The problem with Bernie: he's not much of a Democrat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't recall this happening when she ran against Obama. The booing of the other candidate at rallies. Does anyone know?

Yeah, she's even less popular now.

Funny. There are a couple of million votes that say otherwise

[Anonymous]

We still have 20 States left. And

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hillary Clinton endorsed Barack Obama as soon as it became clear she would not catch him in the primary. Well before the convention.

The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States.

Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him.

Sanders is much farther behind today than Clinton ever was in 2008. Why won't Sanders show the same respect that Clinton gave to Barack Obama ???

This didn't happen until June. About four months after Clinton started doing and saying things that were way more damaging than anything said by Sanders.

She's going to win the nomination, but with a significant number of Democrats preferring the other candidate. She knows what it's like to be that other candidate and she knows what's at stake. She's got the leverage to unify the party well before the convention, but a big part of that leverage is letting the process play itself out.

Just as it did in 2008. Everyone chill the fuck out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders is not vilifying Clinton. He is running because he sees how the democratic party is evolving, and Clinton is part of that evolution... Someone needs to stand up for democratic values and principles, and in doing so, expose how "the sausage" is made. He is advocating for a democratic sausage without all the unnecessary additives and fillers, and labeling of "non organic" (so to speak) political processes. He's very very good for the sausage industry.

3/26 - "Sanders hit former Sec. of State Clinton for her super PACs and again called on her to release the transcript of her speeches to Wall Street. The Democratic candidate said that his campaign is doing well because they are listening to the American people, not special interest contributors."

3/25 - "Sanders also pleased his fans with jabs at Clinton - scolding her Wall Street-funded campaign and her vote in favor of the Iraq war in 2002"

3/25 - “Don’t let anybody tell you that Hillary Clinton is the strongest Democratic candidate to take on the Republicans. It is not true,” Sanders told the crowd at Safeco Field.

3/25 - "Sanders directly criticized Clinton, taking her to task for accepting Wall Street money via campaign contributions and in paid speeches."

Sounds like he's hitting her pretty hard.

You seem to be objecting to statements of fact, among others. That makes no sense. Are you a fan of open democracy, or do you prefer a one party, one candidate system?

Not PP, but there's a lot more than statements of fact, and I object to them. Why should she release transcripts so they can be picked apart? Great advantage to give trump and Cruz. That's a stupid move. And he claims he's listening to the American people? Bull. More of the American people are voting for Clinton.

The GOP would not criticize cozying up to wall street, because that's GOP m.o. It's the democratic voters who would be critical of it. Asking her to release the transcripts is asking her to be accountable to her voters. So your complaint is stupid. If you want all these fillers in your sausage and prefer to remain ignorant of them, by all means. But arguing no one should know because it would turn them off to her sausage is actually unconscionable politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He will support the Democratic nominee when the time comes. He's said he will not run as a third party candidate. He will not at this point in time engage in a discussion about whom he will support, because NO CANDIDATE DOES THIS until they drop out. NO CANDIDATE DOES THIS.

You're simply wrong about this. All of the Republican candidates signed a pledge to support the ultimate nominee. They all stood there on live TV (twice!) and pledged they'd support the ultimate nominee.

OK, I'm not a Sanders supporter, but you're being a little disingenuous here. There are only two Democrats running - for Sanders to pledge to support "the ultimate nominee" would be tantamount to throwing in the towel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders is not vilifying Clinton. He is running because he sees how the democratic party is evolving, and Clinton is part of that evolution... Someone needs to stand up for democratic values and principles, and in doing so, expose how "the sausage" is made. He is advocating for a democratic sausage without all the unnecessary additives and fillers, and labeling of "non organic" (so to speak) political processes. He's very very good for the sausage industry.

3/26 - "Sanders hit former Sec. of State Clinton for her super PACs and again called on her to release the transcript of her speeches to Wall Street. The Democratic candidate said that his campaign is doing well because they are listening to the American people, not special interest contributors."

3/25 - "Sanders also pleased his fans with jabs at Clinton - scolding her Wall Street-funded campaign and her vote in favor of the Iraq war in 2002"

3/25 - “Don’t let anybody tell you that Hillary Clinton is the strongest Democratic candidate to take on the Republicans. It is not true,” Sanders told the crowd at Safeco Field.

3/25 - "Sanders directly criticized Clinton, taking her to task for accepting Wall Street money via campaign contributions and in paid speeches."

Sounds like he's hitting her pretty hard.

You seem to be objecting to statements of fact, among others. That makes no sense. Are you a fan of open democracy, or do you prefer a one party, one candidate system?

Not PP, but there's a lot more than statements of fact, and I object to them. Why should she release transcripts so they can be picked apart? Great advantage to give trump and Cruz. That's a stupid move. And he claims he's listening to the American people? Bull. More of the American people are voting for Clinton.

The GOP would not criticize cozying up to wall street, because that's GOP m.o. It's the democratic voters who would be critical of it. Asking her to release the transcripts is asking her to be accountable to her voters. So your complaint is stupid. If you want all these fillers in your sausage and prefer to remain ignorant of them, by all means. But arguing no one should know because it would turn them off to her sausage is actually unconscionable politics.

The PP acts as though it's horrible and offensive to acknowledge that this country should be by, for and of the people, as opposed to being beholden to Wall Street and corporate interests. That's a big part of what's wrong with America.

[Anonymous]

I hate all of this party unity BS. The party is not unified. Some people (like me) really don't like Hillary. Many progressives see Hillary as part of the problem, not just some other Democratic candidate with slightly different views/personality. This is a big deal. I don't think progressives are going to march in lock step with corporatists and neocons in the Democratic party any more. Bernie needs to stay in the race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate all of this party unity BS. The party is not unified. Some people (like me) really don't like Hillary. Many progressives see Hillary as part of the problem, not just some other Democratic candidate with slightly different views/personality. This is a big deal. I don't think progressives are going to march in lock step with corporatists and neocons in the Democratic party any more. Bernie needs to stay in the race.

Good. Then go vote for Jill Stein. And see how much you care about neocons when Trump is president,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate all of this party unity BS. The party is not unified. Some people (like me) really don't like Hillary. Many progressives see Hillary as part of the problem, not just some other Democratic candidate with slightly different views/personality. This is a big deal. I don't think progressives are going to march in lock step with corporatists and neocons in the Democratic party any more. Bernie needs to stay in the race.

Good. Then go vote for Jill Stein. And see how much you care about neocons when Trump is president,

Don't have to. Sanders is enough of an anti-oligarchy candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate all of this party unity BS. The party is not unified. Some people (like me) really don't like Hillary. Many progressives see Hillary as part of the problem, not just some other Democratic candidate with slightly different views/personality. This is a big deal. I don't think progressives are going to march in lock step with corporatists and neocons in the Democratic party any more. Bernie needs to stay in the race.

Good. Then go vote for Jill Stein. And see how much you care about neocons when Trump is president,

Don't have to. Sanders is enough of an anti-oligarchy candidate.

^ and polling shows Sanders can beat Trump. Jill Stein can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate all of this party unity BS. The party is not unified. Some people (like me) really don't like Hillary. Many progressives see Hillary as part of the problem, not just some other Democratic candidate with slightly different views/personality. This is a big deal. I don't think progressives are going to march in lock step with corporatists and neocons in the Democratic party any more. Bernie needs to stay in the race.

Good. Then go vote for Jill Stein. And see how much you care about neocons when Trump is president,

Don't have to. Sanders is enough of an anti-oligarchy candidate.

Too bad he won't make it to the general. So it has to be Jill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders is not vilifying Clinton. He is running because he sees how the democratic party is evolving, and Clinton is part of that evolution... Someone needs to stand up for democratic values and principles, and in doing so, expose how "the sausage" is made. He is advocating for a democratic sausage without all the unnecessary additives and fillers, and labeling of "non organic" (so to speak) political processes. He's very very good for the sausage industry.

3/26 - "Sanders hit former Sec. of State Clinton for her super PACs and again called on her to release the transcript of her speeches to Wall Street. The Democratic candidate said that his campaign is doing well because they are listening to the American people, not special interest contributors."

3/25 - "Sanders also pleased his fans with jabs at Clinton - scolding her Wall Street-funded campaign and her vote in favor of the Iraq war in 2002"

3/25 - “Don’t let anybody tell you that Hillary Clinton is the strongest Democratic candidate to take on the Republicans. It is not true,” Sanders told the crowd at Safeco Field.

3/25 - "Sanders directly criticized Clinton, taking her to task for accepting Wall Street money via campaign contributions and in paid speeches."

Sounds like he's hitting her pretty hard.

You seem to be objecting to statements of fact, among others. That makes no sense. Are you a fan of open democracy, or do you prefer a one party, one candidate system?

Not PP, but there's a lot more than statements of fact, and I object to them. Why should she release transcripts so they can be picked apart? Great advantage to give trump and Cruz. That's a stupid move. And he claims he's listening to the American people? Bull. More of the American people are voting for Clinton.

The GOP would not criticize cozying up to wall street, because that's GOP m.o. It's the democratic voters who would be critical of it. Asking her to release the transcripts is asking her to be accountable to her voters. So your complaint is stupid. If you want all these fillers in your sausage and prefer to remain ignorant of them, by all means. But arguing no one should know because it would turn them off to her sausage is actually unconscionable politics.

The PP acts as though it's horrible and offensive to acknowledge that this country should be by, for and of the people, as opposed to being beholden to Wall Street and corporate interests. That's a big part of what's wrong with America.

You guys are so dumb. Of course I'm pro campaign finance reform. So is Hillary. Her speeches mean nothing. They paid Colin Powell the same after he was no longer sec of state. It's not pay to play. Fight on policy, not on smears, unless you actually prefer Pres Trump. I'm starting to think you do.
And FFS, stop accusing those who disagree with you of ignorance. I am certain I have more knowledge and education about Amerocan Politocs than you do, so it's just silly.

[Anonymous]

Good. Then go vote for Jill Stein. And see how much you care about neocons when Trump is president,

I don't think you can classify Trump. Does anybody know what he is?

He does have a big personality and that seems to count. Hillary doesn't have that. And who the heck is Jill Stein?

[Anonymous]

You guys are so dumb. Of course I'm pro campaign finance reform. So is Hillary. Her speeches mean nothing. They paid Colin Powell the same after he was no longer sec of state. It's not pay to play. Fight on policy, not on smears, unless you actually prefer Pres Trump. I'm starting to think you do.
And FFS, stop accusing those who disagree with you of ignorance. I am certain I have more knowledge and education about Amerocan Politocs than you do, so it's just silly.

I can see how much "knowledge and education" you have. It seems you and Hillary do have a bit in common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate all of this party unity BS. The party is not unified. Some people (like me) really don't like Hillary. Many progressives see Hillary as part of the problem, not just some other Democratic candidate with slightly different views/personality. This is a big deal. I don't think progressives are going to march in lock step with corporatists and neocons in the Democratic party any more. Bernie needs to stay in the race.

Good. Then go vote for Jill Stein. And see how much you care about neocons when Trump is president,

Don't have to. Sanders is enough of an anti-oligarchy candidate.

Too bad he won't make it to the general. So it has to be Jill

A bit early to be saying that, Sanders is gaining more and more momentum and recognition. He's closing the delegate gap. jill Stein on the other hand hasn't gotten any farther than where she was 4 and 8 years ago.

Not enough people to get behind third party candidates. Best anyone could hope for is 10-15%. Even Ralph Nader is saying Sanders was right for running as a Democrat, and he should know, he got a lot farther than Jill Stein.