RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Parry writes: "For months now, poll after poll have registered the judgment of the American people that they want neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump as the next President, but the two major parties seem unable to steer away from this looming pileup, forcing voters to choose between two widely disdained politicians."

Hillary Clinton speaking at Stanford University in California on Wednesday. (photo: Reuters)
Hillary Clinton speaking at Stanford University in California on Wednesday. (photo: Reuters)


Waiting for California and the FBI

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

02 June 16

 

Some Democratic leaders are privately scouting around for someone to replace Hillary Clinton if she stumbles again in California and/or the FBI detects a crime in her email scandal, reports Robert Parry.

or months now, poll after poll have registered the judgment of the American people that they want neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump as the next President, but the two major parties seem unable to steer away from this looming pileup, forcing voters to choose between two widely disdained politicians.

The Republicans are locked in after Trump’s hostile takeover of the party’s selection process, but the Democrats have one final chance to steer clear, on June 7 when they hold several primaries and caucuses including New Jersey and California. If Bernie Sanders can upset Clinton in California – and/or if Clinton’s legal problems over her emails worsen – there remains a long-shot chance that the Democratic convention might nominate someone else.

As far-fetched as this might seem, some senior Democrats, including reportedly White House officials, are giving serious thought to how the party can grab the wheel at the last moment and avoid the collision of two historically unpopular political figures, a smash-up where Trump might be the one walking away, damaged but victorious.

Two Washington insiders – Democratic pollster and political adviser Douglas E. Schoen and famed Watergate investigative reporter Carl Bernstein – have described panicky meetings of top Democrats worried over Clinton’s troubled campaign, with Schoen also describing private talks about possible last-minute alternatives.

I’ve heard similar tales of hushed discussions – with the fill-in options including Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry or Sen. Sanders – but I still believe these fretful leaders are frozen by indecision and don’t have the nerve to pull Hillary Clinton’s hands off the steering wheel even to avoid disaster.

But at least I’m not alone hearing these frightened whispers. In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Schoen, who served as a political aide to President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, wrote: “There is now more than a theoretical chance that Hillary Clinton may not be the Democratic nominee for president. …

“The inevitability behind Mrs. Clinton’s nomination will be in large measure eviscerated if she loses the June 7 California primary to Bernie Sanders. That could well happen. …. A Sanders win in California would powerfully underscore Mrs. Clinton’s weakness as a candidate in the general election.

“Democratic superdelegates — chosen by the party establishment and overwhelmingly backing Mrs. Clinton, 543-44 — would seriously question whether they should continue to stand behind her candidacy. …

“Mrs. Clinton also faces growing legal problems. The State Department inspector general’s recent report on Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state made it abundantly clear that she broke rules and has been far from forthright in her public statements. The damning findings buttressed concerns within the party that Mrs. Clinton and her aides may not get through the government’s investigation without a finding of culpability somewhere.

“With Mrs. Clinton reportedly soon to be interviewed by the FBI, suggesting that the investigation is winding up, a definitive ruling by the attorney general could be issued before the July 25 Democratic convention in Philadelphia. Given the inspector general’s report, a clean bill of health from the Justice Department is unlikely.

“Finally, with Mrs. Clinton’s negative rating nearly as high as Donald Trump’s, and with voters not trusting her by a ratio of 4 to 1, Democrats face an unnerving possibility.”

Besides the lack of trust, voters simply don’t like her. On Wednesday, the Real Clear Politics poll average of Clinton’s favorable vs. unfavorable numbers were 37.6 percent to 55.8 percent, an 18.2-point net unfavorable.

Looking for a Fill-in

Schoen continued: “There are increasing rumblings within the party about how a new candidate could emerge at the convention. John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, is one possibility. But the most likely scenario is that Vice President Joe Biden — who has said that he regrets ‘every day’ his decision not to run — enters the race.

“Mr. Biden would be cast as the white knight rescuing the party, and the nation, from a possible Trump presidency. To win over Sanders supporters, he would likely choose as his running mate someone like Sen. Elizabeth Warren who is respected by the party’s left wing. …

“All of these remain merely possibilities. But it is easier now than ever to imagine a scenario in which Hillary Clinton — whether by dint of legal or political circumstances — is not the Democratic presidential nominee.”

In a CNN interview after last week’s scathing State Department Inspector General’s report on Clinton’s use of her home email server, Carl Bernstein said he was hearing similar speculation:

“I was in Washington this week, I spoke to a number of top Democratic officials and they’re terrified, including people at the White House, that her campaign is in freefall because of this distrust factor. Indeed, Trump has a similar problem, but she’s the one whose numbers are going south.

“And the great hope in the White House, as well as the Democratic leadership and people who support her, is that she can just get to this convention, get the nomination – which they’re no longer 100 percent sure of – and get President Obama out there to help her, he’s got a lot of credibility… But she needs all the help she can get because right now her campaign is in huge trouble.”

On Tuesday, Clinton received a boost when California Gov. Jerry Brown endorsed her – reflecting the Democratic establishment’s view that it is safer to leave Clinton at the wheel than try to wrestle it away and face the wrath of Clinton’s female supporters who insist that it’s “her turn” after she lost a hard-fought race to Barack Obama in 2008.

Trump also administered another self-inflicted wound with a bitterly defensive press conference about his fund-raising for veteran groups, and he suffered more bruises with the release of court evidence about high-pressure sales tactics used by the now-defunct Trump University.

Trump’s black Tuesday reminded Democrats why they were so hopeful that Trump might first blow up the Republican Party and then blow up his own campaign, letting Clinton win essentially by default. But the fragility of Clinton’s own position was exposed by last week’s IG report, which reinforced public perceptions that she is imperious, entitled and dishonest.

Voter Uprising

Ironically, the two parties reached this collision point from opposite directions. The Republican Party’s establishment wanted almost anyone but Trump but the party’s favored candidates fell victim to the reality TV star’s skill at exploiting their weaknesses – almost as if he were playing a high-stakes reality TV show.

In contrast, the Democratic Party’s leadership tried to arrange a coronation for Hillary Clinton by discouraging other candidates from challenging the powerful Clinton machine, arguing that a virtually uncontested nomination would save money and limit the exposure of Clinton’s political weaknesses.

But the unlikely candidacy of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, technically an Independent although he caucuses with the Senate Democrats, revealed both a powerful hunger for change within the Democratic Party and Clinton’s political vulnerabilities amid a season of voter discontent.

Whereas Republican leaders failed to suppress their voters’ uprising – as Trump torched his GOP rivals one after another – the Democratic leadership did all they could to save Clinton, virtually pushing her badly damaged bandwagon toward the finish line while shouting at Sanders to concede.

But it has now dawned on some savvy Democrats that Clinton’s campaign vehicle may be damaged beyond repair, especially if more harm is inflicted by the FBI’s findings about her sloppy handling of government secrets. The Democrats see themselves stuck with a status-quo, legacy candidate at a moment when the public is disgusted with government dysfunction and demanding change.

Yet, whether the Democrats have the guts to go through the pain of denying Clinton the nomination may depend on what happens in California and inside the FBI.



Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

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

 
+278 # grandlakeguy 2016-06-02 12:14
"Some Democratic leaders are privately scouting around for someone to replace Hillary if she stumbles in California and/or the FBI detects a crime in her email scandal,reports Robert Parry."

WHAT ABOUT BERNIE SANDERS WHO HAS ACTUALLY CAMPAIGNED , HAS ENORMOUS SUPPORT AND WOULD ALREADY HAVE WON ENOUGH DELEGATES IF THE DNC HAD NOT BEEN SO BLATENTLY RIGGING THE PROCESS???????? ??
 
 
+244 # grandlakeguy 2016-06-02 12:21
How DARE the "Democratic" party leadership even THINK about anyone but Bernie Sanders as the nominee WHEN Hillary Clinton's toxicity and criminal behavior takes her down?

If this abomination of the insertion of an insider "Democratic" candidate indeed comes to pass then Bernie Sanders MUST join with the Green party or mount a third party challenge to this theft of representative government that the Dems are on the verge of enacting.

BERNIE SANDERS IS THE CHOICE OF THE PEOPLE!
 
 
+218 # grandlakeguy 2016-06-02 12:32
Any American who accepts this attempt by the Democratic party to insert a new candidate (if it occurs) without fighting back is accepting the reality that "we the people" are no longer involved in the political process and, in fact, the concept of representative government is dead!
 
 
-48 # rocback 2016-06-03 12:47
The shallowness of this author's knowledge of the law is breathtaking on the bogus e mail issue. Sounds like he gets his info from Fox "News".

It is an issue for the under educated and uninformed not for others who has a basic understanding of the law.

All the cyber security issues you guys keep on is nothing but BS. Federal government systems are attacked daily and one of the most attacked in the world. This includes Penatgon so, one could argue that, not using a fed email system is lot more secure because attackers are unaware of the system.

Then there is the diffrence between policy and the law. I am certain that you, Mr. Perry have broken manyConsortium News policies numerous times and probably you broke several trying to get this garbage published.

But there is a difference in violation of a company policy (that actually was NOT violated by the way) and breaking the law.

In fairness to your readers you owe them that distinction.
 
 
-33 # rocback 2016-06-03 12:49
In fact we KNOW the Sec of States server WAS broken into several times for many documents. but there is NO evidence that her private server was.
 
 
+23 # Dred Pierce 2016-06-04 04:18
Hey rochead, you have been backing a toxic criminal with all your might but we are all going to get the last laugh on your idiocy. Lie some more about your pet, you are just like her.
 
 
-10 # rocback 2016-06-04 19:20
I guess 3rd grade let out early today.
 
 
-1 # A_Har 2016-06-04 19:33
With you in it.
 
 
+3 # karenvista 2016-06-05 22:09
Quoting rocback:
In fact we KNOW the Sec of States server WAS broken into several times for many documents. but there is NO evidence that her private server was.



What about Guccifer, who has been extradited to the U.S. for hacking. He has bragged about hacking Hillary's private server. If that didn't happen why was he extradited?

Getting nervous now? Don't let the ink dry on you check from David Brock. You'd better get to the bank right away!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hacker-guccifer-i-got-inside-hillary-clinton-s-server-n568206
 
 
+179 # Merlin 2016-06-02 13:38
grandlakeguy 2016-06-02 12:21
“How DARE the "Democratic" party leadership even THINK about anyone but Bernie Sanders as the nominee WHEN Hillary Clinton's toxicity and criminal behavior takes her down?”

The establishment Dems want an establishment puppet. Bernie ain’t their guy, and he ain’t no puppet! Bernie represents everything the establishment does NOT want, and to even consider they would/should choose him, disregards who they are, and what they want. So, yeah, its Biden, Kerry or some other establishment puppet that they will choose.

It is great to finally see the desperation in the sHillary camp and the DINO party becoming public knowledge. They have been hiding it till now, even though it has been so obvious to us here for quite some time. This now public info will make sHillarybots very unhappy and make our sHillarybot trolls work much harder. The harder they stick to the script the stupider they look, and the funnier they become.

I am really looking forward to casting my vote for Bernie on Tuesday in CA!
 
 
+140 # librarian1984 2016-06-02 13:47
Bring four friends too!

Have a voting party!

"I am really looking forward to casting my vote for Bernie on Tuesday in CA!"

Now we know how CRUCIAL California is. It really all comes down to this. If Sanders CRUSHES her, it's a no-brainer. THAT's why she and Bill are desperately scheduling more events.

And our wonderful Bernie is giving three and four rallies a day! He is amazing. I don't remember if you said you'd seen him, Merlin. I hope you (and the other CA residents here) get a chance to.

Go, Bernie!
 
 
-30 # rocback 2016-06-04 12:59
Bernie will have lost the nomination before the Calif primary polls even close. N J closes 3 hours earlier with 142 delegates and Hillary only needs 65 more. She is ahead of Sanders in N J by double digits.
 
 
+104 # grandlakeguy 2016-06-02 14:01
Yes Merlin, the DINO party may end up being the DINOsaur party relegating themselves into extinction by their disgraceful behavior to place their stooges in power.

I also am also completely enjoying watching the Hillary meltdown and casting my vote on Tuesday for Bernie .
 
