Danny Cardwell's picture

    Queue The Dagblog Civil War v. 1,354,752

    Hillary has been labeled a closet conservative by some in the progressive movement; from that political vantage point, what issues is she's to the right of Donald Trump on?  


    Is Bernie's endorsement of Hillary a sign of compromise or betryal? 


    What's the best argument for a Trump presidency?


    I'm Just going to leave these here and see what happens. Please refrain from Ad Hominem attacks which include, but is not limited to mama jokes, sexism, and anti-semitism. Let's remember how much "better" we think we are than our right-wing counterparts and not reduce this to something fitting of The Daily Caller or RedState.



    Yo mama got fired from the M&M plant for printing W's. Jes' sayin'.

    I needed that. Today has been particularly brutal with some technical difficulties at work! Thanks for a good laugh!smiley

    And there I thought I'd be in trouble... Glad to help.

    Hillary's devastating march to the sea thru Georgia and California will neither quell the rebellion nor resheath the dagger when the likes of Nathan Bedford Watree are still at large copying and pasting.

    The rebels of Dagblog will be carved on Lookout Mountain... Rhett Butler proclaims "frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a Like". Oh Ashley, wherefore art thou Ashley... Meanwhile rmrd is leading the raid on Harper's Ferry, setting fire to the Comments section.. This blog will be torn asunder... Four score and 7 blogs ago, our Forebloggers brought forth the proposition that all bloggers are created equal (though those on the Masthead are more equal than others). Meanwhile Bernie's got a jug of moonshine singing giddily, "Up on Cripple Creek she sends me, if I spring a leak she mends me, I don't have to speak she defends me, a socialist paradise if I ever did see one..." And Danny comes bounding along, "Free at last, this blog is free at last..." until this Colombo looking guy named Wolraich steps forward to stop him... "one thing that's still puzzling me..." he pauses... "there was a ToS violation back there but suddenly it disappeared... if I didn't know better..." he scratches his head "I'd say you were all in cahoots together" Suddenly a low thundering voice rises from the trees. "Bully for you!" it exclaims, "Simply Bully." As Wolraich turns in admiration, the voice suddenly switches, "ah sez ah sez it's a joke, son - don't get all wobbly on me now" and proceeds to blow his trumpet and charge off into the dusk. And that was The Night They Drove Old Dagblog Down. Low down varmints one and all, probly deserved it.

    Remember Mena !

    Well Donald is interesting as he's not really interested in policy and likes to tell crowds what he thinks he wants to hear, so he has arguably staked out some policies that are shared by those to the left of Clinton.

    Trade protectionism and immigration could certainly count. But that's a stretch because those are also beliefs held on the far right.

    Probably the better way to look at it is that Hillary Clinton represents the post-Cold War, Post-Davos neoliberal consensus of how the world ought to work while Trump is willing to gum all that up if it will get him into power. Calling Hillary Clinton a conservative is just silly. Trump is, meanwhile, an entertainer working the room.


    I wish we had a like button.

    I wish we had a like button.

    LIKE ^


    Go West, young man, go West!  Shame this circus has limited seating and even smaller stage - maybe we should take it on the road, like the traveling medicine show... I'm got this great snake oil for lumbago, rheumatis and other ailments...

    Like ^

    (Rmrd's Cornel West reference, not PP's nonsense)

    The only argument for a Trump Presidency is that it is time for the US to go down in flames.  

    I personally don't agree with that argument but it is the only one I can imagine.  In Mike M's blog about the Spirit of '68, we discussed how bad it was in many ways.  I was one of the ones who said that, despite being personally affected by loved ones wounded and worse, I was so clueless as to what was going on.  Yet we all know that good things have come in spite of/or because of those times.  Which was it?

    Now I think there are many people who are just doing the best they can to put food on the table, and so their political education occurs on the radio on the way home from work.  Many of them think that Trump's brash talk will intimidate Putin, ISIS, and any other enemies.  Most people (thankfully) don't agree.

    Seriously, I can't think of another argument FOR a Trump Presidency.


    Bernie is smart. He's endorsing Hillary in an attempt to reunite the party. He sees the numbers. Hillary's negatives are skyrocketing. If it keeps on at the rate it's going it's going to reveal who she really is - is she REALLY  concerned about America, or just her own ambition?  As her supporters are so fond of saying, "Liberals have got to put politics aside and all focus on just saving America from Hitler in a wig."  Well, now we're going to see how dedicated Hillary is to that proposition, because if she is, with all of her baggage, and all of the trouble for the Democratic party that she's going to introduce into the mix, if she truly cares more about America than she does herself, she's gonna have to step aside, "due to health concerns." 

    Man, the Republican party had all but written this election completely off, but Hillary Clinton has single-handedly revived them in a way that they could never have imagined - and they may also finally get the opportunity to taint the legacy of President Obama in the process. I don't know how Obama could be so dumb as to let himself let himself get caught up in Hillary's stupidity.  All he had to do was just sit back and let the process play itself out. But now it's going to seem like the Republican have been right all along.  He's just as corrupt as she is.  I mean, REALLY!!! To endorse her and schedule campaign appearances with her while she's still under criminal investigation!!!?  How transparent can you be!!!?  I mean, I love Barack Obama, and I've strongly supported him throughout his presidency, but since I don't believe in heroes, it's enough to make even me wonder is he really the leader of the free world, or is there someone else behind the scenes pulling the strings? It's certainly not beyond my willingness to contemplate.  After all, he is a politician, and this country has got to wake up, and stop believing that these politicians - ANY POLITICIAN - cares more about them, than they do their own self-service. 
    I used to be a diehard supporter of Bill Clinton.  Then I turned on him after he humiliated his wife before the world. That's when I started researching him, and that's when I found out about both he, and Hillary.  They deserve one another - and America doesn't deserve either one of them.

    "Jeeves, fetch me a senator.  Any one of 'em will do."

    Wattree: I don't doubt Bernie's intelligence. I'm wondering: If it's a smart move to endorse her now, wouldn't it have been smarter to do so a few weeks ago? The California Primary was 5 weeks ago! 

    Danny, Bernie has spent the past two months negotiating with Hillary for his endorsement. Some of the new progressive planks in the Democratic platform are the result of this negotiation, and Hillary may have offered other concessions as well. His objective is to push the party to the left but not at the expense of delivering the White House to Trump. Not all of his supporters understand this strategy, and many of his detractors certainly don't.

    Good strategy or not? Not all liberals voted for Sanders There were lots of liberals that voted for Hillary. Many of them are pissed at him for not getting behind the winner of the primary.

    Not all Sanders voters hate Hillary, some easily moved to her when Sanders lost. Some of them are pissed at Sanders too for with holding his endorsement.

    Sanders could have gone back to the senate with the support of all his voters and many of Hillary's voters. He could have had a movement behind him. He could have had the influence of Elizabeth Warren. But he's dead to me now and I'm not the only one who feels that way.

    Maybe not, but if the current merger is seen as successfully integrating some of his priorities with her platform in a holistic,  not-too-petulant way, it will be seen less as spoiler and more as something for the general good, moving Dem values forward. It's only been a month and a half. We can adapt for good reasons.

    (Not that I think $15 min wage or end to fracking as workable, but if someone can move insurance to a better next step without derailing more pressingpriorities, I,m fine with that)

    I still support some of Sanders policy ideas but I don't trust him to work for the team that needs to win to pass any of either Hillary's or Sanders ideas. He has dug himself into a deep hole with his petulant behavior.  He's got to get himself out of it  before I'd consider doing anything to support him in the senate. We'll see exactly what he meant when he said he would do everything he can to stop Trump from being elected in the next few months. Because the only way to stop Trump from getting elected is to get Hillary elected.

    Not true, not true - he could help get Ryan elected. Snowball's chance I know, but...

    Sanders is an insurgent. An insurgency that doesn't make people uncomfortable isn't an effective insurgency. (And frankly, waiting a month to withdraw from a primary election is not exactly scorched earth warfare.)

    In any case, the measure of Sanders' success will be taken in the years to come. Will his supporters and allies withdraw into complacency, or is it just the first battle in a long struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party? If it's the latter, fasten your seatbelt because the ride will be a heck of lot bumpier than the 2016 primary.

    How exactly did Sanders make people uncomfortable? Was it his new and bold policy proposals? Did he lay out a new path for the democratic party? I don't think so. The differences between the candidates were mostly about degree, how far and how fast, and less about where to go. The biggest change was Hillary pushing for gun control. It was probably in the cards anyway but Hillary didn't just campaign on the issue, she embraced it unabashedly to differentiate herself from Sanders. So I guess I have to credit Sanders pro-gun voting record for Hillary moving so strongly on gun control.

    What made me "uncomfortable" with Sanders wasn't his policy ideas but his attacks on the democratic party. Attacks that imo were mostly unfair but also because they did damage to the team. Yes, I'm talking about the team a lot because that's what we need to get legislation passed. I'm sick and tired of this idolization of the leader as the solution. It's great that democrats have won the presidency the last eight years but more of us need to vote in mid-term elections. Not just when we get "inspired" by a presidential candidate.


    How exactly did Sanders make people uncomfortable?

    I think it was all the yelling.

    Bernie nobly refused to give speeches to Goldman Sachs for $260k each. Coincidentally so did, I, but no one's seen fit to praise me.

    I wrote them a note myself.  "Not a dime below $275K," I said. They ignored me!

    Well yeah, rumor has it there was an offer on the table for $274,999.90. You screwed yourself with your hard ball negotiation tactics. That's how purists like you and Sanders go down to defeat.

    I hereby honor PeraclesPlease with the Dagblog-Not-Such-an-Asshat-After-All award in recognition for his principled decision not to speak to Goldman Sachs for $260K.

    All choked up. I suppose the acceptance speech is a freebie, eh?

    Speaking from the perspective of someone who's never made more than $500 for a speaking engagement I was never bothered by the Goldman Sachs speeches. If the Ku Klux Klan wanted me to address their annual summer soiree I would do it for 260k, a hood, and a good pair of gloves.

    What color hood? What brand gloves? A certain pastiche required.

    For that kind of money I would let them pick!wink

    Ocean-kat, I understand that Sanders' "attacks on the democratic party" made you uncomfortable. That is why it's called an insurgency.

    Uncomfortable might be the wrong word, here.  I mean, this isn't like, "Wow, Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing," makes me uncomfortable because it throws a bunch of issues I'd rather ignore in my face."  Ocean Kat's argument seems more like, "Sanders' tactics make me uncomfortable because I believe they are dangerous, counter-productive and ill-informed."

    I like the ambiguity of "uncomfortable" precisely because it can be good or bad. I believe in Sanders insurgency, but not all insurgencies are good.

    That skirts my point in that there are at least two ways to make people uncomfortable. Bold policy ideas or frivolous attacks. One can move the party forward the other can damage the party's electoral chances.

    There's also the side effects of what you propose. I still haven't heard too many people debate for example unemployment caused from quickly and drastically raising the minimum wage. Folks seem to think it's all just sticking it to Wall Street.

    Since almost  no one has pensions any more, and most of us have retirement IRA's, there might be some consequences to "sticking it to Wall Street" if not done in a conscientious way.  

    Or no trade deals or tariffs pushing up the costs of consumer goods. There are always trade offs. We need to find a better balance but trade deals are necessary. NO, isn't an answer to the problems, and benefits, globalization brings.

    The value of the ideas are separate from the threat to party. Some insurgencies have good ideas, some have bad ideas (re: Tea Party). But any insurgency by its nature threatens the party leadership, impacts elections, and pisses off a lot of people who believe in the party establishment. And usually, those pissed off people denigrate the insurgents as kooks or narcissists, as you have done with Sanders.

    For the record I never depicted Sanders as a kook. That was more rmrd's complaint. I didn't have a problem when he was discussing his policy ideas. When that wasn't winning for him and he talked less and less about the policy and spent more and more time in character assassination I wasn't happy. When he played the sore loser, yes, I called him narcissistic.

    Bernie was never required to give details on policy, he just repeated "millionaires and billionaires".

    He selected surrogates that were obviously out to make political points rather than effect any change in the Democratic Party. I point out Cornel West, because he was chosen by Sanders despite clear evidence that West would stab the Democratic Party and Barack Obama the first chance he got. West was immoral enough to accept a spot on the Democratic Party Platform Committee. Once he got to make a show there, he quickly endorsed Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. West knew that he wouldn't be supporting the Democrats. Sanders should have known West would not support the Democrats. Sanders was a sucker.


    ​My problem with Bernie Sanders is that he is politically myopic. He can survive in Vermont, but is a disaster nationally.


    Every insurgency has kooks and narcissists, no? As does the establishment. Still, claiming Bernie had a path to the nomination as his numbers said no, while flipping on superdelegates to get them to drop Hillary & somehow support him came out both. Doesnt mean his campaign was only that, but it wasn't his best moment.

    Nor was the excessive reliance on exit polls and national faceoffs still 4 months away to justify his existence. Oh well, cant criticize anything these days.

    To answer Wolraich's question (way upthread), Bernie's campaign is indeed "just the first battle in a long struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party." Actually not the first, but the first to gain serious traction. The DNC (and Hillary) would be idiots to downplay and ignore what is clearly a substantial, growing movement, especially among young prospective voters. Republican disarray gives her a unique opportunity to change the entire political discourse over the next four years -- if she has the balls and the brains to seize it.

    Well put, ac

    Despite all the insults towards her, I've never gotten the idea she belittled the ideas, only the process and path to making these things work. She's not big into unicorns and fairies from what I see.

    Check out this bit of criticism from a Hillary supporter.  Rosenthal is hilarious. He can't even get Clinton's positions right -- i.e. she does not disagree with Sanders on the minimum wage, she proposed $12, he proposed $15, but she never said "No, $15 is too much!"

    I think they corrected that as it reads now

    I'd say this is still inaccurate:

    Clinton grinned and nodded vigorously when Sanders talked about raising the federal minimum wage, even though she has disagreed with him in the past about how high it should go.

    The disagreement was not, even in the past, that Clinton thought $15 was too high. It was that she proposed $12, which she thought feasible to pass but, as I recall, when it came up in the debate, Sanders said, "$15!" and Clinton said, "Okay!"

    Is Bernie's endorsement of Hillary a sign of compromise or betrayal?

    Neither. Of leadership.

    As the  joke goes  a "revolutionary" leader says" the mob is in the streets, I've got to find out where they are headed because I'm the leader".  That's not Bernie . He leads by doing the right thing.

    Latest Comments