]

5. What a ridiculous response.

And intentionally obtuse.

[Recursion]

7. No, what's obtuse is pretending that "fight" means something in this context

Nobody ever explains what that actually means in a concrete sense.

So, hey, here's a chance! What would "fighting" look like, in a concrete sense, to you? How could you tell if President Sanders was doing it or not?

[Number23]

11. Please don't forget the endless squawking about how Obama could make everything happen

if he just pounded his fists and used his "bully pulpit."

[Recursion]

13. Oh, I'm not

The funniest times are when you can point the poster to a recent speech where Obama said exactly what the poster was asking him to say. There was this long stretch of "Why isn't Obama using his bully pulpit to demand an increase of the minimum wage?" I would respond with a blue link wall to speeches where he had done just that.

[Cha]

43. Yeah, the BS supporters didn't care to listen to what the Pres actually said.. just pass the

ignorant, cheap pot shots on and on and on.

[tblue37]

38. People who point out that CheneyBush was able to push their agenda through congress

ignore the simple fact that *their* agenda was the same as that of TPTB, so the puppets in congress made no real effor to slow them down, much less to block them altogether.

But Obama has been obstructed at every step, and a lot of Dems are as intransigent and uncooperative as the GOP.

[Recursion]

54. Bush got almost none of his agenda through

He got his war and that was it. His tax cuts were through reconciliation and so sunsetted. SS went nowhere. The only gains he made were triangulation like Medicare Part D and NCLB.

[treestar]

102. Or 911

since their agenda is more war and 911 gave them plenty of political capital for that.

[Bobbie Jo]

91. but, but, but...,

He didn't even tryyyyyy.

[kjones]

143. And people don't even know what the "bully" in "bully pulpit" means

It's "bully" as in "great"...as in "bully good job!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bully_pulpit

"This term was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the White House as a "bully pulpit", by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda. Roosevelt used the word bully as an adjective meaning "superb" or "wonderful", a more common usage in his time than it is today. Another expression which survives from this era is "bully for you", synonymous with "good for you"."

In other words, a great position...albeit one that is very much about advocacy....not dictatorial hand waving (or fist pounding...your choice .


It's like...the president is a legislative veto goalie...not a legislative striker.

[Number23]

144. That's a nice bit of presidential history. thanks for that!

[Jim Lane]

26. A concrete sense of "fighting"

Your question is legitimate. A very quick first draft of an answer, of concrete things Obama didn't do:

* Propose a much larger stimulus package, and one with little or no tax-cut component. He probably couldn't have gotten a Krugmanesque package enacted. Nevertheless, he could and should have started the negotiating much further to the left, and let the Republicans and conservaDems bargain him down somewhat. It's quite likely he would've gotten a better final bill that what actually emerged.

* Appoint someone other than Geithner at Treasury.

* Don't pick Larry Summers as a key economic adviser.

* Send Congress an Obamacare bill that included a robust public option and bargaining with Big Pharma over drug prices. This is another case where he might not have gotten everything he asked for but it was a certainty that he wouldn't get what he didn't ask for. (BTW, note that I'm not including "Send Congress a bill for single payer." That would've been better but it was clear from his campaign that he wouldn't do that.)

* Halt all torture and extraordinary rendition practices.

* Insist in all trade negotiations that the United States would not agree to a treaty that gave corporations undue powers to override democratically enacted laws, or that made it significantly harder for sick people to get medicine, or did any of the other bad things that are clearly going to be in the TPP.

[Recursion]

55. What's wrong with Geithner?

I was glad he picked somebody not from the private sector. That job keeps going to people from Wall Street; Geithner was a breath of fresh air.

[Jim Lane]

79. Geithner was from government but had the Wall Street mindset.

It's too simplistic to say "private sector bad, government (and maybe academia) good." Geithner's orientation was to favor the high-finance people and institutions with whom he was palsy-walsy. He was, accordingly, an important person in the Obama administration's failure to attempt any significant prosecutions for the financial crisis.

[Martin Eden]

75. +1, very good answer with specifics

It should be quite obvious that "fight" is a metaphor referring to pushing hard for good policies and enlisting public support to get it done.

I voted for Barack Obama twice. I applaud some of his accomplishments, but in all honesty I must say I am disappointed in his presidency (yet very thankful neither of his Republican opponents won). Too often this president started from a position of compromise, and he apparently failed to comprehend that from the start the Republicans would place their opposition to him above the good of the country.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

82. After six years of that rhetorical metaphor being used (and explained, repeatedly)

you'd think that people would understand that it does not literally mean punching people or wrestling with them.

Some folks are just a bit slower to figure things out than others, I guess. Maybe after another six years he'll have figured it out.

[treestar]

96. Or maybe Obama did it the way he thought best

and consulted people other than posters of DU, like Biden. Second guessing like this is silly - you don't have a good position from which to judge.

[Jim Lane]

107. Second guessing is perfectly legitimate -- it's how we make progress.

As an old saying goes, if you're smart, you learn from your mistakes, but if you're even smarter you learn from other people's mistakes.

I have no doubt that Obama did it the way he thought best. Nevertheless, more than one commentator (including more than one DUer) has noted that he seems to have become more willing to be forceful of late. My guess is that he himself, being in a good position to judge, has concluded that if he had 2009 to do over, he'd do it differently.

I hope that all of this cycle's Democratic candidates have studied the Obama administration so as to repeat what worked and tweak or junk what didn't.

Anyway, consider the context of my post. The article excerpted in the OP charged that "a lot of self-described progressives are petulant children for whom no candidate will ever be good enough...." Disagreeing with that, cui bono wrote, "If we get Bernie in we will have someone who will fight to bring back the real values of the Democratic Party." In reply, Recursion said, "Nobody ever explains what that actually means in a concrete sense." I provided a few specific examples of how a Democratic President could fight for progressive values.

I voted for Obama over Clinton in the primary, volunteered and voted for him in the general election 2008, and voted for him again in 2012 despite my disagreements with him. I don't regret those choices. Whether you label Obama center-right or center-left, he's certainly better than batshit-crazy-right, which is what the Republicans are consistently offering these days. Nevertheless, progressives have made specific substantive criticisms of Obama for being too conservative. It's not just petulance, as charged in the OP.

