RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "You MUST see what CNN reported last night. It's very disturbing, and you need to know about it right now."

Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: BernieSanders.com)
Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: BernieSanders.com)


The Clinton Campaign's New Strategy: 'Forget the Base, Disqualify Sanders'

By Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News

07 April 16

 

This comes from Bernie Sanders campaign manager, Jeff Weaver.

ou MUST see what CNN reported last night. It's very disturbing, and you need to know about it right now.

"The Clinton campaign has been watching these Wisconsin results come in, and the delegate race of course is tight there, but the reality is they're running out of patience. So they're going to begin deploying a new strategy, it’s going to be called disqualify him, defeat him and then they can unify the party later."

Disqualify him, defeat him, and unify the party later.

One more time. This is the Clinton campaign's strategy going forward: Disqualify Bernie, defeat our movement, and pick up the pieces later.

We have to get ready for the Clinton campaign's attacks. We're on the path to the nomination, and now they're going to try to block it with super PACs, billionaires, and everything else they've got.

Bernie's running this campaign a different way. We don't have a super PAC. We're not launching any negative attacks.

We're bringing together millions of people in a political revolution that has won seven of the last eight contests and breaks records at every turn. The political establishment hates what we're doing, and now it's clear the Clinton campaign is going to do everything in its power to stop us.

We can't let up now.

https://go.berniesanders.com/

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

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

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

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

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

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

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+211 # Indie 2016-04-07 08:55
This is not a very smart move on the part of the Clinton campaign. It makes her seem more unlikable at the very least. Disagreeing with policies is acceptable but personal attacks or distortions of his record can backfire.
 
 
+124 # lorenbliss 2016-04-07 09:43
However, it is precisely what one would expect from a deep-cover Goldwater Girl -- a fascist, imperialist, nuke-'em-till-t hey-glow sleeper-agent who is now fully operational.
 
 
+87 # Douglas Jack 2016-04-07 09:48
Lorenbliss, RE: "precisely what one would expect from a deepcover Goldwater-Girl" FOLLOW HILARY'S MONEY,
‘Young Turks’ Shows How DNC & 33 State Parties Used Loopholes to Put Millions Into ‘Hillary Fund’ 6Apr’16, Alexandra Rosenmann / AlterNet 9min. http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/young_turks_reveals_how_dnc_and_33_states_used_loopholes_hillary_20160406
 
 
+36 # Douglas Jack 2016-04-07 11:11
Note that the Truthdig website which I tried to paste above is truncated so won't take you directly to the video.
Instead Google: 'Young Turks' show How DNC & 33 State Parties Used Loopholes to Put Millions Into 'Hillary Fund'
 
 
-78 # Barbara K 2016-04-07 13:54
Don't forget to check out Bernie's secret PACs.

..
 
 
+55 # Juanbaltimore 2016-04-07 14:02
What secret PAC's? So secret you can't name them?
 
 
-72 # Barbara K 2016-04-07 14:10
He has them.
 
 
+63 # Juanbaltimore 2016-04-07 14:29
In other words, you can't name them. If you can't, then stop the misinformation.
 
 
-56 # lights 2016-04-07 15:07
Juanbaltimore:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/01/bernie-sanders-super-pac-money-democratic-rivals.html

He also continues to take money from BIG Gas and Oil but says it doesn't count because it is only from individuals within the industry.

He has also been cited by the FEC (Federal Election Commission) more than once for breaking the election rules - which limit the total amount to $2700 from individual donors. He is going over that amount yet says he is going to get "WALL STREET to play by the rules!."

Also cited by the FEC for taking money from outside of the U.S. from unregistered political committees.

The point: BS followers often ACT and SPEAK against HRC as the real competition, the sleazy Republicans do. They often even say they do not care if they compromise the outcome of this upcoming election. If you don't like it. STOP IT!

Hypocracy: Now Sanders who said there will be"no negative campaigning" is today saying Clinton is not qualified to be President? It is laughable. Doesn't Weaver care about Sanders credibility? How much lower can you go? He lies saying he is doing it because she accused him of not being qualified. She did NOT!

