Bernie Supporters Keeping It Classy By Making It Rain On Democratic Front-Runner Who Happens To Be A Woman

make it rain: “Throwing money on hoes”

The Online Slang Dictionary

apparently the last whore metaphor wasn’t enough. Here’s how HuffPo wrote up a story about the latest attempt—not by Republicans but by quasi-Democrats—to smear the Democratic Party front-runner:

A group of Bernie Sanders supporters showered Hillary Clinton’s motorcade with one thousand $1 bills as the former secretary of state drove to a glitzy fundraiser hosted by Hollywood power couple George and Amal Clooney…

As the motorcade passed, Sanders supporters played the song “We’re In The Money.” After it was out of sight, they danced in the street and stomped on the dollar bills, according to CNN.

You may have seen or heard some news reports that George Clooney himself admitted, like almost all Democrats do, that Bernie is right about money in politics and that “it’s an obscene amount.” What you may not have heard is that Clooney went on to make the point that “the overwhelming amount of the money that we’re raising is not going to Hillary to run for president; it’s going to the Democratic ticket.”

So, if I understand what some Bernie supporters are saying, all Democrats who get money from friendly rich people—money they need to run against well-funded Republicans—are now hoes.

Classy stuff.

Previous Post
Leave a comment

22 Comments

  1. Read a very good column over the weekend by Alan Dershowitz calling out these people for what they are: Hard Left and not Democrats or any kind of democrat at all for that matter. Its worth reading.
    I think it was King the other day that posed the question about Bernie’s place in history. It got me thinking and I really couldn’t nail down an answer at the time but the more I see stuff like this I am beginning to wonder if he is not a 21st century Henry Wallace.

    Like

    Reply
    • Good point, melk39. I had to visit Wallace’s Wiki page for a review and I can see the similarities. It’s near shocking to think how history might have turned had FDR died a little sooner.

      Like

      Reply
  2. King Beauregard

     /  April 18, 2016

    I’ve often accused Bernie of not being willing to admit that, if his “political revolution” is to mean anything, it must mean voting Republicans out of Congress. “You aren’t listening closely enough,” I’ve been told, “Bernie is clearly and unambiguously saying that we need to oust the Republicans from Congress, why I cannot believe anyone could interpret it differently”.

    So why isn’t Bernie even trying to help in the downticket races? Couldn’t be that he’s completely full of crap or anything, could it?

    Like

    Reply
    • Someone asked him yesterday about whether he was helping raise money for Democrats. He said he has raised lots of money for Democrats (!) but was forced to admit he has not done so during his campaign. She has. Why? Because she is a Democrat and understands that her success, if she were to win the presidency, can only come if she at least has the Senate. Bernie seems to think that the magic of sending him to the White’s House will turn Tea Party nuts in Congress into malleable Mensheviks or something. I just cringe when I think of all that money he has that he could be using to support and campaign all around the country for Democrats who have a chance of knocking off vulnerable House and Senate Republicans. What a damned waste of energy and resources. He could actually do a lot to bring about real change. But doesn’t look like he’s going to give up his presidential quest, even if he loses big tomorrow or the next wave.

      Like

      Reply
  3. So is Clinton spreading the $1.6 billion she has amassed on down ticket races?

    Like

    Reply
    • King Beauregard

       /  April 18, 2016

      Yes. From a story about a recent fundraiser:

      You had to pay — or collect — as much as $353,000 per couple to attend last week’s fundraisers for Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, including one hosted at the home of actor George Clooney. After the affair drew protesters who support Bernie Sanders, Chuck Todd, host of NBC’s Meet the Press, asked Clooney what happened when he encountered them.

      Clooney said he was accused of being a corporate shill, which is “one of the funnier things you could say about me.” Then he told Todd, “The overwhelming amount of money that we’re raising, and it is a lot, but the overwhelming amount of the money that we’re raising is not going to Hillary to run for president, it’s going to the down-ticket.

