Danny Cardwell's picture

    I'm Tired Of Defending Hillary Clinton

    In the last few months I've felt compelled to defend Hillary Clinton. I didn't sign up for this. I didn't support her last year when this election cycle began, and I didn't support her during the 2008 primaries. It's not personal, and I'll do everything I can to help her beat Donald Trump in November. With that said, I've watched Hillary Clinton pander to African American voters in every imaginable way over the course of her political career. She, like every Democratic candidate in my lifetime, has done the necessary toe tapping and sermonizing to "prove" their commitment to social justice. Every four years Democratic candidates show up at historically black churches to connect with "their" people. Many of these interactions are awkward at best; I've never believed she's as comfortable in theses situations as she lets on, but to be fair I never thought Al Gore or John Kerry were that comfortable either. I've organized campaign events for white politicians who were noticeably shaken in the presence of predominantly African American audiences. A majority of politicians, irrespective of party affiliation, pander to their perspective constituencies, so when Hillary does it why is she treated so much differently?


    Hillary faces authenticity questions that her political rivals seem immunized from. Donald Trump is authentic because he's "brash"; his almost daily contradictions of his own stated beliefs are glossed over by a fawning media because he connects to his supporters in such an "authentic" way. He's ratings gold for the networks, so they turn their head when he holds multiple positions on the same issue on the same day. ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox appear to be the only people more gullible than his most die hard sycophants. Donald Trump's authenticity is built on a pattern of doubling down when you're wrong and changing positions when you're dead wrong. If someone ranked Donald Trump's twenty-five most inflammatory statements and outright lies there would be at least three that didn't make the list that would have ended anyone else's political career, yet many on the left and the right have acquiesced to this authentic narrative that's been sold to us.


    Bernie Sanders' was the most authentic candidate left in the race; his campaign rhetoric reflected his legislative career, but he's damaged his brand over the last few weeks. His Kamikaze slash and burn approach has caused many to see him in a less favorable light. He survived his pro gun votes and escaped the backlash Hillary received for the 94 crime bill, but couldn't garner the kind of support from his generation of voters and people of color to claim the Democratic nomination. Among his most loyal supporters Bernie Sanders is seen as the rightful heir to Dr. King's legacy. For some, the actions he took as a student in Chicago during the 1960's eclipse the fact that he moved to Vermont where he was all but isolated from the plight of African Americans. To put it in perspective Bernie Sanders has lived in Vermont longer than Dr. King lived. By the standards set by some of the progressives I talk to there are at least a dozen members of my church who qualify for the Democratic nomination. Again, I think Bernie is stand up guy, but let's turn the dial down on the messianic talk.


    Hillary said young black males should be, "brought to heel". I've had to accept the fact that blackness represents a threat to some of our white allies. This doesn't mean she wasn't wrong for equating troubled kids with wild animals, but I won't hold her to a higher standard than I hold her predecessors to.  I don't begrudge Bernie Sanders for moving to Vermont, but I don't equate living in a state with less than 2% African Americans with being on the cutting edge of civil rights. Hillary has apologized for her statements; I don't know if her apologies are sincere, but she's on the record and seems like she's trying to amend her past mistakes. There's a level of intellectual honesty needed to further discussions about topics this sensitive. Northern progressives view Hillary Clinton in a way they don't view themselves. Bashing the caricature of Hillary Clinton doesn't solve any of the problems progressives are talking about. There are progressives who've moved so far to the left that they identify more closely with conservative reactionaries than the centrist in their party. I'm tired of defending Hillary from personal attacks. She's the candidate we have. We can brood over the fact that a particular candidate didn't win, but ultimately the people have spoken. If voting for Trump seems like a reasonable alternative to Hillary then the odds are you were never a progressive. If not voting is your answer then do so in a way that doesn't do more harm than good. The Supreme Court is more important to the long-term health of our country than the overly righteous sense of political purity that passes for progressivism. Donald Trump's list of perspective jurists prove this. We need to get a grip. November is less than six months away. 




    Hillary has apologized for her statements; I don't know if her apologies are sincere, but she's on the record and seems like she's trying to amend her past mistakes.

    We never know what's in their hearts, do we?  It seems to me that she got caught up in the rhetoric of the time, which was still very much driven by the language of anti-crime spree politics. There are so many things we would not say or do now.  For example, I remember the term "wilding" being used to describe participants in NYC's Puerto Rico Day Parade.  Total anachronism now. Or the whole Sistah Souljah moment -- only a very foolish politician would lecture a rapper like that in the modern age where priorities have changed and the target wrapper would have a social media platform to use as a bludgeon against her critic.

    I'll say this for her -- I think she knows how to change with the times.  She keeps up very well. She knows what was said then would not be acceptable now and she adapts.  That's a good thing.

    She was describing murderers and heavy dope peddlers preying on the neighborhoods. She wasnt talking about "troubled youth" or black kids in general. Yeah, rappers can build a career on "kill whitie", or fuck that ho or whatever - just art, means nothing till someone puts an eye out pulls out an automatic weapon. I mean, blacks would have no problem if whites walked around with weapons saying to kill minorities? It's bizarre that this is even still news.

    Thanks for this Danny. The Sanders campaign and many of their supporters treat the lack of enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders in the black community as an intellectual defect. The sad truth is that off times there has been no great outreach by white Progressives to the black community. When the votes for Gay Rights in California occurred there was no outreach to the black community trying to garner black votes. In fact, many black homosexuals felt left out of the LGBT movement. When the LGT community asked for votes in DC, they got them. In a similar fashion, the environmental movement did not reach out to the black community. It took Van Jones and others to bring attention to the particular circumstances in the black community.

    Sanders was just as uncomfortable as Hillary when confronted by Black Lives Matter. Hillary worked on repairing her relationship with the black community after the 2008 Primary. Sanders never bothered to make contact.The message from his campaign is that black voters don't "know" Bernie and what he stands for. This means that Sanders views black voters as dolts who don't keep up with politics. It removes any blame for the lack of enthusiasm from Sanders himself. Sanders had very little contact with the Congressional Black Caucus. He asked for support after Hillary had already made inroads. When the CBC PAC supported Hillary, the Sanders response was that the Clintons bought off the CBC, a slander. Sanders did everything in his power to alienate black voters.

    If Obama supporters threw chairs at a state convention, they would have been called thugs. If Obama was losing and there was a threat of disruption of the Democratic National Convention by Obama supporters, he would have been called a militant. Sanders gets a pass. 

    Truth be told, what a lot of black voters see in both the Sanders and Trump campaign is white male privilege. If Obama, or any black candidate, did what Sanders is doing they would face massive and continuous media pushback. If Hillary, or any female candidate, were as dumb as Donald Trump, they would be dismissed (See Sarah Palin).

    This is a truth many of our allies aren't willing to accept. Bernie should be held accountable for what's going on.


    Thanks, Danny. Very well said. Let's stop the internal analysis and focus on the new Mr. Republican.

    Thanks Danny.  I greatly appreciate your post here and on my show this morning addressing this topic.  http://halginsberg.com/morning-show-archives/

    I agree with Danny's general point that the time to criticize Hillary Clinton is largely past and defeating Trump in the general election should be the focus of Americans of good will.  But doing so requires clear-eyed honesty about both the Democratic candidate and her nearly-vanquished opponent.  Blustery unfounded slams at Sanders for 1) allegedly being disliked by other Senators or 2) being unwilling to compromise and 3) dishonest attacks on his supporters claiming falsely that they are closet Republicans will boomerang badly against Clinton.

    Likewise, allies must be very careful when they make boilerplate assertions such as "she knows how to change with the times."  Such contentions ignore the reality that she remains as hawkish as she ever was and her campaign used racially divisive language against Bernie Sanders in this election cycle just as it did against Barack Obama in 2008.  To maximize the chances that she wins in November, she and her supporters need to acknowledge forthrightly her decisions and rhetoric have understandably alienated many progressives.  She must also argue clearly, strongly, and persuasively that, if elected, her policies will create millions of good middle-class jobs in America.

    It looks like Sanders supporters are getting ready to disrupt the Democratic National Convention. I see no way Hillary can derail this plan. The protesters have decided that she is untrustworthy.

    She could acknowledge that progressives who are unhappy with her as the party's choice have legitimate concerns about her leadership and vow persuasively to address them

    How's that, Hal - "I know I'm a shitty candidate and let you all down, but I'll try to do better"? She's disavowed TPP which wasnt sincere enougj for you. She came out against Keystone - ditto. She adjusted from $12 to $15 - still complaints. She put forward more on expanding health care and reforming the Fed - bupkus. I don't think Bernie's fans want their concerns addressed - they just want veto power over her and her positions. Ain't gonna happen.

    Is it reasonable to consider 1) Clinton's very recent progressive shift on various issues and 2) her refusal to divulge what she told folks who paid her a whole piss pot full of money and suspect she will govern in conformity with the preferences of the wealthy few rather than the struggling many?

    Also, this is not about me PP.  This is about the many millions of her supporters who have said they cannot support her.  By contrast, I have made clear that I will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election.

    So she should shift positions to show progreeives she's serious and listening, but by shifting positions she shows she's just pandering and inauthentic. Plus she's a shill for the rich anyway. Got it. Maybe if she writes out a pledge in her own blood? Swallows fire? Fasts like Gandhi-ji? Sleeps on a bed of nails and walks over hot coals? The summer season of the campaign is coming - the initiation rites could be amazing. Since she's female, I'd have her jump in a volcano, but she's hardly a virgin. Maybe sacrifice Debbie Wasserman Schulz on a stone altar at the base of a pyramid - might appease the restless natives.

    I think you're spot on with this analysis. Some of Bernie'smost ardent supporters want victory more than concessions. 

