The Clinton argument "stripped to its essence".....by a fairly neutral observer.

[madfloridian]

From the Las Vegas Review Journal:

Calling a foul in Clinton-Sanders primary fight

Stripped to its essence, the Clinton argument is akin to Sanders coming across a person driving a broken down Vespa scooter. "Here, let me get you into a reliable car," Sanders offers. But the Clintons counter: "Look! He's trying to take away your scooter!"

It's technically accurate, but practically false. And that's an awful campaign slogan.

Not only that, Clinton knows better. She was attacked in 2008 in fliers distributed by the campaign of then-Sen. Barack Obama on the issue of universal health care, prompting her infamous news conference scold, "Shame on you, Barack Obama!"

But before saying that, Clinton asked a compelling question: What purpose does it serve for Democrats — who all believe in the concept of universal health care — to criticize one another over the precise details of how that idea is achieved? Or, to quote Past Clinton, "Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care? I thought we were trying to realize Harry Truman's dream."

Well, apparently since polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show Sanders treading close behind — and in some cases, ahead of — Clinton.

I don't think there was any real awareness among the party leaders, including the Clintons, of the shifting of power from the party establishment to the activists.

I would not feel so strongly about this except for the fact that the Democratic Party allowed a think tank to take over and run those out who were the traditional members of the party. It was done deliberately and for financial purposes.

This article was written about a year after the Dean campaign brought the rise of the "netroots", and there was a way that the people of the party could actually make their voices heard.

From an article by Matt Bai in October 2005 edition of the New York Times

Some were recognizing back then what the next battle would be.

What Dean's candidacy brought into the open, however, was another kind of growing and powerful tension in Democratic politics that had little to do with ideology. Activists often describe this divide as being between "insiders" and "outsiders," but the best description I've heard came from Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic operative who runs the advocacy group N.D.N. (formerly New Democrat Network), which sprang from Clintonian centrism of the early 1990's. As Rosenberg explained it, the party is currently riven between its "governing class" and its "activist class." The former includes the establishment types who populate Washington -- politicians, interest groups, consultants and policy makers. The second comprises "Net roots" Democrats on the local level; that is, grass-roots Democrats, many of whom were inspired by Dean and who connect to politics primarily online, through blogs or Web-based activist groups like MoveOn.org. The argument between the camps isn't about policy so much as about tactics, and a lot of Democrats in Washington don't even seem to know it's happening.

It's about policy now for sure.

Bai points out that it was not really clear that the Clintons were understanding this.

Assuming that Clinton is serious about a 2008 campaign, it's never too early to begin redefining her image in the minds of independent and conservative voters. And the thinking among her closest advisers holds that unlike other prospective candidates with conservative leanings, like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana or Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, Clinton doesn't have to worry about winning over more liberal base voters; she's an icon of the left, and short of climbing into a tank and invading a country all by herself, she couldn't do much to change that. By this theory, Clinton gets to have it both ways: her consistent centrist record will convince general-election voters that she is not the archetype they thought she was, and Democratic-primary voters will forgive her more conservative positions because, in their minds, she is saying such things only to make herself "electable." It's a strategy so elegant that even Karl Rove would have to smile in appreciation.

The only peril in this formulation is that it assumes, reasonably enough, that Clinton and her advisers have a firm grasp of the fissures and alliances that are now beginning to change the party's traditional landscape. And it's not clear that they do.

There have been huge economic changes in the nation and also in the minds of the people who are living in these times of such great inequality. I don't think the DNC was ready or willing for these changes, and I don't believe the Clintons really understand yet.

I am not sure what is going to happen in the next few weeks and months. But the activist voices are getting louder.

Those voices are not going away.

[FloriTexan]

1. Kick!

The voices are getting louder

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

82. Bout time... oh, and shame on you, Hillary Clinton!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Ferd Berfel]

86. Sorry - We need Bernie in the WH and Elizabeth in the SENTATE

Supporting Bernie there!