[treestar]

128. I don't think that is presumable at all

We just don't know. Obama may not have thought he made any mistake on this. In fact a couple of times he has admitted to mistakes, so he might well on the issues. Being "forceful" is not always the way to go with things.

[druidity33]

74. to me, fighting would include

mentioning and supporting Single Payer, SPEAKING OUT is "fighting."

There have been too many times when Obama hired the absolute wrong person for a position or gave in to demands before getting to the negotiating table. STAND UP for something when you believe in it!

I would not turn on Bernie because i don't think he'll change what he's saying if he's President. If he can't accomplish his agenda, it won't be because he hasn't tried.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

83. +all. nt

[treestar]

97. not true; Obama did not run on single payer

and speaking out about it would not do a damn thing to get it enacted this decade.

And if he had it would be called hot air, just pretty speech.

[msrizzo]

103. Very true...

Obama did not run on single payer. He was very clear about his positions. It was not his fault if people "heard" something else and then decided that he didn't deliver.

[MrScorpio]

6. Since we're NOT taking into account how the SYSTEM makes our leaders do what they do…

I just have to say that you've given me a perfect opportunity to take note of what you've just said at 1:44 AM on the 13th September, 2015.

Thanks!

[cui bono]

10. Put it in your diary! But I actually made the post at 10:44pm ;)

It's true that the system keeps one from being a dictator and enacting whatever one pleases. That's the point of it being set up the way it is.

However, the system did not stand in the way of the appointments Obama made to his administration and he appointed banksters. Neither the system nor the GOP can be blamed for that.

[MrScorpio]

16. The Senate GOP's Unprecedented Obstruction In Five Charts

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/senate-gops-unprecedented-obstruction-five-charts



It's not a perfect world, my friend.

[cui bono]

19. I completely agree that the GOP was obstructionist, however,

what does that have to do with him appointing a bankster to his administration?

[MrScorpio]

20. One person's "bankster" is another person's guy who knows where the bones are buried…

And frankly, I'd rather have a Democratic president telling THAT guy what to do.

[cui bono]

25. You can't redefine someone's career history. n/t

[Yallow]

37. Zero Bankster Prosecutions

Obama would have had to prosecute them by himself, and burn a bunch
of political capital to get "justice" but I think he should have at least
tried to reign in the criminals on Wall Street.

I understand all the Republicans and half the Democrats would be
defending the banksters, but I still think Obama should have put
a few behind bars.

With Bernie all the crooks will be taken down. He won't have all that
much support from cowardly Democrats, and zero support from the
Republican Traitor Cabal, but he will have MILLIONS OF US AND WE
WILL FOLLOW HIS LEAD.

Too bad Obama didn't use "us" to set things right. Probably because
the economy was too fragile to have the final battle, progressives
versus economic terrorists and the billionaires they serve.

[JustAnotherGen]

78. What law were the "banksters"

Supposed to have been arrested for breaking?

[treestar]

100. yeah that one is so over general and unreasonable

and second guesses the decisions of experienced prosecutors - it's almost hilarious they feel qualified to tell the AG who to prosecute. And not even for what. Can't tell how many times I have demanded the statutes under which these banksters were to be prosecuted. Let alone find the evidence.

[Cha]

44. you're absolutely correct Mr Scorpio.. you're not the one who's "trying to define history".. it's

those who have had nothing but ignorant cheap pot shots hurled at the President for the last 7 years.

Poor them.. the President has an excellent legacy and I know it must really hurt them to see it shining so magnificently.

All their ignorant bashing and smearing in vain.

[uponit7771]

12. Obama didn't turn on progressives, he's kept 75% of what he said he'd do and that's conservative...

... Obama asked for progressives help and progressives gave Obama the finger via unreasonable expectations of never ever having to compromise on any of the 100s of liberal tenants.

Something they'll do with Sanders also...

3 out of 4 times Obama wins and does what he says he'd doe isn't giving into demands "way to often" ...

That labeling of Obama is just proof of the articles claim that the Sanders supporters are putelant

[cui bono]

21. Obama asked for the people to hold his feet to the fire at the beginning.

He also said he would put on his "comfortable shoes". Then he turned his back on progressives during the fight for health insurance and his chief of staff told them to STFU. Obama put SS on the table, which no progressive can agree with.

Look, Obama describes himself as a moderate Republican. He's centrist. There is good reason for progressives to be disappointed with him and it has been gone over in depth on DU for years now. Your last statement is utterly false because of this.

The blog post and this OP are simply another jab at Sanders supporters, but this time it is based on a belief in psychic abilities and simply does not follow logic when one takes into account that, as I stated, Obama simply is not a progressive and did a lot of things that progressives were predictably disappointed by.

[uponit7771]

24. You prove my point, Obama made a compromise to get ACA passed...

What you're intimating is Sanders wont do the EXACT SAME THING...

He has already shown he will...

So then what, Sanders is under the bus too!!?!?

I'm talking about Sanders and single payer in VT...

VT!!!!

[cui bono]

28. Obama more than compromised. He didn't try to get what he said he wanted.

He had back room meetings with health insurance and big pharma that he tried to deny and didn't even listen to anyone advocating single-payer. He shunned progressives and their desires. That is why progressives criticize him. We are not criticizing him because he had to work with a moronic GOP, we criticize him because he gave in to them before he had to and gave them what they wanted before they even had to ask for it.

But again, this has all been argued plenty on DU already. The fact is this blogger is writing as if they have psychic abilities and this is not based on fact at all. It's simply yet another attempt to discredit Sanders supporters with no factual basis.

[uponit7771]

119. LOL!! So it OK for Sanders to compromise just not "MORE THAN" compromise!?!? Sanders supporters

... are starting to hedge already!!!

Look, the expectations of Obama from the far left are slightly petulant including having a perfect "compromise" meter.

[cui bono]

140. What? I said nothing of the kind.

The fact is Obama didn't just compromise. He didn't negotiate as if he wanted anything he claimed he wanted. He gave in before he even tried to negotiate. Read Rich whatever's post, #36.

If you want to discuss this, then discuss it. But don't make up shit about what I have said and try to be civil. Your attempt to ridicule only makes you look bad, not me.

