RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Ash writes: "We do not have an 'anti-Clinton bias.' We have a commitment to social justice, and progress. It's not about a favorite candidate, it's about a better world."

A woman hugs a doctor after her dental treatment at the Care Harbor/LA free clinic in Los Angeles. (photo: AP)
A woman hugs a doctor after her dental treatment at the Care Harbor/LA free clinic in Los Angeles. (photo: AP)


Our "Anti-Clinton" Bias (Explained)

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

11 April 16

 

’m not giving you a dime until you treat Hillary Clinton fairly, and admit what a phony Bernie Sanders is!”

We get at least five of those every day now. So why don’t we shift our editorial position?

I wrote an editorial in February titled, Dear Hillary, Do You Really Believe You Are “a Progressive?” The point of the piece was that not only were her positions clearly not progressive, in fact they were anathema to Progressives. Moreover, despite all evidence to the contrary, she seemed to actually believe in her own mind that she truly was a Progressive. The delusion being as significant as the actual positions themselves.

We at RSN are Progressives. Defining progressive politics begins with an understanding of a profound desire to achieve social progress. Not to be confused in any way with business as usual. The second component of the Progressive mindset is an impatience bordering on outrage with the totally unnecessary level of injustice that oppresses America and those its overlords view as their subjects.

Further, it should be noted that Progressives tend to be “high-information voters.” Progressives are by and large well educated, well read, and for the most part significantly more politically astute then the general electorate. That matters in the choice between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Here’s a list of issues Clinton supporters do not even address as they are threatening to cut off their donations:

  • Global Empire: Yes the U.S. and its corporate overlords have one. What the corporate overlords want is a representative in the Oval Office who will be willing to use the U.S. military to enforce the objectives of the empire. The Clintons, Hillary specifically in this case, are seen as far more compliant with that agenda than Bernie Sanders.

  • TTP: It is impossible to imagine that the average Clinton supporter is in any way comfortable with Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) or the manner in which it was negotiated in secret. Hillary Clinton was for it, before she was against it. But she’s leaving herself plenty of room to do whatever she feels like, should she become president, including accepting the agreement as ‘the work of the last administration that we’ll do the best we can with.’ Progressives are not at all okay with that.

  • Single Payer Healthcare: Nothing is more central to the Progressive domestic agenda than establishing a viable Single Payer healthcare system in the U.S. equivalent to what the rest of the Western World enjoys. Bernie Sanders is prepared to fight for it. Hillary Clinton has abandoned it entirely. It’s a flat-out no-brainer for Progressives.

  • Reclaiming America from Wall Street: Bernie Sanders wants to confront corruption and illegality by America’s financial elite head-on. Hillary Clinton is accepting huge sums of campaign financing from them. Again, there is no grey area here. For a Progressive, that will not cut it.

The list goes on and on, but if you care about progressive issues and meaningful social progress there is no comparison between the two candidates.

We do not have an “anti-Clinton bias.” We have a commitment to social justice, and progress. It’s not about a favorite candidate, it’s about a better world.

Is that what you believe?


Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.

The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.

To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.

We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+190 # donaldmead 2016-04-11 08:43
Bravo! This is why I contribute. Not a lot. But all I can afford.
 
 
+137 # mebemo 2016-04-11 08:56
Ditto.

May I add that in my view Progressives are motivated more by hope than fear. A lot of Hillary's older supporters seem worried that a Bernie nomination will reprise the 1972 defeat of "extremist" McGovern.

As Mark Twain observed, a cat that has once sat on a hot stove will never do it again, but it won't sit on a cold one either. Be not afraid!
 
 
+65 # NAVYVET 2016-04-11 10:06
Me too! Love ya, Marc!

TO OTHER READERS--PLEASE HELP SUPPORT RSN! I know it's hard to do when Bernie also calls for our $$, but if people like me--with no working pension, a $124.88 monthly annuity, Social Security and my son's gifts when he and his family can afford it--can donate RSN a small amount monthly plus $5 or even (rarely) $10 in serious emergencies, WHY CAN'T YOU? Think about it. RSN has to pay royalties and actual wages to the journalists hired directly.
 
 
-61 # rocback 2016-04-11 11:46
There is no denying that Nader cost Gore the election. It cost him Fla and at least two other very close states. I like Nader better than Gore but I don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
 
 
+84 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 12:00
Nader didn't run in the Democratic Primary.

Stop trying to equate Sanders to Nader.

It's dishonest.
 
 
-55 # rocback 2016-04-11 12:23
There it is...a Bernie supporter flat out misrepresenting what I said. No where in my comment above did I say Nader ran in the Democratic Primary, did I?

What I said was that Nader cost Gore the election and he did. I also said don't let the prefect be ethe enemy of the good. Why do you people feel the need to lie?
 
 
+53 # warrior woman 2016-04-11 12:51
No, but Bernie isn't a third candidate either. This is a run to be nominated to run for office, it's not the election.
 
 
+48 # CTPatriot 2016-04-11 13:06
Why do people feel the need to bring up a losing candidate who is reviled among Democratic Party loyalists for having "cost Gore the election" in relation to Bernie Sanders? Other than to smear Bernie's supporters for backing a candidate you expect to cost the Democrats the election because we wanted the "perfect over the good", I see no other purpose here.

It's an apples to steak argument. And it's dishonest.

Aside from the fact that Gore, the Democratic Party and the Supreme Court lost the 2000 election all on their own, it never ceases to amaze me how the 200,000 Democrats in FL who voted for Bush are ignored in order to bash Nader for daring to take any Gore votes at all. It's an old, stale argument whose purpose is to deflect the real blame, which belongs on Gore for running an awful campaign and for choosing a Republican piece of trash, Joe LIEberman, as his running mate.
 
 
-51 # rocback 2016-04-11 13:26
Look, I just watched Sanders speech in N Y on MSNBC a few minutes ago and half of his speech was attacking Hillary. These snippets will make great commercials for whichever GOP candidate is nominated.

You can tout yourself as a candidate and Bernie has a lot of good qualities to tout. But instead he gets in the gutter for his own personal political gain.
 
 
+45 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 13:52
And the Clinton snippets will be used by Republicans against Republicans.

And the Trump snippets against Cruz will be used by Democrats.

And the Cruz snippets against Trump will be used by Democrats.

Your point?

------------

If Sanders is in the gutter, that's where Clinton's own words and record can be found. He can't be honest about her without pissing you off. Like it or not, Clinton is not going to be coronated without a fight.
 
 
-14 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 14:55
Exactly which Hillary snippets will the repugs use against Bernie?
 
 
+27 # dbrize 2016-04-11 15:37
Quoting bmiluski:
Exactly which Hillary snippets will the repugs use against Bernie?


A question you would have to ask "...the repugs..." bmiluski.

Here are a few questions that YOU could answer however. In the interest of furthering our understanding of your positions:

Do you support the foreign policy known as "regime change?

Do you believe we are in a Global War on Terror that requires the "temporary" suspension of certain constitutional protections?

Do you believe that Dodd-Frank is sufficient to protect consumers and investors from global banking predatory activity?

Do you believe that the CIA/MIC is under civilian control?

Do you believe that "trade agreements" containing thousands of pages of regulatory jargon are representative of "free markets" at work?

These are simple yes or no, without any "traps" being set. Of course you may wish to expand any or all of your answers as you choose.

In the interest of fair play I would be happy to answer any such set of questions you may wish to put to me.

You have been accused by some of evading direct discussion of specific issues, I hope we can put that to rest with a serious discussion of serious issues.
 
 
+25 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 17:30
Were you asleep for the past few weeks of her accusations that Sanders doesn't know what he's doing? Were you too busy commenting here to actually read, listen to, or watch any actual news coverage? Do you need more examples than that? What number of examples do you need before I hit a critical mass that sparks you into critical thinking?
 
 
-18 # rocback 2016-04-12 09:19
My point is Hillary is inevitably the nominee. She is at 1750 with just 500 more to go and we are only half way thru the primary. She is double digits ahead in the remaining 3 largest states, NY, Calif and Penn.

If you want the next 4 Supreme Court nominees to be made by a Republican, keep the Hillary bashing up.

That my friend is "my point".
 
 
+15 # cymricmorty 2016-04-12 09:37
If HRC is "inevitably the nominee," why does she bother to dissemble her way, propped up by the media and DNC, through the primary to fight Bernie Sanders? The "inevitability" is what disgusts. I won't vote for the "chosen one."
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-04-15 01:02
I do. I am turning hard core fascist instead of just disguise fascist. Since Obama is naming Garland who is a fascist who supports Citizen's United he is a green light. And Hillary has been trying to bomb Iran for 12 years now and should finally get her shot to derail the nuclear deal and put us back at defcon four.

My point is I would rather take a bullet to the head than vote for a traitor who wants to start wars for foreign powers and multi-national corporations against American interest. A fascist racist corporate elitist named Hillary Rodham Clinton who would name another dumbass like Garland to Supreme Court and never a Ruth Bader Ginsberg in a million years time.
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-04-15 00:56
Hillary and her supporters started the attacks and the swiftboating. So Bernie is just supposed to do nothing about it when his attackers are some of the most corrupt of our times? MSNBC were the ones trying to corner Bernie on his position on Israel. Bernie is Jewish yet Hillary has Shledon Adelson and AIPAC's support. What more does one really need to know. Hillary is GOP. The status quo prefers Hillary or either GOP crony.
 
 
+18 # dusty 2016-04-11 13:19
"What I said was that Nader cost Gore the election and he did."

Gore lost the election because he is and was a coward. When people were ready nationally to go out into the streets and create chaos so the Supreme Court, controlled by Bushites,could not ignore the voters and the votes in Florida Gore surrendered to the right and just gave up. Gore set us up for everything since then including Citizens United and the gutting of our elections.
 
 
-34 # rocback 2016-04-11 13:29
And just what would YOU have done after the U S Supreme St ruled against him and stopped the vote. I agree the decision was the worst form of judicial activism but we are a nation of laws, not men.

Gore lost because Nader cost him Fla and two other states despite the fact that Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 votes. What is it about that you dont get?
 
 
+26 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 13:54
And your inclusion of Nader in this discussion is totally irrelevant. You may as well be talking about baseball scores.

This is the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.

If you want "party unity" before the primary is over - support Sanders or get out of the way.

Stop lecturing us to get out of Clinton's way, if you don't want it thrown right back in your face.
 
 
-30 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 14:57
I'm telling you rocback, it's no use getting into a discussion with these people. It's like trying to reason with a repug-wing-nut.
 
 
+21 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 17:31
Obviously it's no use. That's why you've never even tried to discuss any of this with us.

When you're up to discussing Clinton's record honestly, let us know.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-04-14 09:55
You are as bad as the media, who focus 99.9% of their powerful glare on the horse race and the polls. You, in your turn, take any article and turn it into a Ralph Nader comment.

THINK ABOUT THE WORLD YOU WANT TO LIVE IN.

Hillary is not even going to try and get any progressive ideas through. Bernie WILL try, and he'll be supported by the progressives who have just sent a shot across the bow of New Democrats (aka Republican-lite).

This is not their party. This nomination is not a coronation.

Talk about the issues. Where are HRC's ideas better than Senator Sanders?
 
 
+14 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 13:53
Gore was not a coward. What was he supposed to do after the Supreme Court decided? Once the Supreme Court decided, it was over.
 
 
+14 # suziemama 2016-04-11 20:19
Congress must certify the election results. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney put forward a motion to call the election results into question. She just needed one senator to sign on, and the election results would have been re-evaluated. Gore specifically told all the Democratic senators NOT to question the results.

Furthermore, if Gore had bothered to win his home state, or Bill Clinton's home state, he would have won, regardless of Florida. A presidential candidate who can't win his home state is a weak candidate indeed.

The Democrats never stood up to all the voters who were disenfranchised in Florida and Ohio with the all the election shenanigans.

There were 7 political parties that received over 800 some odd votes that the Bush supposedly won Florida by. Why don't we ever hear trash talk about those parties?

No, Gore and the Democrats have only themselves to blame for Bush getting into office.
 
 
-13 # rocback 2016-04-12 12:40
I see that as a statesmanship move by Gore. He did it because he would only delegitimize the U S president. He was thinking of the country instead of himself...more than I can say about Bernie.
 
 
+4 # nice2bgreat 2016-04-12 13:57
.
It seems that anything reasonable is more than you can say.
.
 
 
-6 # ericlipps 2016-04-12 04:59
Quoting dusty:
"What I said was that Nader cost Gore the election and he did."

Gore lost the election because he is and was a coward. When people were ready nationally to go out into the streets and create chaos so the Supreme Court, controlled by Bushites,could not ignore the voters and the votes in Florida Gore surrendered to the right and just gave up. Gore set us up for everything since then including Citizens United and the gutting of our elections.

If people had "gone out in the streets and [created] chaos" for Gore, the Republicans would have been thrilled. The Court would have decided just as it did and Gore would have been accused of trying to steal the election by intimidation.
 
 
+30 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 13:49
YOU'RE the one misrepresenting Sanders. By comparing him to Nader, you're basing an entire argument on a lie.

Sanders is NOT a 3rd party candidate.

PERIOD.

END OF DISCUSSION.

------------

Therefore, any comparison to Nader is bullshit.

PERIOD.

END OF DISCUSSION.
 
 
-32 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 14:52
Forget it rocback...Billy Bob will use anything to get into an argument. And If you try to reason with him, he and his buddies will only pound you with red thumbs and twist your words, as he did in his post to you.
In fact, I'll probably get pounded just for taking your side.
 
 
+24 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 17:33
I would love some reason. Please show me some examples of critical reasoning.

Discuss TPP.

Discuss Keystone.

Discuss NAFTA.

Discuss "too big to fail".

Discuss Libya.

Discuss "Welfare reform" of the '90s.

Discuss fracking.

I'm ready for a big "DISCUSSION".

Are YOU ready for it?
 
 
+10 # nice2bgreat 2016-04-12 00:07
.
Crickets, crickets.
.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2016-04-12 11:01
As always, the trolls just slink back under their bridge.
 
 
# Guest 2016-04-11 22:27
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+12 # lfeuille 2016-04-11 22:32
You implied an equivalency between Bernie and Nader. In the context of the article, there would be no other reason to even mention Nader. There is none because Bernie is not running as a third party candidate as Nader did. Aside from all the issues listed in the article, this is the kind of dishonesty we hate in Hillary.
 
 
-13 # rocback 2016-04-12 09:25
The only "implication" was that this Hillary bashing by Bernie will be used against her in the general election. His Hillary bashing will be used to make commercials against her. He is putting his own personal political benefit ahaead of the country.

Hillary has 1750 delagates with only 500 more to go and we are barely thru half the primary. She is ahead by double digits in the 3 largest remaining states.

The only question at this point is: Which party do you want nominating the next 4 justices of the Supreme court?
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2016-04-12 11:02
Yep. That's a primary.

The implication that Clinton has already won is driving even more people away from her.

Her attitude and yours are going to be the biggest hurdle in November.
 
 
# Guest 2016-04-12 12:43
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-04-12 18:11
If you and Hillary care about the country instead of yourself, she would have conceded by now.
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-04-15 01:11
Even trump has a greater chance of putting in a judge that will overturn Citizen's United than Hillary. Even Trump. Few are arguing this point. That is how corrupt your candidate is.
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-04-15 01:13
Any Superdelegate that votes Hillary and goes against the popular vote must be ousted from the party for life like they did to Kucinich. Everyone agree?
 
 
+26 # Charles3000 2016-04-11 12:51
Not true. Gore won Florida. They were blocked from counting the ballots first by Jeb! then by the SCOTUS. The Nader line is the spin/lie to give cover to the conspiracy that stole the election from Gore.
 
 
-23 # rocback 2016-04-11 13:36
I agree with you but only because the vote was so close because of the Nader votes which allowed that. Besides, Nader cost Gore both the Florida and the New Hamshire electoral votes. Either one of which would have given him the election. Fast forward and but for the "purists" that voted for Nader, we would not have invaded Iraq and maybe even prevented 9/11.
 
 
+22 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 13:55
You win. You've distracted the entire conversation.

GOOD WORK - TROLL.

This IS NOT ABOUT NADER.
 
 
-22 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 14:59
You see what I mean, rocback. According to Billy Bob "END OF DISCUSSION".
 
 
+13 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 17:34
Please, feel free to troll the hell out of this discussion until Sanders and his supporters magically disappear.

If you want to perpetuate it, tell me, exactly how is Nader pertinent to a discussion of the Democratic Primary?

You know what?

I think CLINTON is playing the part of Nader.

In what way am I wrong?
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-04-15 01:15
Have you ever been part of the discussion? Seems like you have taken on the kibitzer role instead.
 
 
+5 # StuBones1960 2016-04-11 17:35
If this is not about Nader, why did you bring him up?
 
 
+5 # nice2bgreat 2016-04-12 00:12
.
Quoting StuBones1960:
If this is not about Nader, why did you bring him up?

For the same reason that they argue that Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat without explaining his unDemocratic-Pa rty positions -- aside from (one-sided) nitpicking.

These partisans have their talking points, and diligently go about parroting or playing the role of partisan strategist, even if it involves sophistry, deceit, and slime.
.
 
 
-2 # pros54 2016-04-11 19:29
This thread was about Clinton not being a progressive and she is not. It is not about Nader or Gore.

"Fast forward and but for the "purists" that voted for Nader, we would not have invaded Iraq and maybe even prevented 9/11."

Those purists also forced Hillary Clinton to vote to invade Iraq. I now see the connection.
 
 
+1 # nice2bgreat 2016-04-12 13:59
Quoting pros54:
Those purists also forced Hillary Clinton to vote to invade Iraq. I now see the connection.

Those purists also forced Hillary Clinton to vote to invade Iraq? I now see the connection.

You are missing a question mark?

Assuming so, this is sarcasm, folks.

And well said.
.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-04-14 09:58
As soon as I see the word "Nader" in your posts, I give it a thumbs-down and move on.

Talk about the candidates' policies. Please tell me why you want things to stay the way they are now.
 
 
0 # lfeuille 2016-04-11 22:41
As I recall, Gore sued for a recount of just a few counties. If he had asked for a total recount it would have been granted and would have undercut the SCOYUS rational for their decision. More bad strategy than cowardice. Not the court would have concocted another rational anyway. The obviously didn't care about precedent. They started with the result had forced a justification for it.
 
 
0 # ktony 2016-04-12 23:47
Sorry. I meant to agree with you, lfeuille, but my aim slipped. Your memory is correct. Stopping a full recount would have been much harder to rationalize.
Quoting lfeuille:
As I recall, Gore sued for a recount of just a few counties. If he had asked for a total recount it would have been granted and would have undercut the SCOYUS rational for their decision. More bad strategy than cowardice. Not the court would have concocted another rational anyway. The obviously didn't care about precedent. They started with the result had forced a justification for it.
 
 
+12 # newell 2016-04-11 13:08
"There is no denying" stops at 2+2=4. Gore could have lost the election, the supreme court could have lost it. And sometimes people get to vote for who they really want to be president and are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. And glad to hear you think Bernie will be the nominee--but he would be running on one of the two major parties--not as a spoiler.
 
 
+19 # grandlakeguy 2016-04-11 13:33
rocback says: "There is no denying that Nader cost Gore the election"
Somehow you are forgetting the appalling election tampering that the criminal Republicans in Florida were promoting under the orders of the Governor of that state who somehow had a personal interest in the outcome (I think his name was Jeb Bush...any relation there?) and his putrid Secretary of State that carried out his orders to rig that election.
Who can forget:

Police roadblocks in African American neighborhoods that prevented voters from reaching polling places.

Massive purges of registered Democratic voters from the voting rolls as so called "felons".

Confusing "butterfly ballots" in Palm Beach County.

The "Brooks Bros." riot of congressional staffers flown in from DC to stop the counting of votes.

And the ultimate betrayal of our democracy by the treasonous gang of five on the "supreme court".

Yes the Republican party has so much to be proud of.

As for Hillary Clinton she was a Goldwater Girl in her youth and has never strayed from the core principles of that party in her entire career since.
No matter what she calls herself!
 
 
-20 # rocback 2016-04-11 14:12
Agree with everything you say except the last part about Hillary.

But if Nader had not run, the election would not have been close enough to have allowed the GOP theft to have occurred.
 
 
+18 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 14:27
Why are we discussing Nader at all?

Sanders isn't a 3rd party candidate, so Nader is a distraction.
 
 
-21 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 15:07
I agree with you rocback regarding Hillary. She tried and then found out she didn't like it. Nothing wrong with that.
I flirted with communism until I realized what a pile of shit that was.
 
 
+6 # davehaze 2016-04-11 16:33
Rocback No even if Nader had not run and Gore had gotten let's say 10000 more votes, purely hypothetical number of course, brother Jeb would have manufactured 10000 plu 400 more votes.

And Billy Bob, when the discussion is about Democrats running for office it is always about Nader. The Democratic party needs scapegoats to cover for its deficienies.

The current scapegoat is Bernie Sanders.
 
 
+13 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 17:35
The Democratic Party includes Sanders, and ME.

We can't let the right-wing DINOs dictate to us and hijack our party.
 
 
-8 # rocback 2016-04-12 12:47
Bernie just announced he would be a Democrat in Nov 2015 less than a year ago when it suited his political purposes.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2016-04-12 18:13
Hillary just announced she was for fracking before she was against it before she was for it before she was against it.

Whatever suits her political purposes is exactly right.

The irony here is that, Democrats like you are pretty close to making me no longer a Democrat (even though I've been one my whole adult life).

I guess you'd rather deal with 3rd party challenges, right?

Maybe I'll vote for Jill Stein. Perhaps we can siphon about 10% off of Corporate sHillary's vote total in the general election.

Nothing would please you more.
 
 
+1 # fletch1165 2016-04-15 01:22
Hillary is still for fracking, strip mining for coal and deep sea drilling. Its only the tar sands she flipped on. Meanwhile they are shipping vtarsands via train to Texas to circumvent the process. the corporations have paid to ensure she is elected. Then she will be pro-pipeline and TPP to finish the work.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2016-04-12 18:20
So, apparently, the Democratic Party is trying to exclude people from joining now? Is that the party you want? Do you think it should be an exclusive club?

Perhaps a major 3rd party run isn't such a bad idea after all - since "Democrats" like you and Hitlery don't want any new ideas!
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-04-11 22:45
What does this have to due with the article? It is completely nonresponsive. It is more Hillary troll deflection to avoid the issues raised in the article.
 
 
-18 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 15:03
Grandlakeguy... ..if Hillary had stayed a Goldwater Girl she would not have fought so hard for Universal Health Care when she was the First Lady.
I'm sure we have all changed our views on certain things at least once or twice in our lives.
 
 
+21 # Ken Halt 2016-04-11 15:34
bmil: When Hillary was first lady, the plan she sponsored was not universal healthcare as it is generally understood, i.e., single payer gov't funded care for all citizens. Her plan was a variant of the Heritage Foundation plan, as are Romneycare and the ACA. Should be noted that the Heritage plan was designed as an effort to help insurance companies make higher profits.
 
 
+1 # fletch1165 2016-04-15 01:24
What universal health care?
 
 
+13 # NAVYVET 2016-04-11 14:01
There's no relevance between Nader and Sanders, and in any case Gore lost because of a lackluster campaign, "loyal ol' Kate" and the other Florida GOP politicians who stole votes, and their SCOTUS allies, Scalia and Thomas, both of whom should have recused themselves. I tried for 2 years to get Scalia and Thomas impeached.
 
 
+6 # RLF 2016-04-12 05:24
You propose that Shillary is good. She is worth 10s if not 100s of millions of dollars and acts like it...like a Republican...no t good...not honest...not progressive.
 
 
+56 # NAVYVET 2016-04-11 10:18
I've written many times in answer to people thinking the McGovern flop had something to do with "extreme left goals" which he never had.

I did like his views on the Vietnam War and started out as one of his volunteers--but quit when he abandoned his running mate, Tom Eagleton, to the anti-mental health bigots just because Eagleton was smart enough to go for medical help for depression! SHEESH!! McGovern couldn't even get a new running mate until finally a Kennedy inlaw with no credentials accepted. McGovern made a laughingstock out of himself and the Democrats. It had NOTHING to do with his policies, which had been popular until he showed his wimpiness. Does anyone else remember this? Or, at 80, have I become the RSN Elder?

Yes, I voted for McGovern. Would you have voted for Tricky Dicky? He ended up (along with his VP, Spiraling Agony) in all sorts of legal hot water, which in Dicky's case could be called "Hot Watergate." Agnew was just an old fashioned machine politician criminal. Both had to resign.
 
 
+25 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 11:22
Yes. Clinton voters would have voted for Tricky Dicky. Slick Willie is not a whole lot different. Corporate sHillary certainly seems to have the same anger towards "enemies", and the same paranoia as Tricky Dicky.

Either way, Nixon's actual views sound a lot like "the New Democrats". Many of these "New" Democrats aren't Democrats at all. They're just "moderate" Republicans with brand issues. They don't like the extremes of the Republican Party, so they've opted to hijack the Democratic Party.

The REAL irony is when they go so far as to question whether Sanders "is a 'real' Democrat". Well, if he isn't, then neither am I. If he isn't, then the Democratic Party has been stolen from us.
 
 
-36 # rocback 2016-04-11 12:25
Billy Bob, you should listen to your own candidate. He admits he is not a Democrat. He never ran as one. Yet he expects to reap the benefits of the entire Democratic Party.
 
 
+34 # Charles3000 2016-04-11 12:53
Bernie is supported by people who do not like where the Democratic party has gone in the past 15 or 20 years.
 
 
+25 # CTPatriot 2016-04-11 13:10
When you consider policies, values and morality, Bernie is the ONLY real Democrat in the race regardless of what he chooses to label himself. The Democratic Party ceased being Democrats when it was hijacked by the Clintons and their DLC comrades.
 
 
+16 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 13:57
He represents ME.

Clinton Represents the far right.

I am a Democrat.

Sanders is a Democrat.

Clinton is NOT A DEMOCRAT.

You expect to tell people to just shut up and get out of the way, because they have the nerve to challenge you and your chosen one.

DEAL WITH IT.
 
 
-8 # ericlipps 2016-04-12 05:01
Quoting Billy Bob:
He represents ME.

Clinton Represents the far right.


You have no clue what the "far right" is. And those people hate both Sanders AND Clinton.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2016-04-12 11:05
You have no clue what a primary is, and until Clinton beat Sanders, she's going to have to keep dealing with reality.
 
 
0 # rxfxworld 2016-04-15 22:24
What exactly are those benefits? Send me a few skein and I'll knit you a very tiny sweater out of them.
 
 
+21 # CTPatriot 2016-04-11 13:09
Well said. My reply to that: Bernie is the ONLY real Democrat in this race.
 
 
+29 # Billsy 2016-04-11 12:17
Thank you for the reminder of this sad betrayal of Eagleton. I'm a monthly supporter of this site, proud to put my money where my mouth is. Anyone seeking pro Clinton bias may find it easily on mainstream media outside of Fox.
 
 
-14 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 15:18
It's not so much the pro-Bernie articles on this site. But the fact that if ANYONE dares to question ANYTHING about Bernie they are castigated by several people on this site.
I asked for advise as to where I could find a site that would give me information about the banking/financi al legislation that Bernie introduced. I was pounded by red thumbs and screamed at.
However, there are some rational people on this site with whom I can exchange information and ideas. And that is why I stay. Besides, I'd really miss Andy Borowitz if I left.
 
 
+11 # pros54 2016-04-11 19:38
"I asked for advise as to where I could find a site that would give me information about the banking/financi al legislation that Bernie introduced."

I did not know this site had the same purpose as Google, never heard of it?
 
 
+4 # Charles3000 2016-04-12 06:30
Listen to the interview with Bernie. He answered the question clearly and precisely. He said it would be best to use legislation to break up banks but, under existing law, it could be done by the Treasury without further legislation.
 
 
+2 # rxfxworld 2016-04-14 16:18
Right you are, bmulski, here are Bernie's legislative accomplishments .

http://bit.ly/1Gjb17U

You tell me what are Hillary's besides naming post offices.And of course, voting for the Iraq war.
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-04-15 01:27
Nixon was appealing his first time around. He proposed a minimum salary for every American. He came from poor beginnings. People thought he was telling the truth.
 
 
+3 # lorenbliss 2016-04-11 17:22
Posted in wrong position, hence moved below. My apology.
 
 
+72 # treerapper 2016-04-11 09:37
DITTO!!!