So, if BS followers want to keep it up. EXPECT others to do their homework on Bernie Sanders!
 
 
+47 # Ken Halt 2016-04-07 16:54
lights: Bunch of baloney. I used the link you provided and all I can say is that if you believe everything you read it would be better for you to stop reading. HRC's PACs are funded by Wall St and fossil fuel. ExxonMobil is the richest corporation in the history of the world. We're talking big bucks! A busload of nurses is helping Bernie in Iowa and you think it's a big deal and unfair to HRC?
 
 
+37 # lfeuille 2016-04-07 17:03
Accurately describing an opposing candidate's views and record is not negative campaigning. Hillary is not royalty. She is not above criticism just because she's a Clinton or just because she's a woman.
 
 
+63 # grandlakeguy 2016-04-07 17:35
Hey I was at my local gas station and the guy who works there for $10 per hour saw my Bernie bumper sticker and told me he was a Sanders supporter and had contributed $20.
Is this the money from the oil and gas industry that Hillary was accusing Bernie of accepting?
 
 
+21 # Billy Bob 2016-04-07 22:02
It appears so.
 
 
+31 # Ken Halt 2016-04-07 19:07
lights: To confirm, I made the webtrip to the site you linked, "Politicususa", a site with the header "real liberal politics". I invite anyone else on this thread to do the same, you will find the content to be mainstream Democratic. I don't know where the $$ comes from but my instinct says a PAC linked to HRC or the DNC. In the article lights linked to, this assertion is made: "As a matter of pure uncontested fact, there has been more super PAC money spent thus far in express support of the Sanders campaign than for either one of his Democratic rivals." There is a link in that statement to another site which turns out to be that (snark alert!) great bastion of liberality, the NYT. In the list of articles offered at the site there is no mention of the Politicususa claim. In other words, this farcical claim is totally unsubstantiated ! Someone named "lights" didn't do their homework and is being called out for what appear to be bogus charges. I went to the FEC site and found that HRC's campaign has more money than Bernie's (no surprise there) but that campaign contributions in the under $200 range are YUUGE!, totaling almost $306 million, and fueled in no small way by Bernie's grass roots support. WE're doing a great job of supporting Bernie, folks, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK EVERYBODY! WE NOT ME!
 
 
+15 # Jose1848 2016-04-07 20:08
Sanders at this point has over six million individual contributors. Even a tiny percentage of six million is in the thousands. So when someone tells you Sanders has received improper contributions, of course he has. With that many contributors it is inevitable there will be a tiny proportion of contributions which are red-flagged by the FEC. Let's be reasonable.
 
 
+26 # Billy Bob 2016-04-07 22:03
The difference being that Hillary actually COURTS them, grants them favors, has secret meetings with them, and throws banquets with them where an individual plate costs $350,000.
 
 
+5 # GreenBee 2016-04-10 03:29
Sanders stated his reasoning behind his statement that she is "unqualified." I think a woman who completely misjudged the mood of the electorate by cozying up to and taking huge money from the very institutions that people on the left having the gravest of concerns about (the big banks, Monsanto,big oil. Trade Pact players) suggests she has some significant judgement issues - is out of touch.

And as for "dirty campaigning" HRC lies about Sanders as she did about his healthcare policy intentions (see debate 3), even had her daughter out doing same. And that lie was so preposterous that only the lowest information voters would have fallen for it, but I guess there a are a lot of those out there. Then in that debate she accused him of making an "artful smear" when he was being completely upfront and clear about his issues with her. And Bill Clinton showed up at polling places and talked up his wife with voters coming and going - a clear violation of election laws. But there was no sanctions from the party or any law enforcement officials.

Despite these judgement and honesty issues, she is a lousy environmentalis t having no commitment to sustainable agriculture or protecting our water resources. This alone is enough IMO to disqualify anyone from leading this country at this very critical time.
 
 
# Guest 2016-04-07 15:30
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+7 # Capn Canard 2016-04-09 09:37
No Juan, it's even more secret. Those Benie PACs are so super, extra-super secret that they don't exist.
 
