What the CWA and DFA Endorsements Mean

    By HSG on Thu, 12/17/2015 - 10:30pm | Politics

    sandersBernie Sanders' Presidential bid received two significant boosts today. First, the 700,000 member Communications Workers of America (CWA) endorsed Sanders. Then, Howard Dean's Democracy for America (DFA) bucked its founder's call for members to support Clinton and instead overwhelmingly opted to back Dean's fellow Vermonter. Here are five takeaways:

    1) When the rank and file decides, unions choose Sanders. CWA's decision “followed a 3-month democratic process, including hundreds of worksite meetings and an online vote by tens of thousands of CWA members on which candidate to endorse.” In August, the National Nurses United endorsed Sanders in part because of “overwhelming support for [him] in an internal poll.”

    By contrast, the Executive Board of the National Education Association backed Clinton without asking its members whom they prefer and in defiance of some state affiliates. Likewise the Executive Council of the American Federation of Teachers, led by a long-time Clinton ally, announced support for Clinton without even polling its members. Similarly, in July, the Board of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers endorsed Clinton after an election in which only 1,700 of over 600,000 machinists participated.

    2) Clinton has made no headway with activist Democratic progressives. To win DFA's endorsement Sanders needed to garner 2/3 of the 272,000 votes cast. He actually received 88%. The front runner followed with a mere 10% and Martin O'Malley got 1%. Clinton supporters are already claiming that Bernie's techbros gamed the system in his favor since anybody could participate. The problem for them is that, as DFA President Charles Chamberlain noted in his announcement of the endorsement, “77.8% of voters who were already members of DFA prior to the poll being launched on December 7” voted for Sanders.

    Even Dean's endorsement, which was included in an email to DFA members when voting began and was accompanied by Clinton's plea for support, had virtually no impact.

    3) Clinton (still) doesn't get technology. Many blamed a) her failure to maintain government-related emails on federal servers on a penchant for secrecy and b) her refusal to admit error on arrogance. Another possibility is that she is a complete technophobe who never really understood what a server is or the different ways and places that emails can be stored. In light of her extraordinarily poor showing in the DFA poll, the latter explanation gains credence. With support from millions of people around the nation, an “unparalleled network of experienced advisors,” and sharp-elbowed political operatives on her payroll, it beggars belief that she could not have cajoled a few hundred thousand people to spare the minute or so it took to vote.

    4) There's a world of difference between the two leading Democratic candidates. Despite one pundit's claim that Clinton is more progressive, a supporter's insistence that “she is more than his equal,” and Clinton's coded implications that Sanders is sexist and racist, Democratic activists are having none of it. While liberals generally like the idea of electing the first woman President after the first African-American one, progressive activists prefer Sanders by a margin of nearly 9 to 1. This reflects both a) the vast gulf in policy, votes, and rhetoric between the two on issues that matter most to liberals - rampant militarism and corporatism, economic injustice, and incipient ecological collapse and b) an inherent mistrust of Clinton based on her dishonesty, her close ties to Wall Street not labor, and her history of embracing progressive causes tardily and unenthusiastically.

    5) Sanders would be the strongest Democratic candidate in the general election. In recent polls matching Clinton and Sanders against various Republican challengers, the Vermonter tends to do slightly better. When one factors in the remarkable advantage he has in terms of motivated excited supporters, Clinton's technology difficulties, and her unmatched ability to antagonize Americans across the political spectrum there is no question but that he'd be the tougher out for the Republican nominee.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    How much time will you spend whining about the way American politics works, or bringing up emails again? (even Fox has gotten tired of that one)

    Hillary got burned last time by Florida and Michigan votes not counting, or that Obama was able to take more delegates in certain primaries and caucuses despite losing popular votes.

    This time she's nailing down money & rounding up endorsements she didn't lock up last time - she's now got more endorsements going into Iowa than any other candidate except George Bush, while Sanders has exactly 2 - these folks have coattails, and also comprise the famous Superdelegates.

    But somehow you've inferred that all those 18 million union members whose unions endoresed Clinton are actually rank-and-file Sanders supporters.

    Except the latest Monmouth poll has Hillary up by 33% nationally. Who are these mysterious people if they're not partly union members and others Sanders' followers think he's got?

    It's funny you can talk about "antagonizing" when you've been much better at antagonizing people than any Hillary supporter.

    Re: who will best match against Republicans, this is all far out fiction at this point - Carson was huge a month ago and now has dropped to 4th, Cruz has moved upfield at the same time, and likely Trump vs. Cruz will change greatly in the next month - forget guesses about 11 months from now. Except that it's not just about likeability - it's also about cash, advertising, ability to connect, ability to move the political machinery, managing the media machine, and a number of other factors. I still get the feeling Sanders is running for student council, looking to proclaim "look at all the excitement we got" rather than running for president to win, while a number of his followers are busy filing away all the grievances why the system wasn't fair and why they'll be disgruntled going into the generals come November.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 12:57am

    With support from millions of people around the nation, an “unparalleled network of experienced advisors,” and sharp-elbowed political operatives on her payroll, it beggars belief that she could not have cajoled a few hundred thousand people to spare the minute or so it took to vote.

    If Hillary had done that you not only would have accused her of gaming the system but that it proves how sneaky, underhanded, evil, etc. she is. Since she didn't try to game the system it doesn't show she's honest and she plays fair. It shows she's ignorant about technology.

    /shrug what ever.

    Hillary has such an unmatched ability to antagonize that she antagonized more people to vote for her than Obama in the last primary. Polling suggests she's antagonizing more people to vote for her than Sanders. It's a rather unusual unmatched ability to antagonize.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 2:24am

    Another subtle detail I noted from a site arguing the teachers' union vote - typically a union leader is single issue - "what's best for my union's profession or field". In the case of teachers, it's something like "who's likely to improve conditions for our teachers", & all the facets to answering that question, within the scope of their profession or activity.

    The self-appointed "progressive" scolds see it as "who's got the best litmus test across the board", and mix in things like TPP, global warming, etc., and extend it to their politically correct version of say which global warming response is the correct one - don't agree with cap-and-trade? to the gallows!!!

    Tacking to the other side, if we talk about issues politics, including God-forbid identity politics, 3/4 of teachers are female. It would seem very strange if the average female teacher would choose a candidate's position on TPP vs. the rather historical opportunity to elect the first female President or even Vice-President. Sarah Palin being bat-shit crazy would obviously obviate that option, but how does a well-positioned Hillary who's scored way to the liberal side during her time in the White House & as Senator?

    And with Republicans trying to ban abortion and kill Planned Parenthood, why would a female teacher worry first about TPP over reproduction rights? Or guns that keep being taken to schools to murder - isn't position & resolve on dealing with easy access to weapons that kill teachers and children every week more compelling than some details of a trade deal or negotiating the next climate round? "Progressives" seem to not get it, which is why they'd likely ride purity positions into the ditch given their preferences.

    Hillary doesn't have to be more progressive than Bernie - she likely has to be progressive enough, plus be more effective in other ways, such as to twist arms & get legislation passed - a big issue if the President doesn't control either house. Good luck with Bernie trying to get any of his pet projects through when the House GOP is already gunning to shoot down abortion & Planned Parenthood, pass more unaffordable tax cuts, and dive into the dark side of immigration, with hateful legislation against both Hispanics and Muslims.

    If Bernie's going to be "strongest", maybe he can start bumping up his poll numbers outside his Northeast enclave - whatever bump he may have had in September has pretty well subsided into close-but-no-cigar, or as Groucho said, "who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 3:45am

    Most nurses are women.


    by HSG on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 7:50am

    Yeah, Hal, that's the perfect example.

    DeMoro is the union boss that decided for the union, exactly as you claim to abhor - but since she picked your candidate, you're happier than a pig in shit.

     DeMoro told the Guardian in an interview ahead of the announcement. “I thought it would be fairly balanced, and it’s not.”

    [director RoseAnn] DeMoro would not disclose the internal polling numbers but said the three recent surveys represented a “pretty significant sampling” of the union’s members and she was “stunned at the level and depth of enthusiasm for Bernie”.