It's amazing that people have the nerve to claim Sanders supporters are the mean and rude ones on DU. That's not what the evidence shows at all.

[Cha]

46. you can't talk to them, uponit.. they've dug their heels in and determined to keep pushing their

ignorant cheap pot shots.

They can never ever admit they are wrong and Obama is an Excellent President.

BS said there weren't the votes to get single payer passed. But, "it's all Obama's fault!!!111" They're too invested in trying to bring him down. Too bad for them.. it never worked out for them.

BS supports the drone program.. but, that's all fine with them. It's different with Obama.. he can do nothing right to some posters here.. clearly on the wrong side of history.

[uponit7771]

123. Cha, this HAS to be FUD... The ONE person who talked about Primaring (sp) Obama gives Obama tepid

... acknowledgement of any accomplishments, makes a claim that Obama didn't ask for help and he himself (Bernie) never lead any of the 1o2rinr million people marches to show strength of support for certain legislation even in his own state.

It's like they're being reflexively antagonistic against anything Obama...

very wingerish

[pnwmom]

29. Right. He has accomplished a great deal under extremely challenging circumstances. n/t

[Cha]

47. yeah, notice how those trying to bring him down never mention All his accomplishments.. they're

too invested in passing on ignorant, cheap shot misinformation.

[steve2470]

14. He is going to have to compromise to get anything done

That's National Politics 101. If he doesn't, his entire tenure will be one gigantic battle after another, and the Republicans will try to impeach him. I'm quite confident if President Obama was Dictator Obama, the country would be a far better place today.

[cui bono]

23. I agree with your last statement. But I think it would be far better off if Sanders

were Dictator Sanders since Sanders is a progressive.

[delrem]

30. I certainly hope that Bernie Sanders' tenure as POTUS is one gigantic battle after another.

I do NOT agree with the warm and gooey "vast purple space" of so-called centrists and moderates who are bipartisan peas in the same pod corporatists, that always "get things done" in a smooth and timely way but very rarely get things done for the greater good. Fat Profits is not the only God, nor is it a measure of the greater good.

Corporatism isn't just about fat private profits, it's now overtly about making war for fat private profit, in a case where a world-spanning military empire has privatized war. US style Corporatism is an amoral thing and has to be ended.

Oh yes, I SO LOOK FORWARD to the gigantic battles with the war profiteers, especially, after Bernie Sanders is POTUS.

[steve2470]

32. eh, I guess we disagree

FDR had to compromise too.

[delrem]

34. FDR did not compromise on EVERYTHING.

FDR didn't glow in some vast "purple space", compromising everything out the window in deference to the status quo.

My lord, but there are Dem candidates who *today* are bragging about running to the right of Ronald Reagan on military/foreign policy issues, and that's considered *normal*, even though Ronald Reagan introduced trickle down economics and a culture of perpetual war. Even though Ronald Reagan is a *Republican Saint*.

[steve2470]

35. hm ok, have a lovely evening nt

[Recursion]

71. Tell it to Pete Seeger

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017292307

[delrem]

138. Yes, the two world wars were incredibly awful.

It took guts to oppose them.

I don't know how I'd have been, if I had lived in those times.

But I live in this time.
How do you like Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech to the Brookings Institution, where she promises to rule to the right of Ronald Reagan's warmongering administration? Do you understand that this is a MIC employee, making promises to the MIC? Do you like her ties to Kissinger? Do you like how she bragged about taking out democracy in Honduras? Do you understand the problem?

[Recursion]

139. Well, Seeger opposed intervention until Hitler attacked Stalin

At which point he became very pro war.

My real point was that the Professional Left of the 1930s hated FDR even more than the left hates Obama today.

[delrem]

141. Sorry, I have no opinion about "the Professional Left", as you call it.

I think your description is bullshit supreme, introduced to avoid discussion and any further thought.

[Recursion]

142. Whatever

The discussion is about the left turning on its candidates once they are in office. The Almanacs' treatment of FDR is entirely on point.

[pnwmom]

48. And how does that work under our Constitutional system of checks and balances

that was deliberately designed to reduce the chance of sudden, major change?

Franklin Roosevelt, for example, needed three terms in office to achieve his accomplishments -- an option not available to future Presidents. And he tried and failed to stack the Supreme Court to get his legislation through. The system is not set for the sudden, major changes that many Bernie supporters seem to want.

[delrem]

53. Oh I dunno! Just you wait and see!

You centrist moderate, slightly to the right of Ronald Reagan, person.

[pnwmom]

56. Yeah. Uh-huh.

[Cha]

49. President Obama has passed some very Progressive EOs but the ones trying to bring him down

with ignorant cheap pot shots would never admit that.. they're too invested in griping about our most Excellent President.

[steve2470]

50. yep! :) nt

[Cha]

51. yes, and Pres Obama, SOS Kerry, & VP Biden did Brilliant work on the Iran Deal!

Trita Parsi
✔ ‎@tparsi
BREAKING: IT'S DONE!! 41Senators now back the #IranDeal - Obama doesn't have to use his veto!! HUGE VICTORY!
@MarkRuffalo @JohnFugelsang
5:19 AM - 8 Sep 2015 154 154 Retweets
115 115 favorites

Trita Parsi
✔ ‎@tparsi
Significance of this victory cant be overstated. Our side was Obama and a large, diversity coalition. The other side was 2-4 billionaires...
5:34 AM - 8 Sep 2015
69 69 Retweets 46 46 favorites

Thank you, President Obama, SOS Kerry, VP Biden

http://theobamadiary.com/2015/09/08/irandeal-dont-ever-underestimate-president-barack-obama/

"Our side was Obama and a large, diversity coalition. The other side was 2-4 billionaires... "

That's "our side".. Right side of History!

[steve2470]

52. they did awesome work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[delrem]

58. There is nobody on DU, except for "cavers", who doesn't admire Pres. Obama for what he's done.

There are people who distinguish some things from others.
For example, the Iran deal just passed was a triumph.
There isn't anyone on DU who isn't fucking well orgasmic about that.
And the Rapprochement with Cuba. Right out of the blue.

That's what's called "diplomacy", in circles that understand what the word means.

These are mostly things happening in Obama's second term, after Hillary Clinton left the premises.