[madfloridian]

2. A comment from NYT article that was very revealing indeed.

Bob Kerrey said more than he should have said, I think.

In the White House, especially after the president embarked on his "triangulation" strategy, there was a tactical value in having Clinton's influential wife cast in the role of liberal emissary. "He made a lot of people angry, including me, but he had to do what he had to do to survive," says Bob Kerrey, then a Democratic senator. "In many ways, what Mrs. Clinton was having to do at that time was to go out to the liberal groups and say, 'Hey, it's going to be O.K."'

And yet politicians rarely live in the narrow ideological boxes we like to create for them, and Hillary Clinton was probably never as dogmatic as her most ardent critics and supporters insisted she was. She did, after all, propose controversial education reform in Arkansas, where she picked a gratuitous and colossal fight with the teachers' union by demanding that teachers submit to testing. And she strongly lobbied liberal members of Congress to support her husband's crime bill, which expanded the federal death penalty, and supported his welfare-reform plan, which prompted one of her close friends, the former Kennedy aide Peter Edelman, to resign from the administration.

[tazkcmo]

26. "Hey, it's going to be O.K."

So she was lying then, too.

[roguevalley]

27. teachers submit to testing. I had no idea she wanted that. That seals it for me

I will NEVER vote for her for any reason. Lib in name only.

RV, 30 year teacher

[madfloridian]

31. Yes, her relations with Ark teachers not the best.

[antigop]

36. also...praise for charter schools

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511011685

[zentrum]

67. I'm a strong Bernie

…supporter, but this kind of thing makes me terribly nervous. Teachers will do even worse under any Republican because they want to turn the whole thing over to privateers who will deny science, rewrite American history, destroy teacher unions etc.

We have to hold our noses and vote for her if she survives the primary.

The only way out is to make sure Bernie wins said primary.

[greiner3]

101. We MUST vote for her if she wins the promary

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

83. Why vote Hillary when we can vote for a REAL progressive? Go Bernie!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[sabrina 1]

43. They show their elitism each time they sit around and talk about how to 'talk to the little people'.

I read a great article recently about someone who is supporting Bernie and WHY. 'He treats me with respect' he said.

'just go out and tell liberals that everything is going to be okay'. How insulting, really. No wonder they are failing so badly to get what intelligent, many of them far more intelligent than they are obviously, are trying to tell them. They are so very much out of touch with real, smart and intelligent people.

[madfloridian]

64. That statement hit me the same way.

While they were screwing us moving rightward, they used the wife to tell us not to worry all was okay.

[sarge43]

84. They don't talk *to the little people.

They talk at them. Elite 'splaining or as I like to call it "the idiot treatment". Senator Sanders talks with us.

[lob1]

3. K&R. The scooter story is dead on.

[dsc]

4. wow using adelson's paper as a source

what Goebels too busy being dead.

[madfloridian]

7. Wow yourself..adelson just bought it. Reviewer not on either side.

Adelson as awful as he is hasn't had time to make that many editorial changes yet.

[dsc]

8. really tell that to the editor who has already quit

yes the editor of the paper, where supposedly Adelson hasn't had time to make changes, has already had its editor quit.

[madfloridian]

12. So along that line I must not quote from Natl Geo since Murdoch owns it.

He fired a lot of good journalists. But there will still be things I might agree with.

[dsc]

16. yes anyone who slimes Hillary is all good for you

[madfloridian]

18. I don't "slime" Hillary. Never have. Read the 1st 2 paragraphs at the link.

It's come down to the fact that if someone doesn't like Jeff Bezos then I can't quote the Washington Post.

[dsc]

21. If Jeff Bezos starts using the post to carry out vendettas then hell yea

last I checked he hasn't done that. Last I checked the editor didn't quit over Bezos' involvement in newsstories.

[madfloridian]

32. Well, you just keep me posted about acceptable sources.

So many sources so few owners.