      “It’s going to the congressmen and senators to try to take back Congress. And the reason that’s important (is) … we need to take the Senate back because we need to confirm the Supreme Court justice, because that fifth vote on the Supreme Court can overturn Citizens United and get this obscene, ridiculous amount of money out so I never have to do a fundraiser again. And that’s why I’m doing it.”

      Like

      Reply
    • Gerry,

      I don’t know how much money she has raised, but I hope it is much more than $1.6 billion before it’s all over. She’ll need a lot of dough to defend herself against what will be coming. But of course she is helping raise money for Democrats. She is a Democrat for God’s sake. And she didn’t just become one day before yesterday. She’s been there, for better or worse, for most of her adult life.
      It only makes sense to help other Democrats. If she wins, she will need help to get her nominees through the Senate, if nothing else.

      Like

      Reply
  4. unclerave

     /  May 9, 2016

    Hillary is a “Democrat” in name only. Bernie has been more of a Democrat, by actions, his entire political life. Hillary is only “giving” money down ticket to those who have sworn fealty to her. She lined up most of her ducks at the 2015 DNC Summer Meeting. She’s the consummate calculating politician. If you were Bernie Sanders would you give money to people who say they are supporting your competitor? Bernie is no fool. He will trickle down to others, when he sees the time is right. — YUR

    Like

    Reply
    • It’s funny, ain’t it? For someone to say that Hillary Clinton, who has worked her ass off for Democrats for most of her adult life, is not really a Democrat is bleeping hilarious. 

      And then for you to dismiss her as “the consummate calculating politician” is also a belly laugh. Haven’t you been paying attention the last month or so? Bernie and his Bros have been doing nothing but calculating how they can take the nomination away from Hillary even without a majority of votes. They have. You should look it up. Talk about your consummate calculating politician. You even suggested as much yourself when you wrote, “Bernie is no fool. He will trickle down to others, when he sees the time is right.” Are you telling me that isn’t a calculating politician?

      I don’t want to be too hard on you personally, but you Bernie people really kill me. I don’t now why you can’t just root for your guy, who just became a Democrat about ten minutes ago, without tearing down Hillary’s character. You play right into the hands of Drumpf. Don’t you see that? 

      In any case, I hope you know I’m just kidding about this being really funny. It’s sad is what it is. You and some of Bernie’s other supporters have helped Drumpf shred her character. I hope you’re proud of that come this November. And on that note, I will ask you a question: If Bernie does’t win the nomination, will you vote for Hillary Clinton?

      Like

      Reply
  5. unclerave

     /  May 10, 2016

    I think it’s sad when someone replies to a straight forward comment with snide remarks and sarcasm. So, since you’ve opened that door, I can reply to you by saying: Anyone who has been paying attention to American politics for the last 30 – 40 years knows the two party “system” is a total joke. They pit us against each other with “family values” and other social issues, as a distraction, while they collude to bolster corporations and the super rich, at the expense of the unions and the once vibrant middle class. Hillary has “worked her ass off” under the Democratic banner, because it was politically expedient to do so. Of course she supported Roe v. Wade and other women’s issues. All Democrats do, as well as many Republicans do, despite what we’re all led to believe.

    I’ve been a registered Democrat for over 40 years, but when it comes to voting in non-primary elections I vote the Working Families Party line, because they support the progressive values that USED TO BE wholly endorsed by the Democrats. I remember those values, and I remember when the so-called Democrats vote against those values.

    Myself, and millions of Americans, were completely against invading Iraq. Most of the world acknowledged the faulty “intelligence” that Cheney/Bush used to push their agenda. But, HRC cast her vote FOR war, “with conviction”. 4 years later she made it seem like she was forced to vote FOR war. And now, many years later, she writes it off as a “mistake”. Oopsy!