    I'm sure she will, to some extent.  But she didn't beat Bernie Sanders to spend the general election running as Bernie Sanders.  I wouldn't expect excessive contrition from the victor, as you're bound to be disappointed. Sorry, Hal, but you can't lose the primary and then expect to be in the driver's seat for the general.  On the bright side, Hillary did move left to deal with the Sanders challenge and we can all hope that those positions will stick. I think she's fine with $15!

    If Clinton and her supporters want to win in the general election which is now shown as a dead heat, they will have to do better than I/she won now line up and vote for me/her.  Fact is she won the Democratic primaries pretty much on the square because the great majority of Democrats voted for her but poll after poll shows most Americans prefer Bernie Sanders.  If Clinton wants them, at a minimum, to vote for her, she will have to move towards them.  This is not like 2008 when the more liked/likable candidate won.

    Happily, they are giving Sanders good representation at the convention with him choosing six committee members (same as Clinton) and that should put some key Sanders ideas into the platform -- particularly stuff that Clinton has already moved his way on like a $15 an hour minimum wage.  As for her not being the preferred candidate despite somehow winning... not buying it. She'll be fine.

    Why don't you buy it?  Is there a law that if A beats B in the Democratic primaries, A must be more popular than B among the populace?  I look at the polls and they show Bernie is better-liked when all registered voters are asked.  He also has a much higher favorability rating.  On what evidence do you rely to come to an opposite conclusion?

    How about this evidence:


    Bernie has not been vetted at all.  The MSM wants a horse race for ratings.  The GOP wants to run against Bernie so they haven't released any of this stuff, hoping he can somehow knee-cap Hillary.

    The best I have seen on what the GOP would do to The Bern. It is detailed with links, some points:

    (Bernie is). ...A womanizing, hypocritical, radical who along with his wife have fleeced the American public for both exposure and financial gain. An inept Senator who has done nothing for Latinos, African-Americans or other core Democratic voting blocs that he has professed to care deeply about. A closet war hawk, who loves war when it benefits his constituents, loves guns when it helps get him elected, and who will blatantly ignore or even arrest those who have the audacity to question his motives. A man whose past has more questions than answers and who lived off unemployment for 13 years as he attempted to find a way to monetize his radical views. A man who willing to say or do anything to become elected for a "political revolution" that he completely ignored for the first 73 years of his life.....

    Bernie, the schemer and blowhard.

    When on the dole with a dependent child, was caught tapping into his neighbors electric utility, in his 30's wrote fantasies about women enjoying gang rapes, participated in a 'Death to America' rally in Nicaragua, had constituents arrested in his office, on and on and on...

    Trump would have a landslide victory over The Bern.

    I wrote "poll after poll shows most Americans prefer Bernie Sanders."  I did not write he is more electable.  In fact, I have addressed this issue in several posts, most comprehensively here,  You will note that I am measured in my arguments and ultimately cannot conclude that either candidate is more electable.  In response to my evidence-based conclusion that Americans right now like Sanders more than Clinton, Mike Maiello wrote "not buying it".  I replied by asking him why not.

    He didn't respond to this reply but you and CVille did.  You attacked Sanders aggressively and personally.  Both of you claim Sanders would be eviscerated by right-wing media.  This might well have happened if he were the nominee.  But it's not evidence.  It's speculation.  In fact, you have failed to adduce any persuasive evidence to counter the current polls and favorability ratings showing most Americans like Bernie more than Clinton. 

    Under these circumstances, it would behoove Clinton and her staunch supporters, like you, CVille, PP, et al., to figure out a way to persuade the millions of skeptical progressives and independents that she really is on our side.  Ironically, your insults and slams against Sanders only hurt your preferred candidate. 

    I'm not buying it because he lost the primary. I don't believe that people voted against their real preferences. Put another way, if people like Bernie so much, why didn't they marry him?

    Put simpler, an election is a no-bullshit poll of millions with 1 question - do you want this candidate or that candidate (or register but don't vote). Hillary has far outpaced Bernie in those polls, and that's the type of poll that matters in November - millions of actual voters, not 700 likely voters appraising hairstyles and pet issues and "likeability", as if I give a fuck.

    I'm reminded of some discussion around the largely bullshit string theory - "it works in practice, but will it work in theory?" Indeed, in theory Hillary's losing 24x7 and has been for months. If only she and actual voters would realize this, we'd hit our theoretical targets. Why won't we comply?

    Right, because the Clinton opposition narrative is now something like, "She won but won in such a weak way that she owes something to her opponents." This tends not to be true as the second place finisher in a primary election is rarely a forceful figure in the general unless they mount some sort of credible third party offensive.

    As I pointed out twice previously in this thread, voters in the Democratic primaries preferred Clinton and that is why she is and should be the nominee.  But there are more voters who didn't vote in the Democratic primaries than who did.  The outstanding evidence is that the aggregation of voters prefer Sanders. 

    So your take is that a bunch of people (indeed, a majority) prefer Sanders to Clinton but not so much that they voted for him in the primary?

    Logically that has to be my take.  Far fewer than a majority of Americans voted for Hillary in the primaries.  Why don't you believe the polls and surveys showing that Americans view Sanders more favorably than Clinton and beats Trump handily in the general election while she is struggling against him?

    Were Sanders truly the preferred choice, that this silent majority of supporters could have gotten it together in time for him to win the primaries.  But let's say that for whatever reason that didn't happen and you're right -- despite the results of the Democratic primary, most general election voters would like Bernie Sanders to be the next president.  If that's true, Bernie should run a third party candidacy because what you're describing is exactly what happened to Joe Lieberman when he lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont but ran anyway based on his statewide popularity.


    He should not run a 3rd party candidacy because a majority of Democrats prefer Clinton and doing so would merely guarantee the election to Trump.  Lots of voters who prefer Sanders over Clinton didn't vote in the Democratic primary because they're not Democrats.  Some are Republicans, some are Libertarians, some are Greens.

    But if they prefer Sanders to both Clinton and Trump and they represent a majority of the general electorate, then he'd win, wouldn't he?

    In a 3-way race between Clinton, Sanders, and Trump, Trump would probably get the most votes.  Let's say 40% of the electorate likes Trump best.  32% of the electorate likes Bernie best and 28% of the electorate likes Hillary best.  90% of the Clinton voters like Sanders second best and 80% of the Sanders voters like Hillary second best. 

    Of the 28% who like Hillary best, 90% are in the Democratic party and all voted for her in the primary.  So over 25% of the electorate voted for her.  Of the 32% who like Sanders best  70% are Democrats, so 22% of the electorate voted for him.  In toto, the electorate prefers him.  But she wins the Democratic race.  Given the numbers I laid out, she would win the Presidency in a head-to-head matchup with Trump but by a smaller margin than Sanders would if he were matched up against Trump.  But if both Democrats were in the race, they'd split the anti-Trump vote and he would win with a plurality.

    Make sense?  I ask seriously because it is important to me to write clearly and persuasively.  If I fail in this endeavor, I might as well go back to pumping gas.

    I think Martin Luther King Jr would be voting for Hillary.

    No. He would be writing in Jimmy Carter. Lol

    We only deal with the facts here

    .....Except on Tuesdays when we just freestyle:)

    Oh, I understand you.  Bernie is not so much more popular than Clinton and Trump that he can win a three person race against them.  Which is not surprising as he has Clinton has already cleaned his clock once.



    Michael -  can we have an honest discussion here? You asked me several times how Sanders could be more popular than Clinton when he lost the primaries. I set out a very plausible scenario which seems consistent with available data. Instead of merely acknowledging my point, you stick the shiv in with the clock cleaning remark. There was no need for that and it could have amped up tensions here if I had let it. I'd appreciate it if you employed less snark in the future. Thanks.

    Hillary is more popular & she won. Her fans just arent college students at pep rallies. No "scenarios" needed.

    He really got shellacked.

    Speculation?  SPECULATION!  Hal, speculation is when someone says that MLK would endorse a particular candidate. That is speculation because MLK is dead and no one (not even you) can ask his opinion. Declaring what someone else's opinion is, is by definition, speculation because it is not based on facts.

    If linking to an article that provides facts about Bernie's life and behavior is a personal attack I wonder how you would characterize the many adjectives (war-monger, etc) you have used to describe HRC. In summary, guessing what people think (especially when they no longer think) is speculation. Citing facts is not. I'm stopping here. More would be a waste of time.    

    Your argument is based on a false assumption.  You take a bunch of random negative "facts" - assumed to be true for the purpose of this discussion - about Sanders and assume that because of them he must be less popular than Clinton.  But you have failed to adduce evidence that he is IN FACT less popular than Clinton.

    In contrast to your and NCD's arguments, mine are not based on false assumptions. For example, Dr. King was relentlessly pro-peace.  Sanders has invariably been the least bellicose in rhetoric and votes of all the candidates.  Dr. King spoke eloquently and passionately about our duty to fight poverty and economic injustice.  No candidate has a better record in that area than Sanders.

    Regarding my "attacks" on Clinton, I always provide very specific well-accepted facts to justify the terms I have used to describe her.  In any case, I have stopped making them because I want her to beat Deadbeat Donald.  If you want her to defeat the Deadbeat Donald, don't you think it's time to reach out to Sanders voters rather than to step up attacks against him and them.

    I was responding to this, which you wrote upstream:

     I look at the polls and they show Bernie is better-liked when all registered voters are asked.  He also has a much higher favorability rating.  On what evidence do you rely to come to an opposite conclusion?

    i responded with a link citing several negative aspects of Bernie's life and behavior.  Most of which are likely not known by many people because no one has used this stuff against him. I then went on to say that the MSM and the GOP each have ulterior motives for keeping silent on these issues, but at the end of the day it is to hurt HRC by leaving Sanders and his bitter vitriol untouched.  

    It isn't about popularity as far as I am concerned, when so many know so little about him. Do you honestly believe that if Bernie were the nominee and stuff like this, and more came out (true or not) that he could weather it?  He is the most thin-skinned and intolerant politician I have seen up til now. 

    As to the "facts" about Hillary being a war-monger, how many wars has she actually started?  Oh, and that stuff about MLK -- still speculation. 

    CVille - I've already set out in many posts why I prefer Bernie.  I have no desire to bash Clinton any more so I'm going to pass on your request that I set forth here reasons to believe she is hawkish.  You can find them in my earlier posts.  It may well be that in a general election fight with Deadbeat Donald, Bernie would get the worst of it.  Right now Bernie is better-liked than Clinton and it would therefore behoove her and her supporters to reach out to him and his supporters.

    Logically... We had two great candidates (and Martin O'Malley) and Clinton won. She is more popular with Democratic primary voters, by definition.

    Sanders is well liked and respected. I am happy about that. But he is spared a lot of negative feelings because he will never be president.

    What role does Bernie Sanders play?

    Haven't you heard?  Bernie will be the election's "Liberality Czar" and will be in charge of making sure that Clinton is sufficiently progressive. He will have a whistle he can blow if Clinton says anything moderate or starts a war.

    This is welcome.  I've spent the past several months defending Clinton.  I'm getting tired.  

    And yet, here I go again, defending her.  You write that "Hillary said young black males should be, 'brought to heel.'  The intention may not have been an attack, but still must point out that this statement is absolutely false.  The term "superpredator" was coined by John DiIulio, a Princeton political science professor, in an article published in November 1995 in the Weekly Standard on what was thought to be a new phenomenon of remorseless child criminals.  The article did not distinguish on the basis of race and actually said the phenomenon is not confined to inner cities.  Clinton used the term one time in a speech in January 1996, referring to street gangs connected to drug cartels.  The term "superpredator" would eventually take on a much more racially coded meaning and DiIulio's theory later debunked, but at the time Clinton used it, "superpredator" did not carry the baggage it does today.  Want proof?  Look at this article from February 1996 by Alex Kotlowitz - look him up, he's no racist.  http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/08/opinion/it-takes-a-village-to-destroy-a-child.html    

    Hal - (if you're reading...): How exactly did Clinton use "racially divisive language" against Sanders during the campaign?  Did I miss this bombshell?  I try not to get too deep into identity politics, but it's hard not to recognize that a white male senator from an almost entirely white state who has tried to dismiss the significance of the votes of southern, predominantly African American Democrats, and is now predicating his campaign on a  call to the super delegates (the ones he's criticized as representative of the corrupt establishment) to overrule the will of the Democratic primary electorate, including the overwhelming majority of African American and other minority voters who preferred Clinton.  I do believe that if he pulled the same nonsense with an African American candidate, he'd be rightfully disgraced in the eyes of Democrats.  But I guess it's overlooked because the candidate is a woman.     

    A.C. - it is interesting that you responded to my my assertion, "her campaign used racially divisive language against Bernie Sanders in this election cycle," by asking "[h]ow exactly did Clinton use "racially divisive language" against Sanders during the campaign?" 

    Here are two examples of racially divisive language deployed against Bernie Sanders - one of Hillary Clinton and one of her campaign - in this election cycle.

    1) Last November, responding to Sanders' defense of his record on guns, Clinton said: “There are some who say that this [gun violence] is an urban problem. Sometimes what they mean by that is:  It’s a black problem. But it’s not. It’s not black, it’s not urban. It’s a deep, profound challenge to who we are.”  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/hillary...

    2) In February, Clinton's close ally David "Hitman" Brock commented on Bernie's highly-praised "Together" ad, which was filmed entirely in Iowa for the Iowa caucus.  “From this ad, it seems black lives don’t matter much to Bernie Sanders.”   https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/01/22/why-african...

    Regarding Sanders' ham-fisted doomed-to-fail attempts to cajole super-delegates into reversing the will of the Democratic electorate as expressed by their primary votes, I concur that it is wrong-headed and indeed hypocritical given his insistence that the super Delegates are anti-democratic.

    Sanders was his own worse enemy when it came to connecting to the black community. His "ghetto" comment confirmed what black voters thought about his lack of connection to the black community.


    In your first example, Clinton voiced what was a common meme in the black community regarding Sanders being a tool of the corporatist gun manufacturers.

    The second example was a Clinton surrogate attacking the low-hanging fruit of Sanders Iowa campaign reflecting his white Vermont roots. Blacks make up about 9% of Iowa. Black Democrats gave almost 60% of their votes to Clinton. 


    Bernie is trapped in a decades old thought process that tells him that solving economic issues solves racism. He has never understood the impact of racism, he simply equates racism to poverty issues.


    Obama had to deal with being characterized as a Kenyan with a radical pastor. Sanders has had a softer path.

    RMRD - I wrote that Clinton was practicing racially divisive politics in this cycle as she and her husband have done throughout their careers.  You don't dispute that point, you merely argue she was right to do so. 

    On another point, you have repeatedly argued that Bernie's inability to reach black voters demonstrates that he is not a good candidate.  Does the fact that Clinton is now behind Trump in several surveys while Sanders beats Trump handily demonstrate she is not a good candidate?

    Finally, I'm going to assume you want Clinton to win.  So, why are you writing negatively about Sanders and thereby alienating the Sanders supporters whom you hope will support your candidate?

    You listed your examples as racially divisive. Sanders himself was an unknown in the black community. He introduced himself as a fighter for Civil Rights. John Lewis said he never heard of him. Sanders inertia in reaching out to the black community while he was in Congress did more damage than anything Clinton or her surrogates did. Sanders was incompetent.

    My comments about Sanders are based on votes. Sanders never appealed to the majority of black voters. I refer to the comments above about Sanders being unknown and not reaching out to the black community. Some polls suggested Sander indicated that Bernie would wipe out Hillary with black voters under 40. That did not happen for the most part. Polls suggested that Bernie might win black votes in Wisconsin. He supposedly had an 11 point lead over Clinton.


    In actuality, Bernie lost black by almost 40 points in Wisconsin


    I use voting results not polls.

    Bernie Sanders supporters are primed to do damage at the national convention. My words have zero impact on them.

    Edit to add:

    Grandpa just named Cornel West as one of his representatives on the platform committee 




    Your words as a Clinton supporter have impact on Clinton supporters on Clinton and to a lesser degree on Bernie's supporters.  If you reached out an olive branch rather than constantly excoriating Sanders as a hypocrite and phony.  If you stopped attacking his allies in the black community, you might find that you could work with them and with him to elect your preferred candidate.

    Sanders just called for a recount in Kentucky


    ​Ill be conciliatory when he becomes conciliatory.

    Let us see how our dear Brother Cornel functions on the platform committee.

    It will be hard for him. Being the smartest person in the room is such a trial. But I'm sure he'll be a gentleman and will understand the importance of compromise. Like Bernie does. 

    There is nothing that Hillary or the DNC will be able to do to soothe the ego of Bernie Sanders and Cornel West.

    Thanks Hal for responding.  Like rmdr (?) I don't see those as examples of anything racially divisive about the comments you mention, unless you consider it divisive to point out that your opponent is not adequately addressing race.  Maybe John Roberts would consider that divisive, but I disagree.  

    In fairness, though, I will concede that Clinton said some divisive things back in 2008.  Most of those I think were overblown (e.g., the Bobby Kennedy thing - she definitely wasn't referring to any expectation that Obama would be assassinated) and Obama himself has acknowledged that both campaigns got a little overheated.  But looking back (without relitigating 2008, please!), her comment about Obama not winning over hard working Americans, white Americans was beyond the pale.   

    If you don't think saying your opponent doesn't care about black people is racially divisive, then there's no point in continuing the discussion.

    When, exactly, did Hillary say that?

    Her close ally 'Hitman' Brock said it per my cite.  As I wrote,  'her campaign' has made racially divisive remarks.

    What do you think about Cornel West being on the platform committee?

    I'm pleased. It's a good move by everybody.

    Since Sanders lost, what concessions does he need to make?


    Here are three concessions off the top of my head:  He should concede that she won because more Democrats voted for her in the primaries not because the system was rigged.  He should concede that she is a much better option than Deadbeat Donald and his supporters should back her.  He should concede that she is qualified.

    Okay. I answered your question.  Now you tell me what you think Clinton should concede in a fair-minded, non-sarcastic way.

    She has agreed to giving him a voice in the party platform. She has moved to increased minimum wage, $15 dollars would be an endpoint. She should tell Sanders supporters that she will listen to their concerns.

    Should Sanders supporters believe her?

    That response is the very embodiment of the Berniebot bunch.  First they (you) give examples of things that Hillary needs to do to win their support. When she has already done some and agrees to others, their (your) response is:

    "But can we believe her?"

    When she says or does the very thing that they (you) declare is essential they (you) say she is pandering.  

    Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to try to have a rational discussion under those terms?  It reminds me of when I was substitute teaching 6th graders.  They just loved to argue for argument's sake, and took great pleasure from it. (I only lasted 4 days because it was so infuriating).

    I think that "Sand-baggers" describes this phenomenon to a T.  Just like Obama had to stop giving in to Republicans constantly moving the goal post, and threatening to shut the government down, Democrats (of which Bernie is not one) need to set some limits with this man..

    i happen to believe in Hillary for reasons that I have given many times. She is disciplined, very intelligent, and capable. She has every reason to do the best job ever, and her goals are very similar to Bernie's, but her plan to accomplish them a) actually exists, and b) is reasonable.  But even if, as you seem to believe, she will only push for some of these things; the choice is stark. And as you well know the harm done by a Trump presidency, rather than bring on a revolution, may weaken our country beyond hope.

    So I'll turn your often-posed question around to you:  Since you obviously agree with the last sentence, if not the entire last paragraph, why don't you pivot your rhetoric for those Bernie supporters to convince them to do what you state you are going to do --> vote for Hillary, rather than to continuously cast doubt on Hillary's every word?

    You write "why don't you pivot your rhetoric for those Bernie supporters to convince them to do what you state you are going to do --> vote for Hillary[.]" I have already done so. Here's one example.  http://halginsberg.com/making-the-right-moves-clinton-takes-steps-to-the...

    Good to know.  Thanks, Hal

    Yup, the nitwit who called President Obama "niggerized" is the type of Negro Sanders can support.


    I have a huge problem with racially charged language such as Cornel West employed.  In my view, he was very wrong to have used the word he did.  West used the term on Marc Maron's podcast, a somewhat informal venue, he was criticizing Obama as "a person who is afraid and intimidated when it comes to putting a spotlight on white supremacy."  RMRD - do you believe President Obama has been forthright when it comes to putting a spotlight on white supremacy?  If so, can you please provide examples.

    Cut the friggin crap Hal. Obama and Eric Holder went after states that we're bringing back the days of Jim Crow style voting. You may have forgotten when Holder called us a nation of cowards on race. Obama called the arrest of Professor Henry Gates a mistake. He said the Trayvon Martin could have been his son. Our Great nation gave him heavy pushback.Obama dropped the unemployment rate in the black community. He increased the number of black people with health care dramatically. He worked to get more blacks into higher education. Here is a more detailed list


    He didn't send troops into the Klan enclave in Harrison, Arkansas if that is what you are looking for. I did come across a thin book with blank pages of all the things Sanders accomplished in Congress that benefited black people. Sanders couldn't even win black votes in the New England States.

    Given his language, isn't West disqualified from being on the platform committee.

    Edit to add:

    The fact that some Progressives question if Sanders criticizing Obama is a third rail in the black community and asking what things Obama has done for the community while facing an obstructionist Congress proves they are out of touch with the black community. These Progressives cling to their concept of what is good for the black community. They are arrogant enough to believe that the black community is not intelligent enough to determine whether they actually prefer one candidate over another. These Progressives cannot see that black voters see the stance of Sanders and Trump in silk lat fashion. Both are ready to "serve" the black community, but both are uncomfortable dealing with blacks who will not vote for them.

    Both Trump and Sanders have their show Negroes. Trump has Ben Carson, Stacey Dash, and Omarosa. Sanders has Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, and Killer Mike. The theme that they all have in common is their condemnation of members of the black community who do not vote for the respective white Messiah.Sanders is pushing black voters into the Clinton camp because he is tone deaf to what the black community thinks about the farce of free education and single-payer in the current political climate. Sanders and his supporters are incapable of understanding this reality. The Sand-Baggers will always revert to attacking Wall Street as the solution to racism.

    So you think Obama has put a bright enough spotlight on white supremacy, West doesn't.  Why can't you accept that he disagrees with you and engage with him on a good faith basis?  Why are you trying to marginalize him into non-existence?

    Hal, I repeatedly gave your links to opinions from other people to bolster my position.

    Here is Capehart on how West hurts Sanders


    MadameNoire on how West shows that Sanders doesn't understand the black community


    Michael Eric Dyson's takedown of Cornel Weet


    Sanders and his supporters simply do not understand the black community. Hillary's selection, Rep, Elijah Cummings, is much more respected than Cornel West. Just admit that Bernie Sanders pays no attention to what the black community has to say. Noun, verb, Wall Street.


    First, he doesn't work for her campaign.

    Second, Tommy Hearns and Bret Hart are "The Hitman."

    They coordinate activities.

    I agree with you: we shouldn't go giving the name "The Hitman" to just anyone!

    Danny, I appreciate your efforts with this piece, but I have to disagree with your claim that Hillary was talking about young black men when she said they should be "brought to heel".  She was talking about gang members in a time when roving gangs, both black and white, were terrorizing neighborhoods.  She never said they were black.  From what I've read she didn't imply it, either.  Still, she apologized for the perception, and now her apology alone is damning her, as if, since she apologized, she must have meant blacks.  That's unfair.


    In response to Maiello's, "he really got shellacked."  She currently has 54% of the pledged delegates, he has 46%.  I'd call that a solid win, not a shellacking.  You of course are free to see it however you like.  Yes she won the Democratic primaries.  But she has a very high unfavorability rating - as high as Trump's - and much higher than Bernie does.  Americans like Bernie better.

    I was ribbing you.

    But this notion that Americans like Sanders more than Hillary?  It's pure fantasy.  Were it true, his supporters had plenty of time to flood the Democratic primary and get him the nomination. If they wouldn't sign a piece of paper making themselves Democrats to vote for him, I'd have to say the level of their passion for the guy is low at best.

    I support her in the general election and I don't want to fight any more about this.  I'm going to do everything in my power to stop myself from bashing her but I want her supporters to lay off him as well.

    Who is saying bad things about him out of context? He's being a dick, bashing Debbie Wasserman Schultz, saying Barbara Boxer was lying in Nevada, claiming superdelegates while saying theyre immoral, etc. If he self-destructs, dont blame me. I just count delegates and superdelegates. Youre the one parsing likeable and unlikeable.

    He's definitely inviting criticism with his actions lately so, nobody's going to lay off and I think the question of what the second place finisher gets to demand of the winner needs to be put to bed right away.  The answer is, as it has been in other cycles, "not much," and Clinton is already being gracious in victory.

    If you want to criticize specific actions, I won't squawk as long as you set out the actions of which you disapprove and explain why they were wrong-headed.  Of course, you should be open to arguments that your complaints are unfounded.

    1) telling a Democratic representative she was wrong about feeling unsafe at an angry caucus convention protest

    2) funding a primary opponent and publicly promoting defeat in response to personal pique with the head of the DNC

    3) claiming to own the Superdelegates for states he's won along with for states he hasn't won.

    4) preparing his troops for a "messy" convention.  (warmup was an initial overhyped Nevada convention that led to the latest hoopla)

    5) asking for a recount in Kentucky

    Imagine Hillary tried any of this against him, the outrage...

    Even with state counts, he's misleading, saying he might hit 25 (he's won 20 to date, with Hillary 4 ahead, not including the extra Washington, Oregon & Nebraska primaries she won that had many more voters than the caucuses). Every achievement he has has a bit of spin - his $27 donors are somehow worth more than $2000 donors, etc., etc.

    “What happens if I win a major victory in California? Will people say, ‘Oh we’re really enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton despite the fact that Bernie Sanders has now won whatever it may be, 25 states, half the states?'” he said adding that if that happens, superdelegates “may rethink that. That is why you want the process to play out.”

    Funny, the latest polls have Hillary up 18% in California, New Jersey up 14%, and New Mexico will probably be like either her 15% Arizona win or her 32% Texas win, but he makes it sound like he's grinding to a draw. But a poll showing him doing well in a theoretical November contest that'll never happen? somehow gold standard that he says proves he's got a better chance against Trump. It's all good.... for Bernie.

    [original - self-deleted as immature and over-the-top].  PP - I don't accept the way you frame criticisms of Sanders here but I agree he should acknowledge that she will be the nominee and stop contesting her at every point.

    1) Jeff Weaver: Barbara Boxer lied about feeling threatened, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/jeff-weaver-barbara-boxer-nevada-sanders-223547#ixzz49h5ItuuY 

    2) " Sanders has been attacked for not doing enough to help elect progressives.  Here he's exercising his democratic right to help elect a more progressive representative" - yes, it's his right to be a dick and pull a single vindictive attack on someone that's been relatively doing their job, vs. trying a more comprehensive effort to push his policies and elect progressives. Wow, he's now supported *4* other candidates. #FeelTheSpurn

    3) It's Sanders' assertion that's either Dada, Machiavellian or Orwellian, but hey, at least he's literate.

    4) CYA - he wasn't originally backing down from those screamers who in the first stage flipped Hillary Clarke County delegate advantage to Bernie, nor terribly forceful with his followers harassing the convention official at home and on phone. (Gandhi would go on fast at times like these)

    5) okay, different animal is right:

    Why would Sanders not request a recount then?

    Because his campaign would have to pay for it. The state pays for the recanvass.

    Politically, it gives Sanders the opportunity to continue to call into question the results; allow some of his supporters to continue to allege that Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, who is close to the Clintons, put her finger on the scale; raise money — and do all of it at no cost.

    Not to mention — all of this is over probably one delegate. The AP allocated 27 pledged delegates apiece for Clinton and Sanders with one outstanding. Clinton currently leads by 271 pledged delegates and 766 overall.



    PP - I deleted my earlier post.  It was immature.  I think Bernie is right to challenge DWS.  I disagree with the re-canvass and the fighting for every delegate strategy.  She has won.  I accept that.  He needs to also.

    Ok, thanks. I think the DWS bit still comes across childish. Her big sins were not scheduling enough debates which they then expanded, suspending his database access for 1 day when his team got caught digging through Hillary's records, and responding publicly when his followers harassed a convention official on phone and at home. Not really the principle I would expect. Payday loans are a different issue, but probably not the root cause of this fight.

    Won 12 contests by 30+ points including Florida, and New York by 16%. Not liked? People keep using that word, dont think it means what they think it means. Sure, Bernie romped in Alaska. Palin of Wasalla was certainly ompressed. Back in the civilized populated areas, we had different expectations. Look at all that gold. Expect California by at least 8 points, New Jersey by 15. 

    I mistakenly assumed  the headline for this post was a true sign that Danny had developed some spine and removed himself from the Liberal Limbo Line displaying just how low some people will go to defend this creature HRC but alas this is just another apologia for supporting the more effective evil.

    It appears that being pandered to and promised better Supremes, who probably won't even pander to minorities, is enough, along with fear of the Donald, will keep this Liberal race baiter and warmonger feeling smug and secure with the rubes willing to accept any mistreatment she decides is necessary to secure power.

    I think you're epitomizing "smug" with every self-indulgent sentence you write. If you have something real to say, how about put it together in a real post. These Beavis and Butthead snarky commentoids hardly position yourself as an intellect or insightful commentator. Yeah, you're so much smarter than everyone else. #FeelTheSmarm

    Latest Comments