It’s Not Too Late To Come Home, Democrats For Bernie

Let me start with a couple of images from online media:

bernie dirty.jpgbernie and unqualified.jpg

And here’s a screen grab from CNN this morning:

bernie on cnn not qualified.jpg

By now, anyone interested enough to read a blog about politics knows what’s going on between Bernie and Hillary, especially related to the above images. For those who don’t know exactly, here is what Bernie said last night in Philadelphia:

Now the other day, I think, Secretary Clinton appeared to be getting a little bit nervous. We have won, we have won seven out of eight of the recent primaries and caucuses. And she has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote unquote, not qualified to be president.

Well let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don’t think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC. I don’t think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don’t think you are qualified if you’ve supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement, which has cost us millions of decent paying jobs. I don’t think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed and which, as all of you know, has allowed corporations and wealthy people all over the world to avoid paying their taxes to their countries.

Here is one simple fact: Hillary Clinton has never said Bernie Sanders was “not qualified to be president.” Never. She’s too much of a pro for that kind of talk in a primary campaign. And when Bernie put that in quotes last night, he was, to put it bluntly, telling a lie. I don’t know why he was telling such a lie, but it was a lie. Clearly he was disturbed by her remarks on MSNBC yesterday, when she—like any skilled politician running against him would naturally do—discussed his now famously disastrous interview with The New York Daily News. Here is the way Politico summarized her exchange on MSNBC:

When asked point-blank by “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough whether Sanders was ready for the Oval Office, Clinton raised the senator’s recent interview with the New York Daily News.

“Well, I think the interview raised a lot of serious questions,” Clinton said. “I think of it this way: The core of his campaign has been ‘break up the banks,’ and it it didn’t seem in reading his answers that he understood exactly how that would work under Dodd-Frank.”

Asked again whether Sanders is qualified, Clinton dodged. “Well, I think he hadn’t done his homework, and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that raises a lot of questions,” she said.

Asked a third time, Clinton said she would “leave it to voters to decide who of us can do the job the country needs.”

I have followed politics a long time. What Hillary did was what anyone in her position would do. She took advantage of her opponent’s most recent mistake. She used Bernie Sanders’ bewildering interview with the Daily News to make the point that he talks a good game, but there’s not much substance behind what he is saying. And she went out of her way to avoid saying he was “not qualified.” She could have said it. She could have said how that latest interview suggested that his ignorance of things he should know a lot about might be disqualifying. But she refrained. She’s smarter than that. She knows what uttering that phrase would have meant.

But for Bernie it was a different matter. Not only did he tell his supporters a falsehood about Hillary Clinton, he then stumbled down the low road and put the label of “not qualified” on her. Sanders has hammered Clinton, countless times, for all the same reasons he hammered her last night. He has implied she is dishonest and corrupt. His surrogates have openly said she is untrustworthy and a liar. Bernie’s campaign manager—his bleeping campaign manager!—suggested her campaign was willing to “destroy the Democratic Party to satisfy the secretary’s ambitions to become president of the United States.” That utter nonsense, by the way, came from someone representing a man who has spent nearly his entire political career trashing the Democratic Party.

But despite all the attacks on her integrity, both implied and expressed, Bernie’s campaign has stopped short of saying she wasn’t fit to be president. Now, though, either because of exasperation or desperation, his campaign has gone too far. They have injected poison into this primary race, the same kind of poison Republicans are now using against each other, and will certainly use against Democrats after the GOP primary fight is over.

I’ll admit my first reaction last night, upon hearing Bernie’s latest assault, was to get angry and write an “I told you so” post today. I wanted to tell all of Bernie’s die-hard supporters, who may or may not think Hillary is corrupt but who definitely think that at the end of this process Bernie will get on board and back her if she wins, that they have always been wrong about him. That he is the one who has shown a willingness to damage the interests of the Democratic Party in order to satisfy his own ambitions, whatever they have been. That he isn’t exactly a Kumbaya kind of guy when he loses.