    She came out, during the Bush years, strongly in SUPPORT of the Defense Of Marriage Act, much to the chagrin of her constituency, and to the detriment to the entire LGBT community. In 2007 she wouldn’t even condemn the statement of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, who called homosexuality “immoral”. She couldn’t come out in support of Gay Marriage until 2013. She parses her words very carefully, but it’s very clear she was riding the political tides.

    As a New York state resident, and an environmentalist, I was always against hydro-fracking for natural gas. Despite it being a “cleaner” fossil fuel than oil or coal, it still leaves a huge carbon footprint, and contributes to the carbon dioxide and Greenhouse Effect. And, that issue is not even as bad as the extraction process, that has been known to pollute the ground water. The fracking companies claim that it is a safe process, but they can’t guarantee it, and they even refuse to disclose the chemicals that they use in the extraction process. It has even been known to lead to earth quakes. Hillary has long been a supporter of hydrofracking, but has finally “come around” to calling for “smart regulations”. And again, that change/awareness didn’t happen until some time in 2013. Politicians are supposed to have greater access to information than the general public, so why did it take her so long to see what people like me have seen all along? (This is just a rhetorical question. I know you like to avoid answering my question, and then ask your own, as though you somehow hold the high ground. But, I’m actually going to answer your question . . . later.)

    She wouldn’t even come out against the Keystone XL pipeline, which the majority of Democrats, and other environmentally conscious people, were/are against, until the later part of 2015.

    Supporting her husband’s policies is understandable, to an extent, but it wasn’t until 2007 that she acknowledged that NAFTA had been a mistake. But, even with that she had to qualify it by saying that “it did not deliver on what we hoped it would.” Unemployment was sky high at the time, and many of those jobs had gone to Mexico and even to China, as a result of NAFTA. She then became an architect for the Trans Pacific Partnership, but due to political pressure, she now CLAIMS to be against it.

    I won’t even go into where I’ve disagreed with her foreign policy stances, because that would be another mini-book, and I’ve already time and bandwidth.

    But, yes, Bernie knows the deck has been stacked against him, since Day 1. He understands that his chances are greatly diminished in closed primaries. So when you say “even without a majority of votes” what you really mean is: *without the majority of votes . . . that were ALLOWED to vote*. Because SO many people no longer feel that either of the “two party system” parties represent their values there are vast numbers of registered Independents, and Working Families Party, and Green Party, etc., etc., and even Libertarians. If those voters had the opportunity to vote in many of these closed primaries I believe we would have undoubtedly seen even more Bernie victories.

    I think there’s a world of difference between being smart and being calculating. Cutting deals and forming alliances, even before the primary season begins, is CALCULATING in my book. It’s like Survivor . . . on steroids! Staying true to your message, over the course of 30 some years, is both smart and commendable. It goes to integrity.

    And now to your all important question. If Bernie does not win the Democratic nomination I hope like heck that he runs on a third ticket. Because, as it stands right now, I could not bring myself to vote for Hillary. Other than a bunch of silly rhetoric, I don’t see much of a difference between her and Donald Trump. To me they’re both megalomaniacs, and they both suck. I just wish that more of the Hillary supporters, wearing blinders, would wake up to this truth.

    — YUR

    Like

    Reply
    • Okay. You caught me at a bad moment, just after reading a Vox article about how independents like Bernie supporters ought to go third party this year. It was written by Ralph Nader’s campaign manager. I’ve pretty much had it with that Bush-electing, Drumpf-electing nonsense and your comment came right after that. So, my bad. I apologize for my initial sharp remarks (but not for what’s coming).

      I reiterate my point about how it is possible to support Bernie without denigrating Hillary’s character. It’s even possible to criticize the process without denigrating her character, although after criticizing the process, Bernie is now trying to manipulate it to his advantage. And it is certainly possible to criticize her policy decisions and goals, as well as her votes in the Senate, without denigrating her character. What is unacceptable is to attack her by essentially saying she is untrustworthy and dishonest, which is exactly what the GOP has said about her since the early 90s. Bernie has mostly done that through insinuation, but his surrogates have, several times I have seen and heard myself, done it directly. The word “whore” comes to mind, which was uttered at a Bernie rally in New York City.