[dsc]

33. Honestly I don't think it is unreasonable to say stay away from sources

run by conservatives who fire their editors or have them quit, and use their papers to carry out vendetta (both of which Adelson has done despite only owning the paper for less than a month). But again, if they slime Hillary they could be the reincarnation of Hearst and you would say all good.

[madfloridian]

34. BUT that article did NOT slime Hillary. Neither did I.

Read the 1st 2 paragraphs.

There is a lot of good stuff at a couple of conservative sites I never used before. I even follow Little Green Footballs at Twitter, and he is so spot on now.

Some sites change, some don't.

You have to read and interpret for yourself.

[MADem]

39. +1,000,000! Right on the money. nt

[madfloridian]

54. She just sent Chelsea out to say Bernie's taking away everything we have.

So I can see what the reviewer meant.

I watched Chelsea's statements...they were ridiculous in the extreme.

[MADem]

57. Adelson bought the paper and he has his guys in there.

He wants to be a player in that town.

I consider the source.

[MADem]

49. The editor was tossed last month!!!! He wasted no time in (cough) "accepting a buyout."

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2015/12/23/3734752/sheldon-adelson-las-vegas-review-journal-chaos/

On Tuesday evening, the paper reported that Mike Hengel, the Review-Journal’s top editor, had accepted a buyout and was stepping down. The byline-less article noted that “Hengel described his decision to leave as ‘mutual’ and said he did not believe he was forced out.”
Other publications shed more light on the announcement. Politico Media reported that Hengel had told his staff that the new ownership situation “had the makings of an adversarial relationship.”
“I think it would have been a long shot to think that I would have been able to continue on for very long in this role. That’s just my opinion. I don’t want to speculate. I just don’t think that it would have been something that I would have been comfortable with,” Hengel reportedly explained.
And, according to a tweet from one of the reporters present, the outgoing editor opined that his resignation “probably comes as a relief to the new owners, and it is in my best interest and those of my family.”

[madfloridian]

51. Did you even read the link in the OP?

The reviewer is not against Hillary, he is questioning the type of attacks she's launching.

He is not for Bernie either.

I am sure Adelson will use it for propaganda, but considering the ownership of nearly all media....we soon might not have anything to use as a source.

Good grief!!!!

[MADem]

52. The point that Adelson bought the paper, and essentially fired the editor (take the money and leave)

is a valid discussion point. All you have to do is scroll through this thread and read the charges that he "didin't have time" to do that, and the assertions that the culture of the publication has not changed.

The switch was flipped a week before Christmas. That is a fact.

Not every attack has to be full frontal, you know. Death by a thousand cuts is the way to go when you've got ten months before the election.

[madfloridian]

53. Works both ways with both candidates.

Except it's not.

You're attacking me for what is not really tough criticism?

[MADem]

55. Where am I "attacking you?"

I am pointing out that the poster who made note of this fact, that Adelson owns the paper, and that the editor quit/was fired/took a parachute a month ago is CORRECT and anyone calling him a prevaricator is mistaken in their assertion.

dsc had his facts in order, yet he's been swarmed here. I brought a link to the party that backs him up.

[madfloridian]

56. Then you have not read the link in my OP. You are arguing with me over nothing.

[MADem]

58. I am not "arguing with you." I am simply bringing a link to this conversation that backs up what

dsc said--that Adelson bought the paper, and the editor was out the door a week before Xmas.

Contrary to the claims made in this thread that Adelson 'didn't have time' to make any changes.

Those changes happened nearly instantaneously.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Adelson? You mean the guy Debbie Wasserman Schultz worked with to keep jailing medical pot users?

Oh, I guess now he's persona non grata, but when he's doing the important work of making sure granny gets a SWAT team sent to her house because she lit a joint for her chemo nausea, he's okay to pal around with.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-florida-marijuana-politics-idUSKBN0EM2N720140611

[dsc]

11. please find a post where I defended her on pot

if you do I will remove my post. If you don't you should stop lying about me.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Are you Sheldon Adelson? I'm talking about him, not you.

