RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Reich writes: "With the Democratic primaries grinding to a bitter end, I have suggestions for both Clinton and Sanders supporters that neither will like."

Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


Advice for Divided Democrats

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

29 May 16

 

ith the Democratic primaries grinding to a bitter end, I have suggestions for both Clinton and Sanders supporters that neither will like.

First, my advice to Clinton supporters: Don’t try to drum Bernie Sanders out of the race before Hillary Clinton officially gets the nomination (if she in fact does get it).

Some of you say Bernie should bow out because he has no chance of getting the nomination, and his continuing candidacy is harming Hillary Clinton’s chances.

It’s true that Bernie’s chances are slim, but it’s inaccurate to say he has no chance. If you consider only pledged delegates, who have been selected in caucuses and primaries, he’s not all that far behind Hillary Clinton. And the upcoming primary in California – the nation’s most populous state – could possibly alter Sanders’s and Clinton’s relative tallies.

My calculation doesn’t include so-called “superdelegates” – Democratic office holders and other insiders who haven’t been selected through primaries and caucuses. But in this year of anti-establishment fury, it would be unwise for Hillary Clinton to relay on superdelegates to get her over the finish line.

Sanders should stay in the race also because he has attracted a large number of young people and independents. Their passion, excitement, and enthusiasm are critically important to Hillary Clinton’s success, if she’s the nominee, as well the success of other Democrats this year, and, more fundamentally, to the future of American politics.

Finally and not the least, Sanders has been telling a basic truth about the American political economic system – that growing inequality of income and wealth has led inexorably to the increasing political power of those at the top, including big corporations and Wall Street banks. And that political power has stacked the deck in their favor, leading to still wider inequality.

Nothing important can be accomplished – reversing climate change, creating true equal opportunity, overcoming racism, rebuilding the middle class, having a sane and sensible foreign policy – until we reclaim our democracy from the moneyed interests. The longer Bernie Sanders is on stage to deliver this message, the better.

Next, my advice for Sanders supporters: Be prepared to work hard for Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination.

Some of you say that refusing to fight for or even vote for Hillary will show the Democratic political establishment why it must change its ways.

But the “Democratic political establishment” is nothing but a bunch of people, many of them big donors and fundraisers occupying comfortable and privileged positions, who won’t even be aware that you’ve decided to sit it out – unless Hillary loses to Donald Trump.

Which brings me to those of you who say there’s no real difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

That’s just plain wrong. Trump has revealed himself to be a narcissistic, xenophobic, hatemonger who, if elected, would legitimize bigotry, appoint Supreme Court justices with terrible values, and have direct access to the button that could set off a nuclear war.

Hillary may not possess Bernie Sanders’s indignation about the rigging of our economy and democracy, or be willing to go as far in remedying it, but she’s shown herself a capable and responsible leader.

Some of you agree a Trump presidency would be a disaster but claim it would galvanize a forceful progressive movement in response.

That’s unlikely. Rarely if ever in history has a sharp swing to the right moved the political pendulum further back in the opposite direction. Instead, it tends to move the “center” rightward, as did Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

Besides, Trump could do huge and unalterable damage to America and the world in the meantime.

Finally, some of you say even if Hillary is better than Trump, you’re tired of choosing the “lesser of two evils,” and you’re going to vote your conscience by either writing Bernie’s name in, or voting for the Green Party candidate, or not voting at all.

I can’t criticize anyone for voting their conscience, of course. But your conscience should know that a decision not to vote for Hillary, should she become the Democratic nominee, is a de facto decision to help Donald Trump.

Both of my morsels of advice may be hard to swallow. Many Hillary supporters don’t want Bernie to keep campaigning, and many Bernie supporters don’t want to root for Hillary if she gets the nomination.

But swallow it you must – not just for the good of the Democratic Party, but for the good of the nation.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+119 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-29 11:33
Bernie is NOT hurting Hillary's chances!
Hillary herself is what is destroying her chances.
Her terrible record of failures, poor judgement and "mistakes" combined with her constant lying (especially this week in the wake of the highly critical Inspector General's report on the illegality of her email decisions) show her to clearly be unqualified to hold any high office especially the Presidency.
I take great opposition to the statement in the above article that Clinton is "a capable and responsible leader" as she has shown herself to be anything but.
We deserve better and the Democratic leadership needs to wake up and embrace the wave of change that is sweeping the electorate.
Status quo business as usual will not cut it this time.
 
 
+87 # Polisage 2016-05-29 13:35
I am supporting Bernie. What is at stake in this election is too important to enable a corrupt establishment. The Republican Party has repudiated its own kingmakers. Bernie is showing DWS that the "party faithful" want a choice, and it is not just a meaningless "5 seats on the platform committee." As Barry Goldwater once said, "It's time for a choice, not an echo."
 
 
-57 # rocback 2016-05-29 14:35
Dr. Reich, you are assuming these are all really Sanders supporters. But many are Trump Trojan Horses.

They have been paid to do the 3 step program:

1. First, come on a progressive site and praise Sanders to gain credibility
2. next compare him unfavorably to Hillary
3. then bash Hillary even as against Trump
4 finally drop all pretenses and say vote for Trump as either better than Hillary or bitter payback for mistreating Sanders.

It's the oldest dirty trick in the GOP book.

In fact there have been articles written about them here:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/busted-trump-loving-comment-trolls-pose-as-sanders-and-clinton-supporters-to-divide-democrats/comments/#disqus
 
 
+39 # dbrize 2016-05-29 15:36
Here comes good ol' rocback to again set off the bullshit detector. Since you showed up here a few weeks ago its been reloaded more than in the previous five years.

First, most of those opposing Hillary have been posting on RSN for YEARS rocman, not as you, a few WEEKS.

A casual review of their posting history will bear this out.

So counselor here's the deal; most of those you hereby accuse have been posting around here LONG before the current election cycle. Did someone "pay" them for their posts from, let us say, 2011-2015?

Now let us ask just WHO is the "newbie" who has recently appeared here? Well, surprise, that would be YOU rocman.

Indicted by your own charges.

"Hear counsel, and receive instruction that you may be wise at your end".
Proverbs
 
 
+23 # Majikman 2016-05-29 16:34
I no longer bother to read the drivel that butcrack etal. spew, but simply red thumb.
 
 
-14 # rocback 2016-05-30 21:15
News out tonight. Sanders wanted a recount of Kentucky and wasted everyone time and tonight it was announced the recount was virtually unchanged...by 10 votes. What a waste of time just to mollify a poor loser.
 
 
+25 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-29 18:51
I am convinced that rockbac works for the Trump campaign.
 
 
+14 # Jim Rocket 2016-05-29 23:16
Quite possible. He's certainly not doing Hillary any favors. He's either a trump operative or a fool... I guess they're kind of the same thing.
 
 
-14 # rocback 2016-05-30 15:39
"Sanders plays a Selfish and Dangerous Game"

http://www.uexpress.com/cokie-and-steven-roberts/2016/5/25/sanders-plays-a-dangerous-game
 
 
+5 # Douglas Jack 2016-05-30 18:06
rocback, Quote UExpress article, 'veteran GOP strategist Ed Rogers wrote in The Washington Post, "Clinton & the Democratic ticket become weaker the longer Sanders stays in the race."'
COLD
Most of the population realize Clinton's money-bought & paid-for speeches to extremely small supporter audiences are flat & disingenuous. Hillary acknowledges her 'popularity-pro blem', but doesn't understand very basic principles of 'Walk your talk' or 'Live in community solidarity with the people you mean to serve'. Living with so many mansions, advocating for prisons, GMO's, Pesticides, Fracking etc & cow-towing to rich-&-powerful leaves common people cold. Hillary's master-owned media, don't pay much attention to her because of low ratings as audiences turn off.

Bernie brings a yuge US audience to hear Hillary in order to contrast with his own popular ideas & sincerity. Bernie lives in solidarity with average people. Hillary minimizes public debates down to 6 & drops out of one. The Republicans capture the media & public imagination through 12 Debates & 9 Forums even though most of the field were flat. Hillary's ideas don't stand up to 2-sided scrutiny in the minds of most people & lead to her even greater unpopularity to Trump. Hillary's class ego-privilege makes her an 'anathema' (Greek "a thing accursed," originally "a thing devoted," literally "a thing set up (to the gods),") https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/both-sides-now-equal-time-recorded-dialogues
 
 
+4 # Polisage 2016-06-01 09:44
What is selfish about wanting the American people to have a say in the election? What is really dangerous is a rigged election bought by the billionaire class. Sorry folks, you're not our kind.
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-31 11:53
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+29 # Douglas Jack 2016-05-29 15:58
Rocback, I've noticed that your arguments are less emphatic these days as though regardless of Clinton being your employer & you loyally having dutifully exhausted all possible false "talking-points " of supporting statements for Hillary, you're joining the rest of us. Bernie or bust?

Robert Reich as well offers only luke-warm support for Hillary, without being able to offer any supporting facts or arguments against her: Israel-1st, Military-Indust rial-Complex, pro-destabiliza tion of democracies worldwide, pro-war, anti-Arab, Hispanic, Black etc, anti-Medicare for all candidacy. Robert at this point must be on the edge of rejecting his Clinton administration perks & standing for Bernie or bust. I'll not be surprised to hear Robert join Bernie with Dr. Stein & the Green party.

All of us (rocback & Reich included) have been on an RSN voyage this last half year. Many of us have wanted to support Hillary as the DNC choice, but upon investigation through RSN's excellent articles & informed Comment-section have fallen away step-by-step, argument-by-arg ument, web-link-by-web -link. Hillary with her many mansions, lavish rich lifestyle, friends of the rich only, GMO promotion, no-GMO-labellin g & US state-terrorist genocide worldwide, just doesn't walk most of her 'takes-a-villag e' talk & in-fact is doing everything she can towards WW3, armageddon & ensconcing of a permanent race-based ruling class on planet earth. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/home/2-mutual-aid
 
 
+15 # reiverpacific 2016-05-29 16:16
Fer Gawd's sake rockhead, give us all a bloody break!
You write as if you have some kind of enlightened theorem that most MORE enlightened and aware RSN folks are completely missing.
You're kinda like a cross between a narcisssist (like Drumpf) and a masochist, the latter being that you seem to enjoy the consistent dose of red thumbs you get here and look like you can't wait to get up every day, figger out what bucketful of home-grown, carefully stored horse or cow-pucky you can hurl on this free-speech forum, as in this case go against every sane bit of reasoning which in this case, Dr. Reich has put out here.
"Avaunt and quit our sight, let the Earth hide Thee; Thy Bones are marrowless, thy blood is cold. There is no speculation in those eyes, which thou dost stare with!"
 
 
+24 # markovchhaney 2016-05-29 16:30
I can't recall seeing ANYONE state that they love Sanders, hate Hillary, AND will vote for Trump. That's simply an invented scenario from Hillary Central. No one is convinced by you and your fellow Hill Trolls. Obviously, you've found this site as at least one place you enjoy plying your "trade." Bully for you. But seriously: do you think anyone here who isn't already in the Hill Camp is buying what you try to purvey?
 
 
-32 # kandotom 2016-05-29 16:48
Reich is right, and the overwhelming reaction to his article is a disaster.

One of the few sane responses is Rockback.
Whether these innumerable Hillary-haters are Trojan horses or not (and Rockback makes a plausible case that at least some of them are) makes little difference. These people pretend to be progressive, but they are prepared to hand over the presidency to Trump. Deja vu all over again. The idiot left (to which I once belonged), has handed over the presidency to reactionary candidates over and over again: 1968: We campaigned for Gene McCarthy and refused to support Humphrey, so Nixon got in. 1972, same scenario: Nixon won again, because we supported the Quixotic George McGovern. In 2000, Ralph Nader handed the presidency over to George W. Bush.
The irrational Hillary-haters who claim to be progressive and yet vow not to vote for her no matter what or, worse, say that they’ll vote for Trump are insane.

Clinton is not only NOT the lesser of two evils - she is a fine and competent candidate. The scandal mongering surrounding her is mostly right-wing fabrication.

But even if you don’t buy that, anyone who considers Trump a viable alternative has to have his head examined.

But, hey, you do what you want, and then live with the consequences. If you think America is in trouble now, just wait and see what happens under a Trump presidency...Sc ary.
 
