2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWaPo: "Bernie Sanders just gave an amazingly condescending interview about Hillary Clinton"
The Fix
Bernie Sanders just gave an amazingly condescending interview about Hillary Clinton
By Chris Cillizza June 28 at 2:13 PM
The Democratic presidential primaries ended two weeks ago today. Bernie Sanders is still kind of, sort of running for the nomination, despite the fact he has lost -- by every possible metric -- to Hillary Clinton.
Clinton and her campaign have been generally fine with all of this, pivoting to the general election and assuming the Sanders thing would work itself out.
That approach may change after the interview Sanders gave to MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday. It was by turns baffling and surreal. But, most of all, it was remarkably condescending.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)It's actually sad, I think.
riversedge
(70,214 posts)the question completely in his response. (at the very beginning of the interview). He could not give Hillary a single nice word--just ignored the question (Andrea had showed a clip of the rally yesterday in Ohio). It was just rude.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)woolldog
(8,791 posts)During the primary. I don't get why he'd have hard feelings.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)Don't have a clue what hurt his feels. He should do the adult thing, the grace thing, the sportsmanship thing and set a good example by moving the hell on already.
Hekate
(90,681 posts)Cha
(297,205 posts)Mahalo, rivers~
Walk away~ http://www.democraticunderground.com/1107171459#top
Night Watchman
(743 posts)Hillary should give this self-important fool nothing, either before or during the convention! Any concessions already made should be revoked! AND NO PRIME-TIME SPEECH!
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Nowadays it should be treated as a right wing source.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)If not, I don't understand your point since the story is based on his own words.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I'll leave to each individual to determine what they think of the analysis.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)To me, it seems like he barely acknowledges that there was a primary election.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)he's asking for money from poor people so he can walk in like an emperor at the convention
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)Sorry
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Svafa
(594 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 29, 2016, 02:53 PM - Edit history (1)
He's not seeking donations. He doesn't want to walk in like an "emperor." He wants the DNC to realize that, while he lost, he still received quite a few votes and has millions of supporters. He wants to use that leverage to shape the party platform at the convention. He cares more about the future of the party (and the country) than he does about his own campaign--he wants to make sure that the DNC adopts some truly progressives policies in its platform, Why is this so hard for everyone to understand?
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)If anyone would have told me a year ago that I would be thoroughly disgusted with Bernie Sanders I would have laughed in their face.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Response to MariaThinks (Reply #3)
Post removed
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I can only imagine the reaction in Clinton headquarters watching that Sanders interview. (I would pay money to watch Clinton's reaction when/if she is shown it.)
The Clinton team has been willing to allow Sanders his extended time in the limelight mostly because (a) they don't think it hurts her in any measurable way for the fall campaign, and (b) they don't want to anger his backers unnecessarily.
But, Sanders's condescension toward and dismissiveness of Clinton in the Mitchell interview was striking. It's hard for me to imagine Clinton, her allies and the broader Democratic Party remain as accepting of Sanders's continued candidacy if he keeps up anything like that sort of rhetoric.
Shows that this was how it was going to be regardless. I am happy with the results of the primary and just do not understand how a person can go about life thinking that they are the sole possesor of integrity in the universe. I have no idea what he hopes to get from this.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Needs Obama more than she needs him. Much more.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)tell an entirely different story, and the longer this goes on will be the way he is remembered.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And that he will do absolutely jack shit about. People laid him for that- just not anyone who has actually worked to preserve choice.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...because Sanders' actual words are great.
Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Sanders is a representative of millions of people who are to the left of Clinton and want her to move left.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's up to Clinton to prove she supports working people and the middle class on those issues.
Bernie getting up on stage and gushing about how "wonderful" she is aint going to do it.
And if she is insincere, or papers over those issues, that's on her.
That's just a basic FACT.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)brer cat
(24,565 posts)He comes across as very sanctimonious and that is a high horse to fall from. I cannot see any positive outcome from this attitude of his.
pandr32
(11,582 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Not even a second on stage.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... constitute his obstruction to party unity?
He lost. He deserves some respect and consideration, but at some point he has to acknowledge he lost and lots of people voted for the other candidate and HER platform. Does he actually give a crap about the voice of THOSE people?
Response to Adrahil (Reply #27)
Post removed
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)If he's gonna play that game, he loses all respect, AFAIC. He LOST. By a LOT. He's already acknowledging that he will vote for her in November. He KNOWS he's lost. He's just trying to leverage whatever political clout he THINKS he has left. The irony is that being so damned stubborn, he's losing whatever clout he might have had by being a gracious loser. Now he just looks like a sore loser who refuses to acknowledge he lost.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Oh, the humanity!
Seriously? You do know that he ran less for this specific election and more for a movement, right? Why would you think he wouldn't use whatever clout he has to try and make the platform include some of what he was pushing for?
When he formally loses, I'm sure he will acknowledge he lost.
Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)after all the events are done. A nice ribbon, everybody takes some pictures, and the attention turns to the next race.