      You suggest there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans. Excuse me, but that is hooey. Look no further than yesterday, when Obama’s Attorney General came out and aggressively went after North Carolina’s goofy bathroom law, on behalf of transgender folks, who deserve civil rights, too. Do you think a GOP administration would have done that? Huh? Of course not. There are a lot of issues like that—including environmental issues, for God’s sake—in which a stark difference is clear to all who haven’t been upset by some past attempts by Democratic candidates to appeal to centrist Americans. I guess it’s easy to forget that progressive Democrats had been shut out of the White House since 1968, unless you count Carter and Clinton as progressives. We only got Obama, who is left-center, because of the economic collapse. The fact is that the country essentially rejects ideologues of all kinds, right or left. All we can do is move the center our way as far as we can, as time goes by.

      You have a litany of complaints against Hillary’s record. I get it. I could, if I were inclined to do so, attack Sanders for some of his dumb votes and for his inability to get anything done in his long career. There are other, more personal issues out there I could explore. But I ain’t doing it. The only thing I have strongly gone after him for is his attacks on her character and his failure to realize he can’t win and that his resources would be better spent doing what we all want done: get rid of vulnerable Republican assholes in Congress so something progressive can get done. But he won’t do that right now. He is spending millions of dollars in a quixotic attempt to wrestle the nomination from her through the superdelegate process and, if that fails, to shape the platform in his ideological image. That’s a bit unseemly for the “integrity” candidate who spent the first several months badmouthing the superdelegate process, don’t you think?

      In any case, when Hillary does change her mind on an issue, making her more in line with the progressive line (as Bernie supporters define it, anyway), she gets accused of political posturing. She can’t win either way. If she stays with a position, she’s a sell out to donors. If she changes her mind, she’s conniving. Go figure.

      You mentioned NAFTA, like most Bernie supporters and Drumpf supporters do. But guess what? The case isn’t perfectly clear on NAFTA. It is something of a mixed bag. We’ve had that discussion on this blog, about trade deals in general. I wish it were as simple as my brothers and sisters in the AFL-CIO say it is. I really do. But it’s not. And it isn’t as simple as Bernie says. He told Catholics in Vatican City recently that he’s all for raising wages in poor countries. Except he’s also against the very trade deals, like the one Obama just negotiated, that would help do that. We can’t have it both ways, as moral progressives. We can’t say we’re for lifting all boats, if we mean only American boats. It is quite the moral dilemma, and not as simple as we progressives—I include myself—have made it out to be. Hillary’s and Obama’s positions are, whatever the deal is, we have to have support for affected workers. Do you think there is no difference between them and, say, Paul Ryan? What?

      One last thing before I get to your admission that you may help elect Drumpf. That is the “open primary” criticism that most Bernie supporters complain about. Personally, I think Democrats should pick the Democratic nominee. I’m funny that way. I don’t want non-union members coming to my branch meetings and picking our leaders. And I don’t want people who won’t commit to the my political party to come in an pick our candidates. It’s that simple for me. I’m a Democrat. That means something to me because it gives me an opportunity, a tiny opportunity, to help shape the party, as opposed to throwing rocks at it from the outside.

      Now, here it comes. You won’t like it. But at this point in this campaign, with all that has been said about Hillary by Bernie-ites, I’ve pretty much had it. You said that, right now, you couldn’t bring yourself to vote for Hillary because—I’m having trouble even quoting your ridiculous claim—that you “don’t see much difference between her and Donald [Drumpf]”. First of all, if you really think that, I have wasted my time writing to you. No one can be that blind, can they? Allah help us if there are a lot of people on the left who think the same thing. Second, exactly what would you like her to do to win you over? Wear her hair differently? Change her wardrobe? Start talking like she’s from Brooklyn? Because obviously there isn’t anything she could actually say to change your mind, which is totally made up about her integrity. So, isn’t it really a cop-out to say “as it stands right now”?Aren’t you just kidding yourself? If Drumpf wins this election, and you follow through with your “as it stands right now,” you will have contributed to his victory. Congratulations.