 
+22 # dbrize 2016-05-29 17:45
Terminology isn't your strong suit. Nixon had many well reported faults but he was anything but a "reactionary".

Even Chomsky has referred to him as the last liberal president. While in office we got EPA, opening to China and detente with the Soviet Union.

He was the first president to set affirmative action goals in hiring, expanded food stamps and proposed a negative income tax for the poor.

He proposed a national health care plan with federal subsidies far better than Obamacare and opposed by guess who, Ted Kennedy and the Democrats.

He enacted supplemental social security for the disabled and elderly.

Some "reactionary". God knows it will always be fashionable to kick Nixon around and I've done my share, but he doesn't deserve to have the record blatantly distorted by folks who don't know diddletwat from diddledee.

And a final point. Contrary to the quadrennial appearances of Fearmongers, Inc; we aren't electing a dictator we are electing a president. One who no matter the name, will quickly be visited by some folks who prefer to remain in the background. The ultimate question is, will we elect someone, (anyone) with the courage to challenge these folks? Or will it be one who winks, nods and says in effect, "I get it, I understand".

I doubt if it's Trump but I am sure it's not Clinton.
 
 
-4 # rocback 2016-05-30 20:53
The Democratic Party went on a string of losses when it went too far left. McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis all lost by going too far left. It took Bill Clinton to move towards the middle to get us back on the winning track. And the Democrats won 5 out of the last 6 popular votes because of it. The majority of Americans are moderate. Sanders would be the death of the Democratic party.
 
 
+6 # jcdav 2016-05-31 08:08
It took Bill Clinton to leap to the right and grab the money...BTW perhaps it is time for a resurrection of the Democratic values of FDR....or Leave the sold out corrupt lying motherfuckers and form a Progressive party...US has NOT benefited from RR & BC trickle down Bullshit we might do well to have a look at Germany and other more successful (as viewed by average citizens)societ ies...the younger folks seem to understand this, which you obviously do not.
 
 
+23 # CarolynScarr 2016-05-29 21:50
McGovern was defeated largely because the owners of the Democratic Party of the time, Dalley et al, chose to sit on their hands and not give him the support of the party. I remember seeing those guys up in the balcony seats scowling at McGovern and his supporters at the Democratic party convention. There was nothing quixotic about McGovern. He was a competent Senator and a strong leader. McGovern was undermined by Eagleton who hid his mental health history when asked if there was any hindrance to his nomination.
 
 
-7 # kandotom 2016-05-30 18:04
So “reactionary” is not the best adjective to describe Nixon. Big deal. We could go on, you listing some of his positives, me coming back with negatives (e.g. his role in the McCarthy era communist witch hunt), etc.

It’s not clear which of us is more ignorant (“diddletwat or diddledee, to use your eloquent terms), but it seems that your preferred style of argument is the ad hominem insult.

Be that as it may: This is not a debate about Nixon. It is about Trump vs. Hillary Clinton.

My point is simple and inescapable: Clinton is infinitely preferable to Trump as our next president.
How can you POSSIBLY not see that?
 
 
+3 # dbrize 2016-05-30 18:46
Quoting kandotom:
So “reactionary” is not the best adjective to describe Nixon. Big deal. We could go on, you listing some of his positives, me coming back with negatives (e.g. his role in the McCarthy era communist witch hunt), etc.

It’s not clear which of us is more ignorant (“diddletwat or diddledee, to use your eloquent terms), but it seems that your preferred style of argument is the ad hominem insult.

Be that as it may: This is not a debate about Nixon. It is about Trump vs. Hillary Clinton.

My point is simple and inescapable: Clinton is infinitely preferable to Trump as our next president.
How can you POSSIBLY not see that?


Well, I would merely say "reactionary" wasn't "the best" adjective to use, it was the wrong one to use. But nonetheless I appreciate the concession. And it certainly would serve no point to back and forth his "goods and bads" since I already acknowledged that point.

As for "diddletwat and diddledee" being gasp, ad hominem attack, I'm reminded of an adage from my old professor of history, "Be content with those who take umbrage too easily, it means you are winning the issue".

Furthermore it is you who contends that rocback makes "sane responses". Nuff said.

Your point on Clinton v Trump is understood. As to your question, I refer you again to my original final two paragraphs.
 
 
-38 # PsychePhixer 2016-05-29 17:37
rocback you are 100 percent correct that many of the Bernie or Bust and Bernie Bros are paid trolls. On FreeSpeechTV, Thom Hartman who is an ardent Bernie supporter told of his personal experience with one guy who defined himseelf as a Bernie or Bust guy posted comments for a year on Thom's Twitter feed. One day he came on, said he was no longer earning a living from his posts which had been paid by a right-wing Super Pac so he joined the Marines and deployed to Iraq. Thom maintained a friendly relationship for quite some time, then no more word. Thom feels he was killed in Iraq. So while many who are Bernie or Bust folks may not be paid, it is common knowledge many all over the media sites are paid trolls paid to bring down Clinton as Trump wants to to run against Bernie. It is easy to gin up the right-wing against Bernie who they will paint as a pinko commie marxist rather than a social Democrat.
 
 
+21 # dbrize 2016-05-29 20:46
So let's recap:

You say it's 100 percent correct that "many" Bernie or Bust" folks are "paid trolls". Then later tell us "...many who are Bernie or Bust" folks may not be paid". Does your modifier "may" indicate this "may" not be 100 percent correct?

And to prove these "100 percent correct" conclusions you offer one (1) Hartman anecdotal reference from one (1) unnamed individual who "may" or "may" not be alive.

Once again the Bullshit Detector is on loud and clear
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-05-30 02:39
Quoting PsychePhixer:
rocback you are 100 percent correct that many of the Bernie or Bust and Bernie Bros are paid trolls.

HEY, KIDS !

*Speaking of Hillary "Correct The Record" Trolls, "Psycho Phixer", member in *VERY good standing with the Clintonista Camp is *BACK on the RSN Q!

*Just in time to bail-out crocback's BACON ! ;-D

How *goes it, Psycho ? - been missin' ya chicken, *IF, in fact you have even been *GONE ! There is the highly likely *possibility that you are simply one more of crocback's many sign-on handles - paid for by the QUEEN Herself ! ;-D

In *either case tho, we are just plumb *beside ourselves with *joy to see that it became *necessary for you to return.

You *have left crocback in an *AWFUL lurch, for an absolutely *shameful length of time, you know. ;-D

OUCH ! Look below to see what became of your response ! ;-D
That is happening more and more of late. Just seems to go with
the territory !
_
 
 
-10 # rocback 2016-05-30 20:56
I have been having fun exposing hypocrites. It's my honor and pleasure. Thanks for making it easy. :-)
 
 
+2 # Polisage 2016-05-31 11:55
And an exhibitionist as well. :)
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-30 02:29
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-1 # jcdav 2016-05-31 07:59
Got ANY evidence, or just your opinion?
 
 
-1 # vilstef 2016-06-01 17:07
Hey rocback-why does your 3 step program have 4 steps?
 
 
+1 # Scott Galindez 2016-06-02 04:00
That is laughable rocback....

Many are former Democrats who became independent when the Democratic Party started chasing corporate cash.

They have come back for Baernie but havent been earned by Hillary yet.

Some are lefties who won't be earned by Hillary, they wouldn't have voted for Hillary anyway.

They are not Trump supporters, more likely to vote for Jill Stein than than Trump...
 
 
+7 # RobertLVogel 2016-05-30 11:30
Bernie, Trump, John Oliver, and many others agree the election process is rigged. Why is there no effort to fix it ? It produced two main candidates for President, both with mostly unfavorable ratings, both will take us in the wrong direction. Both parties feed at the corporate trough. Both will take us to war.
http://www.gopiswrong.com/democracy.htm
 
 
-10 # rocback 2016-05-30 20:58
The system was rigged, for sure, but in his favor. The first two states? Two of the most unrepresentativ e states in the union, states that glossed over his failures in reaching communities of color. It’s a calendar that benefits white candidates and silences the issues that matter to the communities that drive the modern Democratic Party.

And how about them caucuses? Sanders won nine of 11, getting a significant percentage of his delegate haul from these undemocratic, exclusionary contests. In fact, those nine states are exactly half of his victory total. Take caucuses out, and Sanders is barely in the frame.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with winning caucuses as long as they exist! In fact, Barack Obama owes his presidency to them. But designing a system that prevents people from participating and eliminates the secret ballot is exactly what rigging the system looks like, and it wasn’t Clinton that benefited from that.
 
 
-5 # rocback 2016-05-30 21:00
And it keeps out the Trump voters who try to vote in the Democratic primary so they can run against a 75 year old socialist instead of the most qualified person to have ever run for president. (and that is according to our current president)
 
 
+4 # Polisage 2016-05-31 11:59
Why do you keep showing that ageism? It is not becoming.
 
 
+26 # warrior woman 2016-05-29 14:15
Agree, and on top of all this is the fact that she may get indicted and along with Trump, are the most disliked candidates in history. Read, it was on this site: Indicting Hillary, May 16th.
 
 
-3 # rocback 2016-05-30 21:01
tough to get indicted when you are not under criminal investigation.
 
 
+34 # turtleislander 2016-05-29 14:24
Thank you. I agree and am surprised Mr Reich would pick up this false argument. If Trump wins it is not the fault of Sanders supporters.End of story.
 
 
-9 # Henry 2016-05-29 15:38
Quoting turtleislander:
Thank you. I agree and am surprised Mr Reich would pick up this false argument. If Trump wins it is not the fault of Sanders supporters.End of story.


And who would it be the fault OF, pray tell?
 
 
+6 # hipocampelo 2016-05-29 15:50
Henry: People like me who are entirely too
familiar with the Clintons=Grifte rs). Even
Mr. Trump is an improvement over that lot
if Sen Sanders is unavailable.
 
 
+2 # RLF 2016-05-30 04:45
Agreed...The clinions were cynical in 1968 and ever since have gone for the money...making themselves probably close to $100 million in the process...if that is not corruption I don't know what is!
 
 
+34 # DogSoldier 2016-05-29 16:53
And who would it be the fault OF, pray tell?

The Democrat Party for nominating a serial liar, neo=liberal, war-monger.
 
 
+18 # donaldmead 2016-05-29 17:14
Henry...It would be the fault of the people that vote for him, of course. As for me and many others, we want to vote FOR someone with our values, not against someone. I'm not telling anyone how to vote and I resent others telling me how I HAVE to vote. Do your own thing, Henry.
 
 
+14 # lfeuille 2016-05-29 18:38
HRC, DWS and the rest of the DNC gang.
 
 
+2 # Buddha 2016-05-31 09:36
Quoting Robert Reich:
"But the “Democratic political establishment” is nothing but a bunch of people, many of them big donors and fundraisers occupying comfortable and privileged positions, who won’t even be aware that you’ve decided to sit it out – unless Hillary loses to Donald Trump."


You've just make the case why Progressives should not fall for the "Rally around Hillary" agenda, you admit that us doing so and enabling a HRC win against The Donald would simply cement in the power of the "big donors and fundraisers occupying comfortable and privileged positions" in the Democratic Party. I actually agree. The Democratic Party does not have a chance of abandoning its corruption and embrace of the big donors and returning to Progressive principles until its traditional base no longer falls into line and accepts the "lesser of two evils" arguments, the Dems lose an election hard, and has to face its own post-mortem.
 
 
-1 # librarian1984 2016-06-01 06:23
Excellent observation!

And let's not forget that some of them occupy the "comfortable and privileged position" of superdelegate.

We are screaming from the rooftops that Clinton is a mistake but we are dismissed. If it takes losing an election to correct the DNC's priorities, if they see the progressive wing as a spoiler, that is a sacrifice worth making, and I can't think of a better election to do it -- when it means NOT electing a Clinton, and when it vindicates Sanders' candidacy.
 
 
+20 # newell 2016-05-29 14:39
Yes we all want Bernie to win, including RR. But if he does not then we must decide, for the reasons RR puts forth, to vote for Hillary or Trump. Even if she is not "a capable and responsible leader"--is she better than Trump? If Bernie were enmeshed in the Democratic Party he might have an ax to grind in wanting us to vote for Clinton, but he honestly sees that Trump is something really dangerous. Telling of Trump's future is that he wants to put military men in many key positions. .......A threat of voting for a megalomaniac may be a good bluff, but actually doing it or not voting, is cutting off our nose to spite our face.
 
 
+31 # CL38 2016-05-29 15:03
This is yet another DNC scam, run for almost every election: vote for the "lesser than" or YOU, the VOTERS, will be responsible for what happens next.

What happens next is the DNC stops promoting the same policies the right promoted for 4 decades OR DEMOCRATS will finally face the consequences!
 
 
+11 # RLF 2016-05-30 04:48
And the dems are in danger of becoming the war party...having not seen a war they haven't loved and promoted for the last 60 years! Hillary is just more of the same...I've had it!
 
 
+9 # newell 2016-05-30 06:49
Of course the DNC is a scam. That this country is a democracy is a scam. That the founding slave-owning fathers telling us that we would govern ourselves was a scam. But a corrupt representative democracy is all we now have. It is definitely the lesser of evils and always has been. Aside from a bloody real revolution, which would make things worse, we can change from within (the system)- a lesser of evils until we get money out of politics or/and we can protest as people did for abolition, suffrage and civil rights. A third way is a combination of getting involved in the PTA, City Councils and community, and peaceful protest--it is called Bernie's political revolution.
 
 
+28 # markovchhaney 2016-05-29 16:35
Why "must" we choose between two evils? They're both lesser and I'm not interested in deciding which is the one I should prefer. I'm voting for Bernie Sanders in November. I don't need the permission of the DNC or Robert Reich or anyone else to do so.
 
 
+4 # molesoul 2016-05-30 22:13
Quoting markovchhaney:
Why "must" we choose between two evils? They're both lesser and I'm not interested in deciding which is the one I should prefer.


If you were at all conscious during the utterly disastrous and democracy-killi ng years of the Bush administration, you should understand why EVERY EFFORT must be made to prevent a Trump presidency. It will take the political revolution that Bernie Sanders is calling for just to recover the government functionality that was lost during those years. And if you are too young to remember the 8 years of the Bill Clinton administration, let me assure you that there is no comparison with the evil that Dubya delivered. Do not be fooled into believing that there is no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders would never accept such an extreme claim. Please do not let your understandable anger and cynicism blind you to the devastation that a Trump presidency would deliver to this country. Please think of those who would suffer greatly under a Trump presidency (Latino and Muslim immigrants for a start) before you abstain from voting or write in a third candidate. Newell has the clear-headed answer for this insane election.
 
 
+9 # lfeuille 2016-05-29 18:40
No. We will decide for our own reasons, which for many of us do not coincide with RR's.
 
 
-16 # Barbara K 2016-05-29 16:53
Some info you need to see.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/28/wapos-editorial-board-time-sanders-start-honest.html

..
 
 
+21 # BluePill 2016-05-29 17:09
No, we don't. When the author suggests that the so called melee in Albuquerque was representative of Sanders supporters we know the column is bullshit since is has been proven that no chairs were thrown. There is no evidence of this happening apart from remarks by an HRC commentator who was not there.
 
 
+9 # Nominae 2016-05-30 03:01
Quoting BluePill:
No, we don't. When the author suggests that the so called melee in Albuquerque was representative of Sanders supporters we know the column is bullshit....

Good points all, but just to note that the false "chair throwing" canard was connected to an event in Nevada. The melee in Albuquerque was Trump Supporters fighting with local Trump "Revoltees".

Let's just say that the Trumpinator's remarks about Mexicans, that damned Wall, and immigration in *general, just do *NOT "play"
that well here in New Mexico. ;-D
_
 
 
+5 # DogSoldier 2016-05-30 10:29
Quoting Barbara K:
Some info you need to see.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/28/wapos-editorial-board-time-sanders-start-honest.html

..

That's not information, it's an opinion piece by a Hillary supporter. What he says is nothing new, it's the same basic BS that the DNC has been putting out since the beginning of the campaign.
 
 
-1 # rocback 2016-05-31 11:58
"Sanders plays a Selfish and Dangerous Game"

http://www.uexpress.com/cokie-and-steven-roberts/2016/5/25/sanders-plays-a-dangerous-game
 
 
+8 # tswhiskers 2016-05-29 11:49
HEAR! HEAR! I'm not very fond of Hillary either, but the last sentence says it all: "But swallow it you must – not just for the good of the Democratic Party, but for the good of the nation." Bernie surely would not approve the mass of his followers refusing to vote against Hillary, knowing the danger Trump would be to the good of this country. Re politics, in this country or any other, the voters MUST be able to care for the national good before all other considerations. Personal feelings and preferences can't be allowed to affect one's choice in a matter like this one which will face the American public in Nov. Our preferences were exercised in the primaries and caucuses, and in fact, Hillary seems to be the majority choice of Democrats. Nevertheless, we MUST do the mature thing, and for the country's good, we must vote for the Dem. candidate. To vote for someone else, or to refuse to vote, or to cause riots because our choice didn't win, just puts us on the level of African and South American tinpot dictatorships and betrays the level of maturity of American democracy. The miraculous thing about American govt. is that after every election the losing party/candidate has ALWAYS given in gracefully and allowed the winning candidate to enter office peacefully.
 
 
+48 # CL38 2016-05-29 12:56
Excuse me for mentioning this, but you ARE aware that vote tampering took place in NY, AZ, MA, IA and other states??? "Voting personal feelings or preferences is not allowed?"

How do you--or ANY Clinton supporter, in all fairness, claim that Hillary's leading, while vote tampering occurs, on an extensive scale across the country? Voter preferences were NOT exercised in primaries and caucuses where votes were stolen.

How do we actually know that Hillary is 'winning' when the DNC and her campaign use vote tampering tactics described in the article below--it's already started in CA, where votes haven't yet been cast. (Voters report their registrations as Democrats were changed without their knowledge, etc.)

See "It’s Not Just Arizona: Election ‘Shenanigans’ Have Defined the Democratic Primaries - and Benefit Hillary Clinton"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riley-waggaman/its-not-just-arizona-elec_b_9550670.html

The 'National Good' for voters doesn't include Clinton or Trump. I ask you to get your facts straight before you post.
 
 
+9 # RLF 2016-05-30 04:50
Vote tampering...jus t one more example of the Clintons taking a page out of the Republican playbook.
 
 
+39 # kath 2016-05-29 13:35
I have spent a significant chunk of my life voting for the socalled "lesser evil." Belatedly it has dawned on me that the lesser evil is still evil.
Hillary Clinton is not a capable candidate, she is Lurlene Wallach married to a more powerful man. Her Senate record was scant and her SoS record is marred by the Syrian invasion, the Russian deterioration and the email thing, to name just the headliners.
 
 
+8 # Barkingcarpet 2016-05-29 14:45
Yep. Overall, really, it IS We, The "people" with every waking dollar, every mile driven/flown, and every once living environ we toss away week after year as lifeless disposable nonrepairable wastage and toxic leftovers. We create and recreate either diversity or paved oblivion. Really, it is not the "leaders" or lack of leaders. It is our own education and ignorances and allowing/going along with and averting in the apathetic lack of action in our own lives as we focus on work and $ to the detriment of a future living in. Most of us do know. We just continually choose otherwise. Defending or agreeing with jerking knees, when we need to change our habits and attitudes. It's up to us, and how do we reeducate ourselves or each other without shooting first, or get past the pointed end of a buck and the dictation of greedy prophets?
 
 
+8 # lfeuille 2016-05-29 19:09
I don't really relate to the word "evil". It as too many religious connotations. Most of the time I don't have a problem voting for the one who appears to be the best of what's realistically available. I voted for Obama twice. He wasn't great, but he was better than the Republicans. But this time is different. There was no one like Bernie in 2008 or 2012 who actually refused to allow him or her self to be corrupted by corporate cash and who managed to get so far without it and probably would have the nomination sewed up0 by now if it weren't for vote tampering and rigged primary rules. here comes a time where you just have to say no more. It has to stop.
 
 
0 # Tigre1 2016-06-01 20:07
Sorry. You don't like it that a person murders, I assume. Mere words, in spite of their limits, do give us the ability to place "Good" or "Bad" behaviors and results
on a scale...and if you refuse to consider that you may need a term to indicate something so far beyond the ordinary, as, for instance, the ancient Conservatives fighting hard AGAINST votes for women or AGAINST the GI Bill, as EVIL...then I say that your world, perhaps, may be one you see with blinkered eyes, unwilling to confront EVIL.
I understand, I don't like it much myself. If you've seen very many of unclear posts, you know that at least in words, I NEED such a word and concept to describe many proud Conservative acts, such as the Kochs stealing oil from the Tribes...EVIL comes to mind as a Fact and Truth.
Please note that I did not go to ISIL etc for examples. The Kochs, fry-cooks though they may be, are quite a good example.
 
 
+25 # vicnada 2016-05-29 14:24
Quoting tswhiskers:
...we MUST do the mature thing, and for the country's good, we must vote for the Dem. candidate. To vote for someone else, or to refuse to vote, or to cause riots because our choice didn't win, just puts us on the level of African and South American tinpot dictatorships and betrays the level of maturity of American democracy.
MY, MY what a condescending pile of sludge this is. The Carter Center has monitored MANY, MANY elections in Africa and South America over the past decades. ALL, ALL would have been found blatantly fraudulent if exit polling had diverged as radically as has happened in many of the Democratic primaries and caucuses this season. WHY, WHY do they always favor Clinton?

"...betrays the level of maturity of American democracy." INDEED, INDEED!
 
 
+11 # FIRSTNORN1 2016-05-29 14:40
Unfortunately, tswhiskers, there is something which both you and Robert Reich are missing. To quote the end of your post:
"To vote for someone else, or to refuse to vote, or to cause riots because our choice didn't win, just puts us on the level of African and South American tinpot dictatorships and betrays the level of maturity of American democracy. The miraculous thing about American govt. is that after every election the losing party/candidate has ALWAYS given in gracefully and allowed the winning candidate to enter office peacefully."
In one very important way, our so-called "American democracy" is worse than any African or South American "tinpot dictatorships". We have totally given up control of our country to the folks at the top of the financial ladder. If not Bernie, then NO HRC; Trump may be a "loose cannon", but Hillary will be a far more dangerous "known cannon" to move us toward nuclear war with Russia or China. Please read the article by John Pilger. I'll take my chances with Trump over Hillary because he is less likely to get us into another massive war.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-05-29 21:52
"The miraculous thing about American govt. is that after every election the losing party/candidate has ALWAYS given in gracefully and allowed the winning candidate to enter office peacefully."

If peacefully means the absence of physical violence, that is correct. But the 20o1 inauguration feature some very vocal protests which I participated in. Not starting riots does not mean quietly accepting whatever the establishment dishes out.
 
 
+11 # AshamedAmerican 2016-05-29 21:51
It isn't a matter of "personal feelings". Every war we start is based on lies, and she aggressively supports every one. She has advocated fracking throughout the world, poisoning groundwater in the process. She supports all the trade agreements, which give the conglomerates (the few she represents) even more power over people, and now even over governments, that otherwise might possibly side with the people.

And there is nothing "miraculous" here. Those who become the President are first chosen as electable by the corporate media. They are only deemed electable if their records reflect the priorities of the ruling class. This applies to both major parties. So of course the "losing party/candidate has ALWAYS given in gracefully".

HRC is another Bush/Obama/Clin ton/Reagan...an d not necessarily any less bad than Trump would be.
 
 
+5 # A_Har 2016-05-30 20:38
No, I Won't Work for Hillary Clinton: A Response to Robert Reich
Published on Monday, May 30, 2016
by Common Dreams

No, I Won't Work for Hillary Clinton: A Response to Robert Reich
http://commondreams.org/views/2016/05/30/no-i-wont-work-hillary-clinton-response-robert-reich

by Jake Johnson
 
 
-1 # pegasus4508 2016-05-31 17:47
Until 2016...
 
 
+44 # RMDC 2016-05-29 11:49
"my advice for Sanders supporters: Be prepared to work hard for Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination."

No, this election is about the end of the Clinton control of the democratic party. For me, it would be worth the risk of a Trump presidency just to free the democrat party from the onerous clutches of Bill Clinton and his minions like Leon Panetta and John Podesta. These people have ruined the party and they need to go -- at any cost.

If the Clintons won't graciously let the party go, then the party will eject them. Already a very substantial percentage of democrats have left the party for independent status, the Greens, or something else. With the Clintons gone, these people may come back. That is the long term health of the party. Don't jeopardize it for some nebulous short term goal. I say nebulous because there might be a happy convention with everyone singing unity songs, but the very next day, Trump will launch his attack on Hillary and there's a better than even chance he will overwhelm her.

Short term unity and happiness is not a good trade for a longer term humiliation. The Democrat Party simply no longer belongs to Bill Clinton. He can leave peaceably, or he can be ejected. The choice is his. My mind is made up.
 
 
-24 # ericlipps 2016-05-29 17:33
Quoting RMDC:
"my advice for Sanders supporters: Be prepared to work hard for Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination."

No, this election is about the end of the Clinton control of the democratic party. For me, it would be worth the risk of a Trump presidency just to free the democrat party from the onerous clutches of Bill Clinton and his minions like Leon Panetta and John Podesta. These people have ruined the party and they need to go -- at any cost.

At ANY cost? You're willing to trust Trump not to wreck the country just so another (ugh! ptui!) CLINTON won't occupy the presidency?

Moving on:
Quote:
The Democrat Party simply no longer belongs to Bill Clinton. He can leave peaceably, or he can be ejected. The choice is his. My mind is made up.
Ah, but for which party? You know, it's usually right-wing Republicans who go on about the "Democrat" Party. Not to make any accusations, but the smell of troll is in the air.
 
 
+19 # lfeuille 2016-05-29 17:54
Hillary will wreck the country anyway.
 
 
+9 # RMDC 2016-05-29 20:30
eric -- "At ANY cost? You're willing to trust Trump not to wreck the country just so another (ugh! ptui!) CLINTON won't occupy the presidency?"

Yes, i agree and admit that it is a terrible risk but I think it is a good one to take. Bush II was a risk. He had no experience and was an alcoholic. There are lots of these risks.

To me, the issue is the overwhelming need to put an end to the hegemony of the Bush family political dynasty. They have ruled the US since the early 70s when Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfled framed up Nixon and forced him to resign. They took control and have held it up to now. Clinton was a protoge of the Bush political family. He was recruited into national politics by Pamela Harriman, the wife of Prescott Bush's business partner, Averill Harriman. Clinton has been especially close to the Bushes.

This dynasty needs to end. Of course it is scary for most americans to rebel against such a long standing master. But we must get over the fear. Trump is not ideal; in fact, he's horrible. But he is not part of the Bush political clan. I still hope Sanders will beat Hillary in some way.
 
 
+1 # A_Har 2016-05-31 15:22
NOPE....the truth is actually THIS:

Hey Democrats: A Vote for Hillary Clinton Is Actually a Vote for Donald Trump

http://theantimedia.org/vote-hillary-clinton-is-vote-trump/

May 23, 2016 | ANTIMEDIA

"(ANTIMEDIA) San Diego, CA — With California finally mattering in an election season, it might be the final state primary before the Democratic race for president is set in stone. Regardless, recent developments have made one thing astoundingly clear: Donald Trump will almost surely defeat Hillary Clinton in a head to head matchup — and that’s why a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for Donald Trump.
 
 
-1 # Tigre1 2016-06-01 20:10
eri...yup. Smells very much like Troll on a Roll...
 
 
-2 # mh1224jst 2016-05-30 06:12
Quoting RMDC:
"my advice for Sanders supporters: Be prepared to work hard for Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination."

No, this election is about the end of the Clinton control of the democratic party. For me, it would be worth the risk of a Trump presidency just to free the democrat party from the onerous clutches of Bill Clinton and his minions like Leon Panetta and John Podesta. These people have ruined the party and they need to go -- at any cost.

At any cost? A Trump presidency would have incredibly dire consequences. Lowering taxes for the rich even more, for example, would quickly destroy our government, economy, and monetary system. Yes, it's that bad. I share your sentiments about Clinton, but destroying ourselves is not a sensible strategy for ousting Clinton influence. The last vestiges of the libertarian GOP must be eradicated, now.
 
 
+20 # DogSoldier 2016-05-29 11:58
What else would you expect from a Clinton lackey? Let's not forget that this shill was Bill's labor secretary. I wouldn't be surprised to find that he was planted by the Clinton campaign to try and turn Bernie supporters in a situation like this.

So what, if it takes a Hillary loss to wake up the Democrats. It's not the fault of People who won't vote for Hillary, it's the fault of the party for nominating a lying, untrustworthy person in the first place. If they're that afraid of Chump, then lose Hillary from the ticket. Otherwise, get used to saying, President Chump.

I for one will not vote for either Hillary or the Donald. My vote will go to Bernie or Jill Stein, who actually represents my views. I will not vote for a war monger, tool of the establishment
 
 
+10 # jsluka 2016-05-29 14:27
I'm with you Crzkat!
 
 
-9 # Henry 2016-05-29 15:43
Quoting crzkat:
What else would you expect from a Clinton lackey? Let's not forget that this shill was Bill's labor secretary. I wouldn't be surprised to find that he was planted by the Clinton campaign to try and turn Bernie supporters in a situation like this.


Big talk, tough guy. Reich is no lackey or shill. He's just a grownup.
 
 
+13 # lfeuille 2016-05-29 17:56
He is not a shill, but I don't think he is being objective. I think his long standing friendship with the Clintons is clouding his judgment. He has let himself be seduced by the Hillary fear-mongering machine.
 
 
+59 # CL38 2016-05-29 12:36
Mr. Reich,

Please read this RSN article on "Secretive Trade Agreement Paves Way to 'Corporatizatio n of Public Services'"

Clinton supported TISA and TPP, just as she supported past trade agreements--unt il she made the decision to run for President--when she suddenly claimed to no longer support the TPP, due to new information she hadn't known previously. Since she pushed the TPP to other countries during her SOS stint, this is an unconscionable outright lie. She knew exactly what it entails. Just ONE MORE reason that she doesn't deserve to be President.

Read about the secretive aspects of what would be imposed on everyone, WITHOUT public input or approval through TISA and the TPP..

IF Hillary is imposed by the DNC as their Presidential candidate--and she does becomes President--coun t on it, she WILL find ways to reverse her more recent rejection of the TISA & TPP. As President, she'll impose these agreements that lead down a dangerous path for ordinary citizens who will be forced to pay for TPP policies, a step toward totalitarianism , without our vote, OUR permission or OUR approval. Taxpayers would be FORCED to pay for corporate profit losses, etc..

Mr. Reich, how can you possibly claim that "Hillary has shown herself a capable and responsible leader?"
 
 
+68 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-29 12:44
"The TPP is the GOLD STANDARD of trade agreements" she said it on record and you can be absolutely certain that she will go right back to that position if she is successful in tricking enough gullible sheep, er...I mean, voters into casting their ballots for someone that will abandon them on January 20, 2017.
After all, she works for Wall Street NOT for the American people!
 
 
+36 # Inspired Citizen 2016-05-29 13:25
Reich is arguing AGAINST Bernie or bust, against voting your conscience on Nov. 8th instead of voting for a candidate with "conservative values."

Hillary could do untold damage to the progressive movement, so we will not be shepherded into the neo-liberal, uber-hawkish fold of Clinton. If she loses the general election, we can blame the Democrats supporting a candidate under FBI investigation who 1) lies as a matter of routine and 2) is as hawkish as John McCain. Bill Clinton also encouraged Trump to get more involved with Republican politics.

http://www.examiner.com/article/donald-trump-is-not-progressive-s-problem-to-solve-1
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-06-01 07:03
@ Inspired Citizen

This is a great article. Makes the point that it was Bill Clinton who encouraged Trump to get more involved in Republican politics, but now it's progressives who are told to fix the problem by falling in line to vote for HRC.

The article does not make the leap to saying this might be a Clinton-Trump conspiracy, but it does say it is not progressives' obligation to vote for someone who will betray their values.

Thank you.
 
 
+23 # Polisage 2016-05-29 14:03
Professor Reich,

I have always been impressed by both your wisdom and your integrity

I never expected them to be a casualty of a corrupt political establishment. Say it ain't so, Robert. Please!

Though I am not a fan of the late Confederacy, "Swallow the dog" is just too much to ask.

"Always in love with Bernie" He gives us hope and that is what the country needs.
 
 
-22 # Henry 2016-05-29 15:44
Quoting CL38:
Mr. Reich,

Please read this RSN article on "Secretive Trade Agreement Paves Way to 'Corporatization of Public Services'"

Blah blah


"Mr. Reich" does not come to these pages to read your letters, get it?
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-05-30 12:32
Everyone is curious about their impact on others. I would be surprised if he DOESN'T take a look at how his comments are received.

Don't you?
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2016-05-30 17:11
Quoting CL38:
Everyone is curious about their impact on others. I would be surprised if he DOESN'T take a look at how his comments are received.

Don't you?

If he does not do so personally, he *definitely employs someone who *does ! ;-D
_
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-29 13:41
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+48 # CL38 2016-05-29 13:50
That is slander and outright lying about Robert Reich. I'm sure you know that.

You don't get to just make things up, to earn $ through clinton's $1 million program to attack Bernie supporters.

People on this thread never use that kind of language, ever, for anyone. You are the ONLY woman or man, who contemptuously resorted to calling Clinton a 'cunt'.
 
 
0 # vicnada 2016-05-29 14:27
It takes one to know one.
 
 
+23 # jsluka 2016-05-29 14:29
Troll alert.
 
 
+28 # goodsensecynic 2016-05-29 14:33
My sad little potty-mouthed Ms. Craft:

Never mind all the other cant, your claim that anyone within spitting distance of the presidency is a "bolshevik" demonstrates that you wouldn't know a communist if she were to leap naked on a bar stool, clad only in a red sash, clutching a hammer in one hand and a sickle in the other, and singing "The Internationale" appropriately off-key.

Hyperbole is to be expected in polemics, especially on sites like this, but there is a difference between ardent advocacy and delusion combined, of course, with bad taste ... unless, of course, you're claiming the term "cunt" as a kind of radical feminist reappropriation of language - in which case I might be persuaded to support you ... but I doubt if that's what you have in mind.
 
 
+17 # lorenbliss 2016-05-29 15:01
@goodsensecynic : very well said; very well said indeed. Thank you.
 
 
+7 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-05-29 16:11
You can't define "bolshevik."
 
 
+9 # markovchhaney 2016-05-29 20:06
Oh, I LOVE this answer, "christine," not because it's accurate, but because it's perfect Hill-shilling. Calling a democratic socialist a bolshevik is absurd and anyone who knows political theory, the history of the Russian revolution, or Bernie Sanders recognize the red-baiting bilge that some Hillary supporters are all-too-happy to indulge in. DIck Nixon, Joe McCarthy, and Roy Cohn must be proud!

Next, we engage in some egregious fraudulent sexist baiting, then accuses Reich & Sanders of "doing nothing" when this hypothetical act of sexist vulgarity that YOU have committed yourself takes place. Except that it hasn't happened in Oakland; just here. Nice work. My, but Sanders supporters are awful, aren't they, at least when being misrepresented by people like you.

Finally, the predictable "Shot O' Fear": big bad Trump will get you if you don't watch out! So vote for Hillary because how could she POSSIBLY be as bad as Trump?

Here's what I know: she's been worse than Trump every time she's had the chance to wield power. Trump has never held an elected or appointed political position at any level of government. He's not promoted or voted for any wars, for starters. He's not helped see some extraordinarily racist policies go into effect while his spouse was POTUS.

Will I vote for Trump or urge others to do so? Not a chance. But then, neither will I vote for Hillary Clinton or urge others to do so.

Nice work, though. Kind of perfect.
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-05-30 03:11
Quoting christine craft:
someone shouts that Hillary is a "cunt"...

Well, here comes *again that pathetic little garbage-mouthed shock-jock with the chronic case of logorrhea ! ;-D

Don't you get enough of this *ON air, Pollyanna ? ;-D
_
 
 
-78 # brycenuc 2016-05-29 13:54
It's amazing to me how many otherwise bright people like Robert Reich have swallowed the the nonsense of man-caused global warming.
 