    "Pretty significant sampling" - feel the power, the Bern. Lack of transparency is perfectly fine with you if you get your druthers - otherwise you're up in arms. There's a word for this.

    all three candidates had competed for the endorsement by filling out a seven-question survey about issues that aligned with NNU’s values — and only Sanders scored a 100 percent. O’Malley scored 86 percent, and Clinton scored just 43 percent, she said.

    What were those important nursing issues that drove DeMoro to this decision?

    Clinton answered “no commitment” on four out of seven issues. One of those was, of course, in response to whether she would oppose the Keystone XL pipeline. But Clinton would also not commit to supporting “a publicly administered, single-payer, universal healthcare system,” nor would she commit to supporting legislation to impose a .5 percent tax on Wall Street speculation. She also would not commit to publicly opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which nurses oppose because they say it allows pharmaceutical companies to block distribution of cheaper generic medications.

     So those 7 critical "nursing" issues were:
    - a trade deal she said she wanted to see the final draft of first (and then opposed),
    - a proposal for single-payer healthcare that has no chance of passing in the next 8 years
    (a bigger chance that Obamacare gets defunded by Congress as well)
    - a .5% Wall Street Tax that has 0 chance of passing (trying to scold Wall Street last time resulted in the Tea Party and a $2 trillion bailout - no lessons learned?)
    - the Keystone XL pipeline (because it might spill, vs. the certain deaths caused by fighting over Mideast oil in Syria, Iraq, Libya and threatening Iran)
    - minimum nurse-to-patient ratios (HIllary wouldn't fully commit to a federal policy)
    - VA Employee Fairness Act (Hillary would only commit to collective bargaining rights to employees in the Veterans Health Administration, part of the Act)
    -opposing right-to-work laws (all candidates opposed)

    Think the mass of female nurses thought about which candidate wrote a book called "It Takes a Village" or spoke out for women's rights in Beijing as First Lady, or worked on rural electrification & poverty programs as First Lady of Arkansas? Did the issue of planned parenthood and attacks on abortion come up, or the gun massacres? Or something core like retirement care for part-time nurses? Guess not.

    This "survey" was a prog activist's wet dream. Congrats, you've got 180,000 union members paying for someone's wonky PC litmus test & ignoring their actual needs, interests, and likely opinions.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 12:50pm

    Do you honestly believe that HC gives a rat's fat butt about the "needs, interests, and likely opinions" of healthcare workers?  Nothing in her history supports such a contention.


    by HSG on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 2:18pm

    Hal, maybe you were born under a rock, but yes, Hillary worked on healthcare as an issue back in 1993-94, and then as the Wiki tells you - 

    Along with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, she was a force behind the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents could not provide them with health coverage, and conducted outreach efforts on behalf of enrolling children in the program once it became law.[161] She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare.[162] She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.[50] The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome.[50] Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.[50] In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.[50][163] In 1999, she was instrumental in the passage of the Foster Care Independence Act, which doubled federal monies for teenagers aging out of foster care.[163] As First Lady, Clinton hosted numerous White House conferences, including ones on Child Care (1997),[164] on Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997),[165] and on Children and Adolescents (2000).[166] She also hosted the first-ever White House Conference on Teenagers (2000)[167] and the first-ever White House Conference on Philanthropy (1999).[168]...In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in the People's Republic of China itself,[175] declaring "that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights".[175] 

    [And then there's SCHIP... ]

    Meanwhile, in December 1996 First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton examined several possible initiatives and decided expanding health care insurance to children who had none was the one to advance.[5] The focus on children was politically popular.[6] Additionally, Hillary Clinton had discussed an SCHIP-ish program with a White House health policy coordinator while advocating for a full-scale health care reform initiative.[14] A variant of the program, dubbed "Kids First", had been envisioned during the original 1993 Task Force on National Health Care Reform meetings.[7][15]

    The new initiative was proposed at Bill Clinton's January 1997 State of the Union address, with the stated goal of coverage up to five million children.[5][6] Kennedy continued to write much of the bill, using the increase in tobacco taxes to pay the $20 billion price tag.[4] In March 1997, Kennedy brought Republican Senator Orrin Hatch onto the legislation as co-sponsor. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/giving-hillary-credit-for-schip/

    Why does it make sense to you that she would spend so much energy on healthcare and women's care and children's care and then not "give a rat's fat butt" about healthcare workers? You just say silly stuff, God knows why. Guess you have Trumpitis, the bigger the bluster, the faster the muster.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 3:31pm

    We've been through this a million times PP.  She's done a few good things.  She always has her eye on the polls.  She simply is not a friend to working people as her support for free trade deals, her cozying up to big donors, her opposition to a new Glass-Steagall, etc., prove.


    by HSG on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 6:58pm

    Polls = opinion of the people, Hal. Would you rather have a strongman that goes his own way, no matter how unpopular? Of course there's a balance, but you're not addressing that. The free trade deal, Hillary was "wait and see" until it was completed - something that made sense, no?

    Glass-Steagal support is good if you conclude that it's the end-all and be-all to finance oversight. Not everyone agrees it's the only or the best approach. You've taken a specific need - fair & effective financial oversight - and turned it into a specific "my way or the highway" remedy - Glass-Steagal or bust. Similar to what the nurses union did with Universal Health Care - 1 solution, perhaps the best in an ideal world, but the US is far from an ideal world.

    At the same time, her work on poverty, healthcare including SCHIP, women's rights, etc. should fall into the category of "friend to working people", no? I don't think SCHIP and rural electrification are big on Wall Street's list. You keep popping out with these grand proclamations of how horrible and anti-the-little-people, and when I call you on it, you try to tap it down with a bit of "she's done a few good things" which you then immediately dismiss a sentence later with "she simply is not a friend...". Go for your hate, buddy - you've got Hillary goggles bigger than her glasses of yore. A lot of folks seem to think she's a friend, including many in unions where she's gotten endorsements - not just top-down, as the Bernie followers pretend, but much more serious support throughout. For some reason you didn't respond to all my work digging out how the National Nurses Union did the same kind of limited non-transparent "survey" of carefully cherry-picked issues that you regularly blast Hillary's union supporters for doing.

    And cozying up to big donors is required - you want to take on the Soviet Union with a slingshot, the GOP's billionaires with a few $100 donors? This is the kind of fluff I just laugh at, makes me think Sanders' fans aren't serious at all or somehow have been asleep the last 15 years. I can't wait for the Jan 15 campaign donations filing to see how this all works out. 


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/19/2015 - 7:52am

    Doesn't get technology, eh?

    Bernie Sanders specifically and purposefully and personally (as in, he did it himself) hacked into DNC files to steal HRC's proprietary campaign data.  How do you answer that?


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 1:06pm

    I think they did it because they are scared. They need it, they need to understand why registered Democrats  and women voters support Hillary Clinton. They need adults, actual adults who vote in every election. I think they are finally understanding that college kids can't get him elected.  And they finally see the need to mine data, but they don't have the same constituency that HRC has, so they need that data to go after her constituency.

    And the rightfully get a penalty because they actually knew better but did it anyway.  Just because a firewall comes down doesn't mean you should take advantage of it like that, if you are an honorable person, you wouldn't do it.  And in the end it does have meaning, it means the Sanders campaign is no different than any other political campaign trying to win an election.


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 1:57pm

    I sure need to understand it.  A decided centrist, a self-promoter, a glad-hander, a corporatist, a militarist, a free trader, a bank consolidater - what could possibly be the attraction?

    Do you understand why progressive activists favor Sanders by nearly 9 to 1?  Why do you think that could be?


    by HSG on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 2:14pm

    Progressive Activists...  9 to 1! Woo, because they are the majority of voters???


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 2:32pm

    Because if you define "Progressive Activist" as "those who support Bernie", it's unsurprising to then conclude that "most Progressive Activists support Bernie". I deserved my A in Logic 101. Naught from naught is naught, carry the naught....


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 3:13pm

    The fringe group on the far left of the party always supports the most left candidate. Politically I align in most ways with that fringe. But I understand that they don't represent the majority of the party. If they did the democrats would have nominated Kucinich and then Dean and both would have lost in the general election. There's a sense of purity in the far left that mirrors the tea party in that any small deviation from their absolutist positions is seen as a total betrayal. That's why you feel comfortable painting Hillary in such exaggerated negative terms.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 2:43pm

    The founder/leader of the "fringe group" implored his followers to select Hillary.  He appended to his supporting brief Clinton's own pitch.


    by HSG on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 6:59pm

    You claim Bernie Sanders "specifically purposefully and personally (as in, he did it himself) hacked into DNC files".  In fact, according to your source, the Sanders campaign admitted "a low-level staffer . . . viewed the information but blamed a software vendor hired by the DNC for a glitch that allowed access. [Sanders' campaign manager Jeff] Weaver said one Sanders staffer was fired over the incident."  Do you still contend Bernie purposefully hacked into a proprietary database or will you retract this allegation as utterly without foundation?


    by HSG on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 2:12pm

    If you look at the photo that accompanies the article I linked to you will see that the hacker is no "low level staffer."  I could be mistaken, but the hacker looks a lot like Bernie Sanders himself.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 2:13pm

    Michael - you can't be serious.  The article is about what Bernie's campaign did.  Of course, there's going to be a picture of him.  Should I chalk your allegation that Bernie is personally responsible to a joke that went right over my head?


    by HSG on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 2:15pm

    Should I chalk your allegation that Bernie is personally responsible to a joke that went right over my head?

    Phew, you had me worried there for a minute, buddy.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 2:19pm

    LOLOL.. you are funny.  On a serious note though, that low level staffer was Josh Uretsky the Digital Director for the Sanders campaign.. hardly a low level staffer.


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 2:23pm

    Maybe not a low level staffer but hardly the same a Bernie himself. I think his campaign is still claiming him to be innocent but, maybe Sanders did personally order a download and then threw the employee under the bus as a scapegoat. Presumably that would make him dishonorable just like Hillary in your eyes, her campaign being in the set of every other political campaign as described in your first comment.

     Also, everything I have seen has been clear that it was a breakdown in the system that made the information pop up before them, maybe too tempting to ignore. If that is the case the access was certainly not accomplished by the method of a computer "hack" used as a deliberate invasion. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 2:46pm

    Mike was making a joke because of Gawkers headline and pictures.  You know that right.


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 2:57pm

    No, I didn't but am honestly glad to see now that it was. His reply to that question was not up when I composed mine. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 3:06pm

    I have to admit that I take a lot of delight in the earnestness that campaign season brings out in the Dag community...

    ...and I will make the occasional joke at its expense.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 3:10pm

    My, what a Vulgarian...

    My sources said it was Bernie's cousin Kernel, who looks a lot like him. Bernie would have done it, but by the time he typed up the punchcards, the window had closed. Others contend he shot the computer in the face. I doubt we'll ever know for sure, but at least we have one more "why did the chicken cross the road" joke.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 3:20pm

    yes You aint seen nuthin yet. You can call me Earnest or you can call me Frank or you can call me LU ... wait, I think I like frank the best.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 4:04pm

    Beanz 'n frankz. It's a Lulupalooza.

     

     

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 4:34pm

    Dag is low key compared to Kos. From what I've read it's turned into another knock down drag out nasty brawl over there.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 6:10pm

    Neither the Berniebots nor the Clintonistas get each other.  We're each convinced that we're on the side of sweetness and light and the other is either naive, pie-in-the-sky, pot-smoking, Ben and Jerry scarfing, he-man women-haters or Mussolini-worshipping, CEO-stroking, money-exalting, worker-despisers.
     


    by HSG on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 8:07pm

    Really, Hal, that is MILD compared to how you usually describe HILLARY and her supporters. I think you are trying to make it seem as though all your many toxic comments about her were really all in fun.  Not buying it. 


    by CVille Dem on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 8:36pm

    One person's toxin is another's truth.
     


    by HSG on Sat, 12/19/2015 - 8:23am

    Sure, Hal - that's liberal Tea Party talk - anything goes as some version of the truth, the nastier and more detached from any subjective reality, the better. Enjoy your miniverse.

    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/19/2015 - 10:47am

    If you believe that Hillary Clinton's record is on balance pretty darn good and reflects a genuine concern for the well-being of poor, working, and middle-income Americans, you may believe that my words have been toxic.  If you look at her record and see a triangulator, a corporatist, a militarist, and a phony, you wouldn't.


    by HSG on Sat, 12/19/2015 - 7:09pm

    I thought it was Clintonites and Sanderistas? Maybe Berniebashers and Hillaryhaters? We really do have to come to a consensus before we can effectively demolish it.


    by barefooted on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 8:55pm

    Hillclimbers and Bernbacks?


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 10:20pm

    Hillbullies and BSers


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 10:25pm

    Sandstormers and Hilltoppers?


    by barefooted on Fri, 12/18/2015 - 10:40pm

    Barista => Bernista

    Maybe Hillary can just be "Make my day" Clint.

    Hillter Skillter?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/19/2015 - 2:45am

    Again, you're being silly.

    Hillary supporters by and large get Bernie, and if we didn't live in a time when driving the government into a wall to shut it down once a year wasn't the norm, we could get behind more leftist goals. 

    I'd like Universal Healthcare - but we got Obamacare, and the best we're going to do anytime soon is to protect it and Ming-willing make incremental improvements.

    Getting corporates to pay more of their share is a hugely needed goal - but they've made such an art of buying politicians and rigging the tax system and finding their offshore tax havens that it will take a near-miracle to goad the system into making them pay a *tiny* bit more. An across the board Wall Street surcharge will be seen by the whiners as an attack on Capitalism, and if it ever comes close, we'll see a marketing shove that makes the Tea Party bit look mild. 

    I doubt there's a person on this blog that doesn't criticize Hillary's foreign policy and reliance on military intervention over more clever foreign policy.

    But to be fair to her, she's seen a) how the American public, including the left, don't do subtlety, so she has Bush's war wrapped around her neck for a single pre-inspection vote more than Bush does, and b) her message in 2008 was much more pragmatic, but she lost to the purists who insisted Obama would bring some new way and instead he's continued Bush's roadmap pretty exactly - so being intelligent, she must realize the American public must be a bit stupid, and gives stupid people what they want. That's Democracy, the ugly side. 

    On the other hand, you simply ignore any of her long history of liberal activism - you somehow can't see any single detail that would make her attractive to supporting nurses' interest, can't see where she could compete with Bernie on poverty, even give Bernie better points on healthcare when she used up much of her political capital trying to get in nationwide healthcare *even with Democrats opposing her*.

    Bernie does come from a liberal college town of 40,000 in a liberal state of only 600,000 - 98.6% white in 1990, 95.3% white in 2010. It is not strange to believe that policy positions that have sustained Bernie in Burlington won't fly at all for the mass of meat-eating, redneck, self-absorbed "exceptionalist" and largely evangelistic Americans nationwide, or the large black and larger Hispanic minorities. Politics is sausage, and Bernie has grown up in a candy factory. People are well-behaved in Burlington & Vermont. They aren't most everywhere else. 

    I have trouble believing that Bernie can sustain those values and the total effective suite of policies across the government as the executive branch, to carry out the implementation of those ideas in this poisoned stacked atmosphere. To quote Bill from 8 years ago, I think it's another "Fairy Tale". I had hoped, and said so here, that by now we'd have a new crew of fresh faces, that the farm club would have hatched a whole new breed of millenial favorites - but we haven't. Obama helped kill that farm club, as did the GOP success at the state level, so we're stuck with a pretty pathetic slate of options - and I don't see a 74-year-old guy from a liberal state with a good heart and a pretty decent track record as still being able to drive our crappy car out of the ditch, what with the pile of rubbernecks and assholes crowded around hooting at the car and trying to make sure it doesn't even start. Bernie's more fit for a crowd that actually wants to help, and there aren't that many.

    As for women-hating, I don't attribute that to most Bernie supporters, but I do find some comments in this blog rather clueless and out-of-touch. Maybe chalk that up to the campaign and candidate distortion syndrome, Idunno.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/19/2015 - 3:03am

    A good reminder of the political scene in 2003/4 or so including the Deaniacs and the blip of John Kerry.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/19/2015 - 2:52am

    Latest Comments