 
# Guest 2016-04-09 09:39
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+12 # Krackonis 2016-04-07 11:27
Why does anyone pretend establishment candidates are not CIA agents?... I mean so many of them are clearly suspicious....


Look at politicians in the real world and then look at these people who get talking points delivered by courier in the dead of night from "on high"....
 
 
0 # Rain17 2016-04-10 05:37
This Goldwater Girl smear gets old. She was a teenager at the
 
 
+1 # tm7devils39 2016-04-10 14:10
So?...How often do the spots REALLY change?
 
 
0 # jcdav 2016-04-12 07:26
Well, mine have.... I worked for BG when I was young, was registered Rep till nixon, was independent till Regan and Dem since. IF the party splits I would go with the Progressive party as opposed to the DNC's Corporatist party.
 
 
+76 # Johnny 2016-04-07 10:07
I disagree. Hillary Clinton couldn't possibly seem more unlikable.
 
 
-153 # rocback 2016-04-07 10:32
Don't believe this pro Bernie Sanders website. Every day there is a new article pumping Sanders. It is only weakening our eventual nominee and taking away needed funds for the general election. The rest of the country will not elect a 75 year old socialist.
 
 
+117 # grandlakeguy 2016-04-07 10:43
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST to you rocback!
Remember FDR? He also was a Democratic Socialist and was elected President four times.
 
 
-27 # ericlipps 2016-04-07 17:25
Quoting grandlakeguy:
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST to you rocback!
Remember FDR? He also was a Democratic Socialist and was elected President four times.

FDR must be spinning in his grave.

Not once, NOT ONCE did he CALL HIMSELF a socialist, nor by all accounts did he think of himself that way. And some of his top advisers came right out of the banking industry. FDR was a pragmatic liberal--so pragmatic that to get a federal minimum wage bill passed, he cut a deal with Southern senators to exempt agricultural workers. Why did the Southerners want this? Because so many of their white plantation farmers' slaves, er, workers were black, and they were DAMNED if they were going to pay "those people" the same as whites.

Could Bernie Sanders settle for half a loaf at the expense of his socialist principles, or would it be war to the knife between him and Congress?
 
 
+32 # Billy Bob 2016-04-07 22:06
"Not once, NOT ONCE did he CALL HIMSELF a socialist, nor by all accounts did he think of himself that way."

Nope. He just governed as one. His actions spoke louder than his words, and propelled him to his huge popularity, and made him the greatest president this country ever had.

If he's paying attention to Clinton, and thinking of her as "the frontrunner", I'm sure he IS spinning in his grave.

FDR and HRC could not be more opposite.
 
 
+12 # Salus Populi 2016-04-08 11:18
Quoting ericlipps:
Could Bernie Sanders settle for half a loaf at the expense of his socialist principles, or would it be war to the knife between him and Congress?


Check his record in Congress: the "Amendment King" was well known for reaching across the aisle and finding common ground to make incremental improvements. His "socialism," a blend of tried and true policies carried out for decades by the Scandinavian countries and good old fashioned FDR-style progressivism, has never gotten in the way of pragmatically working to advance social change in favor of the common folk -- you know, the people that until the ascendancy of the DINOS and DLC were the constituency of the Democrats.
 
 
+4 # GreenBee 2016-04-10 03:36
"Could Bernie Sanders settle for half a loaf at the expense of his socialist principles, or would it be war to the knife between him and Congress?

According to Politifact: (a site that is non-partisan and checks the factual accuracy of statements) Sanders passed more roll call amendments than any other Senator under a Republican controlled congress. He found a way around their obstructionism with this strategy.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/
 
 
+78 # Charles3000 2016-04-07 11:08
Bernie does need to start hitting hard at HRC where she is vulnerable.Firs t, her failed neocon foreign policy that has given us Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine and the chaos that is in Honduras now. Second, her refusal to take on the banks by reinstating Glass-Steagall and getting rid of to big to fail banks. Third, her coziness with private health insurance companies and her refusal to consider getting rid of that cancer on our health care system. Those issues plus her support of fracking will disqualify her in the eyes of any rational person.
 