 
+29 # vicnada 2016-05-29 14:30
Not quite amazing as seeing how brain-boiled Republicans have become. Watch for orange hair, an early sign of man-caused cranial warming.
 
 
+36 # jsluka 2016-05-29 14:30
Yeah, anyone with a brain, which obviously leaves you right out. You continue to believe that 99% of climate scientists are wrong or lying. That's crazy.
 
 
+28 # CL38 2016-05-29 14:43
That's one huge "conspiracy theory" GOP politicians promote to AVOID taking responsibility for decades of climate change damage by pushing fossil fuel use.
 
 
+12 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-29 18:57
Yes and never forget all of Hillary's fine work in spreading fracking around the world while serving as SOS!
 
 
+10 # BluePill 2016-05-29 18:01
Quoting brycenuc:
It's amazing to me how many otherwise bright people like Robert Reich have swallowed the the nonsense of man-caused global warming.

Thanks for the off-topic comment. Do you have any logical argument to support your position? Or would you prefer to just direct us to one of your Koch brothers sponsored websites.
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-05-29 19:45
He does not. Please let's not feed the trolls, especially this one who is already bloated with certainty yet still hyperactive.
 
 
+1 # banichi 2016-05-29 23:26
I agree, # economagic. I propose to everyone on the RSN commentaries that when a troll is identified, to simply, completely IGNORE them. No downchecks, no replies, just ignore them. If they are actually paid by the 'click' then they won't get paid at all. Maybe then they will just dry up and go away? It is worth a try, anyway!

Of course, if they resort to objectionable language, as the RSN header for comments says, just report them to administrator. Pretty simple.
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-05-30 03:20
Quoting economagic:
Please let's not feed the trolls ....

Damned right ! e-magic is the *only one allowed *TO feed the Trolls, which he gleefully *does, interspersed *with his admonitions against
his very *OWN actions, such as we see above. ;-D
_

@banichi

Ignoring the trolls has *been tried, and it *predictably fails every time. Many of these commenters are PAID Trolls from Hillary's SuperPAC "Correct The Record", paid to infiltrate progressive sites such as RSN, which *officially endorsed Sanders some time ago.

Those who have been on RSN for *much longer than has e-magic, will *know that brycenuc is *NOT, I repeat, *NOT at Troll. Bryce is a nuclear scientist (get it ? bryce-nuc ?) who has developed some, shall we say, "unique" theories regarding CO2 and its effect in the atmosphere.

There is certainly *No need to agree with him, but casting *everyone you *DON'T KNOW as a "Troll" as e-magic *does in *this case, is even *less productive than hiding under the bed and pretending that *ignoring Trolls has the *slightest effect upon their SALARIED behavior. ;-D

Cheers !
_
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-30 03:17
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+33 # PaineRad 2016-05-29 14:03
Sorry, Robert, but trying to second guess likely general election winners is not my job. My job, my only job, as a voter and citizen is to vote for the one candidate who best represents my values and vision for this country, my child, my relatives and friends. PERIOD.

Sec. Clinton is not that candidate. If the Democrats lose after nominating another neoliberal, that is the fault of the Party, not voters who support the Constitution of the United States and believe in the ideals, too frequently violated, in our founding documents.
 
 
+22 # jsluka 2016-05-29 14:31
Well said, PaineRad.
 
 
-32 # freeone 2016-05-29 14:18
mr.Reich...You have helped stoke the HATE of Hillary. I was a follower & donor to Sanders & RSN & switched off Sanders, not because of his policies, but because of his rabid followers who have pushed the "right-wing Hillary Hating Machine" to this site & some of my fave left sites. I stopped my donations to Sanders & to this site.
OK go ahead & delete again
 
 
+26 # CL38 2016-05-29 14:50
freeone,

why stop supporting Sanders, who is the only sane conscientious candidate running, to punish his supporters??

The vote tampering from the Clinton campaign, the MSM and DNC shutting Bernie out from the very beginning, it's NO WONDER WHY Sanders supporters are angry. People don't hate Hillary, they hate her willingness to lie and cheat--and then turn to look us straight in the eye and claim to be a candidate with integrity (it's not important that she's under two FBI investigations? )

Don't scapegoat Sanders for the unbelievable corruption of this DNC to steal this election for Clinton.
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-05-30 03:49
Quoting freeone:
mr.Reich...You have helped stoke the HATE of Hillary....

Here is a *stellar example of the point I was making to e-magic and banichi above.

This is a *new contributor. I can't, this *second, say that it is Troll. Let's just duly note the *stunning "co-incidence" in the fact that the "script" itself comes *directly OUT OF articles written *describing the strategies and the recommended scripts *for Hillary Clinton's Million Dollar Expenditure donated to hire Trolls to infiltrate progressive sites.

"I used to *LOVE ____ (fill in the blank), now I *HATE _____ (fill in the blank), and it's ALL YOUR _____ (fill in the blank) freakin' *FAULT !! ;-D

I know - *I would have thot you could do better with a Million Bucks TOO ! ;-D
_
 
 
-23 # Kiwikid 2016-05-29 14:21
At last! While what Reich says may not be palatable with the Berners, he makes absolute sense. I feel like I can breathe again.
 
 
+20 # jsluka 2016-05-29 14:34
You are going to be SOOOO disappointed if/when Shillary is elected. Don't you ever learn? Didn't you learn anything from the betrayal of Obama? Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me. So shame on you. If you vote for Shillary, you vote for the status quo, and nothing will change. That makes you personally partly responsible for that failure. The bottom line is it is morally and politically irresponsible to vote for Shillary. We are now well and truly past the time when voting for the "lesser of two evils" can be (mis)construed as an act of virtue.
 
 
+5 # banichi 2016-05-29 23:30
Nicely said! Thank you!
 
 
0 # goodsensecynic 2016-05-29 14:25
There is only one reason I'd urge people to vote for Hillary. It is that her choice of a Supreme Court justice would be better than Trump's.

There is only one reason I'd consider urging people to vote for Trump. It is that he might not be as eager as Hillary to engage in another pointless, hideous and unwinnable military adventure.

Although stomping down the road to Armageddon with Hillary is a real possibility, it's still fairly unlikely.

Getting another Scalia/Thomas, however, seems almost a certainty with Trump. This is a matter that matters, for whoever is elected will probably be gone in four years. A Supreme Court justice, however, can last a lifetime.

So, I would reluctantly endorse Hillary Clinton - though I dream of President Sanders and might even be more open to President Biden, especially if it means that there'd be a real chance of getting a female president in 2020 ... and that would be President Elizabeth Warrer.

Stranger things have happened/are happening.
 
 
-1 # freeone 2016-05-29 14:26
... also>> we need to keep Sanders in the Senate & elect more Dems to take back our Congress. I don't want whoever is OUR candidate to strip the Congress of elected members for their admin. like Obama did. WE NEED a strong Dem Senate & Congress. I have been an independent all my life & kept registered as a Dem ONLY because of primaries. then worked like crazy for those I wanted in. It didn't always work, (in fact RARELY worked) but I voted against the GOP & conservatives.
 
 
+4 # Nominae 2016-05-30 04:02
Quoting freeone:
... also>> we need to keep Sanders in the Senate ....

Fascinating !

So what "WE" *DON'T NEED is Sanders as a Presidential CONTENDER ?

Yeah, but, see, "WE" (*true Sanders Supporters) *literally think that "WE" *DO need Sanders as a Presidential Contender, IN *SPITE OF the absolutely *Aristotelian Logic that *you present above ! Kin ya *believe it ? ;-D
_
 
 
+21 # librarian1984 2016-05-29 14:26
Diane Feinstein has just called on Sanders to drop out.

By the look on her face you could see she was bracing for the inevitable Sanders backlash.

I propose we not respond at all, just ignore it.

Feinstein will be much more shocked by facing her own irrelevance than flooding her phone, which has undoubtedly been handed off to an underling.

"Oh TAKE this, Stephanie! And bring me a croissant -- the one with the almond slivers. Chew it for me first and DON'T forget the baby tears' julep this time!"

While I lived in CA Feinstein, then mayor of SF, vetoed a law to give women government employees pay equity, said they couldn't afford it.

Is she trying out for VP? No. Sacrificial lamb? No. Expendable hack? Bingo.
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2016-05-29 19:23
I don't think we can stop the backlash. Not all Bernie supporters hang out here and even some that do are going to want to respond, I hope especially California residents.
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-05-29 22:10
Well in that case I'll just enjoy the constipated look on Feinstein's face and hope her phone blows up. What a tool.
 
 
+11 # banichi 2016-05-29 23:45
I am a California resident, and lived in San Francisco during the period when Feinstein was mayor. The thing that stood out about her tenure, as mayor and as Senator, is how little I remember of anything she has done for people. I am not saying she has not done anything, just that whatever she did was not remarkable enough for me to remember.

I would have to research her history to find out more. I do recall that she has been a supporter of the TPP, that she was one of those who went into the basement of the Capitol building to read the proposed text of the TPP agreement, and came out saying she could not either take notes or inform her constituents about the contents of the TPP agreement, as it had been classified Secret on some level.

I have also seen an article that said she got her husband Richard Blum, the job of brokering the sale of former Post Office buildings as they were closed, a position that will make him $millions. Might be a conflict of interest there?

What is noticeable is that she has always had a business-first attitude, which goes along with her support of the TPP as well as parroting the lies of the Democratic Party, DNC, and the BS about the Nevada debacle. Quite simply she has shown up as an Establishment hack.

I think she has always been more of a 'blue dog' democrat than anything else, but that's just my impression. She, like Boxer, is retiring, so there is no point in bashing her anyway. I wonder if she will have a job after...
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-05-30 04:11
Quoting librarian1984:
Diane Feinstein has just called on Sanders to drop out.


Given that Diane Feinstein and her husband are *Both well-known *appendages of AIPAC, wouldn't Diane *have to pull such an
egregious public faux pas ? ;-D

You *know that Hillary would ! ;-D
_
 
 
+14 # MendoChuck 2016-05-29 14:27
Get "REAL" Robert . . . . .
I certainly did not expect something like this "BS" column from the likes of you.
Sooner or Later the voters will have to make the changes that are needed . . . . We can not WAIT for the changes to come from Washington DC.
It is time we told Washington DC, "Anyone but Hillary or Trump."
 
 
-16 # Henry 2016-05-29 15:51
Reich doesn't come here, ever.
 
 
+8 # lfeuille 2016-05-29 19:25
Maybe not, but I'm sure h is getting similar feedback on his blog.
 
 
0 # DogSoldier 2016-05-30 10:56
Quoting lfeuille:
Maybe not, but I'm sure h is getting similar feedback on his blog.



Reich doesn't allow comments on his blog. Like any good Hillary supporter, he really doesn't tolerate dissension.

I'm sure he doesn't ever come here because he can't stand cognitive dissonance.
 
 
+11 # librarian1984 2016-05-29 14:27
Sanders is campaigning in the drought-ridden heart of California, and the smaller towns, while Clinton is sticking to LA and the Bay Area, places her policies haven't decimated.

I love California, all four of them, and I believe they will send a resounding message to HRC and the DNC.

CA rocks.

It's New Jersey I'm worried about! I don't want them to push Clinton over her imaginary victory line so the media can drown out the tidal wave coming in from CA.
 
 
+7 # DogSoldier 2016-05-29 17:11
It's New Jersey I'm worried about! I don't want them to push Clinton over her imaginary victory line so the media can drown out the tidal wave coming in from CA.

That's a bogus threat. NJ can't push her over the line without counting superdelegates, who have until the convention to make up their mind.

That's not to say our biased MSM won't try that tactic. Chris Mathews of MSNBC is already floating the suggestion. If they do, it's all the more reason to be in the streets of Philadelphia for the convention. We need to show them no peace, nor mercy until they disavow the Clintons.
 
 
+17 # jimmyjames 2016-05-29 14:28
I have to leave you on this one, Robert. Your call for Hillary Clinton, I just cannot stomach. After spending the last few years discovering what a fraud HRC is, her incessant lying, her criminal activities, her whoring to Wall Street, and her warmongering "values", I would be disgusted with myself and all others who would vote for her. You always seemed to be a man of conscience, but now you depart from your ideals. Shame on you to ask Bernie supporters to support Hillary Clinton.

I will either write in Bernie Sanders or vote Green for Jill Stein if Bernie loses the nomination. I actually hope that Bernie would run with Jill. If Hilary loses, as she well might, I am willing to risk four years of Donald Trump. Maybe next time the DNC will back a TRUE Democrat that espouses Democratic values - not Republican lite!
 
 
+20 # Old Uncle Dave 2016-05-29 14:36
If "the country" is the corporate sector then yes, Clinton would be better for the country, but her love of war would be worse for the world. Clinton has too much blood on her hands to get my vote.
 
 
-34 # Barbara K 2016-05-29 14:51
She has NEVER STARTED a war. She never even had the power to do that. The real fraud is Sanders, not Hillary. He is the one who stands there blathering at every "campaign speech", lying about her and deceiving all he speaks to. There are stories out there finally who are realizing just that. Then for him to impose himself on the Democratic Party and at the first opportune moment, he tries to take that over and telling who has to go. He has a lot of Gall. He's been a "democrat" for only a few weeks. I watched when a reporter kept pushing the issue and he begrudgingly said "Ok, I'm a Democrat". Hillary has the ideas that will work, not the fantasy ones. If you don't like her, that is your problem. Sanders even tried to debate Trump just to look good to the CA people, and even demanded that it be held in CA.

..
 
 
+20 # tigerlillie 2016-05-29 15:06
[quote name="Barbara K"The real fraud is Sanders, not Hillary. He is the one who stands there blathering at every "campaign speech", lying about her and deceiving all he speaks to.

..

Barbara K, you have made the allegation over and over again that Bernie Sanders "lies" about Hillary Clinton, but to my knowledge, you have never specified what lies he has told about her. Please take the opportunity now to give an example of 3 lies that Bernie has told about Hillary during his campaign speeches. Your ability to do that might actually detract from the impression you give of being irrational.
 
 
+16 # jimmyjames 2016-05-29 15:13
Don't hold your breath...Barbar a K is all smoke, no substance...
 
 
-23 # Barbara K 2016-05-29 15:36
JJ: You can breathe now.

..
 
 
+10 # BluePill 2016-05-29 17:50
Quoting Barbara K:
JJ: You can breathe now.

..

BK, maybe you should try breathing some fresh air instead of whatever it is you're smoking
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-05-30 04:20
Quoting Barbara K:
JJ: You can breathe now...

Why ? Not a THING has *changed ! ;-D
_
 
 
+9 # lfeuille 2016-05-29 17:42
It is hard to imagine a more shallow understanding of politics.
 
 
-13 # Barbara K 2016-05-29 15:33
Tigerlillie: I told some of the lies on this site several times. But people only see what they want to and denegrade anyone else that tells about the lies. First of all, HER VOTE was not the only one for giving the authoriztion to the president to take action, it was NOT A VOTE FOR WAR. All Rs voted for it and so did other Dems. It was a MAJORITY VOTE, NOT A JUST HILLARY VOTE. Sanders said she voted for all the TRADE BILLS, she DID NOT VOTE FOR ANY OF THEM. She was not in office when the first one went thru. She was a Senator when the 2nd one went thru and she VOTED NO ON IT, the 3rd one hasn't even come up for a vote yet and she is not in office and won't be voting on it anyway, and is against it. He claims she started wars. That is another lie. SHE NEVER STARTED A WAR. She has not even had the power to start a war. You asked for 3, there they are.

..
 
 
+10 # jimmyjames 2016-05-29 16:10
Yes the Iraq war vote was a majority vote, but Bernie says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdFw1btbkLM
On trade:
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade
Warmonger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OXfHU5hI4I

Hopefully this will be the answer soon....:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QtA68jqBbc
 
 
-13 # Barbara K 2016-05-29 17:06
Oh, yes, like people don't lie on YouTube.

..
 
 
+15 # Ken Halt 2016-05-29 17:00
Barbara: Wrong, Bernie did not say she voted for all the trade bills, his quote, and you can look it up, is that she supported virtually every trade bill that came her way. That is not a lie, here is the record:
"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.) I think that qualifies as support.
Voted in favor of Singapore and Chilean free-trade agreements. (July 31, 2003)
Voted in favor of Australian free-trade agreement. (July 15, 2004)
Voted against CAFTA. (July 1, 2005)
Voted in favor of Oman free-trade agreement. (June 29, 2006)
She voiced support for free trade agreement with Jordan and Peru. In 2008 she voted against free trade deal with Colombia but as SOS supported it. So, what Bernie said is definitively not a lie, she has supported the large majority of free trade deals and voted for some of them. No lie there, please stop claiming it or be known as a phony. I won't address the other stuff but I don't think he ever said she started a war, please link us to a reliable interview or quote by him to verify your claim. Regarding her vote enabling the Iraq war, please go to Youtube and compare Bernie's impassioned speech in opposition. Do you really want a person with such poor judgement as HRC to be in the oval office?
 
 
+2 # tigerlillie 2016-05-29 17:14
[quote Tigerlillie: I told some of the lies on this site several times. But...

Barbara K: ok, this is a beginning. Now you need to clarify your allegations, and verify that Bernie Sanders actually said the things that you claim he did.

#1, I am assuming you are referring to Congress authorizing the the use of military force in Iraq. I am also assuming that you concede it is a fact that she voted for this resolution. Did Bernie say that Hillary was the only one to vote in support of using military force in Iraq, or that the majority vote was not in support of using military force in Iraq? If he didn't, then you have to concede that she did cast that vote and that Bernie was not lying when he said that she did.

#2."Sanders said she voted for all the TRADE BILLS." The U. S. has passed numerous trade bills practically from inception, and obviously Hillary did not vote for most of them since she wasn't alive when they passed, but I find it hard to believe that Bernie accused her of doing so. What, specifically, did Bernie accuse her of in relation to trade bills? A direct quote and citation or link would be helpful to understand your allegation.

#3. "He claims she started wars." Wasn't WWII the last officially declared war? Can you specify exactly what Berbnie accused her of? Because if you can provide a direct quote and citation, or link there of, you have certainly got the right to say that it is a lie that Hillary started wars.
 
 
+7 # BluePill 2016-05-29 17:48
Quoting Barbara K:
Tigerlillie: I told some of the lies on this site several times.
..


Yes, you certainly have told a lot of lies on the site.
 
 
0 # CL38 2016-05-30 12:49
Read this:

Hillary Clinton's position on free trade? It's (very) complicated. - The ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.
 
 
+9 # Henry 2016-05-29 15:53
Quoting Barbara K:
She has NEVER STARTED a war. She never even had the power to do that. The real fraud is Sanders, not Hillary. He is the one who stands there blathering at every "campaign speech", lying about her and deceiving all he speaks to. There are stories out there finally who are realizing just that. Then for him to impose himself on the Democratic Party and at the first opportune moment, he tries to take that over and telling who has to go. He has a lot of Gall. He's been a "democrat" for only a few weeks.


Bernie Sanders is more of a Democrat than you are a Democrat. It's not just a "word," you know.
 
 
-16 # Barbara K 2016-05-29 17:08
No, he is not. He is a Dem for convenience to run for President. I have been a Dem ever since I was old enough to vote, and that was a long time ago.

..
 
 
+11 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-29 19:01
...and Hillary is still a Goldwater Girl!
 
 
+11 # DogSoldier 2016-05-29 17:15
Quoting Barbara K:
She has NEVER STARTED a war. She never even had the power to do that. The real fraud is Sanders, not Hillary. He is the one who stands there blathering at every "campaign speech", lying about her and deceiving all he speaks to. There are stories out there finally who are realizing just that. Then for him to impose himself on the Democratic Party and at the first opportune moment, he tries to take that over and telling who has to go. He has a lot of Gall. He's been a "democrat" for only a few weeks. I watched when a reporter kept pushing the issue and he begrudgingly said "Ok, I'm a Democrat". Hillary has the ideas that will work, not the fantasy ones. If you don't like her, that is your problem. Sanders even tried to debate Trump just to look good to the CA people, and even demanded that it be held in CA.

..


Oh really? What about Libya, and "we came, we saw, he died?" She's never met a war she didn't like. Whether in Serbia, Iraq, Libya or Syria.
 
 
+12 # lfeuille 2016-05-29 17:41
She put in place the chain of events that led to war and illegal coups on more than one occasion.

Blind party loyalty is very dangerous. l want someone who will think for himself. Bernie embodies the principles of the Democratic Party going back to FDR. Hillary embodies the lack of principle of the current corrupt corporate dominated Democratic party. What is big "D" Democratic has varied over the long history or the party. I identify with the FDR era. That is what being a Democrat means to me. And that is what Bernie represents. You obviously prefer the current corruption.
 
 
+1 # Polisage 2016-05-31 12:13
Why all this war talk about Clinton? Is it because of sniper fire or the finger on the button talk? One thing to remember is that if you EVER push the button, you don't get a "do-over."
 
 
+24 # cymricmorty 2016-05-29 14:47
HRC is unacceptable. I'm all too aware of her abysmal record, so it's unreasonable to expect me to support her out of fear or some sick sense of duty. If the DNC succeeds in forcibly injecting HRC into the candidacy, it'll be curtains for the party.
 
 
+13 # lorenbliss 2016-05-29 15:35
@cymricmorty: And if Hillary wins the election, it will be "curtains" for our nation, our species, our planet -- as I have no doubt she intends to start a thermonuclear war with Russia, that since her Goldwater Girlhood, one of her secret internal slogans has been "nuke Moscow."

I have said it before and I will say it again: a vote for Hillary Clinton -- for the closeted "nuke Hanoi" Goldwater Girl who now shows her inner Ilsa Koch by cackling at the torture death of Qaddafi -- is a vote for World War III and therefore a vote for human extinction.

Nor is Trump a rational alternative. A vote for Trump is a vote to unleash all the racist malevolence, ChristoFascist misogyny and JesuNazi intolerance that has always festered at the core of USian society.

Who with right mind and informed conscience can make such a choice?

To paraphrase Eliot:
This is the way the nation ends,
Not with a choice but a whimper.
 
 
+13 # Majikman 2016-05-29 17:02
Agree, loren & morty. Reich inveighs us to vote for a proven liar, warmonger, corporate shill, and DINO grifter. If this is what we are told will save the Dem party and the nation, what I want to know is... what the hell is worth saving?
 
 
+11 # cymricmorty 2016-05-29 18:48
@lorenbliss: And I thought the Cuban missile standoff was bad (my hyperconservati ve father was stockpiling stuff for a bomb shelter). That would be a game of pattycake compared to the belligerent animus of HRC provoking Russia, China, Middle Eastern countries via Israel...

As for Trump, the flaming red state AZ governor wants an impervious border at any cost, so AZ will go for Trump.
 
 
+14 # jbell94521 2016-05-29 14:52
No way in Hell can I support Hillary Clinton. Yes, she seems like she would in many ways make a better president than Donald Trump. Although, I think she is evil, I also don't believe she is mentally ill, as I think Trump is. However, she is a slick, lying war monger, who will be more likely to get us into more and more senseless abuse of our military might. In contrast, if Trump becomes president, he is not skilled nor slick enough to cause as much harm as the self-mis-titled "progressive", Hillary Clinton is. I am concerned that she is skilled and slick enough to get away with murder, literally, and on a huge scale. If you doubt this, look at her real track record. It is scary.

Furthermore, 40 + years of voting the "lesser of two evils" and voting our fears instead of our wants has pushed the Democratic Party so far to the right that Richard Nixon would be to their left. We cannot continue this slow-motion political suicide.
 
 
+13 # Blackjack 2016-05-29 14:55
The Democratic Party could have avoided this Clinton fiasco long ago had they pushed back against the big money train when it first started rolling down the track. Instead they jumped right on board after the Citizens United decision and soon got as good at following the $$ train as the Repukes. Now they really like being on board and don't want anyone to try to kick them off. They will pay for that bad choice if they insist on making HRC the nominee. A Dem defeat will rest squarely on the shoulders of the DNC and the Dem Party. They can still turn it around by realizing that HRC has too many negatives that cannot be explained away and that her nomination would be too risky. Bernie can deliver the win that Dems want. As for getting on board the Dem train, I will follow Bernie's (not Reich's) lead on that one. Were it not for Bernie, HRC would be the only Dem choice available.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-05-29 20:16
The Democratic Party is fighting to maintain the status quo of money, money, money-- Bernie pushes Democrats to return to its FDR roots when DEMS worked on behalf of the majority, not the 1%. They don't want to give up the easy $ and power or take on the gross inequalities people live with now, economic, voting, women's rights, black rights, etc. IMO, THIS is why they're so against him.
 
 
+12 # Helen Marshall 2016-05-29 14:59
The Electoral College votes are the determinant, not the popular vote, as we learned in 2000. There is no doubt, for example, that the electoral college votes of Texas will go to the GOP, even if the fat cats' preference might be Clinton, given the GOP desire to maintain its party control. If it takes hacking the voting machines, that will happen. I intend to vote my conscience, which will not allow me to vote for Clinton.
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-29 15:11
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-6 # JSRaleigh 2016-05-29 15:12
I voted for Sanders in the North Carolina Democratic Primary. Other than his past opposition to gun control legislation, his positions on the issues that matter to me has generally matched my own ideas.

That one issue where I disagreed with Sanders was not enough to outweigh the many issues where I agreed with him.

One thing I have made abundantly clear from the beginning. I am a Democrat.

I will vote FOR the Democratic Party's nominee in the fall election; no matter who that nominee is. If it's Sanders, all to the good. If it's not, I hope he influences the platform to adopt more progressive ideals. But I am a Democrat, and with the Democrats I make my stand.

Were the rules of the Democratic Party unfair to Bernie during the 20 years or more BEFORE Sanders decided to run for the Democratic nomination?

SHAME on the Sanders supporters who would rather tear the Democratic Party apart than vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.

SHAME ON YOU who would rather throw the election to Trump.

If you think it will increase your influence in the Democratic Party, you are fools. How much influence does Ralph Nader wield after his shameful performance in 2000?

Do you think a Trump administration will be better for the country than that of George W Bush?

Do you think those of us who have been life-long Democrats will thank you and honor you for the damage & destruction Trump will unleash if you manage to throw the election in his favor?
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-05-29 20:36
"One thing I have made abundantly clear from the beginning. I am a Democrat."

Right, and one thing I have made abundantly clear from the beginning is that I am NOT a Democrat, but an advocate for democracy, quite a different thing. It took me years to figure out why I always felt guilty voting for the lesser of two evils, guilty because I was not dedicating my entire life to trying to get people who were not so blatantly evil into office. By the same token I always felt like a chump when, on the rare occasion the "lesser evil" did get elected, the evil continued unabated.

I even voted for Ross the Squirrel in 1992 because I had already figured out what Three Dollar Bill was about, and then I voted for Bill in '96 because I thought Bob Dole would stand by as Newt Gingrich took out a contract on America.

The events of the last 25 years have convinced me that no politician is going to save us, not even Sanders. I will continue to support him because I support what he believes in, because he supports more of what I believe in and articulates it more clearly than any politician in my lifetime (b. 1946).

I am not looking forward to fascism, because it is already here, first as "anti-communism ," then as union busting and dog whistles, then tied up in pretty blue globalist bows, and for the last sixteen years in its ugly wholeness, unfortunately without the little mustache or the funny walks and salute so people could identify it.
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-05-29 20:48
(continued)

Neither President Trump nor President Clinton is going to reverse that slide: The only chance of doing that lies in the global movement of movements which is already underway, thinking globally, acting locally, and above all recognizing the current version of the ancient tyranny for what it is, stripped of the crowns and castles and the invocation of Divine Right. More important, recognizing the non-political tyranny, the finite nature of Planet Eaarth (McKibbben): The nature of nature will do us in before any of the various versions of fascism, and anything we can do to propagate that understanding, including refusing to support the fascists, will improve our chances.
 
 
+8 # djnova50 2016-05-29 15:21
We need to get the Democratic back and that will not happen if we vote for Clinton. The best candidate who I can vote for is Bernie Sanders. If he is not the nominee, then I will write him in or vote Green.
 
 
+11 # Charles3000 2016-05-29 15:29
Some missed points in the discussions. 1. The election will probably NOT be a two-person race. There will probably be 3 or 4 significant, well known candidates. 2. Trump will be running to the left of Clinton on foreign policy and trade. 3. Both the Republican and Democratic parties have lost touch with the citizens and both will have to change or fold up the tent. 4. There are more independents in the country then there are either Rs or Ds, making both parties subservient to the votes of independents.
 
 
-12 # Barbara K 2016-05-29 15:39
JSRaleigh: I agree with you totally. I am a Democrat too and will vote for whomever is the candidate and I will vote Dem all down the ticket, as we need all the Dems we can get to take on the Carnival Barker. We must not forget that this site is plagued with Trump Trolls, as well as the stubborn.

..
 
 
+7 # Majikman 2016-05-29 17:10
That's the ticket, Barbara K, be a good little mindless robot and vote what the party tells you...nevermind that the party has long ceased being liberal or progressive, but has become republican lite. But don't let that confuse your already overtaxed brain.
 
 
+12 # tigerlillie 2016-05-29 15:40
Advice for the divided Democratic party is incomplete without an analysis of the systematic voter fraud that has benefited Hillary Clinton through out this campaign. In addition, a discussion of why Democrats (and independents) do not wish to support HRC is germaine. It is not just the case, as Mr. Reich implies, that HRC fails to be sufficiently liberal or progressive. It is the history of lying, deception, opportunism, and out outright double speaking that people object to. It is a history of support for disastrous policies that have destroyed the social safety net (which wasn't that great to begin with) for the poor, disabled and chronically ill, and the disproportionat e and incredibly high incarceration rate of people of color, particularly young men. It is her willingness to use her political position and contacts to leverage she and her husband into multi millionaire status. It is the highly questionable business practices of the secretive Clinton Foundation. CONT.
 
 
+10 # tigerlillie 2016-05-29 15:53
CONT. It is the lack of transparency, her refusal to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman-Sachs, and the conflict of interest inherent in Goldman-Sachs' substantial investment into her son in law's business projects. It is her disastrous and failed policies as Secretary of State, her advocacy of continued military imperialism, and the loss of life and chaos that these policies have resulted in. It is her lack of conscience and human decency when she publicly laughs over the torture and murder of one of her adversaries. Etc., etc.

It is only when Mr. Reich analyzes the actual reasons for the lack of support for Hillary Clinton among a significant number of Democrats and independents that he will have an actual justification for giving advice on this issue.
 
 
-14 # Barbara K 2016-05-29 16:20
tigerlillie: Some more info for you:


http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/28/wapos-editorial-board-time-sanders-start-honest.html

ALSO: Show me where there are any voter fraud caused by Hillary.

..
 
 
+11 # jimmyjames 2016-05-29 16:29
Quoting Barbara K:
tigerlillie: Some more info for you:


http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/28/wapos-editorial-board-time-sanders-start-honest.html

ALSO: Show me where there are any voter fraud caused by Hillary.

..

OMG! This is some of the worst propaganda I have heard in a long, long time. The article quotes almost verbatim, the Washington Post. Anybody who knows anything knows that the WaPo loves Hillary and her corporate allegiances. The WaPo is SO in the hand of the elite it is not funny! You might as well be quoting FauxNews...
 
 
+9 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-05-29 16:13
"big donors and fundraisers occupying comfortable and privileged positions, who won’t even be aware that you’ve decided to sit it out."

Oh yes they will.

The number crunchers will very quickly determine that Hillary kept people home
 
 
+12 # Pratty 2016-05-29 16:31
I am not American, I’m British, but I have made a small contribution to the Bernie Sanders campaign, as I feel he would revitalise US politics in a truly positive way that no other candidate could even vaguely attempt.
Mr. Reich has told Democratic voters: "But swallow it you must – not just for the good of the Democratic Party, but for the good of the nation."
I have a different take on this sentence, since I come from a country where politicians often do put the party or the country first instead of their own lust for power. The Democratic Party should request or order Hillary Clinton to stand down, since it is abundantly clear that (1) she is proving somewhat of a liability for the Party as a whole and that (b) Bernie Sanders has a much better chance of defeating Donald Trump than she does. So why not “Swallow it you must [Hillary] - not just for the good of the Democratic Party, but for the good of the nation." But, presumably, in her case this scenario is unlikely!
However, But, he does lose the party nomination, like jimmyjames above, I would not be able to vote for HRC and would love to see Bernie Sanders to run with Jill Stein on a Green Party ticket, since he could still galvanise the American public with his new brand of politics from a Green Party position. I would love to see him try, for the sake of American politics, the USA as a whole and the entire world. And I would certainly treble my own financial contribution to his actual election campaign!
 
 
+7 # lorenbliss 2016-05-29 19:05
@Pratty: Thank you for your British sensibility, which calls to mind the lessons in clear thinking bequeathed me by my own (very recent) British ancestry, which lessons in turn pull into sharp focus the psychological reality of Hillary Clinton:

She is, or so her relentless self-centeredne ss makes it seem, a genuine clone of Ayn Rand, who (in what amount to fictionalizatio ns of "Mein Kampf"), proclaimed selfishness and greed to be not, as we were always taught, the deadliest of sins, but rather the ultimate of human virtues instead.

Surely this explains Hillary's attitude toward capitalism, within which selfishness and greed -- and the moral imbecility essential to their embrace -- have always been defined as the heights of virtue.

But then, what else might one expect of a closeted Goldwater Girl, who (or so it seems), has in her thinking merely replaced the long-ago slogan "Nuke Hanoi" with a truly suicidal and therefore infinitely more frightful modern variant, "Nuke Moscow."
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-05-29 21:06
Yes, the older I get, the more respect I have for the British sensibility and the educational system associated with it, which still seems to grasp the relevance of its more than 2,000 years of history more firmly than ours grasps even the relevance of yesterday. The use of language, the way words are strung together to represent ideas and convey meaning, is a big part of it. Newspeak R us, and we are the worse off for it. I think of the great English economic historian, socialist, and humanist R. H. Tawney in that regard.
 
 
+4 # lorenbliss 2016-05-30 01:53
@economagic: What you say about the USian "education" system is dreadfully true. History is dismissed as irrelevant (and deliberate taught to seem boring) when in fact -- as the British (and indeed all European peoples) understand -- there is no subject more vital to understanding human affairs.

Interesting too how the British and Europeans in general teach it -- more like what we label college-level "humanities," which is to say the wholeness of human society in the period under study: not just the political events but the associated economics, art, literature, mythology, religion and -- yes -- the lives of the common people (which in USian "education" are ignored entirely).
 
 
+9 # Aliazer 2016-05-29 17:38
Dr. Reich's belief that Hillary Clinton is knowledgeable, competent and experienced and thus worthy of being elected flies on the face of all of the destruction, mayhem, chaos and untold numbers of dead, wounded and traumatized as the result of her role in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Egypt as well as other parts of the world. And that is not counting the damage to our Constitution, Rule of law and massive disenchantment with our polity and so called "democratic institutions".

I am in agreement with Dr. Reich, though, that Hillary's expertise and "competence" accomplished much for the globalists and 1% who care not about any of us or the consequences that continue accruing against our country.
 
 
+5 # kundrol 2016-05-29 18:21
I'm not impressed with all the Big Fear business around Trump. He is obviously either crazy or just really enjoying all the attention he's getting by playing the bad guy, or maybe even working for the Clintons.. I doubt he has any real desire to be pres. It would cut into his play time. I think he will back out somehow as he did when confronted with a debate with Bernie. He's apparently not so all that rich either, as I hear he's been bragging about how much debt he has. I agree that Shillery is much scarier. Vote your conscience of course! It's the only same thing to do. Love the comment from the Brit by the way. Brilliant! Right on! By the way David Swanson has a petition on his site that I've signed saying that I will definitely not vote for either Trump or Shillery.
 
 
+1 # tigerlillie 2016-05-30 19:26
[quote By the way David Swanson has a petition on his site that I've signed saying that I will definitely not vote for either Trump or Shillery.

Thanks kundrol. Evidently the campaign hasn't taken off yet; under 800 signatures. Or maybe it is just too rational. But refusing to vote for Trump or Clinton sums up my political strategy in a nutshell (they are two sides of the same coin).
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2016-05-29 18:28
"But the “Democratic political establishment” is nothing but a bunch of people, many of them big donors and
fundraisers occupying comfortable and privileged positions, who won’t even be aware that you’ve decided to sit it out – unless Hillary loses to Donald Trump."

Sitting it out won't do any good but writing in Bernie will send a message that this is a vote the Democrats would have gotten if they hadn't conspired to steal the nomination from Bernie. Some states don't have the write in option, but I would recommend that progressives who have it use it.

"That’s unlikely. Rarely if ever in history has a sharp swing to the right moved the political pendulum further back in the opposite direction. Instead, it tends to move the “center” rightward, as did Ronald Reagan’s presidency."

Except in some areas Trump is actually to the left of Hillary. Trade deals and regime change for starters. I really fear the long term damage of Hillary's penchant to meddle economically and militarily, to the benefit of multinational corporations, in other countries internal affairs, more than I do the short term dangers of Trump's bigoted ramblings which are not likely to be enacted.
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-05-29 18:29
Con't

"I can’t criticize anyone for voting their conscience, of course. But your conscience should know that a decision
not to vote for Hillary, should she
become the Democratic nominee, is a de facto decision to help Donald Trump."

That result will be on the Democratic establishment, not me. It was their choice to run a dishonest campaign.


"But swallow it you must – not just for the good of the
Democratic Party, but for the good of the nation."

We disagree about what is best for the Democratic Party and the nation.
I do not believe Hillary and what she stands for is it.
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-05-29 21:13
Yes, thank you for relieving me of the responsibility to correct those misunderstandin gs. I would add that the horrors of the Great War (1914-1946), arguably driven by "right-wing" (or anti-left) ideologies paved the way for a half century of "social democracy" in Japan and much of Western Europe, and a couple of decades of it in a weakened form in this country. Unfortunately the propaganda machine, largely through the medium of television, managed to undo much of that good.
 
 
+5 # kundrol 2016-05-29 20:55
I like the write in Bernie option, but not sure I can in California. If not then I'll go Green. I definitely won't stay home.
 
 
+2 # bardphile 2016-05-29 21:59
The LA Times had a feature today reminding us of Obama's record on consumer protection, which is actually quite good, and one which a president Clinton would continue. Trump wants to abolish the consumer financial protection bureau, which has saved billions already for ordinary Americans. Something to consider in the event she gets the nomination.

But perish the thought. I'll vote for Sanders and have a feel-the-bern placard for my front lawn come primary day. It isn't over yet.
 
 
+4 # Emmanuel Goldstein 2016-05-29 22:40
In saying that Hillary "has shown herself a capable and responsible leader," Dr. Reich not only blows his case entirely out of the water but discredits all of his other writings on this subject. Sad, because until now I was a great admirer.
 
 
-12 # ojg 2016-05-29 23:47
Bernie isn't going to win the Democratic nomination unless he steals the election. If he does steal it, I plan to write in Hillary's name and I hope and will campaign for the 13,000,000 people who have voted for her during this campaign to write in Hillary's name when they vote. I refuse to be bullied into voting for a non-Democrat. The vast majority of posters on this site are nothing but bullies and I will have no part of it. But, Bernie isn't going to win the Democratic nomination which is only fair. He's not a Democrat. Maybe it's not too late for him to run as a Republican.
 
 
+3 # Realist1948 2016-05-30 07:48
At the risk of going off-topic, I have some advice for retired geezers such as myself. If you're carefully managing your IRA and 401(k) accounts, it may be time to shift some funds out of stocks and into some more conservative investments. Here's why: "Markets hate uncertainty," the saying goes. If Trump becomes president, I predict a "huge" market drop as fear of an uncertain future sweeps through Wall St.

If you plan to re-balance your investments anyway (as you should from time to time), it may be best to do it now, before there's a rush to the exits.
 
 
-6 # mmc 2016-05-30 09:58
Thank you Mr. Reich for a thoughtful piece, with wise advise about the need for Democrats to come together, especially considering the alternative. Unfortunately as you can see from many of the posts, legions of readers of this site like grandlakeguy are either ignorant, just plain stupid, or illiterate.
 
 
+6 # dbrize 2016-05-30 10:54
Quoting mmc:
Thank you Mr. Reich for a thoughtful piece, with wise advise about the need for Democrats to come together, especially considering the alternative. Unfortunately as you can see from many of the posts, legions of readers of this site like grandlakeguy are either ignorant, just plain stupid, or illiterate.


Well if they were illiterate they wouldn't be here at all so we can quickly dispose of that one.

Since "ignorance" and "stupid" so closely correlate we may take them up as a single entity. Those "legions" you reference as afflicted with this condition interestingly enough as one looks at their entries, appear to offer something you don't. That is, reasons based on fact and performance that lead them to their conclusions. This belies your assertions on not only those "legions" but gandlakeguy as well.

Nonetheless, you have provided a service with your post. It provides a fine example of what you condemn in others.
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-05-30 17:32
Quoting mmc:
Unfortunately as you can see from many of the posts, legions of readers of this site like grandlakeguy are either ignorant, just plain stupid, or illiterate.

1. Sign On. Check

2. Pretend to a purpose for writing. Check.

3. Name-call like a second grader in a sandbox, throw bombs,
attempt to start fires, scatter unrelated incendiary devices. Check.

4. Sign off (about f*ckin' time ! ;-D) Check.
_
 
 
-8 # Robbee 2016-05-30 11:02
salute! - reich! and! - # kandotom 2016-05-29 16:48
Reich is right, and the overwhelming reaction to his article is a disaster.

Whether these innumerable Hillary-haters are Trojan horses or not ... makes little difference. These people pretend to be progressive, but they are prepared to hand over the presidency to Trump ...

Clinton is not only NOT the lesser of two evils - she is a fine and competent candidate. The scandal mongering surrounding her is mostly right-wing fabrication.

But even if you don’t buy that, anyone who considers Trump a viable alternative has to have his head examined.

- note that rsn is riddled with rump trojans and deniers! - who disbelieve he can do as he promises!

- the only wasted vote is the one not cast for the candidate, the dem, with the only chance to beat the candidate who promises - and is capable, as prez, of delivering on his reactionary promises, to -

1) torture prisoners;
2) kill spouses and children of enemies whom our law says he names;
3) curb the press;
4) on his first day in office, tear-up the iran treaty (that prevents iran from building nukes!);
5) deport 11 million illegals;
6) build a wall clear across mexico;
7) make mexico pay for it (which takes invading and occupying mexico!)
8) nominate to scotus, a "justice", 3 or 4, just like scalia!
9) abolish the inheritance tax - our nation's ONLY TAX ON WEALTH! THAT REDISTRIBUTES WEALTH! - AS IN SOCIALISM! - PART OF OUR LAW SINCE THE 1890'S x
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2016-05-30 11:04
rump trojans, pt. 2

8) nominate to scotus, a "justice", 3 or 4, just like scalia!
9) abolish the inheritance tax - our nation's ONLY TAX ON WEALTH! THAT REDISTRIBUTES WEALTH! - AS IN SOCIALISM! - PART OF OUR LAW SINCE THE 1890'S - THE AGE OF THE ROBBER BARONS!
10) cut income taxes, for the rich only, almost in half!
11) register and ground muslims from air travel! and
12) abolish the consumer financial protection bureau!

frankly we have alot of rump kissers! right here on rsn!

thanks for asking! - # bardphile 2016-05-25 12:00
Rob. I wonder why we're getting redded ... Are the Hillary-bots up early?

HILL-BOTS HAVE LITTLE, IF ANYTHING, TO DO WITH OUR NUMBERS!

i've been trying to figure out what the numbers mean ever since librarian1984 complimented mine! - even tho my net is always so low!

take heart! - please understand that the numbers ARE ONLY NET!

on may 6th, i documented 22 likely trojans! - wanna see my list? complete with rumpista comments?

my point! - when, for our posts, we see low green, or into red, numbers, that represents trojan buddies rushing in to countervail dem support! - if you support hill in a face-off against rump, for example, you confront a large numerical subgroup here on rsn!
 
 
+2 # Polisage 2016-05-30 16:58
We not use tlojans govnah, so you bletta watch out!
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2016-05-30 11:26
look who just backed-off unequivocal support for rump! - # Inspired Citizen 2016-05-23 14:33
"... Clinton is just as bad, if not worse, than Trump."

unequivocally sums big rump fan! - # 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!"

- adds - # 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!
 
 
-8 # Robbee 2016-05-30 11:27
false-flag, pt. 2

- listen to bernie! - down with RAP! - down with GOP! - go bernie!

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 even, 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!

at last! whew! says self-fulfilling prophet of doom! - # Inspired Citizen 2016-03-17 21:44 "Without a miracle, (bernie’s) campaign is doomed. (RAP) has been arguing this since last July ..."

- but sneaky RAP only came out of the closet, finally self-identifyin g as a GOP troll outfit, five months later! - # Inspired Citizen 2015-12-10 18:10 "It's going to be #BerrnieOrElse the GOP. That's RAP's promise!"

- down with RAP/GOP/citizen ! - go bernie! and go dem!
 
 
+2 # RobertLVogel 2016-05-30 11:35
Bernie, Trump, John Oliver, and many others agree the election process is rigged. Why is there no visible effort to fix it ? It produced two main candidates for President, both with mostly unfavorable ratings, both will take us in the wrong direction.Both will take us to war. Both parties feed at the corporate trough.
http://www.gopiswrong.com/democracy.htm
 
 
+5 # Edwina 2016-05-30 13:27
Here, here, Robert Vogel. Neither party stands for what it once did; neither party is working for the majority of its constituents. Yet both have worked to thwart the formation of third parties that could represent their constituents. I'm reminded of what a Jesse Jackson supporter said about the Democrats during the Bill Clinton campaign: It depends on whether you want to go off the cliff at 40 miles an hour, or 60 miles an hour. We have fallen off the cliff -- endless war, economic meltdown -- and still we are being offered "the lesser of two evils". Sanders' campaign is about a real change. No, he will not work miracles, but perhaps the people he has inspired, especially the young people, will.
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-05-30 17:41
Quoting Edwina:
No, he will not work miracles, but perhaps the people he has inspired, especially the young people, will.

*Super post, Edwina, just excellent - start to finish.

Thank you !
_
 
 
+3 # vicnada 2016-05-30 13:47
My answer is STRYCH, NEIN, I will not swallow.
 
 
0 # kate@kseley.jazztel.es 2016-05-31 05:45
I really can't understand why this common sense article by Reich has generated such controversy. Bernie himself states that, though he's still making every effort - as he should- to get the nomination, if it came down to Hillary or Trump, he'd support her as the lesser evil and less dangerous by far. That's all Reich is saying. To doubt his support for Bernie from the get go seems like paranoia in view of everything he's declared and written. I think some of you are forgetting a few things. 1. A vote against Hillary,if it came down to that, would be a vote for Trump. 2. The supreme court justices he would appoint would repeal Roe v. Wade, ratify Citizens United and make other unacceptably harmful decisions. 3. Maybe you aren't aware enough of how horribly Trump is viewed abroad. I live in the EU and I can tell you, Obama understated it.
 
 
-1 # pegasus4508 2016-05-31 17:57
All this white privilege on display on RSN. Some of us cannot afford to have Donald "No Minimum Wage" Trump for a President. But continue fighting amongst yourselves. Life is, has it always has been, all about you...
 
 
+1 # pupdude 2016-06-01 14:02
Hey there Trollz!!!

Sorry, IMO RR spot on.

HRC & Trump not at all the same.

It's all about the SCOTUS.


Bill appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Trump gave us a list of Scalia clones.

Next POTUS may have 1-4 SCOTUS appointments

Roe, Citizen's United, Voting Rights, Civil Rights, climate change, etc.

No big deal, right.

Also, personal responsibility people. Don't blame your vote or non-vote on anyone but yourself.

Reality Trump Trollz.

Peace
 
 
0 # pupdude 2016-06-01 14:38
Or this.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-donald-trump-thinks-judges-are-good-for?mbid=nl_160601_Daily&CNDID=29284563&spMailingID=8999986&spUserID=MTA5MjQwNjE3ODk5S0&spJobID=940097591&spReportId=OTQwMDk3NTkxS0
 

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