 
+82 # librarian1984 2016-06-02 14:22
This could be the Tuesday that turns the tide.
 
 
+45 # 666 2016-06-02 16:04
And if the dem-dinos ram through some "white Knight" with or without Warren, the party will collapse and give victory to trump, no matter how badly the media turns against him as its doing now. Everything bad they say about trump only makes him stronger with the anti-government forces.
 
 
+15 # StuBones1960 2016-06-02 23:10
Maybe, 666. On the other hand, the GOP is also flirting with collapse.
 
 
+6 # Vardoz 2016-06-04 13:35
Warren would never accept being side lined as a VP just to placate the establishment.
 
 
+53 # trottydt 2016-06-02 16:18
“Besides the lack of trust, voters simply don’t like her. On Wednesday, the Real Clear Politics poll average of Clinton’s favorable vs. unfavorable numbers were 37.6 percent to 55.8 percent, an 18.2-point net unfavorable”.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If we accept the premise that EMOTIONS DRIVE BEHAVIOR, then based on the above Hillary Clinton is toast. People in brand management know that perception is reality; many of us may never have driven a LEXUS, but if asked if the Lexus is a good car near 100% will agree.

Quoting Parry:
Whereas Republican leaders failed to suppress their voters’ uprising – as Trump torched his GOP rivals one after another – the Democratic leadership did all they could to save Clinton, virtually pushing her badly damaged bandwagon toward the finish line while shouting at Sanders to concede.

Yet, whether the Democrats have the guts to go through the pain of denying Clinton the nomination may depend on what happens in California and inside the FBI.

C’mon, step-up NEW JERSEY AND CALIFORNIA.
 
 
+7 # Vardoz 2016-06-04 13:40
With ratings scraping bottom for the house and senate it is no wonder that people are desperate for change and a government that actually cares about the majority.

What people don't get about Trump who is trying to frighten his base with talk about China and outsourcing is that it is our corporations that are deciding to send our jobs overseas. How many Americans want to get immigrant wages? Sad that trumps base is so ill informed.
 
 
-11 # rocback 2016-06-04 19:22
Apparently you did not see the new Reuters poll out today (June 4) showing Hillary leading Trump by double digits.
 
 
+35 # suziemama 2016-06-03 00:22
Remember California voters, don't let anyone give you a provisional ballot. (Please see yesterday's RSN article.)
 
 
+18 # codobad 2016-06-04 05:57
Quoting suziemama:
Remember California voters, don't let anyone give you a provisional ballot. (Please see yesterday's RSN article.)


THIS IS IMPORTANT - not just for California Primary voters, but for EVERYONE throughout the U.S. in EVERY election, because most "provisional ballots" get thrown out, not counted:

Greg Palast says, "Protect your vote. Go to GregPalast.com and download 7 Ways to Beat the Ballot Bandits. One is don’t vote provisionally. [When they try to foist one on you, y]ou can say, 'I want a polling judge to determine that I get a real ballot.'”
. . . per RSN, 1 June 16:
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/37203-placebo-ballots-stealing-california-from-bernie-using-an-old-gop-vote-snatching-trick
 
 
+20 # tigerlillie 2016-06-03 02:25
This could be the Tuesday that turns the tide, but I find the absence of the use of exit polls for the California primary very eerie.
 
 
+21 # librarian1984 2016-06-03 08:12
VERY suspect! Sanders has to win overwhelmingly so that even a flipping scheme is outdone.

Do you remember in 2012 when Karl Rove froze in disbelief at the election results? He kept arguing that the count wasn't possible. (Was it OH?)

IMO he was reacting to a failed election fraud scheme.
 
 
+3 # karenvista 2016-06-05 22:16
Quoting tigerlillie:
This could be the Tuesday that turns the tide, but I find the absence of the use of exit polls for the California primary very eerie.


Yes, they were done away with so there will be no way to check the machine vote. Ask Greg Palast.
 
 
+14 # Vardoz 2016-06-04 13:34
Mad man Trump is an easy target for HRC unlike Bernie who is drawing crowds of 30,000- 60,000 in California!

One for all and all for Bernie Sanders and the 99%!
 
 
+4 # karenvista 2016-06-05 22:18
Quoting Vardoz:
Mad man Trump is an easy target for HRC unlike Bernie who is drawing crowds of 30,000- 60,000 in California!

One for all and all for Bernie Sanders and the 99%!


Yes, but the Hillarybots say that people will stand in line for 6 or 8 hours to get in to see Bernie but are then too lazy to vote.

Yeah, I believe that......
 
 
+6 # grandlakeguy 2016-06-04 14:46
If denied the nomination then it is time for Bernie to join with Jill Stein and create a new political entity:


THE GREEN PROGRESSIVE PARTY
 
 
+28 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-02 13:25
Grandlakes: You are spot-on, but have put out the bait that rockback, et.al. love to attack ... Within a few minutes, rockback, and a few others will begin their (probably paid) trolling. Let's all try NOT to give them a thumbs down on this thread... I suspect they get paid based on the number of thumbs-down they accumulate on these pages! And they may appear above or below this missive.
 
 
+22 # jsluka 2016-06-02 17:18
I'm conflicted about whether I should down thumb the trolls (rocbak and lnason) or just ignore them. I often advocate "please don't feed the trolls," but then if they don't get a lot of down thumbs that might be interpreted to mean only a few disagree with them or that they have some support. I have this idea that the best way to deal with them is humor, but I'm not clever enough to quite figure out how to do this. Some clever person should come up with a funny way to respond that we can all join in with. Here's a challenge then to readers with wit!
 
 
+8 # Nominae 2016-06-03 00:20
Quoting jsluka:
I'm conflicted about whether I should down thumb the trolls (rocbak and lnason) or just ignore them... I have this idea that the best way to deal with them is humor, but I'm not clever enough to quite figure out how to do this.

This really need *NOT be a major dilemma. No matter what *anyone ELSE says - how about just making up your *own mind, and following your *own heart ?

We are *NOT an organized Army here, parroting lines from a Script. That would be the hired Trolls, among whom lnason is *not one of the new cabal.

In addition, if you have been paying attention, librarian1984 is one of
the *most HILARIOUS contributors in *print, and we are sufficiently fortunate to have her right *here on RSN. ;-D

ENJOY !
_
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-06-03 16:05
Haha, Nominae -- You priming me for that swamp land deal again :-)

Now I am conflicted. I have been trying to be more serious.

Nominae, I have the feeling that in another life You would have been my favorite professor.

Peace, comrade.
 
 
+10 # Polisage 2016-06-04 12:39
Hey rockfish, thanks for reminding me I HAVE TO GIVE Bernie SOME MORE MONEY.
 
 
-7 # rocback 2016-06-04 13:02
Well, better Bernie than Jimmy Swaggert, another person who steals from the poor and gives to the rich.
 
 
+12 # Polisage 2016-06-04 13:10
I can think of some investment bankers and politicians who fit that description.
 
 
+15 # Polisage 2016-06-04 13:14
And payday lenders too.
 
 
+53 # guomashi 2016-06-02 13:51
"But it has now dawned on some savvy Democrats that Clinton’s campaign vehicle may be damaged beyond repair"

gee....
ya' think?
is being a moron a prerequisite for being a part of the democratic party?

Hillary = you lose.
 
 
-44 # ericlipps 2016-06-02 17:53
Quoting grandlakeguy:
"Some Democratic leaders are privately scouting around for someone to replace Hillary if she stumbles in California and/or the FBI detects a crime in her email scandal,reports Robert Parry."

WHAT ABOUT BERNIE SANDERS WHO HAS ACTUALLY CAMPAIGNED , HAS ENORMOUS SUPPORT AND WOULD ALREADY HAVE WON ENOUGH DELEGATES IF THE DNC HAD NOT BEEN SO BLATENTLY RIGGING THE PROCESS??????????

Or so you believe. You can't bear the possibility that St. Bernard of Brooklyn might legitimately not be winning.
 
 
+13 # A_Har 2016-06-02 22:01
Quoting ericlipps:
Or so you believe. You can't bear the possibility that St. Bernard of Brooklyn might legitimately not be winning.

Yeah, perhaps, but HRC [SARC] Is a REAL WINNER.[/SARC]

Just How Shady is Hillary Clinton? This Shady…

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/06/02/just-how-shady-is-hillary-clinton-this-shady/

Michael Krieger | Posted Thursday Jun 2, 2016 at 4:12 pm

"I’m sure that by now most of you are intimately aware of the scathing report issued by the State Department inspector general regarding Hillary Clinton’s unconscionable use of a private server for all her official government emails. It’s now clear that this was no honest mistake, but rather a deliberate attempt to shield her correspondence from the American people.

Judge Andrew Napolitano has penned a must read piece about the whole affair at Reason titled, Inspector General’s Report Refutes All of Hillary Clinton’s Defenses For Using Private Email Server. Here are a few choice excerpts:

The inspector general interviewed Clinton’s three immediate predecessors — Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice — and their former aides about their email practices. He learned that none of them used emails as extensively as Clinton, none used a private server and, though Powell and Rice occasionally replied to government emails using private accounts, none used a private account when dealing with state secrets......."
 
 
0 # Polisage 2016-06-04 12:45
Dream ticket for real Democrats. Bernie for President and John Kerry for VP. Bernie can't be bought and Kerry is too rich to be bought. Both are heroes and I doubt the swift-boaters have enough venom left to fight for either Trump or a Clinton.
 
 
+6 # Vardoz 2016-06-04 13:30
The Oligarchy at all costs. They know Bernie is for a true Democracy but the stupid, destructive Oligarchy that sees no wisdom in uplifting our society as a whole is fighting for HRC or any establishment candidate.

Too late. the people are done with establishment representation. We want experienced leadership that actually cares about the people, & our environment. No more sold out reps. all of a sudden super delegates are getting that if they don't support their base & are backing HRC they won't get reelected. NH's supper delegate switched to Bernie. People have been calling their Democratic super delegates telling them, why vote for a rep that does not support their base? It works. The more calls the better. You can find out who they are on Wikipedia. We were shocked to find our for example even Patrick Leahy of VT has not endorsed Bernie. The more people that call the better. I told my rep wee are voting for Bernie. We do not want an Oligarchy, we want a Democracy. We are not going to vote for them next round unless they endorse Bernie who could beat Trump tomorrow. Why vote for a rep that doesn't support their base? In the mean time Bernie is supporting many Progressive candidates for the house and senate.
 
 
+4 # Caliban 2016-06-04 22:07
Despite the vague implications of Robert Parry's story, there is no evidence that Sanders would not be the convention selection should HRC actually get in serious trouble with the FBI.

After all, Sanders is a proven vote-getter, and that is a quality that still matters in US politics.
 
 
0 # A_Har 2016-06-05 14:51
Empire Files: Abby Martin Exposes What Hillary Clinton Really Represents

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV_PLCC6jeI
 
 
+78 # Street Level 2016-06-02 13:20
The current DNC's days are numbered and when we're done here in California, we are heading for the Convention.

2 million Independent California voters have been the target obstruction and and now collusion from the registrar as poll workers are told to give the NPP's a worthless "provisional" ballot when they should be getting a "crossover" ballot.

We're pissed and we're coming to Philly.
 
 
+24 # Radscal 2016-06-02 17:31
I wish I could join y'all in Philly.

Please encourage protesters to be visible (don't settle for "free speech zones").

And if you see any of the "black bloc" or other violent, likely agents provocateurs, please out them to other sincere protesters and try to isolate them.
 
 
+25 # Nominae 2016-06-03 00:30
Quoting Radscal:
Please encourage protesters to be visible (don't settle for "free speech zones").

DAMNED STRAIGHT !

Under the First Amendment, the *ENTIRE United *STATES
is a "Free Speech Zone" ! ;-D
_
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-06-03 18:56
Quoting Nominae:
Under the First Amendment, the *ENTIRE United *STATES is a "Free Speech Zone" ! ;-D
_

Ha, that is EXACTLY what I rant whenever I hear about a free speech zone. Started by W and D!ck.

Another brick in the wall.
 
 
+19 # Polisage 2016-06-02 20:46
Good thing DWS is not on the ticket. Then you could be really pissed. The Democratic Party is eating its young. Something has to take its place.
 
 
+14 # DrD 2016-06-03 07:48
Street level - "We're pissed and we're coming to Philly" - love it!

Actually I'm not as much pissed as determined. We have seen and shown what true grit, determination, and perseverance can accomplish for GOOD this primary season (there are plenty of example for greed) and now WE are so close that with one more weekend of calls to CA, NJ etc, one more $27 donation, one more email to a friend in an upcoming primary state WE can win this. I won't miss being a part of Philly either- it's going to be historic.

RSN meetup on South Street anyone?
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-06-04 06:46
That would be a blast!
 
 
+98 # Mainiac 2016-06-02 13:27
Would the Democratic Party leadership be able to face down the righteous wrath of the Sanders delegates at the convention if they tried to bring Biden on to the stage as the nominee. Not only would there be an outcry at the convention over such a maneuver but there would be massive demonstrations in the streets of every major city.

It is far too late for Bernie to run as an independent or as a third party candidate unless Jill Stein of the Greens would be willing to step aside.

If it were not for the vote rigging and stealing in the various states, Bernie would have been way ahead of Hillary in pledged delegates at this point in this campaign.

For the sake of the Party, for the American people, for the country and the world, the top Dems must nominate Bernie Sanders and help him become the next president!
 
 
+42 # guomashi 2016-06-02 13:53
Quoting Mainiac:
Would the Democratic Party leadership be able to face down the righteous wrath of the Sanders delegates at the convention if they tried to bring Biden on to the stage as the nominee.


on the positive side, it would unify the party!
Everyone would hate the DNC.
 
 
+14 # Radscal 2016-06-02 17:57
Have you ever considered Watergate through that lens?

The country in the late 60s, early 70s was torn between pro- and anti-war, civil rights and racism, drug use and the war on drugs, etc. I forget the term the corporate media used, but they all used the same phrase to describe the divisionism. Anyone remember?

Real Revolution seemed like a distinct possibility. Maybe it was actually really beginning to happen. It felt like it to me.

Nixon campaigned to "unite the country."

And then, Watergate hit the headlines. And that "revolution" WAS televised. The country sat in front of their TVs, mesmerized by Senator Sam Ervin fighting "the good fight."

A President was forced to resign. A peace treaty to end the Vietnam War was presented.

The country was united. Nothing more to see here. Just move along.
 
 
+19 # guomashi 2016-06-02 18:42
Quoting Radscal:
Have you ever considered Watergate through that lens?
.....

A President was forced to resign. A peace treaty to end the Vietnam War was presented.

The country was united. Nothing more to see here. Just move along.


given the fact that I was being facetious....

but in response to your "nothing more to see here" sentiment - I would lay that directly at the feet of Ford who pardoned nixon for any and all crimes that he may have committed.

and a few years of 'seeming' peace were bought at the expense of people like cheney and Rumsfeld etc., who got a free pass when they should have been long since jailed.

and then they got to install their cardboard cutout of a W, and the rest is history.
 
 
+21 # Radscal 2016-06-02 19:10
It seems you got my point. People were fooled into thinking something substantial had happened, but they're wrong.

I have no doubt that Nixon appointed Ford specifically with the guarantee that he would pardon Nixon, and for any and all possible crimes.

Ford was also the FBI informant on the Warren Commission, who helped ensure that incriminating evidence was withheld. And he remains the ONLY President the country has ever had who NEVER won a nationwide election.
 
 
+25 # Dion Giles 2016-06-02 21:27
George W Bush didn't win a nationwide election in 2000 and there is a lot of doubt whether it was he or the Diebold machines that won in in 2004.
 
 
+16 # Radscal 2016-06-02 21:38
LOL. Well, if you want to be THAT WAY about it, Nixon rigged 1968 and Reagan rigged 1980, in both cases by treasonously negotiating as private citizens with foreign governments.

I should have written that Ford never "took part in a nationwide election" before becoming President, and then lost the one he did.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-06-04 09:44
Actually, I think that was DEFINITELY part of the bargain with Ford. Ford was one of the only Republicans seeming clean enough to be a viable v.p. after Agnew and so many others were caught up in the corruption, but I can't remember where I heard or read it, but I'm pretty sure the deal you're referring to DID ACTUALLY take place.
 
 
+7 # lorenbliss 2016-06-04 11:00
@Radscal: Don't forget the end of the military draft. This was NOT because the government had opted for peace, but because the One Percenters and their Ruling Class vassals suddenly remembered the object lesson of Tsar Nicholas c. 1917 and realized the draft -- as in the old Russian Empire -- was training the revolution. Indeed some radical groups were urging people to enlist specifically to get the training.

One hypothesis as to why the capitalists allowed us such prosperity after World War II is that the number of militarily trained citizens could have easily fomented a successful revolution. (This hypothesis also explains the timing of the postwar purges, too, which began literally the day the war ended and persecuted not just Communists but all Left-leaning intellectuals.)

Apropos the term used to describe the divisionism, what comes to mind is "generation gap," which was intended to marginalize us by implying our rebelliousness was nothing more than a childish tantrum -- never mind our ranks included many Spanish Civil War, World War II and Korean War veterans.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-06-04 21:21
Great observations.

There's also the idea that conscription can result in a less "gung-ho" military and less public support for wars.

The "volunteer" military could be described as "mercenary" in that they self-select, except that many join because there are so few opportunities for young civilians.
 
 
0 # Patriot 2016-06-21 09:38
Take heart. My figure is not rock solid, but I believe there still are about 25 million military veterans in this country....
 
 
+68 # librarian1984 2016-06-02 13:29
grandlakeguy, I agree with everything you say, but this is FANTASTIC news.

I actually cried reading this article because it tells us there is a POSSIBILITY. Somebody is listening. They SEE that Clinton is deeply flawed and they are talking about alternatives.

For now, that is ALL we need. This is the most painful step for them, and IF they do this, if they withdraw HRC or, as they would prefer, if ongoing investigations justify them cutting her loose, THEN we will raise HOLY HELL that the replacement be Sen. Sanders.

We can win that fight. We WILL win that fight.

The CRUCIAL step is that they withdraw Clinton, and if it helps them to think they can put Biden in there, let them believe that. It WON'T happen.

My goodness, we have HOPE.

Don't be silent, anyone.

THIS is the push. Keep screaming to the high heavens that you will NEVER EVER vote for Clinton. Make them believe you. If you've been on the fence about Bernie or Bust, go sign the petition now. Contact superdelegates. Be loud. We will NOT accept Clinton as the nominee.

Sign up to make phone calls to CA for the Sanders campaign.

If you have friends or relatives in CA, talk to them. But don't be obnoxious. Let them tell you what issue(s) they care about and then make your case. When I canvassed that's what they told us to do and it really worked.

Thank you so much for this article. I needed it. I think we all did.

grandlakeguy, this is amazing news. Be happy.
 
 
+12 # nice2bgreat 2016-06-02 14:22
Quoting librarian1984:
[The Democratic-Part y establishment] SEE that Clinton is deeply flawed and they are talking about alternatives.

Besides this, the Democratic-Part y establishment sees that Bernie-Sanders supporters -- not to be confused with Bernie Sanders' supporters -- (many, many) will not be cowed, nor feared-into supporting Hillary Clinton; which brings up Joe Biden: substantially less flawed than Hillary Clinton -- less militaristic (seeming), certainly less female -- but clearly a corporatized and "establishment" politician.
.
 
 
+17 # lfeuille 2016-06-02 22:43
But if they think substituting Biden or Kerry for Sanders will cut it, they still are not getting the message. That will be just as bad as Hillary.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2016-06-03 06:49
I absolutely 100% agree. But I think the biggest leap they have to make is telling her she has to step down. (The second most difficult thing will be finding the person who's going to knock on Hillary's door. Wouldn't wanna be THAT gal.)

I think we need to shepherd them through that difficult step. We cheer them on for now, and demand they follow through, and then we will raise a mighty roar that Sanders is the guy.

I guess I'm saying we should take the fight one step at a time.

lfeuille, I enjoy your comments.
 
 
+1 # Caliban 2016-06-04 22:20
"Less female", nice? And your point is...?
 
 
+18 # grandlakeguy 2016-06-02 18:55
Hi librarian, be assured I am BEYOND happy to hear that this is happening.
I totally agree with upping the count on the Bernie or Bust pledges but here is an Idea:
Lets start a tandem pledge that puts the DNC on notice that if they find the wisdom to dump HRC that the only replacement candidate that is acceptable is Bernie Sanders!
 
 
+12 # grandlakeguy 2016-06-02 19:00
And if the Dems decide to continue to crap on all his supporters then it is time to urge all of Bernie's base that there needs to be a new party formed:
The GREEN PROGRESSIVE PARTY
A marriage of the Green Party with Progressive Bernie will be a powerful force and can sweep away the remnants of the cancerous Democratic party in the next few election cycles after Bernie becomes President on Jan. 20, 2017.
 
 
+9 # Nominae 2016-06-03 00:41
Quoting grandlakeguy:

The GREEN PROGRESSIVE PARTY

You are one of the most cogent voices on the Q grandlakeguy,
but this is just *PRIMO !

Yes ! *SOLUTIONS over impotent *BITCHING every time !
_
 
 
+73 # reiverpacific 2016-06-02 13:37
Joe Biden- nice guy but sure loser (even to Drumpf).
John Kerry- PROVEN loser.
Bernie Sanders- SURE WINNER!!!!!!
So where's the problem with these bloody cowards????
And BTW, where's "rocback", HRC's apologist supreme?
 
 
+17 # grandlakeguy 2016-06-02 19:02
reiverpacific, I think that rocback finally sees that the writing is on the wall and has crawled back into his hole, or his parent's basement or wherever.
 
 
+13 # Radscal 2016-06-02 21:39
Gosh. Yesterday the roc wrote that Hillary couldn't pay him enough to post. Maybe that was the one true thing he posted. The check must have bounced. ;-)
 
 
+40 # tswhiskers 2016-06-02 13:39
It seems to me too that Bernie should/would have the nomination if Clinton can't have it. Joe Biden would have been a good candidate, but he should be called "too late Joe". He has little support among the voters; he had the chance to run after his son died and decided against it then, altho he may possible have won the nomination. But Bernie's popularity with all but the Democrat Party honchos should make him the shoo-in nominee if Hillary's legal troubles leave her unable to run. For democracy's sake let's hope this will be what happens.
 
 
+27 # Cassandra2012 2016-06-02 14:41
ALSO, HE WAS ON THAT ANITA HILL COMMITTEE IF I RECALL, NOT A POSITIVE FOR HIM AT ALL!
 
 
+33 # librarian1984 2016-06-02 15:05
That is one of my first political memories. I wasn't very engaged when I was younger. (I'm embarrassed to say I thought the Watergate hearings were about a flood for a while!)

But I was riveted by this hearing, and thunderstruck by the behavior of the Democrats. I think Joe Biden is personable and close to human, but I vowed I would never forget the way he, in particular, treated Anita Hill.
 
 
+4 # economagic 2016-06-02 16:03
Oops, my bad: I was going to give you a thumbs-up but my hand slipped. Count TWO more than the tally shows. You bet I remember Joe Biden with his snazzy bow tie presiding over the confirmation of Uncle Thomas, probably as much TV as I watched in that entire decade. The Wikipedia article portrays him as doing his job impartially despite his personal reservations about Thomas. It may be my own bias, but my recollection is different.
 
 
+24 # Radscal 2016-06-02 18:04
In the Senate, Biden voted FOR all the bills we are now criticizing the Clintons over. Hell, it was Biden who INTRODUCED the Crime Bill. Welfare "reform." Deregulating Wall Street. The whole enchilada.

As VP he's been a war hawk in every instance.

Bernie Sanders is the real thing. Bernie has won half of the States, even with rigged elections, and his popularity continues to rise.

Accept no substitute! ;-)
 
 
-70 # Exotikat 2016-06-02 13:41
It is so irritating to me that Hillary Clinton could have such high favorability ratings when she was Sec. of State but as soon as she runs for President, all anyone can talk about is how awful she is. I've watched the haters since she was First Lady, and I'm so over them. What with the haters, and the Media wanting a spectacle, it's not surprising it looks like Hillary is struggling. I'm still in the Hillary camp. I would have voted for Bernie if he had the chops, but more people are still voting for Hillary and I'm one.
 
 
+62 # guomashi 2016-06-02 13:54
Quoting Exotikat:
It is so irritating to me that Hillary Clinton could have such high favorability ratings when she was Sec. of State but as soon as she runs for President, all anyone can talk about is how awful she is. I've watched the haters since she was First Lady, and I'm so over them. What with the haters, and the Media wanting a spectacle, it's not surprising it looks like Hillary is struggling. I'm still in the Hillary camp. I would have voted for Bernie if he had the chops, but more people are still voting for Hillary and I'm one.


are you going to volunteer to fight in her wars?
 
 
+47 # vicnada 2016-06-02 13:58
"What with the haters and Media wanting a spectacle..."
What have you been smoking? The media has done whatever possible to shoe-in this inevitable candidate. But like the original Grimms Fairy Tale, they have had to saw off her toes to make her distorted feet fit the glass slippers.
The only inevitability, it turns out, is that the truth will out. And there are very many--not only Bernie backers--who are "so over" her. She is failing not because of anyone but herself. She has been afforded every advantage by the Democratic establishment, the press, faithful followers like you...but she has failed, failed, failed.
 
 
+30 # librarian1984 2016-06-02 13:58
@ Exotikat

"It is so irritating to me"

You know what's irritating to me? You.

We have been taking cr@p, including paid trolls, from the obnoxious, inept, tin ear Clinton campaign for months, and we just got some great news -- so you want to come along and spit on it?

Too bad. I'm happy and you can go jump in a lake. This is not a sudden reassessment of HRC. She was inept trying to introduce healthcare. She was a senator who stood only for her wealthy electorate. She was a dismal failure as Sec. of State. That is all bad enough. But when you submit someone for president, all those problems are magnified because the job is so important.

If you were a rational person you could not vote for this candidate. Even the entrenched Democratic establishment has doubts. That's pretty remarkable.

So you go ahead with your certainty, which looks more irrational all the time, but please do it elsewhere. I don't go to your house and take a plop on the lawn.

You are right there are haters, and they have unfairly dogged her for decades, and I pity her for that. I don't hate her. I just don't think she should be president. I hope she has a great life, just not in the White House.

I like your name though.
 
 
+19 # maverita 2016-06-02 14:39
If you don't understand, then you need to check out Democalypse: Jon Stewart Comes out of Retirement
It is verry informative and shows exactly why I am hesitant to vote for Hillary. AND TBC, I was NOT rating her favorably while she was Secretary of State.
 
 
+30 # Charles3000 2016-06-02 16:03
It is not hate, it is issues and her record. As SoS she had Syria, Libya, Ukraine and Honduras. All neocon backed failures. In domestic policy she is a neoliberal/3rd way/ Chicago Eco School supporter and those policies, designed to move wealth and power from the people to the 1%.are the major problem now with economic life in the USA. So don't talk about HATE, talk about issues.
 
 
-15 # tswhiskers 2016-06-02 18:26
Yes, indeed. Issues. Personality doesn't (or shouldn't) enter into political decisions, although Cruz may be an exception. I will vote for her if Bernie loses the nomination since Trump would be the absolute worst president. We are stuck with the candidates we are given and I can't see the sense of wasting my vote on someone who has no business being president or on a "protest" which will impress no one, such as Jill Stein, but will end up being a "vote" for Trump since it would accomplish nothing but make me feel good for a split second and end up being a non-vote.
 
 
+6 # Ken Halt 2016-06-03 16:41
tsw: You said it precisely, "...the candidates we are given...". Why settle for the deep state choices when this election cycle there is a tried and true, verified and vetted, alternate choice for highest office,i.e., Bernie Sanders? We should not be "... stuck with the candidates we are given..." by the 1%, we should be supporting a candidate of the 99% and making sure he gets into office. This is what democracy looks like: supporting the best candidate come hell or high water! Don't do the "wise" or "allowed" thing, the compromise will betray your interests if you are one of the 99%. GO, BERNIE!
 
 
+27 # grandlakeguy 2016-06-02 16:11
So Exotikat, you should go on vacation to the Mediterranean Sea and meet with the surviving family members of the thousands of innocents (many of them women and children whom Hillary claims that she works to protect) who have drowned just this week alone fleeing the chaos in Libya directly caused by the wonderful results of Hillary's "accomplishment s" as Secretary of State.
I am sure that they would be thrilled to hear about your unwavering support of your idol.
 
 
+29 # vicnada 2016-06-02 13:45
"...imperious, entitled and dishonest..."
Say no more. Hillary is doomed.
 
 
+19 # heiko12 2016-06-02 13:53
since trump likes to tout his outsider image, i think it is inaccurate to refer to him as a "politician"

an egomaniac, yes. a reality tv personality, yes. but what has he ever done as a politician? his "campaign" was more political theater (of the absurd) than anything else.

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

on a separate topic… so the Dem's are frantically looking for someone… apparently anyone other than Bernie!
 
 
+26 # Patriot 2016-06-02 13:56
Okay, all. Let's get busy e-mailing the DNC and the White House to let them know that Clinton has to go--Wasserman-S chultz with her--and that Senator Sanders must be the nominee.

The DNC's attempt to derail Sander's campaign and crown Clinton has been a failure.

True to form, the DNC does not blame itself for bad judgment in supporting a candidate no majority ever has wanted to see in the White House. They plan to rely on Obama's credibility to sell Clinton to us? Those folks truly are delusional.

The DNC and the Party do NOT want Bernie because he will insist upon changes they do NOT want to make, lest they upset the real masters: the people who have bribed them to turn the US into an oligarchy.

The Democratic Party is opposed to Sanders' determination to restore economic and political equality to the U.S. Anyone the DNC and the Partyttries to put in Clinton's place will be someone they also expect, like Clinton, will further their goal of oligarchy.

Start calling and writing! The list of super delegates, who are former Democratic Party leaders, sitting Governors, US Senators and Representatives , and DNC state-level officials is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

[continued]
 
 
# Guest 2016-06-02 16:40
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+18 # Patriot 2016-06-02 13:57
[continued]

Also, please sign the petition to make Senator Sanders the Democratic Party nominee for President, here:

https://www.change.org/p/democratic-national-committee-nominate-senator-bernie-sanders-as-the-democratic-candidate-for-president

When it has received 100,00 signatures, or on 15 July, 10 days before the convention--whi chever comes first--it will be sent to DNC officials and former Party leaders, so please e-mail the link to other Sanders supporters, post it on Tweet or Twitter or Facebook or whatever.

If that petition doesn't suit you, you will find 580 other petitions regarding Senator Sanders here:

https://www.change.org/t/bernie-sanders-en-us?source_location=topic_page

Pick one, or sign several, but let's make our voices heard now, TODAY!
 
 
+10 # lorenbliss 2016-06-02 14:14
@Patriot: Thank you for posting these vital links.
 
 
+10 # mtnthai 2016-06-02 16:45
Quoting Patriot:
Okay, all. Let's get busy e-mailing the DNC and the White House to let them know that Clinton has to go--Wasserman-Schultz with her--and that Senator Sanders must be the nominee. ...]


i just wrote them, again.

here is the link: http://my.democrats.org/page/s/contact-the-democrats

i write them every week about DWS.

i really can't see Elizabeth Warren running with Biden unless she thinks she would run for POTUS after being Veep. i also think she would not feel comfortable doing that anyway. she has an agenda in the Senate and she needs to continue with it and be there when whoever becomes POTUS next.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-06-03 07:30
Fantastic! Thank you!

Very librarian-like!
 
 
+25 # lorenbliss 2016-06-02 14:04
Undoubtedly the reason the Democratic Party's overlords have not squelched Hillary's candidacy is they believe the California elections are sufficiently "fixed" to ensure her victory.

Indeed there are already credible reports of massive voter-deception efforts by California election officials, for which see http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/37203-placebo-ballots-stealing-california-from-bernie-using-an-old-gop-vote-snatching-trick

And if these efforts somehow fail, the Democrats are preparing to offer Biden as Hillary's alternative. Biden is of course himself a wholly owned vassal of Wall Street, hence there would be no qualitative difference between Hillary and Biden presidencies.

The following link demonstrates two facts. One is how the Democrats and Republicans collaborate to corrupt USian elections. The other is how Gore, who won the 2000 popular vote, threw the election to Bush rather than confront Florida's massive disenfranchisem ent of Black and Hispanic voters.

https://socialistworker.org/2016/06/02/who-stole-election-2000-hint-not-nader

As President Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
 
 
+17 # Radscal 2016-06-02 18:22
Thanks Loren. The Socialist Worker article is exactly correct that Gore threw away the election, in large part by calling for only a partial recount. Also, not a single Democratic Senator would join the Congressional Black Caucus in challenging the election.

He was clearly more interested in protecting the Duopoly Establishment than in seeing to it that the will of the people was followed.
 
 
+6 # lorenbliss 2016-06-02 23:31
@Radscal: Thank YOU. (By the way, I am not a Trotskyite, but that does not prevent me from citing a Trotskyite source when its facts are both historically correct and relevant.)
 
 
+4 # tigerlillie 2016-06-03 02:43
I have always believed that Al Gore was paid off, combined with some form of blackmail; they must have had something really compelling on him.
 
 
-4 # rocback 2016-06-03 16:42
I bet when Bernie endorses Hillary, the same claim will be made here.
 
 
+6 # DrD 2016-06-04 08:17
What Gore did was not an endorsement. It was a complete capitulation to the power structure and complete betrayal of the representatives from minority districts who needed just ONE senator to stand with them to support disenfranchised voters.

If you need a reminder of Gore's betrayal, watch this clip again. It sickens me to hear Gore's comment that 'the rules do care' and the laughter from the mostly white, male senators. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TnNMlBTkF_s
 
 
+18 # djnova50 2016-06-02 14:14
The DNC just can't see the forest for the trees. Why would it be looking for a possible replacement when the best candidate available is already doing quite well in the polls against Donald Trump? The Party needs to be shaken up. Bernie is the one doing it.

I have watched enough video featuring Hillary Clinton to know that she would not be good for America. It's kind of sad that she has so many supporters who believe she would be. Her campaign has been funded by corporate sponsors. If elected, who do you suppose she would obligated to attend to? Certainly not us.

On the other hand, Bernie has been funded by individual donors with an average donation of $27. He's not going to feel obligated to tend to the needs of the corporations. We the People will matter to him. With many votes across the country, we can elect Progressives to Congress. Russ Feingold in Wisconson comes to mind. His name will be on the ballot.
 
 
+10 # Nominae 2016-06-03 01:10
Quoting djnova50:
The DNC just can't see the forest for the trees. Why would it be looking for a possible replacement when the best candidate available is already doing quite well in the polls against Donald Trump? The Party needs to be shaken up. Bernie is the one doing it.

Absolutely *EXCELLENT post, djnova !

Your final line in the excerpt I have selected above quite effectively answers the question you pose in your inititial paragraph.

The DNC is not ABOUT to piss off The Corporations that feed it by backing a candidate who is *NOT KIDDING about correcting egregious financial inequality, BREAKING UP THE WALL STREET BANKS, establishing free College Tuition (just as the entire STATE of CALIFORNIA had when I got out of the military back in 1971), etc. etc.

The DNC is NOT *ABOUT doing what "The People WANT", unless we are here defining "The People" to mean members in good standing of the ONE PERCENT ! ;-D

The DNC fears Sanders *BECAUSE the general PUBLIC BACKS Bernie !
_
 
 
+3 # tigerlillie 2016-06-03 02:47
I will only vote for Bernie as president, but I am concerned, if not outright alarmed, by how easy he has gone on HRC. Was that decision bad judgement on his part, the only realistic avenue open to him at that time, or what? I appreciate that he has by and large run a positive campaign, but I feel that he has weakened himself re: HRC.
 
 
+7 # DrD 2016-06-03 07:58
Tigerllie
Bernie addressed that question is this great Rolling stone interview.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bernie-sanders-fights-on-the-rolling-stone-interview-20160531

I'm proud of Bernie that he did not go into personal attacks. Its just not in his DNA, and it's strategically wise. It's my theory of one reason why millennials are so supportive of him. They see a man who said he was going to focus on issues, not negative attack campaigns, and he kept his word. A rare thing in our political system!
 
 
+26 # jimmyjames 2016-06-02 14:15
I turned on the television this afternoon to check the news. EVERY "news" channel was broadcasting a Hillary Clinton's live speech. Not one aired Bernie Sanders rallies being held. It is SO disgraceful how the media is supporting Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. This nation not only needs anew President with the morality and honesty such as Bernie Sanders, we desperately need an unbiased Mainstream media.

And to think, Bernie has come this far with all the cards stacked against him. If they deny him the nomination, I hope and pray he would run with Jill Stein in the Green Party. She is making a big push right now to increase her ballot chances in more states.
 
 
+16 # Radscal 2016-06-02 18:29
The Oakland Police Department estimated that 60,000 people came to Sanders' rally in Oakland a couple days ago. Tens of thousands show up regularly, and his team generally only releases the time and place two days ahead.

Hillary held her "important" foreign policy speech in the Grand Ballroom at the Prado at Balboa Park, a room that seats 320.

Now the center tables were removed, so there may have been a thousand attendees. And that's a HUGE turnout for HRC. IT was more than the number of US flags she had on stage (15 furled, 4 hanging).

How can anyone believe the number of votes she gets from the rigged voting machines?
 
 
+12 # grandlakeguy 2016-06-02 19:08
I was there and it was jammed!
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-06-02 21:45
Very cool!

I noticed the Oakland Trib reported just 11,000 attendees. Some news outlets reported 20,000 or 30,000, but the OPD said 60,000.

BTW: I was so sad when Manard got sick and sold the Trib. Sad for him and his family, of course, but as time went by, so sad at the radical right turn that once fine newspaper took.
 
 
-1 # grandlakeguy 2016-06-04 18:48
I would guess that the number was close to the Tribune estimate of 11,000.
The OPD estimate of 60,000 is absurd.
 
 
0 # Radscal 2016-06-04 21:27
Interesting. From the photos, and having been there, I could see that maybe there were 11,000 in the Plaza, but the photos of people filling streets for blocks in every direction suggests a higher total number.

But, you were there, and I trust you, so I won't state the OPD number anymore.
 
 
+7 # Nominae 2016-06-03 00:57
Quoting grandlakeguy:
I was there and it was jammed!

SO *GOOD To have a reliable observer ON SCENE !

Thanks !
_
 
 
+11 # librarian1984 2016-06-02 14:19
I have an idea: A DOLLAR FOR DEBBIE.

The day DWS steps down from the DNC, every single damn one of us donates ONE DOLLAR (to the DNC or DNCC or the convention).

Give them a number.

Let's begin negotiations with the Democratic establishment.
 
 
+9 # maverita 2016-06-02 14:59
The day DWS steps down and is replaced with someone more open to change and less beholding to the wealthy and corporate power structure, THEN and ONLY then I will send the DNC $30 per month for the remainder of this election cycle.
 
 
+11 # librarian1984 2016-06-02 15:24
THAT sounds like a good deal. Nice.

I am thinking of something that would tell them how many millions of us there are.

It would be our way of saying: if you do what WE want, re-adopting progressive values, we will give you what YOU want, money and votes.

They are afraid to cut ties with corporate interests. This would paint an alternative picture for them, another way to go.

*********

Addition: Later in this forum tigerlillie suggests sending this dollar to progressive candidates. I think that's a good point, though I don't know if it makes the same point. Where could we donate a dollar to the Democratic party but do it so progressive Democrats control it?
 
 
+5 # economagic 2016-06-02 16:06
ONLY if the super delegates are eliminated before the convention.
 
 
+11 # librarian1984 2016-06-02 17:25
Political advisor Schoen suggests that if HRC loses CA the superdelegates will reconsider.

Wow. That's exactly why they were put in place, to stop an unelectable candidate. But nobody thought that candidate would be Hillary Clinton.
 
 
+6 # Anonymot 2016-06-02 20:18
Maverita: I cut them off and unsubscribed to everything from the Democrat Party months ago. I also refuse to refer to them as the Democratic Party , because they have become enemies of everything Democratic.
There's little difference between Trump and Trump Lite except their sex - maybe - although the Clintons may be more dangerous because she lies about who she is while Trump's Trump.
 
 
+7 # tigerlillie 2016-06-03 02:54
Afraid not. After Obama was re-elected (and yes, I did vote for him on the flawed premise that he was the lesser of two evils) I swore to never, ever contribute money to the Democratic party again, only Democratic candidates that were bucking the system. I think it would be a very poor idea to try to bribe the DNC with money. They will not spend such funds wisely; the DNC is just too damn corrupt.
 
 
+9 # futhark 2016-06-02 14:40
America's vaunted two-party system is once again failing to deliver candidates that the people actually want. This is not the first time it has happened. I recall in school being taught that there is nothing in the Constitution legitimizing the two-party system, but its continuance is critical to democracy in America. On the contrary, nothing has so effectively obstructed the will of the people than the two-party system, the leadership of which is beholden to established cliques of wealthy power brokers. This election may be the opportunity for which many have been waiting, when the utter corruption of this system is manifested in a way no one can ignore and there will be increasing support for abandoning this failed system and finding something that is a closer approximation of a democratic government.
 
 
+9 # Anonymot 2016-06-02 20:33
People tend to forget that in a democracy the organizations that represent voters also have a responsibility: to present potential candidates who are capable of promoting real solutions to the group's problems consistent with the nation's interests. Mere lip service will not do. Nor will a good looking face nor a whiz-bang personality. The Democrat Party has failed its members by pre-organizing a candidate's win to be the representative of the group

That, in and of itself, constitutes a political fraud.
 
 
-30 # Shades of gray matter 2016-06-02 14:40
Kerry? Biden? WARREN? Why not BS? Because his atheism has never been vetted, because HRC was chicken? Because his socialism has never been vetted, because HRC was chicken? Because his spending proposals were designed for "future thinking points," NOT responsible policy proposals. Because his vicious vote against the auto bail-out has not yet really BEEN USED AGAINST HIM. Because he is on tape saying Mexican immigration is a bad thing for US workers. HRC has handled him with kid cloves, even in CA, up to now. Reveals her poor judgement? "Mega taxing & mega spending" on the part of untrusted politicians may not be a winner this year. Nor his age.
 
 
+9 # lfeuille 2016-06-02 22:49
You are nuts! Everyone knows. No one cares.
 
 
+7 # tigerlillie 2016-06-03 02:57
Blah, blah, blah.
 
 
-1 # Ken Halt 2016-06-03 16:47
Shades: You need to recalibrate your meds.
 
 
+11 # video4315 2016-06-02 14:42
Does California use electronic voting machines? If so, then the tally may never be accurate. The cost to change the results would be whatever the most at risk candidate or his/her supporters was willing to pay. With a poll margin showing Hillary 2 points ahead of Bernie, any change in the outcome of the vote counting would be hard to challenge because it looks close.
 
 
+15 # Radscal 2016-06-02 18:35
And since exit polls have been cancelled for the remaining primaries, crucial evidence of the ongoing election fraud will simply not be available.

HRC has gotten more computer votes than the exit polls showed in 19 states. Often, she got enough extra "black box" votes to flip the results.

Statistically, the chances of this happening are 90,000,000 to 1.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-06-03 14:35
Don't worry. I'm sure CNN is hard at work on the story.
 
 
+10 # joejamchicago 2016-06-02 14:46
Clinton intentionally mixed private and official emails. She then destroyed 30,000, claiming that all destroyed were private. We will never know. Her actions disqualify her. Her foundation, set up under Canadian law to circumvent American law, is a sewer. She is not fit to be President. Vote Libertarian.
 
 
+10 # Salus Populi 2016-06-02 16:02
Actually, I read at Global Reach that the FBI has been able to recover most of those 30,000 deleted emails, despite her best efforts. Reminds me of Oliver North's shredding party and cluelessness regarding how computers store information.
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-06-02 18:37
Not to mention that NSA has them all. Mossad almost assuredly has them, too and Russian insiders have strongly hinted they've got them, too.
 
 
+4 # lorenbliss 2016-06-02 23:36
Given a choice of spooks as to who's got Hillary's most usefully dirty dirt -- NSA, Mossad or GRU -- I'd bet on the chess-champion bears every time.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-06-03 04:39
In which case it might behoove them to keep it on the chance she'll be president, and then blackmail her with it.

The same could be said of Mossad or the NSA. They could use them to manipulate her.



Yay! I got to use 'behoove' in a sentence!
 
 
0 # lorenbliss 2016-06-03 13:58
@librarian1984: apropos the espionage skills of the chess-champion bears, suggest you read V. E. Tarrant's "The Red Orchestra" (Wiley: 1996) -- that is, if you haven't read it already.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-06-03 14:35
Have not. Thank you for the suggestion.
 
 
+1 # Ken Halt 2016-06-03 16:49
lib: Would it behoove me to wear shoes? I am most often seen in flip-flops....
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-06-04 07:15
groan. Don't be that guy, KH, the one with the puns.

(Sometimes I am that guy. It never ends well.)
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-06-03 13:13
Well, Israel has long been a partner of NSA, gathering telephone "meta data" years before 9/11. So I expect they know pretty much everything NSA knows, and much they don't.

Russia has to find their own ways to access such data, but I have little doubt they are quite successful at it.
 
 
+10 # tigerlillie 2016-06-03 03:01
People keep accepting the premise that HRC destroyed 30,000 e-mails as if it were legitimately possible to do that. We all know that technology and massive surveillance make the ability to destroy 30,000 e-mails a virtual impossibility. Yet the lie continues and is accepted without question.
 
 
+6 # Shorey13 2016-06-02 14:50
Just read a quote attributed to MarkTwain: "If voting really mattered, they wouldn't let us do it."

Nice to see all the righteous indignation here about the way Moderate Republicans have hijacked the Democratic Party, but, sorry to see the level of naivete that assumes we have any say in the process. We DO NOT have a democracy, and it's about time that became obvious to all. We have a Plutocracy, which runs both of the mainstream parties.

The only intelligent response is to refuse to support/partici pate at any level. Non-violent resistance. Remember Mark Twain!
 
 
+10 # librarian1984 2016-06-02 15:28
But I'll bet Mark Twain voted anyway. It's part of being a citizen. We need MORE people voting, not fewer.

The things you say may be true, but this is exactly NOT the time to be cynical. We can do that anytime.

THIS is the time for action. We can still make this happen.

THEY ARE THINKING OF PULLING HRC FROM THE RACE.

Now is the time to make a lot of noise. DEMAND it.

Shorey13, I suspect your motives.
 
 
+1 # tigerlillie 2016-06-03 03:11
[quote

"Shorey13, I suspect your motives."


I don't understand why you would impuign Shorey13's motives. In fact, I find your comment offensive, and I am usually very positive about your comments, even though I suspect that they are sometimes naive. Have you now reached the point that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically "suspect?" I think you should apologize to him. You can call him cynical, but I suspect that in fact he is being realistic, based on long experience. That doesn't mean that I am going to lie down and give up because reality leaves little room for hope, but I have always been intemperately idealistic, which explains why I was conned by Obama..twice. So I always have respect for the truth tellers when they speak up. We can always benefit from the insights of the pragmatic.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-06-03 07:04
Reply 1, regarding Shorey13.

Here is my thinking:

I mainly agreed with the sentiment expressed in the original post, but was puzzled by the conclusion -- that at exactly the time we learn CA results are at the crux of Dems' decision making, a time when most of us I think would encourage EVERY progressive in CA not only to vote. but to bring their friends to vote, s/he was saying "Don't vote".

Secondly, this was a person I wasn't very familiar with, having not seen more than a couple posts, so I wondered if this person was a troll.

HOWEVER I haven't been on here that long myself, and have learned from others that sometimes people are quite well known, just not to me, so I should not leap to conclusions.

THEREFORE I expressed a suspicion and wanted to ask Shorey13 to identify his/her motive a little more.

I considered it a restrained request for clarity, however I am not always very good socially, and am often uncertain about the appropriate or tactful way to say something.

My intention was respectful so I do not intend to apologize. I would still like to hear from the original poster.

Perhaps voting IS a naive act, but it's one of the few ways I can make myself heard, and I would like to know why one would tell progressives NOT to vote at this particular moment.

Respectfully, tigerlillie, there is at least a possibility I am not the one being naive here -- but more on that below.

I enjoy your posts. Usually! LOL!
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-06-03 07:18
Reply 2, regarding my being naive.

Tigerlillie, this is not news to my family, friends or even mild acquaintances :-) I have been called naive my whole life. Sometimes, at family reunions, I am discussed as if I were an exotic creature -- so full of wild ideas. If there were a conceptual childs' table they would sit me at it! Being raised by wild Republicans, I can't tell you how relieved I was as a teenager to find out about progressivism.

I realize I am naive and often ill-informed, and that is what I love about this place. I've learned so much, and know I have much more to learn. It's difficult to keep informed about the many things I care about, so this format is heaven, a place I can learn and discuss, and one of the things I've learned is that I am sometimes just plumb wrong. I may very well be wrong about Shorey13, and hope to receive clarification.

I do not apologize to Shorey13 for the reasons stated above, but I do apologize to you for my too frequently naive comments. I will try to be more informed and more pragmatic, while admitting the latter is not my strength.

THEN I will work on being less wordy!
 
 
+5 # Ken Halt 2016-06-03 17:04
lib: I agree! To not participate means you are a non-player and putty in the hands of those who offer WTP no real choice. Better to vote and show you are active and in opposition, not mere bystanders. If Bernie is not the Dem nominee, a million write-ins for Sanders or Stein will put the DNC on notice that voters are paying attention and not willing to go with the sameo-sameo. The US does need a political vehicle for the 99%, and if the Dem party isn't willing to once again represent that demographic it has to be scuttled and dumped in favor of a new coalition.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-06-03 20:15
Ken, you got my vote, but what is WTP?
 
 
+3 # Ken Halt 2016-06-04 05:03
The short form of We The People, saves characters.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-06-04 11:17
Of course. Du'oh.
 
 
+5 # lorenbliss 2016-06-03 21:14
@librarian1984: as far as I am concerned, your alleged "naivety" is an expression of open-mindedness and an intense curiosity far too many humans are bullied into abandoning during adolescence. It is a combination I have always welcomed and encouraged in journalistic colleagues, editorial staff members, students or political comrades, and it is vital in identifying those few with whom I choose to share my naked soul. As far as I am concerned, you have nothing for which to apologize and much to offer us all. Indeed, that "conceptual childs' table" is precisely the place to which Hillary and her ilk would exile all my friends and me -- that is, before deporting us to some distant gulag. Hence I hope you will find a comfortable and enduring home here at RSN.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-06-04 07:35
Kind of you to say, Loren, but sometimes naivete also just wastes people's precious time, and tigerlillie is right to call me on it. (Though I hope she doesn't make a habit of it!)

You are right on the money (no offense), that I have retained many of those characteristics from my youth. I believe this is why many people who know me say I am quite juvenile.

As for your soul, keep it covered for now, sir. You don't want rocback to see! And shades and light? Shudder to think. Often I'm struck by the fact we coexist, side by side, each of us taking a lifetime's journey to reach this physical moment .... yet we cannot know each other. We could be sitting beside each other on a bus, but I can never comprehend your history filtered through your psychology. We can sometimes get glimpses, through camaraderie and twinship, for example, but otherwise we are walking talking islands.

I cannot comprehend the thinking of lights and shades. They are certainly free to disagree, but why are they so nasty and cruel. I thank goodness whenever I read them that I don't live in their tortured heads. And frankly they give both light AND darkness, two of my favorite things, a bad name.

My impression is you are a respected, or perhaps infamous, member here, and I thank you for your welcome to this community. A rather nice community it is too if, or perhaps because it is, populated by ranting hobbits (a compliment to my species).

Finches all around!
 
 
+4 # lorenbliss 2016-06-04 11:40
Apropos Finches, for those of us who recognize Nature's omens, that was an indescribably powerful moment, unlike anything I've ever seen in any political campaign.

Indeed it was reminiscent of when the vast multitudes gathered in Central Park for the 1967 Easter Be-In danced the sun out from behind the rain clouds the Weather Bureau had predicted would ruin the day.

(Yes this really happened; I was there covering the event. The dozens of groups of musicians scattered around the Sheep Meadow suddenly synchronized their drums and much of the crowd, later estimated as at least 10,000 people, spontaneously joined hands and danced a huge ring around the meadow's perimeter. When the sun emerged moments later, there was a great cheer so joyously loud it was heard throughout upper Manhattan, from the East River to the Hudson, and there was no more rain for the remainder of that day and night,)
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-06-04 08:03
Yeah, gulags. About that. I hope we all realize we'll be on the Rather Obvious list of people to round up. They won't even bother interrogating us, we'll just be processed. See you all there!

"Soylent green .... it's progressives!"
 
 
+4 # lorenbliss 2016-06-04 11:21
@librarian1984: About Soylent Green, bite your tongue!

(Oops, bad choice of responses. Sorry I haven't had enough coffee yet for my alleged mind to come up with anything more appropriate.)
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-06-04 21:32
"Oops, bad choice of responses"

LOL!!! And this time, quite literally.
 
 
+4 # 666 2016-06-02 16:15
Thank you. I get tired of and gave up on pointing out the obvious. So sick of all of this....
 
 
+11 # librarian1984 2016-06-02 17:27
It feels like this election has been going on for three years already. I can feel myself aging.
 
 
+5 # economagic 2016-06-02 17:57
"The only intelligent response is to refuse to support/partici pate at any level. Non-violent resistance. Remember Mark Twain!"

Can't swallow that whole, as intelligence can point in multiple directions. Electoral politics, for those willing to pursue it, can probably play an important role as a rear-guard action, in which we might even win an occasional battle.

Non-violent resistance can take many forms, and what they all have in common is action. Passivity is definitely counterproductive.

I'm for building as much of the "[An]Other World [that] IS Possible" as we can, while we can, starting with local communities and economies. First secure the classical necessities of food, clothing, and shelter, then water, followed by a certain amount of communication and transportation. Of the first three, we have enough serviceable clothing in closets and thrift stores to last until we can get the mills running again, and a great excess of total square footage of shelter, admittedly ill-distributed and some of it badly in need of upgrade, especially for energy efficiency.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-06-02 18:39
On the other hand, if voting didn't matter, why would the duopoly go through such extremes to disenfranchise us and then flip our votes?

I have close to zero confidence that our votes are tallied correctly, but that actually shows how much the 0.01% FEARS our votes.
 
 
+7 # Nominae 2016-06-03 01:34
Quoting Shorey13:
Just read a quote attributed to MarkTwain: "If voting really mattered, they wouldn't let us do it."

Mark Twain did *indeed leave us with *SO many clever quotes that people are now ready to believe that *EVERY clever quote in print came to us via Mr. Clemens. Not all of them.

The quote they seem to be aiming for above is from social and political activist Emma Goldman who said: "If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal"

One of the political gems that *IS from Mark Twain seems as if it could have been written *TODAY :

"There is no distinctly American criminal class ..... except Congress" ! ;-D
_
 
 
+11 # bardphile 2016-06-02 15:29
I'm still voting for Sanders on Tuesday, and I'll put up that yard sign if I can find one. But some of you must have seen Hillary's foreign policy speech today. She went right after Trump and looked good doing it. I think she'd cut him to ribbons in a debate. (What she'd do once in office, of course, is another matter.)
 
 
+20 # Radscal 2016-06-02 18:49
I watched her "important" speech. It was essentially a personal attack on the Drumpf with almost no actual foreign policy plans.

And it included lies and propaganda (of course). She claimed that, “When President Obama took office, Iran was RACING toward a nuclear bomb. Some called for military action.”

Our CIA and Israel's Mossad both reported that Iran has had NO nuclear weapons program since at least 2003.

But she's correct that "some called for military action." That would be HER. She repeatedly threatened to "obliterate" Iran while she was SoS.

Her ISIS plan did NOT mention cutting off their funding, and instead of calling for a halt of weapons shipments that always end up in the hands of the extremists, insisted on "stepping up" weapons shipments to the imaginary "moderate rebels" that both General Dempsey and VP Joe Biden said DO NOT EVEN EXIST.

Instead of recognizing Russia as our ally in the fight against ISIS, she called it our greatest "rival," whom she promised to be "tough" against.

She once again called President Putin "a dictator," despite his consistently getting reelected and having favorable ratings over 80% or even over 90% since her Ukraine coup. She could only DREAM of being as beloved or having half the support he gets.

She remains the most dangerous Presidential candidate of my lifetime.
 
 
+11 # Anonymot 2016-06-02 20:44
"She remains the most dangerous Presidential candidate of my lifetime."

And ofmine and I started with Adlai.

She has almost every defect one can imagine for creating a world at peace with a public sharing the riches and justice the entire pyramid of a nation desires and deserves.
 
 
+9 # tigerlillie 2016-06-03 03:23
"She claimed that, “When President Obama took office, Iran was RACING toward a nuclear bomb." Some called for military action"

I cannot believe that she resurrected the Bush Jr. lie. That she did just underscores the fact that there is no difference between HRC and the Dick Cheney apparatus. Totally disgusted.
 
 
+22 # treespeaker 2016-06-02 15:49
What can I say. Bernie Sanders is the only honest candidate. He is on a moral crusade to save our country.

Last May we awoke early to a chilly, wet and overcast day, we had our hot lemon water and a muffin, then stood in line for 4 hours to attend Bernie's outdoor rally by the river. In a crowd of over 13,000 we managed to get to row four. Just before Bernie's speech an eagle circled overhead. When Bernie began to speak the clouds parted allowing the Sun to shine on the gathering. When he was finished giving us his wise words the clouds returned. It was the only time there was sunshine in the Missoula valley that day. It was a strong medicine and a sign from up above It was a magical event that will remembered forever.

The Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton must let go of their egos and go with their hearts and nominate Bernie Sanders as the Democratic presidential candidate.
Bernie Sanders is our only hope to lead this country out of the darkness. Bernie and Jane thank you for your wonderful light. We love you.
 
 
+15 # librarian1984 2016-06-02 17:30
Aah, it's been so peaceful without the trolls, a respite in which I will risk saying: And remember that finch?

I think most of us support Senator Sanders because he is the rational choice, but I'll be danged if there aren't some pretty cool omens too.

Totally irrational, but lovely to behold, and experience.

Thanks for sharing!
 
 
+8 # DrD 2016-06-03 06:28
Treespeaker - I remember that speech well too! Although I wasn't there in person, it was the day I committed, like many others, to supporting Bernie. I was thrilled that we were going to have a real progressive choice for once in the race, and someone with a lifetime of honest and honorable actions to support.

As an aside, I'm late reading this news and great comments because last night I attended a viewing of Moore's film Where to Invade Next sponsored by MoveOn (the film never showed anywhere in our state). So many of the great ideas that Moore "stole" to bring back to US are part of Bernie's plans and we have a real chance to actually elect him and start the transformation of our country. Exciting times- let's keep up the support and on to Philly!
 
 
+11 # economagic 2016-06-02 16:13
I will not at this moment swear that I would never vote for Joe Biden should he be SEElected to replace a shackled Clinton. But right now I can't think of an argument that would convince me to do so. I have a gay friend who is scared to death of what T-rump (or "Turnip" as someone referred to him in these pages a few days ago) might do as President. I understand that fear, but I fear Trump no more over the long run than I fear Clinton, although in truth I fear global warming and the chaos it is already causing a great deal more than I fear any one human.
 
 
+10 # lfeuille 2016-06-02 22:51
I will say it now. If anyone but Bernie is the nominee, I will write him in.
 
 
-12 # Joe Blow 2016-06-02 16:39
Meanwhile, now that the primary season is finally nearing its end, there is only one candidate who has millions more votes than Trump and Sanders.
In all probability, Bernie will give a great speech at the Democratic National Convention, at which he will endorse Hillary, and then work to elect a lot of progressive Democrats to the House and Senate.
All sane people will do everything they can to defeat Trump and elect a Democratic majority in Congress.
 
 
+2 # kerwinskeepers 2016-06-02 18:59
Yes, "sane" is the key word here. Bernie as POTUS would be fantastic, but, if not, we cannot quit on him by letting his cause go down in flames; getting a Democratic majority would get Bernie's movement rolling into high gear like no other way. It is doable and we should be looking for the right candidates for Congress in this election. A Democratic majority is doable and is what Bernie needs, POTUS or not.
 
 
+18 # Radscal 2016-06-02 19:21
A Congress full of Debbie Wasserman-Schut z's would be a disaster, regardless of the "D" after their names.

If you really meant "progressives" then I'm with you.
 
 
+4 # kerwinskeepers 2016-06-02 21:06
Yes, I do mean Progressives; there are currently 76 members of congress in the CPC, congressional progressive caucus, all of whom are Democrats, except, of course, Bernie. They are the most readily available base which can be built on by adding some of the current available candidates such as those endorsed by Bernie and Elizabeth Warren. It wouldn't hurt to see the return of Russ Feingold, of Wisconsin, either. You might recognize some names, such as Alan Grayson, Keith Ellison, Henry Waxman, Charles Rangel, Elijah Cummongs, and John Conyers.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-06-02 21:56
Cool.

Here's a great site promoting progressive legislators:

http://boldprogressives.org/candidates
 
 
+5 # tigerlillie 2016-06-03 03:29
That "Dollars for Debbie" concept would make a lot more sense if it was used to fund the Democratic progressive candidates for Congress. A dollar for each candidate from Bernie supporters could go a long way without tapping us small donors out (sort of).
 
 
+8 # economagic 2016-06-02 19:47
SOME "Democratic" majorities, even minus DWS, would do everything in their power to make Sanders AND sanity disappear.
 
 
+5 # Patriot 2016-06-03 02:13
Joe, read this:

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/04/13/17564/

Clinton did NOT get the votes; the DNC arranged to have votes flipped to her from Sanders' voters. This is fraud, pure and simple. And Clinton HAS to know it's happening. Senator Sanders draws crowds of 20 to 60 THOUSAND. She never comes close. He wins polls, or draws right up to her just before voting starts, but, miraculously, she comes out way ahead.

Clinton has not won anything YET, and even the DNC is beginning to realize that she could never win Sanders' supporters in the general election--which means the other Democratic candidates running will suffer from her unpopularity, while Senator Sanders could greatly increase Democratic seats in both houses of Congress and on all the State ballots, too.

Look carefully at Charnin's reasearch.

EVERY PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION SINCE 1988 HAS REPORTED FALSE ELECTION RESULTS!!

We MUST put a stop to this, and this year, when there FINALLY is a candidate running for the chance to work for the PEOPLE, not the entrenched interests, accurate election returns are more important than ever.

Wake up!
 
 
+10 # trottydt 2016-06-02 17:28
“Besides the lack of trust, voters simply don’t like her. On Wednesday, the Real Clear Politics poll average of Clinton’s favorable vs. unfavorable numbers were 37.6 percent to 55.8 percent, an 18.2-point net unfavorable”.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If we accept the premise that EMOTIONS DRIVE BEHAVIOR, then based on the above Hillary Clinton is toast. People in brand management know that perception is reality; many of us may never have driven a LEXUS, but if asked if the Lexus is a good car near 100% will agree.

Quoting Parry:
Whereas Republican leaders failed to suppress their voters’ uprising – as Trump torched his GOP rivals one after another – the Democratic leadership did all they could to save Clinton, virtually pushing her badly damaged bandwagon toward the finish line while shouting at Sanders to concede.

Yet, whether the Democrats have the guts to go through the pain of denying Clinton the nomination may depend on what happens in California and inside the FBI.

C’mon, step-up NEW JERSEY AND CALIFORNIA.
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-06-02 18:02
Not relevant to the election, but the Lexus IS a "good car," since it is a Toyota with fancier seats and trim!
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2016-06-02 20:07
At this point, I'd be happy if the Democratic nominee just weren't Clinton. Literally ANYBODY else would be better.

Maybe some Hillary voters would be willing to accept someone who isn't her. I understand that Sanders is too progressive and honest to be taken seriously by many Democrats too scared of their own shadows to actually fight for something.

I'd be willing to compromise and at least make the point that we can no longer stand being taken totally for granted, silenced, tossed aside, and force-fed a right-wing Republican only posing as a Democrat.

Yeah, Biden and Warren have plenty of flaws too.

PLENTY…

But, if we can't have Sanders, I'd get some pleasure out of making sure we at least didn't have another Clinton.

-------

THAT'S the only "incremental" improvement I could go along with. At least it actually WOULD BE an improvement.
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-06-02 20:30
Billy Bob,

An "electable" Democratic candidate for November will almost certainly require compromise, but I'm not yet convinced that Biden does not represent abject capitulation. There is an interesting exchange on this topic well up the page starting (I believe) with a comment from librarian1984 (can't help wondering about that handle!) at about 13:30 EDT, or possibly with Mainiac a few minutes earlier.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2016-06-02 20:47
I don't know what to add.

I DO think that if we simply grade every possible Democratic nominee on a continuum, Hillary Clinton would probably be the absolute worst we could pick.

If the choice were between Biden and another Clinton, I'd be forced to vote for Biden.

At this point, my only strategy is to at least attempt to write in "Sanders" in November (assuming the DNC commits electoral suicide and nominates Hillary-ous Hillary). If that's impossible in my state, I'll probably either leave it blank or bite the bullet and vote for Jill Stein (even though I don't want to reward her for not challenging Hillary directly in the primary).

I can't judge other people who are doing their best to make a choice. The Clinton trolls ARE NOT in that category. They literally refuse to acknowledge reality.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-06-02 20:55
Amen, Bro. That's the "choice" part in "moral choice."

I consider those who think the only choice is whether to obey (whatever) or not to be extremely immature, naive young souls doomed to several more turns of the wheel. And of course I take all of that language as metaphorical.
 
 
+6 # DrD 2016-06-03 08:17
Billy Bob
Not me. I'm not an anti-Hillary voter - I'm pro-Bernie all the way.

As Grand Lake Guy put it so well earlier, nobody but Bernie deserves to be the nominee if they pull Hillary. He is the one who has mobilized millions of voters with his dogged pursuit of what is fair for the 99% not the billionaires and exposed Hillary's vulnerabilities in the process. As GLG said, how dare they?
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2016-06-03 10:09
I agree 100%.

But, hypothetically, what if they would only pull out Hillary IFF ("if and only if") we took out Sanders?

At that point, the only options would be Clinton, or someone not Clinton AND not Sanders.

I'd pick preventing Clinton over making no compromise and still getting her anyway.

--------

On the other hand, there IS something to be said about saying "Sanders or nothing", and then letting them give us the finger, pick Clinton, and watching her either lose or go up in flames once in office.

-------

Like I said, I'm in no position to judge, unless I'm judging Republicans and Clinton voters (the OTHER Republicans).
 
 
+3 # DrD 2016-06-03 10:32
If they would be so evil as to only pull Hillary iff Bernie was also pulled, then hell yea, I say Sanders or Nothing. And then I start organizing busloads of peaceful protestors for Philadelphia.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-06-03 13:34
Billy, you have consistently said you support Sanders and oppose Clinton for POLICY issues.

Therefore, if the DNC replaces Clinton with another corporatist, Wall Street, Zionist warmonger, why would you vote for him?

Why would you allow DNC to blackmail Sanders supporters?
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2016-06-04 06:45
I'm not. I think Hillary is worse than any of them, though. She's certainly to the right of even Obama.

This is all hypothetical, but if a compromise were attempted, would I say "NO COMPROMISE", or accept someone to her left.

I don't know for sure. It's strategy at that point.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-06-03 14:52
BB, are you attempting to construct a progressives' Sophie's Choice?

It is an interesting thought experiment but could never work unless you knew who the replacement was. There is no one who could replace Sanders, but if it were someone who would sincerely work with Sanders to enact his proposals, freeing him up to work from within the Senate, that might be worth the sacrifice to get rid of HRC.

I don't think Warren would take VP for any of them. But president? Maybe. Would everybody accept Warren if the DNC offered her up?

But if you just make the deal you propose they could put up DWS, for goodness sake. In the end it would be unwise to take this deal because you can't trust them.

Besides, Bernie might have something to say about it :-)
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2016-06-04 06:49
I would probably accept Warren (even though she's too hawkish), just as a valid attempt at a compromise. Hillary would have to be off the table as a running-mate.

I'd want Sanders to be in on the deal.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-06-04 08:45
If all those conditions were met:

1) Warren as president, to keep HRC's fembots happy

2) Hillary retired, preferably to some offshore tax haven

3) Sanders agrees -- maybe Senate majority leader?

I would still consider this a far drop below having Sanders as president, but I would take that deal to keep HRC out of the WH.

You do realize, though, that we're absolutely the last two people to give a sh!t about this, right?
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2016-06-04 09:47
Yeah, we've already been pushed out of the discussion, so obviously DWS's team won't listen to anyone even resembling us.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-06-04 10:06
I'm not even sure I would want this to happen, though if Sanders said it's what HE wanted I could be induced to go along.

Otherwise, I'm Bernie or bust, and in with Sanders til the (I hope not) bitter end.
 
 
+2 # lorenbliss 2016-06-04 11:27
@librarian: apropos Hillary in an offshore tax haven (or an offshore anything), let us not forget the Bonaparte lesson.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-06-04 15:27
lol!

We could get Trump to encircle it with a really tall something-or-ot her.
 
 
+1 # Nominae 2016-06-03 01:54
Quoting economagic:
I consider those who think the only choice is whether to obey (whatever) or not to be extremely immature, naive young souls doomed to several more turns of the wheel. And of course I take all of that language as metaphorical.

Because, after all, slippery and enthusiastic *equivocation is *THE name of the game .... ESPECIALLY if actually *COMMITTING to *one MORAL STAND or another would be involved in *any discussion of actual Moral Courage ..... LOL ! ;-D
_
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-06-03 07:43
Just saw Sec. Reich on with Steve Karnacki.

He did represent, said he gets many communications that say they will not vote for HRC under any circumstance. She cannot expect them to automatically support her and she IS going to need them.

(I think she expects Sanders to tell us what to do and us to obey)

He called it a legitimate wave of populist anger and also mentioned election rigging. He said 'I think they're wrong' but it's evidence Clinton cannot take them for granted and she needs to do something.

I guess that is where "Unify later" comes in.

Karnacki also discussed Sanders' contention that he will win if turnout is high. He showed two polls. In one HRC was polling 2 points higher than Sanders. The other poll, with a larger sample size I believe, had Sanders 1 point ahead. Interesting.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-06-03 13:46
It's interesting to watch the evolution of Steve Karnacki. Like Chris Hayes, he comes from a real journalist background, with a strong progressive viewpoint.

But slowly, he is becoming a GE/NBC talking head. Right now, he is where Hayes was in late 2013. Unsure if he has an independent voice, or where the line is, Steve sticks his toe in to test the waters.

With Hayes, I've mentioned here that I saw the moment when he learned his place. One night he showed videos of the "peaceful pro-democracy protesters" in Kiev while they burned police alive, brutally beat other pro-democracy protesters who were not "pure" enough and held torch-lit late night marches carrying Nazi iconography and chanting "put the Russians on knives."

He said he didn't know what to make of that.

The very next night, he was fully onboard the "Putin is a madman" or "Putin is Hitler" bandwagon, and has never looked back.

MSDNC's record suggests that Steve will either have the same "conversion" or will join the long list of alternative voices removed from the network.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-06-03 14:59
Interesting. There have been times I've seen Chris Hayes interviewing Sanders and you can detect some interest or possibly belief in his eyes, though I guess he'll have to be careful not to let the overlords see it.

I noticed Casey Hunt moved from Sanders to Trump. Either she was seen as too sympathetic or she couldn't keep up with Sanders-- or maybe one gets tired of seeing even a great speech three times a day for six months.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-06-03 16:29
Did you catch Chris' telephone interview with HRC earlier this week?

He actually asked her if the FBI had contacted her for an "interview."

She answered: "No." And then said she not had an interview with the FBI.

He ignored the fact that she sidestepped his actually rather tough question. Of course the FBI has requested an interview with HRC. They've "interviewed" many members of her staff. She lied and then answered a question Chris had not asked.

But like with the IG report, which stated that HRC and 8 of her staff refused to be interviewed about the server/email issue, HRC is surely refusing to talk to the FBI, and the Administration is holding back on actually issuing a subpoena.

But then the next night, Chris had a Republican on, who pointed out how HRC had not answered Chris's question. The guy was quite gentle to Chris, who sat there with a Hillary-ous dumbstruck expression.

I don't know Casey Hunt.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-06-03 17:30
I didn't watch it. I make myself sometimes, but I can't always bring myself to.

So she flat out lied, which worked out well because apparently journalists have forgotten what a followup question is. That was one line I loved at the WH Press Corps dinner.

I can't believe I'm saying this but I've actually been enjoying watching the GOPers lately, who are actually going after HRC. I believe they don't want to run against Sanders so they are holding back until she's coronated -- but they are chomping at the bit.

Casey Hunt is a young woman on MSNBClinton who was in the Sanders campaign press corps for quite a while. She seems fair-minded.

The one I CANNOT watch is Chris Matthews. Ugh. With his blowhardery and slurping noises and bullying people conversationall y. Even when he interviews Sanders I mute it when Matthews speaks.
 
 
+5 # kundrol 2016-06-03 09:35
I'm in California, and Bernie is coming to an airport about 50 miles from here for a rally this evening. I was planning to go, and hopefully many of my friends will still go. But it would involve a very long walk in 100 degree weather and no guarantee I'd get a seat. Some folks left before dawn, and the doors open at 4:30. Since I have mobility issues with bad arthritis in both knees, I can't walk or stand for long periods so it looks like I can't go. I am SO disappointed!! I will get a lot of first hand reports, though, and will share them here if they are interesting enough. I've already sent in my mailer ballot voting for Bernie, and I just hope he can beat Hillary on Tuesday! I've been a volunteer for the campaign, btw, working to get out the vote.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-06-03 13:49
I had the very same issue yesterday, when Bernie was in Chico.

I see they had to move the rally outdoors because too many people came to fit into the auditorium.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-06-03 16:32
ps. At the same time, Hillary gave her well-publicized and nationally televised "important Foreign Policy" speech in a dining room that seats 320 people.

How can ANYONE believe she's getting more votes than Bernie?

It's shades of Nixon's "silent majority." HRC supporters are largely invisible creatures who refuse to attend her events but magically appear inside computer voting machines.
 
 
+5 # DrD 2016-06-03 10:51
Kundrol - can you rent a mobility scooter (with umbrella for shade!) and still go? I hope you don't miss your chance to be a part of history especially since you have helped him succeed. I saw him 4 times in SC and each time was awesome!
 
 
+3 # kundrol 2016-06-03 13:29
Thanks for the suggestion! It might have worked if I'd had a little more advance knowledge of the situation. I figured I could carry in my folding chair, but unfortunately they've banned them. Maybe because of the Nevada hype. My neighbors are going, so I'm hoping they will bring back a decent vid. I know he's awesome and I'm heart broken to have to miss this.
 
 
+4 # kundrol 2016-06-04 08:34
Happy ending - I got to go after all. Another volunteer who was doing a carpool called me at the last minute and asked me if I wanted the last seat he had in his car. I knew with four other people I'd have lots of help, so I did it! Got into the handicapped section and had a seat very near the podium! It was 102 and no shade though. Lots of sun stroke problems. But Bernie was wonderful and the crowd was so big they were asking people who were already squished to squish in some more because people were still trying to get in.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-06-04 08:54
So glad you got to go!

Was there anything new or CA-specific in his speech?

Who spoke before Sanders?

Really really glad it worked out so well. It's Bernie's world!

Speaking of which, were there any animal phenomena worth mentioning? Finches? Eagles?

I am hoping at his next rally a bald eagle lands on Bernie's shoulder clutching a shredded toy elephant.

Is THAT an omen the DNC might actually pick up on?

Good going, kundrol!
 
 
# Guest 2016-06-03 14:26
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-06-03 14:27
So far I haven't seen any networks reporting on this seismic story.

It seems to me in early May the Clinton people let it be known to just let Bernie run it out so they could make peace in July. The surrogates quit saying it was time to drop out. That was when HRC thought she was locking it up.

Now it has started up again, and I wonder if this is why. They are considering dropping Clinton but they don't want Sanders as the replacement, so we're again hearing the calls for him to quit.

Mmm, I don't think he's going to quit.
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-06-03 21:49
shall we talk our jumpers off their bridge? - as in -
# grandlakeguy 2016-06-02 12:21
How DARE the "Democratic" party leadership even THINK about anyone but Bernie Sanders as the nominee WHEN Hillary Clinton's toxicity and criminal behavior takes her down?

- or just let them dangle?

this grimm fairytale reminds me of dan akroyd's "bad playhouse" - where only the worst-written story-lines ever performed!

each premise on which this story relies seems beyond belief! - hill getting, what? - served some papers? - literally happens to rump every day! - turns into dem "leaders" promoting someone above bernie?

it's like manchurian candidate meets king ralph? -

lets leave guy and parry dangling off their bridge? swaying in their own hot air? okay? - meanwhile i can do impressions! STELLA! STELLA!
 
 
-3 # Joe Blow 2016-06-04 04:21
The reality in California is that the Democratic primary will be very close irrespective of who wins it; therefore, it will not materially affect the larger nominating process.
In 2008, Hillary won California and shortly thereafter suspended her campaign and threw her support to Obama because he had more delegates.
The other major news coming out of California, of course, is how Hillary eviscerated Trump with her speech in San Diego.
Everyone should read, watch, or listen to that speech, no matter which candidate they support.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-06-04 11:28
HRC's "important" foreign policy speech was almost entirely personal attacks on the Drumpf. The one thing it made clear is that she truly is incapable of controlling herself. She will get into a mud wrestling match with Drumpf, and he will destroy her.

As for comparisons with 2008, they are irrelevant. Sanders is a qualitatively different candidate than the two corporatist, Wall Street suckers in 2008. Obama may have sounded more progressive than HRC, but obviously he wasn't.

If HRC gets the nomination, she will motivate HUGE numbers of people to vote against her. But she cannot motivate new voters to vote FOR her. So, she will almost assuredly lose, and in so doing, drag Congress even further down with her.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-06-04 08:16
I hope you people appreciate that, as usual, Robbee and I are here on cleanup detail, sticking around for DAYS after all productive discussion has passed.

Working our metaphorical fingers to the bone for you people. And for what?

Whew, sorry. Flashback.

Hey, R. Nice impression.
 
 
0 # Radscal 2016-06-04 11:31
Of course, the robber is here to try to sheep dog Bernie supporters to vote for the "inevitable" HRC.

His method is to call us names and lie. I wrote months ago that his constant haranguing caused me to sign the "Bernie or Bust" pledge.
 
 
-1 # Robbee 2016-06-04 08:59
thanks lib! - sorry it took me almost 2 days to get my finger on the pulse of this grimm fairytale!

as we know i am a thrilled bernie supporter! - so thrilled i even support bernie's stance on hill! versus rump!

i've seen all the repug-originate d attacks on hill! - and find them inscrutable! - what? - benghazi? - emails? - hill's hot mike? -

you know? hill has a real scandal brewing, that may have legs? - "non-profit" clinton foundation invested in a for-profit business and made 2 million on its investment? - but we here are stuck on hill's "damn emails"? - stuck in time! - waiting for godot! who never comes!

anyway it took me a coupla days to come up with an akroyd sketch that summed my feelings about our whole improbable crusade to villify hill - properly combined with our paranoia about dem "leaders"!

moreover the DNC is imploding as we speak! - with no help from anyone of us! - the DNC won't be allowed to exclude reps of organized labor, much less RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United! from the dem platform drafting committee!

- the dnc cannot stand against organized labor! - it cannot stand against RoseAnn!

it's time for organized labor! and National Nurses Uni1ted! and hill! - yeah, you read that right! - and hill! - to have a little chat with the DNC! - or else we the people will! - power to the people!

the DNC leadership is profoundly stupid! - wasserman-schul tz MUST RESIGN! - go bernie!
kick hill's ass all over CA!
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-06-04 09:49
Never a need to apologize. You obviously work very hard on whatever this is, and there is no requirement of timeliness. I think thoroughness is more the point, don't you?

You raise an interesting point -- what if the emails are a decoy? Luckily there are enough people we can have LOTS of investigations. Investigations all around! It's getting honest results and reporting that constrains our efforts.

Funny -- no investigations for Bernie -- though it seems to be all the rage. What is HE thinking? So out of fashion.

I wish this Clinton Fdn thing would bubble up a little faster though.

Yes, the Dems are ex/imploding .. all by theirselves, And so is the GOP, as if the parties have reached the end of their usefulness. If they refuse to represent anyone, what are they for?

The 0.1% can probably all fit in a country club event room. They don't need a party anymore than we, the 99.9% do.

Bye bye, DWS!

Au revoir, R. See you at the next cleanup detail :-)
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-06-04 11:33
Wait. So, Robbee, are you now seeing that HRC is unsupportable?
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-06-04 15:38
I believe R is 'a thrilled bernie supporter' and, like me, way for RoseAnn DeMoro.

Robbee, has reading all these RSN threads convinced you Bernie is the guy? That'd be cool.

See you all later.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-06-04 17:26
R consistently insists that HRC is a "progressive" and even "anti-war."

The point it always makes is we should all vote for "hill" after Bernie gets buried.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-06-04 18:48
Yes. Forgive me for speaking for you, Robbee, but I believe he is for Bernie but will vote for the Democratic nominee.

Is that right, R?
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-06-04 21:38
Like I say, the rob claims to support Bernie (and maybe would vote for him if "hill" is denied her crown), but he consistently calls us names and insists that "hill" is a close second whom we should all vote for.

I'm really surprised if you hadn't noticed that. There's a reason why rob generally gets net negatives for those copy pasta posts.
 
 
# Guest 2016-06-04 09:48
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+3 # Kootenay Coyote 2016-06-04 17:40
Or as my evangelical sister said:

I don't like this election: we have to choose between Ahab & Jezebel.
 
 
# Guest 2016-06-04 18:52
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+1 # Terry Allen 2016-06-05 21:28
The more I read and watch, the more worried I get.....Bernie is the only candidate I feel good about....but as my experience tells me here in Los Angeles, the Democratic party does not care about policy or saving the country, only about having the backs of the party hacks and towing the party line brought down from Mount Olympus.

The establishment will do anything to keep Bernie out because he is the only candidate with the wisdom and the policies to make real and the desperately needed change in our country, mainly by challenging the 1% which Hillary or Trump won't do.....
......and when they do push Bernie out and prop up Hillary or shoe someone else in, the Democratic Party is finished and either way so are we.
 
 
# Guest 2016-06-05 22:05
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-1 # Robbee 2016-06-17 12:09
asks - # librarian1984 2016-06-04 15:38
I believe R is 'a thrilled bernie supporter' and, like me, way for RoseAnn DeMoro. (YES!) Robbee, has reading all these RSN threads convinced you Bernie is the guy?

- lib - i've been a thrilled bernie and warren fan for years! - i just love hearing them talk! - how they talk! - almost everything they say! - bernie has not come out for paper ballots! yet! - warren has not come out for public funding! only! yet!

it disturbs bernie and me that hill is not as progressive as bernie! - it disturbs bernie and me that some contend that hill is not progressive!

when anyone contends that hill is not progressive i know that they blithely believe that 1) they are more progressive than hill, and 2) that anyone who is less progressive than they are is not progressive at all

i see evasions like not a "true progressive" but mostly outright lies! - like "hill is no progressive"

i see what hill desperately wants to do as "serious progressive"

when i publish a list of 12 serious promises hill stands for, calling her a "serious progressive" - NOBODY DENIES THAT HILL STANDS FOR SERIOUS PROGRESSIVE IDEALS! - i stop the shuck and jive here!

my goals are to 1) amend our constitution to public fund only, federal, state and local elections! - overthrowing plutocracy! and restoring democracy! 2) turn america more progressive!; and 3) turn the dem party more progressive! - go bernie! and go dem! - sorry to take so long to respond!
 

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