But then I thought about it some more.

Getting angry at Bernie Sanders or his supporters won’t help Democrats win in November. We can’t afford to lose too many voters who now believe, sometimes with reckless fervor, that Bernie is the best choice. I know we will lose some, perhaps a lot, but the more we can convince Bernie supporters that the Democratic Party, as a whole, is the only thing standing in the way of a Republican assault on progress, the better off we will be as a party, and, more important, as a country.

So, with that in mind, I am asking Bernie supporters everywhere to take a good look at what Bernie did last night. And take a sober look at the likelihood that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and face a Drumpf or a Cruz or a Kasich or some other reactionary Republican in the fall. Then ask yourselves an important question: Did Bernie hurt or help the Democratic Party’s chances of winning in November?

[Bernie photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images]

24 Comments

  1. King Beauregard

     /  April 7, 2016

    This could turn into quite a spiral for Bernie. When Rachel Maddow covers this story, exactly how favorable to Bernie can she be? Bernie accused Clinton of something she didn’t actually say, then did an about-face on his former statements that Hillary would make for a tolerable president (a hundred times better than any Republican, I believe were his words). Rachel may be a fan of Bernie but there’s only so much room he’s leaving her to defend him. Then there will be media figures who smell blood in the water and will respond like sharks; does Bernie have the damage control skills to deal with this?

    And this was just one bad interview. Just wait until someone asks him about Green Mountain Single Payer’s failure.

    Like

    • I actually think Rachel has been much harder on Bernie (to the extent she can be hard on either one of them) than you give her credit for. That question about helping other Democrats got her in some trouble on the left, especially on Twitter. 

      As for Green Mountain Care, I had high hopes for it myself, but I can see why, in our federal system, a single state can’t make it work. There are too many options for businesses and people to move away to avoid the taxes, and others to move in to get the benefits. But the whole thing does demonstrate how difficult Bernie’s dream (and mine, by the way) would be to implement nationwide. The truth is that we will only get there incrementally, and, as Bernie has shown this campaign season, he hates incrementalism. I don’t know how many times I have heard him refer to Clinton as an “incrementalist.”

      No, she’s just a realist, like many in Vermont now are.

      Duane

      Like

  2. The Democrats will almost certainly win barring some freak event or indictment. But it’s nice to see you flip out trying to prove a negative because of how smooth Clinton can say Bernie isn’t “qualified” whatever that even means.

    Like

    • You’ll have to ask Bernie what he meant by “qualified,” since he’s the one who used the word, not Hillary. And if you think a Democrat win in November is a certainty, then you have predictive powers that ought to be utilized in, say, La$ Vega$.

      Like

  3. Anonymous

     /  April 7, 2016

    “It’s Not too Late To Come Home, Democrats For Bernie”
    What the hell does that mean?! Are you implying that there is some sort of curfew for Bernie supporters to return their support to Hillary or face some sort of ostracization from the Democratic Party? What the hell kind of democracy is that? Odds are that the curfew will be broken.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Of course I’m not implying any such thing. Take your time, although I fail to see what I said has anything to do with a slam on democracy.

      The point is that when one of the Democratic nominees point-blank says the other is not qualified to be president, because the suggestion is she is corrupt (let’s don’t kid ourselves; that’s what Bernie is implying) because she is raising money the same way every Democrat, including Obama, has done since the rules have changed (is she supposed to disarm?), then I think it is time for you Bernie people, if you want to do all you can to make sure we win in November (that is still the objective, isn’t it?), to either tell Bernie to cool it (he’s not and he won’t; he and his surrogates have essentially doubled-down) or come back to the party that Bernie doesn’t like all that much. Otherwise, particular if this keeps up, he is seriously hurting our chances of winning this fall.

      Like

      • Winning is more than about how much money you have. If you think that you may as well vote Republican.