Nobody is sitting around thinking the first place finisher in the sprint competition hasn't "formally won" yet. Like "ooooo' Maybe they'll give it to the person who was way behind the first place finisher! How could we know? They haven't had the medal ceremony yet.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I think he's making a pretty YUGE mistake.
Svafa
(594 posts)It's amazing how myopic a view so many seem to have.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)No matter what metric you use, Hillary beat him by large margins. You can take away the Super Delegates and she still beats him by a large margin.
I don't know why he can't let go of this, but it's making him look very bad.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)Just like after Hillary (hopefully) wins in November, we won't need to wait until the inauguration to understand that she will be the next President.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Just look at the length of this thread. My goodness.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)This borders of the ludicrous. It's like calculating your grade in a class, but you have't REALLY failed until you actually receive the report card with the "F" on it.
This is what some of of us mean by when we say want a reality-based platform. We need to recognize when and where to expend energies, and when and where to expend political capital. Bernie is spending every dime of his political capital right now.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I actually thought the Bernie posts would have disappeared by now.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)He's not going out and mouthing a bunch of empty platitudes about how Clinton has been a fighter all her life and how she is the kindest most wonderful person he's ever encountered.
If he did, it would be obviously phony.
If he makes clear that Trump is unacceptable, and Clinton is a much better alternative, that's the best he can do.
But he is -- and should -- hold the feet of the Democratic Party to actually stand up on issues he has been raising, and not just sweep them under the rug of nicey-nicey.
If not, we continue down the primrose path to perdition and servitude to Big Money and Big Power.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)Pushing his agenda on the democratic party.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Move to the right and pick up more anti-Trump Republicans.
Sanders has now left the party no other choice, his entire movement must now be rejected completely.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You know there is a whole thread about how Clinton is the biggest progressive ever. You might want to go tell them that that is a bad thing for your election plan.
For me, I think it is sad that my party continues to pivot to the right. YMMV.
Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #34)
Post removed
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Sanders is the one who refuses to concede and endorse, so he leaves no choice but for the party to completely reject him at all levels.
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)because if she could get that 8%, she wouldn't need to do that. At some point, she will have to give up on them.
LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)party unity.
Native
(5,942 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)I don't want it either...nor do millions of others.
That's a dictatorship not a democracy.
LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)or alluded to that.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)I really can't stand the Washington Post anymore. They're turning into the Enquirer.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)His saying these things now is rather obnoxious given the position he's in at this point.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)I'm fine with it. The polls show his supporters are already moving to Hillary in droves, much more than the PUMAs did for Obama in 08. I don't see any harm in what he's doing, and I think Hillary is handling it the right way. She's sees the polls, knows she has the nomination, and after the convention the last remnants of the primary will be gone and we'll unite to shred trump.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)If he stopped advocating the things he believes in that would get millions of millennial to disengage from politics.
still_one
(92,190 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)not the Washington Post
mcar
(42,323 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)This story is based on exact quotes. And his comments are very questionable, no matter how anyone tries to spin them or deflect attention to other people ...
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Response to arcane1 (Reply #16)
Post removed
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Those issues don't disappear just because the primary is over.
They won't disappear when the general election is over either.
All Sanders is saying in that interview is that as the nominee it is Clinton's job to persuade voters she is on their side. He can't do that. It's up to her.
I don't see a damn thing wrong with saying that, because it's the simple truth.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Gothmog
(145,218 posts)Buzz cook
(2,471 posts)I think we should take a page from Clinton's book on thins.
Stop picking at that thing you'll only make it worse.
LenaBaby61
(6,974 posts)Hate having to put him on TOTAL ignore but given how he won't stop talking etc.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)Cilizza can fuck off. Democrats really need to quit pissing off the base.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)condescending!
Reading the Sen. Sanders comments, to be blunt, the Senator is correct.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,003 posts)rateyes
(17,438 posts)Response to rateyes (Reply #19)
LAS14 This message was self-deleted by its author.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)She may have done better with pre-registered Democrats, but the "base" is much bigger and broader, unless you consider the Democratic Party an exclusive club.
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)Maybe some used to be a part of the base but they dropped out.
Hokie
(4,286 posts)I have never seen a someone not a Republican so full of himself. It's time to decide if you are going to get the fuck to work or get out of the fucking way. Bernie is starting to get in the fucking way with his it's all about me crap.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)The corporate media wants to demonize progressivism.
spooky3
(34,451 posts)Check out his prior columns, if you don't believe me.
Gothmog
(145,218 posts)Sanders lost the primary process and his endorsement is less and less necessary every day
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...and Chris Cillizza gets paid to be treat it as shocking, offensive news.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... not even a following (seeing Sanders supporters are flocking to Clinton faster than Clinton supporters flocked to Obama in 08) and lost by millions of vote.
Thank you, Hokie~
Tal Vez
(660 posts)The Democratic Party needs people like him. We need people whose egos will permit them to participate as part of a team.
Ego-tripping connoisseurs who cannot permit themselves to ever appear to be satisfied with anything are of no help to anyone. Their interest is always the same - to convince everyone else that they are more ideologically pure and more spiritually advanced than anyone else living. They cannot and will not be satisfied. If anyone wants an example of that kind of person, look at Alan Keyes and what he's done to the Republican Party.
Sanders is a professional politician with many years of experience. He knows the importance of unity. The platform will take care of itself. Clinton and her political experts are designing a campaign to win in November. There shouldn't be anything in the platform that she thinks will make her campaign more difficult to win. Sanders understands that.
After Clinton wins, we can take a look at the makeup of the legislature and start pushing doable things that are in our wish lists. But, first, let's win in November.
If anyone wants an example of the kind of people that we do need, look at Elizabeth Warren and what she's doing. She's a total winner. And, it's because she places the interests of others ahead of her own ego.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Seems many are gobbling it up because they want to.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)supports Trump. But that is just me reading between the lines.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)..by anti-Sanders WaPo editors.
Response to EffieBlack (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)And yes I am certainly voting for Hillary.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... wasn't part of the team.
Sanders supporters have flocked to Clinton at twice the rate of Clinton to Obama in 08...
His backing is statistically gone
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"flocking to" Clnton.
No...... many are like me. I'll grudgingly vote for her because the alternative Trump/GOP is so awful.
But that is NOT "flocking to her" by any stretch of the imagination.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... she's got a shorter path to capture 95% than Obama had and he won
glowing
(12,233 posts)that anyone who supported Bernie wants those ideas to go away?
It's not typically Democrats that any Democratic nominee needs to court, likewise, it's not Republicans that Republicans court during the general election. It's the 43% that now make up "independent", which can mean people who used to be Republican, but can't stand their overt racism OR disagree with them on never ending wars and "nation building" interference in other countries. The other portion of Independent are even more to the left of this Corporate- Democratic Party.
And many, many, many new voters don't identify with either party (especially, the younger generations 40/45 and younger). Neither parties are addressing reality of living in a globalized Oligarchy that absolutely refuses to address the biggest issue for now and into our future in regards to climate change. They also refuse to address the issue of "capitalism", if you can even call it that, where the very wealthy are so extremely powerful, they make life a living hell for the 99%... Or maybe the bottom 90%.
We absolutely need voices to stand up and challenge the status quo. To continue the revolution. To push for the changes we need NOW!
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... of the president.
If not it was all just an angry do nothing movement
glowing
(12,233 posts)She won, he lost, Fuck You! Well, without those popular ideas that many Drmocrats and Independents liked, we continue to choke down establishment bullshit that only works for a handful of people. Look at gun regulation. Money in politics is so powerful, the Republicans won't wven allow a vote on denying those on a "no fly list" to buy weapons OR to increase background checks to include gun shows.
Quite honestly, the first woman President should be helping to foster a moment of peace, universal healthcare (and I don't mean this sick perversion of the ACA straight from the Heritage Foundation), increasing access to education, increasing access for safe affordable housing, increasing environmental standards, increasing minimum wages so that women (who tend to have to work as shitty jobs) can take care of their families, having paid maternity and paternity leave, mandating paid vacation time... The fact that Bernie, a man, is more pro-Feminist, than the first woman nominee of Dem Party is simply mind numbing... And then to see so many people say, "nah, nah, we won, sit down, shut up, we don't want those good things, we want more fracking, we want shitty wages, we want money in politics, we want crappy health care, we want poisoned water, we want to keep shipping jobs overseas and opening up more H-1b visas so people can train cheaper workers to do their job before they are fired. Nah, nah".
Seriously, is this Dem Underground or freaking Somalia is Grand, let's continue emulating that country.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... and Clinton isn't Satan's daughter and relative to experience and character she was the best choice.
That being he shouldn't be focusing his energy in making demands on the person who won.
FOR ME and a lot of PoC it was his character and credibility which .. by the way, he's proving us correct as I type.. cause of his focus of energy being on the dems vs tRump
If for instance Sanders fought for a strong congress in the past I'd believe he was going to keep it real but he's going after making a deal with the president ...which the office of the president was never designed to be the strongest office its congress... and specifically the house because if the house is 90% dem the speaker becomes the strongest legislator due to the veto override ability.
FDR had an 80% congress, no need to veto anything from the dem speaker because it was going to pass... FDR had no choice but to be far left.
Instead of focusing energy on the POTUS focus where it belongs... on congress... but that's not what he's doing
People want what you outlined and none of the negative, which I don't think Clinton is going to bring about most of that.
Response to EffieBlack (Original post)
Post removed
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)telling you it is makes people believe he was being condescending. SMFH.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)that it was condescending and dismissive.
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)I was so determined not to vote if he wasn't the nominee, but after much thought, I've come to the conclusion that this is too important to sit out. I've been more than a bit disappointed lately. Ego is a powerful thing, and I'm old enough (and disillusioned enough) to have seen this more times than I want to remember.