I question why posting an article from his paper isn't okay when the leader of our party (closely affiliated with the Clinton campaign) joins with him in a crusade to sick people in prison for using marijuana.

[dsc]

15. it isn't ok because he has a clear agenda which he brings to his newsroom

and we used to have, and actually enforce rules about that. Sadly, we have decided that it is perfectly OK to quote any paper here. It is perfectly OK to quote a person who outed gays in college and likely got one killed (Laura Ingram), who bashed a gay in a public restroom (Tucker Carlon), and who uses his paper to settle personal grudges (Adelson). All in the service of slandering Hillary Clinton. Glad this is a Democratic website I would sure hate to see a Republican one.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. So you're done with DWS, then, because she worked with him to put sick pot users in prison.

Glad to hear it.

[dsc]

20. frankly I had problems with her without knowing she had done that

I do think it is unfair to blame her for the 2010 election as some here have done (she wasn't chair in 2010). But the fact is she wasn't a good choice for chair, I said so when Obama named her, and still think that. I think anyone who is serving in an office is a bad choice for chair plus she had other issues as well in my mind. I felt Dean had done a good job as chair and shouldn't have been removed by Obama, something I said in real time. I opposed her appointment as well, something I also did in real time. That said, I don't think all of our problems are her fault. She inherited a bad electoral map in 2014 and likely helped to make the results marginally worse but we would have lost a bunch of seats no matter who our chair was. On edit, I don't see anything about Adelson in your video.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. She's a train wreck.

The ad outlines her indefensible position and votes to keep putting medical marijuana users in jail.

She was instrumental in working with this Drug Free Florida Alliance to stop the MMJ law there, again, bankrolled by Adelson.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-florida-marijuana-politics-idUSKBN0EM2N720140611

She was doubling down on her marijuana stance as recently as last week. She is horribly out of touch.

[MADem]

41. Notice how you couldn't be beat on the Adelson matter, so the subject got galloped over to DWS?

It's not even subtle!!



DWS was hired by Barack Obama, our party's leader. They can't reconcile that, either.

[Warren DeMontague]

80. If Adelson is persona non grata, great.

It 'got galloped over' to her because the person made the assertion that anything what had come anywhere near Sheldon Adelson was so toxic it couldn't be taken seriously on DU.

It was a silly way to try and derail, so forgive me if I derailed the derailment.

[MADem]

89. There's nothing to forgive. nt

[madfloridian]

35. She told John Morgan if he quit attacking her, she would not fight his medical pot initiative.

He blew her off because he called it quid pro quo..

We have almost enough signatures as of this week, but that 60% threshold will be hard to reach at election time if a Democratic leader is opposing it openly.

I can't stand her.

I have already donated to Tim Canova, her opponent next time.

[Duval]

98. I donated to Canova, also!

[MADem]

40. Do you mean the DNC chair hired by President Barack Obama, our party head? That DNC chair?

Our party leader IS Obama. DWS just does the paperwork and the day-to-day. She's like the party's Chief Operating Officer, but Obama is the Chairman of the Board.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Yeah, but he never worked with Sheldon Adelson to put sick people in prison for pot.

Since I like our party, I want it to have a less craptastic public face. Or paper pusher. Or fundraising letterhead approver.

It's interesting, almost NO ONE on DU thinks she's doing a very good job, much less wants to defend her inanities in the NY Times where she insults Millennials and blames pot for heroin addiction. So what I'm saying isn't really that controversial.

Whatever, she doesn't belong and I really hope this Tim Canova is successful in primarying her.

[MADem]

48. Obama has the power to tell her "You're fired." He does not do that.

He SELECTED HER for the position. He hasn't expressed any dissatisfaction with her performance.

You need to tell your tale of woe to OBAMA, instead of the assorted readers of DU.

Not that I think he'll listen to you. Like I said, HE hired her.

It's interesting, almost EVERYONE on DU thought Kucinich should be President....