        Like

  4. Anonymous

     /  April 8, 2016

    Let’s be honest, Duane. You said it’s not too late for Bernie supporters to come home, implying that a time will come that is “too late” to come home. (I can’t help but get a picture of Wasserman Schultz blocking the door!) You criticize Bernie for implying Clinton is dishonest in post after post. Guess what, the latest national poll of the entire electorate, 59% of voters agree with Bernie’s assessment. Clinton implies that Sanders is unqualified by refusing to say he’s qualified when pressed and your POV is that she gets a pass, but not everyone agrees with you. Clinton has certainly made ridiculous implications as well, not only against Bernie, she did exactly that to Barack Obama in 2008.
    Current estimates show 30-50% of Bernie supporters are independents. Last I heard of all his supporters there were up to 25% that absolutely not vote for Hillary. This is not Bernie’s fault, he stated on television on ABC and PBS Charley Rose show that he would support Hillary if she is the nominee. Bernie, as you say, has done nothing for the DNC, but the DNC sure as hell has done nothing for Bernie either. If the DNC tells Bernie supporters to come on home now, because it might be too late later, that is no less ignorant than anything the GOP has done this election. I know you choose your words very carefully, Mr. Graham, please do not ask me to believe that is exactly what you meant with your title to this post.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You are entitled to believe whatever you want, my friend. I can only tell you that the title of the post in no way suggests that there will be a time when it will be too late. That doesn’t even make sense, especially since I have repeatedly said our objective is to win in November and we can’t win in November without most of Bernie’s supporters (and vice versa).

      The title was just a way of saying that you all should take a closer look at your support for Bernie, now, before the primary goes on and on and on and millions are spent fighting each other and not much is spent fighting Republicans. Especially after Bernie’s campaign has gone after her for essentially being corrupt—which, you may have noticed, is the reason I written so many posts about him; that’s the one place you don’t go in my book, when attacking someone on your own team. 

      Oh, by the way, I recall very well that 2008 election. I campaigned for Obama. I know what a contentious fight they had. But I will tell you one thing: Hillary Clinton never, as far as I knew, ever suggested that Barack Obama was corrupt for taking all that money from Wall Street (I believe he set records; yet still managed to get Dodd-Frank passed, which Bernie now says he would be able to use to break up the banks!). If you have any evidence that she suggested Obama was corrupt, I would like to see it.

      Finally, you may also have noticed that I don’t give a damn what policy disputes the two of them have, or even that each suggests the other side is clumsy with the truth about those policy positions. My problem with Bernie is that corruption thing he keeps insinuating and also that, until yesterday, he didn’t seem all that interested in “Team Democrat.” Whatever you want to say or think about Hillary, you can’t say she’s not a team player. She has supported Democrats throughout her career, been in there fighting for the party and enthusiastically supported Obama and didn’t hold back, after he outsmarted her during that sometimes brutal campaign.

      Duane

      Like

      • Anonymous

         /  April 9, 2016

        Duane,

        You say you campaigned for Obama, read this below and tell me why your anger at Bernie doesn’t apply to Obama as well:

        By Amy Willis, Los Angeles
        9:23AM GMT 23 Jan 2012
        Barack Obama agreed to using character assassination tactics against Hillary Clinton during his 2008 presidential campaign, White House memos show, despite a pledge to steer away from negative electioneering.

        “Change We Can Believe In”, a key Obama campaign slogan, was meant as a slur against Mrs Clinton’s personality, intended to highlight how she “couldn’t be trusted or believed in when it comes to change”, according to a memo seen by America’s New Yorker magazine.

        “She’s driven by political calculation not conviction, regularly backing away and shifting positions … She embodies trench warfare vs Republicans, and is consumed with beating them rather than unifying the country and building consensus to get things done. She prides herself on working the system, not changing it,” the October 2007 memo added.

        The memo was written by David Axelrod, a political adviser, as Obama’s nomination campaign stalled against Hillary Clinton during the height of the 2008 Democratic nomination process.