Meanwhile Hillary is at speaking engagements, explaining that she's to the right of Ronald Reagan w.r.t. when to authorize military engagement in the world, and saying that Obama has been too weak.

[pnwmom]

60. Wrong. Then are plenty here who are pushing the insults of Cornel West,

who despises Obama, and they somehow expect the Obama insults to make people like Bernie Sanders.

[delrem]

61. You're just slandering Cornel West, and by proxy Bernie Sanders.

You're just saying that Cornel West doesn't count, for you, because Cornel West applied a metric on Pres. Obama, and you don't allow for any metrics except for those that are 100% positive, 100% of the time.

[pnwmom]

63. West has called Obama a "n***ized President," a "black puppet" and a "black mascot."

That doesn't endear him to many.

The only metric West has applied, IMO, is how many private tickets he got to the inauguration. And ever since he got zero special tickets to the inauguration, he's had it out for the President.

[delrem]

67. I totally appreciate your out of context slander.

Just imagine! It sounds so awful, so fucking racist. Cornel West applied the language of black liberation to the situation and - uh oh! It isn't "well, we'd better do better!", it's "that fucking racist Colonel West, I hate him to the depth of my heart!".

It's all OK so long as it suits Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[pnwmom]

70. West has applied racist epithets to the President. That's indisputable.

He could have chosen instead to simply criticize specific policies, but instead he chooses to spew personal diatribes.

He's been seething with jealously ever since Obama rose to the Presidency and didn't give him the recognition he felt was his due. It's pathetic, really.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121550/cornel-wests-rise-fall-our-most-exciting-black-scholar-ghost

NOR HELL A FURY LIKE A WOMAN SCORNED” is the best-known line from William Congreve’s The Mourning Bride. But I’m concerned with the phrase preceding it, which captures wrath in more universal terms: “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned.” Even an angry Almighty can’t compete with mortals whose love turns to hate.

Cornel West’s rage against President Barack Obama evokes that kind of venom. He has accused Obama of political minstrelsy, calling him a “Rockefeller Republican in blackface”; taunted him as a “brown-faced Clinton”; and derided him as a “neoliberal opportunist.” In 2011, West and I were both speakers at a black newspaper conference in Chicago. During a private conversation, West asked how I escaped being dubbed an “Obama hater” when I was just as critical of the president as he was. I shared my three-part formula for discussing Obama before black audiences: Start with love for the man and pride in his epic achievement; focus on the unprecedented acrimony he faces as the nation’s first black executive; and target his missteps and failures. No matter how vehemently I disagree with Obama, I respect him as a man wrestling with an incredibly difficult opportunity to shape history. West looked into my eyes, sighed, and said: “Well, I guess that’s the difference between me and you. I don’t respect the brother at all.”

SNIP

This is where Congreve’s insight on love decomposed to rage comes crashing in. West has repeatedly declared that he did 65 engagements for the presidential campaign in 2008, and was offended when the president didn’t provide tickets to the inauguration. (Obama later told me in the White House that West left several voice messages, including prayers, from a blocked number with no instructions of where to return the call, a routine with which I was all too familiar.) In a 2011 interview with Chris Hedges on Truthdig that appeared under the headline “The Obama Deception: Why Cornel West Went Ballistic,” West recalled his indignation during the Inauguration, when he arrived at his Washington hotel with his mother, and she noted that the bellman had a ticket to the event but not her son. “I couldn’t get a ticket for my mother and my brother,” West said. “We drive into the hotel and the guy who picks up my bags from the hotel has a ticket to the inauguration. My mom says, ‘That’s something that this dear brother can get a ticket and you can’t get one, honey, all the work you did for him from Iowa.’” Thus the left-wing critic found it unjust that the workingman and not the professor had a ticket to the inauguration. Only in a world where bankers and other fat cats greedily gobble rewards meant for everyday citizens would such a reversal appear unfair. J.P. Morgan might have been mad; Karl Marx would have been ecstatic.

[betsuni]

68. Slandering Sanders by proxy metrics. That sounds 100% serious!

[delrem]

69. Oh well, I never did like those Bernie supporters. So gauche!

[Cha]

62. Totally whacked.

[treestar]

98. Just because it is criticism does not mean it is fair or deserved

and our beloved Obama has had more than his fair share of absurd and unfair criticisms from unreasonable people.

[delrem]

9. That's quite some writing!

I gather that the writer doesn't like "Bernie Sanders' supporters".
Haha. That's a joke. Just in case a jury, or a mod, doesn't get it.

Chez Pazienza doesn't think that highly of "the left" in general, either.
He has a high opinion of himself, though, and of his disdain for others.

Now here's a thing that springs to my mind:
the fight of "the left" insofar as it has been correctly labelled as being the fight of the less wealthy, the disenfranchised, the various under-classes of the class-based political/economic system, has always known that some kind of absolute "win" is impossible and not even describable, and that the fight is always and by its very nature asymmetric, with established moneyed classes holding the key to power, the decision making capabilities. Those classes change over time, but the economic class based system abides (apologies to The Dude). To have contempt for "the left", to attribute all the insult Chez Pazienza lists to "the left" and to "Bernie supporters" is to level an insult at the history of the long struggle for greater (not lesser) democracy, toward fighting for and living in a country where there's a minimum conscionable standard of social security, of *belonging*, even for the most desperate of us, even for those going under.

So I don't really like Chez Pazienza's opinion piece. It doesn't cover issues - it attacks "supporters" on broad lines that are entirely cooked up.

[MrScorpio]

15. When I'm needing a lecture on the classical implementation of dialectical materialism,

I now know where to turn.

Thanks!

[delrem]

18. Oh dear me!

Yes. I did study a few of the classics.
Or did you stay in keeping with your OP and deliver that as an insult?

[MisterP]

17. Sanders himself says not to give him any benefit of the doubt

he's seen what happens when people leave their servants off the hook

Pazienza also has a very sad history with Greenwald
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024928178
maybe he can debunk Sanders next by connecting two Russian airports on Google Maps

[KT2000]

22. I have a picture in mind -

Before Obama was inaugurated there was a meeting with Bush, Sec. of Treasury and others concerning the crash of the economy and how they were going to fix it. It was not a meeting about holding Wall Street's feet to the fire but rather how they were going to bail out Wall Street to prevent total collapse. That is what financial firms hold over our government no matter who is president. They have the power to send the world into the dark ages and they will do it if they don't get their way.

[steve2470]

27. good point

I think President Obama's hands were somewhat tied coming into office. The economy was going downhill into a depression very quickly. Reforming Wall Street was going to take too long and use up too much political capital, when he HAD to save the economy.

The time to reform Wall Street is now, when things are better.

[brer cat]

64. Very true, steve.

It amazes me that people forget the precipice we were facing when PBO came on board, and the actions already in place by the bush administration. If he had taken on Wall Street reform at the beginning of his administration, they could have taken the economy totally over the edge and left him with no recovery. A years long depression might have brought out some pitchforks marching on Wall Street, but the damage to millions of our citizens would have been catastrophic. I greatly respect PBO for taking what I believe was the long-view to minimize the destruction as quickly as possible.

Now is the time for reform, and I believe it will happen with a continuation of a democratic administration, whether it is Clinton, Sanders, or O'Malley.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

86. There was more than one path leading away from the precipice.

Actually TRULY nationalizing the institutions it instead merely gave large loans to for instance.

The path chosen by the Bush RW'ers Obama kept in office and the ones he appointed was the one most favourable to the moneyed interests, not the rest of us.

[pnwmom]

31. THIS IS SO TRUE!!!

Excuse me for shouting but I couldn't help myself.

[MADem]

33. What a superb essay!

Some people don't understand that the job is Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces...not Emperor!

Tell it like it is!


Loved the windup!!!

It’s worth reiterating that Bernie Sanders deserves plenty of respect — I really like the guy — but what he wants for the U.S., while awesome in a perfect world, is unrealistic in this one. His supporters don’t see it that way, though. They’re idealists who are tired of compromises and half-measures and they believe something even more potent than that is possible. But it’s not, not really — because the system, as utterly fucked-up as it is, is supposed to deliver compromises and half-measures more than straight-up victories. That’s what the checks and balances are. And if Bernie were to win, he’d be in the one position in government impacted most directly by this fact. And he’d pay dearly for it as the disappointed people who once supported him so obsessively ran for the hills.

[RichVRichV]

36. So Bernie supporters see him as the "Great Liberal Messiah come to save us all"

and we're destined to turn on him.

There's so much cognitive disconnect there it borders on ridiculous.


The reality is neither of these statements are true. Bernie supporters don't see him as a Messiah, nor do we see him as perfect. He's simply far and away the best option available. Someone who actually represents our interests (I know, a novel concept to have someone run for the interest of the people, and for people to be gullible enough to actually vote for that person).

The other falsehood is we will turn on him. We never turned on Obama. We're disappointed in many of his decisions and call him on it, we compliment him when he does good (such as Iran and Cuba, passing the ACA, stimulus spending, getting out of Iraq), and condemn him when he doesn't (such as the TPP, not trying for single payer, being way too giving to Republicans on many occasions). God forbid the electorate actually hold our politicians feat to the fire and use our influence to make them work towards the whole countries best interests. Will we attack Bernie when he becomes president? Absolutely (when he earns our ire). That doesn't mean we hate him or that we've turned on him. It's just means we have high expectations. We'll also praise him when he earns it, just like we have with Obama. There's a wide gulf between hater and cheerleader. The left is at neither end of the spectrum. Compromise has to happen for government to operate, no one will ever get everything they want. But that doesn't mean we have to sell the farm (or our ideals and beliefs) to accomplish compromise. The left understands this.

The office of the President of the United States is arguably the most establishment position in the world and anyone who ascends to it automatically becomes the head of a machine the left, by its very nature, dislikes and doesn’t trust.

Because the left is the ones who want to shrink the government and drown it in a bathtub. We're so anti government that we advocate for socialistic ideals (you know, government control over things). We don't hate government, we hate what our government has become. That's why we work to change it. You change it by becoming a part of it and molding it to your ideals. That's what Bernie is doing, that's what we're fighting for. But we're just "petulant children", so what do we know.

No matter how confident Bernie Sanders may be of his ability to change the status quo in Washington — and no matter how confident his supporters may be in him — in order to get anything at all done Sanders would be forced to compromise and pick his battles. He’s not the only person with power in our government and while it’s almost impossible to imagine him winning the presidency at all given that almost half the country is diametrically opposed to his political viewpoint, it’s absolutely impossible to imagine the Republicans just giving him a walk on everything he wants.

People act as if the president is some powerless figurehead stuck to the whims of congress. It's not called the most powerful position in the world for nothing. Obama is proving that right now. Even if the president was powerless to do anything else, he can stop virtually any Republican bills dead in their tracks. With Bernie we won't see a TPP go through, we won't see a keystone pipeline. I have strong confidence we won't enter a war without very good cause, and without first exhausting attempts at diplomacy. At the bare minimum we shouldn't see things get worse. I'd love to say the same if Hillary were president, but I'm not sure I can.

But that's no where near the limit of what a president brings to the table. The president gets to choose the heads of many agencies and what those agencies focus will be. The president can set policies for those agencies through executive orders. The president decides where the department of justice focuses their attention (marijuana farms in legal states or wall street and war crimes). The president chooses a cabinet to oversee many aspects of the executive branch. The president appoints federal judges (not just SCOTUS). The president handles all foreign affairs, and sets the tone for how the world views and interacts with us (Look at what Obama accomplished with Iran without congressional support). The president has the power to not attack anyone, no matter how many wars congress authorizes. The president is one of the most influential people in the world who even the MSM can't ignore. Look at what Reagan accomplished for trickle down economics through the bully pulpit. Bernie would have the opportunity to undo that great evil through the same means (People are joining his message in droves without access to it). Look at how much power FDR and Kennedy wielded with the bully pulpit. It's there to be used, and it's proven to work when used properly.


The president also has the power to influence the party. People like to point out that DWS serves at the whim of Obama (who is the head of our party). Well if Bernie becomes president he becomes the head of our party (imagine that, someone that many Hillary supporters can't bring to even call a Democrat being the head of the Democratic party). As president Bernie would have the power to set the tone for what our party stands for. That's not meaningless, and it's not something any amount of Republicans in congress can block.




