Whither Sanders supporters?

    david-versus-goliathGoliath has won.  Barring something truly extraordinary or tragedy, the Democratic presidential nominee will not be Bernie Sanders.  Not only does Hillary Clinton have a nearly unassailable advantage in pledged delegates and the support of the vast majority of super delegates, she is ahead in the few states which still haven't held primaries and which she needn't win in any event.  Under these circumstances, it does not behoove progressives to engage in magical thinking.

    Federal agents are not going to frog-march Hillary Clinton out of her Brooklyn campaign headquarters for maintaining classified materials on a private email server contrary to federal regulations.  Likewise, rich and influential Democratic establishment delegates, are not going to switch en masse to the socialist because polls show he does better against each Republican candidate in hypothetical matchups.

    It is easy to see why progressive Democrats would cling to the belief that the "dishonest thin-skinned, private, controlling, . . . distrustful, . . . lawyerly, and shifty" choice of investment bankers, military contractors, and perhaps even Charles Koch couldn't - just couldn't - head our party's ticket.  But she will.

    Clinton will not be charged with any crimes associated with the classified materials that turned up on her home-brewed email server in Chappaqua for several reasons.  Most importantly, she shouldn't be.  Although Clinton violated federal regulations, probably due to a secretive Nixonian nature and a careless disregard for the rules, it does not appear she deliberately broke any criminal laws.  To my knowledge, individuals accused of negligent mishandling of materials classified after the fact have never been charged criminally.

    President Barack Obama has made clear that Clinton is his first choice to lead the nation when he steps down in January.  Given her ties to Wall Street and the Clintons, Attorney General Loretta Lynch knows she is far more likely to become the first African-American woman to sit on the Supreme Court it if she chooses not to prosecute the former First Lady.  Under these circumstances and given the extremely weak (at best) criminal case against Clinton, it beggars belief to think Obama and Lynch will prosecute.

    It is even less likely that the establishment delegates, whom Sanders supporters have slammed for months, will reject a candidate with whom they share a close class affinity and who, not incidentally, has racked up many more votes in the Democratic primaries.  Doing so would alienate two core Democratic constituencies - voters of color and seniors - who overwhelmingly support Clinton.  It might well therefore reduce Democratic chances to keep the White House, take the Senate, and erode the Republican advantage in the House.

    So what should Sanders supporters do?  If we live in a state that hasn't yet held its primary, we should of course vote for our candidate.  The narrower Clinton's margin of victory the more likely she will make meaningful concessions to the progressive left in the run-up to the general election.  But we must also reflect on how best to bring about the political revolution we need to ensure economic and environmental justice after her inevitable nomination this July.

    When it comes to the top of the ticket in November, a vote for Clinton will likely be the only rational move.  A major factor behind our nation's self-destructive embrace of economic liberalism has been the Supreme Court's systematic dismantling of campaign finance rules starting in the mid-1970s with the Buckley v. Valeo decision and culminating with the disastrous Citizens United ruling in 2010.  Given Antonin Scalia's salutary death earlier this year, a Clinton appointment or two might well lead the Supreme Court to repeal Citizens United.  Such a development could create a fertile environment for a populist movement that sweeps the land over the next few years.  But it will only happen if a Democrat is in the White House next year.

    There are at least two other reasons to vote for Clinton.  The obvious one is her Republican opponents.  At this writing, the odds favor a Donald Trump Hillary Clinton match up.  Trump can claim some populist bona fides, he turned against the Iraq war long before Clinton did and he is much less equivocal in his opposition to "free trade".  Still, his long and ugly history of racist, sexist, and otherwise irresponsible rhetoric and an absence of any government experience render him wholly unqualified.  Ted Cruz would probably be an even worse president than Trump.  John Kasich may seem somewhat refreshing, due to his mature temperament, but his views are only slightly less extreme than those of the average Republican.

    The third reason to vote for Clinton is there's some reason to believe she'd be a more liberal president than her record suggests.  The Atlantic argues she was to Bill Clinton's left on economic matters in the 1990s.  Others claim her relentless hawkishness results from her recognition that as a woman she can't be seen as "soft" on national defense.  If she becomes president, perhaps she'll feel liberated from self-imposed constraints necessitated by relentless fund-raising from and gladhanding with neocons and neoliberals.  While I wouldn't bet on it, it's just possible a "progressive who gets things done" butterfly rather than a "kinda moderate"centrist moth will emerge next year in the oval office.

    Danny Cardwell "the Thought Wrestler" chides (unfairly in my view) Sanders supporters for  not "doing the hard work necessary to shape their [local] communities [in the mistaken belief that] electing Bernie will free them from their social responsibilities."  The critique misses the mark because 1) it knocks millions of people who devoted countless hours to the Sanders campaign for not doing even more, 2) it suggests Bernie's backers bear the burden of bringing about social change, 3) it ignores how tantalizingly close progressives came against all odds to defeating the plutocrats' choice.

    Still, Danny raises a crucial point and suggests a way forward.  We on the left do need to be attuned to every local tax initiative, school board race, and zoning commission decision.  We must organize to promote positive change and stymie regressive actions whenever and wherever possible.  By working together successfully on a local level, we can bridge the seemingly unbridgeable racial, ethnic, and gender gaps the one percent exploits viciously in every election to keep poor, working, and middle-income people at each others' throats.   Once we unite, we will defeat the still ascendant investment bankers, military contractors, and fossil fuel companies.

    Comments

    Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-hon...

    ​Hillary Clinton has been more honest than Bernie Sanders during the campaign

    Nicholas Kristof

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/opinion/sunday/is-hillary-clinton-dish...

    Politifact

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/fact-checking-2016-...

    Hillary Clinton is more honest than Bernie Sanders. If Hillary Clinton is only fundamentally honest, Bernie Sanders  is the same.

     


    Bernie Sanders says he lost votes because "poor people don't vote. He resorts to the same contempt for people who don't for him as surrogates like Cornel West. Fact-checking shows that Clinton won the majority of votes in lower income minority groups. Sanders is not viewed as the champion of the poor by minority voters.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-poor-people-vote_us_5...


    Sanders statement that "poor people don't vote" was both factually inaccurate and moreover wrong-headed since poorer Democratic primary voters tended to vote for Clinton.  As I noted in my post, progressive Sanders supporters must work with skeptical poor, working, and middle income voters so we are united in the next election against the plutocrats' choice rather than divided by them as in this election.


    Kristof said:

    "Then there’s the question of Clinton raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from speeches to Goldman Sachs and other companies. For a person planning to run for president, this was nuts." 

    "Then there are the State Department emails, which are the subject of an F.B.I. investigation. What was she thinking in using a private email server? Why on earth would she do such a stupid thing?"

    "All this is self-inflicted damage, which Clinton compounded with evasions and half-truths, coming across as lawyerly and shifty."

    "So as we head toward the general election showdown, by all means denounce Hillary Clinton’s judgment and policy positions, but let’s focus on the real issues."

    Yes, by all means, let's focus but while doing so pretend that doing things that are "nuts" or "stupid" and compounding the nutty stupidity with "evasions and "half truths" are not "real" issues. And Kristof is a friendly witness defending Clinton as best he can.


    Yup!  What he said.


    [Comment edit ToS warning]


    [Comment edited, ToS warning]


    1) You write in response to my contention that Clinton is not the progressive choice that a large majority of self-described liberals in South Carolina voted for her.  Is that supposed to be evidence that I wrote something untrue because I sure don't see how it is.

    2) You write: "I'm always mystified when you continually bring up Sanders general election poll numbers when there has been considerable evidence posted here that general election poll numbers are highly inaccurate at this point."  I contend that, despite the arguments of some Sanders supporters, the fact that Sanders consistently does better than Clinton against all the Republicans will not lead the super delegates to abandon her.  Do you question my conclusion?  Do you think the establishment delegates will back Sanders because he does better in the head-to-head matchups?

    On another note, Dukakis's loss to to H.W. in the general election despite being well ahead before the conventions in 1988 is not evidence that the current polls showing Sanders stronger than Clinton against the Republicans are untrustworthy or meaningless.

    3) You write "of course Sanders voters [as opposed to Clinton voters] 'bear the burden of bringing about . . . social change.'"  This is a morally indefensible claim.  We all have an equal duty to work for justice.  The fact that you believe Clinton will be a better President than Sanders does not absolve you of the duty to work to reduce economic injustice, to fight to ensure every American  has healthcare, and to raise taxes on the rich.  During the Civil Rights era, every American was equally bound to do what she or he could to end Jim Crow laws and support Dr. King.

    4) Your cite regarding the emails on Clinton's server does not contradict anything I have written here.  Its conclusion is identical to mine.  Clinton won't and shouldn't be prosecuted for maintaining classified materials at home.  The American Prospect article does not address the question of whether Clinton violated the federal regulations that required her to maintain all of her government emails at the State Department.


    I would say it makes sense for Hillary to strengthen common ground issues that could enthuse Bernie supporters, but I dont want her to adopt issues her voters rejected outright. Unless single payer helps universal affordable care, Im not interested. I think $15 is too much in most places and will kill off fragile fledgling startups, but think $12 is a shock we can mostly endure (though it will still raise costs for the poor along with income). I think many of us agree more go-it-slow, less optimism toward military engagements, though we disagree on whether the US should be involved at all. I think Wall Street is sometimes evil and most times the bulwark of our economy and the global one - careful with the goose even if he has to be penned in some. I think wage equality and unemplyment security and transitioning are pretty key, as well as understanding how our future demographics will fit in the economy of 2020-2025 and whats needed to prepare them (hint: Im not convinced college for everyone is the best strategy - college skills are often the opposite of workplace skills, depending - even project management and agile development are not covered in schools - what other new important trends are left off our staid curricula?). I think we're all agreed that more needs to be done to protect minorities, including rein in police excesses.

    So welcome, accommodate, but not capitulate.

    PS - and fuck them on fracking. Really, buy a calculator.


    Your support for fracking is as bewildering as your belief in "free" trade. 

    I agree that a higher minimum wage can lead to a reduction in employment since raising the cost of any input usually reduces demand for it.  But higher wages for low-income people leads to greater consumption which tends to boost employment.  Thus, the ultimate effect of a minimum wage hike may be unclear. 

    A big problem in our economy is that many employers can easily and sometimes without cost off-shore jobs.  That's why it's essential to couple higher wages with tariffs that bring production back home.


    As noted, buy a calculator. Also Google "fracking safety".

    Most oil production is now via fracking.

    Most oil production (i.e. via fracking) is from new wells using fracking

    But as fracking output doubles every 2 years, fracking efficiency & safety seem to be improving as well. (Refracking, or fracking old wells, is also on the rise - how this compares bears examining)

    http://www.usoilproperties.com/oil-news/improvements-in-fracking-could-e...

    http://www.processingmagazine.com/processing-e-news/chemical-industry-up...

    http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/allen1/

    http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/120/7/ehp.120-a272.pdf

    I guarantee you any candidate that says "stop fracking, we can stand gas at 3 times the price", or say an extra $5000/family including heating per year, will lose in November.

    Better to push for those new solar, wind & liquid thorium reactors.

    Note that the level of oppisition to fracking is rising, thanks to the steady propaganda without any cost analysis.


    One of the things I dislike about Sanders is that he has simple answers to complex problems and an absolutist view that his answer is the only right answer. Though we've often vehemently argued, PP, I've always respected that when you are at your best you have a nuanced view on these complex problems we face.

    There is wide spread agreement that the minimum wage should and can be raised though disagreements as to the exact amount. $12 is a significant increase but Sanders insists it must be $15. I'm not an economist pouring over spread sheets doing calculations and analysis so I don't know what the "right" amount is. But I do live in a small rural community, like many small rural communities across the nation. The small local store with it's gas station is not some chain and the owners are not rich. It's struggling to survive. The prices at the store are already high for this poor community. Once a month I drive 60 miles to the "big city" to stock up. At some point labor costs will push prices too high to maintain the store. That would be a huge loss for this community. But Sanders knows the right answer. It's simple. The minimum wage must be $15.

    We all agree that climate change is a problem that needs immediate work. Sanders answer is a carbon tax. In his usual my way or the highway approach he railed against Hillary trying to get her to embrace his "right" answer. I have no disagreements with a carbon tax. But many left wing environmentalists believe cap and trade would be more effective. I'm very much a six of one half a dozen of the other type of person. I look at the goal and see several paths to get there. Carbon tax, cap and trade, either can be made to work to move us toward dealing with the problem of CO2 in the atmosphere. For Sanders it must be a carbon tax.

    I could go on. Big banks must be broken up even though there is convincing evidence that the repeal of Glass Steagle didn't cause the great recession and Krugman and other liberal economists have praised Hillary's plan as a more comprehensive and effective regulatory scheme for the whole of the financial sector. Single payer as the only way to get to universal coverage. Fracking must be banned, it can't just be properly regulated.

    With Sanders it's always the most extreme very simplistic answer to any question delivered with a holier than thou attitude. The world is just more complicated than that.


    I'm with you, OK...if Bernie was challenged by King Solomon I think he would insist that if he couldn't have the whole baby, it should be divided in two, thereby killing it.


    So, 

    It is easy to see why progressive Democrats would cling to the belief that the "dishonest thin-skinned, private, controlling, . . . distrustful, . . . lawyerly, and shifty" choice of investment bankersmilitary contractors, and perhaps even Charles Koch couldn't - just couldn't - head our party's ticket.  But she will.

    In other words, no one is progressive except you and Berni supporters.  The contempt drips from the above quote.  However, you go on to state:

    We on the left... Etc, etc, etc.

    Maybe if you learned not to insult everyone who is not feeling the Berne, and declare that only YOU are Progressives, you might accomplish what you set out to do, which seems to be to appear to be mature, magnanimous, and inclusive.  

    So much of what you say needs to be said, but when you preface it with offensive comments, it negates the objective comments, which I think was your objective.


    One can be progressive and vote for Hillary Clinton but Hillary Clinton is not a progressive as I have explained laboriously on a number of occasions but do not feel like regurgitating yet again.

    The fact that you choose to be offended doesn't negate anything I wrote.


    Realistically, how could any progressive Democrat not be offended by this?  

    'It is easy to see why progressive Democrats would cling to the belief that the "dishonest thin-skinned, private, controlling, . . . distrustful, . . . lawyerly, and shifty" choice of investment bankersmilitary contractors, and perhaps even Charles Koch couldn't - just couldn't - head our party's ticket.  But she will.

    You say that I choose to be offended, but what you said would bet offensive to anyone.


    That is Nicholas Kristof's description of Hillary Clinton.  It was not a description of you or anybody but Clinton.  I agree she would be offended.


    So when I describe Sanders as a condescending old white guy who never seriously interacted with black activists until he needed their votes, you are not offended. Sanders dismissed black voters in the South and blames his losses on the poor black voters who did not cast votes in his favor.


    I'm not offended but I do wonder why it's more important to you that Sanders reach out to black leaders than it is that he voted against the War on Iraq and never took money from the private prison industry. I do agree his opposition to commonsense gun control measures smirches his mostly stellar legislative record.


    I'm not offended but, accepting your claims at face value, I do wonder why it's more important to you that Sanders reach out to black activists, given Clinton is more dismissive of them, than it is that he voted against the War on Iraq and never took money from the private prison industry. I do agree his opposition to commonsense gun control measures smirches his mostly stellar legislative record.


    Hillary Clinton began her move for criminal justice reform before Sanders began his.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-now-a-reformer-once-boasted-of-being-...

    Bernie Sanders campaigned on being tough on crime in 2006

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/12/when-bernie-sanders-con...

    You lack long-term memory because we have discussed this before. Sanders is a hypocrite when it comes to black issues, including gun laws. 

    Sanders classifies Obama as a failed President. He positions himself as the savior who will correct things.

    Sanders surrogates are no different than black GOP surrogates. Ben Carson and others point to pathology in the black community to show their loyalty to the GOP. Cornel West and other black Bernie supporters classify black icons like John Lewis and James Clyburn. Both Carson and West would easily state that black voters are brainwashed and enslaving themselves to the Democratic elites.

    You cannot imagine the stench that is detected by most black voters when we hear Sanders surrogates speak. Sanders is much ore offensive than Hillary Clinton.

    Bernie Sanders is not trusted because he has never really been tested. Now that he is under scrutiny, his true nature is noted. Black voters in the South are unimportant and poor people don't vote. Black voters reject Senator Sanders because we hear the dog-whistles


    Sen. Hillary Clinton went on the counterattack today, one day after a stinging defeat in the Iowa caucuses to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

    She said New Hampshire voters need to take a hard look at Obama, suggesting that they shouldn't just buy into his message of "hope" without analyzing his policies.

    . . .

    While the senator was vague, her campaign pointed out to ABC News examples of Obama's liberal positions, including his 2004 statement to abolish mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4085083&page=1


    Sanders was for mass incarceration in 2006

     


    Sanders has spoken eloquently against mass incarceration since at least 1991 and did so when the Omnibus Bill was being contemplated in 1994.

    In 2006 Sanders posted at his website that he was proud of his support for the COPS program within the 1994 Crime Bill.  He has never said he supported mass incarceration and he never has.

    In 1996, Clinton campaigned for her husband on the ground that he locked up "superpredators"

    In 2007, Clinton touted the COPS program and voted YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for it.  http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Crime.htm

    in 2008, Clinton's campaign criticized Obama for calling for an end to mandatory federal minimum sentences.

    Whose record is worse RMRD?

    Note: I made my points calmly and dispassionately without questioning your long-term memory.  I would appreciate the same consideration from you.


    Hal, you always do this crap, we did have the discussion about Hillary vs. Bernie many times

    Sanders voted against a bill that would have established separate drug court and demilitarized local police. Sanders is worse than Hillary.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/03/bernie-sanders-voted-for-criminal-ju...

    The GOP has not attacked Sanders' hypocrisy on crime because it would be more powerful in a General Election.

    You avoid addressing the fact that black surrogates in both the GOP and the Sanders camp have to speak out strongly against black Democrats to gain favor.


    Again, I would ask you to please exercise some restraint in the use of language regardless of how angry you may be because not only do I disagree with your points but I also eviscerate them.

    1)  You rely on a Federalist article to attack Sanders for a vote in 1995.  You know of course the Federalist is a libertarian site funded by the Koch brothers.  I do not accept its interpretation of an obscure vote that's over twenty years old and do not have the time or inclination to go back to do real research on it.

    2) After I debunked the factual allegations on which you rely for your claim that Sanders supports mass incarceration, you immediately changed the subject and cited to a wholly unreliable source.

    3) You make an unwarranted/unsupported assumption about why the GOP hasn't made an issue of Sanders's anti-mass incarceration position.

    4) I am not responsible for what black surrogates say. 

    5) You have ignored my specific points that (a) Clinton spoke directly in favor of mass incarceration in 1996 while Sanders repeatedly spoke out against mass incarceration and never wrote or said he supported it, (b) Clinton supported the COPS program in 2007 one year after Sanders noted that he supported it.  (c) in 2008, Clinton criticized Obama for supporting an end to federal mandatory minimums.

    Would you care to address 5 above or do you concede that you have been wrong in arguing for many months that Clinton has a better record when it comes to criminal justice matters?


    Hal we have had this discussion before. Sanders talked economics rather than police abuse.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/bernie-sanders-doesn...

     


    Hal - In 1995, when the US Sentencing Commission recommended that Congress lower the sentences for crack cocaine to eliminate the disparity with powdered cocaine (resulting in disproportionate sentences for predominantly African American defendants), this is what Sanders said: “This Congressman thinks that drugs are a scourge on America, and I strongly believe we must fight cocaine use in any form. We should be addressing the fairness issue by raising the punishment for powder cocaine, not lowering the sentence for crack offenses. I am deeply disturbed that this was not given as an option today.”

    In his 2006 campaign, Sanders touted his vote in favor of the 1994 Crime Bill as part of his "strong record of supporting tough on crime legislation.”  (Personally, I don't believe the Crime Bill was the racist vehicle for mass incarceration it is portrayed as by revisionist left historians - it contained some good, some bad and some ugly - but even I would not praise it in this way.)

    In her 2007 campaign, Hillary Clinton said as follows: “At the time, there were reasons why the Congress wanted to push through a certain set of penalties and increase prison construction, and there was a lot of support for that across a lot of communities... It’s hard to remember now but the crime rate in the early 1990s was very high. But we’ve got to take stock now of the consequences, so that’s why I want to have a thorough review of all of the penalties, of all the kinds of sentencing, and more importantly, start having more diversion and having more second-chance programs.”

    Finally, the ad nauseum repetition of a single phrase uttered by Clinton ("super predator") in 1996, that somehow offers a glimpse into her corrupted, racist soul is misguided and disingenuous.  That phrase was coined by Princeton Prof John DiIulio in an article about a supposed spike in juvenile crime.  The original article was not focused exclusively on African American youth - to the contrary.  The theory - which was later debunked and repudiated by the author himself (I believe) - was initially well-received in policy circles.  At the time when Clinton used the term it did not have any racist baggage - that came later - and if you look at the full context of the speech in which she uses it, her remarks were not directly or indirectly referencing African American youth.  It's bad enough to constantly trot out a single phrase uttered 20 years ago but to twist it in this way is an irresponsible slander.        


    Say it, buddy - "you want the truth? you can't handle the truth..."

    Said the armchair Jack Nicholson.


    Check out this NYT OpEd by Alex Kotlowitz after Clinton's speech.  If you're not familiar with him, feel free to check out Kotlowitz and tell me if you think he's a racist.  http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/08/opinion/it-takes-a-village-to-destroy-a-child.html


    Hal, you always do this crap, we did have the discussion about Hillary vs. Bernie many times

    Sanders voted against a bill that would have established separate drug court and demilitarized local police. Sanders is worse than Hillary.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/03/bernie-sanders-voted-for-criminal-ju...

    The GOP has not attacked Sanders' hypocrisy on crime because it would be more powerful in a General Election.

    You avoid addressing the fact that black surrogates in both the GOP and the Sanders camp have to speak out strongly against black Democrats to gain favor.


    Your statement that 'One can be progressive and vote for HRC' just shows how meaningless the word progressive seems to be to Liberals who fold like a cheap suit and return to the corrupt Party fold after a dalliance with the Left. The Sanders platform has been discredited and defeated, by the Party Machine,  so don't project the BS that HRC will adopt any of his progressive nostrums or that he will demand anything for his and your submission to Clinton rule. Nader demanded that Gore adopt some of his ideas that were almost identical to Sanders' and when he was rebuked he had the fortitude and character to resist submission and Gore and the Party paid dearly for that arrogance.

    Bernie will return to his job as sheepdog for the Party because he respects/likes Clinton and was unwilling to demand anything from her and stated that clearly from the beginning of this charade, although he did feel the Bern for a short time.

    I expect that he and you will move on to attacking the Sandernistas who have the notion that power only respects demands not submission and will withhold their vote because their progressive ideals are more than a shallow veneer to be peeled off when the Party calls.


    Thanks.

    You touch on several issues on which I  have a different position and who know's maybe you're right.

    I'm not concerned about your "grudging " tone .It's natural .

    I seriously disagree with your Loretta Lynch statement for obvious reasons. It's beneath you and after you think about it maybe you'll  withdraw it. .

     


    Thanks for the shout out Hal. We can knock on every door in the country as a way of making people aware of what Bernie's positions are, but it doesn't matter if we aren't pushing those policies at the local and state level. I spent time with some students from V.C.U. this weekend who have no problem getting their fellow students to show up at concerts and rallies, but can't get them to show up, in great numbers, when Dominion Power makes proposals in city hall. Thanks for engaging my work. I sincerely appreciate it. I'll talk to you tomorrow! 


    smileysmileysmiley


    Thanks Flavius.  I am willing to reconsider what I wrote about Loretta Lynch but you'll have to identify the specific claim with which you disagree.  Lynch, like nearly all of us, is ambitious.  The ultimate ambition of many lawyers is to be appointed to the Supreme Court.  If Lynch is Clinton's first choice, she will forever be known as the first African-American woman to sit on the highest court in the most powerful nation in the world.  Don't you think the possibility of eternal renown affects people's actions?


    Thanks.

     I have no special knowledge about  Ms. Lynch. I start by assuming that most people are honest until they give me grounds  to believe otherwise. Including her.

    And  that people in exposed positions are particularly apt to be honest.  

    And  "trail blazers":  the Jackie Robinson or  Barak Obama feel even more under an obligation to be honest.If only because they know they're more apt to be caught.

    So in her case , I'd  expect the odds  favor  her being  particularly scrupulous. In a sense she's had "greatness thrust upon her" . She can not avoid dealing with this historic issue which could decide whether this country will finally catch up with the rest of the world and have its' first woman president.

    Of course it's normal to speculate as you did :that the temptation would be so great that she would succumb.Could happen. If you wrote it'd be possible that out of ambition  she'd rescue Hillary with an unsound ruling, I'd say "sure".

    But saying it's  likely is a very grave charge. It should be based on something more than a general feeling that "everyone has her price".

    And apart from all that she'd have to be confirmed!


    I have not suggested or implied A.G. Lynch is dishonest. I think the default is to factor in one's boss's preferences and one's own best interests when considering momentous decisions, don't you?


    Not in all cases. In business ,sure. In government in general , sure. 

    But there are positions  where the defining characteristic  is fidelity to the facts.We expect our doctor to tell us the truth however unpleasant to hear. And a judge to rule according to the law. If they don't it is a lot more serious than when the Realtor extolls a dream house. 

    During Watergate Nixon's legal team changed and a supposedly more reputable person took charge. Maybe it was St. Clair. My tennis opponent  was a senior partner in a white shoe law firm and I scoffed to him about any possible improvement. After a period of silence Jim said  carefully "At least now we can be sure no evidence will disappear.""Atta girl" Janet Reno caused President Clinton heart burn. Conversely ,one of the "signatures" of  W's administration  was John Yoo's justifications of the unjustifiable. 

    I'm could be wrong of course but until convinced otherwise I believe  Barak Obama's attorney general will behave honorably .A fish rots from the head,

    We can write anything  here of course but obviously  you hold yourself to a higher standard or I wouldn't have bothered rattling your cage on this one.

       

     

     

     

     


    Thanks Flavius.  I like criticism of my writing and conclusions as long as there are no personal attacks.  As I wrote, from all I've read and seen I do not believe there is a credible criminal case against Hillary Clinton for violating government secrecy laws.  When you factor in the President's all but explicit endorsement of Clinton and the fact that the Attorney General almost certainly also supports her candidacy and may well have an interest in her winning in November, the odds in favor of prosecution are very long indeed.


    Others claim her relentless hawkishness results from her recognition that as a woman she can't be seen as "soft" on national defense. 

    Another view -- there are liberal reasons for using force, including the protection of innocents.


    Just to let you all know, the Sanders' supporters have filed with the FEC and will help field and financially support progressive candidates that meet their target issues in the 2018 election cycle. The movement is not going away and some of Sanders's team is going to stay together to set up and lead this effort. They had a soft roll out this week with their PAC. Supporters are already sending small donations and signing up. This is only the first step of many that will happen in the future. They will make an announcement this summer. This is independent of Sanders and is an effort of the group that supported him.  They have built a network of grass roots activists all over the country.  

    I have watched the effort of some 15,000 to 20,000 individuals phone bank every weekend for the last few months for Sanders. There is 2.7 million donors that have supported Sanders so this is a very large pool to ask if they would like to stay active in moving forward to make changes. 

    Sanders supporters still has his back and will remain so for the rest of his political career. 

    Right now they are  also supporting 30 House seats in this election. 

    If Hillary gets the nomination, she will have to do quite a bit more on our issues to get votes from us. This is because we are not asking and our movement is here to stay. 


    "she will have to do quite a bit more on our issues to get votes from us"

    Which of the issues are important to you & in what form (e.g. are you able to compromise, or everything's hard-and-fast?)

    Currently the minimum wage is all over the place, as low as $5.15 in Georgia, $7.25-$7.65 in many places. Are you sure that $15 is the only wage you'll accept, vs. a 50-100% increase for most states (e.g. $12) and effort towards higher in more expensive cities like LA, SF, New York? There's some evidence that the $15 rate in Seattle is very hard on small franchises (often run by minorities) and small restaurants, with a spike in closures and some related unemplyment. Do you agree, and if so, do you see a way to soften this blow?

    Currently 51% of US oil production involves fracking. Oil & and overall energy costs like car & heating have decreased greatly because of this. There's some debate whether it increases methane in the air, but some think it's decreasing green house gases as well. It's also accepted that some of the chemicals involved are quite dangerous, though there are issues about 1) dangerous as used? e.g. far from people or just in ground water anywhere? 2) has the situation improved as fracking productivity doubles every 2 years? 3) if you're for an outright ban, what would the cost of doing that be, and who will pay for it? 4) are you aware of the military and political problems involved with returning to our dependence on Mideast & Russian oil, with majority adoption of renewables still a couple decades away at best? 5) are you aware that other countries will not give up fracking, so that we would be in permanent disadvantage energy-wise against our global competitors, likely causing a massive recession and job loss?

    Trade Agreements, Job Growth & Wage Equality - presumably trade agreements could increase exports while protecting worker conditions. Also presumably, if we don't have trade agreements in place, especially if we have high tariffs, other countries will also keep high tariffs in place, lowering our exports & thus jobs, while increasing our cost of goods at home. Are you completely against trade agreements, or are there some conditions that would make them 'hold your nose" acceptable or better? And since we're the richest market in the world, what's your attitude about locking out poor countries' access to our market in order to protect our jobs? (certainly the poor in China have benefited from the last 2 decades, even as they responsibly held their population in check)

    Single Payer - it took 2 years to pass ACA, signed into law in March 2010, with the program phased in over the next 4 years, so it's been in full effect 2 years now, though many states have decided to abstain from exchanges for political reasons, lowering the takeup. Nevertheless, the number of uninsured has rapidly declined despite some 30 million remaining. Single Payer isn't synonymous with Universal Health Care, and had states not opted out (with the Supreme Court's assistance), coverage would be much greater. What part of ACA do you disagree with, and considering GOP legislative obstruction at the state and federal level, what is the route that you see to getting Single Payer adopted? And do you think the effort involved will lower time, energy & possibility of success for other parts of your agenda?


    "If Hillary gets the nomination, she will have to do quite a bit more on our issues to get votes from us."

    I wouldn't hold my breath momoe.  Clinton is apparently planning to take a "hard line" with us.  Her handlers, surrogates, lickspittles, acolytes, coordinators, and sycophants claim she's already moved far to the left and can't go any farther without risking the loss of millions of independent voters to the Republicans.  http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/278074-clinton-to-take-hard-line-wi...

    Either Clinton's entourage is lying or it's remarkably obtuse.  Independents overwhelmingly support Bernie Sanders because of his economic populism.  In this election cycle, the independents are more progressive - at least on economic matters - than the (neo) liberals in the Democratic party.  Millions of poor, working, and middle-class Americans would warm to Hillary (or at least thaw a little) if she, e.g., stated an opposition to any more "free" trade deals and a determination to raise the cap on social security withholding.  But she won't do it.

    Sadly, Clinton's pretty much got us where she wants us.  None of the Republicans are remotely acceptable and Trump is most likely going to downplay the anti-trade anti-elite rhetoric once he secures the Republican nomination.  Sucks to be us.


    Nice, Hal - you lose the election and go into negotiations to try to salvage your platform - using terms like "lickspittles" and "sycophants". Expect to persuade lots of people that way.

    Re: social security & "she won't do it", from January:

    “We do have to extend the life of the trust fund and that’s going to take some new funding,” she said. “There are a couple of potential ways of doing that.” She mentioned applying the existing tax to higher levels of income, and applying it to “passive income.”

    So while you may have glee with a "flip-flop", that flip-flop since 2008 is in the direction you prefer. The additional part is she's looking at social security tax on investment income - should also make Bernie fans happy, no? If not, why not?


    Huh?  Whom am I trying to persuade?  I'm describing the situation.  You are free to see things differently.  If you do, perhaps you can provide details that support your alternative view of reality.  "A couple of ways" to keep social security solvent including "potential[ly] considering taxing high salaries and/or passive income ain't "determination" to protect poor, working, and middle-class retirees.


    You said she wouldnt raise the cap on Social Security; she said she might, 3 months ago. Go argue with Time Magazine.


    You write: "You said she wouldn't raise the cap on Social Security; she said she might[.]"

    I wrote: "Millions of poor, working, and middle-class Americans would warm to Hillary (or at least thaw a little) if she, e.g., stated an opposition to any more "free" trade deals and a determination to raise the cap on social security withholding.  But she won't do it."

     


    If you look above, you'll see I posed several questions to Momoe re: the fine print and details for different campaign issues. How about we start there rather than whether she'll say "Mother may I" and phrase a position exactly as you demand.:


    Here's a better response:

    "You're right Hal.  I wrote that you wrote that Clinton will 'not raise the cap on social security'.  In fact, you did not write that or anything that can be fairly interpreted as expressing such a sentiment."

    I specifically wrote that Clinton could attract some independents if she would declare a determination to raise the cap on annual earnings subject to social security withholding.  You countered by quoting her expressing a willingness to consider this action.  Obviously, expressing a willingness to consider a particular step is not anywhere near stating a determination to take that step.

    You know PP, I am pretty darn careful about what I write, although I certainly get things wrong.  I try really hard not to make declarative statements that I can't back up.  I don't know whether Clinton will raise the cap on salaries subject to social security withholding so I'm not going to write that she won't do that.  I phrase my arguments in ways that irritate, aggravate, and annoy sure and one of the ways I do that is by making declarative statements are difficult, if not impossible, to prove wrong.

    Look at how many sentences and paragraphs you sometimes spend trying to counter my arguments.  I often rebut your criticism (and that of C'Ville, O-K, etc.) in 2-3  sentences.  I quote what you wrote about what I wrote and then I quote what I actually wrote which is generally very different.  Which method do you think is more effective?


    Okay, you wrote "determination" about the cap if that changes anything at all.

    In the meantime you didnt discuss anything of substance and ignored my invitation to do so. 

    If youve ever rebutted anything I said, it was a trivial point, missing the forest for a twig.

    Whine on. Again my mistake to engage you at all - in your mind youre winning 24x7.


    Your arguments have a much of a muchness quality about them:

    1) You defend aggressively the indefensible - free trade, Clinton's vote for war on the people of Iraq, mass incarceration, gorging on the largesse of the big banks while portraying oneself as their enemy, etc. 

    2) You misrepresent and twist my words. 

    3) You (used to) insult profanely.

    I only have so much time available to me to try to prove the earth orbits the sun.


    I only have so much time available to me to try to prove the earth orbits the sun

    I don't think that is what you are trying to prove.  It's more like you are trying to prove that the sun is evil and should not be trusted and those who are OK with the sun are impervious to your brilliant arguments and all of their reasoning is faulty and pedestrian. But all is well because you will vote in favor of the sun because the other option is absolute darkness. 

    Bless your heart, Hal.


    If Hillary gets the nomination, she will have to do quite a bit more on our issues to get votes from us. This is because we are not asking and our movement is here to stay. 

    I wonder how the Sanders people think their ideas will be implemented under a Trump administration?  I understand wanting this momentum to keep going.  Much of it is what we all want.  But this election is not a Sanders referendum.  We're choosing the best person for president, and, while Hillary Clinton may not fill the bill for all your needs, she's the only one who will give even half a shit about anything you're trying to accomplish.

    It's good that the Sanders camp finally recognizes the need to work to get down-ballot candidates elected.  We've all known that for a while now.  We won't get anywhere with the Republicans in charge.  But they will be if the attacks against the Democrats don't stop, and that includes the demands that it's Bernie's way or the highway.


    I'm with you to a point Ramona.  Clinton won.  She will be better than the Republican alternative and only she or the Republican will be the next President barring, as I wrote earlier, something unforeseeable or tragedy.  But the other side of the coin is that Clinton could lose the general election - something she desperately doesn't want to have happen.  Moreover, her support is neither broad nor deep.  Many more people dislike her than like her and she can't attract large crowds or call on dedicated fresh-faced volunteers to bust a hump for her.

    She is quite simply a disliked and distrusted candidate.  She is/we are very fortunate that she'll almost certainly be up against somebody - most likely Trump or possibly Cruz - even more despised than she is.  If it's Kasich, she'd probably lose the general election.

    Given Clinton's unfavorables, she and her team should be doing everything possible to broaden her base of support.  As I note in my comment, if her goal is to appeal to independents, taking a "hard line" with Sanders voters is absolutely the wrong approach.


    Sanders most hard core supporters will only be satisfied if Hillary embraces enough of the losers positions that she's so far to the left that she will be as big a loser in the general as Sanders was in the primary.


    You know what O-K, some Sanders supporters may not vote for her no matter what.  Given her record, without more, this is understandable.  There is more though, she'll be running against somebody even worse and as bad as Clinton's record suggests she'll be, she might not be that bad.  Also, her Supreme Court picks could set the stage for a progressive renaissance when the next FDR/LBJ takes office.

    So the question we must ask is how can Clinton solidify support from progressives and independents.  One Bernie or Buster, with whom I spoke, acknowledged that if she chooses Elizabeth Warren as her running mate (and Warren agrees to run) it will be tough to keep Sanders supporters from voting for her.  Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. 

    Some busters will argue that the VEEP doesn't have any power.  See Veep.  My response: (1) Warren has too much integrity to accept the Vice-Presidency without solid assurances that she'll have power and much of her agenda will be a priority.  (2) If Clinton betrays progressives, as we fear she might, VP Warren would turn on her like a snake.


    You know what O-K, some Sanders supporters may not vote for her no matter what

    Exactly. That's why I don't think she should suck up to a loser. The most liberal block of voters are democratic primary voters. Sanders lost with those voters by a far greater margin than Hillary lost to Obama. A very clear majority of voters rejected the policies of the loser. Now the loser wants the winner to embrace the policies he lost with. In a general election with voters that are more moderate than the primary voters. And that somehow makes sense to you.

    This idea that Hillary should pick Warren as vp is another example of the messiah complex of some Sanders supporters. Sanders will save us all or if not, Warren as vp might. Massachusetts governor is a republican. He will replace Warren with a republican senator. That will lessen the power of democrats in the senate and may even stop democrats from regaining control. How long should we allow delusional Sanders supporters turn possible wins into losses? Politics is a team sport, the "great" man or women will not save us. It's time for that loser snake Sanders to slither back to the hole he came from.


    [Comment removed] ToS warning


    Given her record, without more, this is understandable.  There is more, though, she'll be running against somebody even worse and as bad as Clinton's record suggests she'll be, she might not be that bad. 

    Hal, you really need to grow up.  Not expecting it, just suggesting that it would do you a world of good.  


    Warren has been very careful to remove herself from the candidate fight from what I have read. I would be surprised if she got on the ticket.

    I hear your idea about how Warren for the VP selection would bring more peace with angry Sander supporters but the parenthesis you included about willingness to run is crucial.

    It is really difficult to get elected to the Senate. You would need a damn good reason to do something else very different shortly after pulling that off.


    You and O-K make an excellent point about the probable loss of a Democratic Senate seat if Warren is selected to and agrees to run as Vice President.  Still Clinton has got to figure out a way to demonstrate to the majority of Americans who dislike and distrust her that she really is on their side.  Picking Warren would go a very long way in that direction but Clinton should not make the same mistakes that Obama made - viz. Janet Napolitano and Kathleen Sebelius.


    You make the mistake of thinking America is liberal nation and Warren is popular. While a liberal hero Warren is unknown to many Americans and has a mostly  unfavorable rating with those who know her.


    She has over 12 million votes , 3 million more than your favorite. People like her, even if you dont. Grow up. Its just an election - these happen every 4 years, and disappointment is one of the likely outcomes. She's won primaries in the northeast, south, midwest and west, from 16 to 30+% margins, yet you insist her support isnt broad or deep. Shes winning with blacks, hispanics, older folks and women, some youth, likely the Jewish vote. Doesnt look too bad to me.


    You write: "People like her, even if you don't.  Grow up."  A major element of maturity and adulthood is the ability to accept unpleasant facts.  I accept the unpleasant fact that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee.  You have failed to accept the unpleasant fact that most Americans do not like her.   Yes, Democratic primary voters prefer her to Sanders.  But more Americans would rather have the Democratic Socialist in charge.  In order to appeal to enough voters to be confident of victory, Clinton needs to manifest genuine concern for everyday Americans and to turn her back on the bankers and defense contractors who have made her rich and powerful.


    Hal, favorability has nothing to do with electability. Hillary received more votes than Sanders. Democrats like her, they really, really like her.

    http://www.vox.com/2016/3/4/11158110/bernie-sanders-electability-clinton

    ​On the other hand Sanders has absolutely no clue how blacks interpret economic markers. Sanders economic message targets white concerns.

    http://www.vox.com/2016/3/4/11158110/bernie-sanders-electability-clinton


    As I wrote RMRD, Democratic primary voters prefer her to Sanders.  The problem is that the general electorate comprises independents, Republicans, and members of third and fourth parties as well.  Yes Democrats are a plurality but to win nation-wide elections, Democratic candidates must have appeal, to at least some extent, beyond their base.  Sanders has far more appeal beyond the Democratic base than Clinton.

    On another note, you write "Sanders economic message targets white concerns."  When it comes to economics, Sanders' main arguments are: 1) The 1% has rigged the system to make it really hard for poor and working-class Americans to become affluent.  2) Trade deals have led to the loss of millions of decent middle-class jobs to overseas manufacturing.  3) We need to raise the minimum wage so low-wage workers can do more than just survive.  4) We need free state colleges so poor and working-class kids can get the education they need to succeed in an ever-more complex world.  5) We need universal health care to help American companies compete against those in other countries which do not have the added burden of employee healthcare expenses.  6) Unions are an essential bulwark against oppressive management. 7) The size and influence of the big banks make them a menace to the economy and mandate that they be broken up.

    Perhaps you can explain which of those arguments are white-centric and aren't relevant to African-Americans.


    Blacks are generally more Progressive than whites with the exception of homosexuality. The views on homosexuality in the black community have changed to a more Progressive view aided by Barack Obama. Blacks are Progressive but pragmatic. Al Sharpton had a Progressive agenda but he did not obtain a significant portion of the black vote. Few black voters thought that Sharpton could match his Progressive rhetoric with action if elected. Sanders faces the same concerns.

    Additionally, when it comes to race, black voters do not really trust white Progressives. Black voters note that environmentalism did not include the devastation of waste dumps in the black community until late in the game. The Gay Rights movement did not include blacks until recently. In fact you can find evidence of racism in commentary by some white homosexuals. Google Dan Savage's comments about black people and their voting practices.

    Ralph Nader did not focus on problems in the black community. He is known in the black community for criticizing President Obama as an empty suit. Blacks had no relationship with Nader just as they have no relationship with Bernie Sanders. Nader and Sanders arrogantly wonders why blacks do not respond to his message. Sanders wanted a Primary challenge to Obama. In truth, blacks give Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader the same attention that Sanders and Nader gave to the black community .....None. Why are Sanders and Nader surprised.

    Occupy Wall Street was a camping trip that never invited blacks to join. White Progressives were not a real part of the fight against Stop and Frisk. Al Sharpton invited LGBT activists to participate in a march against the practice. Moral Mondays, a fight against voter suppression, is led by a pastor of a black church in North Carolina. It has structure and a base in the black Christian community. It is not leaderless. It has political goals.

    The modern crop of Sanders supporting or Obama/Hillary critics are really not respected in the black community. I have written about how Cornel West criticizes blacks who disagree with his rhetoric and Sanders support as race traitors. West is as delusional as Susan Sarandon. Sanders wisely kept West hidden from the media at most of his rallies. Cornel West has zero accomplishments. West criticizes Sharpton who has accomplishments. He criticized Melissa Harris-Perry and blocked her career at Princeton West is a waste of carbon atoms.

    Blacks Lives Matter is a protest group proudly stating that they are not political, not church based, and leaderless.  Because they focus on protest alone, they have limited value to the black community. Derry McKesson, a BLM supporter, ran for Mayor of Baltimore. He was twitter famous for his activity during the protests in Baltimore. He had glowing articles in online journals. Yet, black voters in Baltimore had no clue about Deray McKesson. McKesson had no organization structure, and arrogantly though his rhetoric would carry the day. McKesson finished sixth.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/deray-mckesson-baltimore-mayor_us_57...

    You have to bring more than rhetoric to win votes in the black community. Sanders has nothing but rhetoric. He can only mount arguments about Hillary's faults than any accomplishments. Sanders suffers because holier-than-thou Progressives have given the black community little reason to trust radical Progressives. Blacks are an afterthought to some white Progressives. This subgroup of white Progressives try to keep pointing out how, despite no direct contact with the black community, they will save the blacks.

    The dismissive message comes across loud and clear.


    An article that nicely describes (some of?) the disconnect blacks had with #OWS.


    Is there an argument that OWS's goals didn't dovetail with the interests of black Americans?  I read the linked article and didn't find it.  Perhaps you can explain.  I get that some of OWS's rhetoric was clumsy and I certainly wish it had been willing to champion political candidates.  But let's face it, it was fighting for a better America.  Accordingly, our moral responsibility was to work with it and to the extent it could have been even more inclusive to help it become so rather than to knee-cap and ankle-bite.


    Hal, the point is and was that Sanders and his vocal supporters saw actual black support as an afterthought. Blacks are supposed to realize that OWS is fighting on their behalf. OWS was a white read operation that did no outreach to minority communities. The failure to reach out is a feature not a bug of many Progressive activists. OWS was leaderless, and doomed to failure. They could have been taught this lesson via contact with black activists.

    You keep saying that white Progressives have solutions that benefit the black community, but we see nothing that shows Sanders and his activist supporters have any concrete results. The holy-roller Progressives come with ideas that they agreed upon within their own ranks. You see no reason that the fact that blacks are not included in the initial planning stages as a reason these Progressives are rejected. The Progressives come with no accomplishments but demand compliance with their solutions.


    I didn't say "white progressives have solutions that benefit the black community."  I asked for examples of how the agenda that OWS proposed wouldn't benefit blacks or would benefit whites disproportionately.  You have failed to answer that question.

    You did write specifically here and I quote, "Sanders economic message targets white concerns."

    In response, I listed his main proposals and asked you to identify which ones target white, as opposed to black, concerns.  You have failed to answer that question. 

    Whether you do or don't agree with Sanders' proposals, what solutions do you propose for the problems besetting poor, working, and middle-class Americans?


    Hal, I have repeatedly said that black voters do not believe that Sanders can deliver on his rhetoric. When his empty rhetoric is coupled with his statement about revolution and the words of some of his surrogates calling for the revolution, he is considered a charlatan. OWS fell apart with nothing accomplished because rhetoric was valued over structure. You ask which items in OWS's empty rhetoric would not have benefitted the black community. Since the rhetoric was empty, none of OWS's proposals were taken seriously.

    Sanders says that one of his first acts as President will be to insure that millions of prisoners in the United States are released. Realists note that he has no power to accomplish this promise. He promises single-payer another promise that he cannot keep. You repeatedly ask which one of Sanders' empty promises would not benefit the black community. Since his promises are not based in reality, none of his promises will benefit the black community.

    I repeatedly point out that Sanders' words are worthless. You want me to say that single-payer would benefit the black community. Single-payer is not going to happen. You accuse me of avoiding your questions. You do not grasp that Sanders words are empty thus nothing he says will benefit the black community.

    Sanders is not believable. Sanders is trying to garner votes in the black community. He says that he will be better than Barack Obama who operated in a reality-based world. There is no reason for black voters to trust Bernie Sanders. Blacks did not trust Al Sharpton enough to support him as a Presidential candidate. Al Sharpton had excellent rhetoric when it came to issues of race. Black voters rejected Sharpton because nothing he proposed was going to happen. Which of Sharpton's Sanders desires will benefit the black community? None. Sharpton does have accomplishments from his community activism. Sanders has nothing.


    There was no big backlash in the black community after Bill Clinton's direct confrontation with Black Lives Matter in Philadelphia. Hillary won 70% of the black vote in Pennsylvania. The Black Lives Matter protest had zero impact.

    The holier-than-thou Progressive crowd will blame black voters for staying on the Democratic plantation, the same argument made by black Republicans. Some Sanders supporters find unknown black activists who "slay" Hillary Clinton verbally. Despite the verbal death rays, Hillary is more appealing to the black community than Black Lives Matter. BLM does not exercise political power, only offering protests. They say they want change, they offer words, and lists of demands, but have no way to actually accomplish their goals unlike activists like Al Sharpton, Reverend Barber, etc. Black Lives Matter is a finger-pointing, protest group that has the same limited power to effect change as Occupy Wall Street and Bernie Sanders.

    Black Lives Matter does not endorse candidates. They have no real power.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/11/black_lives_matter_activist_bill_c...

    ​The holier-than-thou Progressives cannot adapt. They are unable to develop techniques to actually engage with minority concerns, demanding instead that minority voters realize that the holier-than-thou Progressive way is the only way. These Progressives will find Cornel West-like black activists who will praise Sanders and criticize Hillary and the black community. These Progressives are not interested in the message black people are sending. They are simply ready to tell black people what the black community needs.


    In other words, the economic solutions Sanders champions would benefit both whites and blacks alike if we could only work together to implement them.  I ask again RMRD how can we work together?  I really am all about making life better for the 99% and so are you (I think).


    Coming to grips with the fact that many black voters consider Sanders a charlatan is a start. There are no magic solutions to any of the problems we face. Spend more time on working with the black community on shared goals. There are already black activists working on multiple issues. Sanders supporters imagine that they have all the answers. Demonizing Hillary does not cover the fact that Sanders has no practical ideas. Come to grips with the fact that your candidate lost because he had no solutions.


    My last comment to you (and for others), In the same link you pull up, Hillary had an unfavorable rating of 29% 3 years ago, and lower further back. Repeated negative comments during a campaign like "she's going to jail" or "she only cares about Wall Street" or "she's a liar" do take their toll, and she gets the worst of media - look at the daily articles at Salon. But she's the same person as 3 years ago. Right now Bernie's team is invested in making people hate heras is the GOP. In a year, numbers will be normal again. Dont confuse politics with real life.


    President Obama's been attacked like no other President in history for over seven years.  His approval ratings were never even close to as bad as Hillary's are now.  For example, Obama's lowest WSJ approval rating was 40%.  Clinton's is currently 32%.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/05/obama-april-approval-rating_n_7....


    It's hard for me to decide who has been attacked the most. The attacks against both have been unrelenting and  vile. Attacks that the Clintons ran a drug ring out of the Little Rock airport, that they killed dozens of people to hide that and other crimes, that Hillary personally killed Vince Foster, that she's a lesbian who has been having sex with Abedin and other women for years, and that Bill had affairs because the lesbian Hillary was frigid with men. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The right wing sharpened their knives on Hillary for a couple of decades before turning them on Obama.

    And during all that time when Hillary and Obama were actively engaged in the fight Sanders was relaxing in the beautiful mountains in Vermont pandering to the gun nuts to get elected and sniping at the democrats from the sidelines. After barely being a splinter in the fights he thinks he should be president over those who were on the front line.


    O-K - being on the front line means fighting for poor, working, and middle-income Americans.  The Clintons and (sadly) Obama have spent an inordinate amount of time and political energy making or trying to make the rich richer and the poor poorer right?


    Do you mean when Clinton passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act? The bill he spent an  inordinate amount of time and political energy pushing through Congress using reconciliation without a single republican vote? The one that raised the income tax on the rich, raised the corporate tax, eliminated the cap on the medicare tax and expanded the earned income tax credit. Or are you referring to Obama raising taxes on the rich and giving subsidies to poor and low income people to help them get health insurance?


    Latest Comments