        Rather than fight out their differences in policy, Mr Axelrod told Obama that the only way to secure a defeat was to attack Mrs Clinton’s character. The goal was to paint Obama as the “authentic ‘remedy’ to what ails Washington and stands in the way of progress” and to discredit his main rival in the process.

        So let’s just end this “holier than thou” bullshit about Bernie’s campaign, you worked for a campaign that did exactly the same that you find so distasteful in Bernie’s.

        Liked by 1 person

        • King Beauregard

           /  April 9, 2016

          Intriguing! Can you show me where Obama actually called Hillary “unqualified” on the campaign trail, or repeatedly stated that she was in the pocket of Wall Street?

          Like

          • Anonymous

             /  April 10, 2016

            @King

            You may think yourself regal and free to butt in to others conversations, but I just find it rude. However, I will this one time address your lack of ability to google.

            http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4495865

            Like

            • King Beauregard

               /  April 10, 2016

              I read your link, and you know what? It doesn’t show Obama calling her “unqualified” or repeatedly accusing her of being in Wall Street’s pocket. It does have Obama (really his campaign manager) commenting on a poll, but that’s not the same thing.

              So, swing and a miss. Care to try again? Then go back to tilling your field, peasant.

              Like

            • By the way, I sometimes join other people’s conversations. Maybe I have set a bad example, but I feel like we’re all invited to the conversation on this blog. It’s sometimes more fun that way!

              Like

        • Let me see, you pointed me to an article that, if true, says two things: Axelrod is not a political scientist (I’ve already addressed the weak correlation between trust and electability with you) and Barack Obama didn’t follow his alleged advice to “attack Mrs. Clinton’s character.” Please share with me an example of Obama doing so, if there is one out there. I’d be glad to take a look at it. Especially show me one where he accused her of taking money from big donors and therefore she must be corrupt, which has been suggested time and again by Bernie, not to mention his surrogates. Because, if anything, the argument Bernie (Bernie himself, mind you) is making against her today could really have been made against Obama in 2008. He took a shitload of cash from the banksters.

          As for the ABC thing you sent to KB, I don’t know how an analysis of Hillary’s untrustworthiness by Obama’s advisers (again, faulty on political science grounds) equates to Obama actually attacking her for being dishonest or suggesting she is corrupt. I’ll grant you that there were many of his advisers saying a lot of horrible things about her and vice versa (some recorded in Game Change, as I recall), but that’s not quite the same as the candidate doing it. If it were only Bernie’s advisers attacking her, that would be one thing. A lot of politicians, including Obama in 2008, play good cop-bad cop games. But a combination of Bernie and his advisers doing it pushes me over the line. Sorry, it just does. 

          Also, if Obama thought she was so damned untrustworthy, why did he pick her as Secretary of State? And why is he obviously supporting her for president? 

          Duane

          Like

      • Obama did a lot less than many of his supporters would have liked.

        Like

        • Sometime true of every president I know anything about. It would be nice to just go to Washington and do whatever you wanted to do, but that’s just not the way it works. You are often fighting the other party, members of your own party, and the bureaucracy. It’s unrealistic to think that any candidate is going to accomplish all the things “his supporters would have liked.” And it is quite dumb of those disappointed supporters to get mad and sit out an election because of it.

          Like

  5. Anonymous

     /  April 11, 2016

    Duane,

    I don’t really give a damn if Bernie said Hillary wasn’t qualified, I’m sure Reince Priebus over at the GOP wishes that was the biggest problem he had. I really don’t think the GOP will be flashing Bernie stating such in their ads.

    http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/does-it-really-matter-if-bernie-called-hillary-unqualified-0

    What does bother me is what David Axelrod told Obama, that the American people will not vote for a President that they do not trust. I believe he is entirely correct in this statement. He saw the only way to Obama’s nomination was to attack Hillary’s character or lack of, and it worked.
    With 59% of the general electorate saying Hillary is dishonest, one can only think the DNC is ignoring Axelrod’s advice and backing a candidate most Americans will not vote for. I know that the only way this Democrat could vote for her is to do as Duane suggested and put vise grips on my nose, and three double shots of Jack Daniels down my throat to even think of it.
    After Obama defeated Hillary, the PUMA’s were formed by her supporters. Party Unity My Ass was their creed, so I expect Bernie will have similar, after all he is a DINO, democrat in name only. I have witnessed the continuous assault in this blog against Sanders, not the GOP, in the majority of posts. So keep maligning my candidate and I will be happy to do the same for yours. This election is ours to lose, and the DNC seems hellbent on doing just that by throwing superdelegates at the candidate that a majority of American do not trust.