 
+51 # Linda 2016-04-07 11:54
Quoting Charles3000:
Bernie does need to start hitting hard at HRC where she is vulnerable.First, her failed neocon foreign policy that has given us Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine and the chaos that is in Honduras now. Second, her refusal to take on the banks by reinstating Glass-Steagall and getting rid of to big to fail banks. Third, her coziness with private health insurance companies and her refusal to consider getting rid of that cancer on our health care system. Those issues plus her support of fracking will disqualify her in the eyes of any rational person.


Actually Bernie has brought up these issues in debates before and Hills went ballistic .
 
 
+24 # lfeuille 2016-04-07 17:05
His brought them up rather politely and she still went ballistic.
 
 
-37 # Barbara K 2016-04-07 14:13
C 3000:
She is RUNNING for President. Just what do you think a candidate can do who is not in the government? Wake up.

..
 
 
+27 # dsepeczi 2016-04-07 14:48
Quoting Barbara K:
C 3000:
She is RUNNING for President. Just what do you think a candidate can do who is not in the government? Wake up.

..


Wake up ? You DO realize that all the war decisions that Hillary came out on the wrong side of already happened, don't you ? She's already stated she's against reinstating Glass-Steagall. Do you realize that too ? Lastly, her coziness with Wall Street is legendary and she doesn't even try to deny she's heavily funded by them, though she downplays it and says it won't alter her decision-making . Charles 3000 didn't need Hillary to be POTUS to be correct on each one of his criticisms. IF you don't realize this, then it is you who needs to wake up.
 
 
-40 # Barbara K 2016-04-07 15:33
You do realize that she DID NOT say that Bernie is disqualified, don't you? He owes her an apology. Watch the news. I just saw it again on there. The newspaper put up a false headline. He needs to check out his information better, or just thought he was handed another lie to use against her.
As far as Wall St. She was their senator for 8 years. Of course she would have contact with them, and she tried to stop them from crashing the economy.

..
 
 
+24 # lfeuille 2016-04-07 17:10
It is her campaign strategy to disqualify him. That is what they are trying to do. They have not succeeded. It was not cited as a direct quote from Clinton. Bernie never said she said it. It was a strategy change attributed to the campaign. Read it again.
 
 
+22 # grandlakeguy 2016-04-07 18:38
Yes Hillary was indeed Senator of Wall Street and when our economy was headed for a collapse she put down her foot and said:

"STOP IT" (her quote)

She sure showed them didn't she?
 
 
+12 # RLF 2016-04-08 06:34
She was wall st.'s senator...and their's alone!
 
 
+14 # dsepeczi 2016-04-08 07:24
Quoting Barbara K:
You do realize that she DID NOT say that Bernie is disqualified, don't you? He owes her an apology. Watch the news. I just saw it again on there. The newspaper put up a false headline. He needs to check out his information better, or just thought he was handed another lie to use against her.
As far as Wall St. She was their senator for 8 years. Of course she would have contact with them, and she tried to stop them from crashing the economy.

..


No, she only "questioned" it. Kind of like when Fox News doesn't come out and say Obama is a Muslim, they say something like "Obama. Is he a Muslim ?" This is all splitting hairs, anyway, and if you think that's a campaign issue, then you really have your priorities out of whack. On the one hand, we have a candidate that's taking massive amounts of donations from Wall Street, has shown herself to be a bigger Hawk than Obama, favors nearly every trade agreement that crosses in front of her, representing all that's gone wrong with this country over the last 20 to 30 years or so. On the other hand, we have a candidate that has consistently opposed job killing trade agreements, whether introduced by dems or repugs, favors bringing America's health care system out of the dark ages and favors reinstating Glass-Steagall to avoid another global economic meltdown. If you'd vote for "the establishment candidate" because of the petty complaint you bring up ... wow ! That's all I can say. Wow !
 
 
+3 # GreenBee 2016-04-10 03:41
Quoting Barbara K:
You do realize that she DID NOT say that Bernie is disqualified, don't you? He owes her an apology.

..


I believe she is unqualified for the same reasons he has stated. I have a right to my opinion as does he. She hasn't apologized for the blatant sshe has told about him.
 