ThinkCritically
(241 posts)Me too. If you think Bernie is any different today than he was on June 6th before AP screwed him over, then I don't know what to tell you. He is just a man who doesn't go against his morals and that does include not supporting someone like Hillary Clinton who has taken millions from the financial sector. She is the opposite of a Bernie Sanders. Hell, she is the opposite of Elizabeth Warren which is why it was stunning to see EW go the route she did. Maybe she is naive or maybe she is using her position to push for Bernie's platform later. Who knows.
Buzz cook
(2,471 posts)Here's the Mitchell interview
http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell
In it Sanders is very approving of most of the platform with only reservations about the TPP. It is clear that he is waiting for the convention to endorse.
He closes with some of the boiler plate from his stump speech.
Chris Cillizza on the other hand seems to have an unhealthy obsession with the email (non) scandal.
https://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/09/25/50-headlines-that-reveal-wash-post-reporter-chr/205765
Given that part of the conservative strategy is to spread discord between Hillary and Sanders supporters, taking a negative spin on that interview is par for the course.
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)like they did with the whole not qualified affair...
jamese777
(546 posts)"Donald Trumps bad month just got worse, because Sanders backers just rallied to Clinton"
Donald Trump would like for Bernie Sanders supporters to ditch the Democratic Party and support him. There is very little evidence that they will do that, mind you, but it's certainly possible that they might just stay home which would help Trump.
Well, we have some bad news for the Trump campaign. Sanders supporters aren't just rallying around Clinton; they're doing it rather quickly. And it's a big reason Clinton just extended her lead over Trump into the double digits, 51 percent to 39 percent.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that Sanders backers, who polls have shown were reluctant to jump over to Clinton and even flirted with supporting Trump, are coming home faster than we might have expected.
Last month, 20 percent of Sanders supporters said they would back Trump over Clinton in the general election. This month, that figure is down to 8 percent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/26/donald-trumps-bad-month-just-got-worse-because-bernie-backers-just-rallied-to-clinton/
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)From Cillizza:
What he's saying -- if you read between the lines -- is that the ball is in Clinton's court when it comes to winning his endorsement
the belief undergirding Sanders's comments is that he alone -- and, therefore, not Clinton -- is the person who can bring transformational change to end the "decline of the American middle class."
so it is Cillizza's "interpretation" of what Sanders says.
as for me, what Bernie says is simply his belief. He is honest and sincere and deeply committed. You can disagree with him, but that does not make him condescending. He has a voice in this political season and I continue to value what he has to say.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)"I think many people -- I would respectfully disagree and suggest that many people do understand. Our job is to transform America, to end the 40-year decline of the American middle class. That is what I am fighting to do. And we are in that process right now. We did very well, I thought, in St. Louis, in terms of the first meeting of the platform committee. Now we go to Orlando, and then we go to the floor of the Democratic Convention. Politics is not a baseball game with winners or losers. What politics is about is whether we protect the needs of millions of people in this country who are hurting. That is my focus. And my job right now is to make the Democratic Party as open, as inclusive, as progressive as it possibly can be, and that's what we're working on as we speak."
stupid opinionated spin, imo.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)He disagrees with Clinton's more moderate position. That's fine.
mcar
(42,323 posts)uponit7771
(90,336 posts)Clinton's flocked to Obama in 08...
His movement has moved on
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Cillizza is trying desperately to push a narrative. Pretty much a fail on his part.
Response to Vattel (Reply #63)
geek tragedy This message was self-deleted by its author.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)He wasn't a member of the party until he needed the party to advance his political ambitions.
He bad-mouthed the Party for decades, and continued to do so while running for the Party's nomination.
And now, having been soundly rejected as the Party's nominee, he somehow believes he should be allowed to "transform" the Party into what he wants it to be.
Bernie had decades to join the Party, but refused to do so. Given that, it strikes me as incredibly arrogant for him to think he should have any say in what that Party does or doesn't do. Were he truly interested in "transforming" the Party, he had ample time during his career to BE a Democrat and work towards changing things within the Party AS a Democrat.
Bernie chose to be "on the outside looking in". Is it any wonder that those of us who have been Democrats all along get our backs up when an "outsider" wants to tell us that we should defer to his edicts as to how our Party should be run?
WhiteTara
(29,710 posts)Thanks
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)...And now, having been soundly rejected as the Party's nominee, he somehow believes he should be allowed to "transform" the Party into what he wants it to be.
That's exactly what I was referring to downthread when I said I truly don't understand why anyone would even PRETEND to care about his comments/statements or anything at this point. I GENUINELY do not understand why anyone is supposed to care.
Grassy Knoll
(10,118 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)AllyCat
(16,187 posts)Big tent sound familiar? Jeez. These types of posts slamming this type of Dem are allowed to stand. I have been a Democrat all along...and support Bernie's efforts to create positive change in our party. But feel free to continue to slam a Democrat.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Nothing wrong with that.
I had a post deleted in which I asked whether it matters whether a Democrat stands for the values of the party or simply has the "D" after their name, because it was supposedly "bashing" a public Democratic figure, even though my post was purely hypothetical. Yet I see post after post here that flat-out and unequivocally bash Sanders without anyone batting an eyelash. I thought we weren't supposed to bash ANY public Democrat or Democratically-identifying politician, but that definitely doesn't seem to be the case....
AllyCat
(16,187 posts)Certain Dems and not others.
Response to AllyCat (Reply #147)
Post removed
AllyCat
(16,187 posts)Get over it.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... to further his own political ambitions. He stated so himself when asked - he said it was because he needed the media attention he couldn't get if he ran as an Indy.
And why is he running as an Independent in his next senate race if he's a "registered Democrat"?
AllyCat
(16,187 posts)If what you say is true, why has he not gone back to his old party? He's a registered Democrat and continuing to bash him is a violation of TOS.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... both seem like nihilistic types
Vattel
(9,289 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... this totally unsubstantiated belief that "the far left" are all Bernie supporters.
I have news for you: Many of us on the "far left" are HRC supporters. Many of us who are true progressives are HRC supporters. Many of us who want to see positive change in the Party are HRC supporters.
The totally ridiculous meme that all HRC supporters are status quo-loving, warmongering, corporatist- embracing 1%ers was laughable at the outset - and has become more so as the primary process progressed.
As a member of the "far left", I can assure you that most of us just didn't buy what Bernie was selling. That's why we supported the candidate who knows the difference between spewing talking points and actually DOING something that advances our goals.
The idea that the "far left" were all BS supporters is beyond laughable. But I understand people who need to cling to that idea - as ludicrous as it is.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I never said that the far left were all Bernie supporters. The poster to whom I was replying said that Bernie had turned him or her against the far left. I merely said that the far left could survive without that person's support.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... that all of the posts here saying that Bernie supporters are the far left, the True Progressives (TM), and that HRC supporters are centrists and conservatives, never actually happened.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)As if I am pretending that some set of posts do not exist.
Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #136)
Post removed
Renew Deal
(81,858 posts)MFM008
(19,808 posts)But if you can't bend your knee a bit you won't get
What you want.
Loki
(3,825 posts)Class and crass.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)... whatever leverage he can til the convention to push his agenda. I think that's OK. Regardless of how much I do or don't agree with his agenda.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)...twice the rate Clinton's did to Obama in 08
He has no backing literally and figuratively
Wash. state Desk Jet
(3,426 posts)and Chris Cillizza sucks ! Sanders and condescending, somewhat perhaps, but you know he did clearly say not too far back there still on the campaign trail, he would most certainly consider serving as Hillary's VP. Thing of it is, Hillary camp has not approached Sanders at all about that. If there is a sense of entitlement, that just might be it. I don't think Sanders is being shunned as the saying goes ,but I get the impression he has become somewhat disenchanted with the way it all goes at current.
runaway hero
(835 posts)This nonsense belongs in USWeekly, not a national newspaper.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...but would have left out the direct quotes of Sanders showing that the rant against Sanders was nonsense.
So Washington Post is still a little better than the NY Post.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)NOT!
nest
(23 posts)But it won't happen. There is NO evidence that she mishandled classified information or did anything wrong, and even if an indictment were reccomended, it would have happened a long time ago.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)uponit7771
(90,336 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Not sure he will ever loose that attitude. I think that's him and that's who he intends on being even after this campaign.
Its unfortunate since he could have been a major force to help the party and the country. He appears to be heading in the direction of where he was before.. a unknown inconsequential Senator from a small inconsequential state.
randome
(34,845 posts)She must be just as bad as Clinton if she's ignoring Sanders and trying to get something done.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Seems she has taken his potential place as the liberal lion of the party.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)😐
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... has anyone ever heard Bernie say anything that isn't a soundbyte from the same stump speech he's been making for over a year now?
randome
(34,845 posts)The fact that he can't answer a direct question put to him makes me wonder if he fully realizes there is more to the world than just his opinion.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)Since Bernie launched his campaign last spring, I have not heard a single sentence out of his mouth that wasn't an excerpt of his one-and-only stump speech.
In the early days, I watched his appearances on late-night talk shows and Sunday morning political shows, watched all of the debates, and read his interviews in the press. And the talking points were exactly the same, verbatim, every single time.
Some people see that as "consistency" - I see it as evidence of a man who committed ONE speech to memory, and is incapable of saying anything beyond that ONE speech.
By the third debate, I realized I could have stepped-in for Bernie if he was suddenly unable to appear anywhere at any time. I KNEW all the talking points - and knew there was nothing substantial beyond their constant recitation.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)speaktruthtopower
(800 posts)he wasn't in this for his own aggrandizement like a lot of politicians. It no doubt hurts more because it is his core beliefs that have had a setback, not his career.
The good new for Democrats is that his core beliefs in the end will drive him to work against Trump.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... continually placing the onus on Clinton to make sure he plays his part is (cause he never answers the straight foward question with a straight forward answer) denotes a sense of entitlement
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)SANDERS: I think -- you're asking, I think, with all due respect, Andrea, the wrong question. It's not a question of my endorsement. It's a question of the American people understanding that Secretary Clinton is prepared to stand with them as they work longer hours for low wages, as they cannot afford health care, as their kids can't afford to go to college. Make it clear that she is on their side, that she is prepared to take on Wall Street, the drug companies, fossil fuel industry. Deal with the global crisis of climate change. I have no doubt that if Secretary Clinton makes that position, those positions clear, she will defeat Trump and defeat him by a very wide margin.
~~~~~~~
I think if anything it says that HIS agenda is clear, what is important to him is clear, and his endorsement is his to give or not give. There isn't anything condescending about having hoops to jump through for an actual endorsement.
randome
(34,845 posts)His rambling stump speech was not an answer to the question he was asked.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I am now starting to wonder if he has an issue with women and that is what is driving his reluctance to do the sensible thing. Telling a professional that they don't know how to do the job they've held for decades is the epitome of condescension. It's also a cheesy and obvious way to avoid asking the difficult question that was asked.
He's coming off poorly--and it's all his own fault.
With all due respect, of course.
randome
(34,845 posts)It would seem that they, of everyone in the Senate, should be working closely and energetically together. But they haven't, that I can see. So maybe there's something in what you say, although it wouldn't explain his endorsement of other women candidates. I can't figure the man out.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He likes to talk about HIS record. A lot.
It's getting a bit tiresome. He was once my 2nd choice. Now I just wish he'd do what every adult in his situation has done in the past--make the UNITY move--and rejoin the fold.
If he doesn't do that very soon, I will have to wonder about his motives.
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)F. Kafka
(70 posts)Said he's voting for Clinton, said that he'll do everything in his power to defeat Trump, and then said that he hopes to help make the Dem platform as progressive as possible.
Also, not to get meta, but wondering how this post gets by the new TOS about not disparaging fellow Dems?
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)of what he's doing to defeat Trump.
And I would argue that you can't be magnanimous if you're setting conditions under which you'll recognize your opponent's victory.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)So far Bernie has done neither, and it's frankly mystifying why he hasn't.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Of course I got an FFR for saying that last week, but here is the deal. I am a female business owner, and I started my career in a man's business IN THE SOUTH no less. I am 56 years old and had my fricking head patted by men for decades. I recognize this shit when I see it. And so do my sisters in political activism. This is not controversial in the real world of sentient human beings who are politically active.
And you can tell me all damn day that it has nothing to do with Clinton being an accomplished female (much more accomplished than Bernie by the way) and Bernie being an older white male from a generation that is accustomed to women being second class citizens. But all you need to do is talk to other women he has run against, or even check out the youtube of him pushing his wife out of the way, or examine some of his earlier essays about rape and the idea that women get cancer if they don't put out enough to know the real truth here.
And I think I am allowed to have that opinion. So whatever. I am tired of watching him smear one of the most accomplished Democrats in my lifetime. I think it's Democratic Underground and I have a RIGHT to defend her from his smears.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I too believe that Sander should have started endorsing Hillary the day after the DC primary at the latest.
I think that he his putting his movement above the good of the party.
I also found his interview 'condescending"
But did I find it sexist? Not in the least because I am reasonably sure that Sanders would be acting the exact same way had he been beaten by a man. Sanders is acting totally within character; I wouldn't even try to excuse his current behavior, but I wouldn't expect him to act any other way. I tried to listen to the interview again from your point of view, and I still find no evidence of sexism.
Everyone see the world through the prism of their experiences. Perhaps that is why my interpretation is so different than yours, but I like consider myself pretty objective on most things and I can usually spot sexism when I see it.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I really don't understand why Washington Post is even commenting on this. Camp Clinton will barely give this interview the time of day and I don't think anyone else will either.
elias7
(3,999 posts)over and over about endorsement and quitting the primary and she does not seem to understand his oft-repeated answer. he is taking his progressive agenda to the convention to fight for this in the platform, as he has said all along. There was no disrespect towards Clinton that I could see, other than if one were to consider holding her feet to the progressive fire until she is formally nominated and a platform is established.
I see Bernie as completely straightforward and not baffling, surreal or condescending. Imo, Hillary would see this in such a light either. I think understanding how some people see this as insulting and some do not is a key point to understanding the difference in mindset of this primary season's Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters.
Johnny2X2X
(19,066 posts)He got beat by 13+ points.
JI7
(89,249 posts)I don't regret it although i knew he would not win the nomination.
But i think this shows why he had little support from others in congress. You can complain about them bring establishment but he didn't get support from Feingold or even kucinich.
He would have been more influential if he had done like warren.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Despite not suspending his campaign, I do think that he is resigned to the fact that he lost. Sanders isn't going to endorse anyone unless they are a human clone of him.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)He is pushing her to fight for the values he cares about, that his supporters care about, and that even many of the people who voted for Hillary care about. A lot of the people I know who voted for Hillary did so based on what they thought was politically possible, not because they didn't agree with Bernie's ideas.
Gothmog
(145,218 posts)One advantage of having Senator Warren on the ticket is that Sanders' endorsement is not needed Senator Warren is looking better and better
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)Gothmog
(145,218 posts)akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)DNC but will vote for Mrs. Clinton.
Gosh, let the guy have his say, it is freedom of speech!
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Chris Cillizza, an anti-Sanders writer for an anti-Sanders newspaper, interprets Sanders words in negative ways which are different from what Sanders said.
mcar
(42,323 posts)It is well documented.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I guess the belief is Clinton has the GE in the bag, so it's back to ranting and raving about Sanders.
David__77
(23,387 posts)"It's a question of the American people understanding that Secretary Clinton is prepared to stand with them as they work longer hours for low wages, as they cannot afford health care, as their kids can't afford to go to college. Make it clear that she is on their side, that she is prepared to take on Wall Street, the drug companies, fossil fuel industry. Deal with the global crisis of climate change. I have no doubt that if Secretary Clinton makes that position, those positions clear, she will defeat Trump and defeat him by a very wide margin."
I can envision a Clinton campaign as attempting a broad centrist "unity front" type of candidacy aimed at uniting Democrats and Republicans not comfortable with Trump. I can alternatively imagine a left-of-center Clinton campaign that sets up a stark choice between "left" and "right." Ultimately, I'm not sure whether it matters which campaign is run in terms of what the result will be once in office.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Vinca
(50,270 posts)He's not a fool. He knows he isn't going to be the nominee. If he was just in it for himself he would have been long gone and cashing in writing a book about the experience. Bernie wants justice and if a few toes get stepped on it's not the end of life as we know it.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... what he said he'd do which was "everything" to defeat tRump.
So far very little has even been said about tRump but his main focus is his demands that the winner of a contest says what he wants her to say.
That's entitlted
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If winning is everything, and the only thing, and the loser gets niothing....and nothing else but the election contest ever matters you're correct.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... is making demands and at the same time doing relatively little to combat the real opposittion to those ideals and its not HRC.
Vinca
(50,270 posts)revolutionfoundation
(7 posts)It's possible they'll vote for Sanders, improbable, but not impossible.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)The direct quotes from Sanders, however, do paint him as still disgruntled. I wonder what he thinks of Elizabeth Warren. It's telling, I think, that the two of them are not best buds in the Senate.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He epitomizes the smug beltway insider.
As for Sanders, he is disgruntled. I'm disgruntled. Millions of people are disgruntled. Just because Clinton won does not make her a diofferent person, nor does it change the issues the primary was about.
If he were to go out and pretend to gush about how wonderful Clinton is, and how he supports everything she might do unconditionally, he'd be a phony. And no one would believe him.
Best he can do is to keep fighting for what he's been fighting for along, as well as keep pointing out how awful Trump is, and how she's certainly light years ahead of that.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)It is because Hillary IS and HAS BEEN addressing all the the issues Bernie is talking about. Bernie and Hillary have identical goals more than 9 times out of 10. Her website, debates, speeches and interviews consistently show she has not just a desire to have those problems solved but plans for how to do it.
"It's a question of the American people understanding that Secretary Clinton is prepared to stand with them as they work longer hours for low wages, as they cannot afford health care, as their kids can't afford to go to college. Make it clear that she is on their side, that she is prepared to take on Wall Street, the drug companies, fossil fuel industry. Deal with the global crisis of climate change. I have no doubt that if Secretary Clinton makes that position, those positions clear, she will defeat Trump and defeat him by a very wide margin."
Where Hillary and Bernie depart is on the best way to handle the problems to be solved, not that they have to be solved. Bernie's start over method and Hillary's fix what is broken approach are different and the vast majority of people agree that Hillary's plan is simply better.
What people find baffling is Bernie's continued inaccurate insistence that Hillary does not care or want that progress. He doesn't just imply that in his interview with Andrea, he flat out states it. Many people find that on-going characterization unreasonable, condescending and surreal.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The Democratic Party because the Other Party of Big Business and Wall St. in the 1990's.
Maybe more liberal on social issues, but when it comes to distribution of actual Wealth and Power....and allowing corporations and Wall St. to get away with their theft of the good ol' USA .....more conservative than liberal.
The Democrats can either continue along that path, or rediscover its liberal soul on those issues.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)And those parts would be policies and practices. It is helpful when Bernie presents specific solutions rather than making negative, sweeping generalizations about Dems, Hillary or what is broken. An example of where he is offering a solution is the goal of raising the minimum wage to $15. At least that gives everyone a benchmark to work with, whether they agree or not. Unfortunately, he didn't do much of that in his interview. Saying "we have to break up the banks" or that "Hillary has to show she cares" is so vague as to be rendered meaningless and opens him up to criticism of the kind in this article. Bernie is much more likely to get what he wants if he were to say with some specificity what that is. Otherwise, his words are open to too much interpretation and can be construed as complaining and personal animus rather than policy.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Bernie is doing exactly what he should be doing. keeping up the pressure to keep those issues alive in the presiden tial campaign and mainstream politics.
Otherwise, they will disappear. The specifics or alternative approaches won't matter because the issues will be glossed over, just as they have been for several decades....Or mischaracterized as pet causes of the "far left."
Other than being a political football, for example, how many in-depth reports has Chris Lizzard written about the actual impact of low wages on real people -- or the economic impact of $15 vs. $12....or the movement (which long predates Sanders' presidential run) for a livable wage?
Mr. Lizzard is too busy at his fancy restaurants to worry about such trivia.
The MSM -- and too many Democratic politicians -- were NOT focusing on these issues, or even raising them before. Sanders at least brought them into a mainstream presidential campaign.
Unfortunately, if Clinton follows the longstanding pattern, issues like htat will merely be given lip service to. Instead it will all be about how many women Trump has slept with over his life, or whether Clinton is good at projecting "empathy, and the other crap that passes for political/media discussion.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)and strategically, Bernie's vagueness about issues gives them too much room to do that. That isn't to say the media won't still resist reporting about substance no matter how wonkish any candidate chooses to be. The BS with which they treat Hillary being a prime example. The difference between the Dem and the GOP discussions during the debates truly showed the contrast between the parties and gave us an enormous credibility advantage. That may be lost on some of the most willfully ignorant of the electorate but for those who are paying attention, it still matters.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Alas, in our Short Attention Span society an issue has to be presented in a dramatic fashion to get attention. (Although the media could make these issues interesting if they wanted to bother doing so.)
That's why I'm all in favor of Bernie's Bullmoose style. If these things can be put front and center, there'll be plenty of time to hyash out details.....if the Democratic leadership is willing.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)It appears that Hillary is the nominee. Most of the Sanders supporters have moved to supporting Hillary.
Sanders seems to still be holding out for something himself............
However here on the forum, or forums, there seems to be a lot of trolling of the Sanders Supporters, who support Hillary but
still like Sanders and what he stood for. Who wouldn't that was a true liberal??
I'm going to vote for Clinton. But the repeated posts sort of wanting to diss Sanders by Hillary supporters (or republican paid trolls?) I don't think do anything for party unity. I realize there are some holdouts dissing Clinton as well but she's the nominee and I think she is going to beat Trump pretty easily because people realize he's making it up as he goes along. Would be good if those who are not republicans trying to sew inter party discord hold their fire in the interest of party unity.
Just Sayin"
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)The most charitable description for this is projection. There are other, less charitable descriptions for it as well.
Svafa
(594 posts)Not surprised they're still trashing him in the headlines.
Response to EffieBlack (Original post)
Post removed
Svafa
(594 posts)Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)SANDERS: I think -- you're asking, I think, with all due respect, Andrea, the wrong question. It's not a question of my endorsement. It's a question of the American people understanding that Secretary Clinton is prepared to stand with them as they work longer hours for low wages, as they cannot afford health care, as their kids can't afford to go to college. Make it clear that she is on their side, that she is prepared to take on Wall Street, the drug companies, fossil fuel industry. Deal with the global crisis of climate change. I have no doubt that if Secretary Clinton makes that position, those positions clear, she will defeat Trump and defeat him by a very wide margin.
Then:
Much...if not all...of the ugliness we had on this site during GD-P came from people "reading between the lines."
What Sanders is saying...if you take his words at face value and do not "read between the lines"...is that his supporters want to believe that "Clinton is prepared to stand with them." Those are his exact words.
So if you can copy and paste the part where he was "amazingly condescending," I'll be prepared to consider that as fact, not opinion.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)This is just another attempt at discrediting progressives.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)has plans to deal with all his issues and he acts like he is still holds the moral high ground.
He is becoming more irrelevant every day sits on his limb and keeps sawing.
Hekate
(90,681 posts)...and a complete inability to work well with others. Barney Frank nailed his personality flaws long ago, and has been proven right again and again during this campaign:
Bernie alienates his natural allies, Frank said. His holier-than-thou attitudesaying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone elsereally undercuts his effectiveness.
When both Frank and Sanders were members of the Banking Committee, Frank said to The Washington Post in July 1991 that Sanders was not effective from within the committee, and suggested that Sanders didnt want to be. But maybe thats not his goal, says Frank. There are some people who seek to have a major effect inside, and others who opt to use the place as a platform.
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/04/11/history-barney-frank-bernie-sanders-criticize
He's just using Democrats and the Democratic Party as his personal platform -- I find this really sad, because he would rather be right (in his own eyes) than get stuff accomplished. It makes him unsuited to either a Cabinet post or VP.
runaway hero
(835 posts)Just to rile people up. Politics is garbage nowadays.