    Like

    • I suppose I could accuse Bernie and his supporters of not sufficiently going after Republicans, too. This is the primary season, though, and although I wish each side would spend more time attacking the real adversaries, I understand why they’re doing what they’re doing. Hillary, by the way, every time she does go after the GOP, gets accused of taking the nomination for granted, so, go figure.

      Since you are a Bernie supporter, your superdelegate argument is curious to me. You grant that he isn’t a Democrat. Then why is it surprising that the regulars in the party, those who are the superdelegates, don’t support him and support Hillary?

      Also, Bernie’s campaign started out loathing the process as undemocratic, as I recall. Now, though, his campaign is insisting that the convention will be open, with neither of them getting a majority of pledged delegates, and that he can win the superdelegates and thus the nomination. If he did so, he would do so despite losing the overall popular vote. So, if you would, please explain to me your comment about “throwing superdelegates” at Hillary Clinton, as if that were somehow illegitimate if they go to her, but not if they go to him.

      Oh, and if your argument hinges on the “trust” factor, be careful there. As political science professor Dr. Matt Dickinson pointed out, “political scientists have revealed weak correlation between candidate traits and presidential election outcomes.” And he happens to use an example relevant to today, the 1996 presidential election, “in which the deeply mistrusted candidate Bill Clinton handily defeated his opponent and man of sterling character, World War II veteran Bob Dole, 49.2 percent to 40.7 percent.”

      If you don’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton in the fall, then don’t vote for her. That’s your business. But you may want to save up some of that Jack Daniels for the day after the election, when a Donald Drumpf or a Ted Cruz are celebrating. In fact, you might want to stock up on the stuff, since four years of either one of them will be a damned long four years.

      Duane

      Like

  6. Anonymous

     /  April 12, 2016

    Duane,

    Although Obama used the same tactics, he didn’t play the “bad cop”, Bernie didn’t hide, he had the balls to just say Hillary can’t be trusted. As to the super delegates or party officials lack of support:
    1. 30-50% of Bernie supporters are independents. The DNC is about inclusivity, I thought as Bernie is responsible for the independents primary involvement in the DNC and the possibility of acquiring a few more million independents in the general election might pull in a few super delegates.
    2. Democrats lose in low voter turnout elections, Bernie excites the electorate, Hillary puts them to sleep. Not one super delegate?
    3. Real Politics.com general election polls showing Clinton losing to Kasich and possibly Cruz in the general election, while Sanders beats all three remaining GOP candidates at much higher percentages. The super delegates/party official’s objective is to not lose was my understanding.
    4. FBI investigation into e-mail liability. You would think super delegates/party officials would want a candidate with a 0% chance of a federal indictment instead of one with a 50-50% chance. 5. Clinton Foundation and subsidiaries liability.
    6. Hillary’s position of being so far to the right of Obama, that she is almost Republican. The entire world must be worried whether we elect Hawkish Hillary or “Kill ’em all” Trump. It is a sad state of American affairs when both the DNC and GOP front runners are the least trusted candidates in the race. They’re not crooks, they’re cunning? I really don’t know why Obama picked Hillary as SOS, keep you friends close, your enemies closer, I suppose. Don’t expect me to believe they are “besties”. She would throw him under the bus in a heartbeat. Read this London Daily Mail story:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2670920/The-moment-Hillary-Clinton-let-loose-Obama-booze-fueled-rant-new-book-reveals.html

    Hillary is however “besties” with H. Kissinger, they vacation together, she writes reviews of his “World Order” book. This is the same man that liberals in the early seventies wanted tried for war crimes for the illegal bombing in Cambodia. Hillary was even working on Nixon’s impeachment papers including the bombing as a young attorney. What a gal! You’re right about my need to get more Jack Daniels, I will be buying it by the gallon if Hillary gets the nomination, this election is FUBAR.

    Like

    • I appreciate that we can have a civil exchange. But I guess I don’t understand a few things about your points. Let me, too, list them.

      1. Bernie has “the balls to say Hillary can’t be trusted.” Will he have the balls, when he loses, to tell people to vote for someone that can’t be trusted? That will take a real big set. And the longer he goes, the bigger they’ll have to be.

      2. Do you really think that the superdelegates in the party—mostly elected officials, some of whom Hillary has campaigned and fundraised for—are going to abandon Clinton in favor of a man who literally, until five minutes ago, had little good to say about their party?

      3. As for those independents you talked about, did you know that in 2012 Obama lost them to Romney by a 50-45 margin? The reason Obama still won was because of his popularity among Democrats (he won 92% of them). If he had had a primary opponent (as Bernie suggested he should have had) who undermined his popularity among Democrats, he may have lost. Does that sound relevant to this campaign?

      4. Bernie excites the electorate, you said. Okay. He does. If you’re talking about the younger part of the electorate. He sure gets some big-ass crowds, especially lately in New York. We can all see that. But as Rachel Maddow pointed out the other night, Obama got some big crowds in New York, too. Some much bigger than Bernie’s. And guess what. Hillary still won the New York primary, 57-40. Oh, and she only netted 46 delegates for that massive victory. Even if Bernie were to pull off an upset and win, it would be only by a small margin. And his delegate win wouldn’t impress at all. And delegates are all that matter, even though she is still soundly beating him in the popular vote overall.

      5. I’m really perplexed by this:

      Real Politics.com general election polls showing Clinton losing to Kasich and possibly Cruz in the general election, while Sanders beats all three remaining GOP candidates at much higher percentages. The super delegates/party official’s objective is to not lose was my understanding.

      As most political scientists know, polls of this kind are virtually worthless at this point in the campaign. And especially this year, when Republicans haven’t spent a penny tearing down Bernie Sanders (and a lot ripping Hillary), they obviously overstate his strength. Just as the  national polls overstate the strength of Ted Cruz. His extremism hasn’t been an issue yet. But it will. And his numbers versus Hillary will go down. A lot. Superdelegates, mostly professional politicians, know this and will not be persuaded by your or Bernie’s argument.

      Add to all this the fact that about half of the electorate has said that it will not vote for a socialist. And since Bernie admits he is one, albeit a democratic socialist, he will, when Republicans are done with him, have much lower numbers than he does now. That’s just common sense. Hillary’s weaknesses are already baked into the polling cake. She has taken a lot of hits for a generation now. And it shows in her unfavorability numbers. So, I wouldn’t put much faith in that Bernie-does-better-in-November claim.

      Finally, on this point, there is this pretty well-known fact about the American electorate: they are not strict ideologues generally. Most people hold to (or think they hold to) both liberal and conservative views, depending on the issue. They’re inconsistent in the way that Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz aren’t. Both of those guys are fiercely consistent about what they believe. They are on the edges of their respective parties. And the American electorate, on balance, is somewhere in between. And guess who you find there? Someone like a Hillary Clinton, a center-left candidate who, when it comes down to it, will have a better chance of beating a Republican than a guy who, by his own admission, is a revolutionary.

      6. You think Hillary has a 50-50 chance of being indicted? Evidence, please. I don’t think even Sean Hannity would rate the odds that high. And how would this indictment come? A grand jury? What grand jury?

      7. If the Clinton Foundation is such a liability, then why isn’t Bernie exploiting it? It seems like it would play right into his overall theme of “Don’t trust Hillary.” Could it be because there isn’t much there, beyond what we already know?

      8. I will grant you that Hillary tends toward the hawkish side, but “far to the right of Obama”? Have you read what the deep left has been saying about Obama for the last five years or so? You would think he’s the biggest warmonger on the planet. In any case, do you really think the right in this country will go after her for being too hawkish? Come on. Democrats get attacked, traditionally, for being Bernie Sanders-squeamish about using military power, not for being too eager to go to war. I’d like to see that first Republican ad attacking her for being too aggressive militarily. That would mean Republicans have embraced dovishness. I don’t think so.

      9. I don’t know if Obama and Hillary are best friends, but I do know they have come to admire and trust each other. If you don’t think that, then you must think Obama is a liar, too. Is he?

      10. As for Kissinger, that’s troubling, I agree. But it’s not like she’s endorsed his worst moments. In fact, why doesn’t Sanders just ask her on Thursday night if she agreed with the secret bombing of Cambodia, or any of the crude acts of diplomacy he was involved in? That would be fair to ask. But just because she is friends with the guy, picks his brain, and tries to understand what he knows about the world, doesn’t mean she endorses his worldview. Are you accusing her of “palling around with war criminals”? That seems a stretch to me.

      11. Again, don’t vote for her if you don’t want to. But she will get the nomination. And I am now going online to see what Brown-Forman is trading at, considering your Jack Daniels-by-the-gallon claim. Wow! It’s down more than 1% today. Time to buy!

      Duane

      Like

      • Anonymous

         /  April 14, 2016

        Duane,

        1. Bernie has already said he will endorse Hillary, he may qualify it with the alternative is unacceptable.
        2. I do know super delegates function is to stop a populist, grass roots candidate like Trump from embarrassing the party. The delegate count is equivalent to several large states and is totally un-democratic.
        3. Independents make up 42% of the general electorate. That’s why Hillary is “centrist”, because the party faithful can’t get her elected alone. (88% of Democratic leaning independents voted for Obama in 2012, while 86% of Republican leaning indies voted for Romney.). Hillary only won independents in Alabama. The only way Democrats win the general is with the independents, that happen to support Sanders, with 30-50 percent voting in the Democratic primary.
        4. I was referring to the general election.
        5. Those polls remain unchanged for three months. “Add to all this the fact that about half of the electorate has said that it will not vote for a socialist. ” Did I miss that poll? Are these people willing to forego their “socialist security” checks at retirement? Do they have no need for public schools, welfare, etc…?
        6. Hillary is under a FBI investigation and will either be indicted or not. That is a 50-50 chance, you can quibble the odds, but not the chance. That is simple math.
        7. See the “Panama Papers”. It’s done by David Cameron, but not by the Clintons? C’mon,really? Many questions have been raised regarding its subsidiaries have arisen.
        8. I’m not saying the GOP will have a problem with her hawkishness, but it should sure bother liberals.
        9. You would need ESP to know that Obama and Hillary respect and trust each other. There won’t be vacationing together, nor are they going to “cage fight”, but I would take Hillary on that match.
        10. Did you not read her book review of World Order by Kissinger? She endorses it!
        11. The DNC rules are a convoluted hodge podge of idiocy when Bernie or anybody wins a state like Wyoming by 12% of the poplar vote, but lose the delegate count by over 50%. He was awarded 7, her 11 delegates. Nothing democratic about that. The DNC and GOP are at their lowest membership level of all time because of this type of bullshit. Don’t buy stock on my comment about whiskey, I just said that because it sounded better than your vise grips analogy. The only reason I will be voting for Hillary is the alternative is unacceptable, not because she gives a damn about the 99%. Since 2006-2012 over 2/3 of US Corporations paid no income tax, the Huffington Post reported yesterday. Jimmy Carter was quoted on our current politics as saying, “now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same applies to governors, and US senators and congress members.” I was hoping Bernie could damage the oligarchy, but I don’t think if even Liz Warren (real democrat?) had brought Bernie’s message, that she could have been elected.

        Like

        • I only have time to comment on a few things:

          1. You mentioned Elizabeth Warren, who is, next to Sherrod Brown, my favorite senator. Why hasn’t she endorsed Bernie Sanders? Doesn’t that look a little odd to you?

          2. Your claim that an “indictment” of Hillary is even odds is, well, ridiculous. First, there is no grand jury looking into it, that I know of. And grand juries tend to bring indictments. Second, the odds of her being criminally charged might be might be 99-1 for all you, or I, know. Or the chances may be zero. Thus, you have exactly no way of knowing what the odds are. But here’s what I know: President Obama has, on at least a couple of occasions, stuck his neck out to say that she hasn’t really jeopardized national security secrets. Since I’m sure he knows what the worst of what might have happened is, it would be passing strange that he would put himself out there and look like a fool, if she ends up being criminally charged. And, by the way, intent is the issue in any case. The government would have to prove intent, is what I hear from experts. And intent here seems impossible to prove, since it is impossible to imagine that Hillary Clinton deliberately exposed classified information to our enemies. Do you believe that?

          3. The polling on socialism is from Gallup, done last summer. And your point about the country already embracing socialism is one I have made for, oh, about 7 years now. People do passively embrace it in a form much like Sanders advocates, in programs that Democrats—not independents!—have created over the years. Problem is, they don’t see it as socialism. When most Americans think socialism, they think of Europe and high taxes and all the negative shit Republicans will attach to it when they are done with a nominated Bernie. His numbers in match-ups against Republicans, which he and you brag about now, will take a major hit when the attacks are launched. Which, by the way, leads me to another question: If Bernie is such a viable general election candidate that a majority of Americans are so eager to embrace, why can’t he convince a much more favorable electorate of Democratic primary voters? He’s not winning by any measure. None. He’s losing among people who, like me, embrace his ideas.

          4. As for the “un-democratic” process of using superdelegates. First of all, let me say this: Do you know how many people live in the state of Vermont? Just over 626,000 folks. That’s smaller than the average congressional district across the country. The state of New York has almost 20 million people, yet it only has two senators just like Vermont. You can do the math yourself, but a citizen of New York is underrepresented in the Senate by a ridiculous amount. I.e., Bernie is using to his and his state’s advantage one of the most un-democratic systems there is: the Constitution’s rules governing the election of United States Senators. I haven’t heard him or his surrogates say how awful it is that those 20 million New Yorkers are being screwed by our un-democratic Constitution, have you?

          Then there is this fact: To this point, Bernie is actually benefiting from the Democratic Party process. He has won 42% of the vote, but has 46% of the pledged delegates. Is that fair? Yes, because of the rules. And those same rules don’t favor his chances to win going forward. He may not like the rules in the end, but they are what they are. They have been pretty much the same for several election cycles now. If he wanted to take a stab at changing the rules, he should have become a Democrat a long time ago, instead of the day before yesterday.
          5. Speaking of rules and connecting the rules to those independents you talk about, your side has another problem. The New York primary is a closed primary. You have to be registered as a Democrat or Republican in order to vote. And guess what? You had to be so registered as of October 9th. That, of course, has led to yet more whining about an unfair process. There is an expectation next Tuesday that a lot of Bernie independent voters, who didn’t bother to register before the deadline as Democrats, will get angry when they find out they can’at vote. Is that situation unfair? No. It is not. Why? Because there are rules. I don’t like the rules, you probably don’t like them, and Bernie certainly won’t like them after the results come in next Tuesday. But those independents, who have refused to belong to a party and thus have had no say in how things are run, have only themselves to blame. I tell my union brothers and sisters all the time, if you want change, you get involved and help make it. Otherwise, don’t bitch. As Bernie is finding out, as his loyal supporters are finding out, there is no political revolution coming. Change, as it usually does in this country, starts from the bottom up, not from the top down. And in America, making real change means joining one of the two big parties.

          Duane

          Like

%d bloggers like this: