RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Excerpt: "Hillary Clinton's supporters on Capitol Hill warn that Bernie Sanders will face increased scrutiny in the next phase of the campaign."

Senator Dianne Feinstein. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Senator Dianne Feinstein. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Conservative Democrats Readying Attacks on Sanders

By Ted Barrett and Deirdre Walsh, CNN

10 February 16


illary Clinton's supporters on Capitol Hill are bracing for a win by Bernie Sanders in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, but warn the Vermont senator will face increased scrutiny in the next phase of the campaign.

"I think when someone starts to look into Bernie Sanders' record, sure, things change. I think that hasn't happened," Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a Clinton backer, told CNN. "Look at the seven taxes he would raise to do single payer (health coverage). There are a lot of technical things that show a person's record that just haven't come out yet and I think later on there is room for that."

New Hampshire Primary 2016 results. (photo: CNN)
New Hampshire Primary 2016 results. (photo: CNN)

Feinstein and other Clinton congressional surrogates have a long list of Sanders' controversial but overlooked policy items they plan to highlight in the weeks ahead to demonstrate the self-described democratic socialist's record is too liberal to win the White House, a Democratic aide told CNN.

Multiple congressional Democrats backing Clinton admit that Sanders' near win in Iowa, and rise in the national polls took them somewhat by surprise, but instead of showing signs of panic they seem resigned to a longer two person nomination fight. They believe that younger voters attracted to Sanders' anti-Wall Street message will ultimately rally behind Clinton's candidacy because Republican candidates aren't emphasizing the same commitments to education and health care that Democrats are discussing on the campaign trail.

The Clinton campaign has conducted regular calls with supporters on Capitol Hill, has briefed members on longer term operations in states voting later in February and March, and is tapping into help from surrogates in key states.

Clinton's extensive network of supporters on Capitol Hill also is pointing to a more favorable election calendar in the weeks ahead they say will ensure she wins the Democratic nomination.

Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine predicted "the margin will be less than people think" in New Hampshire, and argued that Sanders' benefits from the order of the early voting states.

Kaine complimented Sanders' operation, but said the dynamic will shift when the contest moves on.

"Other than Vermont they (Iowa and New Hampshire) are his best two -- if you line up all 50 states in terms of who the Democratic electorate is, he got two of his best three right out of the gate. So I've said that if she goes one for one out of the first two that's a solid -- we'll call that a win," he said.

Kaine predicted the nomination fight would be all but over after all the results come in on Super Tuesday on March 1. He said Clinton would compile a lead in delegates giving her a clear a path to prevail.

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Maryland, said the road to the nomination is always bumpy and "rarely goes smoothly for any person" but predicted Clinton is positioned well for upcoming contests.

"Regardless of what happens in New Hampshire, I think the way that Secretary Clinton has organized her campaign, her talent, her message, that the nominating process and the close proximity of primaries coming up from now until June, give her the momentum she needs to get the nomination," Cardin said.

Senator Chuck Schumer, D-New York, waved off CNN's question about the fallout from a loss and prolonged fight saying only as he walked into an elevator on Capitol Hill, "Hillary is going to be our nominee."

The number two House Democrat, Rep. Steny Hoyer, told reporters he already predicted last week that Sanders would win the New Hampshire primary and regardless of the early results confidently predicted she would be at the top of the ticket in the fall.

Hoyer downplayed the increasingly tough rhetorical lobs going back and forth between the Clinton and Sanders camps in recent days, instead turning the focus back to the GOP food fight, saying, "Ours is pretty tame compared to the other side in terms of negativity." your social media marketing partner


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

+99 # jimbeama 2016-02-10 12:32
"Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine predicted "the margin will be less than people think" in New Hampshire"
Well a 32 point margin. Voters voting 2 to 1 for Sanders. I guess the margin could have been higher with a 3 to 1 ratio and a 50 point margin.
+28 # economagic 2016-02-10 15:00
Yes, I'm wondering what he thought we were thinking. I didn't read the polls; maybe they were showing Sanders with an even larger lead?
+62 # Radscal 2016-02-10 15:43
"Regardless of what happens in New Hampshire... the nominating process... give her the momentum she needs to get the nomination," Cardin said.

MSDNC is reporting that right now, HRC has 45 delegates and Sanders has 36.

In Iowa, the caucus was essentially a tie, with Clinton getting 0.3% more votes, and in New Hampshire... well, we know Sanders did better than projected.

So, how does she end up with 30% more delegates than Sanders?

Through the rigged "nominating process."
+19 # Charles3000 2016-02-10 15:50
HRC got most of the super delegates in
+28 # Radscal 2016-02-10 20:03
Yep. The rigged "nominating process."

She and her team were bragging that they already had between 1/4 and 1/3 of the delegates necessary to claim the nomination, BEFORE A SINGLE VOTE WAS COUNTED.
+27 # rofo47 2016-02-10 22:13
In the past super delegates were not counted during primaries and caucuses or added to the results since they can be changed. This just goes to show the establishment is running scared and will stop at nothing to ensure Queen Hillary's coronation. Bernie is going to win because he is right that the system is corrupt and WE KNOW IT. As a Virginian Tim Kane just lost my vote while the corporate Dem, Mark Warner, already has. Screw this party! (Except Bernie)
+26 # nice2bgreat 2016-02-10 16:05
It must be unconstitutiona l to have unelected delegates that do not represent the voting-will of today's public effecting or determining (even their own Party's) future elected representatives.

How is it that previous incarnations of Party-members' will necessarily represents the present?

There is a legitimate way for Party leaders to affect an election, it's called an endorsement. Unfortunately, endorsements only count as one vote -- or do they?

As a Constitutional matter, how can ghosts of yesterday act as representatives of today in an election, as well as wielding an extra vote?
+30 # Buddha 2016-02-10 16:54
The Constitution doesn't really say anything about the Primary process and how each party selects its candidates. It is pretty much up to each Party, and the establishment of each party has used this power to indeed rig the process for its approved candidate. But it would be pretty much political suicide for a party to put forward a candidate with super-delegates who actually lost the popular primary vote significantly.
+17 # Radscal 2016-02-10 20:05
Exactly. In fact, the Constitution doesn't say anything about political parties at all. Many of those who wrote it opposed the formation of political parties.
+5 # Crebbafrabitz 2016-02-11 01:48
Imagine if everyone ran as an Independent and the field was open to ANYONE, whether a lawyer, nurse, wait person, or...?

There would be a qualifying process and then a run-off election. Of course the whole deal would be supported by the public.

It really could work but there would, obviously, be "bugs" to work out.
0 # bmiluski 2016-02-11 18:02
it is open to ANYONE better have a LOT of money.
+3 # RLF 2016-02-11 07:38
There should be a single primary day...this is the most crazy system that gives little poe-dunk states so much power over who gets to run! Time for a NY primary in august!
+6 # Phillybuster 2016-02-11 11:53
If Hillary wins via a nominating process that is perceived as rigged, she will lose many Bernie supporters in the general election.

Perhaps what the U.S. needs is four years of a Trump, Cruz, Rubio or even a "moderate" Kasich Presidency to wake some people up to the idea that maybe a little democratic socialism wasn't such a bad idea after all. If Obamacare goes away, if Medicare and Social Security are "reformed", and if more "regime changes" are deemed necessary while the wealth of this country continues to accumulate for the super-rich and the middle class continues to shrink, maybe we'll get an FDR-type candidate, especially after the next economic meltdown occurs.
+118 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-02-10 12:36
Well since polls are showing strong support and likability for Sanders, I say bring it on. I think attacking Bernie will make him stronger. They are already showing their desperation by trying to shame women into voting for her because of her gender. The political process in this country is broken by big money and the fact that we can't get things passed that 75% of Americans agree on. The only way to fight oligarchy is to elect someone who is not bought. Sorry Hillary you have demonstrated that you are not such a person. Go Bernie!

We also know that Bernie would have to contend with two Republican houses of Congress. I for one would like to see someone looking out for the little guy in the White House since our bought by special interests congresscritter s will do no such thing.
+24 # Inspired Citizen 2016-02-10 15:08
We have attack ads that Bernie won't run ready to go starting ... soon.

Democrats either #UniteBehindBer nie or lose the general election. That's the RAP Revolution.
+23 # bigkahuna671 2016-02-10 15:54
Well, that's the most intelligent thing I've ever heard. Give me a break. You'd rather hand the election to the GOP than to keep the White House Democrat, even if it's with a Blue Dog? I support Bernie, I've given him my hard-earned retirement dollars, but if he doesn't get the nomination, I'll vote for Hillary just to keep the GOP from taking the White House and nominating the next two or three Supreme Court Justices. If we can't nominate them, the GOP will and they will put in more Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and Scalia types, you can count on it. You better think again.
+12 # Emmanuel Goldstein 2016-02-10 17:45
That's the only reason to even consider voting for Hillary -- that she probably would not appoint another corporatist to the Supreme Court. Sad.
+23 # jcdav 2016-02-10 20:34
You have more faith in HRC than I...look at where her funds and wealth come from..CORPORATI ONS.
+5 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-02-11 01:39
Yes, supposedly Kagan and Sotomayor are both very "business-frien dly," but they do mostly seem to vote with the other two liberals.
+10 # Crebbafrabitz 2016-02-11 01:51
"I'll vote for Hillary..."

That makes you a sell-out and a person with no solid political principles or desire to SERIOUSLY see the changes happen we need. I'd rather gargle with white hot razor blades than vote for Clinton!
0 # Vegan_Girl 2016-02-11 06:36
I am beginning to see that your comments are just fine and I agree with you on most things. But it was hard to see because of that picture you use. May I ask why? What is the point of the picture?
-4 # bmiluski 2016-02-11 18:04 sane of you.
Because some one will not agree with you, you threaten to gargle with white hot razor blades.....yike s.
+10 # Vegan_Girl 2016-02-11 06:35
Ah, the lesser evil crap.... We are not buying this anymore.

We need to stop pretending that societal change takes place within election politics. It doesn't.

Let some GOP clown win. Let them appoint some hideous reactionist. I want to see mass movements and millions oof people on the streets demanding actual change - because THAT does the trick.

Our last progressive president was Nixon. Not because he was a nice man, but because he was frightened of mass movements. Day after day, there were thousands and thousands of people protesting in front of the White House.

Unfortunately, we have a morally broken, mentally diseased elite, that only responds to this. So, this is what we have to do. The candidacy of Sanders is just the beginning and there is a lot of work we have to do. In addition to get influence in the three branches of our government, we have to restore our democratic institutions (courts, media, universities, church, etc) that were formed to protect us but gotten ALL captured by the oligarchs.
+47 # Radscal 2016-02-10 15:47
I would expect that if Sanders wins the Presidency, that progressives will also take the Senate. Congressional candidates will ride his coat tails.

Due to gerrymandering, I don't expect the House of Representatives to change substantially. That will require progressive wins in 2020 (the next census election), or State wins that change redistricting methods.
+16 # nice2bgreat 2016-02-10 15:55
Quoting Radscal:
I would expect that if Sanders wins the Presidency, that progressives will also take the Senate. Congressional candidates will ride his coat tails.

Remember, it is in Federal Congressional and US Senate Democratic-Part y Primary Elections that coat-tails are needed.

In that regard, coat-tails are better than converting an incorporated D.

One who is working against Sanders Democratic-Part y Primary is likely propping up the corporatist Congressional member, too.

Primary Elections are the only elections with choice(s).
+3 # Douglas Jack 2016-02-10 18:12
Radscal, NOTABLE INDICATORS February 9th Primary totals in New Hampshire for:
- Democrat voters 247,458 &
- Republican voters 281,388.

This amounts to some 35,000 more voters turning out for Republicans or 14% more in a New Hampshire population of 1,330,608 (2015 population stat).
What Republican attributes attracts their portion of the voting population? I don't believe that it is stated national policy or violent malevolence such as Trump exemplifies, but more local personal livelihood opportunities & issues. Do Republicans as individuals & company entrepreneurs, tend to provide more jobs than Democrats? & therefore attract more voters on the ground? Are Democrats more dependent upon government leadership in employment & economic policy without engaging their own initiative in business generation as individuals?

There's nothing worse than a war-mongering, biosphere-destr oying Republican president except for Hillary doing the same. Bernie may be better but still committed to US drone policy, Israel colonizing rights & still no understanding about public council process in international conflict. Democrats such as Bernie stand way ahead on domestic social-economy. Are we easy prey to the Finance-Media-E ducation-Milita ry-Industrial-L egislative-Comp lex on brutalizing foreign populations in order to pay for our extractive exploitive garbage-making colonial lifestyles?
+11 # Radscal 2016-02-10 20:11
Yep. We need to primary out these "blue dog" Democrats. Here in CA, both Senators Feinstein and Boxer are retiring, putting their seats up for grabs.

I've been trying to build a backing for Congress Woman Barbara Lee to run for one of them, but I don't see any substantial movement amongst progressives to fill those seats.
+6 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-02-11 01:44
Barbara Lee is great - why wouldn't she want to run for Senate?
+11 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-02-11 01:52
I figure that even on the issues where Bernie is wrong, he would be a lot more responsive to pressure from social movements than any other candidate. He said he wanted to cut way back on drone attacks to eliminate civilian casualties. I'm pretty sure he even said something about the bombings causing more people to hate America. So maybe once he's president, we could convince him that the only way to eliminate civilian casualties is to stop extrajudicial killings altogether. And although he hasn't expressed much support for Palestine, he hasn't really said much in support of Israel either. He boycotted Netanyahu's speech to Congress.
+1 # Douglas Jack 2016-02-11 09:39
Matt, RE: ". . . wrong, he'd be a lot more . . ." Is Bernie's "cutting-back" on ongoing immature US, Canada, NATO & Israel state organized, financed, trained & armed murder, better? He briefly tried learning about pacifism but never got to understanding 'Satyagraha' (Hindi 'truth-search') . Bernie's talking points sound like someone coming out of a synagogue or church 'hate' sermon. Noam Chomsky & Jill Stein understand the one-sided lies being thrust upon us by MSM, schools & our oligarch regimes.

Whenever there is conflict both at home & worldwide, we've 2 main choices to:
1) believe the finance-media-e ducation-milita ry-industrial-c omplex, demonize the other, armour ourselves against our perceived enemies, launch pre-emptive war & create hell,
2) engage the other in formal equal-time recorded & published dialogues.
Mohandas Gandhi developed 'Satyagraha' based upon simultaneous inquiry with both parties to dispute & in research asking, "What are your best intentions & how can we help you fulfill these?". Gandhi, "I can imagine a fully armed man to be at heart a coward. Possession of arms implies an element of fear, if not cowardice. But true non-violence is an impossibility without the possession of unadulterated fearlessness."
We need transparency in all levels of human interaction including the military, government, education, business etc. listening to both sides.
+1 # rxfxworld 2016-02-11 06:37
You need to know that a solid majority of NH voters are independents and can vote in whichever party slate they choose on election day. Gives us an opportunity to exert real influence by say, voting for a McCain v. G.Bush in 2000, get it? Or in 2016 a Kasich v. a Trump or Cruz.
0 # banichi 2016-02-14 01:52
Douglas Jack, I agree with your points, but I sense that Bernie is running on a platform that it is possible to win with, and rather than make foreign policy or the MICC (and other letters) or other issues the point of his campaign, he is focused on what will matter most to the greatest number of people who can help him get elected. It is undoubtedly going to get progressively rougher over the next months approaching the Democratic primary. Feinstein and other Dems in Congress are lining up to attack Bernie as we are discussing it here.

My point is that Bernie taking on ALL the foreign policy issues you mention (and I could name more as I am sure you could too) would be a sure way to kill his chances of getting elected. What he does about them once in the White House is another matter, and I would expect him to address what comes up then.

And in the end, every president taking over the job discovers that there are foxes in the shadows waiting for him/her to arrive that are unpredictable before a new President sits down in the Oval office. I really doubt that Obama knew before he arrived at the White House that he was going to have to deal with the financial meltdown, the great recession that resulted from it, the total obstructionist Congress, and other issues. It is a long list.

I think it is more useful to focus on supporting Bernie to get elected right now. The rest can wait.
+88 # cymricmorty 2016-02-10 13:53
These old-guard conservative fossil Democrats will be bleating into the wind to any but their own closed-minded followers and turn off voters both older like me (59) and younger. Also, of the four senators quoted in the article, Schumer, Feinstein and Cardin are all gung-ho pro-Israel/anti -BDS, and Schumer and Cardin were also opposed to the Iran treaty. HRC is belligerent towards Iran and has already pledged allegiance to Israel. All four of them are anti-Palestine. Besides the losing battle against corporate servitude so many of us face, a bleak future of nonstop war, invasions and displaced refugees is in store with HRC.
+101 # Moxa 2016-02-10 13:56
I used to get angrier at this kind of reporting, and at the kind of quotes coming from our "Democratic" politicians. But the more they persist, the more I see that Bernie really IS staging a revolution. Never has the establishment been so blatantly what it is. He's running against all of them. OF COURSE they are against him. If he's right, they're wrong! Fortunately, more and more actual PEOPLE are getting the message, both about him and about the media and the pols. Naturally the establishment is doing its best to see to it that there won't be enough enlightened voters to elect Bernie. It's all okay. All these hacks are part of what MAKES it a revolution.
-76 # bmiluski 2016-02-10 15:14
I'm sorry Moxa that you didn't get angry when Hillary was dumped on. I'm sorry that you aren't angry that the GOP narrative about Hillary has been accepted by both repugs and liberals. You are being manipulated.
+66 # dickbd 2016-02-10 15:41
I think you need to explain that. There are some legitimate complaints about Hillary. She is a hawk, and she is very bellicose toward Iran. Those aren't Republican arguments.

Also, she is in favor of going after whistle blowers, like Snowden. Again, not a Republican argument.
-5 # bmiluski 2016-02-11 12:36
The attack on Kosovo is hardly the extent of Sanders' hawkishness. While it's true he voted against the Iraq War, he also voted in favor of authorizing funds for that war and the one in Afghanistan. More recently, he voted in favor of a $1 billion aid package for the coup government Ukraine and supported Israel's assault on Gaza. At a town hall meeting he admitted that Israel may have "overreacted", but blamed Hamas for the entire conflict. After a woman asked why he refused to condemn Israel's actions, he told critics: "Excuse me! Shut up! You don’t have the microphone.”
I wonder how much more would have been discovered about Bernie had he been vetted as much as Hillary.
-5 # bmiluski 2016-02-11 18:07
I want to thank you people that gave me thumbs down and then didn't have the guts to discuss my post.
I used to do that every so often. Now I know how cowardly I looked. I know some of those off the wall posters like Lee don't really deserve a reply however, now I'm not so sure.
+116 # universlman 2016-02-10 14:02
The notion that Sanders' single-payer health plan will "cost" the middle class taxpayer is ridiculous. Every other country across the globe with a single-payer system pays half or less than we pay for our health care.

Anyone, including the Clintons, who claim that single-payer is more costly to citizens than the current twisted system is lying to the public. They can provide no facts to make their case.
-79 # bmiluski 2016-02-10 14:13
I saw Bernie being asked by a reporter if the middle-class will have their taxes raised to pay for the single-payer system and, he said yes.
+116 # cymricmorty 2016-02-10 14:25
What that reporter and other media fail to mention is that in exchange for the tax we would pay, we will get actual health care and no longer pay exorbitant and wasteful insurance premiums.
+95 # indian weaver 2016-02-10 14:31
That's exactly right. Europeans pay higher taxes, but their extra cost is more than paid back in free total medical coverage for all, not to mention the irreplaceable invaluable security and freedom from worry that provides, compared to the destitute criminal USA's non-coverage of medical expenses for We the People. Ask any European, they'll tell you the same thing. If your taxes go to your own benefit, higher taxes are a blessing in this case because they buy real value and humanity, and a better life overall.
+39 # economagic 2016-02-10 15:10
For the sake of piling on, I would add that the "uniquely American system of health care" that our president touted a few years ago (non-health, non-care, non-system; cf. Walter Kronkite) bears a resemblance to the Soviet system of food distribution, where people stood in line for hours to get their free or subsidized loaf of bread.

Economists like to emphasize hidden costs, at least when they are not imposed on the public by large corporations. It happens that I am in the process of shifting my health care from the non-systems I have had for the past 10-15 years to Medicare and all that it entails, including a dental plan from the same insurance company as my supplemental "Medicare Advantage" but through a different private subcontractor. I am acutely aware of all of the hours I have spent on the phone, on hold, or searching the web just trying to figure out who to call. I have had to get almost nasty with more than one poor call-taker just to get them to give me someone else to call when they had no answer.
+46 # Charles3000 2016-02-10 16:16
Medicare, as it presently exists, is not single payer. It was corrupted by giving 20% of the action to private health insurance. The "Medicare Advantage" you mention is one example of the corruption by private, for profit insurance companies.
+10 # Skyelav 2016-02-10 23:22
Your Medicare "Advantage" is NOT a supplement it is a complete replacement of Medicare. If you don't know that write me and I will give you a phone number
+29 # AKPatriot 2016-02-10 15:07
Also the fact that disposable income will be greater.
-52 # bmiluski 2016-02-10 15:16
No, what that reporter and other media failed to ask Bernie is if he could guarantee that those tax increases would stay stable or could they expect them to rise just as premiums do.
-50 # bmiluski 2016-02-10 15:18
Also, Bernie failed to say how he would get the repugs to agree to these tax raises. And that's the reality that all those young new voters are not facing.
+12 # Skyelav 2016-02-10 23:19
WE are going to help him...
-4 # bmiluski 2016-02-11 12:39
Oh, and how are WE going to help him? You mean how we helped President Obama with gun control even though 86% of the American public want tighter gun laws passed.
+9 # lfeuille 2016-02-11 00:38
Get rid of the Repugs obviously.
-4 # bmiluski 2016-02-11 12:40
And how long will that take considering the gerrymandering that's been done?
+3 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-02-11 02:01
Political Revolution. The voters demand that Congress implements the president's mandate, or else Congress gets voted out of office.
+34 # cymricmorty 2016-02-10 15:35
That reporter and the other media MUST get that all-important, fearmongering sound bite in: "tax the middle class." And cut!
+10 # rxfxworld 2016-02-11 06:50
Well, brimulski, here's how it works. When my wife was 63 we had a $5000 deductible policy which cost $4000. At 64 we had a $5000 deductible policy but it cost $8000. Atv 65 she got medicare, Pt. A cost 0 (covers hosp about 80%0 +Pt. B $1200 + Supplemental Plan F for $2400-- this covers everything but dental,and meds. So==medicare for all means a tax hike but no private insurance premiums. Medicare costs 3-5% admin costs. Private insurance has 18-22% admin. ACA was a big giveaway to insurance co, big pharma and large hospital chains. Stocks in these Co.s have gone up 30% since 2012. Medicare for everyone, Go BERN
+12 # Elroys 2016-02-10 21:16
I find it interesting that media and other quite often "forget" to tell the full story. As you suggest, yes, slightly higher taxes for covering 100% of health care costs which will fall significantly with medicare for all. Cutting out the middle out - insurance. Imagine not being so stressed over "how do i pay for my health insurance and costs? The system is so screwed up and screws the middle and working class while benefiting the health care industrial complex. Those 6 nations with the highest per capital health care costs spend 1/2 what the U.S. spends per capital and according to the World Health Org., those 6 are also the top 6 in terms of quality of health care. The U.S. - as the most expensive by far, ranked #36 in the world. This is repulsive - we're number one algith - in how "the people" get ripped off by this rigged system.
-11 # bmiluski 2016-02-11 12:43
Dear sweet Jesus. You sound like a Bernie speech. I feel as though I'm on a repug site where the same things are bleated over and over again. You have no idea what I'm talking about because you can't get past the fact that I dare to criticize Bernie. You just shut down and keep the Bernie mantra going on and on and on.
+4 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-02-11 01:58
The TV report probably cut out the part where Bernie explained that.
+80 # Desiderata 2016-02-10 14:41 many times does he have to repeat that your insurance premiums would become a thing of the past. YES your taxes may go up a bit to cover the little plastic card that you will show any and every time you need medical attention. Our taxes went up in Canada but guess what ? We don't pay medical insurance.Your medical costs are covered and those prescription drugs that aren't are a fraction of the cost in the U.S. Listen & pay attention when Bernie speaks because he speaks for you !
+29 # CTPatriot 2016-02-10 14:53
bmiluski is smart enough to know this. They are a liar and propagandist on the part of HRC and the establishment. I wonder where their partner in crime is today, rain17. Both are so predictable.
-31 # bmiluski 2016-02-10 15:20
Who he hell is "they". And why is bmiluski a liar and propagandist just because she dares to question Barny? As a citizen of this planet isn't that her right?
-46 # Rain17 2016-02-10 15:26
Bmiluksi--You'r e supposed to blindly follow Bernie. Anything else makes you impure.
-41 # Rain17 2016-02-10 15:25
I'm my own person. I support HRC because I'm concerned that Sanders can't win the general election. His radical past is almost certainly going to be featured in negative ads. I've seen nothing to indicate that his campaign is prepared to handle the red-baiting headed his way. I'll vote for him in the general election if he's the nominee, but I see him losing.
+29 # nice2bgreat 2016-02-10 15:40
Still squeaking your defeatist bullshit and sophistry, Rain17?

Is that all you got?

You write, "I've seen nothing to indicate..."

Rain 17,

Are you like Sherlock Holmes, "I see nothing..."?

Or like Schultz, "I see nothing!"

Why not tell us all, illustrious one, illustrate what you have "seen" that will be "featured in negative ads"? -- oh seer of things.

Bear light upon all which these bad ol' Republicans are sure to pounce.
-7 # bmiluski 2016-02-11 18:10
And how is your defeatist bullshit and sophistry, nice2begreat any different?

Is that all YOU got?
+18 # Douglas Jack 2016-02-10 19:17
Rain17, Check out SICKO by Michael Moore. I vouch for everything he says about Single-Payer Medicare everywhere. Sicko, 29Jun’07, Michael Moore, 2hr.3min.
+9 # rxfxworld 2016-02-11 06:57
Hilary Clinton can unite one party--the Republican Party. Those who claim Bernie can't be elected are simply drinking the HRC and Republican Kool-Aid because they like blue-dog Democrats have lost faith not only in Democracy but it's minimal essence--the electoral system. Anyone who says, your vote doesn't count or your candidate can't win should take heed of the motives of the person making that claim. It's to discourage voting and that's how the extremists win.
+29 # nice2bgreat 2016-02-10 15:17
Quoting bmiluski:
I saw Bernie being asked by a reporter if the middle-class will have their taxes raised to pay for the single-payer system and, he said yes.

Yes, because you dispute that it is yes or yes because you are implying something that is not true?

Yes, BECAUSE rather than accessing health care through private insurance, Single-Payer utilizes Medicare.

So, therefore, when a person goes to the hospital, rather than a hospital receptionist asking whether a person is insured, the question asked is about health.

Furthermore, BECAUSE private insurance is more expensive, EVEN THOUGH Single-Payer is NOT FREE, Single-Payer is less expensive.

Private insurance costs $32 Trillion Dollars, Single-Payer is estimated at $18 Trillion Dollars.

To analogize:

It's as if, a shopper from Ralphs (no-so Supermarket) discovers Trader Joe's. After realizing a $32-dollar trip to Ralphs with equivalent purchases -- only with generally better ingredients and no product-placeme nt fees -- is $18, a family member raises the idea of switching to Trader Joe's because it's cheaper; and bmiluski chimes in over increased cost, specifically at Trader Joe's.

Yes, bmiluski, when switching stores, costs go up at the new one.

But you know what, bmiluski? And it's hard to believe that this kind of stuff needs explaining.

When you cut out the middle-man (insurance), just as when changing stores, costs are reduced to $0 dollars on that end.

Do the math.
+13 # Doc Mary 2016-02-10 23:09
Not only would premiums go down, but (more important to most people I know) it would do away with those godawful co-pays and deductibles.

He also wants to negotiate pharmaceutical prices, something that has been anathema before now (although the drug companies are their own worst enemies when it comes to avoiding regulation).

All told, the cost of health care would plummet.

On the one hand - there is the rub. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries are going to fight this tooth and nail.

On the other - if you don't know what you goals are, how can you ever push forward?
-7 # bmiluski 2016-02-11 12:51
My point was that the repugs are going to grab that sound bite and run with it. It will energize the "right".
Bernie bragged about how NH primary had the largest voter turn out in history. What he forgot to mention was the FACT that the historic turnout was on the repug side. The democratic turnout was NOT historic and in fact was less than the turn out for Obama.
If the GOP narrative on Bernie is that he is a communist (and you know they'll go there-especiall y with Trump as the head trumpeter) it will energize the right-wing nut jobs to turn out in droves.
+14 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-02-10 15:23
A half truth is a whole lie.
-27 # Rain17 2016-02-10 15:27
And that will almost certainly be fodder for negative ads. Walter Mondale said he would raise taxes too. How well did he do?
+10 # nice2bgreat 2016-02-10 16:36
Quoting bmiluski:
I saw Bernie being asked by a reporter if the middle-class will have their taxes raised to pay for the single-payer system and, he said yes.

Quoting Rain17:
And that will almost certainly be fodder for negative ads.

And what are Hillary's bitches doing to confront the misinformation, distortions, half-truths, and lies about Single-Payer?
+18 # Buddha 2016-02-10 17:02
Confront? Hillary's bitches are the ones most spreading the misinformation, distortions, half-truths, and lies about Single-Payer. HMO's and Big Pharma are already getting Return on their Investment in HRC's SuperPac...
-9 # bmiluski 2016-02-11 12:54
Bitches???? Really??? Why do you people have to go there?
+2 # Skyelav 2016-02-10 23:14
Not to mention George HW Bush
-4 # bmiluski 2016-02-11 12:56
Actually, Skyelav... he lied ...
"Watch my lips. No new taxes."
Of course, once he got elected he raised taxes.
-3 # bmiluski 2016-02-11 18:12
OMG.......You people are just reflexively giving me red thumbs down. Thank you, thank you, thank you. You've just made yourself irrelevant to the other rational posters on this site.
+5 # Nominae 2016-02-11 05:52
Quoting Rain17:
And that will almost certainly be fodder for negative ads....

What IS this inordinate, fixated and abject terror of negative ads ? They have been a part of politics since politics began. Only now the technology makes them harder to avoid.

On the other hand, NO politician has *EVER* WON a free election in the ABSENCE of negative smear campaigns in this Country or any other, going clear back to the Ancient Greeks !

NONE, that is, except in Totalitarian Regimes where they win by an "amazing" 99.999% of the "popular vote".

So, let's not get a case of the vapors over negative ads. They can't be avoided. They can only be countered by better informing and better educating voters.

I know - good luck with that - but that IS the TRUE "lay of the battlefield".

We strategize to fight the battles we HAVE, not the battles we WISH we had.
+2 # bmiluski 2016-02-11 12:57
Well said Nominae........
+29 # Radscal 2016-02-10 15:53
The fact is that those middle-class taxpayers will enjoy a net savings. They will pay a little more in taxes, but save much more in health care costs. HRC knows this, even if you don't.
+21 # Buddha 2016-02-10 17:03
She probably DOES know this. But she still spreads lies about this. Says a lot about Clinton and how authentic her whole "I'm a Progressive" campaign pitch is, huh?
-10 # Rain17 2016-02-11 06:24
You miss the point. All they're going to hear is that they're going to pay higher taxes.
+6 # Radscal 2016-02-11 12:55
Yes, I know you believe that most USians are inferior dolts incapable of thinking with anything near your brilliance.

But the fact remains that 80% of Democratic voters favor Sanders' USP healthcare plan, and even a substantial number of Republicans want it. 58% of ALL eligible voters want it.
+3 # Nominae 2016-02-11 17:59
Quoting Rain17:
You miss the point. All they're going to hear is that they're going to pay higher taxes.

Perhaps, Sir, it is *yourself* who misses the point. No one is gainsaying your observation above.

What people ARE noting, is that what you observe is endemic to the political process itself, and it *always* has been, because, since the beginning, NO ONE has ever been able to figure out how to protect the morons from drinking the cool aid.

Your observation falls into the category of noting that when it rains, people outside without umbrellas or rain gear are liable to get wet.

Indeed they are, and indeed they will be for all eternity, but good luck with shutting off that rain.

Having acknowledged the blatantly obvious, then, most folks see the advantage in moving on to problems that *are*, or even "may be", amenable to possible solution.
+17 # DaveEwoldt 2016-02-10 17:25
Yeah, so what's your point? You seem shocked that Americans turn out to be not as stupid as you assume them to be?

I'll ask you again, would you rather pay $5K in taxes or $10K in premiums, deductibles, and co-pays? We'll ignore the savings in less stress.
+6 # jcdav 2016-02-10 20:41
YES, BUT they will NOT have to pay for health insurance. Spend 5k$ to SAVe 10K$=net gain 5k$ PER YEAR. Not really difficult to understand. Insurance companies have OVERHEAD of 17% the VA for example has overhead of 7% now imagine if you will saving 10% of the entire national medical expenditures.
-7 # bmiluski 2016-02-11 13:00
PEOPLE listen to what we're trying to say....Jesus.
All we're saying is that the repugs will keep playing the Bernie sound bite that shows him saying he'll raise taxes.
Rain17 and I understand what the hell Bernie means. We're trying to tell you what the repugs are going to do.
+7 # Vegan_Girl 2016-02-11 06:39
Sure thing! I will gladly pay 5000 more per year. But of course, if I get cancer (and most Americans do) I will not lose all my savings, my retirement plan, and my housing. Get it?

80% of those who declared bankruptcy had medical issues that sucked their life savings away. 60% of those HAD health insurance.
+6 # pbbrodie 2016-02-11 10:05
I have had Type I diabetes for 40 years along with nearly all of the negative consequences. Due to this, I have had to declare bankruptcy twice because of massive medical bills, even though I had insurance. I would be more than glad to have my insurance premiums eliminated and pay more in taxes. Not only would there be no premiums, there would be no co-pays and deductibles, which were the major contributors to my bankruptcies.
+5 # cymricmorty 2016-02-11 10:20
I'm one that went bankrupt over one huge medical bill. I just dragged myself past the 10-year mark late in 2015. No one should have to go bankrupt over medical bills.
+56 # REDPILLED 2016-02-10 14:09
Corporate/Wall Street "Democrats" aren't merely "conservative." They are REGRESSIVE.

They belong in the Republican Party, but, since Bill and Hillary, the Dems have become Wall Street/Corporat e tools.

If these Corporate/Wall Street "Democrats" prevent Sanders getting the nomination, I am voting for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. She represents what I want done, unlike Hillary.
+1 # Skyelav 2016-02-10 23:11
Yeah and take that Mad Maddie Albright! We get to CHOOSE this year.
+47 # torch and pitchfork 2016-02-10 14:23
For me the big news out of New Hampshire is that the Republicans overwhelmingly support a Fascist.
+67 # ChrisCurrie 2016-02-10 14:26
Hillary is unelectable, because she is still relying heavily on the current willingness of our mainstream news media to continue to cover up how DISASTROUS Hillary's record was as Secretary of State. Unlike Hillary, Bernie didn't play a key role in creating a bloody multi-sided civil war in Syria that has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians and created 11 MILLION Syrian refugees (nearly a million of whom risked drowning while fleeing to Europe). Hillary also played a key role in creating a bloody civil war in Libya. Hillary carried on George W. Bush's neocon clandestine Ho-Chi-Minh-lik e insurgency tactics to create "regime changes" in the Middle East which is a MORALLY DEPRAVED objective to begin with, and which predictably created DISASTROUS HUMAN CONSEQUENCES including the creation of a "breeding ground" in Syria for the development of ISIS as a formidable land-grabbing military force. In other words, Hillary Clinton's four years as Secretary of State left the United States facing a significantly higher level of danger than the level of danger that existed when she first became Secretary of State. So Bernie is right. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly demonstrated not only mean-spirited (neocon) judgment, but she has also demonstrated extraordinarily POOR judgment which is likely to plague the United States as well as the Middle East for many years to come!
+22 # economagic 2016-02-10 15:02
"Hillary is unelectable"

See Bill McKibben's take on this, on RSN late last night.
+20 # jdd 2016-02-10 17:22
Her poor judgment is not confined to support for Sunni jihadists. Not only did her undersecretary Victoria Nuland engineer a neo-nazi coup in Ukraine, but in the last debate she endorsed Obama's insane and ultra-provocati ve military buildup on the border of Russia. Her support for fellow warmonger Ashton Carter's huge budget and pronouncement that Russia represents our "greatest strategic threat" means a Hillary presidency portends a path of direct confrontation with Russia and China. She was, and still is at heart, a Goldwater Girl, but the stakes are much higher now. Together with Obama. she has brought US-Russia relations to their most dangerous low since the Cuban Missile Crisis, except we will be there without JFK or brother Bobby in the White House,
+46 # Desiderata 2016-02-10 14:48
The Sander's camp have yet to bring any of that up . And they should asap because the public seems to be ignorant of the destructive role she plays in foreign policy.She gives women a bad name and I for one applaud the millennials who are looking beyond her for leadership that will make a difference in their lives. If it comes in a 74yr.old male package ,so be it.
+35 # Bruce Gruber 2016-02-10 14:50
"Conservative" Democrats - an oxymoron if ever there was one. The idiomatic simile, "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make it think" may well be appropriate in the comical desperation of the Democratic establishment seeking an island in a melting sea of rising progressive change loosed from its frozen CO2 inaction by Global Climate Change.

The Clinton coronation machine seems to have overreacted to an already denigrated "neighbor State" camaraderie which they dismissed as minor, tossed aside as insignificant. That is interesting. Inasmuch as the Iowa raw vote "secret" designation, unresolved precinct Party-organized errors and inconsistencies plus coin flipped resolutions leave some question as to whether Hillary actually won.

The highhanded punishment by Debbie Wassermann Schultz (former Clinton campaign manager against President Obama, current surrogate for Hillary's current campaign, AND 'fair and balanced' DNC election Chair) remains unexplained and apparently ignored, despite Sanders Campaign requests for a detailed report.

The (singular!) establishment is now declaring war "at" Bernie from conservative Democrats in Congress (afraid of losing their 1% paychecks?) as well as the oligarch jockey billionaire, Michael Bloomberg, also dedicated to protecting "oligarchy" control of all politics "at any cost". This ELECTION is going to be FUN! Sounds like we are in for "slash and BERN!" My money's on BERNIE!
+41 # RMDC 2016-02-10 14:54
We all know that the onslaught of the democratic party lackeys is coming. They will march out and defend the status quo of permanent war, bankster looting, healthcare corruption, electoral corruption, institutionaliz ed bribery, and much more. They will defend the system that has made them multi-millionai res and dicked over the American people.

The attack dogs are coming. Get ready.
+30 # publictakeover 2016-02-10 14:57
It's incredible how cynical the petrified pols are! They have fossilized the living government and the primary process into a block of cold stone.

There has never been a case where THE ENTIRE ESTABLISHMENT has been so united against an insurgent candidate.

None of them, with the possible exception of Cardin and Hoyer, had half a breath to complement Sanders and acknowledge his supporters.

It would be so great, if for no other reason, to see them have to change their tune and join the revolution.
+28 # AKPatriot 2016-02-10 15:00
Clinton's bank is running short, due to the fact that her large ($2500) contributors have maxed out their (primary) donation limits. On the other hand (at $27 average) donations for Bernie he has a Long way to go before his donors max out. And that is just for the primary. Wait for the General election. Feel the BERN!!!!!
+36 # AKPatriot 2016-02-10 15:06
P.S. and a special thanks to Ms. M. Albright, for alienating several million women voters, with her "There's a special place in HELL for women who do not support Women candidates."
+4 # Nominae 2016-02-11 06:11
Quoting AKPatriot:
P.S. and a special thanks to Ms. M. Albright, for alienating several million women voters, with her "There's a special place in HELL for women who do not support Women candidates."

Hear ! Hear ! Great Gratitude to Albright indeed.

I was especially delighted by a line in an SNL Skit that opined: "There is a special place in hell for women who do not support the right of *other* women to think for themselves !"
+30 # seeuingoa 2016-02-10 15:22
When Madeleine Albright, Gloria Steinem
and other feminists harrass the young female voters supporting Bernie they forget that

Hillary Clinton is a woman by sex but
with a male brain, Wall Street, money, wars,
greed and lack of compassion.

Bernie Sanders is a man by sex but
with a female brain, no greed, no wars
and a lot of compassion for people in need.

That is the reason that young women turn
to Bernie.

They may want a female president with female
values but they will not get that
with Hillary Clinton.
+21 # jdd 2016-02-10 17:03
Madeleine Albright has a special palace in hell reserved just for her. When questioned about the 500,000 to one million Iraqi children killed by sanctions she answered that "it was worth the price." Some model for young women.
+21 # bbaldwin2001 2016-02-10 15:24
I would say by the number of green numbers that those that are expressing their feelings far out number those that are against Bernie Sanders... Good, it's time we get some sense into our government and move out all of those that waste time and money.
+24 # tedrey 2016-02-10 15:26
Of course they aren't in favor of a candidate who wants to make elections more honest and less corrupt. The present corrupt system is what put them in Congress and keeps them there!
+34 # diamondmarge7 2016-02-10 15:31
Thank you all, but especially Chris Currie: I want to add to your brilliant comment about Hillary the Hawk. In Diana Johnstone's much-lauded book "Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton," she goes into heavily researched truths re the death and destruction that followed everywhere she cast her Martian eye in Haiti, Honduras, Libya, and Ukraine. An equal opportunity ruination machine, she chortled of the benign dictator Gaddafi's brutal murder, "We came, we saw, he died." Makes my blood run cold. If a picture is indeed worth a thousand words, one has only to see the before and after photographs of Libya, to know all one needs to know of The Queen of Chaos'so-called "foreign policy experience." Before, Libya was a model of modernity, a beautiful testament to what Gaddafi had brought in North Africa; after, all was rubble. I worry about her attempts in Ukraine to poke the Russian Bear to fury. Not done yet, she calls for a "no fly zone" in Syria, which might do the trick to start WWIII.
This woman is a disaster already happened, with more to come if elected. As I see it, her vote for the Iraq fiasco was foreign policy "mistake" No.1....In my view those witchhunt Benghazi hearings focussed on the wrong thing re Libya!
+17 # jdd 2016-02-10 16:45
I agree. Embedded in the 11 hours of fluff was her admission that 1) She publicly lied about the narrative that the attack was due to a demo that went out of control, while admitted in emails the truth to her daughter and three heads of state; 2)she did so to support the party line that Al-Queda had been "decapitated" and was in full retreat, and; 3) Benghazi was being used as a trans-shipment point for arms and jihadists into Syria to support her and Obama's regime change against the government of Syria. She did then and still maintains that the chaotic, terrorist hell-hole called Libya is better off today! She has not learned a single thing since her support for the neo-con war on Iraq.
+31 # diamondmarge7 2016-02-10 15:38
While I'm on the subject of foreign policy, I do think it is critical for BERNIE to speak in a way that silences those who bray that he "has no foreign policy experience." Of course, he saw the writing on the wall in Iraq.

I want him also to hammer away @ the lie being spread that he hasn't accomplished anything in Congress.

Finally, I want him to hammer away, also, on the lie that he doesn't know how to compromise.
All tnese lies need to be refuted over and over, and I want to see him tie these arguments into WHY he is the better, the BEST, choice for African Americans, because the media and the establishment certainly aren't going to give out that information.
+23 # angryspittle 2016-02-10 15:53
From what I understand Bernie has no enemies in congress, works well across the aisle to get concrete accomplishments done w/o pissing anybody off......if the other side cannot run a campaign w/o slandering the opponent they don't have much to run on anyway.
-41 # RevOleson 2016-02-10 16:06
Bernie has TWO senators that support him. Hillary 458 elected officials who support her. Bernie basically an arrogant prick.
+9 # Radscal 2016-02-10 20:32
Yes, HRC has the political establishment backing.

And thank you for once again putting to lie that all the nastiness is coming from Sanders supporters. From Day One, I've seen far more vitriolic attacks from the Clinton side.
-2 # bmiluski 2016-02-11 18:14
Dear sweet Jesus Radscal.....Rev Oleson is a troll hoping to get the reaction he got from you.
+20 # Charles3000 2016-02-10 15:58
If any of the "Hillary Clinton's supporters on Capitol Hill" are reading this then understand, if HRC gets the nomination ONLY with super delegates and without a majority of elected delegates, then she will lose the general! So if Bernie gets a majority of the electoral delegates then the election results (R orD) is in the hands of the super delegates. If they force HRC in then it will be an R win.
-28 # RevOleson 2016-02-10 16:05
Well, the Dems will have a lot to work with. Sanders is a hypocrite, liar, betrayer of friends, etc. He was a conscientious objector to war and now he is a militarist imperialist. He always has bashed other Democrats but he votes 98% of the time. Unfortunately people go for image instead of substance. Ask him about his plan when he was mayor of Burlington to give away public land to developers..... .
+12 # jdd 2016-02-10 16:31
Of course there's a lot to find fault with Bernie, I wish he would stick to his core economic demands, especially Glass-Steagall, that's what got him this far. Yes, his foreign policy stinks, we don't want the Saudi butchers to "get their hands dirty" (er), but if your comments are meant to boost the Wall Street puppet and bloody warmonger against whom he's running, then sorry. you're way off.
+20 # djnova50 2016-02-10 16:44
Hey Rev! Bernie Sanders was a pacifist during the Vietnam War and did apply for Conscientous Objector status. The Viet Nam War was an unjust war. He did the best thing that anybody could have done at the time.

He also voted against the Iraq War, which as we know now was started with false information. When that information was determined to be false, and the US chose to stay and fight instead of withdraw, the US was then involved in an illegal war.

If you really are interested in what Bernie has to say about war and peace, you can find out here:
+7 # Skyelav 2016-02-10 23:02
Yeah yeah and Jesus lost his temper in the temple. Where there is a human being there is a mistake or two. For 35 years Sanders has been an Independant, caucused with the Dems, and been an outward "socialist" of one kind or another. Pick someone else then. I'd like to hear your choices. Or are you staying home because none of them is perfect???
+14 # DogSoldier 2016-02-10 16:10
The DNC should be made to understand that it is Bernie or bust.There are many Bernie supporters who like me will never vote for Hillary, regardless of the consequences. Hillary is no different than Republicans; endless war and social program cuts, just like Obomber, who I'm sorry I voted for.
+20 # jdd 2016-02-10 16:22
Rather than "conservative Democrats" this faction is best described as "the Wall Street Wing." Hillary is proving once more that she is unelectable, and would lose to Trump, at least. She lost every segment of voters except those over 65 (they already have Medicare!) and generates zero enthusiasm, being widely despised and distrusted among white, especially independent, voters. Does anyone really believe that Sanders would not carry the black and Hispanic vote against Trump?Hillary should bow out now, for the good of the Democratic Party and the nation, and let Sanders focus his time, energy and money against Trump.
+10 # cymricmorty 2016-02-10 17:49
People fret about Trump/GOP supporters being low information, but so are many HRC supporters, who have no idea (or worse, ignore) what she's really been up to all these years.
+3 # Skyelav 2016-02-10 22:59
Don't be sure every over 65 has Medicare. Where I live the people who run this place are pulling every trick to get everyone to join AARP United Health Care "Advantage" or "Medicare complete" plans. They are lying to the customers and saying they are getting supplements. Not true. This is a complete dis-enrollment from Medicare with a good chance of not being able to re-enroll when you figure out the scam. Remember Medicare Dis-advantage or Medicare Incomplete plans are fraudulent and move us closer to privatizing the entire program as Sad Sack Paul Ryan would have us.
+2 # Robbee 2016-02-10 16:46
GOP troll alert! on - # Inspired Citizen 2016-02-10 15:08 "We have attack ads that Bernie won't run ready to go starting ... soon. Democrats either #UniteBehindBer nie or lose the general election. That's the RAP Revolution." - DO THIS ONLY IF YOU INSIST ON RUNNING AND LOSING BERNIE'S CAMPAIGN FOR HIM!

outing false-flag ops! - The "Bernie Bros" Narrative: A Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism, Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept, 31 January 16

our local hill-haters have been self-identifyin g here as GOP trolls for months and months! - # Inspired Citizen 2016-02-01 05:42 "Bernie needs leverage and Convention insurance (HE DETESTS; SO WE'LL DO IT FOR HIM, AGAINST HIS WISHES!) Have YOU taken the Bernie or bust pledge?"

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

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

- humbug! as says # Scott Galindez 2015-10-20 10:28 “Its not leverage; threats backfire, especially empty ones. Bernie will not run as an independent. Bernie needs enough delegates at that convention to win, not signers on a petition making an undemocratic threat.”

- citizen's is false-flag attack on hill, and false-flag support for bernie! - listen to bernie! ignore RAP! - go bernie!
+11 # bullslam 2016-02-10 16:51
I might be more moved to consider a vote for HRC were it not for the fact that she and Feinstein are such fucken witches. Furthermore, one might be surprised that many people would be fine with higher taxes in return for better and more government services such as single payer health and kick out the insurance corporations to hell and gone.
+14 # jdd 2016-02-10 17:32
New and Improved Medicare for All, HR 676, was already on the House floor with 70 co-sponsors when Obama came in with 80% approval and control of both houses and cut out the public option and cut in the insurance companies. Do you think Obamacare is not subsidized by taxpayer money. One way was his unconscionable theft of 700 million/year from Medicare to "free up" money to pay the insurance companies. Yep.
+15 # Shorey13 2016-02-10 16:54
"Conservative Democrat' is, or should be, an absurd oxymoron.

Again I say, these people are "moderate" Republicans, who were ejected by their original party in the 1980's, then formed the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) in order to hijack the Democratic Party.

Bernie should borrow a line from Howard Deane and announce that he is running "on the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party." The Clinton, Feinstein, Obama and the rest should now be "ejected" from the Democratic Party. Maybe they can form an irrelevant Centrist Party (irrelevant because there is no "center" in this country).
+8 # jdd 2016-02-10 17:43
No they are not Republicans, but like most of the Republican party are owned by Wall Street. They make up the majority of Democratic Party bureaucracy and elected officials. Sander, along with O'Malley, represent the FDR-JFK wing, presently a minority in the party. Should Sanders go on to win the nomination, and Trump do the same, we might see a breakup or shakeup in the two-party system as we know it.
+4 # Skyelav 2016-02-10 22:48
Sadly I think Howard is working for the great middleground now. Just sayin'
+5 # Robbee 2016-02-10 16:57
says - # crzkat 2016-02-10 16:10 "The DNC should be made to understand that it is Bernie or bust.There are many Bernie supporters who like me will never vote for Hillary, regardless of the consequences. Hillary is no different than Republicans; endless war and social program cuts, just like Obomber, who I'm sorry I voted for."

- i read what you believe, that there is no difference between bush 2 and obama, that there is no difference between hill and jeb - you offer no support - you criticize with no memory

- for you i have some appropriate words by stevie wonder - when you believe in things you don't understand, you're gonna suffer!

- if obama was no different from bush 2, how did he end bush 2's tax cuts for the rich? 2) how did he cut the capital gains loophole for the rich? 3) how did he stimulate employment instead of just wall street? 4) how did he extend unemployment benefits? 5) how did he extend healthcare to 11 million workers who otherwise could not afford it?

i don't care to handicap hill, bernie or anyone, i am no bookie - but i don't like discounting bernie's and warren's positive influence on america, the dem party or hill - these two are our best and brightest - to stop zomblican drive to massive new tax cuts for the rich; massive cuts in benefits and services for the 99%; here a war, there a war, everywhere a war, war - in sum the zomblican budget - well dems are our only hope!

you have the memory of a zomblican, none! - go bernie!
+1 # Skyelav 2016-02-10 22:45
Gosh, I am glad you didn't vote for Romney at least not to mention McCain-Palin
+6 # Robbee 2016-02-10 17:24
somebody overdosed their pill! -
some here need to stop pretending that hill is no true, or real, progressive, like they own the term and define it, as does - # REDPILLED 2016-02-10 14:09 "Corporate/Wall Street "Democrats" aren't merely "conservative." They are REGRESSIVE. They belong in the Republican Party ..."

- the only way hill gets anywhere near the presidency is by winning the dem nomination - not a done deal - and then by defeating a militarist GOP thug who will bomb iran and rob us 99% to feather bed the billionaire class, on his way to whupping the world and handing it over to billionaires - tell us, detail why you would prefer that GOP voice and personality to hill? - sell us!

and about hill not being progressive in any way other than with regard to women - well tell that to blacks, latinos, illegal immigrants who want a path to citizenship, unions, workers, gun controllers - get the picture? - sell us!

- now with all his pragmatic challenges, i still vastly prefer bernie - donate, phone bank, march for him and will vote for him in the primary - things you won't catch me doing for hill! - but it is fair comment for bernie to call hill "infinitely better" than any GOP thug! - hill is suddenly the 2nd best progressive still running! - hence i won't hesitate to vote for the dem candidate in the general election! - go bernie!
+8 # virtualaudio 2016-02-10 17:27
I thought Bernie's post new Hampshire victory speech was the best I have ever heard in the last 30 years. He clearly articulated his platform, laid out some biography and spoke to the future of the campaign in an incredibly authentic manner, I've never heard such a non-pandering speech, even from the great orator Obama.
Best part, he twice reminded everyone that the party will need to come together after March to make sure the Democrats hold the White House.
This is my real concern: Clinton has no clear message, no articulated reason for running for president. That is always a disaster. Combine that with her liabilities, both real and bogus, and I see Sanders having a better shot in the general. Clinton and the 'centrist' dems are about to make a huuuge mistake by doing dirt in the campaign. I know they can't help it, but it is one of the reasons the people are sick of politics. They had better think long and hard about how they 'retool' to go forward.
I love Bernie and agree with him; I am no fan of Hillary but I'd vote for her. But I am already cringing with the foreknowledge that Clinton and the 'establishment' dems are going to shoot themselves in the foot in an attempt to get her elected for.. what? To change things? To help people? Or just for the power?
I honestly think that, if she really cares about progressive values, she should exit the race now.
But she won't, so look for a few more Steinham / Albright episodes to further erode the discussion.
+6 # Robbee 2016-02-10 18:01
bernie is praying for "attacks"! - most especially from conservative dems! - as in - Conservative Democrats Readying Attacks on Sanders, Ted Barrett and Deirdre Walsh, CNN, 10 February 16 -

- so far bernie's biggest problem, among Conservative Democrats, well, among everyone, to date has been name recognition - bernie is prepared for attacks! - bernie relishes them! - bring 'em on! - go bernie!
+11 # elkingo 2016-02-10 18:16
Feinstein is an establishment idiot. Boxer is better. But it seems the intellectually impoverished "conservative" dems are revving up the old desperate "experience = capability"saw. This isn't neurosurgery where that would obtain. And so what if Bernie raises taxes to bring about national health coverage? Can't these idiots see that as a primary national priority: saving lives instead of taking them in stupid wars.
+3 # Skyelav 2016-02-10 22:40
Not to mention it removes the profit margin so in the long run it saves exactly that amount of money and guess what? No one loses jobs.
+11 # tenureme 2016-02-10 22:01
Here it comes. Conservative mainstream establishment Democrats will peel off their faces to expose the moderate Republicans underneath. They will speak dismissively of "socialists" while driving on public roads, visiting national parks, borrowing books form public libraries, using municipal water systems, and looking forward to Social Security and Medicare. They will talk of Bernie's "unelectability " despite how he polls better than nouveaux-progre ssive Hillary against Republicans who will use the same arguments against Bernie as the mainstream Democrat machine's acolytes. They will refer to "tax raises" that will more than pay for themselves in eliminated medical premiums, just as they do it in every other developed nation where they enjoy better medical outcomes at lower overall costs.

If he can make minorities aware of who he is and how they will fare better with him than with the status quo they say is not recognizing them, he will walk to the white house accompanied by millions who will have rejoined the American political system. In the meantime, every sight of Feinstein, McCaskill, et al will drive me to make another YUUUUGE $10 contribution to Bernie. And I'll keep making them with every attack they launch.
+5 # PCPrincess 2016-02-10 22:48
High-Five to that tenureme!
+5 # Skyelav 2016-02-10 22:13
Stenny Hoyer is saying the OTHER side is negative? Just wait. When Bernie Sanders gets close to the quick of Mrs. Clinton the sparks fly in such a visceral way it's twice as powerful as the blah blah nonsense of the Republicans. It doesn't even take a genius to manage a campaign with negative talking points against Mrs. Clinton. There are a zillion in her records, all online.
+6 # mentor 2016-02-10 22:45
Of course, what Feinstein conveniently and dishonestly leaves out is the fact that (as Mr. Reich pointed out) Americans would come out way ahead because a single-payer system wouldn't spend huge sums on advertising, marketing, executive pau, and billing.
+5 # Kindinosaur 2016-02-11 11:23
Quoting mentor:
Of course, what Feinstein conveniently and dishonestly leaves out is the fact that (as Mr. Reich pointed out) Americans would come out way ahead because a single-payer system wouldn't spend huge sums on advertising, marketing, executive pau, and billing.

Don't forget the inefficiency of sorting out dozens of different plans with different drug formularies and medical imaging policies. I never know who covers what and if I do figure it out they change. I oftentimes can't figure it out at the point of care because the computer programs don't keep up. I'm there after hours fighting for prior authorization on medications that should have been covered anyway. How is that cost efficient?
+3 # Salburger 2016-02-11 04:30
Better now than later. If Bernie can't overcome this crap from the Clintonites he wouldn't be able to beat the Republicans who would be at least as dirty. And if he does do so it will be old news and less effective when the Repugs drag out the same charges.
+1 # Nominae 2016-02-11 18:20
Quoting Salburger:
Better now than later. If Bernie can't overcome this crap from the Clintonites he wouldn't be able to beat the Republicans who would be at least as dirty. And if he does do so it will be old news and less effective when the Repugs drag out the same charges.

Great comment, Salburger ! It's about time *somebody* said it ! ;-D
+6 # DoHickey 2016-02-11 11:41
We're winning!! Lots of fine comments. Now I look forward to how Bernie does down south. He might surprise again.
+4 # rhgreen 2016-02-11 14:49
Living in denial is fascinating, but scary when the deniers have the power to bring it about. Deny Sanders will be nominated => Make sure Sanders isn't nominated. Poof! Like a Disney movie. Or a Michael Moore movie or a Greg Palast book.
+2 # tomwalker8 2016-02-12 09:58
Let's see - Dianne Feinstein, Richard Blum's wife and partner in threatening institutions he disagrees with, is joining establishment Democrats to attack Sanders? Talk about an attack that proves many of Bernie's points! His candidacy should gain even more traction from people familiar with her characteristic tendency to bully and champion issues favoring her husband's concerns. She's among the poster children of what's wrong with the Democratic "establishment! "
+1 # mentor 2016-02-12 13:32
"I think when someone starts to look into Bernie Sanders' record, sure, things change. I think that hasn't happened," Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a Clinton backer, told CNN. "Look at the seven taxes he would raise to do single payer (health coverage). There are a lot of technical things that show a person's record that just haven't come out yet and I think later on there is room for that."
What a fatuous person! Yes, I'm looking at the raised taxes, and I'm also looking at the elimination of obscene premiums that we pay for-private insurers. We the voters come out way ahead in the Sanders plan. But there is no reason to argue, point by point, with Feinstein. She is just another "radical"-chic Country Club Clintonite.

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.