I mean, come on--do you seriously think DU, or even "the internet" represents the real world?

There's a whole cadre of people out there who don't go near this shit (or that facebook shit, or that twitter shit, or that instagram shit)--ever. They have busy lives, stuff to do, jobs to go to, children to raise. Or maybe they're just not into this discussion board fighting stuff.

And they vote.

As for Tim Canova, he's running in the wrong district. DWS is ideally suited to her constituency, and she represents them to perfection. Her approval rate hovers close to eighty percent. I don't think she'll have much trouble keeping her seat, and she is poised to move up in the House leadership should any of the more senior leaders decide to retire.

[JonLeibowitz]

62. From where I stand, DeMontague can tell his tale of woe wherever he pleases. n/t

[MADem]

63. Why yes, he most certainly can.

And if he wants to do that, I'm quite sure he will, even if you don't help him along.

But that, and a couple of bucks, will get him a cup of coffee at Starbucks. It won't remove the object of his disaffection. Only Obama can do that.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. a couple of bucks? More like four.

I need that 4 shots of espresso latte thing, though.

And who can afford that? I make mine at home.

[MADem]

90. I don't go there either. The stuff tastes like battery acid. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

78. DeMontague's tale of woe.

I'd tell you, but it's definitely NSFW.

[MADem]

93. Ha ha ha! That's BRILLIANT!!!!! nt

[madfloridian]

65. Since she was later elected by the DNC....

doesn't that mean Obama can't fire her? I was reading about that.

[MADem]

66. She wasn't 'elected by the DNC.' She was appointed chair by the party leader,

President Barack Obama, four or five years ago.

Vice President Joe Biden made the announcement, IIRC.

On edit, a link to support this assertion: http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/wasserman-schultz-to-lead-dnc-052605

“In selecting Debbie to lead our party, President Obama noted her tenacity, her strength, her fighting spirit and her ability to overcome adversity,” Biden wrote.
“President Obama expressed great admiration for her as a leader, and he was honored that she accepted this important challenge on behalf of the Democratic Party.”
Wasserman Schultz becomes the first female DNC chief in 15 years and the third in history.
The congresswoman is beloved by the Democratic rank and file for her aggressive, outspoken advocacy for liberal points of view. She’s frequently deployed as a surrogate, particularly to groups of women and Jewish voters.

[madfloridian]

69. Here is the article and her statement about being elected. I'm not sure of facts...

so not arguing. But this article makes it sound like she was reaffirmed or something for a 4 year term. She uses the word "elected."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/219734-dnc-chief-vows-to-stay-in-office

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) reaffirmed her commitment to stay on as Democratic National Committee chairwoman in the aftermath of reports suggesting the party is souring over her leadership.

“I was elected to a four-year term, and I will serve as DNC chair till Jan. 21, 2017,” she said to the Sun Sentinel.

A Politico article published last month said Wasserman Schultz is losing the support of prominent Democrats, including President Obama. It also said the White House debated replacing her as DNC chair, going as far as selecting a candidate before deciding against the change.

[MADem]

70. She was appointed by Barack Obama. Joe Biden announced it.

President Barack Obama has chosen Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the incoming chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, the party announced late Tuesday.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/wasserman-schultz-to-lead-dnc-052605#ixzz3xTinUx00

A DNC sub-committee may have rubber stamped his appointment, but make no mistake--HE chose her. HE decided that she was the person he wanted running the show.


Some of the comments at that HILL link are quite simply reprehensible.

[madfloridian]

71. Of course he chose her. I know that for a fact. Presidents do that.

I thought she served at his wish, but apparently she will have a 7 year term. She used the word elected.

She sounds like she won't leave no matter what.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/219734-dnc-chief-vows-to-stay-in-office

“I was elected to a four-year term, and I will serve as DNC chair till Jan. 21, 2017,” she said to the Sun Sentinel.

A Politico article published last month said Wasserman Schultz is losing the support of prominent Democrats, including President Obama. It also said the White House debated replacing her as DNC chair, going as far as selecting a candidate before deciding against the change.

A four year term would make her "elected" in 2013.

[MADem]

72. She likely went through some sort of re-vetting process in 2013.

But Obama selected her, and put her in the job, in 2011.

She serves at his pleasure, pretty much.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. I'm sure he's thought about it. But, that's not what I'm on about.

I'm certainly going to criticize her, though, because I think she's glaringly emblematic of some things that are pretty wrong with some establishment leaders in our party--- and what passes for conventional widsom or good politics in their bubble.

I mean, look, I can't find anyone here who wants to defend DWS on the actual shit in question, be it voting to put medical marijuana users in prison, or making comments that lots of millennials themselves thought amounted to condescension. To the NY Times.

Can we at least agree that it's not helpful? To us, to the party? I know you think she's a whiz-bang fundraiser, but I'm telling you she's not helping our image, at least not in the oh-so-weird circles I inhabit.



And I'm not sure what Kooch has to do with any of this. One thing I can tell you is, "real world" or not, Bernie Sanders is polling a hell of a lot better than that guy ever did.

[MADem]

91. Did you ever stop and think that most people don't WANT to defend her on that issue because they do

not AGREE with her on that particular issue?

I mean, that's the logical conclusion I come to when looking at that.

What people don't seem to understand, though, is that she is a REPRESENTATIVE. Her votes on matters are informed by her CONSTITUENCY. And I'll betcha, if you took a poll of the VOTING (not the entire--but the VOTING constituents--year in, year out, off - year, too) public, that they, being older, somewhat conservative, strong on national defense issues, etc. -- agree with her on that issue. And that's why she sits on it in that fashion. She's not being brave, or stupid, or contrary--she's giving HER peeps what THEY want.

If her constituency moved left on that question, I have no doubt that she would, too. Is that "wrong" to not be "committed" to a position if your constituents form a new idea? Hell no--it's smart politics.

So, to carp about this on the boards of DU, like it makes two shits worth of difference, is what's just foolish and a waste of time. So DWS ain't down with the weed? So WHAT? She is one of 435--get OVER it. Can she get re-elected without being down with the weed? Sure as hell looks that way. She's popular with the voters in her district. They know her, they trust her, they like her.

All politics IS local. Way too many people here just don't get that. They forget that legislators actually do have constituents. Jon Tester isn't going to be Mister Free Love Light 'Em Up, either, even though his OTI profile washes him out as a left/liberal/populist. He's going to take the attitudes of most of his rural, farm-y constituents. Ya dance with the ones what brung ya--and trying to pull some legislators further left does one thing, and one thing only--it hands their district or state to the GOP.

Look at Harry Reid. Most people don't realize that he is a) A Mormon, and b) Pro-life (i.e. anti-abortion). Does he allow those views to impact his leadership role? Does he allow them to interfere with his prosecution of the over-arching Democratic Party platform? Hell no. He's not stupid. He's a guy who has been able to thread the needle for decades, and he will be missed.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

44. Intellectually dishonest comment. He just bought the paper. Line of reasoning rejected.

[MADem]

50. Ummm. no.

The editor "accepted a buyout" (i.e. you are fired, here's some money, go away) a week before Christmas.

See link upthread.

[sabrina 1]

46. Wow, using deception to try to influence readers. Adelson just bought it, unfortunately, and we most

likely won't see anything like this in the 'source' in the future. Why did you do that, do you, like the Clintons, think we are all stupid, or children or something?

[dsc]

107. as I pointed out, in this very thread, which you apparently were too lazy to read

the editor of the paper has already quit, yes he had enough time to cause the editor (that would be the person who usually decides what is written) to quit. But other than that, he hasn't had time to do anything yet. No wait, I forgot, he also ordered the staff to investigate a judge who was hearing a case against him and that judge just so happened to be smeared by another of his papers. But again, other than that, he hasn't had time to do anything.

[paleotn]

96. Oh, Godwin.....

...when it's all you've got, it's all you've got. You lose.

[chervilant]

106. Oh, geez...

I thought I had you on my IL... Time to update.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Because the core argument of her campaign is "vote for me because I'm Hillary Clinton"

if she actually has to compete on the playing field of concrete issues and definitive policy proposals, she's lost.

It doesn't have to be that way, but that's clearly not who she or her advisers have decided she should run as. Although it does beg the question as to whether she's capable of such a thing, at this point.

[roguevalley]

30. she assumed women and youth were hers

she assumed a lot and they left the station on the bernie express. Assuming makes an ass out of u and me.

[sadoldgirl]

6. These voices come from a younger generation

and they will grow, instead of allowing themselves
to be silenced.

[madfloridian]

37. And some older as well.

Bernie is supported by truth seekers of all ages.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, madfloridian.

[elleng]

14. It's technically accurate, but practically false.

[madfloridian]

75. Perfect wording for the example...made the point well.

[CharlotteVale]

19. K&R

[Doctor_J]

22. I agree with Steven leser

She is unfit to be president

[madfloridian]

24. ............

[tazkcmo]

28. lol n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

45. Love the signature line too.

Rock steady, amiright?

[sabrina 1]

47. Me too ...

Wait!

[jalan48]

23. The oligarchs were hoping for one more Wall St. Democrat before "It's the Republican's turn."

They assumed Democratic voters would swallow the, "First Woman President" angle, ignoring her politics. Unfortunately for them Bernie entered the race and upset the apple cart. People actually do care about Wall St. excesses and little things like big trade agreements. Hillary has lost the framing of the debate, as limited as she hoped it would be. She's struggling to get it back but, the genie is out of the bottle whether she wins or loses.

[Locrian]

92. I think trump also upset them

True - HRC was the "anointed one" for the pick to be the wallstreet/corporate shrill. But trump pulled the rug from her "foils" - being the more establishment types like jeb - where it would have worked by contrast to make her appear the "liberal" but necessary (perceived) choice.

Add in the "Bernie factor" and you get this HUGE contrast between the corporate oligarch puppets (HRC, JEB, etc) and the batshit crazies (cruz, trump) and Bernie wins hands down.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

25. Those voices are not going away.

this must become true

[Spitfire of ATJ]

29. I read that after Reagan busted the unions and destroyed manufacturing,...

The Dems lost their primary source of funding. Rather than try to compete with Republicans for money from Big Business they turned to the banking sector thus deregulating them. The Stock Market soared and you had Clinton telling Big Business they made more money under Democrats than Republicans. The Dems never looked back at the working class for actual support after that. Then along came Dean proving there was actual money made from the web. Obama capitalized on the web while the Clintons went back to their big money donors and couldn't understand why they were losing because the folks in the Beltway believe the winner is ALWAYS the one who raises the most money.

Obama brought in a lot of actual Liberals into DC and if the Clintons win the first thing they will do is kick them all out.

[Arugula Latte]

100. The Clintons are slow learners. They are stuck in the 90s.

[madfloridian]

59. For those who refuse to read the opening paragraphs which are NOT anti-hillary at all....

By Steve Sebelius
Las Vegas Review-Journal

To begin with, let me say that I'm not to be numbered among those fans of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders who, by virtue of that position, necessarily distrust or despise former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Like Sanders, I have respect for Clinton's accomplishments, drive and resilience in public life, and acknowledge she's more than qualified to serve as president. That's more than may be said for some of her Republican opponents.

And I believe it's entirely possible to like and support Clinton, but to like and support Sanders even more.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/columns-blogs/steve-sebelius/calling-foul-clinton-sanders-primary-fight

I would like someone to ask the admins to make a list of which new sources are acceptable here now.

Should we quote WP if we don't like Bezos tactics at Amazon?

Should we avoid the National Geographic entirely since Murdoch bought it?

Or is there a sensible middle somewhere.

[stillwaiting]

60. K&R. Enough is enough is enough. #DownHill. nt

[Enthusiast]

61. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

[madfloridian]

74. Thank you.

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. does anyone seriously believe that HIllary and her campaign correctly represented Sen. Sanders'

position on healthcare? Does anyone seriously believe that Hillary and her campaign was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on this matter? Does anyone seriously maintain that the Clinton campaign actually does not oppose single-payer universal healthcare?

[madfloridian]

73. Good points.

I am thinking that the ties of both the Clintons and the Bushes to the Iraq invasion may be having an impact now. Just my opinion, as that terrible war weighs so heavily on my heart.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. it's seriously insulting the intelligence of the voters, that they think that's gonna work.

it's derpressing.

I typed that wrong, was gonna fix it, but I actually think it works even better for this.

derp-pressing.

[madfloridian]

85. ....

Okay with me.

[merrily]

76. Stripping a message down to its essence is difficult when the message is

such a moving target and has no real essence anyway.

[Ferd Berfel]

87. Kids, Clinton is not now nor has she ever been a Liberal or Progressive`

Stop kidding yourselves

It's a matter of perspective;

Hillary is still the Goldwater Girl she was. It's just that the DLC, Third Way, Blue Dog, Corporatists sold the Democratic Party to Corporations (Including the Koch Bros) which shifted the Party so far to the RIGHT that it washed over Hillary (Where she stood) and now make her appear 'centrist' or Moderate. B-S.

[FlatBaroque]

88. I consider all of her top advisors to low life scum

and that is one of the basis' of my judgment of her.

[Tom Rinaldo]

95. Excellent, excellent OP, Thank you n/t

[madfloridian]

97. Thanks, Tom.

Appreciate those words from you. Sometimes I look back on the days of the Dean/Clark wars, and they seem so petty now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

102. The personal rancor that swirlded around was certainly petty

The issues were important, but I make a really strong effort now to not demonize those who back different candidates than I do, and as much as possible to not demonize other candidates, particularly Democrats, who run against those who I support. We always shared the same goals, I would say that most Democrats do though what we all are willing to settle for sometimes varies greatly. I'm proud to be on the same "team" as you.

[Arugula Latte]

99. "I don't think there was any real awareness among the party leaders, including the Clintons, of the

shifting of power from the party establishment to the activists."

Bingo. These clueless "leaders" are in a bubble of delusion, denial, and arrogance.

[madfloridian]

103. They have actually forgotten we're here....they've ignored us so long.

It's like they are saying OH where did these folks come from?

[jmowreader]

104. Oh boy. Let's try this again.

First: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1782/text#toc-HE4A90DB90C184388BBE505096D284210

Bernie's plan eliminates five major healthcare funding sources: Medicare, Medicaid, the TRICARE program for military family members, the Children's Health Insurance Plan (CHIP) and the Affordable Care Act. It forbids private health insurers from offering the same benefits as Sanderscare does because, as we know, government intrusion into the private sector is a hallmark of the Sanders campaign. It also places responsibility for paying part of the bill for Sanderscare on the states.

The states have gotten very good at getting unfunded mandates killed through the courts, and their successes in being allowed to opt out of Medicaid expansion lead me to believe they could also opt out of the Sanderscare mandates. Because laws are severable - IOW, if one part of a law is killed the rest of it still applies - killing the funding for the single-payer system Sanders wants will not resurrect the four programs he offed previously.

Sanders' plan is like his coming across a guy with an old but serviceable Vespa and telling him, "let me get you into a better car," but rather than just giving him a car, he takes him to a Buy Here Pay Here lot that makes him trade the scooter in on a car that's right at the edge of affordability then immediately sells the scooter to someone else. If his water heater breaks, he'll lose both the car and the scooter.

[WillyT]

105. K & R !!!

[ChiciB1]

108. I'm Hollering & Screaming Along With This New

REVOLUTION thing! And I have been around since the Beatles starting singing it!!