      Long live Nader!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  6. Anonymous

     /  May 10, 2016

    @unclerave,

    Like you, I supported Bernie until recently. Everything you mention, including Clinton’s foreign policy has been asked and answered here. The fact of the matter is Bernie has lost the primary and should support the party now. If he doesn’t, then some might do as you suggest and not support the Democratic ticket. You had just as well vote for Trump with that decision.
    The author of this blog has successfully changed my stubborn opinion, and you should read previous comments and responses to hopefully change yours. This article pretty much sums up where I am now.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-north-patterson/why-bernie-lost—and-wha_b_9813988.html

    Like

    Reply
    • unclerave

       /  May 12, 2016

      Thanks, Anonymous! But, I’ve had more than enough of *Why Bernie Can’t Win* stories. When something is as important as this I think it’s worth it to see it to the end. Or, at least until the fat lady sings! (I do appreciate your civility though.) — YUR

      Like

      Reply
  7. unclerave

     /  May 12, 2016

    R. Duane,

    I find it amusing that you can ask a multitude of rhetorical and insulting questions, in your emotional rants, all while avoiding my original question a few comments ago. You must have graduated top of your class from the Hillary School of Obfuscation and Double Talk.

    Secondly, never apologize for being who you are! When you’re a sanctimonious, disingenuous putz you might as well own it, because clearly you are not fooling anyone into thinking otherwise.

    My comments were factual and, up until now, absent of insult and innuendo. Completely unlike yours. You insist that Bernie, and his supporters, have gone after Hillary’s character, but if you were completely honest – at least with yourself – you would know that isn’t the real story. In the case of Bernie, I’d venture to say that the majority of his stinging barbs were more retaliatory in nature to the nonsense that Hillary has been allowed to get away with. You even repeated one of her earliest *quips* when you stated “And she didn’t just become one day before yesterday” in regards to his being a Democrat. That is just so childish and misleading. It’s the people like you, in the Hillary camp, who are far more like Trump and his supporters, when it comes to dealing with the competition.

    Bringing up someone’s record on multiple important issues, and how there have been seismic shifts on those issues, is not innuendo. It’s factual. You can spin those shifts any way you like, but you are only mollifying your staunch and devoted base. The rest of us see it for the tap dance that it is. The obscene speaking fees, the large corporate donations, and the history of favoring Wall St and big corporations, are also factual. You may not like the constant reminder, but very often the truth hurts. Just put on your big boy pants and own it . . . like your being a sanctimonious disingenuous putz.

    Bernie supporters have had it with being dismissed and belittled, form Day 1, by the Hillary camp and her loyal corporate media minions. From before the primaries began the media has positively insisted that she was the presumptive Democratic nominee. There was no contest in their minds, and they have always been trying to convince the American public of this. Every Bernie victory has been minimized, or *explained* away, while any Hillary win is trumpeted like a Caesarean triumph. It’s comical. We know it’s all a ploy. It has been, from Day 1. Hillary, and her faithful, are putting up a faux superiority and coolness, while crapping their pants over the fact that the Bernie movement is not going away. The fear has been there from very early on, which is why they have enlisted trolls like you. You don’t care about honest debate. Your job is to insult and demean, and to try to scare off those who express opinions that differ from yours. You’ve seen the crowds that Bernie draws. You’ve seen the polls that show that people prefer Bernie over Hillary and Trump. You know we are not going away, and this scares the crap out of you. Oh, No! It’s 2008 all over again.