Bernie isn't the endgame for those of us on the left. It's not him and then hope for the best. It's not hope that he's the Messiah that can save us from all the wrongs in the world. He's the first volley in our fight to retake our country from the conservative trickle down fuck up that has infested nearly every corner of our government for the last 30+ years. Our fight doesn't end with Bernie becoming president. That's where it begins. As Bernie himself has stated, it's not about him. It's never been about him. It's about retaking our democracy for the people. He's just the one currently leading the charge (and doing a damn good job at it IMO).

[Not Sure]

41. Wow. This is what I wish I were eloquent enough to post. Bravo! nt

[pnwmom]

45. What would you call someone who calls the President "the first n****ized President"?

And a "black mascot." And a "black puppet."

I'd call him an Obama- hater.

Well, Bernie Sanders is traveling around with this Obama-hater and expecting to improve his standing with African Americans.

Good luck on that.

[wilsonbooks]

59. Nice post.

[MrScorpio]

73. I only agree with about seven percent of what you've just written…

Last edited Sun Sep 13, 2015, 09:39 AM - Edit history (1)

And what I do agree with is made up of sentences with about five words or less.

[treestar]

101. No one said the Presidency was powerless

but it is not all powerful either.

And you will turn on BS, he can't do it all with a magic wand either.

But most likely Hillary will win, and you'll make your unreasonable demands on her.

Having unreasonable demands leads to a life of disappointment.

[stage left]

106. +1 nt

[MisterP]

108. most importantly, this has all happened before! they're lecturing our faction on what we learned the

hard way 2009-11, through our tears and foreigners' blood

[tblue37]

118. + a brazillion. Excellent response--should probably get turned into an OP! nt

[MrScorpio]

120. I agree with the part that says it should be an OP

It would be nice if it was posted in GD-P

[tblue37]

125. You're right. Probably AA is not the place for it--but it was responding directly to the

article linked in the OP.

On DU2 I wrote a long article about Obama in which I suggested that he was a "stealth" progressive, seeming to go along to get along as a diversionary tactic to keep the GOP off his trail while he sneaked progressive policies in under the radar:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x631285

I still think that, and I truly believe that the things he has accomplished now that he is freed from having to run for office (and now that he has lured the GOP and its base into revealing exactly how horrifying they really are) prove my case--especially the Iran deal and getting the ACA through a recalcitrant congress.

However, I still recoil at the TTP and still don't understand why he pushed so hard for it.

The fact that I don't like his TTP push (or a few other choices he has made) or that I hope Bernie gets the nomination (though I actually doubt that he will) doesn't make me a hater. I honestly believe Obama will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents. My admiration and respect for him and for Michelle are enormous (as is my gratitude). I also believe that there are liberals/progressives who unfairly expect the impossible of Obama, and that they undermine his ability to accomplish what he *can* accomplish.

I worry, too, that if Bernie somehow does end up in the WH, he will be undermined not just by Repubs, but also by intransigent Dems--as Obama has been and as Carter was. No matter whom we elect from our side, she or he NEEDS our vocal, aggressive support to prevent the other side, whose voters always fall in line and aggressively support and vote for them even when they don't like what their leaders and elected officials are doing, from being successful in their obstruction.

IOW, I agree with both the article posted in the OP and with that long, thoughtful response to it.

[99th_Monkey]

127. Thank you RichVRichV for your most excellent spot-on comments. -nt-

[noiretextatique]

39. the sensible adults are speaking again

The very serious people are saying Berne can win now, but his supporters won't like him. Not like Obama supporters, who are serious sensible people, except those fickle lefties. Maybe it is time for centrists to "take one for the team." If history is proven right, they will be the first to criticize Sanders. No...they never really loved him, just as progressives do not love Obama. But centrists do sure love our votes. So...will you folks support President Sanders 100%...no matter what he does? I don't think Sanders needs to worry about his supporters...unless he is a liar.

[Not Sure]

40. Jesus Christ, we finally get an authentic liberal candidate...

And we're called "insufferably self-righteous" because we're excited about it? I thought this was a Democratic message board.

It's okay to be pissed that I won't - that I cannot - support Hillary Clinton, but don't pretend it's because of some schoolgirl crush on Bernie the pop star.

[betsuni]

57. Clinton wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article or OP. Not sure what you're on about. nt

[pnwmom]

66. I know. Isn't that funny? They have lost the ability to see straight.

They see HRC everywhere!

What about those other candidates? If they're going to fixate on the opposition, there are several more.

[pnwmom]

65. Obama is an authentic liberal who has accomplished a great deal.

But keep insulting him and then wonder why Sanders doesn't have more support from all parts of the Obama coalition.

[rpannier]

42. Sounds like the drivel they've been writing at the Guardian about Corbyn

[Scuba]

72. That's truly lame.

[bahrbearian]

76. I see DNC desperation

[JustAnotherGen]

77. My husband calls him

"il santo" - The Saint . . . For a reason.

What I wish white liberals who ignore black issues until they want something from us could understand is . . .

If The Saint had run and won in 2007 we wouldn't be standing around like this:



Not white, not black, not gay, not straight, not men, not women. . .

The savior attitude? Sucks.

In advance of the alert I will inevitably receive. Great little movie called Argo . . . What's that line from it?

[steve2470]

80. +1 nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

81. You don't have to lie to be wrong, or lacking in understanding.

'petulant' 'fair-weather' etc, are opinions, not facts. And it pulls out the tired old strawman of 'everything you want' as the cherry at the top of the pile of misunderstanding.

See, there’s no such thing as an elected official who will give you everything you want, and more than any other partisan bent it’s the left that reacts terribly to not getting every single thing it wants.

That strawman is so old it's moldy and bugs are crawling all through it. The left has NEVER gotten 'every single thing it wants' and knows it all too well. Hell, we're lucky if we get ONE thing we want every few decades. Even when centrists PRETEND to be 'giving the left something it wants', they screw it up so royally it takes decades to fix it even to the point of 'sort of working' because they refuse to simply do it right the first time. And they they wonder why folks on the left aren't terribly grateful for being handed some 'victory' that in reality helps firm up a system the left doesn't even like. Like giving 'universal healthcare' by propping up parasitic private insurance agencies that were on the point of collapse under their own rotten and excessive greed. Putting money in one pocket stolen from another.

Your friend fundamentally misunderstands people on the left.

People on the left who would 'turn on' Sanders already have. You can read published articles from socialists for whom Sanders isn't 'left enough'. And many of them will no doubt be voting for some third party candidate who is 'left enough' for them.

Put the vast majority of folks on the left never were the caricature your friend has painted of them. They've never been 'unicorn chasers' who worship Sanders now, and believe he will get them 'everything they want'.

Sanders is a STARTING POINT of changing the direction of the country, not the end point. And folks over here on the left know that. They KNOW he's going into a corrupt system, and will have to make the same sorts of compromises he's ALREADY been making for decades in the House and Senate. And they've got those decades of his experience to show them how and why he'll compromise.

Barack Obama was largely a blank slate to many people, who used liberal rhetoric to promise 'change' he largely failed to deliver. Now one can suggest that was to his inexperience with Congress and lack of understanding of just how loony the Republicans have become. But he continued to beat the bipartisanship drums for more than his entire first term, long after it was obvious to absolutely everyone it was pointless. And if the '11D chess' was to get the country so fed up with Republican obstructionists that they'd sweep in a Democratic Congress for him to work with in his last two years, it failed miserably. Voters, fed up with attempts at 'bipartisanship', swept in even more Republicans, showing that there really was no point at all in 'bipartisanship'.

Sanders knows what's going on, and you might notice he's not actually going around making promises he can't keep. He's telling us what needs fixed, he's winning support to make those changes, but he's not telling us 'elect me, and you'll get everything you want!' And he EXPECTS us to make demands of him and Congress, but he also demands we do things ourselves as well, because he knows he's being elected President, not God-Emperor.

[djean111]

85. Beautiful. Thank you!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

87. Comment 36 was even better. Worth the read if you haven't already. nt

[tblue]

84. Doesn't speak for me

I'll praise what I like and push against what I don't. I don't attach myself to any politician because it's really not about the person at all. I care only about policy and related areas like statesmanship, priorities, and acts of compassion. I couldn't care less about Hillary's emails for instance.

All his life Bernie has stood for policies I agree with, at least 99% of the time. I'm excited and hopeful for his success but I'm not swearing an oath of loyalty to him or anybody else.

[Gothmog]

88. I agree with this analysis

The people who support Sanders would turn on him if he became POTUS and part of the establishment

[Spazito]

89. I agree...

When 'President Sanders' doesn't demand the arrest of the 'banksters', can't get universal healthcare through congress, can't force through tighter regulations against Wall Street, can't accomplish much of what he is promising because he will have to work with the same obstructionist Congress as President Obama has had to without compromising his 'principles', under the bus he would go.

It is perfection or nothing with some and that ends up with them getting nothing, imo.

[MrScorpio]

93. Hi-ho, a-cherrio, under-the-bus-is-where-he'll-go!

I truly believe that most people need a refresher in Civics, if they haven't had it already, or they need to spend a considerable amount of time living in Babylon (like I have), in order to watch the sausage making process in action.

The FIRST lesson about being President is that they have less "power" than most people think they have.

The second lesson is that presidents much too often are left between choosing between something that's utterly shitty or completely rotten.

The third lesson is that presidents find out who their real friends are at the worst times possible.

The fourth and most important thing to remember is that a bureaucracy's first duty is to perpetuate itself. They have their own agendas and the only way to get that agenda to change, most times, is to attack it with an even bigger bureaucracy… And always at a considerable cost to oneself. They call that, "Spending political capital."

Magical thinking has no place in really understanding how our government works. It's supposed to work in a way to render only compromised outcomes. If we want to change that, we have to replace the entire government with people who think the same way and share, pretty much, the exact same goals. That'll never happen in a system where everyone is either forced or prodded into seeking leverage over everyone else.

I'm as lefty as the just about anyone else up in here, I just don't let that stop me from seeing how the world actually works.

[Spazito]

112. Yep, the governance system was set up to be deliberately adversarial and ...

the powers of the President severely limited because the founders did not want a 'king' with power, they fought a war against that premise and won.

Fairy dust isn't in the Constitution as a way to get things done, I'm sorry to have to point that out to some.

I have to say I am gobsmacked at times at the total lack of either knowledge or acknowledgment of how the US system of governance works and why, based on the Constitution, it works that way deliberately.

[MrScorpio]

116. Damn Skippy! nt

[gwheezie]

104. He might use drones!

He could send troops somewhere.

[Spazito]

113. I did read Sanders isn't opposed to the use of drones...

but, hey, his supporters are a-okay with that because he will only use them for 'good', ya know. I just shake my head at the abject hypocrisy.

[treestar]

105. In fact why haven't they been disappointed already

BS voted for the ACA.

Has he been loud enough in demands to prosecute the banksters?

[Spazito]

117. Good question...

Isn't voting for the ACA a compromise which is against his principles and the principles of his supporters. I remember well how some DUers wanted ACA defeated because they unrealistically believed if ACA was defeated universal healthcare would have a better chance (I still shake my head on that one). I can only hope those who wanted ACA defeated, the ACA he voted FOR, aren't now Bernie supporters as that would smack of hypocrisy, imo.

[Enthusiast]

90. Completely and enthusiastically unrecommended.

Trash article.

[Exultant Democracy]

92. Laughably stupid for sure. It jumps the shark right out the gates

and only gets worse from there. The funny thing is the only people we know would feel this way are the fools that believed Hillary back when she was pretending to be a progressive. Now that she had admitted that she is a third way centrist it shouldn't even apply to her supporters if they are paying any attention. Obama was far more of a blank slate than either of these two.

[MrScorpio]

94. I never saw anything mentioned about Hillary in that article

When someone is too close to something, the less they're going see of it overall.

[steve2470]

95. neither did I nt

[Exultant Democracy]

109. Work on your reading comprehension, it is clear that I was saying the

comparison the article makes is stupid. The only similar comparison that could be made in this race would be to the people who stupidly thought Clinton was a progressive before she made it clear that she isn't. In essence this article would have only made sense if it was written about the Clinton of three weeks ago, but is completely out of step with any current reality of the race.

[MrScorpio]

115. Except that no comparisons were made between Bernie supporters and Hillary's…

In the article itself.

The article has everything to do with how Bernie's supporters are behaving now, and how all of that joyous enthusiasm that we're seeing for him right this very minute will hit a brick wall the moment that a President Sanders has to make a decision in the Oval Office than has the appearance of deviating from any of his currently expressed beliefs. If he has to come to realize that one of his cures is going to turn out to be worse than whatever disease he's trying to fix, I doubt that all of his followers will be as forgiving and understanding as needed.

Politics ain't rocket science, it's the art of sausage making and marketing.

Name me one president who never deviated from each and every thing that they've espoused for while on the campaign trail.

Personally, I'm refusing to paint myself into such a purist corner. I know that any president, no matter how confidently principled that make themselves out to be, will come to a point in their term where the only viable decision left to them is a really shitty one and a horribly compromised one.

Folks who are out to make Hillary the villain in very possible way need to tamp that down somewhat. Every bad thing is not about her and every good thing is not about Bernie.

We're all going to have to vote for one of these Democratic candidates, come November next year. When I do it, no matter who I'm voting for, I'm going to vote for that Democrat with a clear conscience.

[Exultant Democracy]

131. Duh exactly the comparison was between Bernie and Obama supporters was inane. Clinton fits better

in the comparison because at one point she even pretended to be a progressive which she has finally admitted she is not. So once again I repeat the exact same point do you get it yet?

[treestar]

99. And how they think the system is corrupt

is an interesting point because they should be against Bernie for being a Senator. And think him even more corrupt for wanting to be POTUS at all. Too funny. I recall a GD debate once with the other poster insisting anyone who would seek any office was corrupt by definition.

[Tarheel_Dem]

110. BS is the consummate "politician", and that fact will come into clear focus should he win the WH.

Of course, that will never happen in a million years, but he's heralded much more for the things he says as opposed to what he's actually been able to do in Washington.

[Starry Messenger]

114. I'm kind of torn on this.

I actually could see his supporters going "OMG of course he had to work with Wall Street--some of them are cool11!!"

There's been some odd embracing of sectors of big business that somehow pass muster when it is Bernie in the mix, but not President Obama.

See: the Steve Woz thread, the Tesla car-wrap thread, and the Uber threads--count how many of the "labor lovers" just them some Uber and have Bernie avvies. Things that make you go hmmmm.....

[uponit7771]

126. +1, just posted to BS supporter that Obama made a couple of compromises with the ACA to get it passe

... and those compromises are similar to what Sanders would make.

The response was acknowledgemtn that Sanders would compromise but Sanders wouldn't compromise "too much"

it's getting sad

[Starry Messenger]

129. Tragic.

[JI7]

133. just like with Sanders saying he wont end the Drone program

after attacking obama as wanting to kill people they make excuses for sanders.

sanders also said he will support schumer to be senate dem leader . yet they think he will bring about some revolution ?

[Starry Messenger]

134. He would have to deal with the same political landscape Obama has had to.

The fact that people feel that Bernie is more authentic is pretty telling, even though his decisions would not be at all.

[JI7]

136. it confirms to me why i think many of them don't like Obama

i find many also seem to view some Rand Paul and Trump supporters as being on the same side as them. but just misunderstood .

[betsuni]

135. Me, too. Seeing more and more of It's Okay If You're A Bernie. nt

[Starry Messenger]

137. Reading this interesting breakdown of his record tonight.

http://www.shakesville.com/2015/07/looking-for-bernie-part-2-mr-sanders.html

In 2010, Joseph Heilbrunn praised Sanders' filibuster in the Huffington Post by contrasting his style with President Obama's:

Sanders offered the real thing. Real rhetoric, real passion, real indignation. Not artifice, not calculation, not capitulation...The contrast with President Obama could hardly have been starker....The example of the cantankerous Sanders should serve as an object lesson for a White House that is trying to triangulate its way out of electoral disaster. Sometimes it's worth taking a stand.

Readers of this space will immediately understand that President Obama cannot be "cantankerous," because an angry black man is perceived very differently than an angry white man. And no woman, of any race, can afford to match Sanders' trademark bluster and bombast.

And here's the thing: Sanders' privilege is still clouding his view of what happened in 1986. Sanders was defeated, although he mustered 14.5% of the vote. Unfortunately, the Vermont ERA was also defeated. And Sanders picked up a surprising number of voters who also voted against the ERA. In 2014, he interpreted the 1986 result as follows:

I ask him how exactly he plans to convince millions of disaffected Reagan Democrats to stop voting Republican, and he answers by telling a story about his unsuccessful 1986 gubernatorial run. On the ballot that year was a referendum on the Vermont Equal Rights Amendment. "When they came up with the votes, they found a very interesting thing," Sanders says, softening his booming, Brooklyn-inflected voice to emphasize the point. "They had people who were voting 'no' on equal rights and 'yes' for Sanders. And my point is, look: You have a country split on abortion, a country split on gay rights, you have many of these social issues, split on marijuana legalization. But what I believe very strongly is, working [people will] say: 'I disagree with him on abortion rights, I disagree with him on gay rights, but you know what, he's fighting for my kids and I support him.' "

Well, that's one way to analyze it! Here's another: Sanders picked up the votes of a certain percentage of sexists who didn't like women's rights or a woman governor.

[Skidmore]

121. Rings true on many points to me.

So have the discussion points on checks and balances. I keep recalling those who didn't vote so we could change Congress. I have reservations about Sanders still. I don't feel the Bern as of yet and some of it has to do with these arguments. Some has to do with the reception if the message from the AA community. Listening is not the same as understanding. I also have reservations about international policy, which I see as an area in which he is weaker. What I also look at is the tone and tenor of supporters. I always do. You need a sense of who will recognize and understand your concerns and be willing to stand up with you in a constructive way. I also do not appreciate the relentless and sometimes vicious attacks on the President. I haven't always agreed with him but I think he has done a good job in spite of all of the headwinds. It is still six months until the caucuses.

[MrScorpio]

122. And the caucuses can't get here too soon enough for the likes of me.

Neither can the convention.

[Skidmore]

124. Absolutely!

This endless campaign process is killing us as a people. I am sick of the endless parade of cadidates that has been goinon here for the past year.

[GeorgeGist]

130. Reminds me of Hillary Clinton mocking Obama.