Psssst. Hillary Supporters who decry Sander's party association...

[berni_mccoy]

Allow me to clue you into a little secret that Howard Dean shared before the Democratic forum:

Bernie is doing the DNC a huge favor by running as a Democrat.

Dean said this. And it's true.

If Bernie ran as an independent, he would be giving the general election to the Republicans. Bernie is selfless and humble to do this for the greater good. He has always been a friend to the Democratic Party and he is a Democrat now.

So, please, cut the shit on this already.

[MADem]

1. He's a stalking horse, then? He's a very good one, I must say.

I trust Dean's instincts.

Now, the question is, what's the payback?

Secretary of Labor?

[RobertEarl]

4. Obama said pretty much the same

Obama is happy Bernie is running because he brings freshness to politics and new blood into the party.

Some party elites are objecting to Bernie's campaign. Everyone else is happy that Bernie is a Democrat and welcome him with open arms and their votes.

[appalachiablue]

33. Amen.

[restorefreedom]

10. in the unlikely event that bernie loses the nom,

he would not leave the senate..his voice is too needed there

[MADem]

11. I think that it is likely he will lose the nom, and it's entirely possible he'll join the

cabinet.

He hasn't done all that much in the Senate, big picture. If he had an opportunity to lead the Department of Labor, at that nice Cabinet salary, with those nice Cabinet perks, I think he'd take it. Labor issues ARE in his wheelhouse, indeed, they are his signature issue.

He'd be crazy to turn that down if it were offered. And I'm sure the governor of VT would be thrilled to run for his seat, as would the one sitting rep for that state.

[restorefreedom]

14. i can't see him leaving the senate

as nice as such a position might be, he would not stop fighting in the senate imo. and his presence in a clinton labor dept would not allow him to effect the kind of change he is fighting for. they are different on minimum wage, income unequality, tax structure, and corporate welfare. i can't imagine he would want to serve in a clinton cabinet, no offense intended.

[MADem]

16. For a cabinet post? Are you kidding?

To be one of a hundred, and in the minority right now where there's no ability to set the agenda, or to be the head of an agency that sets labor policy for the government of the USA? 10th in line for the Presidency, too, while we're at it...!

Gee....which would Sanders like more?

Oh, the struggle!

Nope. None. It's an EASY and OBVIOUS fit.

He'd be outta the Senate so fast he'd leave the office plants for the next person.

He liked Clinton well enough to TAKE HER MONEY in order to GET to the Senate, so I imagine he would like her enough to work for her. "Senator" is all very well and good, "Mr. Secretary" is better, still.

Sanders and Clinton aren't as different on issues as you'd like to pretend, or need to believe. Sanders will cheerfully compromise so long as the trajectory is acceptable. Unlike some of his supporters, he's not inflexible. And he wouldn't set pay scales as labor secretary--he might lobby Congress for change, though, because it's CONGRESS that would have to change that law. As a cabinet secretary, he'd have the time, space and access to do just that--and he'd have a shitload of workers to help.

[restorefreedom]

24. despite the cute comment about the office plants,

it would depend heavily on the following

1. not losing that senate seat, even a chance of it would not be acceptable. its not likely it would go r but that is important

2 also his current appointments in the senate and their likely heir would be considered

3 many conversations with clinton would have to take place and he would need an assurance thst his views would be represented and that he would not just be taking orders

what about the reverse? if sanders is the nom and is president, do you think clinton would serve as (fill in the blank)?

[MADem]

36. If VT lost that Senate seat, then VT would be telling their entire delegation

("entire" consisting of one Democratic Senator, one Democratic Representative, and the departing Senator Sanders--oh, hell, throw in the Democratic Governor, too) that they wanted to turn right.

The Senate Majority leader would decide whose "turn" it was to take over Sanders' committee assignments--it's not up to anyone else.

Sanders isn't going to be the nominee--I'll bet hard money on that. If he were, where could Clinton serve? She's already held "First Chair" in the Cabinet. The unspoken rule is that you don't go backward. She wouldn't take VP and I doubt he'd offer it. She'd do Special Envoy work if asked--that's what people of class and influence do--and they will do it no matter who is POTUS, even a Republican. The needs of the nation always come first.

[restorefreedom]

39. is ambassador considered "backwards"?

or a UN position? i could see her doing stuff like that

right about veep...he would not ask and she would not do it

[MADem]

42. Of course--Ambassadors WORK FOR and REPORT TO the SECSTATE.

UN is more like a lateral--there's a lot of public persona mileage that can be gotten out of that gig, but it really isn't as powerful as SECSTATE.

[restorefreedom]

43. theres always being a grandma

i mean no one would begrudge her a retirement, maybe some foundation work.

[MADem]

45. She's in it to win it--I don't see her retiring just yet. nt

[Enthusiast]

61. It's certainly not pretend. We have read this book before.

[Jim Lane]

46. Your theory about the "nice Cabinet salary" doesn't hold water.

As a U.S. Senator, Sanders earns $174,000. As Secretary of Labor, or another Cabinet officer, he would earn $203,700. Do you really think he's going through all this effort for a 17% pay raise, considering also that in the Cabinet he would serve at the pleasure of the President, but in the Senate he has near-perfect job security? (He could start talking about grain storage in the Eiffel Tower and still be re-elected in Vermont.)

I realize that he's not a multimillionaire. Even so, I don't find it plausible to charge him with undertaking the labor of a nationwide campaign just for financial reasons.

BTW, he's currently giving away copies of his book to anyone who donates to his campaign. That doesn't spell "profit motive" to me.

Finally, if he did want to serve in a Clinton Cabinet, he wouldn't run against her. The Clintons don't have a reputation for trying to expand the tent. Their reputation is holding grudges and retribution. If he wanted a Cabinet post, his best bet would have been to endorse her, early and loudly, and then to stump for her.