    Keep going with your “mathematical impossibility” mantra, and your “contributing to Trump’s victory” nonsense. And, you might as well forget about answering my question. It’s all part of your modus operandi anyway. Just keep telling yourself that we’re the ones that need to see the light. Just ask yourself: Were the results of 2008, and then 2012, really that bad for you? But also, wouldn’t this country be better off by returning to the more traditional Democratic values that the so-called “centrists” have abandoned? Does now HAVE TO be the time for the first woman President? Why not the first Jewish President? Should we infer that the Hillary campaign is actually some kind of anti-Semitic plot??? And lastly, do you have some problem with Brooklyn???

    — YUR

    Like

    Reply
    • A putz? You called me a putz? Wow. Was simply calling me a dick beneath your dignity? Huh?

      If you are auditioning for a job in the Drumpf campaign, since they need a slightly more, and I really mean “slightly” in your case, sophisticated insult-generator for Drumpf’s Twitter feed, I think you are qualified. Good luck with the interview. Don’t forget to tell them you could not “bring yourself to vote for Hillary.”

      In any case, I can take someone calling me a dick, even if they can’t quite bring themselves to say it straight. But, dammit, saying I am “sanctimonious” and “disingenuous” goes too far. For one, I am not sanctimonious, even though I think I am morally superior to you and everyone else in the world. Second, I am not disingenuous. I honestly believe in my dishonesty. So, there.

      But to the facts. The fact is that Bernie has gone after Hillary’s character. I have proven that repeatedly. The fact is, too, that Bernie has been a life-long independent and has been a fierce critic of the Democratic Party (and still is, really). The fact is that if there are too many “third party” people out there like you, Drumpf will be the president. If pointing those facts out to you upsets you, then I’m sorry your sensibility calibrations are tilted toward “the truth hurts.”

      Additionally, as I have said all along, from the start, that it is perfectly fine for Bernie to attack Hillary on her voting record, her policy prescriptions, and so on. I don’t know how many times I have repeated that. But you don’t bleeping listen. You can’t seem to grasp the difference between those things and attacking her as, essentially, a political whore. Oh, I know Bernie has never used that word (even though a speaker at his New York rally did use that word in connection with her), but it is sort of like calling someone a putz instead of a dick—you want to get the point across without being so pointed. He has suggested, without any proof whatsoever, that she takes money in exchange for influence. If you don’t think that is an attack on her character, then you don’t have the slightest idea what a character attack is.

      Moving on, you said about me:

      You don’t care about honest debate. Your job is to insult and demean, and to try to scare off those who express opinions that differ from yours.

      Anyone who has bothered to follow the comment section of this blog for the last seven years knows that is completely false, so I don’t worry about your ignorance on that account. You can’t help it if you just dropped in recently and don’t know my history. But what bothers me about your “honest debate” charge is that you really think it is honest to pretend that Bernie Sanders has a “mathematical” chance to win. I’m not going to allow anyone to make such a ridiculous case, without challenging them. That would really be disingenuous. So, yes, on that front, you do need to “see the light.” Hell, even Bernie is admitting, finally, the math doesn’t work in his favor, which isn’t the whole truth but at least an improvement over where he’s been for months.

      Finally, two things. You wrote, “Should we infer that the Hillary campaign is actually some kind of anti-Semitic plot???” Yes, of course we should infer that! It’s obvious, isn’t it? Because she has gone around highlighting Bernie’s Jewishness, right? Jesus, are you for real? Where the hell did that nonsense come from? You also ended by asking if I had a problem with Brooklyn. Jesus, again. I was pointing out how impossible it is for her to win people like you over. Here is what I said:

      …what would you like her to do to win you over? Wear her hair differently? Change her wardrobe? Start talking like she’s from Brooklyn? Because obviously there isn’t anything she could actually say to change your mind, which is totally made up about her integrity. So, isn’t it really a cop-out to say “as it stands right now”? Aren’t you just kidding yourself? If Drumpf wins this election, and you follow through with your “as it stands right now,” you will have contributed to his victory. Congratulations.

      You see? That is sarcasm. It is meant to illustrate that from what you have said, to date, there is nothing she can do to win your vote. Nothing, that is, short of remaking herself into someone else, someone who looks and sounds very much like Bernie. We both know, or should know, that ain’t gonna happen. She is who she is, warts and all.

      If you, and those other Bernie supporters out there who just can’t stand the people’s choice on the Democratic side, want to sit out this election or vote for some loser in a third party, be my guest. While all of us may suffer from your decision to do so, you have to personally look at your mug every day and answer for it. You have to tell your kids or grandkids, if you have either, why you did such a Naderish thing. You may have to tell them, when Drumpf gets us into another economic mess here at home, or God forbid, an even bigger mess than Bush’s Iraq war started overseas, why your hatred for Hillary Clinton trumped your reason and common sense. That’s on you, my man, not on me.

      Duane

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  8. unclerave

     /  May 16, 2016

    You’re a laugh riot, R. Duane! And, I’m sure under different circumstances I would both like you, AND agree with you. This IS your blog, so I won’t be taking up any more of your time. I’ll just end by saying: I no longer subscribe to the two-party paradigm, so if we DO go for a third party run, YOUR failure to vote for Sanders could be just as responsible for a Trump victory as my/our not voting for Clinton. This isn’t Nader, son. It’s more like Perot . . . on steroids. When things get to be neck and neck, with Trump and Sanders, I hope you’ll have the sense to disembark the entitled one’s sinking royal barge, and climb aboard the Bernie people’s public transport! I’ll save you a seat! — YUR

    PS. Maybe, you could explain that sarcasm thing to me some day. LOL!!!

    Like

    Reply
    • It is good to end on a somewhat(!) positive note. You are probably right that under different circumstances, we would at least not be at each other’s rhetorical throats and maybe even like each other. 

      As for the sinking barge and saving me a seat on—what’d you call it, oh, yeah—”Bernie people’s public transport,” which will, you allege, run “neck and neck” with Drumpf, I await the construction of the infrastructure that would support such a powerful vehicle. But I want you to come back here, if and when that infrastructure doesn’t materialize, and get on “the entitled one’s” barge, sinking or not. I want you to be able to live with yourself, should Drumpf haunt us both for four years.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  9. King Beauregard

     /  May 17, 2016

    So, Nevada. Whether or not you think that Bernie got delegates stolen from him, his supporters turned violent, and even took to issuing death threats and publishing private contact info of Democrats they were displeased with.

    So, at what point will Bernie man up and tell his followers to knock off the crap?

    IS there a point at which Bernie would ever show that modicum of leadership and tell his supporters that they’re out of control and it won’t stand?

    Myself, I’ve felt his leadership was tested and found wanting ever since Netroots Nation. But even that could be excused as early days when he was still trying to figure out how much control to exert. Well after Nevada, Bernie needs to say something … thus far he has not.

    Figuratively speaking, he’s still sitting there reading “My Pet Goat”.

    Like

    Reply
    • I heard his campaign manager talk about that this morning. He mildly disavowed it, even as he said there were problems with the Nevada Democratic Party. That’s the first time I’ve even heard anyone ask a Bernie honcho about it. And Bernie hasn’t said anything about it, as far as I know.

      As for the Nevada mess, I read a great account of it, albeit from the party’s point of view. But it makes sense to me and seems like a more reasonable explanation of what went on than the conspiratorial stuff the Bernie people have advanced. But, oh well.

      Speaking of Bernie’s campaign manager, he was fairly subdued this morning when he was interviewed. At one point he even slipped up and sort of indirectly acknowledged that Hillary will be the nominee. He quickly recovered, but it was telling. I’ve never heard him do that before. He also went after Drumpf more forcefully. I may be overly optimistic, but I take that as a good sign this thing is winding down a little bit.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: