dagblog - Comments for "So it's Clinton vs. Sanders. Can't We Just Be Frenemies?"

Clinton and Obama weren't all

Mark Zima — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 23:38:40 +0000

In reply to So it's Clinton vs. Sanders. Can't We Just Be Frenemies?

Clinton and Obama weren't all that different. Clinton and Sanders are actually different.

The Democratic Party strategy of ignoring, and even purging, progressives in order to pursue the agendas of the Big Money donors is finally getting strong resistance. The Democratic Party establishment has long figured that they can move to the center (which is to say: move to the right) with impunity because progressives have nowhere else to go. Progressives are afraid of Republicans winning, so they will meekly accept it when they are deprived of influence and told they must accept the Democratic Party moving to the right.

Not any more.

Many Bernie Sanders supporters see things differently. We see the important struggle as NOT Democrat vs Republican, but rather as the top 0.1 % and other Big Money interests vs the rest of us. As Bernie Sanders put it: Congress doesn't regulate Wall Street, Wall Street regulates Congress. And guess what? Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side of the battle against that sort of thing. Her top donors are Wall Street firms. She is the bought and paid for agent for the Big Money interests, and their oligarchical control of this country. Unless you understand this difference between Clinton vs. Sanders, and Clinton vs. Obama, you don't understand the situation that the Democratic Party is in.

The Democratic Party is being put under pressure. Make Clinton the nominee, and she will lose the general election, and a Republican will win (and choose the next Supreme Court justices). Hillary is NOT acceptable. We will not support her. And so she will lose. A right-wing Democrat is NOT acceptable. We will not support such a leader. So the pressure is this: the Democratic Party must act in line with its liberal base, or they will lose until they do. We won't be denied influence any more. If you want to win the general election, then you better not nominate Clinton. Seriously. Bernie Sanders is your only chance to win. Believe it.

What we progressives are coming to understand is this: A right-wing Democrat president can actually be worse for progressives than a Republican president. The Democratic Party will at least resist a Republican president, and news media will get more progressive voices, and more progressive candidates will get elected to office. But a right-wing Democrat president can lead the Democratic Party unresisting to the right. Under Obama, blue-dog Democrats got DNC support while progressives disappeared from office, Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was openly extremely hostile to progressives, Do you think that was against Obama's wishes? Of course not! Obama offered to give away progressive gains in deals with Republicans, and the most liberal and critical hosts of MSNBC lost their jobs (some say due to White House pressure). The progressives are learning to negotiate for what they want, and negotiate from power rather than from weakness. You won't get our votes automatically any more. We reject the "lesser of two evils" scam that held us in thrall previously.

So whose side are you really on. Progressives? Or the Big Money elite?

Yes, I think Bernie's are

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:45:47 +0000

In reply to Quality of support does

Yes, I think Bernie's are above Tyson but he doesn't have much time. Maybe Tyson could be Trump's VP, similar respect for women.

Endorsements do matter

rmrd0000 — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:49:33 +0000

In reply to Quality of support does

Quality of support does

rmrd0000 — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:49:06 +0000

In reply to I'd guess that Obama winning

Test

Endorsements do matter. Mike Tyson endorsed Donald Trump.

I think Will Saletan still

tmccarthy0 — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:55:04 +0000

In reply to So I guess I'm now a

I think Will Saletan still writes for Slate. He is just an opinion writer.

On a side note I think Hal's example is deliciously ironic!

Men should definitely tell

tmccarthy0 — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:46:23 +0000

In reply to Please provide one unfair or

Men should definitely tell women who is a better feminist. It definitely works, cause we women don't know anything without a man telling us. Mansplainin' is my favorite!

Another issue that is extremely important to us, to women, all things being equal Hal, and Clinton and Sanders are equals, EQUALS!

(thinks to self.. When do people quit believing in the "great man" theory? WTF??)

Let's get serious, election time is often better spent working hard to get Democratic candidates elected in off year local and national elections. We all know the importance of this, which is in direct opposition to "Great Man theory". Don't get me wrong, holding the Presidency is all we have between us, a nation of chaotic-goods and our national legislature which heavily bends towards a majority of lawful evils. Amazingly some change has come about anyway, everything has improved since W's last days. Mostly because people just keep trying to make the system work.

I am going to bring it back to this Hal, Clinton and Sanders are equals. I gotta tell you, if Sanders were to win, FYI: the polls are completely against him, but if it did happen, I have no problem voting for him, he is awesome. He is smart, fiery, gallant, and hilarious, but she can take Republicans on for 11 hours. She is his equal in every single way. And the day she is sworn in, OMG I can't wait to see the Republican meltdown, I wonder if Hannity's or Limbaugh's head will explode first? Anyway, they are equals Hal, EQUALS.

I'd guess that Obama winning

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:37:04 +0000

In reply to The 2008 race proved the

I'd guess that Obama winning negated most of the bad feeling, but playing for the team probably helped, & yes, the Democratic side of the bench is a helluva lot more diverse than the inquisitors at the witch hunt. I'm not going to play quality of black supporters - I'm sure that Bernie's message would resonate with a lot more blacks than currently if he had as much serious time in the national spotlight as Hillary + Bill have had (and I think the 90's were largely good times for the black community in terms of employment, home ownership, upward mobility & professional acceptance despite the 3 strikes & incarceration downside). But he doesn't have a lot of time to make that case now, so if we split the story between the message itself & the campaign, the campaign looks pretty unlikely.

The 2008 race proved the

rmrd0000 — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:09:38 +0000

In reply to Please provide one unfair or

The 2008 race proved the Democratic Party could have a knock down drag out fight about race and still come together. Hillary Clinton comes to the table as Obama's Secretary of State. She clobbers Sanders when it comes to the black vote.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-african-american-votes-could-tip-the-scal...

When Clinton testified before the Benghazi committee last week, there were at least three black women who were members of Congress sitting behind her(and perhaps five). Elijah Cummings image is of him defending Clinton against the GOP witch hunt at the hearings. Sanders has Keith Ellison and Cornel West as his supporters. Neither Ellison or West can trump the Congresswomen and Elijah Cummings.

I'm not sure how Sanders gains the black vote. Hillary's job as SOS negates most of the bad feelings about 2008 in the black community.

WTF, you call that evidence

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:02:37 +0000

In reply to Please provide one unfair or

WTF, you call that evidence and "no doubt"? Bill Clinton compared Obama's performance in South Carolina to the 1st serious black presidential candidate and that's a slur or out-of-bounds? Hillary created the Rev Wright scandal or the Obama-in-Africa-garb picture?

She stoked the Muslim thing? read the whole statement

“You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim?” Kroft asked.

Of course not. I mean, that’s, you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that,” she answered.

“You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s a Muslim?” Kroft said.

“No. No, there is nothing to base that on,” Clinton said, adding, “As far as I know.”

Jesus fucking Christ, she answered "of course not", "there is no basis for that", "I take on the basis of what he said", "there isn't any reason to doubt that", and then the motherfucker asks one more time to get his weasel soundbite and she says "no, no there is nothing to base that on" and then he gets his ringer - "as far as I know"

Of course it's as far as she knows - she isn't a mind reader or a personal biographer. She denied it 5 times strongly before they got what could be their "weasel words". This is the slimy bullshit she's dealt with always, and you're still regurgitating this stupid shit 8 years later. Screw you. Shame you couldn't have been on the Benghazi committee scolding her for not paying attention or answering slightly different the 11th time.

"1) Clinton surrogate Claire

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:01:27 +0000

In reply to Please provide one unfair or

"1) Clinton surrogate Claire McCaskill laughably stated that Sanders's surge would ebb as soon as the mainstream media started telling people Bernie was a socialist."

Like duh. Anyone who hasn't crawled out from under a rock the last 15 minutes knows this. Though should state "Bernie calls himself a socialist". Hard to be a slur when that's what he self-identifies as. Considering even the sitting Democratic President is a deficit scold, and one of the biggest Bill Clinton achievements was cutting government and balancing the budget, while the GOP's goal is to shrink government to drown it in the bathtub, it's hard to imagine that anyone would think "socialism" is an easy sell in America. Here, have some Freedom Fries with that.