Hillary is what Hillary's been for decades - long before Bernie made it so glaringly apparent.

Thank goodness for RSN - connecting all the dots in print!!!
 
 
+31 # Barkingcarpet 2016-04-11 10:15
Depends on what you want. Qualified for peace and sane responses to issues and events, or qualified for more endless wars, propheteering, corporate bs, and destruction of the living commons as if money and landfills are what's important? Where ARE we. the people, with every waking dollar and drive n fly and consume along, we are choosing... Too few look in our own trash bins week after year.
 
 
+12 # NAVYVET 2016-04-11 12:59
Barkingcarpet: Your spell checker didn't catch "prophet", as in Isaiah, Micah, etc., where you meant "profit", as in billionaires.

The "Rapture" fundamentalists sometimes do sound like "propheteers", a little bit of both. (Or they would if the Bible supported the "Rapture" in even one single verse! That's a con game scam invented by a former spiritualist and a prison-released felonious lawyer not much more than a hundred years ago.)
 
 
+9 # Barkingcarpet 2016-04-11 13:26
I meant what I writ in electronica. Speel cheek and I go way back, and As for propheteers and profiteers or ecosystems and egosystems, or homonyms and grits or homophone and cinnamon, I writ with layers of words and meanings as I meanderant. Profiteers and propheteers, both are bad for the health, and similarly over self involved. Profits and prophets go together in blind ignorant destruction when we consider money to be wealth and security, while destroying the only real wealth or security, pure water, clean air, healthy soil, and diverse interconnected communities of life (including humans.) Our grubby propheteers of greedy $ are everything and ownership of the commons in humancentric ignorance, are leaving wastelands of destruction where life once lived, and we enjoy lovely paved monocultureless egosystems..... ?
Perhaps you have now more properly misunderstood me correctly my friend?
 
 
-42 # rocback 2016-04-11 11:42
There will not be a "better world" if the anti-Clinton diatribes produce a GOP President. Currently Hillary is at approx 1750 delegates, just a few hundred short of winning the nomination. She is ahead by double digits in both New York (11%) and Pensylvania (also 11%).

She is even further ahead in California. There is virtually no chance for Sanders who is a fine man. But you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Politics is the art of the possible. Remember when Nader cost Gore the election. Wake up people!
 
 
+9 # newell 2016-04-11 13:25
How do you know "There will not be a "better world'" you have a crystal ball? Maybe the U.S. needed a Hoover before they could envision the possibility of an FDR. You seem so dogmatic. That said, you are still welcome to join us --the political revolution (or whatever it is called)--Whoeve r is in the white House will need a political revolution to help make the country better--even if it is Trump or Ryan. Bernie will probably lead us as he is, like you say, a "fine man".
 
 
+13 # Patriot 2016-04-11 15:25
Sadly, the popular vote doesn't count for anything; just the number of delegates alloted.

Bernie Sanders is a mere 219 delegates behind Clinton, with more than 1700 still to be voted upon, many already- elected delegates yet to be allocated, and more than 200 superdelegates who have yet to indicate their preference.

It isn't over by a LONG shot!!
 
 
-5 # ericlipps 2016-04-12 05:10
Delegate results
2,383 needed for nomination · 1,941 still available
Clinton 1,756
Sanders 1,068
Pledged delegates 1,287

Before you object that the above figures prove that superdelegates are tilting the race, let me point out that they're there just the same, and Bernie Sanders knew that going in.

And by the way, Bernie does best in small, overwhelmingly white states. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California, all coming up, don't fit that description.
 
 
-6 # rocback 2016-04-12 09:31
You can add Hillary has got 2.4 million popular votes than Bernie.
 
 
+3 # newell 2016-04-13 15:54
And those votes are in states that the Democratic Nominee can win?
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2016-04-12 11:06
So, Clinton's lead among pledged delegates is shrinking.

That's a good thing.
 
 
+2 # fletch1165 2016-04-15 01:31
You think Hillary is winning California? Good luck with that. Jerry Brown just passed the $15/hr minimum wage. Hillary only wanted $12.
 
 
+2 # Charles3000 2016-04-12 06:40
I suggest you compare Trump's stated position on foreign policy vs HRCs. And Trump will make it known in the campaign and win, beating HRC!
 
 
-16 # LeeBlack 2016-04-11 14:49
I am still contributing to RSN, however I am slowly being turned off by the drumbeat of support for Bernie. Some of us Progressives support Hillary as an intelligent, calm, practical, internationally experienced candidate. We do have reasonable concerns that Bernie support may cost the Democrats the election.
 
 
+7 # pros54 2016-04-11 19:42
"Hillary as an intelligent, calm, practical, internationally experienced candidate."
Experienced in bad judgement and actions and incapable of learning.
 
 
+9 # Charles3000 2016-04-12 06:42
HRC's position on Wall Street, banks, health care and foreign policy are not acceptable to any progressive!
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-04-15 01:33
How are you a progressive? What values do you share with an actual progressive?
 
 
+18 # lorenbliss 2016-04-11 17:35
Randomly hanging this comment as near the top of the thread as I can post it to make the point Mr. Ash's editorial policy is that of the old-time, fiercely independent editors: report the truth and let the consequences be whatever they are.

It was their examples prompted me at age 14 (1954) to devote my life to journalism -- a decision I seldom regretted and from which I never long departed. Two years later (1956), I had my first newspaper job (stringer/copyb oy), and when I returned from military service (1962), it was to the full-time reporter's job I had earned by my part-time work during high school. My award-winning career then spanned the next half-century.

Point being, Mr. Ash's editorial values are precisely the values that drew me into newspaper and magazine work. But those values have become so rare in this nation today, encountering them is, intellectually speaking, akin to what a drowning sailor might feel upon finding a life preserver in a stormy sea.

Indeed RSN may be the last news outlet in the United States that consciously fulfills the now-legendary purpose of this nation's best journalism: "to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

Thank you, Marc Ash, for being.
 
 
-47 # Shades of gray matter 2016-04-11 08:58
Since RSN publishes pro HRC, and anti BS, Commentary, I see almost no problem. However, RSN would have more credibility if it would dispense with articles that have zero content, just a personal jab at HRC. After all, RSN includes N. Bernie really is a phenom; Clintons are too far to the dark side. And way too stuck in the early 1990s.
Some of us think that stopping the GOP fascist movement is more important than stopping Klytonites at this time. But things change hourly is this UNIQUE time in our nation's history.
 
 
+54 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 09:05
DEFINITION:

"Personal jab" = Attacks on Clinton's record of words and actions.
 
 
+21 # reiverpacific 2016-04-11 09:35
Quoting Shades of gray matter:
Since RSN publishes pro HRC, and anti BS, Commentary, I see almost no problem. However, RSN would have more credibility if it would dispense with articles that have zero content, just a personal jab at HRC. After all, RSN includes N. Bernie really is a phenom; Clintons are too far to the dark side. And way too stuck in the early 1990s.
Some of us think that stopping the GOP fascist movement is more important than stopping Klytonites at this time. But things change hourly is this UNIQUE time in our nation's history.

'Scuse me seeming a bit slow in the noggin but -"N"????
 
 
+7 # Wally Jasper 2016-04-11 11:11
Took me awhile to figure it out, but it's the N of RSN: Reader Supported News.
 
 
+21 # Henry 2016-04-11 11:03
Quoting Shades of gray matter:
Since RSN publishes pro HRC, and anti BS, Commentary, I see almost no problem. However, RSN would have more credibility if ...


Shades of gray matter would have more credibility perhaps if s/he weren't constantly criticizing RSN, yet inexplicably remaining here day after day after day.
 
 
-14 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 11:45
Shades remains on this cite for the same reason I do (I think). There are SOME really progressive thinkers on this site amongst the rabid lefties. And it's these posters that we like to read and comment on and sometimes even trade posts. We also like to set straight some very gross Hillary misrepresentations.
We understand that every time we post something pro-Hillary or if we defend her, we will suffer the vitriolic output of the intolerant.
 
 
+24 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 12:04
And our side realizes that you won't actually defend Clinton at all. In order to do that, you'd have to make arguments based on things like policy and her record - you know - SUBSTANCE.

It's great to have you continually posting here, because it shows that, essentially, you don't have an argument to make on her behalf. If you were required to make every post directly about her record, you'd all wither away and disappear.

So, as long as you can keep it about "vitriol" and "tone" and "intolerance", you can distract from the actual issues.

This is why you're always silent about things like her record as a warmonger, or in favor of TPP, or Keystone XL.

Better to just change the subject and accuse everyone of "sexism".
 
 
+14 # Nominae 2016-04-11 15:12
Quoting Billy Bob:
... So, as long as you can keep it about "vitriol" and "tone" and "intolerance", you can distract from the actual issues.

Better to just change the subject and accuse everyone of "sexism".


Well *done*, Billy Bob - *stunningly* well done !!

As Truman used to counsel the quasi committed - "If you can't take the heat - get out of the kitchen !"

Many Clinton apologists cannot afford to come within a light year of the woman's actual Public Record - you know ..... the kitchen.

So instead they hang out in the pantry like recalcitrant children with peashooters taking pot shots at the grownups in the kitchen, and shilling for their candidate on the basis of gender over actual accomplishment - or, in Hillary's case - gender *in spite of* Public Record.

Some women today would vote for Lucretia Borgia just because she was female. That is their inviolable choice - and more power to them.

I, however, draw the line at their transparent and ill-informed pretense in urging *others* to vote based upon gender, while hiding behind the pathetic and incompetent illusion that "accomplishment s", and not simply cellular possession of the XX Chromosome have a damned thing to do with their political pap.

And, Hillary cheers them on by pouring gasoline on the "faux feminist" flame.

Simply pathetic. If all the voter requires in a Candidate is a set of ovaries, said voter missed their chance at voting for Sarah Palin.
 
 
-18 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 15:21
Thank you Billy Bob....YOU just proved my point.
 
 
-16 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 15:23
Clinton has enjoyed high approval ratings for her job as Senator within New York, reaching an all-time high of 72 to 74 percent approving (including half of Republicans) over 23 to 24 percent disapproving in December 2006
In October 2007, Clinton signed her name to a request from her and 40 other Democratic tsyGUsenators to Mark P. Mays, head of Clear Channel Communications and affiliate broadcaster of The Rush Limbaugh Show, to repudiate comments made by Rush Limbaugh that referred to certain U.S. servicemen as "phony soldiers".[
In March 2007 she voted in favor of a war spending bill that required President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within a certain deadline; it passed almost completely along party lines[82] but was subsequently vetoed by President Bush.
 
 
+10 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 17:37
TPP?

KEYSTONE?

FRACKING?

You proved that you're incapable of discussing issues, because any such discussion always makes your side lose.

If you want to "make a point", start by answering my comments directly without the accusations, pouting, and diversion.
 
 
+12 # BluePill 2016-04-11 18:29
but she did answer your comment! She listed two of HRC major accomplishments:

1 - Writing a letter to Clear Channel to repudiate Lush Bimbos comments

2 - Voted in favor of a war spending bill

WOW!
 
 
+9 # pros54 2016-04-11 19:50
"2 - Voted in favor of a war spending bill"
The same war she shilled for.
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-04-15 01:43
See. Exactly. She had the approval of over half the Republicans. Why were they so satisfied with Hillary? To you its a plus since you are partisan and brainwashed evidently. Most rational people see this as a red flag to be approved by over 50% of a blatantly corrupt body. In March 2007 Hillary had already signed many war appropriations bills since the war had continued for 6 years by then. The 2008 elections were coming, and we have heard this same story before many times. She flips on the wind.
 
 
+19 # CTPatriot 2016-04-11 13:13
I have no tolerance for people who put party over country. Sorry.
 
 
+27 # Farafalla 2016-04-11 13:24
"rabid lefties". Spoken like a true Clintonite. Bill and Hillary hate the left and love corporate America. So fuck 'em.
 
 
+14 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 13:58
AMEN.
 
 
-19 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 15:22
Thank you Farafalla....YO U just proved my point.
 
 
+3 # ktony 2016-04-13 00:01
Quoting bmiluski:
Thank you Farafalla....YOU just proved my point.

More ad hominem attacks. You continue to prove the point that you cannot deal with the specifics of history, and the facts of Clinton's blood soaked career.
 
 
+3 # cymricmorty 2016-04-12 09:27
As an aside, I'm ditching the Dems after the mangled democratic clusterfck of the AZ primary and the horrible manipulations of the DNC and HRC's posse. I'll have to wait until after the election to switch to Independent because dollars to doughnuts my registration would get switched to repub or simply voided. I'm too rabid a leftie to settle for a sham party.
 
 
+1 # fletch1165 2016-04-15 01:48
Trump might destroy both parties somehow. Maybe we could bring the Whigs back. And the Green party. All public financing. Parliamentary system instead of winner take all.
 
 
+8 # reiverpacific 2016-04-11 14:53
Quoting bmiluski:
Shades remains on this cite for the same reason I do (I think). There are SOME really progressive thinkers on this site amongst the rabid lefties. And it's these posters that we like to read and comment on and sometimes even trade posts. We also like to set straight some very gross Hillary misrepresentations.
We understand that every time we post something pro-Hillary or if we defend her, we will suffer the vitriolic output of the intolerant.


"Really progressive thinkers" tends to connote "Lefties"; whether "rabid" or not is a rather trite phrase that could continue to be cherry-picked to death ad nauseum until the whole issue is lost in a cloud of obfuscation, thrust and parry.
This entire forum is representative of and for progressives as the author explains clearly in paragraphs 3 and 4.
 
 
+10 # Patriot 2016-04-11 15:31
bmiluski, It might be helpful if you would not label every opinion that differes from yours as coming from a Republican supporter. I've said something to you about that previously, when you slung that label at me, for disagreeing with you.

You and Shades both are welcome, as far as I'm concerned, but I've never been clear eactly WHERE either of you stands. And that's fine; my opinion of either of you is not what is at issue at this time; it is our opinions about candidates, parties, and issues that we should be discussing.

And we ought to be able to express--and read--differing opinions without anyone feeling moved to hurl labels. If we can't, then our democracy already is dead to us--and WE are the ones who've killed it.

Peace, everyone! Let us DISCUSS and, by all means, DISAGREE. But let us do so with interest in and consideration of each other's opinions, not with derision.
 