[MADem]

49. Of COURSE he would--it's not just a not insignificant pay raise, it's a status raise.

He goes from one of a hundred senators to TENTH in the line of succession. That's like going from a Knight to a Lord. He is an ELDERLY man--in nine years, he'd be more than ready to retire. Or he could fulfill a lifelong ambition and run for governor of VT.

If he's giving away copies of his book in exchange for donations, he's not actually giving them away.

And I wouldn't give a shit if he DID have a "profit motive." There's nothing illegal about that. If enough people wanted to pay twenty five bucks for something he wrote, he'd be a moron to not write a book and sell it. Is anyone offering him multi-million dollar advances for his words of wisdom? I haven't heard that "Bernie Sanders" is shaking up the publishing world, frankly.

Apparently you don't understand the role of a stalking horse. That IS what stalking horses do--they run against their good pal in order to provide contrast, manage discussion, and corral the base. When the stalking horse concedes, he devotes his energy towards turning his acolytes towards the victor and presenting a united front against the other party's opposition candidate.

smh.

[Jim Lane]

50. smh, indeed

First, you have the concept of "stalking horse" completely wrong.

Second, putting aside what name you give it, I very much doubt that Sanders's personality lends itself to the kind of role you ascribe to him.

I can't prove that he isn't thinking that. You can't prove that Clinton wasn't replaced several years ago by a shape-shifting alien who wants to soften us up for an invasion from the Gamma Quadrant. But I consider both hypotheses very unlikely to be true.

[MADem]

54. You need to read your own links. And chill out on the immature snarking.

The phenomenon occurs particularly in politics, where a junior politician acts as the stalking horse to promote the interests of a senior politician, who remains unseen in case the actions would damage him or her but nevertheless wants to provoke a debate or challenge to a party colleague. In some cases, stalking horses are not working for a particular individual but may wish to provoke a response that leads others to join in. In politics, the truth about the relationship between an individual stalking horse and a candidate may never be known, as both sides may claim that the (alleged) stalking horse acted without the agreement of anyone else.

I think the deal has been cut, but in order for it to work, mum's the word.

We'll see if President Clinton's Labor Secretary nominee Sanders appears before the Senate at a confirmation hearing in early 2017.

[Jim Lane]

55. Reading links, great idea!

What you wrote:

Apparently you don't understand the role of a stalking horse. That IS what stalking horses do--they run against their good pal in order to provide contrast, manage discussion, and corral the base.

What the linked Wikipedia article says:

A stalking horse is a figure that tests a concept with someone or mounts a challenge against someone on behalf of an anonymous third party. If the idea proves viable or popular, the anonymous figure can then declare its interest and advance the concept with little risk of failure. If the concept fails, the anonymous party will not be tainted by association with the failed concept and can either drop the idea completely or bide its time and wait until a better moment for launching an attack.

. . . .

The phenomenon occurs particularly in politics, where a junior politician acts as the stalking horse to promote the interests of a senior politician, who remains unseen in case the actions would damage him or her but nevertheless wants to provoke a debate or challenge to a party colleague.

IOW, you have it exactly wrong. The stalking horse doesn't run against his or her good pal, but against the good pal's enemy. In the very passage you excerpted, it's noted that the stalking horse is working "to promote the interests of a senior politician, who remains unseen...." In the current case, Sanders couldn't be a stalking horse for Clinton.

The only way to argue "stalking horse" would be to assert that someone else (the "anonymous third party" per Wikipedia) wanted to run against Clinton but feared that the Clinton machine would steamroller him -- or her, since the obvious beneficiary would be Elizabeth Warren. The theory would be that Warren, despite all her protestations, really wanted to run, but didn't want to run and suffer the embarrassment of being crushed. Therefore, she and Sanders worked out that Sanders would run on the same themes. If Sanders were crushed, Warren would remain unscathed. If Sanders scored big success, revealing that progressive discontent with Clinton was enough to overcome Clinton's institutional advantages, then Warren would step in "with little risk of failure."

Because that whole scenario is completely ridiculous, I conclude that Sanders is not a stalking horse for anyone.

[MADem]

56. The stalking horse is often chosen by the party leadership.

With, or without, the assistance of the presumptive nominee. But not always. I am sorry to tell you that the Wikipedia explanation is just one of many and is not controlling.

The key point to keep in mind, though, is that the stalking horse isn't going to win the election. This individual may draw out the opposition, test concepts, serve as a foil, play the rodeo clown, and may be willingly doing the job, or pulled into the role without knowledge, but they're not going to prevail.

And sometimes, there's more than one; and their purpose is to take some of the spotlight off the actual contender, in order that she doesn't get over-exposed or peak too soon.

The person who is the presumptive nominee is often known to the stalking horse, and they can be pals. Like Clinton and Sanders are.

Not sure why you're having trouble with this concept. I'm rather surprised that it's news to you, or that you're even arguing the point. Everyone knows how this works, I should think. Often, stalking horses jump into a contest, and they're actually running for another job--like the VP slot, or the Cabinet. As things progress, they meet with the leader and formulate a strategy--like running to the left or right of a candidate to push the debate in a specific direction, or to energize a moribund portion of the party base who will follow the guidance of their favorite in terms of how they vote after he drops out. They serve a very real purpose, these stalking horses, and their profiles are usually raised by their participation, enabling them to secure a future in the party pecking order with an appointment to a key position or help running another campaign down the line. Quid pro quo is often a feature of these arrangements.

Here, let me help you out with another link or three, and more approaches to the concept:


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/09/what_exactly_is_a_stalking_horse.html

In modern political applications of the phrase, a stalking horse is either a candidate used to divert attention from someone else's candidacy, or a candidate who splits the vote of a serious contender, perhaps unwittingly, and thus benefits a third, better-positioned candidate. By this second definition, Ross Perot was a stalking horse for Bill Clinton in 1992, Ralph Nader was a stalking horse for Bush in 2000, and almost any third-wheel candidate who loses could be termed a stalking horse for whoever wins.

Sanders did a very good job diverting the attention of the media during a period of time when the GOP wanted all that negative "email-Benghazi-oh-my" attention focused on HRC.

