RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Ash writes: "About fifteen years ago, I spoke with a young African American woman who was a Congressional aide on Capitol Hill. As we spoke, I extolled the virtues of the Democratic Party's relationship with black leaders and the African American community. In a moment she said, 'You know, Capitol Hill is the greatest plantation of all. The hours we work, the wages we get, what is expected of us, the whole system - it's crazy.'"

Bernie Sanders campaigning in Louisiana. (photo: Caitlin Faw/The Times-Picayune)
Bernie Sanders campaigning in Louisiana. (photo: Caitlin Faw/The Times-Picayune)


Can Black Voters Disobey the Democratic Party?

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

18 February 16

 

bout fifteen years ago, I spoke with a young African American woman who was a Congressional aide on Capitol Hill. As we spoke, I extolled the virtues of the Democratic Party’s relationship with black leaders and the African American community. I pointed to the vibrant Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) as evidence of the empowerment of African American leadership in America. But she had a funny look on her face that gave me pause.

In a moment she said, “You know, Capitol Hill is the greatest plantation of all. The hours we work, the wages we get, what is expected of us, the whole system – it’s crazy.”

Every presidential election, African American voters turn out in numbers above ninety percent to vote for the Democratic candidate, like clockwork. The reason for that was succinctly summed up by the father of former Republican congressman J.C. Watts Jr., J.C. (Buddy) Watts Sr., who said simply, “A black person voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.”

But what is expected of the Black community, which really has nowhere else to go politically? A number of things are expected – foremost, allegiance to Democratic Party bosses.

The plantation analogy was a sharp-edged reminder of the Democratic Party’s not very distant post-Civil War past. Up until the 1960s, the Democratic Party did more to prevent African American empowerment than to facilitate it.

Southern Democrats, also known for generations as Dixiecrats, were often sons and daughters of the Confederacy. As Lincoln was a Republican, Southern whites fled from anything Republican and into the ranks of a very welcoming Democratic Party for a hundred years.

It was not until Richard Nixon reached out to the Dixiecrats in 1968 and made them welcome in the Republican Party that a Republican could get elected dogcatcher south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Nixon’s timing was no coincidence. In the 1960s, African American activists had begun to pressure the Democratic Party to accept change and adopt civil rights as a part of the national platform, alienating the old Jim Crow wing of the Democratic Party. Nixon saw that and capitalized on it with what came to be known as his Southern Strategy.

From the African American perspective, black Americans, and Southern blacks in particular, were tired of the rampant discrimination, segregation, and violence against blacks that persisted in the South. They wanted an end to systemic injustice, and they saw voting rights as key to effecting those changes.

There was a resolve on the part of black leaders that if meaningful change in terms of civil rights were to take place, African American leaders would have to challenge the Democratic Party power structure head-on. They did.

In August of 1964, the Democratic Convention was held in Atlantic City, New Jersey. It was also “Freedom Summer.” President Lyndon B. Johnson was nominated Democratic candidate for president, Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota for Vice President. But history little notes the historic presence and actions of the all-black Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP).

The MFDP challenged the all-white Mississippi delegation as not having been chosen in accordance with Democratic Party rules. Quite true, as no black was allowed to participate in the process. MFDP activists mounted a protest on the floor of the convention, demanding a voice. A deal was struck. Johnson would choose 68 MFDP members as “at large delegates.” Two would have voting rights. The groundwork was laid for constructive black political opposition to the Democratic Party power structure. Change, real change, was now possible.

Change is again in the air this election cycle. Again the Democratic Party is resisting that change. Again it will take courage and action to achieve meaningful change.

Voters, black and white alike, are faced with a stark choice – the same choice, incidentally, they were faced with in 2008. Does our country urgently need change? In 2008 the voters, black and white alike, said yes. So far in 2016, the tide for change seems even stronger.

The Democratic Party bosses, however, are sending a clear signal who they want to be nominated for president in 2016, and it’s not the candidate of change.

Time to obey or time to challenge?


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

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

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

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

 
+33 # Crebbafrabitz 2016-02-18 10:37
If black America refuses to wake up and search for the REAL differences between a Sanders and a Clinton, they, as many white voters, will once again vote against their own best interests.

That can also be said of Rethuglicans. Party over principles is a major factor for this country being as far in the toilet as it is. If you meet someone who says, "I have ALWAYS VOTED for the _____ party", then you are looking at a small-minded, well-programmed person helping in the destruction of the country by voting like lemmings instead of a well-educated voter.
 
 
+15 # FIRSTNORN1 2016-02-18 11:40
Quoting Crebbafrabitz:
If black America refuses to wake up and search for the REAL differences between a Sanders and a Clinton, they, as many white voters, will once again vote against their own best interests.

That can also be said of Rethuglicans. Party over principles is a major factor for this country being as far in the toilet as it is. If you meet someone who says, "I have ALWAYS VOTED for the _____ party", then you are looking at a small-minded, well-programmed person helping in the destruction of the country by voting like lemmings instead of a well-educated voter.

We must *hammer* the Democratic Party to get rid of "Superdelegates ". If HRC can be nominated in a truly fair process without these "SDs" [I tried to put a "T" in there, but decided to leave it out], then I'm willing to give her "the benefit of the doubt", but I think she may not be able to win without the "SDs".
 
 
# Guest 2016-02-18 12:26
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+18 # sea7kenp 2016-02-18 12:51
In my opinion, Bernie is giving the Democratic Party a chance to evolve (since "moderate Socialist" looks "suspiciously" like the "progressive democratic party"). Since I ABSOLUTELY would consider it an Emergency Situation, if any of the "R's" become president, I am an "anomaly": as long as Bernie Sanders is in the running, in the Primary, I'm Johnny on the Spot with him. The moment he has to (heaven forbid) admit defeat to Hillary Clinton, I "turn on a dime", to make sure the country doesn't wind up in the tender mercies of the Republicans.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2016-02-18 13:00
Perfectly put.
 
 
+1 # nancyw 2016-02-18 15:04
We can en masses write in Bernie?
 
 
+3 # wantrealdemocracy 2016-02-18 15:28
That is a pretty small dime you are willing to turn of. You will remain a Democrat and that means you do not have the ability to face the fact that both of the two corporately funded political parties have the SAME AGENDA. Help the rich get richer.

We need to kick that dime aside and look around for a better way to attempt to save our democracy and our standard of living.

The Democrats and the Republicans DO NOT MAKE UP A MAJORITY OF THE POTENTIAL VOTERS IN OUR NATION. We need to look around for independent or 'minor party' candidates to give the two major parties a push into the rubbish bin.

I have seen Jill Stein and am impressed with her plan to reach out to the young people and the non white population. She wants to have a bailout of for the student's loans. This would cost far less than the bankster's bail outs.

The other group, which is left out by the two major parties, are the working class people. These people struggle to barely stay above the poverty level. These people need jobs, education and single payer health care.

End the wars and we would have the public funds to get a WPA program going to repair our failing infrastructure and employ millions of workers.

These things are possible ONLY IF WE DO NOT VOTE THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM. We need to say, "Thank you. I've had it with both the Dems and the Repubs and I WANT BETTER!"
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2016-02-18 19:08
Quoting wantrealdemocracy:
These things are possible ONLY IF WE DO NOT VOTE THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM. We need to say, "Thank you. I've had it with both the Dems and the Repubs and I WANT BETTER!"


WELL SAID ! The entire post. Endless KUDOS !

Attempting to change a fully fixed, and eternally corrupt System from *inside* that very same system is as much a waste of time as is beating on a dead horse, or pushing *MIGHTILY* against a door that actually opens TOWARD you.

The first step out of Political Slavery is simply to IMAGINE something different, something better.

The attitude of essentially "Same shit, different day" is EXACTLY the complicit and compliant attitude that KEEPS the boot of the 1% pressed heavily against our throats, and that of our children and grandchildren.
 
 
+1 # sea7kenp 2016-02-19 19:18
I'm an Independent.
 
 
+31 # DaveEwoldt 2016-02-18 13:22
On what page of the rulebook does it state you can't start a revolution from within the dominant paradigm? I musta missed that revision.

Just like many of HRC's endorsements, the Party may not want Bernie, but its members do. As well as a whole lot of people who have dropped out of the party in disgust or who simply weren't attracted to it in the first place.

You answer your opening rhetorical question--exped iency. Change is needed now. We don't need to take baby steps--we're adults. The two dominant parties have created a framework that resists outside challenges, so the sweeping change needed has to emerge from within.

I guess you haven't noticed all the people who have been pointing out the unfairness of superdelegates for decades. Bernie is hardly the first.

You also don't seem to have noticed that the past 8 years have been overall losers for people and planet. Not as bad as the previous 8 perhaps, but we're still headed in the wrong direction. And while Obama did do slightly better than Gore by getting about 23%, that's a pretty low bar for historic proportions, and doesn't seem to be a very strong or stable coalition.

I don't understand why you keep insisting you don't understand any of this.
 
 
+2 # sea7kenp 2016-02-19 19:22
Well said.
 
 
+16 # Billsy 2016-02-18 14:41
I suggest you investigate the historical lack of success of 3rd party candidates (e.g. start with John Anderson in 1976). That will allow you to cease wondering and accept reality. Sanders is an experienced, canny and bold politician taking full advantage of populist discontent with BOTH major political parties. He works where the power lies.
 
 
+14 # dsepeczi 2016-02-18 14:52
Quoting NRESQ:


LONG STORY SHORT: The Democratic Party doesn't need anyone--especially a Bernie Sanders--to rescue it. It needs a candidate who can take it to the next level.

If that turns out to be Sen. Sanders, i.e. he earns OUR nomination, so be it. But don't expect to come along and take over the party--that ain't happening.


While I agree with you that the democratic party doesn't need Bernie Sanders to save it, I think you frame the argument in the wrong way. This isn't about saving the democratic party. It's about saving the American working class. Currently, there's very little difference between the Democratic Party and the Republicans. Both parties espouse horrific economic and foreign policies, with the dem's economic policies taking us to the same eventual end as the republican's plans ... albeit at a slower pace. What Bernie represents is true change. There was a time when the democratic party truly was considered the party of the working class. Those lines have been blurred ever since the first Clinton took office. Bernie represents a chance for the blue collar workers to take back the party that used to represent us. You insinuate that sHillary is poised to take the democratic party to the next level. If the "next level" you speak of is to slide even further to the right than the democratic party already has over the last 20 to 30 years, I reject the idea in favor of Bernie taking US, the working class, to the next level instead.
 
 
+7 # Nominae 2016-02-18 19:22
Quoting dsepeczi:
...I reject the idea in favor of Bernie taking US, the working class, to the next level instead.


Wonderfully well thought out and beautifully expressed commentary from start to finish.

Perhaps tragically wasted upon a Clintonista propagandist, but an *excellent* read for anyone with an actual open mind.

Because it IS so well done, I would like to attempt to "have your back" with the observation that you might want to check definition for the meaning of the word "eschew". As used above, it changes what seems to be your overall view to the opposite of what I think you may have intended to communicate.

Cheers !
 
 
+2 # dsepeczi 2016-02-19 12:23
Quoting NOMINAE:
Quoting dsepeczi:
...I reject the idea in favor of Bernie taking US, the working class, to the next level instead.


Wonderfully well thought out and beautifully expressed commentary from start to finish.

Perhaps tragically wasted upon a Clintonista propagandist, but an *excellent* read for anyone with an actual open mind.

Because it IS so well done, I would like to attempt to "have your back" with the observation that you might want to check definition for the meaning of the word "eschew". As used above, it changes what seems to be your overall view to the opposite of what I think you may have intended to communicate.

Cheers !


I had a bit of a "short circuit" there, Nominae. I meant "espouse", not "eschew". Totally opposite meaning. Lol. Thanks for pointing out my error.
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2016-02-19 17:47
Quoting dsepeczi:
I had a bit of a "short circuit" there, Nominae. I meant "espouse", not "eschew". Totally opposite meaning. Lol. Thanks for pointing out my error.


I am myself absolutely no stranger to the "short circuit" ! ;-D Happy to "cover your six" whenever possible !
 
 
-2 # Crebbafrabitz 2016-02-18 15:31
IDIOTIC COMMENT! Based on NOTHING remotely near fact nor reality of how the screwed-up two-party corporate political system works!!! Your boy Trump sure is a real American fucking hero, isn't he?!
 
 
+11 # nice2bgreat 2016-02-18 16:01
.
Quoting NRESQ:
I continue to wonder why Bernie chose to run as a Democrat.


Interesting that you "continue to wonder" about "why Bernie chose to run as a Democrat".

I am sure that it's been explained, splained, you been told, it's been suggested -- maybe, possibly (however unlikely) you formed some independent conclusions, such as expediency.

And, do you agree, that, to win the 2016 Democratic nomination for President, that Bernie Sanders' only "realistic" path to the Presidency was from within one of the two major Parties?

Does it track, that, if dopes are willing to hound the carpet-bagger charge, these dirt-bags would certainly mega-phone the "spoiler" meme?

And you go on and on over moot and irrelevant, masturbatory speculation, for those whose only inclination is to disrupt Bernie Sanders' campaign.

It is the same defeatism and hubris, the same stealth attacks that don't name Hillary as their preferred candidate -- nor are comparisons made between Clinton and Sanders -- with only rhetorical reservations over the most trite details.

And finally we get to what it's all about, the schmuckish corporatists want to keep his/her say, even after the revolution.

The same defeatist, corporatist windbags, rather than thankful for being gifted Sanders in spite of them, they want to keep their places at the trough, still reigning over the Party, even in defeat -- exactly as Republicans want another Scalia during a Democratic Presidency.
.
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-02-18 19:24
"The Obama coalition has won the past 2 elections by historic margins."

That's just not true, by most any metric. Both 2008 and 2012 were close elections both in terms of popular vote and electoral votes.

It is true that Obama got more votes in 2008 than any other candidate in history, he got about 8 million fewer votes in 2012.

People who voted Democrat in huge numbers in 2008, taking both the White House and huge majorities in both Houses of Congress, were so disenchanted with the "centrist" governing of those shills refused to reward the Democratic Party with their votes after 2008.

As a result, first the "Obama coalition" lost the House and then they lost the Senate.

Sanders may bring those voters back, and is clearly adding many new ones.
 
 
+8 # lfeuille 2016-02-18 20:46
A large portion of the party has been clamoring for an unapologetic economic progressive for a very long time. It just happened the Bernie was the first to answer the call.
 
 
+7 # Jegrinnan 2016-02-18 10:49
What a stupid analysis. African American voters, just like white voters, should be able to dispassionately survey the political landscape and make an informed, rational analysis as to which party (or candidate within that party) is best for the country and incidentally best represents their own interests. In this day and age, with the Republican party in the hands of racists and tireless vote suppressors, this isn't a difficult choice. Whatever shortcomings the democratic party may have, they are infinitely superior to the backward and retrograde views of the modern day Republican party. This talk of "plantations" is just self defeating, anti progressive and ultimately stupid. Instead of prating on about unidentified, un-named "party bosses" progressives, black and white, need to at least resolve to ultimately unite around whoever is nominated. It can be Sanders or it can be Clinton. In the end it shouldn't even matter. Either one is miles preferable to the fearsome darkness represented to any of the three likely Republican choices.
 
 
+9 # economagic 2016-02-18 10:57
"It can be Sanders or it can be Clinton. In the end it shouldn't even matter. Either one is miles preferable to the fearsome darkness represented to any of the three likely Republican choices."

It is precisely that claim that many persons white and black, including a good many "yellow dog Democrats," challenged in 2012 (voting for Green party candidate Jill Stein) and will likely do again this year. Many people see Clinton (and also Clinton) as being much closer to Jeb! if not necessarily his current opponents than to Sanders, much less to a real leftist. Sanders could have fit nicely into the Republican party of the 1950s.
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-02-18 20:55
Oh, I don't think so. Aside from high marginal tax rates, which Bernie advocates and the 1950's Republican Party inherited and never bothered to challenge, these is very little similarity. 1950's Republicans were very status quo and Bernie is anything but.
 
 
+26 # Buddha 2016-02-18 11:01
It is your analysis that misses the mark. Because the situation for African-America ns and Hispanics with today's Democratic Party is really not that different than for us in the Progressive Wing. The Democratic Party Establishment has for decades now been able to count on the AA, Hispanic, and Progressive Wing vote not because the policies they have worked to achieve have been necessarily focused on helping African-America ns or Hispanics nor have they been particularly Progressive, but because that Establishment always says just what you did: "Whatever shortcomings the democratic party may have, they are infinitely superior to the backward and retrograde views of the modern day Republican party". In essence, absolute indifference towards the plight of African-America ns and Hispanics is better than the outright hostility towards them from the GOP. And then you wonder why more and more African-America ns, Hispanics, and Progressives are getting fed up with the Democratic Establishment? There comes a time to nut up, or shut up. Just being better than the GOP by some incremental margin isn't good enough. The only way to move the Democratic Establishment Left, and force it to actually do something positive for African-America ns and Hispanics, is for the Democratic Establishment to realize it could actually LOSE our vote. Otherwise, we are just taken for granted, no different than the rube low-information working class GOP voter is on the other side.
 
 
+8 # Crebbafrabitz 2016-02-18 11:38
"Whatever shortcomings the democratic party may have, they are infinitely superior to the backward and retrograde views of the modern day Republican party."

I'm not sure that will pass the smell test in this day and age with the rightward movement of the Damnocrats. FDR was pretty much the last of the REAL Democratic presidents, who focused on "We the People" FIRST!!!
 
 
+13 # reiverpacific 2016-02-18 11:46
Quoting Crebbafrabitz:
"Whatever shortcomings the democratic party may have, they are infinitely superior to the backward and retrograde views of the modern day Republican party."

I'm not sure that will pass the smell test in this day and age with the rightward movement of the Damnocrats. FDR was pretty much the last of the REAL Democratic presidents, who focused on "We the People" FIRST!!!


I'd say Jimmy Carter was the last -and he was NO "Dixiecrat".
 
 
+11 # Crebbafrabitz 2016-02-18 12:01
O.K. I agree. I started to use his name but did not. I stand corrected...GLA DLY!
 
 
+4 # Billsy 2016-02-18 14:48
Much as I currently admire Carter the statesman, as President he was unfortunately in the thrall of the deregulation enthusiasts, undermined and unlucky in his efforts to free the embassy hostages in Iran, indifferent to relations with the U.S. press who in turn loathed him and a notorious micro-manager in the White House. Couple that with an unprecedented stagflation economy and soaring petrol prices and an easily duped electorate he failed to win a second term. I recall Mondale as being the last "New Deal" hurrah of the democratic party.
 
 
+4 # Billsy 2016-02-18 14:43
There is nothing "stupid" in an analysis of the limited choices typically offered in our corrupt (by unlimited campaign funding) 2 party system.
 
 
+16 # Trish42 2016-02-18 11:05
A few months ago I read an article about the racist southern strategy currently being employed by the GOP state operative. Their ultimate goal is to make the D (Democrat) by a candidate for any office = Black. The modern GOP is a safe haven for latent racists, especially in the South, accomplished through ALEC laws and gerrymandering. How many democratic governors can you name? How many state, city, and county officials?

Yes, we need change, but not the regressive kind touted by the top GOP candidates, who present us with a choice between Mussolini-Trump , Joe McCarthy-Cruz, and Cheney-Rubio.
 
 
+1 # Nell H 2016-02-18 11:18
Stop whining and look at the changes President Obama, a Democrat, has made. Look at TWO black attorneys general. Look at a black rep. to the U.N. Look at the honor and respect given to President Obama and his wife.

Maybe the progress has not been as much as some people wanted, but it has been substantial.
 
 
-4 # Crebbafrabitz 2016-02-18 11:40
Even though Obama turned out to be Oliar. (i.e. GUANTANAMO!)
 
 
# Guest 2016-02-18 12:12
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+7 # Nominae 2016-02-18 19:38
Quoting NRESQ:
What a dick you are, Crabby.


Gawd ! I just LOVE IT when someone of *your* ilk presumes to call ANYONE else a "dick", unless you are addressing your own reflection in a mirror ! ;-D

What happened, did "doo-doo face" defeat the limited range of your Two-Second-Grad ers-In-A-Sandbo x vocabulary ?

Your effete and impotent name calling does nothing but detract from your every post, and simply serves to expose the true "value" of the vapid and inane comment itself.

Thank you for revealing your true essence by providing the reader with such a transparent lens into what apparently passes for your "character".
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-02-18 19:42
"Two black attorney's general" who refused to prosecute a single one of the banksters who brought the West's economy to its knees and stole $14 trillion dollars from the US public.

Eric Holder investigated the Cleveland Police Department and found they were guilty of systemic racism, brutality and indefensible killings. So what did Holder do? Asked them to police themselves better.

And the punch-in-the-gu t line is that Holder released his findings on the day of the Memorial Service for 12 year old Tamir Rice.

Holder also investigated the Fergusson PD after the Mike Brown killing and found they too were systemically racist, brutal and murderous, and on top of that, were milking the poor, black community for absurd fines.

But Holder also found that the one Fergusson cop who was NOT a racist happened to be the one who shot to death Mike Brown.

Yeah, great "progress" there, Neil.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-02-18 21:00
Unfortunately, those 2 black attorney generals were/are too reluctant to go after corporate bigwigs and cops. That doesn't seem much like progress to me, regardless of the race of the AGs.
 
 
+22 # danireland46 2016-02-18 11:34
The Clinton Campaign would love to believe that black voters are not supporting Bernie Sanders. The fact is, many important blacks support Bernie. The list includes: Ta-Nehisi Coates, Michelle Alexander, Rep. Keith Ellison, Ben Jealous, Dr. Cornel West, Rep. Justin T. Bamberg, and many others.
Looking back to when HRC was first lady and her hubby cut back welfare for struggling black families, initiated NAFTA, sending jobs overseas and put millions of blacks in prison with the 3 strike rule; knowledgeable blacks realize Clinton isn't their friend, Bernie is.
 
 
+6 # Crebbafrabitz 2016-02-18 11:41
Exactly! Now...how do you open their eyes before it is too late and we end up with another lying Clinton?!
 
 
# Guest 2016-02-18 13:39
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-1 # Caliban 2016-02-20 17:53
Saquon--Thanks for your important memo. The more people who take it to heart--and to their rhetorical practice--the better our ideas and discussions will be as well.
 
 
+5 # pegasus4508 2016-02-18 17:04
It is not even the Clinton campaign. It is the media that keeps repeating that lie about black voters. Black voters support Hillary AND Bernie!
 
 
+13 # djnova50 2016-02-18 11:59
My sister lives in Florida. Years ago, when GWB was running for re-election, she told me that she was voting for him because he was against abortion. I asked her if the fact that he is against abortion makes him pro-life. She replied that it did. When I asked her, if GWB is such a pro-lifer, why does he continually want to send troops to the Middle East and put them at risk for dying. She had no answer.

This time around, she has said that she's kind of leaning towards Bush or Rubio. I told her that I was voting for Bernie because he is the only one, on either side of the political fence, who most closely matches where I stand on the issues that affect all Americans.
 
 
# Guest 2016-02-18 12:17
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+7 # Billsy 2016-02-18 14:52
If RSN is such a polemic site, then why do you keep reading its articles and posting ignored or vilified comments? You're not changing any hearts & minds with your incendiary rhetoric and name-calling.
 
 
+7 # nice2bgreat 2016-02-18 17:50
.
It's interesting how you construe the fight "for" something, as the fight against.

And FoxNews has a reputation for making false claims, aside from their partisan support.

Please, rather than unfounded accusation and hyperbole, explain RSN's assault on journalism.

Clearly -- FOR STATED REASONS, INCLUDING ENDORSEMENT -- RSN, by it's coverage of Sanders on the campaign trail, is providing news and insights from Bernie Sanders' campaign.

Stephen Colbert described "reality" as having a "liberal bias".

Is this the "bias" you are witnessing?

And surely, someone of your irreproachable character has been railing against corporate media's blackout of Sanders' entire candidacy, all through the time when the Republican elephant wasn't the only elephant in the room?

And you do go on, and much like Stephen Colbert's critique of GW Bush as being a man of consistency; in that, Bush has the same view on Wednesday as he did on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday.

And I doubt Marc "wonder ... why" RSN has to "beg for donations". Most people are well aware of how far the deck is stacked against non-corporatists.

Only a fool would imply some sort of shame in scraping together the means to fight the good fight.
.
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-02-18 19:48
Quoting NRESQ:
..... I could go on.

But why bother. RSN has become the Fox News of the Bernie campaign.

And you wonder, Marc, why you're always having to beg for donations.


No, I *HEAR* ya, Slick !

If I were you, I wouldn't spend one more SECOND on this site ! REALLY ! ;-D

THAT'll show 'em ! You *GO*, Cowboy !
 
 
-7 # Jegrinnan 2016-02-18 12:28
all I can hope is that these several posts are come from rigid brain dead zealots, who are not in fact representative of true progressives. I have my doubts, though. Am more and more inclined to think that they come from Republican trolls. Post after post is redolent of the stench of tea party lunacy -- same rigidity, same inability to face reality, same magical thinking, same anger, same dead end insistence on impossible things.
 
 
+7 # newell 2016-02-18 16:00
"Insistence on impossible things". ........That's exactly what they said about independence, abolition, suffrage and civil rights. Mainstream politics didn't work for these and it won't work for the earth's problems and the present plutocracy. Really Fido, you don't see the difference between Trump and Sanders?
 
 
+1 # sea7kenp 2016-02-19 19:38
"...insistence on impossible things"? Like an African American President?
 
 
+7 # Patriot 2016-02-18 15:12
Without RSN, you would not be able to read this article unless you subscribed to the magazine in which it was published...for a lot more than $5!

Please subscribe to RSN today, and pledge just $5 or $10 per month. Set up your pledge as a funds transfer without a termination date. Voila! You'll never need to do it again.

If everyone who reads RSN--READER Supported News--would pledge only $5 or $10 per month, the folks at RSN could spend more time and resources bringing us news, and would rest better at night, too! Don't forget, they enjoy sleeping indoors and eating regularly just as much as you do.

Many of us who read RSN want the superrich to pay only their fair share of the money it takes to run the country. Won't you pay even a tiny amount for the ability to read a broad range of real news--not informercial writing--from all over the world, without ads?

Please contribute TODAY. Don't wait until RSN announces it is closing its doors because it hasn't enough money to continue operating.
 
 
# Guest 2016-02-18 17:45
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+5 # DrD 2016-02-19 04:46
Are you being deliberately obtuse? A few articles on RSN are original pieces, written for RSN. The majority of articles are from a wide range of sources. A quick scan of RSN emails shows articles originally published in: The New Yorker, Tom's Dispatch, Rolling Stone, The Guardian, Vice News, Grist, Politico, Scientific American ...

Please everyone support RSN with a monthly donation as Patriot suggests. We need this site!!
 
 
# Guest 2016-02-20 08:38
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-02-20 08:43
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+3 # sea7kenp 2016-02-19 19:42
I'm at the $15 a month level. And I don't agree with every article, that RSN publishes. But, as a whole, and in my opinion, it beats a lot of the "competition" out there.
 
 
-2 # Shades of gray matter 2016-02-19 01:31
The exchanges on RSN are supposed to help all of us LEARN, consider, RECONSIDER. I find the banal, knee JERK, information and analysis challenged Comments FAR MORE offense than a little FU. Every person who responds to a serious Comment or question with, "Well, I'M voting for Bernie/Hillary and there's NOTHING anyone can say that would change MY mind,"(mind?)is really saying FU, or FU & F-Off. We are not babies or prudes. We can tell who is really being dismissive.
 
 
-2 # RNLDaWy 2016-02-19 13:51
True stuff however to clarify. You'll hear Republicans today claim including Sean Hannity that they championed civil rights via Lincoln who in that era was a Republican. Timed with that the Dixiecrats who disagreed with Lincoln became Democrats & became the party of institutional racism post Lincoln's actions freeing of the slaves. Those factions then became Republicans post the civil rights movement and reversal of institutionaliz ed racism in the South and those members changed respective parties. Then on Southern Democrats became the party of change and Southern Republicans the opposition to that. Also the hate of Southern Republicans is for the civil war which took place in their backyards .. and northern white Yankee money changers dictating policies to them. Hence you have the anti government hate you see in that region that still exists today ....
 

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