 
+10 # NAVYVET 2016-04-11 13:02
I hope Shades and Miluski help Marc Ash pay the bills!
 
 
+1 # newell 2016-04-11 13:27
after day, after day, after day...
 
 
+27 # Ken Halt 2016-04-11 11:11
shades: Will you please name the RSNews articles that you regard as having zero content, we might then be able to evaluate your criticism.
 
 
-22 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 11:40
Thank you Shades, I absolutely agree with you. Unfortunately, you are going to get bashed and now so will I.
 
 
+24 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 12:06
Not bashed. Challenged.
 
 
-17 # rocback 2016-04-11 13:41
Clinton has received TWO AND A HALF MILLION more popular votes than Bernie.
 
 
+15 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 14:00
And it isn't over.

Those votes were in the Deep Red Deep South.

Maybe she should be the president of the Confederacy.

Now, it's our turn to vote.

California hasn't spoken yet.

Has it?
 
 
+64 # RMDC 2016-04-11 09:05
This election is shaping to be something that actually matters. Clinton took control of the democratic party and made it the junior partner to the republicans. It followed the same agenda, if only at a somewhat nicer pace and tone. Bill Clinton made a disgusting fool of himself fawning all over Newt Gingrich. He could have wiped out this philandering fat boy from Georgia.

Hillary is still a republican slave. So is Obama.

The difference between Clinton and Sanders is the control of the Democratic party. Is it the party of FDR -- a moderate socialist party. Or is it the junior partner to the neo-con, neo-liberal republicans. There can be no fence sitting on this one.

The Clintons are rigging the election. Sanders is winning the popular vote but Hillree keeps getting the delegate votes. There's no way to play fair to people like the Clintons.
 
 
+4 # Caliban 2016-04-11 10:30
"The Clintons are rigging the election".

Rigging an election is a crime. If you have evidence that the Clintons are committing electoral crimes, please share it. If not, a little less hyperbole might be in order.
 
 
+34 # mentor 2016-04-11 11:05
The super delegates are a way of rigging the election. I'm not contributing a cent to the Democrat party unless and until they get rid of their superdeleglates .
 
 
-12 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 11:48
There's a big difference between the Clinton's "rigging" an election and the Clinton's following the rules set up by the Democratic party a long time before Hillary decided to run. Let's not forget, Pres. Obama won with these super delegates.
 
 
+21 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 12:09
She's been running for well over a decade. It's no accident that the primaries were heavily weighted to the Deep Red Deep South early on. It's a good way to give the conservative candidate (HER) a lead right out of the gate.

Let's not forget the super delegates had to be won over, because they had all jumped the gun and shown their allegiance to sHillary early on in '08.

Let's not forget the dirty tricks and slander she used against Obama in '08.

As long as we're "not forgetting things", let's remember EVERYTHING, including her record in office, and her actual words (before she decided to "evolve").
 
 
0 # Cassandra2012 2016-04-11 13:38
Would take your comments more seriously as I frequently agree, BUT find your need to use immature cutesie terms like 'sHillary' more than a little tone-deaf. I am an ardent Bernie fan, btw.
 
 
+9 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 14:03
It's not tone deaf.

It's a combination of "shill" and Hillary.

DEFINITION OF SHILL (from wikipedia):

"A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization."

Sounds like Clinton.

She is a shill for the banking industry.

A shill for the insurance industry.

A shill for the fossil fuel industry.

Her own words and actions speak louder than my cutesy phrase (that I've been using in her regard for about 10 years.)
 
 
-14 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 15:27
Cassandra....sa ve your breath. Billy Bob's need to revert to immaturity is not curable.
 
 
+16 # Nominae 2016-04-11 17:20
Quoting bmiluski:
Cassandra....save your breath. Billy Bob's need to revert to immaturity is not curable.


For someone who reliably as a broken record counsels others to "save their breath" with commentary on this site, your rhetoric of victim-hood seems to be flying over your own head.

If you would advise others to "save their breath", how does that sage advice fail to apply to your own observations ?

Nothing political there, I just enjoy the applications of logic. If your advice to others is intended to be satire, a bit of personal polishing in that art may likewise serve you very well. There is a huge difference between wit and simple snark.
 
 
+7 # newell 2016-04-11 13:32
And the debates- a few and on Saturday didn't favor Clinton, the frontrunner?
 
 
-5 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-04-11 12:33
"Rigging" strongly suggests actions which benefit one's candidate. The Dem super delegates (SDs) structure could benefit anyone. The concept just happens to benefit Clinton today.

So the real question on SDs is does the Democratic Party want to continue with this concept? If the party wants to have a shield, not a barrier, against candidates who represent values not held by the party’s “mainstream,” the answer to the question is “Yes.” If the party wants to allow a more extreme candidate, whether leaning right or left, to represent the party in a Presidential election because s/he is whom most Democratic voters support, the answer to the question is “No.”
 
 
-9 # Caliban 2016-04-11 12:41
I agree that superdelegates are a problem, but (a) they are a problem in both parties and (b) since superdelegates can change sides, any or all candidates can use them.

This makes them a problem (or an opportunity) for all primary candidates equally.
 
 
+10 # NAVYVET 2016-04-11 13:07
I have read that only the Dems have Superdelegates, to ensure centralized (i.e., nondemocratic) control of the conventions. Anyone know for sure?

I could ask at Bernie HQ, but am home today, since Mondays are when my senior housing gets a free selection of past-dated fresh fruit and veggies, which I can't afford to miss.
 
 
+1 # lfeuille 2016-04-11 23:01
Republicans have them. They call them something else.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2016-04-12 11:08
Not to the same extent.
 
 
+5 # Cassandra2012 2016-04-11 13:29
Quoting mentor:
The super delegates are a way of rigging the election. I'm not contributing a cent to the Democrat party unless and until they get rid of their superdeleglates.


"Democrat" party? Unless you are a neo-con troll, you would be aware that it is and has always been "Democratic" party... . However, agree the use of superdelegates is a way to ignore the will of the voters.
 
 
+10 # Farafalla 2016-04-11 13:25
Arizona.
 
 
+2 # cswanee 2016-04-11 11:28
While I am an ardent Bernie supporter, it is not true that Sanders is winning the popular vote. Clinton has won 58% of the popular vote in the Democratic primaries so far.

Accounting for the fact that Bernie's big wins are mostly in caucus states, and calculating what might be expected if those states had a primary, Hillary still leads with 55% of the popular vote (a lead of about 2 million). I don't think vote rigging can come close to providing that much of a difference.
 
 
+12 # Billsy 2016-04-11 12:23
With 14% turnout it's easier to game elections than one thinks. Consider what happened in Arizona with 5 hour waits and a fraction of former polling places even with that weak turnout. I get your point though. This primary has mainly been rigged by the DNC chair pro Clinton and by a corporate media hostile to Sanders. I'm
 
 
+2 # Majikman 2016-04-11 17:42
Yup! Rigging
http://trofire.com/2016/04/11/democratic-primary-politics-insane-even-morning-joe-thinks-things-corrupt/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ringoffireradio%2FSqLD+%28The+Ring+of+Fire%29
 
 
+33 # torch and pitchfork 2016-04-11 09:06
I'm not quite as strident when it comes to Hillary. If Bernie doesn't get the nod, I vote for her, no other option. Maybe that would be a good name for a third party--Public Option
 
 
+20 # carp 2016-04-11 09:07
I withdrew my monthly contributions during the 2008 democrat primary race because I questioned why RSN was so in the tank for Clinton. I wrote a letter complaining of the lack of coverage for Richardson and Edwards. I received such a condescending answer from Maya Schenwar that I pulled my donation and stated why. I came back about 4 years ago because I appreciate the work you do.
 
 
+14 # economagic 2016-04-11 09:26
Understood. Civility is difficult when the stakes and the emotions are so high (see my comment below). I disagree with torch (above) that there is "no other option," but in order for me to be entitled to my opinion, s/he must be similarly entitled. The same holds for any media outlet that takes political stands. RSN usually handles it pretty well, and I am disappointed to hear of such a failure. I received similar treatment from my local NPR outlet in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Sad to say, and while I don't ream out my friends for listening to them, I still go elsewhere for most of my entertainment and ALL of my news.
 
 
+18 # Wally Jasper 2016-04-11 09:30
You must be referring to Truthout, which Marc founded but then left. Maya Schenwar still works for Truthout.
 
 
+49 # tswhiskers 2016-04-11 09:14
Thanks for laying out this anti-Hillary argument. As time passes I see more reasons to oppose Hillary than to vote for her. AS everyone agrees, her resume is superb, she sounds able to cope with any possible nation- or world-wide emergency and then some. But her positions pose the problem. She was for the big pipeline before she was against it, ditto the TPP, altho she now seems to stand against Wall St., that is where much of her campaign funds came from. I doubt that she will seriously take on Wall St. corruption, or trade issues. She may deal humanely with immigration, altho I doubt if she will move to make Obamacare a single-payer system. With these policies in mind, it's easy to see that she would probably have an admin. similar to Obama's. Bernie is the one to generate true change, not Hillary.
 
 
+29 # NAVYVET 2016-04-11 10:28
I'm quite sure her resume was cooked up to impress voters, since she had neither the skills nor any success. The resume simply lists who she worked for, not what she accomplished for the American people. In all her important projects (healthcare, Senate, Secy of State, she ended up giving us negatives--in the red (state) column.

We can't afford 4 more years of the DLC Blue Dogs' NeoCon(federate ) addytood.
 
 
-9 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 14:39
Clinton has enjoyed high approval ratings for her job as Senator within New York, reaching an all-time high of 72 to 74 percent approving (including half of Republicans) over 23 to 24 percent disapproving in December 2006
In October 2007, Clinton signed her name to a request from her and 40 other Democratic senators to Mark P. Mays, head of Clear Channel Communications and affiliate broadcaster of The Rush Limbaugh Show, to repudiate comments made by Rush Limbaugh that referred to certain U.S. servicemen as "phony soldiers".[
In March 2007 she voted in favor of a war spending bill that required President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within a certain deadline; it passed almost completely along party lines[82] but was subsequently vetoed by President Bush.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 17:40
What do you keep cutting and pasting that from?

While you're avoiding the actual subjects we keep bringing up, what's the "[82]"

Please tell me you didn't just Google something to throw back at us without putting any thought into it.
 
 
-17 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 11:52
"Bernie is the one to generate true change, not Hillary."
----------------------------
You're assuming that Congress will be willing to work with Bernie just as they were willing to work with Pres. Obama.
 
 
+26 # reiverpacific 2016-04-11 11:54
Quoting bmiluski:
"Bernie is the one to generate true change, not Hillary."
----------------------------
You're assuming that Congress will be willing to work with Bernie just as they were willing to work with Pres. Obama.


I'd think if Sanders won the White House, the House and Senate may change hands too.
OK, call me a cockeyed optimist.
 
 
-3 # bmiluski 2016-04-11 15:30
Fingers crossed, reiverpacific, fingers crossed.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 17:41
Then you should vote for Sanders, because Clinton has no coattails.
 
 
+19 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 12:10
No. We're not assuming that. We just know that Sanders will STAND UP TO THEM, and Corporate sHillary WON'T. We just know that Sanders has more in common with us, and she has more in common with them.
 
 
+7 # NAVYVET 2016-04-11 13:08
Ooooo, they will if they're leftist Democrats, Barb.
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2016-04-11 23:06
Were assuming that if Congress doesn't go along. WE (of we not me) will change Congress. That what political revolution means.
 
 
+4 # Charles3000 2016-04-12 07:12
HRC is on the record to do nothing to change banking. She has stated she opposes reinstatement of Glass-Stegall. Little has been said about the Clintons involvement in the hierarchy of neo-liberal fiscal policy where the falsehood is pushed that federal spending is like household spending, budget limited. It is the policy which has brought us a failing infrastructure and the drawn out non-recovery from the o8 crash. Bernie's fiscal views are realistic, recognizing that resources are important and the hard part of policy and that the money part is the easy portion, the federal government being an issuer of money, not a user like families and lower levels of government. Check out Bernie's economic advisors, Dr. Bill Black and Dr Stephanie kelton to understand what I mean. The Clinton's involvement in this activity bothers me as much as her other disqualifiers. Here is a good link to read: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/02/real-fiscal-responsibility-vol-ii-peterson-network-inequality-failure-neoliberalism.html
 
 
+24 # economagic 2016-04-11 09:15
"It’s not about a favorite candidate, it’s about a better world."

Unfortunately presidential elections are indeed "popularity contests" for many voters, and just another "professional sporting" event for the MSM. And while many RSN readers and commenters are "well educated, well read, and . . . significantly more politically astute then the general electorate," some are not, and even some that are display some of Ms. Clinton's imperious personality traits.

Civil rational discourse regarding "civil society" is very important, also very difficult to achieve, and I am certainly not an expert on how to facilitate it. Mr. Ash is obviously trying. Perhaps we need to invite George Lakoff -- or the Dalai Lama -- to moderate these forums, or at least give us some tips!
 
 
+12 # JSRaleigh 2016-04-11 09:26
I voted for Sanders in the NC Primary Election. I voted for him because his positions on most issues are closer to my own than Clinton's.

But I am disturbed by the number of Sanders supporters I have heard declare that they will not vote for Clinton if she is the nominee. They would prefer to see Trump in the White House.

That is certainly NOT the attitude of progressives.
 
 
+37 # apotem 2016-04-11 09:33
I am not going to vote for any Republican and that includes HRC
 
 
+18 # economagic 2016-04-11 09:40
No, I would NOT "prefer" Trump -- or any of the other vandals and thieves -- in the White House (presumably in comparison to Clinton).

But taking a long view, as I have said here numerous times, neither would I prefer Clinton to any of them: A slight bit less pain in the short run in the hope of avoiding the agony that we can plainly see above the horizon seems to me to achieve nothing but prolonging the agony, and likely making it worse by doing so. IMNSHO, We cannot reach the "better world" mentioned in the article through continuing on the current path.

Well-informed and well-intentione d people will inevitably disagree on some serious issues. None of us controls the outcome, and impugning one another's reasoning or intentions neither leads to agreement nor promotes the better outcome.
 
 
+31 # reiverpacific 2016-04-11 09:41
Quoting JSRaleigh:
I voted for Sanders in the NC Primary Election. I voted for him because his positions on most issues are closer to my own than Clinton's.

But I am disturbed by the number of Sanders supporters I have heard declare that they will not vote for Clinton if she is the nominee. They would prefer to see Trump in the White House.

That is certainly NOT the attitude of progressives.


Works both ways.
Many more moderate Republican voters -as in "conservative" rather than "reactionary"- have declared that they'd vote for Sanders if Drumpf was their selected candidate but NOT for Clinton, which shows a hitherto unknown element of conservative progressive mindset among that moderate demographic.
This remains to be seen of course.
 
 
+37 # Helga Fellay 2016-04-11 09:56
I am one of the Sanders supporters who declares that I will not vote for Clinton if she is the nominee. This does not signify that I would prefer to see Trump in the White House (although I believe that Trump would do this nation and the rest of the world less damage than Clinton would.) I recognize that the DNC's hyperactive campaign to get democrats to switch from Sanders to Clinton as soon as they have crowned their mistress the nominee, they are using the repulsive Trump like a weapon and a scare tactic to get progressives to cave in and vote for "the lesser of two evils" - Clinton. I refuse to be manipulated by scare tactics. I have made it clear to the DNC that they can not impose their will on the voters by using scare tactics. If enough progressives will take a firm stand against this undemocratic seizure of power over the voters, they will lose any and all power, including the power they legitimately have, in the fall. I will vote for Jill Stein, and let the chips fall where they may, even if that means a possible 4 years of total chaos. Our political system is so sick that only a drastic change can fix it. Clinton would only perpetuate more of the same sickness. We can have a positive change with Sanders, or we can go through upheaval for four years until a change for the better is most certainly bound to occur. We can do it the easy way or the hard way. This is a far cry from "prefer to see Trump in the White House."
 
 
+10 # velobwoy 2016-04-11 11:54
Well said, Helga Fellay.
 
 
+4 # lorenbliss 2016-04-11 16:42
Very well said indeed, Ms. Fellay. Like you, I will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances. Her record proves she would be as dangerous to human survival as any Republican -- actually (given the irremediable damage false-flag candidacies do to our political process) far worse than any Republican.

Nothing discourages voter turnout more than discovering -- just as we did with Carter (Hyde Amendment, first welfare cuts); Bill Clinton (NAFTA, mass incarceration, genocide as welfare "reform"); Barack the Betrayer (genocidal austerity as a "Grand Bargain"); and all their local counterparts (e.g. Jay Inslee, Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, Derek Kilmer etc. ad nauseam) -- that the self-proclaimed Democrat for whom you voted is actually a Republican.
 
 
+4 # newell 2016-04-11 14:15
My priority is our own species' numbers that fuel climate change, the 6th mass extinction and depleted resources including clean air and water. If this is in line with the Green Party and if Clinton gets the nod, maybe this is an option for myself and others. I voted for Nader and other Greens as my vote seldom matters due to the damn electoral college--here in conservative Oklahoma. At least I got to vote for the best political leader in my lifetime in the primaries--and he won! But I won't quit Bernie until he quits. SUPPORT SANDERS
 
 
+9 # BluePill 2016-04-11 10:44
JSR - I really do not believe Trump will be the GOP nominee, I do not know how that will turn out, maybe they will run Cruz, maybe Ryan, but I think the reality is that HRC will be the next president unless something really miraculous happens in the NY and PA primaries, and I hope that we see the same results like Michigan and Wisconsin, but on the other hand the DNC has the game fixed with the superdelegates. So again, I do not see any other future except HRC which is at least 4 more years of the Same O Same O. Which means further descent into global chaos with possible WWIII. Therefore our only alternative is to at least make some statement that HRC does not have a complete mandate by voting Green Party.
 
 
+13 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 11:24
What will Clinton do in the general election if she faces Kasich or Ryan? Either one could beat her. Sanders would trounce either one, because he can draw sharp lines of distinction between his policies and theirs. SHE CAN'T - at least not honestly.
 
 
+4 # Caliban 2016-04-11 12:25
Kasich or Ryan? They seem like a pair of losers whom either Sanders or Clinton will beat handily if either is the Republican candidate.

Trump is the one who worries me because he seems to have the [undeserved and unexpected] support of working class GOP voters.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 14:07
Actually, polls speak the opposite.

Kasich and Ryan do better in a matchup than Trump ever could.

Trump scares people.

Kasich and Ryan seem "reasonable" and "moderate" to low-information voters. Ryan is young and handsome.

Clinton is not far to the left of either one of them. Any attacks she made on their record, could easily be matched by counter-attacks and accusations of hypocrisy.

Sanders doesn't have that problem.
 
 
-1 # newell 2016-04-11 14:16
not how the polls have it.
 
 
+14 # Barkingcarpet 2016-04-11 11:26
We HAVE damn near destroyed most of the once living and diverse interconnected ecosystems which support life as we know it, including ours.

Why? Because money and ownership are what are most important right?

It is most likely way to late to fix the environmental mess we HAVE created and appear to accelerate rather than address.

I will never really understand how and why voting for anybody who is far less than ideal, is a good idea, ever.

Hillary is a wolf in mans clothing, a corporate endless war mongering profiteering and propheteering same ol same ol, which is just taking us further into oblivion, albeit, a tad slower than the other thugs.

We do not address issues, nor solve them. we only move on to the next ecosystem to rape, pillage, and leave as toxic landfills.

Cognitive dissonance folks.
Cancel your garbage service and live with your trash in your living room. There IS no away, and more business as unusual is deadly.
Oops. Nobody here but we jabbering monkeys.
Our system is badly broken, corrupt, and deadly to a future worth living in

and the drones band on.......
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2016-04-11 23:09
The point of the article was that HRC is a faux progressive, so why would progressives vote for her?
 
 
+18 # Trish42 2016-04-11 09:32
Thank you, Mr. Ash, for coming out squarely as a Progressive. I am an FRD Progressive, and that the reason I voted for Bernie. However, if we have a general election in which my only choices are between a New Democrat and a fascist or a theocrat, I'll vote for the Democrat....
 
 
+13 # Trish42 2016-04-11 09:33
Oops, I meant FDR of course.
 
 
+9 # economagic 2016-04-11 09:42
I thought maybe you were testing to see if we were paying attention! ;-) (The little notepad icon below a new post allows the poster to edit it!)
 
 
+7 # NAVYVET 2016-04-11 10:36
Do you have a little box with a tiny pencil below your comment? It allows us to edit. I sometimes rewrite mine 3 or 4 times, correcting typos and making my ideas clearer.

Maybe RSN should send a special message to everyone, explaining the edit feature to those who don't use it--simply because they don't know about it. At my age, I'm not very fond of icons--much prefer words like "edit", "delete", etc. Right now, I can see two simple words, "send" and "cancel" below. So much easier!
 
 
+3 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-04-11 12:53
For any substantive post, I compose it offline where I can likewise review and edit it. Sometimes I work on a response and then in reviewing it, realize it's stupid. Damn thing never gets anywhere near the Internet :)
 
 
-3 # newell 2016-04-11 14:21
What is the matter with you people? This is a very overly-competit ive culture for a reason--- so we can be snarky and mean--not so we can help each other. Get a life--a mean, snarky one.
 
 
+2 # Charles3000 2016-04-12 10:00
You always have a choice. You can live in the society, depend on the work of others and do your part to help others or you can be a hermit. Those are the only real options.
 
 
0 # newell 2016-04-13 16:37
Again--What is the matter with you people? You don't know sarcasm or facetiousness?
 
 
+27 # jimmyjames 2016-04-11 09:39
RSN is an awesome forum to make comments and spread the truth. Something you would rarely find on MSM, which is little more than a propaganda stream. I agree that RSN readers and Progressives in general, are better informed and more intelligent than the "average" American citizen. It behooves us all to share our knowledge on this forum and to our friends. families, and neighbors. As has been noted many times, especially by the Sanders campaign, that grass root movements inspire the real change our nation needs and deserves. If not now, when?

Mark Ash is spot on with his commentary and I appreciate his honesty.
 
 
+27 # Mainiac 2016-04-11 09:40
Let me be clear about how I will vote next November. I will not vote for a candidate who is going to take us into war to achieve the objectives of the 1%. If Bernie is not the nominee, I will either write in his name or vote for Jill Stein.
 
 
-11 # Cassandra2012 2016-04-11 13:44
Quoting Mainiac:
Let me be clear about how I will vote next November. I will not vote for a candidate who is going to take us into war to achieve the objectives of the 1%. If Bernie is not the nominee, I will either write in his name or vote for Jill Stein.


And help to elect Trump or theocrat nut Cruz ....
 
 
0 # Charles3000 2016-04-12 10:02
On the single issue of foreign relations and policy, I would be more inclined to support Trump.
 
 
+19 # GDW 2016-04-11 09:42
Great article and it is exactly why I support RSN. Clinton is a spokesman for the oligarchy, which she is part of.

Sanders represents the working people and the poor, the majority of people in America. How any Democrat could vote for her after her record of pro war and business is beyond me. She is a disgrace to working people.

Life has gotten worse since Reagan and Bill wasn't all that much better with his dot com bubble.

unfortunately I may be forced to vote for her because the Republicans are so whacked.

We really need to support and build a Free Press that is there to inform us, not a Corporate PR person to read from a Corporate script
 
 
+19 # fuzzbuzz 2016-04-11 09:42
I can't believe some people fall for Hillary's BS.
 
 
+18 # Lisa Moskow 2016-04-11 09:45
THANK YOU!

Your choice of articles is great.

Very important for us who want to know the most important issues, but who have limited time to do so.
 
 
-35 # BIg Lar 2016-04-11 09:48
Really? "Hillary is still a republican slave. So is Obama." Is this necessary? I agree Bill Clinton was the best Republican president in 50 years. However, Hillary is not Bill. I have listened to her and believe she has the best interests of all Americans in her heart. Obama will go down as one of our greatest presidents ever given the obstacles he's had to deal with. Pitting Bernie against Hillary is just dumb. Please name me a "perfect" President. Please. Being "appropriate" is often more important than being "right".
 
 
+28 # BluePill 2016-04-11 10:29
You mean like her vote for the Iraq Invasion? I don't think anyone at the time thought that was in our best interest. Or her support of TPP? Whose best interest is that? Or when she says Sanders is lying about her taking millions from fossil fuel industry? etc. Please reconsider how well you listen to what she says and ask whose best interest she has in her heart, when I listen to her my impression is absolutely HRC is her own best interest.
 
 
+3 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-04-11 13:00
@BluePill - I agree with "my impression is absolutely HRC is [for] her own best interest" but your "I don't think anyone at the time thought that [the Iraq invasion] was in our best interest" is not true. Unfortunately, a great many people did believe that and worse, many still do.
 
 
+3 # BluePill 2016-04-11 18:43
I guess you're right Tref, I'm probably thinking within my own group of friends that we all thought it was ridiculous. Having said that, for me it is another underscore for Bernie's integrity to have voted against.
 
 
+21 # NAVYVET 2016-04-11 10:48
There are no perfect presidents or anybodies. All we can hope for is a decent record of accomplishment, empathy for the underprivileged , and a blunt honesty. Bernie has all three, Hillary (alas!) doesn't.

Pitting them against each other isn't "dumb". My history specialty is dissent, and this campaign season has been wonderful, a wake up call to Americans. It's the best thing that's happened in US politics since the 1930s. The nation is awash in competing ideologies and, even better, ideas with depth. It's watching the extremes of cultic religion in Cruz & others, of greed and narcissism in Drumpf, and two other modes of politics--chang e for the better, or keep the status quo, all exposed for the first time. I can't tell you how exciting this is to me!

I'm not impressed by the ancient Chinese proverb, "Spare us from living in interesting times." Interesting times allow people who are affected by politics to participate, at least through argument. They are the opening words of Dickens' A TALE OF TWO CITIES. They are eras of rapid evolution, even revolution, of Hegel's "thesis" meeting "antithesis", with hope and luck resulting in a useful, better, saner "synthesis," which will be the new paradigm until it, too, winds down into a "thesis" and needs a new challenge. Interesting times are dangerous, wacky, and full of anger, dogmatism and bigotry--but how STIMULATING and ENERGIZING it is to be alive and active in this year of 2016!!!! HOT DAWG!
 
 
0 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-04-11 13:23
“I'm not impressed by the ancient Chinese proverb, ‘Spare us from living in interesting times.’”

That didn't sound right. I’d always heard the phrase framed as a curse, not a proverb. So, I did some quick research. The first thing I learned was yes, it is a curse. Secondly, it is meant to be ironic, contrasting the idea that “interesting times,” which are generally thought to be “good times,” with the obviously turbulent real world in which we live. But what I had no idea of is that the “curse” isn’t Chinese at all. In fact, it’s probably British.
 
 
+2 # Patriot 2016-04-11 15:49
Good homework, tref. But Navyvet said he is NOT impressed by the proverb; that he LIKES living in "interesting" times--stimulat ing, energizing, even if--my take--frighteni ng and astonshing, too.

He's right; we ned a good shaking-up, we need to consider a broad spectrum of philosophies, and we ALL need to step up to the plate and VOTE in support of our opinions.

And, in the case of RSN, we all need to chip in to help keep this great forum open and running.

How about it, everyone? Have YOU put a little into the hat lately? Please, DO so TODAY!!
 
 
+19 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 11:39
"Pitting Bernie against Hillary is just dumb."

--------------

Actually, it's called a "PRIMARY".

It's supposed to give us a chance to choose our candidate. Clinton and her followers have had a problem with that since before 2008. Many of us don't believe it should be a coronation process for someone preselected. If she can't handle the criticism, perhaps she picked the wrong line of work. Many of the criticisms coming from her, against Sanders aren't even honest, but that hasn't stopped her. She's had very little concern for any "consequences" of fueling Republicans against Sanders in the general election.

AND, that's NOT HER JOB. It's not up to the candidates to "tone it down" so we can't tell them apart. It's their job to reveal the differences between themselves, ESPECIALLY when those differences are so stark, as they are between a candidate of principle (Sanders), and a corporate property (Clinton).

Republicans have their own agenda, and their own line of attack. That's not our concern. Ours is to pick a nominee who can beat them. And, Sanders has a better chance to do that.

I'd be willing to make a deal with the Clinton voters. If THEY'LL just "get out of the way" and hand the nomination over the Sanders, I'll GLADLY forget all about Clinton.

OK?

That's the exact deal your side has been trying to negotiate since BEFORE the first primary, and our side hasn't bought it.

BUT, if you're SO worried about party "unity", GET BEHIND SANDERS.
 
 
-11 # rocback 2016-04-11 13:45
Hillary has 2.5 million more popular votes than Hillary. We will get behind him if he gets more votes.

But his diatribes against her on the stump will wind up in GOP commercials in teh general election. Wake up!
 
 
-9 # rocback 2016-04-11 13:46
sorry 2.5 million move votes than Bernie
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 14:10
And California alone has a whole hell of a lot more votes than that up for grabs.

Stop trying to push us out of the conversation. It's not working.

It's dishonest and you know it.

Who's been winning outside the Confederacy? How much chance does sHillary have of winning Mississippi in the general election?

That's where her lead came from.

She'd have a lot to brag about if she were running for the Republican nomination.
 
 
+2 # Saberoff 2016-04-11 09:49
What Is a Progressive?
John Nichols
April issue, Progressive Magazine...

http://www.progressive.org/news/2016/03/188607/what-progressive
 
 
+18 # danireland46 2016-04-11 09:59
Marc, you don't have to explain what is obvious to your readers: The Clinton Cabal has done as much or more than the Citizens United SCOTUS travesty to destroy this country.
Let the Daily Kos, and other faux progressive sites pretend to inform while pushing the Clinton 1% sycophant drivel. We’re with you and the truth!
 
 
+17 # tedrey 2016-04-11 10:03
Marc's honest. Last year I suggested to him (on the Contact page) that he reprint an article about Clinton from "The Week." He got back to me (!) and explained that he didn't like "Hillary bashing." Shortly afterwards he printed a carefully thought out article about Hillary failings. I compared the two articles and agreed with him. I had learned something about bias. Marc's good on that.
 
 
# Guest 2016-04-11 10:03
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-27 # Shades of gray matter 2016-04-11 10:05
RSNews. Pravda (Party organ)meant "truth." Izvestia (State organ) meant "News." The Russian people said, "There is no pravda in Izvestia and no izvestia in Pravda." Pretty smart. It is not NEWS that Obama's secretary did not make peace between the fanatics in the M.E. Nor did Jesus Christ. Berners would HATE JC for his Inexcusable Failure. Read Eric Hoffer, TRUE BELIEVERS. Scary.
Hillary DESERVES both policy AND personal criticisms. But empty cheap shots are empty, cheap, revealing.
 
 
+11 # Ken Halt 2016-04-11 11:26
shades: Peace in the ME will not be easily attained but I would like to see in office a president that works FOR peace, works TOWARD peace. HRC's record speaks for itself in her support for the Iraq war and other wars of choice and regime change. Her recent speech to AIPAC was alarming! In it she pandered to the Israel gov't's wish, in defiance of international law and Geneva Conventions, to move the capital of Israel to Jerusalem. Such a move would not promote peace. I don't understand why anyone would vote for her unless they are very well-off, work on Wall St (redundancy, I know), are a military contractor, likes what NAFTA has done and what TPP will do, etc, all those things that Bernie nails to the door. I don't think she's necessarily a bad person, but given her corporate and military sensibilities, she is the wrong person for highest office in 2016. The condition of the 99% will not improve under HRC and I think would continue its slide into third world status.
 
 
+16 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 11:30
"Hillary DESERVES both policy AND personal criticisms. But empty cheap shots are empty, cheap, revealing."

----------

The problem is that, whenever Hillary gets substantive criticism, her only response is empty cheap shots. I could say, "she can dish it out but she can't take it", but that would be inaccurate. Almost ALL of the cheap shots have come FROM the Clinton campaign, against a candidate (Sanders) who has run the cleanest campaign in modern history.

By the way, Clinton's not the only one responsible for this. Her surrogates (like you) have a serious problem sticking with the issues, and staying away from cheap, empty, garbage.

This is why none of you ever answer any of the allegations against her with a substantive answer or counter-argumen t. It usually amounts to nothing more than pouting, name-calling, or counter accusations not based in fact - or completely unrelated to policy issues.
 
 
+8 # NAVYVET 2016-04-11 13:26
Shades: Most of us have read Eric Hoffer's THE TRUE BELIEVER, and perhaps also a more up-to-date prize-winner, Charles Kimball's WHEN RELIGION BECOMES EVIL. I greatly admire both books, have read them repeatedly and have given one or the other to left-wing friends as birthday presents. Between the two they cover political extremists who pretend to be for the people, and those who pretend to be religious. (Even more creepily, some really do think they are.) Whatever, the goal is power. You can also get a horrific look at current extremists by helping support the Southern Poverty Law Center. I donate at the lowest possible $$ level, but every half-year they still send me page after page of a report on the US's rightwingnuts and leftwingnuts--a lthough rightwingnuts have always outnumbered leftwingnuts in this country and do today, by overwhelming percentages.

If you think Bernie wants to grab centralized power, or that any of us do who agree with him, you just haven't been paying attention.
 
 
+8 # newell 2016-04-11 14:33
Jesus? The mainstream would crucify him for trying to help the poor, including 99% of Christians. Bernie is the closest to what Jesus reportedly said than any politicians, including even Carter, who is one of the few real Christians we have ever had.
 
 
+20 # video4315 2016-04-11 10:11
If you want to get a real perspective on the differences in Bernie and Hillary, ready John Perkins' book, The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man and watch the movie, The Big Short, about the subprime meltdown of 2008 and the banks/investmen t firms. Then, decide who of the two candidates has the vision to change the corruptness of the system. I wish Elizabeth Warren would weigh in on the candidates; her opinion is widely respected.
 
 
+6 # NAVYVET 2016-04-11 13:43
Liz Warren has, and she tries to tightrope walk. I expect she feels she owes Emily's List some loyalty, and they are nearly all pushing Hillary. They are mostly Beltway insiders who genuinely believe that Hillary, because of her gender, must be a better feminist than Bernie, when I only need to look at their records and find that a false conclusion.

Please answer their printed Emily's List questionnaires and tell them WHY, if you formerly donated to them, you no longer can do so in good conscience!
 
 
-21 # Robbee 2016-04-11 11:17
a biased mark says - We do not have an “anti-Clinton bias.” We have a commitment to social justice, and progress.

- then goes on to show how hill is less progressive than bernie

- then weak minds here go on to deduce that hill is less evil than bernie

sure, if you leave gop slime out of the equation, there is good reason to be biased in favor of bernie -

once you add gop slime to the equation - ALL EXCUSE FOR ANTI-HILL BIAS HERE EVAPORATES! ENDS!

- tell women, blacks, latinos and union members that there is no anti-hill bias - right here!
 
 
+8 # newell 2016-04-11 14:43
It is not anti-Hill bias. It is anti this particular person's policies, actions, votes and flip-flops. It is not personal. And it is not misogynistic. Most of the male feminists and former ERA marchers in the country are supporting Bernie for his issues, not his penis.
 
 
-18 # Robbee 2016-04-11 11:18
bias, pt. 2

irrationally sums big rump fan! - who conveniently overlooks the fact that hill opposes TPP! - # Inspired Citizen 2016-03-29 17:25
"... When it comes to corporate fascism, Trump is a preferable candidate to #CorporateClinton."

threatens GOP troll!- Inspired Citizen 2016-03-20 13:13
"... either Unite Behind Bernie or else (RAP promises) Trump as the next President.”

hill worse than rump! snarls GOP troll - # Inspired Citizen 2016-03-17 15:51 "... Clinton more dangerous than Trump.”

citizen, note that your pledge amounts to GOP catfishing for progressive votes! - # Inspired Citizen 2016-02-23 14:27 "... Bernie or lose the general election ... is a pledge."

outing false-flag ops! - our local hill-haters have been self-identifyin g here as GOP trolls for months and months!

- citizen, at long last! thanks! outs RAP! - Republicans Against Progress - says - # Inspired Citizen 2015-12-10 18:10 "It's going to be #BerrnieOrElse the GOP. That's RAP's promise!"

- and says - # jsluka 2015-08-30 17:22 "I will not vote for Hillary Clinton ... It would be better for a Rethuglican to get elected, and bring on the revolution!"

- humbug! as says # Scott Galindez 2015-10-20 10:28 “Bernie needs enough delegates at that convention to win, not signers on a petition making an undemocratic threat.”

citizen's is false-flag attack on hill! and false-flag support for bernie! - listen to bernie! - down with RAP! - down with GOP! - go bernie!
 
 
-14 # Robbee 2016-04-11 11:19
bias, pt.32

citizen wants us to throw away our vote! as notes - # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-04 00:22 "... (When RAP thugs here say take) the "never Hillary" pledge, they are saying they won't join with vulnerable people of color to resist fascism in the White House."

- citizen's is false-flag attack on fascism! and CLEARLY, false-flag support for rump! - plain and simple! citizen supports ANY and EVERY GOP fascist! - who here on rsn is our local fascist? clue: it's not hill!
 
 
+8 # dbrize 2016-04-11 13:41
Spam, spam and more spam. If RSN believed in capitalism you'd never be able to pay the ad bill.
 
 
-18 # Shades of gray matter 2016-04-11 11:27
*I love Jimmy Carter, a southern Dem, red state pragmatist, but his slam of HRC was DEVOID of specifics, content.
I think RSN pro BS, anti HRC, Comments are preaching to the choir after the horse has left the barn, MONTHS ago. Focus should be on SUSTAINABILITY Movement, stopping fascism. Some RSN Commenters think their USA White Privilege will protect them from GO(P)Fascism and would throw the whole rest of the world under the Nazi bus. Not very admirable.
 
 
-15 # Barbara K 2016-04-11 11:36
It is the Hillary bashing, as I've said before. The Bernie bunch is no better, and getting hard to tell the difference between them and the Trump bunch. Not EVERYONE is supporting Bernie, but we get bashed when we come on here. We don't bash them. So we just stay away. Tired of seeing the lies about Hillary, and once thought this site was better than that. SEE THIS:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/10/obama-storms-fox-news-destroys-gop-clinton-email-conspiracy-theory.html

..
 
 
+2 # dsepeczi 2016-04-12 08:42
Quoting Barbara K:
It is the Hillary bashing, as I've said before. The Bernie bunch is no better, and getting hard to tell the difference between them and the Trump bunch. Not EVERYONE is supporting Bernie, but we get bashed when we come on here. We don't bash them. So we just stay away. Tired of seeing the lies about Hillary, and once thought this site was better than that. SEE THIS:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/10/obama-storms-fox-news-destroys-gop-clinton-email-conspiracy-theory.html

..


Which lie about Hillary are you referring to ? You and other Clinton supporters come on here and have been repeatedly challenged to discuss the issues. Each time, you duck the issues, duck the questions, and then go on some rant about being bashed because someone gave you a red check (which simply means that they disagree with you, by the way. It's not personal) and then make some ambiguous claim about how Hilary's being misrepresented here but never give any specifics about which policy she adopted that we're wrong about.
 
 
+1 # Charles3000 2016-04-12 12:10
Barbara K, Bernie and Trump have something in common; both are anti-party. This is not an R vs D election, it is a People vs Parties election and a people candidate will win, either Bernie or Trump. Take your pick.
 
 
-17 # ishmael 2016-04-11 11:36
Remember Nader's influence and the people who insisted on voting for him some years ago?

If you are a Dem it might be a good idea to vote Democratic. For the country if not just for yourself. Forget the me me me stuff.
 
 
-11 # Barbara K 2016-04-11 12:23
I have voted Dem ever since I was old enough to vote and will vote for whichever one is the Nominee. But all the bashing between them will end up putting a Trump in office.

..
 
 
+4 # Charles3000 2016-04-11 13:57
This election is not between Rs and Ds, it is between "The People" and "The Parties". Bernie and Trump are "People" candidates, HRC is a party candidate. The "People" candidate will win, either Bernie or Trump so if you want a winner go for one or the other.
 
 
-6 # Cassandra2012 2016-04-11 13:59
or the equally frightful Cruz whose dad thinks he is -literally- the 2nd coming!
(Making his dad think he himself is ???)
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2016-04-12 11:10
How about Kassich or Ryan?

What if Corporate sHillary has to face up with Kassich?

It will be hard to tell the difference.
 
 
+5 # newell 2016-04-11 14:54
Maybe I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Maybe, just maybe, I get to vote for whom I think would be the best president. And if that is not Bernie Sanders then it would be Jill Stein. Hillary's moderation is not acceptable. In 2020 we will be in the same place with the plutocracy pushing the 99% over the environmental cliff. Maybe this country needs a Trump. Maybe sometimes you need a Hoover to get an FDR; sometimes a bitter pill can save your life. But it's academic, Bernie will win.
 
 
+1 # Charles3000 2016-04-12 12:12
The Nader spin was cover for the conspiracy to steal the election by not counting the ballots in Florida. That story is pure Repug support!
 
 
-3 # Interested 2016-04-11 11:44
This sounds painfully like the 1968 Humphrey McCarthy battle; and like the ultimately endorsement (democrats - progressive and others) selecting McGovern in 72 (I was an enthusiastic supporter). We ended up with Richard Nixon and 5 more years of war in Viet Nam, etc.....

I hope in the end, when the nominee is selected at the convention, we can all get along and back someone who can win whomever that turns out to be. I for one like Obama and at best or worst, want his policies to continue.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 12:16
I think the problem with Humphrey is that he was a pro-war candidate, when the voters clearly didn't want that. Clinton is a pro-corporate, pro-war candidate. Yet, her support seems to come DESPITE those facts, rather than because of them. She's mostly been selected by people too afraid to pick a candidate more in line with liberal/progres sive ideals.

Many of us (just like in '68 - I think, because I was too young to vote then), are mostly just frustrated with the political cowardice and open FEAR of true leadership.
 
 
+6 # dbrize 2016-04-11 15:00
Quoting Interested:
This sounds painfully like the 1968 Humphrey McCarthy battle; and like the ultimately endorsement (democrats - progressive and others) selecting McGovern in 72 (I was an enthusiastic supporter). We ended up with Richard Nixon and 5 more years of war in Viet Nam, etc.....

I hope in the end, when the nominee is selected at the convention, we can all get along and back someone who can win whomever that turns out to be. I for one like Obama and at best or worst, want his policies to continue.


So, you didn't like five more years of war with Nixon but the thought of continued wars of choice, "regime change", NSA spying on citizens and ongoing military operations in 130+ countries under Clinton is OK with you?

PS. Though I am no fan of Nixon, his record on domestic policies enacted was more liberal than any Democratic president we've had since.
 
 
+3 # shulie 2016-04-11 11:45
As a Sanders supporter, here's why I would vote for Hillary if she were the nominee: the Supreme Court. As for the "revolution" that not voting for Hillary would usher in, I remember Democrat friends voting for Nixon for the same reason: It would hasten the revolution. Did it? No, it made things worse. No matter what you think of Hillary--and I have serious doubts about her--her Supreme Court choices would be better than Trump's, Cruz's, Kasich's or Ryan's. And those choices make a difference in all of our daily lives.
 
 
-7 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-04-11 13:51
shulie’s point is well taken. Absolutely SCOTUS is and must be the most important prize for Progressives today. However, the roots of the power elite’s campaign to take over the world are at least as old as the 16th century so Progressives cannot afford to be short-sighted in this matter. The question for November, 2016, should Clinton win the Democratic nomination is do Progressives vote for her in the hopes that she will be able to name two “liberal” justices while simultaneously continuing to drive the US down the road toward American feudalism, and possible WW III, or do we support, tacitly or otherwise, her Republican opponent who, depending on who that person is, will probably push SCOTUS further right? In a perverse way, a Progressive could make the case that Trump would be the better choice but only if his VP were extremely liberal.
 
 
+8 # Left Coast 2016-04-11 11:52
Bravo Marc. Spoken like a true progressive. And Barbara, would you care to point out which lies about Hillary you're referring to? Or would you like to discuss "Hillary's lies"? She has a several.
 
 
+8 # Stilldreamin1 2016-04-11 12:24
Thanks for adressing the fallacy that by giving the two sides of an issue equal exposure, your coverage is objective. If one side is clean and the other side is polluted, giving them balanced coverage just makes the whole pond muddy. I can't listen to Thom Hartmann anymore, since he and his callers constantly confirm that both candidates are fine with them. No, both candidates are not fine. One has a 35 year record of fighting for fairness; the other's record is much less consistent. She knew Iraq posed no threat to US security but voted for war because too many powerful people expected nothing less. I can't chuckle and say, "I'll take either one of them over the Republican crazies." Inequality in America has grown under Obama. I don't want to continue Obama's policies. I believe we can do better than the business as usual Clinton would deliver.
 
 
0 # BIg Lar 2016-04-11 12:27
If Bernie is the nominee I will definitely vote for him. Ditto for Hillary. It's not a choice, it's a candidate. Rally round the flag. Please do anything/everyt hing to prevent any current "Republican" candidate from being elected. You can agree with Bernie and vote for Hillary. We've gotta take one step at a time, and if you want REAL change, it starts at the local level, NOT top down. All Obama has been able to do is keep his finger in the dike. WE have to seize the process. That's why the Republicans keep trying to suppress the vote and foment a bloodless coup.
 
 
-14 # Barbara K 2016-04-11 12:28
I'm referring to the lies ABOUT her.

..
 
 
+11 # NAVYVET 2016-04-11 13:30
But you never, never list these "lies", point by point. We are waiting.
 
 
-6 # Cassandra2012 2016-04-11 13:57
Quoting Barbara K:
I'm referring to the lies ABOUT her.

..


Agree, but every time I try to give you a thumbs up, it is recorded as either 0 or one for the other side....
I am a strong Bernie supporter (for his FDR-like positions), but would have no trouble voting for Hillary over any one of the repulsive misogynists in the Tealiban clown car!
 
 
-11 # Barbara K 2016-04-11 16:30
Cassandra2012: Thank you for trying. It is probably rigged to give only downs. I figured if I tried to give the other side, I would drown in red, but someone needs to speak up. If the Dems are fighting each other, we end up with a Trump. I've lost respect for Bernie with the lies and distortions he is doing against Hillary. However, I am a true Dem and will vote for either one who is the candidate. I wish he'd stop his lies so I can respect him again. She did not vote for ANY of the trade bills, that is a lie and he has to know that. She wasn't in congress for the first Trade Bill, so wouldn't be able to vote for that one. She was in congress for the 2nd one (CAFTA) and voted NO on it. TPP is not even up for vote yet, and she is not in congress and wouldn't be voting on it anyway. What part of that is so hard for the Bernies to see or figure out? As far as the Banks, of course she had contact with them, she was their Senator for 8 years. Is that so hard to understand? They are acting like the Trump Bunch now. As I said, I will vote for whichever one is the candidate. No one is perfect, not even Bernie.

..
 
 
+9 # Ken Halt 2016-04-11 17:12
Barbara: Please cite the lies and distortions Bernie is using against Hillary. I've listened to a number of his speeches and have not heard what you say you did. I agree with Navyvet above, if, as you say, Bernie has been using lies and distortion, I want to see the proof.
 
 
+4 # Ken Halt 2016-04-11 22:40
Barbara: "She did not vote for ANY of the trade bills, that is a lie and he has to know that." This is easily checked. I listened to Bernie's speech in Philadelphia and nowhere does he say HRC voted for all those trade bills. What he said, best as I remember, "I don't think you're qualified if you supported virtually every disastrous trade bill." I know she did support NAFTA, doing the talk shows, etc, to support the bill for Bill (couldn't resist). HRC- "I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth." (March 6, 1996: At an event for the UNITE union at the Nicole Miller company in New York.) Voted in favor of the Australian and Moroccan free trade agreements, both in 2004, of Oman free trade agreement '06. She voted against CAFTA in '05. She supported TPP, calling it the "gold standard" until realizing her support for it was a political liability. It's clear that Bernie did not lie about HRC's support for trade deals.
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-04-11 23:26
You are not the only one voting. You got out voted.
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-04-11 12:35
whistling in the dark! says - # Helga Fellay 2016-04-11 09:56
"... I will vote for Jill Stein, and let the chips fall where they may ...

milk producers of america are gonna hate helga!

- stein is a 3rd-party candidate for national office, like nader in 2000 - the only thing a green candidate can accomplish in federal elections is to siphon progressive votes from the dem candidate!

didn't stein run in 2012? how did that work out for greens? greens are like a guy who goes to the frig, takes out the milk, opens the top, smells it's yeck! spoilt! puts it back, and every four years takes it out again, just to see if it got fresh again!

the irony is that stein is a competent candidate, but lazy - like bernie, she should run for office as mayor, do a good job, run for office as senator or governor, as bernie proved a 3rd party candidate can win, and only then run for prez as a dem!

the greens' mission is to ruin dem candidacies because they maintain that there is ABSOLUTELY NO difference between dems and zomblicans, which only shows inability to judge, lack of critical thought - when you believe in things that you don't understand, you're gonna suffer! - stevie wonder

greens haven't pulled a nader yet, losing dems an election! - but they won't quit trying!

helga is our "here's how to" champion of progressives throwing away their votes! our champion of spoilt milk!

helga's is false-flag support for stein! - down with GOP! - in the general election, go dem!
 
 
-1 # pbbrodie 2016-04-13 06:46
I believe there are some people automatically giving Robbee thumbs down without even reading his posts.
I fail to see what about this post deserves a thumbs down?!
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2016-04-11 12:43
step aside jimmy and mark! - here's how it stacks up when you compare hill to real (gop slime) warmongers!

if hill clears bernie, she will be our nation's "peace" candidate - that is, unless the repugs nominate someone other than crud or rump, or another warhead!

behind door #1! - “i will carpet-bomb isis into oblivion!"

behind door #2! - "i will bomb the shit out of isis! - on my first day in office, i will tear up the (no-nuclear-bom b-making) treaty with iran! ... a bad deal! the worst ever!” - meanwhile note that bernie and hill both support obama’s iran treaty!

behind door #3! - "war is never a first choice!"

- what passes for intelligent comment around here is falling into the trap of thinking that, if hill becomes our dem nominee, she will not be our nation's "peace" candidate!

unsaid above, we all prefer bernie's muslim armies plan! - but bernie is not our nation's only "peace" candidate! - go bernie! - then, whether bernie or not, go dem nominee!
 
 
+6 # Charles3000 2016-04-11 14:05
Good story but it won't work and I will tell you why. Trump will tear HRC to shreds in the campaign. He will do what it takes to win and will use ALL of these shortfalls of HRC to rip her up and then Hello President Trump! "They" better nominate Bernie.
 
 
+9 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 14:21
CONFESSION:

I stopped reading most of your comments weeks ago.

In fact, I probably won't go back and read your other comments on this thread. Get angry. Whatever.

Anyway, in what universe is Hillary a "peace" candidate?

The simple quote, "We came. We saw. He died", just scratches the surface. It's just a symptom of her whole career of being "Republican lite" which has always (at least since the early 90s) been partially achieved by taking away the Republican talking point that "Democrats are wimps", by OUT-warmongerin g them. She's played that strategy her whole political career, and, now, to play the "peace" candidate (since the other strategy has already run its course) is BEYOND disingenuous.
 
 
-13 # rocback 2016-04-11 13:53
I just listened to Bernie's speech in N Y and he spent half of it attacking Hillary. Those comments will surely appear in GOP commercials in the general election.

Hillary is only 500 delegates short of winning outright and we are barely half way through the primary. She is ahead by double digits on all three of the largest states left, NY, Penn and Calif.

Unless the world caves in she is out nominee. Bernie has every right to continue his crusade but do it without getting in the gutter and attacking Hillary.

Frankly, I think it's selfish to put your own political interests ahead of the party and more importantly, the country.
 
 
+7 # Patriot 2016-04-11 16:07
I repeat: Sadly, the popular vote doesn't count for anything; the number of delegates alloted is what counts, going into the convention.

Bernie Sanders is a mere 219 delegates behind Clinton, with more than 1700 still to be voted upon, many already-elected delegates yet to be allocated, and more than 200 superdelegates who have yet to indicate their preference.

It isn't over by a LONG shot!!
 
 
+8 # Ken Halt 2016-04-11 16:45
roc: I don't know which speech you're referring to but I just listened to the 4/9 speech in Washington Heights. His stump speeches are much the same even using many of the same phrases and words. This isn't surprising because a candidate can't compose a new speech for each occasion. I heard Bernie talking about issues and at times comparing his positions with HRC's positions. These were not attacks on HRC, they were comparisons, and this is what politics is about, offering choices. Pointing out differences in records and proposed policy is absolutely necessary to determine the direction of one's vote. You say he "...spent half of it attacking Hillary.", which implies he was personally attacking her rather than attacking her stated policies and past record, which are fair game and the essence of issue politics. In the speeches I listened to Hillary's name was barely mentioned. Bernie has run a clean campaign and has concentrated on the issues all along. Please cite for us an instance in the Washington Heights or Philadelphia speeches where Bernie "attacked" HRC personally.
 
 
+3 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-04-11 13:57
Given Trump’s many flaws, nevertheless he isn’t a fanatic like Cruz, or stupid and gullible like Bush II, or mentally debilitated like Reagan. The Republican elites are afraid of him, not because of his views but because they won’t be able to control him. IF Trump wins the Republican nomination, he had damn well better choose for his VP the most liberal Republican SOB he can find. If he doesn’t, he will find himself in the cross hairs of a hired hit man, a lefty acting alone, of course .
 
 
-12 # Robbee 2016-04-11 16:07
says - # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 14:21
"... in what universe is Hillary a "peace" candidate?

sadly! ours! - since you haven't, as you confess! read my comment! - here's what i say again - if only for the benefit of those who read! - sorry too about your mental, reading impediment!

step aside jimmy and mark! - here's how it stacks up when you compare hill to real (gop slime) warmongers!

if hill clears bernie, she will be our nation's "peace" candidate - that is, unless the repugs nominate someone other than crud or rump, or another warhead!

behind door #1! - “i will carpet-bomb isis into oblivion!"

behind door #2! - "i will bomb the shit out of isis! - on my first day in office, i will tear up the (no-nuclear-bom b-making) treaty with iran! ... a bad deal! the worst ever!” - meanwhile note that bernie and hill both support obama’s iran treaty!

behind door #3! - "war is never a first choice!"

- what passes for intelligent comment around here is falling into the trap of thinking that, if hill becomes our dem nominee, she will not be our nation's "peace" candidate!

unsaid above, we all prefer bernie's muslim armies plan! - but bernie is not our nation's only "peace" candidate! - go bernie! - then, whether bernie or not, go dem nominee!
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 17:28
Which of those doors is Clinton?

I'm guessing door #1?

PLEASE don't tell me you think she's door #3?

So far, comparing her to Cruz and Trump, all we have are their words. But, we have her ACTIONS in Libya, Honduras, and Iraq.

SHE IS A WARMONGER.

Sander IS the ONLY peace candidate.
 
 
+4 # dsepeczi 2016-04-12 10:20
Quoting Robbee:
says - # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 14:21

- what passes for intelligent comment around here is falling into the trap of thinking that, if hill becomes our dem nominee, she will not be our nation's "peace" candidate!


This is our "peace" candidate ?


In her appearance, Mrs. Clinton nevertheless sought to distinguish herself from the president on foreign policy, calling for a tough reassessment of American policy toward Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. She noted the recent reports of Russian troops in Syria and argued “we need a concerted effort to up the costs on Russia and Putin — I am in the camp that we have not done enough.”

“I don’t think we can dance around it much longer,” she said, arguing that the Russians were seeking to “stymie and undermine American power whenever and wherever they can.”


“Distrust and verify” would be her approach, she insisted, turning Ronald Reagan’s “trust but verify” line about the Soviet Union on its head. She went on to describe Iran as a “ruthless, brutal regime,” words far harsher than Mr. Obama has used as he has sought to coax the Iranians along in the years of perilous diplomacy.


She reiterated her call to arm moderate Syrian rebels, a case she and David Petraeus made when she was secretary of state and he was director of the C.I.A., and she criticized her own record when she said that she and the administration didn't do enough to support the 2009 uprising in Iran.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2016-04-12 11:11
Good comment.
 
 
+4 # angelfish 2016-04-11 17:06
VERY well said! I would be contributing but due to tax Time I'm REALLY feeling the pinch. I have supported RSN in the past and will continue to do so in the future, but at this time of the year, my back, like yours, is against the wall! Looking forward to more prosperous times and the ability to show my appreciation monetarily in the near future, I remain a sincere and devoted Fan! Please don't stop what you're doing! It WILL get better! Just another reason to support and Elect Bernie Sanders to the Presidency!
 
 
-9 # Robbee 2016-04-11 18:01
says - # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 17:28
Which of those doors is Clinton? I'm guessing door #1?"

- bill, here's how the internet works - into your browser you paste - “i will carpet-bomb isis into oblivion!" - then you hit "search"

then you go from there, anytime! - you're welcome!
 
 
+7 # dbrize 2016-04-11 18:10
Quoting Robbee:
says - # Billy Bob 2016-04-11 17:28
Which of those doors is Clinton? I'm guessing door #1?"

- bill, here's how the internet works - into your browser you paste - “i will carpet-bomb isis into oblivion!" - then you hit "search"

then you go from there, anytime! - you're welcome!

Another deflection from the resident spammeister...

Use your suggestion: paste into browser "we came, we saw, he died..." cackle.

You keep this up those DNC checks are gonna quit coming.
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2016-04-11 18:51
whistling in the dark! says - # Helga Fellay 2016-04-11 09:56
"... I will vote for Jill Stein, and let the chips fall where they may ..."

milk producers of america are gonna hate helga!

- stein is a 3rd-party candidate for national office, like nader in 2000 - the only thing a green candidate can accomplish in federal elections is to siphon progressive votes from the dem candidate!

didn't stein run in 2012? how did that work out for greens? greens are like a guy who goes to the frig, takes out the milk, opens the top, smells it's yeck! spoilt! puts it back, and every four years takes it out again, just to see if it got fresh again!

the irony is that stein is a competent candidate, but lazy - like bernie, she should run for office as mayor, do a good job, run for office as senator or governor, as bernie proved a 3rd party candidate can win, and only then run for prez as a dem!

the greens' mission is to ruin dem candidacies because they maintain that there is ABSOLUTELY NO difference between dems and zomblicans, which only shows inability to judge, lack of critical thought - when you believe in things that you don't understand, you're gonna suffer! - stevie wonder

greens haven't pulled a nader yet, losing dems an election! - but they won't quit trying!

helga is our "here's how to" champion of progressives throwing away their votes! our champion of spoilt milk!

helga's is false-flag support for stein! - down with GOP! - in the general election, go dem!
 
 
-10 # ojg 2016-04-11 21:10
RSN, I LOVED your article. Especially when you call your Berniephiles "high information voters". Give me a break. Only first-time voters would be so naive as to say ignorant stuff like Bernie or the highway. There is no high information anything at RSN; just a bunch of close-minded Berniephiles screaming to the choir.
 
 
-9 # cathy790 2016-04-11 21:12
I am very disappointed in this site. I don't think candidate-bashi ng someone in your own party is characteristic of progressive spirit. We should know how to persuade without the vitriol of the right wing.
I will no longer contribute till I see all of us strongly backing the Democrat candidate, whether it's Bernie or Hilary.
 
 
+8 # Patriot 2016-04-11 21:49
I am an Independent, forced by state law to designte myself either Dem or Repug. But I will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton, whom I have never respected or trusted and do not believe for a single minute. I'll vote, but, if not for Senator Sanders, NEVER for Clinton!! I'm not hide-bound with Party loyalty; I am a devoted Constitutional supporter. I will cast a vote for the candidate who lookes best to me, in my humble judgment.

If that will cost RSN your $$$, tell us how much that would have been. Perhaps a few of us can scrape our piggy banks and chip in in your stead.

Cheers.
 
 
-3 # cathy790 2016-04-12 09:13
$50 a shot
 
 
+1 # dsepeczi 2016-04-12 10:24
Quoting cathy790:
I am very disappointed in this site. I don't think candidate-bashing someone in your own party is characteristic of progressive spirit. We should know how to persuade without the vitriol of the right wing.
I will no longer contribute till I see all of us strongly backing the Democrat candidate, whether it's Bernie or Hilary.


I don't think voting for a Republican because she carries a "D" after her name on the ballot is characteristic of "progressive spirit".
 
 
-6 # cathy790 2016-04-12 10:42
Quoting dsepeczi:
Quoting cathy790:
I am very disappointed in this site. I don't think candidate-bashing someone in your own party is characteristic of progressive spirit. We should know how to persuade without the vitriol of the right wing.
I will no longer contribute till I see all of us strongly backing the Democrat candidate, whether it's Bernie or Hilary.


I don't think voting for a Republican because she carries a "D" after her name on the ballot is characteristic of "progressive spirit".


So because I prefer persuasion rather than right-wing bashing technique, I'm voting for Hilary??? I never said that, which convinces me even more strongly that this site is no different from Rush Limbaugh, Trump, the whole gang.
I do not believe Bernie is so weak that he can win only by destroying the opposition.
 
 
+2 # dsepeczi 2016-04-12 13:14
Quoting cathy790:
Quoting dsepeczi:
Quoting cathy790:
I am very disappointed in this site. I don't think candidate-bashi ng someone in your own party is characteristic of progressive spirit. We should know how to persuade without the vitriol of the right wing.
I will no longer contribute till I see all of us strongly backing the Democrat candidate, whether it's Bernie or Hilary.


I don't think voting for a Republican because she carries a "D" after her name on the ballot is characteristic of "progressive spirit".


So because I prefer persuasion rather than right-wing bashing technique, I'm voting for Hilary??? I never said that, which convinces me even more strongly that this site is no different from Rush Limbaugh, Trump, the whole gang.
I do not believe Bernie is so weak that he can win only by destroying the opposition.


I apologize for missing your point, initially, but part of any debate does include pointing out the differences between the two sides. How else to differentiate on the differences between the two candidates ? If being critical of Hillary's record is "candidate-bash ing", then I guess candidate-bashi ng is sometimes necessary. Bernie and Hillary are not the same and shouldn't be thought of as such.
 
 
+4 # Charles3000 2016-04-12 15:45
The problem is HRC is NOT a progressive on health care, nor bank reform, nor foreign policy, nor environmental issues, nor fiscal policy. I admire her as a person and respect her but she is far off on the issues that concern progressives. She is not being bashed, she is being called out on issues and she will be called out even more IF she becomes the candidate. Rs bash her over ridiculous, made up issues such as the emails and Benghazi. Progressives disagree with her on real, substantive issues.

Additionally, I have cast a vote for a female for President in a Democratic primary in 1972 and I did it on issues, not because she was a woman, not because she was black but because her view on issues were very close to mine. Shirley Chisholm would have been an exceptional POTUS!
 
 
-3 # ojg 2016-04-11 22:14
"patriot", scrape away! scrape away!
 
 
+2 # Patriot 2016-04-12 23:33
I have, and I did! Can't have Cathy's withdrawal leaving a hole in the budget, can we?

Cheers!
 
 
-10 # Shades of gray matter 2016-04-11 22:17
Comment #2,038. Humphrey waited too long to pivot against VN. McGovern was PERCEIVED to be very far left; I thought he was nicely so. Clinton bashing is so YESTERDAY, although RSN Commenters find a new flaw to flay away at pretty regularly. And deservedly so. Do you ever ask yourselves why sane people, People of Color in particular, support her? Everyone but you is a dupe or a Nazi? Any other possibilities? Maybe people who have studied the Rise of Fascism are worried that voters won't pick a Godless Socialist with very poorly thought out proposals, pie in the sky. Maybe people of color don't want to subsidize Fraternity Row. Maybe they'd rather see that $73B PER YEAR leveling the pre-K thru 13 playing field. Of course, none of them are as perceptive as Burners, of bridges, mind muddling substances. Oops. Couldn't resist. There must be some reason why most Berners are so shallow, self righteous? I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and blaming drugs, a mere TEMPORARY limitation.
 
 
+4 # dbrize 2016-04-12 12:54
Quoting Shades of gray matter:
Comment #2,038. Humphrey waited too long to pivot against VN. McGovern was PERCEIVED to be very far left; I thought he was nicely so. Clinton bashing is so YESTERDAY, although RSN Commenters find a new flaw to flay away at pretty regularly. And deservedly so. Do you ever ask yourselves why sane people, People of Color in particular, support her? Everyone but you is a dupe or a Nazi? Any other possibilities? Maybe people who have studied the Rise of Fascism are worried that voters won't pick a Godless Socialist with very poorly thought out proposals, pie in the sky. Maybe people of color don't want to subsidize Fraternity Row. Maybe they'd rather see that $73B PER YEAR leveling the pre-K thru 13 playing field. Of course, none of them are as perceptive as Burners, of bridges, mind muddling substances. Oops. Couldn't resist. There must be some reason why most Berners are so shallow, self righteous? I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and blaming drugs, a mere TEMPORARY limitation.


In your study of the "Rise of Fascism" did you perchance recognize the role of national socialism and its coziness with the bankers and military industrialists?

Now just which of the current Democratic contenders has the strongest ties to these two groups? Hint, it isn't the "Godless Socialist".
 
 
-4 # Shades of gray matter 2016-04-11 22:27
Do I currently pay my freight? You betcha. Have I for 50 years? You betcha. Was I active in the Civil Rights Movement? You betcha. VERY active in the anti war Movement? You betcha. The Farm Workers support? You betcha. The get control of the Detroit Police effort? Good friend assassinated. Yep. (See. I don't think all this is child's play.) Tear gassed. Yep. In confrontations with DICK Daley's thugs? Yep. A lot scarier than Tweeting. On "subversive" lists? For sure. Not all of those, like Liz Warren, who have not endorsed Sen. Santa Claus are stupid Nazis.
 
 
-5 # cathy790 2016-04-12 10:45
...and my kids had never had a grape till they were 5. I'm impressed and grateful for your activism. So many of "us" sold out.

These pups have a lot to learn.
 
 
+2 # dbrize 2016-04-12 12:57
Quoting Shades of gray matter:
Do I currently pay my freight? You betcha. Have I for 50 years? You betcha. Was I active in the Civil Rights Movement? You betcha. VERY active in the anti war Movement? You betcha. The Farm Workers support? You betcha. The get control of the Detroit Police effort? Good friend assassinated. Yep. (See. I don't think all this is child's play.) Tear gassed. Yep. In confrontations with DICK Daley's thugs? Yep. A lot scarier than Tweeting. On "subversive" lists? For sure. Not all of those, like Liz Warren, who have not endorsed Sen. Santa Claus are stupid Nazis.


An active track record. One vote per person. I hope no one has called you a "stupid Nazi", Godwins Law should be repealed across the board, no exceptions.

But then again, emotions do run high.
 
 
+1 # Patriot 2016-04-12 23:45
No one needs to prove who they are or why they support what they support--but neither does anyone need to bolster her/his own stance by ripping away at someone else's.

A vote for anyone is just that, a vote FOR that person and AGAINST all others. it won't throw an election or ruin anyone's chances at anything.

The voters SOUND as if they are sharply divided between Senator Sanders and Ms. Clinton, and between Trump, Cruz, and Kasick (apologies if I've misspelled his name) -- and there's nothing wrong with that. Each of us, this year, seems to be almost sick with apprehension about what will come to pass if our own chosen candidate doesn't win the White House.

What matters most is that we ALL show up to vote. Vote for, vote against, vote 3rd party, or vote an absolutley blank ballot -- but VOTE. If you don't care enough about the county and its future to make the effort to turn in a ballot, then, in my opinion, you are a very ppor specimen.

Of COURSE I'd like everyone else to vote just as I plan to vote, but what I really want most of all is simply for everyone else to VOTE.

Please, people, care enough to show up and cast a ballot. Since well before 1776, thousands of men and women have died to acquire and to protect our right to vote for the preople we want to represent us. We OWE them our appearance at the polls every time there is an election, and we owe our children our dedication to the habit of voting.

Please?
 
 
+1 # Patriot 2016-04-12 23:57
No one of us needs to flout his exemplary record of citizenship at anyone else. Some of us are veterans of military service--some for many years; some are veterans of years of marches and protests; some have expended fortunes in postage, writing to councilmen, senators, presidents, or in telegrams or telephone calls to those same people.
Some of us have had our hands full and barely managed to scramble to the polls to vote.

None of us should judge anyone else's participation. We've all done what we felt moved to do--or not.

But we STILL, so far, have the privilege and responsibility and duty to vote, something many people do not have and never will have.

Please, do your duty and vote at every opportunity. No matter how rigged we thnk the system may be, or how rigged it is, not voting will not fix anything.

PLEASE, let's stop sniping at one another because we disagree, and instead celebrate the fact that all of us are paying attention, forming opinions, and I fervently hope, planning how we will vote.

See you at the polls!
 
 
+1 # Dred Pierce 2016-04-14 04:19
You are asking if I believe that Clinton is pretending to be something that she is the antithesis of? Yes! I appreciate RSN for many reasons. The false rationales and false equivalencies are falling. We have a chance in November to tell ourselves as voters and citizens what kind of people we are. Choose well. Bernie Sanders 2016
 
 
-1 # BIg Lar 2016-04-14 09:56
If Hillary is so bad why do the Republicans hate her and constantly vilify her? What strikes me is why they don't bash the Bern all that often. Why? Because the further to the left you go you start to loop around to the Right.
 
 
0 # Gregory Wonderwheel 2016-04-14 14:00
BIg Lar, your comment is not very clear, but you seem to be saying the political spectrum is a circle where the left of center and the right of center turn back and join together in a new center. If that is so, then the metaphor collapses of its own weight and the new center is what exactly, because it too is neither left nor right. So why do Republicans hate the Clintons so much? Because without the DLC blinders on, they see how much the Clintons are liars. Of course they have their own blinders on about their own candidates and don't acknowledge their own candidate's lies. But for any liberal or Democrat who wants to know why progressives hate what the Clintons have done to the Democratic Party, just read Thomas Franks most recent book "Listen, Liberal" and you will see how the Clintons and their DLC team destroyed the Democratic Party by adopting the economic ideology of neoliberalism and the foreign policy of neocon interventionism .
 
 
+1 # Gregory Wonderwheel 2016-04-14 13:54
I am an American radical progressive, and I endorse this statement.
 
 
0 # Indie 2016-04-16 08:08
Whoever is the nominee of the moderate Republican party that goes under the name of Democratic, the political revolution must continue. The oligarchs residing in the United States seem eager for world economic domination, whatever the cost. Although I am sure there are some of the wealthy who are not as lacking in understanding and intelligence as some of their candidates, including Hillary Clinton, wealth isolates them from reality in the same way that propaganda does with many of the working and middle classes. We need genuine change at every level of government.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN