2 months ago I said this about Sanders...

[uponit7771]

4. Sanders focus is narrow, he doesn't make any qualms about it. A total lack of foreign policy INTEREST ... not just experience... he isn't even interested... not by the least bit. I'm thinking what else is Sanders not interested in in regards to governing this historically powerful country?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511230116

and now there are whole articles written touching that very thing

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2598171


Why is Sanders even in the race now!?!?!!?


Your take?

tia

[Sky Masterson]

1. Because some here want to win the general

And she is a path to losing.
Plus your premise is bullshit

[silvershadow]

5. ~This

[CentralCoaster]

39. + Tired of playing World Cop and State-Crafter, Regime-Changer, Exploiter of the Poor.

Christ, that the OP even needs to ask the question just makes me sad.

[Cal33]

73. You are quite correct. I hope Sanders wins. If he does not win, he and Elizabeth Warren will have

started a Movement to reform the corrupt and degenerate group that the Democratic
Establishment has become. They are too much under the sway and influence of that
Great Corrupter -- Wall Street.

This Movement will be taken over by others, and will continue the needed reforms
after Warren and Sanders will have left the political scene. It's here to stay.

[jfern]

2. No one should take that tabloid seriously

[firebrand80]

3. He's trying to show what's possible

in a campaign like his. The longer he stays in, the more delegates he picks up, the stronger his "look how far I got" argument is. His hope is that someone picks up the ball and runs with it in 4 or 8 years.

[Armstead]

28. He;s in it to win it

Either he does or doesn't.

But what worries me is that the Clintons and their Wall St. Corporate Elite allies will never let go of the grasp, and will contiunue to follow the Pay to Play model that has driven the US into a ditch.

if Clintonism remains the dominant force in the Democratic Party, it will sink into irrelevance.

[firebrand80]

31. There was a time when he thought he could win

I'm pretty sure he sees the writing on the wall at this point.

If he loses NY, MD, PA, and still stays in the race (I think he would), that would tend to prove my point.

[Armstead]

48. There is a point to his and his supporters persistance

He and they are FIGHTING BACK.

We are fed up with the pablum that has become the Democratic Party. We are fed up with the matrix of wealth and power and systemic corruption that the Democratic Party has aligned with.

He (we) are struggling to change the narrative -- that people of all ideologies recognize -- that our government has been purchased, and the political system has been hijacked by Wall St. Corporate monopolies and the Millionaire/Billionaire class.

The younger ones see it through the eyes of youth, and idealism. The older ones are fed up with being fed gruel and consistently told that "you have to hold your nose this time" because the GOP alternative is so bad.

It does not have to be that way. But the onoly way to change it is is enough Democrats support the resporation of a two-party system that actually DOES provide a counterbalance to the Corporate Agenda, that is based on the interests of the PEOPLE, and is accountable to the grass roots.

The Democratic Party can take that challenge seriously, and open up and support progressive change, or it will continue to weaken, and sow the seeds of discontent that may lead to a viable third party. That is not the preferred result, but the onoly way to prevent it is is what Sanders represents is accepted as Mainstream Democratic values and goals.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Hes still in the race just because it makes you mad.

Not even Hillary supporters in general, just you specfically.

You should feel honored.

[CentralCoaster]

40. How can I help?

How can I help Bernie with that...

[JonathanRackham]

6. Hillary doesn't comprehend basic cyber security.

Something every office worker comprehends.

[jfern]

7. The amazing thing is that could mean one of two different things she's terrible at

1. Probably not a good idea to store top secret special access program emails on your personal server

2. Probably not a good idea to support backdooring the encryption everyone uses to keep their credit card information secure from hackers

[JonathanRackham]

10. Hackers are known to have hacked many big businesses.

Home Depot, Lowes, HMOs. ......... These companies have professional IT departments and consultants, yet credit card data and medical data still gets stolen. Federal government agencies have been compromised. What chance does a little private server have with a limited IT staff? We'll never know how much the nation was compromised or the severity of the threat that cyber discretion represented.

[Thinkingabout]

13. Has there been any proof of any hacking in the server she was using? We know of

Hacking into .gov.

[JonathanRackham]

14. We'll never know will we?

It wouldn't be an issue if the rules were followed.

[Thinkingabout]

16. No proof.

[JonathanRackham]

56. She used a private server which was against government regulatuions.

The FBI currently has the server. That's about as good as it gets. The electronic contents is just icing on the cake. None of the bureaucrats deserves special privileges.

[Thinkingabout]

67. I was asking for proof of her server was hacked.

[JonathanRackham]

71. Read the following.

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

Only the FBI, CIA, NSA, Edward Snowden, N. Korea and China will ever know.

It's clear she is a security risk.

[Thinkingabout]

83. It is clear there is not evidence her server was hacked, point made.

[JonathanRackham]

84. Nobody will disclose anything concrete at this point.

Pointless still.

[Mike__M]

104. No proof of wrongdoing

is proof of no wrongdoing. Third Way Logic 101.

[JonathanRackham]

108. Only in the legal sense.

No proof she handled data correctly either.

[CentralCoaster]

44. But the "basement in your home" part, that was brilliant! So top secrety!

That, you must admit, is pretty high security!

What else was in that basement?

[uponit7771]

53. she's not a geek...so what

[JonathanRackham]

58. She failed to surround herself with compatent advisors.

It's a double fail if her team failed her.

I want this individual to appoint a cabinet of people of the same competence?

I've worked for some uber micro-managing supervisors, Hillarie's management style scare the crap out of many of us.

[JudyM]

109. She doesn't listen to the word no. She needs/demands to only have yes-people around her.

[JonathanRackham]

112. That's actually a common management mistake.

[JudyM]

113. In the most poorly run companies... Sometimes followed by enforcement actions that make them

change their culture. One of the worst things for any organization is a leader that stifles alternative opinions and dissent. Keeps problems from being discovered until it's too late. She appears to be one of these.

[JonathanRackham]

114. It sort of defines typical management in state and federal agencies.

Companies that do this fail. Bureaucracies get more levels of management.

[Surya Gayatri]

8. K & R enthusiastically.

[99Forever]

9. Because Hillary is a warmongering, corporate, lying liar...

... and Senator Sanders is a honest, trustworthy, decent person that will fight tirelessly for We the People. You know, the exact opposite of a Clinton.

[JonathanRackham]

11. K&R

What's scary is Hillary didn't comprehend the scope and magnitude of the war she voted for.

[Thinkingabout]

12. I find it very troubling when I listened to Sanders interview and he was not able

To even answer the question on how he was going to break up the banks of which he has spoken so many times. Surely he should have been able to give a clear answer on this issue. I also look at his agenda, it is not realistic, I don't see a pathway to passage.

[floppyboo]

18. I think that whole arguement has been put to bed

Have you not read any of the critiques, or perhaps watched one of the many non-MSM critiques?
Here's one to get you started. Don't dismiss Hartmann straight out of the gate as a Bernie supporter. NY Times endorsed Hillary. It's just the other side of the coin. Always good to question your assumptions.

[Thinkingabout]

19. I did not hear where the answer to breaking up the banks was put to bed.

The bill in which was discussed giving immunity to ONE industry was a bad vote by Sanders,not progressive.

[floppyboo]

22. I was pointing more to the ineptitude of the reporter's questions

I'm looking forward to the debate tomorrow. No doubt the question will be raised.

[Thinkingabout]

26. Then saying it has been put to bed because of the interviewer's questions is a little far,

I am more concerned with the answers from Sanders.

[floppyboo]

30. we all should be concerned with those answers

I'm no expert in this, but it seems Sanders' answer is similar to Hillary's - using Dodd-Frank provisions. The 'fumbling in the interview was a confusion on the reporters part between the Fed and Treasury. Sanders 'didn't know' because the reporter kept hammering away at how Sanders would involve the wrong department. We should be glad he didn't come up with some Trumpism - I still laugh at the Department of Environmental!

[Thinkingabout]

35. I am happy to see Sanders talking about the value if Dodd Frank, he has nit been before and it is

Good he is coming to Hillary's position on Dodd Frank, actually Hillary gave to section in Dodd Frank.

[floppyboo]

37. I guess it's all there is at present with Glass-Steigal gone. But it would seem the tools are there!

eom

[redstateblues]

61. Bernie was unable to explain the main issue he is running on

He's not ready for prime time

[floppyboo]

63. uable to answer the questions because they were not relevant

which is different than not being able to explain.
Relevant: "closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand."

From Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-daily-news_us_5704779ce4b0a506064d8df5

In fact, in several instances, it’s the Daily News editors who are bungling the facts in an interview designed to show that Sanders doesn’t understand the fine points of policy. In questions about breaking up big banks, the powers of the Treasury Department and drone strikes, the editors were simply wrong on details.

Take the exchange getting the most attention: Sanders’ supposed inability to describe exactly how he would break up the biggest banks. Sanders said that if the Treasury Department deemed it necessary to do so, the bank would go about unwinding itself as it best saw fit to get to a size that the administration considered no longer a systemic risk to the economy. Sanders said this could be done with new legislation, or through administrative authority under Dodd-Frank.

This is true, as economist Dean Baker, Peter Eavis at The New York Times, and HuffPost’s Zach Carter in a Twitter rant have all pointed out. It’s also the position of Clinton herself. “We now have power under the Dodd-Frank legislation to break up banks. And I’ve said I will use that power if they pose a systemic risk,” Clinton said at a February debate. No media outcry followed her assertion, because it was true.

As the interview went on, though, it began to appear that the Daily News editors didn’t understand the difference between the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. Follow in the transcript how Sanders kept referring to the authority of the administration and the Treasury Department through Dodd-Frank, known as Wall Street reform, while the Daily News editors shifted to the Fed.

[uponit7771]

54. +1, That's a main issue for him ... he should know

[Thinkingabout]

68. Exactly.

[reformist2]

15. OMG, "whole articles" are being written! I'm sure Bernie knows enough about the world.

[Kalidurga]

17. LOL an opinion piece and it's from a tabloid.

So what did Bigfoot's baby with the alien look like? Did they find the island with Elvis and Marilyn Monroe on it yet?

[Fast Walker 52]

20. what a load of crap.... I'll take a Sanders foreign policy a million times over for Hillary's wars

and regime changes.

[Thinkingabout]

27. Sanders has voted for regime changes also.

[Fast Walker 52]

51. how many disastrous ones did he vote for, in contrast to HRC?

[Bohemianwriter]

21. Why are supposed democrats

using a RW tabloid with a REPUBLICAN owner as gospel and cheer it's endorsement?

Are you Hillary supporters republicans in democratic disguise or just too far off the 3rd way rail?
NYDN is NOT a liberal news outlet! It's a cheap tabloid not with journalists but with hacks!

Where is Hillary's transparency and honesty? Where are the Wall Street transcripts?

[LexVegas]

23. Mathematically, he really isn't in the race. nt

[hellofromreddit]

24. Show us your math

[noretreatnosurrender]

34. And not that math

they used to tally votes in Colorado.

[Broward]

25. Hillary's been on the wrong side of almost every

major foreign policy she's made. So, yeah she has experience at being wrong virtually every freaking time.

[Thinkingabout]

29. This does not give Sanders foreign policy experience, when is he going to get up

To the level a president needs to be or to where a Senator needs to be?

[Broward]

36. As long as he doesn't fall down to the level of Hillary,

he's the better choice.

[Thinkingabout]

38. He is in need of climbing, falling will not help him.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. "He has no foreign policy experince, that Barack Obama"

[RoccoR5955]

32. Sanders is in the race to get the nomination for president.

Oh, and this country has not been "historically powerful." That only started around the time of WWI maybe, but definitely WWII.

[Jitter65]

33. To try to take Hillary out and overtake the Democratic party. nt

[Vinca]

43. He's the only candidate with vision.

The other candidate has no vision and just wants to make history.

[uponit7771]

55. but no plan makes the vision nill

[Vattel]

45. He had enough interest to argue forcefully against the invasion of Iraq

Sanders on the floor of the House of Representatives in the Fall of 2002:

Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution.

One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in international relations, not the first.

Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if another country chose to do the same thing?

Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, ``An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.''

Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term American occupation of Iraq could be extremely expensive.

Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that remain unanswered.

Meanwhile in the Senate "foreign policy expert" Hillary Clinton was aping the talking points of the Chimp about Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, etc.:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed.

[Betty Karlson]

46. He wants a different foreign policy. Not status quo antagonism to the whole world.

[Kentonio]

47. TPP is foreign policy. Free trade is foreign policy. Israel/Palestine is foreign policy.

On each of these, the candidates are markedly different.

[Logical]

49. Ffs, you are a genius. Lol. Nt

[dchill]

50. Because at the end of the primary process...

We need to have one candidate not under indictment!

[apcalc]

52. I really don't get

All the vitriol on this site, except to say that the populace in general is angry. Or the TROLLS are here in great number.

[Octafish]

57. You want an Emperor.

"Historically powerful country" sounds so correct, especially when spoken loudly and clearly and toward a microphone hidden in the wall.

[uponit7771]

60. Syntax, how about Sanders not knowing a damn thing about his "revolution". I said months

... ago the guy wasn't really interested and it seems like its true

[Bluenorthwest]

62. NYDN: "Our choice for America’s future: The Daily News endorses Mitt Romney for president"

" The regrettable truth is that Obama built a record of miscalculations and missed opportunities.
First came emergency economic stimulus. Because Obama gave free rein to House and Senate Democrats in deciding how to spend $800 billion, the legislation was heavily designed to satisfy the party’s constituencies and hunger for social programs, and inadequately weighted toward job-multiplier projects like building and repairing bridges and railroads — including subways.

After originally projecting that the program would produce 4 million more jobs than the country now has, along with a 5% jobless rate, Obama pleads that he saved Americans from more dire straits.

Next came Obamacare. While the country bled jobs, the President battled to establish universal health insurance — without first restraining soaring medical bills. Then he pushed one of the largest social programs in U.S. history through a Democratic-controlled Congress without a single Republican vote."
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/choice-america-future-mitt-romney-article-1.1196299

So do you think they had it right in 2012?

[Octafish]

77. Didn't Bernie call it a ''political revolution''?

It's a rhetorical device to rally support. You know, going by the existing system to elect people who will actually work for changing things for the better of ALL Americans.

Here's why he needs to rally the American people:

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

[uponit7771]

80. Syntax, he has no plan no matter what words he uses

[Bluenorthwest]

59. Other Opinion pieces from NY Daily News: First up, the endorsement of Mitt Romney!!!!

Our choice for America’s future: The Daily News endorses Mitt Romney for president
The trend over the Obama years: Goodbye to middle- and high-income jobs in New York City; hello to positions that pay less than $45,000 a year.

Recovery from the disaster that Obama inherited was going to take time. But four years is a long, long slog. Had the President guided a typical upswing, America would by now have regained essentially all its lost jobs. At his present pace, Obama would reach that milestone in the third year of a second term.

The regrettable truth is that Obama built a record of miscalculations and missed opportunities.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/choice-america-future-mitt-romney-article-1.1196299


Obama not the man America voted for
Historian says the 2008 Barack Obama went on to squander voters' goodwill
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/obama-not-man-america-voted-article-1.976962

President Obama's initial reaction to recent terrorist act lacked urgency, decisive leadership
What the public was left with was a never-to-be-repeated case study in crisis mismanagement. It's time to get a grip, Mr. President.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/president-obama-initial-reaction-terrorist-act-lacked-urgency-decisive-leadership-article-1.434043

World burns as Obama fiddles: Territory, power and victory are so 20th century
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/charles-krauthammer-world-burns-obama-fiddles-article-1.2544137

[Bluenorthwest]

65. You heard my take, you endorse the Daily News as reflective of your own thoughts but when asked

about other Daily News opinions over the years you become silent. I have to assume you agree with the full spectrum of their opinion because you tout them here as unassailable and virtuous.

Were you for Mitt in 2012? Or would you say NY Daily News was outlandishly incorrect in their characterizations of Obama and in their lauding of Romney?

[azurnoir]

66. I am truly impressed by the depth of your insight which is nearly prescient

b ecause prior to 2 months ago obviously no one had ever said Bernies campaign was one note

[uponit7771]

69. now we know its practically NO note

[azurnoir]

70. ya right if you think so

[Bonobo]

72. Wow, one whole article. You're a friggin' GENIUS!!!! nt

[Avalux]

74. OMG you're so right!! Bernie should drop out NOW!! I'm series!!1!!

"Whole articles" from the NYDN have shown me the error of my ways....NOT!

[uponit7771]

75. I don't agree, Sanders should stay in to make sure people see how full of shit he is

[astrophuss42]

76. Great!

You answered your own question.

Feel free to self delete.

[Avalux]

78. The longer he stays in, the more support he gains. What's wrong with people???

Surely they are all wrong, and you're right. Yes that must be it.

[uponit7771]

79. There's not enough time for him to win and no, not all people are sold on the plan-less podium bird

... choosen one

[Avalux]

82. Why are you supporting Hillary?

When you answer that, please give specifics. Thanks.

[uponit7771]

91. She's less full of shit than Sanders and has a practical plan to govern along with experience in

... leadership.

[aikoaiko]

89. Full of shit? That's funny given who you support.

[uponit7771]

92. Less full of shit than Sanders, be angry is not a practical plan to govern

[aikoaiko]

93. Being angry is practical when there are things to be angry about.

Being angry is what sustains change even when people try to block that change.

[uponit7771]

96. we agree on that, just not practical plan to govern. You can govern good and be happy too and

... still get shit done

[B Calm]

81. Trashing Thread

[uponit7771]

85. Hate facts? tia

[frylock]

86. Why did you avoid Bluenorthwest's question to you about the NYDN?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511719717#post59

[uponit7771]

103. 1. Regular humans don't live on DU so one or two questions are going to be missed, 2. When you

... have an OP that questions the Podium Bird Chosen One you get swarmed, 3. I didn't see a question in that post, jus the "I don'l like the source" retort... I don't like the source either but the question remains seeing the statement of "I don't know" remains.

[Number23]

87. "Bernie Sanders, a fantasist who’s at passionate war with reality."

That bit alone makes this a K&R for me

[aikoaiko]

88. He's in the race because he provides a compelling alternative to the bureaucrat HRC.

[uponit7771]

90. An alternative reality, that's about it... no plan t break up big banks

[aikoaiko]

94. He has a plan. Read his website and not just a headline.

In the DN interview he responded that he wasn't sure and had to study something specific.

[uponit7771]

99. Keyword practical and detailed, not just a marketing terms

In the DN interview he responded that he wasn't sure and had to study something specific.

That's an answer a serious candidate would never give on their main platform, that's worrisome no?

tia

[Cha]

95. That was a great OP back then.. grateful I read it and Rec it, uponit~

"Daily News Editorial Board says Vote Hillary Clinton: Her plans to give working- and middle-class Americans a fighting chance at rising incomes are far superior to Bernie Sanders'"

So glad more and more are recognizing this!

[uponit7771]

100. Thx! I know we should be angry about the perfectible government but we can be angry and get

... shit done at the same time.

I'm thinking Sanders is just focused on being angry and being mad with he rest of em.

[Orsino]

97. It can indeed look like a narrow focus...

...when one and only one candidate arrives on the scene to address--finally--some of the living room elephants. His issues are at the heart of our worst problems.

[uponit7771]

101. Un, there's no "look" ... it's narrow... I noticed this months ago... not having an OUTLINE on how

... the big banks would be broken up by now is worrisome to say the least.

This isn't the first subject of his main platform where "I don't know" is the main answer to detailed questions.

[ibegurpard]

98. my take?

I reject this garbage coming from them just like I rejected it from you.

[uponit7771]

102. So he does have at least an outline on how to break up the big banks? tia

[basselope]

105. Because he is far better on foreign policy.

[uponit7771]

106. Yes, far better than Bush which isn't saying much

[basselope]

107. Far better than Clinton.

Which isn't saying much either.

[uponit7771]

110. Nah, Clinton has said the IWR vote was a mistake... Sanders has never admitted to making...

... a mistake in voting and there have been some.

That alone says he's not qualified to be a leader when he doesn't recognize, as a human, he's going to make mistakes and needs to do something different.

He's dogmatic, it comes out in his lack of humility...

that almost needs to be its own OP

[basselope]

111. False.

Sanders has admitted to MANY mistakes.

It's funny how Clinton said the IWR vote was a mistake and then made the SAME mistake again in Libya.

How many complete foreign policy blunders do you get to make before it isn't just a "mistake" anymore?