For that, he should be rewarded.

And now, let's go to the dictionary:

: someone or something that is used to hide a true purpose; especially : a candidate for a political office or position who has no real chance of winning but is being used by a political party to weaken the support for an opposing party, to find out if another candidate might be successful, etc.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stalking%20horse

A political candidate who runs only in order to provoke the election and thus allow a stronger candidate to come forward.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/stalking-horse

A stalking horse tests a front-runner's strength, as well as tests platform planks/ideas to see how far a party leader and presumptive nominee will need to tack (left or right) in a primary situation, before tacking back towards equilibrium in the general contest.

[pangaia]

74. Beyond the pale.

[MADem]

92. You are so angrily invested in refuting my opinion!

Will you ever get over it if Sanders is nominated/confirmed/ sworn in as Labor Secretary in 2017?

[pangaia]

100. Actually, you know nothing at all about me.

You simply seem to project your own life experience and
assume things...

[MADem]

105. Oh, I know enough.

By your words we shall know you!

[pangaia]

109. Who is 'we?'

[MADem]

110. All of us. The DU community.

What we say reflects our POVs, attitudes, and beliefs. And that is how we know one another.

[pangaia]

111. Oh. Ok Thanks.

But you make assumptions about me.. you call me angry tell me I am about to cry. Where do you get such gobble dee gook?

[MADem]

128. You're the one that came at me with this little guy...

It's not uncommon that when people are overly emotional (laughing so hard they're rolling on the floor, for example) that they may well see the other side of the coin before too long.

If politics can make you laugh that hard, it can make you cry, too.

[pangaia]

138. I have no idea what on earth you are talking about.

[MADem]

139. Not following your own conversation, then. OK. nt

[pangaia]

73. Bernie does not care about that pay raise.

He does not care about being called mr secretary. he does not care 2 shits about being 10th in line for the presidency. or any of that other crap.

" If enough people wanted to pay twenty five bucks for something he wrote, he'd be a moron to not write a book and sell it."

Oh,, really?

Bernie is a.. a stalking horse? You have got to be kidding me !!

You see, this is the difference between the way he thinks and the way you think.

[MADem]

90. Because you're his best friend and you KNOW that! OK.....

You know why he sat in the House for a quarter century? Because there was no ROOM for him in the Senate. Jeffords and Leahy wouldn't LEAVE.

He'll get to make the difference he's always wanted to make as Secretary of Labor.

We'll see how it plays out.

[saidsimplesimon]

81. "Apparently you don't understand the role of a stalking horse."

Maybe not, I do understand it is unwise to feed a troll. Would you like my recipe for marinara?

[MADem]

95. I don't think there are any trolls in this conversation--simply partisans who don't want

to contemplate political possibilities that go against their deeply held desires. This causes some of them to lash out angrily, others to snark, and still others to childishly denigrate and name-call.

Their reactions to my opinion don't trouble me, though they do reveal much about their own feelings and personal, emotional investments.

I don't demand that people agree with me--it's kind of odd that some react so dramatically, as though that were case.

Time -- as it always does -- will tell.

[saidsimplesimon]

146. Thank you for the civil response, "Time will tell"

and only the past is cast in stone.

[pangaia]

70. Bernie is not doing this for himself.

That is so clear as to not even need stating..

[MADem]

89. Who said he was?

I think he's doing it for Hillary Clinton, myself.

[pangaia]

91. Ok

[MADem]

93. I think, if you're laughing this hard now, you just might be crying before you know it.

[pangaia]

101. Nope, I'm pretty cheery, actually...

More assumptions..,.

[MADem]

104. You aren't communicating that feeling with your words!

[pangaia]

108. Uh,,, my dear MA, you are the one who said I have anger and will soon be crying.

Not sure where that popped into your head, but..
I mean I was just in Japan for 11 days, in Portugal a couple months ago, in Norway in between,, will be in San Antonio this week, New York next weekend, Toronto the weekend after that, then Dallas.. then glorious St. Petersburg... uh the one between Helsinki and Moscow...

Nothing to be angry or crying about..

[sammythecat]

86. Yeah, because

Bernie Sanders is all about money and nice perks. That's why he wants to be President. Better money and perks than the Senate.

[MADem]

88. No, but he is all about a laser focus on "the working man" and labor is a great fit.

Also, he DOES like to move up the ladder--there was no room for him in the small VT delegation of Leahy, Jeffords and Sanders to move up, but the minute Jim jumped off, he jumped on--and UP. He preferred to be one of 100 as opposed to one of 435.

I think he'll like being one of fifteen even better. The money, the title, the transportation arrangements...none of that hurts. It makes the job much easier.

[sammythecat]

125. Oh ffs

Well of course he moved up. He could be much more effective in the Senate than the House. Move up the ladder. Christ.

Money, the title, the transportation arrangements. You really think he's in this for THAT!? To get a "job" that's "much easier"?

What a smug sounding response. Was it really intended to insult my intelligence, or is it just that you know nothing of the man and just figured he'd do what you'd do?

[MADem]

126. When your job infrastructure smooths the way for you, you can get a lot more done.

I think it's hilarious how some people think that being the Junior Senator from VT, one of 100, with a few minor committee assignments, is somehow "better" than being responsible for America's Labor portfolio, one of 15 advisors to the POTUS and VPOTUS, and 10th in the line of succession.

Half the battle is having the resources to do one's job. Massive staff, ease of movement, the ability to issue a directive and have it implemented immediately; all that is a massive "perk." For people who are interested in getting shit DONE, that is--of course, if you like the idea of a guy remaining in a GOP-controlled Senate (and even best case, a barely D majority) handing in bills that the majority will wipe their asses on, you keep dreaming of that, makes no diff to me!

I suspect if Sanders could get that gig he'd take it in a heartbeat. He knows where his interests lie, even if his fans don't.

[morningfog]

118. I'd love to see him as Labor Sec.

That would be a remarkable achievement.

[Armstead]

119. He'll go back to the Senate if he loses

Or else say "Screw this noise. I'm gonna go home and spend my time eating cheddar cheese."

Wouldn't blame him

[MADem]

124. I think he'd enjoy a cabinet gig. Labor is one that

one can do eight years at, easy. There's a large staff, good transportation, plenty of r-e-s-p-e-c-t, an elevation in title, nicer office, and an opportunity to influence issues in his particular wheelhouse. None of those annoying parliamentary games, either.

[Armstead]

141. You might be right but i doubt it'll happen

I can't envision Clinton wanting to appoint him to anything, except maybe ambassador to Denmark or something like that.

[MADem]

142. If he herds his crew to the polls on her behalf, there's a quid pro quo that all politicians

respect.

Obama is very much indebted to Hillary Clinton, AND her husband. Hillary, for being the adult and endorsing BHO and pushing her constituents towards him in O8, and Bill, for saving his bacon in '12 with the "Secretary of Explaining Stuff" speeches that revitalized Obama's moribund campaign.

If Sanders put his shoulder to the wheel on behalf of HRC (and this would be a new thing for him--he is NOT known for helping others in politics, and that's part of why no one will endorse him--ya give as good as ya get) and rounded up his peeps and shepherded them to the polls, did rallies, gave some yelling, finger pointing speeches about how this election was important and they needed to be on the right side of history, etc., then he'd be OWED. And he really is a good fit for the Labor gig. He could work on the issue that has been his first and sustained love, and maybe make a difference, particularly with regard to access to unions by workers. That would be a helluva legacy.

Denmark, as an ambassadorship, would go to a large (not ginormous, but large) donor. That is how those usually are doled out. It's a dirty not-so-secret reality, that the ambassador in many countries (usually nice, cool ones that are kinda neat and fun to visit) is often a wealthy moron, at least when they first arrive, at many postings. There are a few that require an expert, like Russia and China, but in many cases, it's the 2nd in command at the embassy who is the real power behind the scenes. You NEVER talked to the ambassador in Rome except to make small talk at a cocktail party--always, always, ALWAYS someone on the staff if you want stuff done (and remembered!).

[Hortensis]

2. Let me clue you into something: Subvert the

Democratic Party and you subvert Bernie himself and everything he is trying to accomplish.

That has always been true. And how nice that at least someone has moved to a point where Howard Dean's sensible comments on the obvious can be accepted. It's not exactly new information to those of us who always felt Bernie was good for all of us and were sure he would not himself sabotage the Democratic Party nominee.

[onehandle]

3. So he's doing us a favor and not running as a Nader?

That passive threat is getting old.

Senator Sanders deserves better.

[RobertEarl]

6. I can't believe how some reject Bernie

They say he's not a democrat, as if they were some almighty judge as to who can and can't be in the party. Unbelievable!!

All I can figure is that they are PUMAs who are afraid their candidate is losing and there is nothing they can do but exclude others from the party.

Where do you stand? For Party unity and growth, or PUMA?

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. That is ridiculous ...

They say he's not a democrat, as if they were some almighty judge as to who can and can't be in the party. Unbelievable!!

While Bernie IS running for the Democratic nomination, those saying that he is NOT a Democrat are merely taking Bernie at his word! Why can't you?

[RobertEarl]

83. No it isn't

I reject the gatekeepers, those that think they can tell others what they shall or shall not think, or tell others to mind their place. I reject that prejudice.

If Bernie wants to be A Democrat, no one should refuse his wish. To refuse him is classism and totally against equality, and civil rights.

Many of us have accepted Bernie into the party and that is the end of the story.

[1StrongBlackMan]

94. The "prejudice" you "reject" is irrelevent ...

to the question of whether Sanders is, or is not, a Democrat ... he rejects the notion by his own words.

If Bernie wants to be A Democrat, no one should refuse his wish.

That is true; but, Sanders has said repeatedly, he is not, nor has he ever been, a member of the Democratic Party. And should he care to, the process is fairly simple.

[RobertEarl]

98. Prove it

"nor has he ever been, a member of the Democratic Party"

He's running as a Democrat in the Democratic Party primary.

I think you may just be dreaming of something else? Some type of former times when certain people were excluded from the party because they didn't look right, or had a different idea than the established power structure?

Those days are mostly past, my friend. Please move forward with us as we give a big hug to everyone equally.

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. Sure ...

Former Republican U.S. Rep. Charlie Bass raised the issue of Sanders' eligibility in a recent Washington Post opinion piece.

"In short, Sanders is not a Democrat, has not been elected as a Democrat, has never served as a Democrat and cannot plausibly claim, at least in New Hampshire, to be a Democrat," Bass wrote.

Sanders' campaign isn't worried.

"We think it will work out," Sanders' spokesman Michael Briggs told The Associated Press. "The senator has said that he'll do whatever it takes that he can do to qualify for the ballot." (My Note: He was, subsequently required to do nothing, including joining the Democratic Party)

Although New Hampshire's form asks candidates to declare their party registration, Vermont is one of a number of states where voters do not register with a party. Candidates, however, must consent to run in a specific party's primary, said Chris Winters, Vermont's deputy secretary of state.

In Sanders' 2006 and 2012 elections to the U.S. Senate, he consented to run in the Democratic primary. After getting the most votes in that contest, Sanders then rejected the nomination and ran as an independent in the general election, Winters said.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0711/Could-Bernie-Sanders-independent-status-shut-him-out-of-New-Hampshire-s-Democratic-primary

Or, how about this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/10/politics/bernie-sanders-democrat-or-independent/

Still not convinced, what his own words:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/berniesand505510.html

[RobertEarl]

115. Quoting a republican?

What's in the past is in the past. Bernie is running as a Democrat for the Democratic Party's nominee, and even Obama is happy about that. It seems only a few people on DU and republicans are complaining. Hmmmmm.

[1StrongBlackMan]

122. Yes ...

The Republican Secretary of State for N.H., you know ... the guy that determines who will, or will not, be on the ballot.

But that said, I went to the SoS' website ... Bernie, in filing, affirmed that he is a member of the party, for which he is seeking the nomination.

So I guess that decides it. Unless ...

[Armstead]

120. There's a differnce between taking him at his word....

and obsessively gnawing on it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

123. I no longer have to take him at his word ...

By filing, he affirmed that he is a member of the party of which he is seeking the nomination.

[merrily]

127. Senator Sanders has been a Democrat since at least May, 2015, if not before that.

The law that determines party affiliation is the law of the state of residence, in this case, Vermont. The only thing you can register to be in Vermont is a voter, period. Other than that you declare or state your party affiliation. I don't know if Sanders made any declaration about being a Democrat before May. I am guessing he did and maybe also sorted things out with the Vermont Democratic Party and the DNC, but that's speculation. However, by declaring in May informally that he was seeking the Democratic Presidential nomination, he did all he needed to do under Vermont law to become a Democrat, if he had not already become one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128018753

The Vermont Democratic Party recognized him as a Democrat a while ago, as did the DNC. For months, people have been posting ignorant bs on DU, rather than check facts and law and refusing to acknowledge the obvious: you cannot run for the Democratic Presidential nomination unless you are a Democrat. If the DNC did not consider him a Democrat, it would not have send out a celebratory email as soon as he announced and it would not have included him in its debates or at its website.

The recent foolishness in NH was kabuki.

[1StrongBlackMan]

135. Tell that to Independent Senator Patrick Leahy ... And, no ...

Neither the DNC, nor, the Vermont Democratic Party "recognized him as a Democrat a while ago" ... In fact, and speaking of checking them, in both 2006 and 2012, the VDP invited Sanders to run as a Democrat, he rejected the offer, and ran as an independent.

If the DNC did not consider him a Democrat, it would not have send out a celebratory email as soon as he announced and it would not have included him in its debates or at its website.

Really? And you follow POLITICS?

The recent foolishness in NH was kabuki.

Now, here we agree ... the signing of the N.H. affirmation IS kabuki.

[merrily]

136. What part of "May 2015" was too complicated?

You keep proving he was not a Democrat years before that.

I saw your post and made the mistake of thinking you wanted accurate information about the facts and law. Everything in my post to you and in the post to which I linked you was accurate. Sorry if you don't wish accept it for whatever reason, but not sorry enough to discuss it because understanding the truth doesn't seem to be the agenda. Accept it or deny it. It is of no moment.

[1StrongBlackMan]

137. Stop it ... Just stop ...

Point to a single thing that I have written that is inaccurate, in fact or in law. At what point prior to Bernie's signing the N.H. affidavit or affirmation, did he register with the Democratic Party, on the State or Nation level, or better ... at what point did he even declare that he was a Democrat? (merely, saying that you are running for the Democratic nomination, does not make one a Democrat)

[99th_Monkey]

8. Facts are notoriously stubborn things

they tend to stand up over time to scrutiny, like the fact that Bernie is running for
POTUS in a way that helps save the Democratic Party from itself, in at least three ways.
1) by bringing in 100s of thousands of new registered "D"s under the Big Tent,
2) by NOT running as an Independent in the GE.
3) by creating a REAL competition for the nomination, which helps the Party get more
media coverage by far than it would have as a ho-hum sleeper 'contest' between O'Malley
and Hillary.

In addition, on the campaign trail, Bernie consistently says kind words about Hillary, even
to his own political detriment sometimes, like
1) his "damned emails" comment during first debate,
2) his statement posted today, "on her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and president than the Republican candidate on his best day,"

I can't think of one thing Hillary has said that compares to Bernie's respectful & gracious comments about Hillary.
There may be one somewhere, but I have not seen it.

[thucythucy]

40. Well put.

In 2008 it turned out that the contest between President Obama and Senator Clinton actually helped the party, at least that was my take on it then. And then, to have Clinton cast the New York ballots in person, on the floor of the convention, was a huge aid in bringing in the PUMAs.

I would expect either of these two candidates (and O'Malley) to be equally gracious in 2016.

And Senator Sanders as Secretary of Labor would be brilliant, if indeed he does not win the nomination.

[Enthusiast]

62. Always with the great posts, 99th_Monkey.

[99th_Monkey]

63. Thanks. nt

[Fast Walker 52]

66. NAILED IT

[Major Hogwash]

67. Can you imagine how boring this race would be if it were just O'Malley and Clinton?

Fuck, I'd turn into Rumplestiltskin!!!!

[pangaia]

76. :>))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Glad you are not reduced to that fate..

[merrily]

129. As if they wouldn't attack each other? Dream on.

[beerandjesus]

71. Well, maybe when Hillary called him sexist, she meant it in a NICE way.

Great post!

[99th_Monkey]

72. Thank you. nt

[MADem]

13. There are some places where sore loser laws would prevent him from running anyway.

If you file to get on the ballot in a primary, you can't later swap out as an Indy for the General if things don't go according to plan. You have to run a write-in effort.

[GoneFishin]

57. Evidently not Connecticut. Joe Lieberman lost a primary to Ned Lamont who was a populist

candidate, but the right wing of the Dem party supported Lieberman as an independent.

They don't represent the people, they represent the 1% and the corporations. Party loyalty is just a gimmick they use when it serves them and their 1% friends.

[Hortensis]

23. Bernie does deserve far better than the contemptible

suggestion that he would ever help elect a Republican president.

This does show, though, that some of his supporters feel that would have been a completely reasonable action should he have taken it. And that we should be grateful to him!

After the primary are at least some of these people expected to decamp to the GOP? What happened in other elections after the primary?

[jalan48]

35. You haven't seen anything yet.

[cascadiance]

47. He's doing us a favor and not letting the winner take all system screw us again...

It was NOT Nader's fault that the current system we live in doesn't allow for only two parties to be voted on to avoid spoiler effects. If we had Instant Runoff Voting, which SO many people that want to blame Nader for everything don't talk about much, third parties wouldn't be spoilers then, and would provide for a system that would provide more ability for a third party to win, for third party agendas to be measured by initial vote counts, and make it that much harder for special interest bribery money to "buy the field" when a third party could win an election without big money support without being a "spoiler" for the lesser of two evils being voted on from the two parties.

[leveymg]

5. He also keeps the progressive base mobilized. He's done her many favors

without being very critical of her, at all. In fact, he openly handed her the nomination during the first debate when he basically disavowed the email issue. He's just seemed to be going through the motions, since.

[Catherina]

18. He needs to step it up

I don't see the old trick of running someone to mobilize the progressive base working out as well as it used to. People are mobilizing alright but they're sick of that little trick.

Check out this conversation that came across my feed last night

J ‏@JeanelleAlicia Nov 7
J Retweeted Bougie Black Girl

"Years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee"- Clinton on Pres. Obama. It was ugly in 2008.

Bougie Black Girl @BougieBlackGurl
Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy when he endorsed Obama,"the only reason you are endorsing him is because he's black. Let's just be clear."

Bougie Black Girl ‏@BougieBlackGurl Nov 7
@JeanelleAlicia YEP. It is incredible how people have forgotten.

J ‏@JeanelleAlicia Nov 7
@BougieBlackGurl Yea, girl. I agree with you. But many black millennials havent forgotten how the Clintons behaved in 2008 when they lost

Bougie Black Girl ‏@BougieBlackGurl Nov 7
@JeanelleAlicia YES. They were horrid

Andrew Ajayi ‏@bunchofguys Nov 7
@BougieBlackGurl @JeanelleAlicia Gotta say even from where I am in UK I'm surprised Clintons behaviour to Obama in 2008 not bigger deal now.

Bougie Black Girl ‏@BougieBlackGurl Nov 7
@bunchofguys @JeanelleAlicia Me too. If I was a candidate I would be playing her statements on loop. But I want to win.

Andrew Ajayi ‏@bunchofguys Nov 7
@BougieBlackGurl @JeanelleAlicia Why do you think Hillary's rivals not doing this? They want to beat her to the Dem nomination, right?

Bougie Black Girl
‏@BougieBlackGurl

@bunchofguys @JeanelleAlicia Honestly I have no clue.

I don't have a clue either.

[leveymg]

21. When it comes to Presidential politics in America, it's usually worse than we ever imagined.

On a moral plain, it's a cross between legalized gambling and Mexican wrestling. Throw in nuclear weapons and extrajudicial execution as tools of our foreign policy.

[Catherina]

34. Just thinking about it is disturbing.

Slowly, people are waking up. Thankfully.

[Catherina]

37. New article I just read: "Don't Underestimate Bernie's Brand"

Don't Underestimate Bernie's Brand

Sanders displays the classic strengths of new entrants taking on dominant players—and the world of marketing sheds light on his path to success.
Nigel Hollis 8:01 AM ET

Like many new and different brands, Bernie Sanders has a message that resonates with supporters. But just as big brand managers make the mistake of dismissing new competition, the media has discounted Sanders’s chances of nomination. Indoctrinated by years of “business as usual” both groups assume that history will repeat itself; they assume that the frontrunner has the upper hand; they assume that the parameters of success are fixed and what has worked in the past will work in the future. The real challenge when forecasting future success—for brands or politicians—is to test existing assumptions, not simply to accept them at face value.

Detractors of Sanders’s campaign often write off his early popularity by contending that his supporters are little more than a grumbling and ultimately powerless economic minority. This group, according to critics, may make a lot of noise in the beginning, but it has neither the staying power nor the voter turnout to truly impact an election. But Sanders’s early success is far more indicative of a serious disillusionment with the American Dream and a discredited political mainstream. The cultural and economic context does not merely allow for Sanders’s popularity; rather; it gives grounds to his resonance.

Sanders’s message of economic and social fairness is resonating with Americans in exactly the same way that many successful brands do—by addressing societal tensions. Sanders, for example, tapped into a public that felt trapped after the Great Recession. Similarly, Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty succeeded by addressing the idealized portrayal of female beauty in popular culture that many women found unobtainable and demeaning. IBM has found success with its promise of making the world a Smarter Planet through technology, and Chipotle is appealing to those who may not agree with the practices of big agriculture.

On a recent NPR segment, David Brooks of The New York Times questioned why Sanders did not challenge Hillary Clinton during the Democratic debate if he truly wanted to be president, suggesting that he had raised the white flag of surrender by not using Clinton’s email controversy against her. His statement reflects a mindset indoctrinated by decades of increasingly aggressive political debate. But Americans are looking for a president who has a clear sense of purpose—an ideology, if you will—rather than one who merely indulges in character assassination to win power. Sanders’s message and tone are so different that they simply do not compute for pundits—but they resonate with voters.

...

The media is flummoxed by the forces that are fueling Sanders’s widespread and growing support simply because it cannot see that it is not business as usual, just as executives at Nokia wrote off the threat of the iPhone by seizing on its apparent weaknesses and ignoring its inherent appeal.

The evidence suggests that, like other successful brands, Sanders has already built up a loyal following. Now, Sanders’s big challenge is to take his message and make it meaningful and salient to as many voters as possible. It’s a difficult task, but it may not be as insurmountable as the media would have us believe.


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/what-marketing-trends-say-about-bernie-sanderss-success/413959/

[Gman]

7. 18 months ago he said he would not run as an independent

He said he knows what would happen if he did. Dean must have missed it. Nothing new here because it was never going to happen according to Sanders himself. So he's not doing the DNC anything.

Sanders is not an egotistical idiot like Nader.

[99th_Monkey]

9. What's new is Howard Dean openly praising Bernie's selfless decision

to run in Dem Primary, not as Independent.

Dean didn't "miss it", in fact he took note of it, and is a decent enough person
to give a kind word when it's so richly deserved.

[Gman]

12. Too bad Sanders can't wait his turn in the party.

[Doctor_J]

15. he's in his 70s

Your statement that he should wait his turn is idiotic

[99th_Monkey]

17. "wait his turn"? WTF does that even mean? .. you mean like in pre-school?

Did you seriously just say that, or did you forget to add this?

[MissDeeds]

25. Exactly

Like HRC has spent more time in the House and Senate than Bernie? Please. The irony is thick in this one.

[MADem]

38. Since when is "time in the House and Senate" viewed as anything to write home about?

Our sitting President barely warmed his seat in the Senate. Time didn't mean a thing to him.

The President before him was a governor.

The President before him was a governor, too.

The President before him had an abbreviated period (two terms) in the House, couldn't win a Senate race, was a Special Envoy to China, and ran the CIA. Oh, and he was an RNC chair.

The President before HIM was...yes, again--a GOVERNOR.

The President before him was, yet one more time--a GOVERNOR.

Ya gotta go all the way back to Gerald Ford to find anyone with a load of "time in the House." And no one ELECTED him!!!

[Gman]

28. I am serious

[frylock]

80. Oh, wait. You're serious..

[Hiraeth]

121. and simultaneously absolutely hilarious. kudos.

[JonLeibowitz]

19. Sanders has been in national elected office for 10 more years than Sec. Clinton

Moreso for any elected office whatsoever.

He has caucused with the democrats for far longer than Sec. Clinton

Perhaps it is Hillary who needs to step aside and "wait her turn in the party"?

[leveymg]

22. That he should "wait his turn" was snark. Right?

[MissDeeds]

26. Can you imagine the outcry

if HRC was told to wait her turn? Sexist! Degrading! The double standard defies rational thinking.

[in_cog_ni_to]

107. OMEFFINGGAWD! He should WAIT HIS TURN?!?!

It's Hillary's turn to play President! We have the coronation planned and Everything!

OMG....after everything these people have said, this ranks up there pretty freakin' high as the most childish thing yet and there's been A boatload of those!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE .....who's CUTTING IN LINE TO BE PRESIDENT!

[840high]

29. Wait his turn? lol

[beam me up scottie]

30. LMAO!

There's a queue?

[GoneFishin]

58. Because right now is "her turn"? Pfffst.

[pangaia]

78. kersplurrttt

Teacher, teacher, May I have the corridor pass next?

[frylock]

79. Can't wait his turn?

Do you have the master list of whose turn it is?

[SoapBox]

113. "wait his turn"???

That is simply HILARIOUS!

Oh ya...I know...It's The Annointed One's turn.

[Ed Suspicious]

114. Why are we giving a "turn" to a polarizing former presidential primary loser? This is a campaign.

There are no "turns."

[merrily]

116. Like Obama? Turns are for the Republican Party. Democracy is for the Democratic Party.

[LiberalElite]

117. And where would he be in the line exactly?

I bet you'd LOVE to have him permanently last. Wait his turn. What unadulterated BULLSHIT!

[leftcoastmountains]

140. Is that what you think democracy is about,

politicians waiting their turns?

[Gman]

143. So you must think it's ok

To use somebody else's party that somebody else built that he did nothing to help build and even refused that party's nomination for Senator.

Nope, he needs to wait his turn.

[Dems2002]

20. How many independents will register Dem to vote for Bernie?

I actually thought Martin O'Malley did pretty well during the recent forum. Where I thought he completely failed was when he attacked Bernie for not being a loyal Democrat. I think it's possible O'Malley was actually going for a dog whistle directed at African Americans to tell them that Bernie didn't support Obama.

But honestly, how many people truly care that Bernie hasn't been a member of the Democratic Party when he has caucused with the Democrats and voted our issues for 30 years? The activist base of the Democratic Party has so much more in common with Bernie than Hillary it isn't even close. Now, I am sure there are the party loyalists who don't like that he hasn't danced to the Party tune, but those people are few in numbers.

Whereas, how many people in this country are registered independents? And don't we think these people are going to be attracted to the fact that Bernie didn't bow down to either party but chose to forge is own path so as not to be beholden?

To me, that is one of his biggest selling points in the general. He can't be tied to any one party. He's is own man.

[Sheepshank]

84. You said, "He can't be tied to any one party. He's is own man. "

You also said, "But honestly, how many people truly care that Bernie hasn't been a member of the Democratic Party..."
Party is very important. It's the voting block, it's the strength in numbers, it is the ideological opposite that collectively hasthe ability to fight the RW machine. It's like belonging to a Union with the strength of collective bargaining.

Perhaps this is why unions are not feeling the bern. They realize that he will not fight for them as a collective organization because Bernie doesn't have that personal inclination either.

[Dems2002]

103. Huh?

I have been a registered Dem my whole life. I have even attended my state convention on multiple occasions. And I think the national dnc is a joke. They have sold us all up the river a dozen times over to the bankers and the corporations. I know Clinton will just be more of the same. She will support free trade because that is what she believes in. Screw all of us.

Also, unions are wimps. They would rather be on the winning side of a mediocre candidate like clinton who will barely lift a finger for them, then support an insurgent candidate like Sanders and lose.

Believe me. This happened to my very first candidate who was running for a supervisor's election. Only seiu 535 supported her because the "boys" didn't think she could win and so they actually supported the moderate republican! (She is currently the supervisor by the way.)

[Duval]

27. He has our vote! eom

[enid602]

31. media coverage

Bullshit. He's running as a Dem for the same reason that Trump's running as a Repub - media coverage, nothing more. Without cheating by using google, can you honestly tell me who are the Ind., Green or Liberarian candidates this time around?

[thereismore]

32. Bernie is an FDR democrat. Hillary is a DLC/Third Way republican. nt

[UglyGreed]

41. I agree

but none of Hillary's supporters even bothered thanking Bernie.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251774007

[vorgan24]

44. Given the voting pledges that some Sanders supporters are pushing around...

He still might have given Republicans the general. That he's just came out swinging to DEFEND a Republicans BLATANT LIES should be a stark example of just how much he really cares about helping Democrats win.

As for him being a Democrat, well... I do hope that in the next debate, he gets asked this question - "Do you idenfity as a Independent or a Democrat?"

[cascadiance]

48. Maybe they could ask Clinton why she was attracted to being a Republican too...

... even as a college freshman in her younger days, supporting Goldwater who was standing against the Civil Rights Act then that LBJ helped get passed.

[emulatorloo]

51. Clinton knocked doors for Eugene McCarthy as a college junior

Worked on McGovern campaign in 1972

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/hillary-worked-for-goldwater/

Q: Did Hillary Clinton work for Goldwater?
A: She was a high-school Young Republican and "Goldwater Girl" in 1964 but swung to supporting Democrat Eugene McCarthy’s campaign in 1968 and George McGovern’s in 1972.

-------

Clinging to the Goldwater Girl thing is not going to help Bernie win the nomination. Certainly will not help convince soft HRC supporter to switch to Bernie.

Of course, JMHO.

[cascadiance]

64. Wellesley College was NOT "High School" where she was president of Young Republicans there...

I think if the other side tries to pick the pieces of Bernie's history over time and try to point out inconsistencies, and say because he's not a "registered Democrat", that I think it is only fair we can critique Hillary's past as well. It wasn't like she was just in grade school when she took those positions. In college you are expected to have a well formed intellect that you are starting life with, which I think Hillary needs to at least explain her time there, especially if her campaign is trying to claim they are better on emphasizing rights for POC than Bernie has in his career, when that is a big inconsistency with the way Goldwater stood AGAINST Civil rights reform then, at a time when Bernie was marching with MLK and leading protests of segregation at the Univ. of Chicago then, not to mention working as a teacher himself for the Head Start program!

If she documented that she had a lot more of the other parts of what Goldwater ran on that appealed to her to support him then, then I think that could be a good explanation for her lack of attention to the problems Goldwater also presented as a Republican candidate then too. But if she's trying to make Bernie out to not be as consistent and strong in supporting rights for POC, then she deserves to have her complete record examined and critiqued as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander so to speak.

[Major Hogwash]

68. BFD! Bernie marched with MLK when Hillary was still in college!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, her qualifications are not all that spiffy.

[Maedhros]

75. Bernie defended WHAT "Republican lies?"

You can't just drop that kind of accusation without some actual evidence. Not without sacrificing your credibility.

[vorgan24]

99. Miss these topics in GDP did ya?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251783898
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251782124
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251783898

You know, the topics about Bernie telling the media to stop pointing out Carsons history of lying?

[Maedhros]

106. Bernie is doing what he has been doing throughout his campaign:

criticizing the media for chasing sensationalist headlines instead of talking about issues.

He did the same thing in the debate when he chastised them for hyping Hillary's email scandal, but you sure weren't complaining then.

Not at all impressed with your attempt at smearing the man. Maybe you should take Bernie's suggestion and talk about ISSUES instead of throwing mud?

Ah, but you won't, because a discussion of issues buries your pathetic candidate.

Off to the ignore list for you!

[vorgan24]

145. Funny, you talk about how we shouldn't swing mud...

Yet you throw a handful of it Clintons way.

Off to ignore for you too - I have a dislike of 'holier than thou' hypocrites.

[merrily]

130. Please see my Reply 127.

[emulatorloo]

52. Again I will say posters who question his party association do not know his

record of voting with Dems and caucusing with Dems. Or they do and they are being willfully obtuse.

[merrily]

131. Actually, they don't know applicable law and facts. Please see Reply 127.

[treestar]

59. well from what I have heard here, that makes him a friend

of the oligarchs and Wall Street.

Threats to go independent and leave us with a Republican have never worked. The way to win the election is to get the most votes, not to manipulate other people with threats.

[Major Hogwash]

69. Cut it out.

I thought I would just tell you the same thing that Hillary said she would tell Wall Street if they start screwing up the economy again, if she were President.

We'll see if it works.

Let's just see how effective that technique is!!

[merrily]

132. What threat are you going on about? He said over and over he would not run as a spoiler and

he hasn't. He's never threatened diddly. Good golly Ms. Molly!

[Enthusiast]

60. Kicked and recommended! And cut the shit!

[fbc]

65. but establisment democrats don't want to win too much

They want to win enough to remain relevant and keep the money flowing in, but they don't want to win so much they might actually have to pass progressive legislation that would not be in the best interests of their owners.

[NonMetro]

77. There's A Reason Why HRC's Only Serious Competition Is Not Another Democrat.

One would have expected Joe Biden to run, VP's usually do. Didn't happen. Elizabeth Warren chose not to run, either. Why is that? Both could have had a shot at the nomination. How convenient for Hillary that they "chose" not to run, eh? And over a year before the election!

[Sheepshank]

85. ooohhhh, I love a good conspiracy

please don't beat around the bush, please explain why they didn't run?

[merrily]

133. Please see Reply 127.

[NonMetro]

144. Anyone Can Join The Democratic Party.

Sanders has always been an Independent, and he joined the party 6 months ago to run for president, and the party accepted him s a candidate. There’s no loyalty oath or litmus test to be a Democrat, and many of Sanders views have long been shared by Democrats, and vice-versa.

[jtuck004]

87. "If Bernie ran as an independent, he would..." < be President Sanders. n/t

[MADem]

96. ....be getting a lot of "pester" money from individual right wing donors, guided by the Koch

machine, et. al. Rather like Nader did.

[JoePhilly]

97. When Bernie said he's not a Dem ...

... he did not mean it ... when Hillary said she was a moderate Dem ... she really meant that she was secretly a Republican Manchurian candidate!!!!!!

[merrily]

134. Please see my Reply 127.

[SoapBox]

112. Dean before the Forum...

I was only watching casually because Twitty, eh, Tweety was being such a jerk.

I did catch him being downright rude to Dean...must have had something to do with this.