 
+11 # Ken Halt 2016-04-07 19:17
Barbara: C3000 is referring to some of HRC's publicly declared positions such as her reliance on Dodd-Frank to repair Wall St, instead of breaking up banks and reinstating Glass-Steagall, fighting against single payer healthcare, etc. He is also referring to votes and policy she made while senator and SOS, a matter of record and in many people's eyes, poor judgement. She doesn't need to be president to be vetted on her record and her stated intention of policy.
 
 
-35 # lights 2016-04-07 15:38
Lies and distortions about Hillary Rodham Clinton directly affects Sanders credibility! Also makes him less electable! What does Weaver think? Does he think this crap is not going to be noticed?
 
 
-34 # Barbara K 2016-04-07 17:25
Lights:
Yes, it absolutely affects his credibility. I had much more respect for him before he started his lies. That is what the Rs do, we don't need a Dem leader to lie like the Rs do. They even made up the claim that she is out to disqualify him. While she is much more qualified, the only one who can disqualify him is himself, and lying about her is not helping him.


..
 
 
+13 # Ken Halt 2016-04-08 01:48
lights and BK: The trouble with your argument is that Bernie's long record bespeaks an integrity and credibility that is unimpeachably consistent over decades of political, on-the-record life. If Bernie is saying it, it has meaning! HRC's long record of flipflop, poor judgement, and holding her finger to the wind has, unfortunately for her presidential hopes, also been public and on-the-record. I would trust her on women's rights issues only, and while important, Bernie has a pretty good record there, too.
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-04-08 12:04
I think the HRC is desperate and the campaign has now moved from polite Wisconsin to rough-and-tumbl e New York. HRC's new strategy was trotted out, and the Sanders campaign responded. Now they know he is not just a punching bag.

I saw campaign manager Jeff Weaver on MSNBC and he was brilliant.

I don't think the HRC people will underestimate the response next time.
 
 
+2 # GreenBee 2016-04-10 03:43
Blatant lies about Sanders will and have affected HRC's credibility.
 
 
+36 # Charles3000 2016-04-07 11:13
There are people who are not Socialists. They are called "hermits."
 
 
+13 # Polisage 2016-04-07 11:41
Godless capitalism. Mammon must be served.
 
 
+72 # m... 2016-04-07 11:26
Sanders is not a Socialist. He's is a diehard NEW DEAL DEMOCRAT.
The modern Democratic Party turned into Ostriches when Reagan came along and began destroying The New Deal. So, they largely became the 'Go Along to Get Along' Party.
Remember the New Deal? I do. I grew up and came of age under it. I can actually compare The New Deal to the current Raw Deal. The New Deal was a VERY Capitalistic Policy System Infused with many Socialist Policies. It was an all inclusive Policy System; a Holistic Legal-Regulator y-Political-Eco nomic-Social Policy System. Out of it rose the largest, most prosperous Middle Class in human history living in the Greatest Infrastructure the world had ever seen. Poverty rates declined year after year. Homelessness became rare. Healthcare was accessible and affordable. Food, Water and Drugs became 'Legal Safe' for the first time. Education was top of the line as were the students graduating. Equality grew. Inequality shrank. We actually became the 'Great society' in the eyes of most of the world. And, we overcame a Great Depression and fought and won a World War in the process.
Then the Trickle-Down-Re ganomic Bomb was dropped on America. The fallout ever since has ground our country down so much that Trickle Down devolved into a meaningless, wasting 'Ideology' that stands for nothing more than- 'Hey America, Let's Have a Race to the Bottom, Hate Each Other With a Furious Passion and Worship Greed All Along the Way While We're Ripping It All Apart.'
 
 
+18 # Juanbaltimore 2016-04-07 14:07
mostly agree with this analysis, with the exception that it doesn't take into account the issue of race. The New Deal wasn't as good a deal for Black folks as for Whites. For a good read on this, read "When Affirmative Action Was White" by Ira Katz Nelson. If Bernie was more explicitly in tune with the Black experience in America, he would be doing better with the Black electorate. Still feeling the Bern.
 
 
+14 # lfeuille 2016-04-07 17:16
He calls himself a socialist. It is time to stop running away from the term. It is obvious people like what he is offering when they learn what it is. And the future is going to have to be even more socialistic than what he is proposing now in order to combat climate change and inequality. His program is just the first 8 years.
 
 
+14 # cymricmorty 2016-04-07 18:33
Socialism just isn't the political stigma it used to be in this country. Not so many people, especially the younger they are, really give a rat's anymore.
 
 
+12 # grandlakeguy 2016-04-07 18:41
Dear Ifeuille; he calls himself a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST!
There is a difference.
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-04-09 17:52
Democratic Socialist is a subcategory under Socialist. It is a more specific term, but "Socialist" is still valid.

My point is that we should be trying to combat the stigma attached to the word "socialist" not encourage it by endlessly insisting that adding "democratic" turns it into something totally different.
 
 
+59 # Krackonis 2016-04-07 11:28
You guys could use a little more Canada an a lot less crazy...

Socialists... those who bring you fire departments and roads.... Loonies...
 
 
+28 # Billsy 2016-04-07 12:58
Don't believe this website but trust the NYT, "all the news that fits" including lies about Iraq WMD, or CNN that never has more than 5 minutes per complex issue despite being a 24 hour news channel? Both of them have ignored or downplayed Sanders' campaign and its successes as long as possible. There's a revolution in motion to challenge corruption in politics. Either support it or get out of the way.
 
 
-31 # lights 2016-04-07 13:21
I'm totally with you rocback but actually Sanders really isn't 75 yet. He will however be 75 by the time of the convention.

I admit this last Sanders lie accusing Clinton of saying he was not qualified to be President is staggering. Frankly it surprises me that he would do it. He is either tired or Jeff Weaver is leading him down a road that is NOT GOOD!
 
 
+10 # Doc Mary 2016-04-07 20:57
He let himself get "gotcha-ed" by reporters. The Washington Post actually DID run a headline that said Clinton says Sanders unqualified. She never used PRECISELY those words. She said that anybody who can't say how to get to his goals shouldn't be president, and then she said he couldn't say how to get to his goals. 2+2.

That said, I don't think it's a good idea for him to keep on with this, and I hope he moves away from it. She was happy all day over it. Go back to the issues. Don't take the bait.
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2016-04-07 22:08
Whether she said those exact words is kind of missing the point. She said it, even if the words didn't come out verbatim.
 
 
+8 # Ken Halt 2016-04-08 02:00
lights: Sorry, HRC did it first, impugning Bernie in a subtle "he needs to do his homework" public statement. He replied in kind, with specific and particular instances of where her vaunted qualifications are actual culpabilities: taking money from Wall St, voting for Iraq war, supporting ruinous trade deals, etc. Her record is there for all to see, to her detriment. It disqualifies her from highest office and I'm pleased that Bernie called her out on it. I notice she hasn't mentioned her great friendship with war criminal Henry Kissinger recently.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2016-04-08 12:09
This is consistently how the HRC campaign works. They snidely insinuate some weakness of Sen. Sanders, then act wide-eyed that anyone misunderstood them.

Believe me. We DO NOT misunderstand you. We just reject you.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-04-08 12:08
This is largely a confrontation initiated by the HRC campaign and then gleefully goaded on by the press, who love the drama of it.

Watch the news. The reporter tries to get the candidate to insult the other one, and then they perpetuate the acrimony.

This campaign has revealed problems with both establishment parties AND the media.

I have to give Trump credit for taking on the media, even Fox.
 
 
+13 # Femihumanist 2016-04-07 13:37
Quoting rocback:
The rest of the country will not elect a 75 year old socialist.


They might if presented with the option of not voting at all because the candidate would have been a perpetual war perpetrator of any age.
 
 
+2 # Hooligan 2016-04-09 17:25
Quoting rocback:
Don't believe this pro Bernie Sanders website. Every day there is a new article pumping Sanders. It is only weakening our eventual nominee and taking away needed funds for the general election. The rest of the country will not elect a 75 year old socialist.

Hopefully they won't elect a 69 year old NEOCON!
 
 
0 # jcdav 2016-04-12 07:32
Well since the major media outlets do not cover him.it is useful to have a more independent news source..this is why the internet is important and why the 6 companies who own ALL other outlets are sooo interested in controlling the web..BTW if non mainstream news and opinions bother you - just stay in your phone booth and adjust your blinders accordingly.
 
 
-29 # lights 2016-04-07 13:40
Indie: At this moment what you are saying is not the truth! What's of more concern are the so far 124 people on this site who give you a thumbs up without making sure what you are saying is the TRUTH!

In fact, in this case Sanders is the one who is lying or Jeff Weaver completely misguided Sanders. I'd prefer to believe that Weaver misguided Sanders - I'd like to see Weaver FIRED for doing it because this is NOT good for Sanders credibility.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Sanders+says+clinton+not+qualified
 
 
+2 # GreenBee 2016-04-10 07:26
Did you have an equal concern for the truth when HRC said Bernie will get rid of Medicare. Medicaid and the ACA and he was nowhere too be found and didn't help her back in the 90's when she was trying to get Universal healthcare? Both of these were misrepresentati ons of the truth.
 
 
+32 # jdd 2016-04-07 14:13
Where have you been? This is a woman who has encouraged the bombing of country after country and tens of thousands of deaths. She led the way in turning Libya from a modernizing nation into a failed state and terrorist arsenal, never accepting responsibilty, let alone showing remorse.
 
 
-24 # Barbara K 2016-04-07 17:30
jdd: BS You have no idea what she did as SOS.


..
 
 
+9 # cymricmorty 2016-04-07 18:28
Barbara K
What is your idea of what she did as SoS?
 
 
+5 # Ken Halt 2016-04-08 02:01
BK: What HRC did as SOS is a matter of public record and there for all to see.
 
 
+2 # GreenBee 2016-04-10 03:50
Well, since you have no facts to offer us from "the public record" here are some about Hondurus from 4 different sources, And keep in mind that the "assassinations ' of opposition activists are still happening there, one happened last week. And also, after creating this mess of violence and instability, HRC refused to take any children fleeing for their lives from this region.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/secretary-of-state-hillar_b_9273712.html
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-needs-to-answer-for-her-actions-in-honduras-and-haiti/
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled
 
 
+2 # DrD 2016-04-10 07:27
Barbara k - here are some articles about what she did as SoS;

Arms sales to Saudi gov;

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Overthrow of Libya
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35222-exposing-the-libyan-agenda-a-closer-look-at-hillary-s-emails

Do these help clarify?
 
 
+3 # fletch1165 2016-04-10 01:15
She knows she's going to lose otherwise. She figures no one in the base will vote for Trump or Cruz. A lot of us long time Democrats are done with it though.

This new tactic illustrates how corrupt the party has become under Hillary and Debbie Wasserman Shultz. We can no longer accept widespread corporate cronyism and privatizing everything under the Hillary Administration which clearly would be beholding to its Wall Street donors.
 
 
+78 # Blackjack 2016-04-07 09:13
Let us all hope that others will see through the Clinton veil of "control the message and you control the messenger."
 
 
-55 # HowardMH 2016-04-07 10:03
How is that Hopie Changie been working out for you so far????
 
 
+23 # keenon the truth 2016-04-07 10:18
Needle's stuck again.
 
 
+8 # economagic 2016-04-07 11:56
Don't blame me: I voted Green both times. What's your excuse? Or your plan?
 
 
+42 # lmorneweck 2016-04-07 12:30
Quoting HowardMH:
How is that Hopie Changie been working out for you so far????

Not as well as we'd hoped, therefore we're not enthusiastic about 4-8 more years of it under Clinton. This time we're hoping for real change and supporting Bernie.
 
 
+3 # fletch1165 2016-04-10 01:22
McCain didn't get his Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran campaign. Hillary openly supported McCain's position at the time.

And we did in the second term get the historic deal with Iran on the nuclear power(if we honor it).

So a lot of promises were not kept but at least we got a carrot or two. That's what happens when a leader takes the Wall Street money. We avoided the War on Iran which clearly would have brought what's left of the economy to its knees. The Wars and the financial disasters are intrinsically linked. It gives lots of money to defense contractors and those that support and invest in them and no one else, narrowly focusing wealth over time.
 
 
+30 # rural oregon progressive 2016-04-07 12:31
Quoting HowardMH:
How is that Hopie Changie been working out for you so far????


Look everybody!!! Sarah's in the house!
 
 
+22 # Billsy 2016-04-07 12:59
It's had its severe limits but has worked better so far than "let's make america great again" or "corporations are people too my friend" hehehehe.
 
 
+6 # Linda 2016-04-07 13:05
Not so good ! Are you happy now ?
 
 
+109 # Crebbafrabitz 2016-04-07 09:24
The major problems for the anointed one?

1.) Compulsive lying.
2.) Cover-ups of HER past.
3.) A desire for power more than, as Sanders, a desire to UNITE PEOPLE.
4.) A shitty record that, when exposed, she calls "ATTACKS".
5.) BERNIE HAS A BETTER RECORD ON DAMNED NEAR EVERYTHING!

*Please feel free to add to this abbreviated list....
 
 
+4 # Krackonis 2016-04-07 11:30
How about murdered my fellow EvE Player (Vile Rat, one of the two marines who died during her approved assault on the Bengazi compound) when she assassinated the Ambassador of Libya for a political election ratings boost.

Murder, Treason, that's jailtime to me.
 
 
+17 # Buddha 2016-04-07 12:22
Huh? Tinfoil hat on too tight? There is a lot to dislike over Clinton, but I am pretty sure Libyans with AK-47's and grenade launchers killed those Americans. If you think HRC has gotten a "boost" from the Benghazi demagoguery by the GOP, you've got a screw loose.
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2016-04-07 17:23
Actually, I do think she got a boost from it. She got a lot of sympathy from Democrats for the outrageous behavior of the Republicans on the committee. And it's Democrats she has to convince now. It will have faded from memory by the start of the general election campaign.

She, of course did not murder the ambassador.
 
 
-1 # fletch1165 2016-04-10 01:32
Yes her willingness to use violence and continue Endless War must be on the list. The Democrats should have been pushing an actual progressive like Elizabeth Warren against Bernie. She's in the wrong party on foreign policy and guns. You can't be the biggest gun peddlers in the World, black and open markets, then expect no impacts at home. We learned better from Michael Moore's movie, "Killing for Columbine." The violence is linked. Our kids at a much greater frequency than during times of peace join other nuts that are created and decide to pick up guns and shoot people domestically. Its all linked to when we kill abroad. Period. And Hillary is pro-war.
 
 
-34 # lights 2016-04-07 12:02
Just curious creb...err..cra b..no creb.. You do seem to get a big thrill out of character assassination. SO.....

.....exactly what do you think about the fact that Sanders IS NOT telling the truth when he accuses HRC of saying he was not qualified??? He then goes on to say she is not qualified... because she started it? That's TWO Sanders untruths!

My guess is that JEFF WEAVER is getting ruthless and misinformed Sanders. So, Sanders needs to retract his statement. Or Sanders looses credibility and appears as a liar, too.

Even Thom Hartman said today: 'The problem is Hillary Clinton did not say Bernie Sanders was not qualified to be President. It was the Washington Post who said it. (Spread that lie).
 
 
-36 # Barbara K 2016-04-07 12:24
lights:
Sanders is not telling the truth. Hillary did not endorse any of the Trade Deals. She was not in Congress for the 1st one, and she was in congress for the second one (Cafta) and voted NO on it. The third one, the TPP, has not even come up for a vote yet, and she is not in Congress and will not even be voting for it at all. ALSO:
We did not go to war because of Hillary's vote. The MAJORITY of congress fell for the Bush lies and Voted to give the President authorization. There is a difference. Those are just a few of the lies Sanders is spreading. She has never been charged with a crime, accused by any authority of committing a crime or convicted of committing any crime. The hate rants on this site have turned me away from it. Bernie has never been vetted, and he has a lot to answer for. He is not the American Savior. I will vote for him, if he is the last Dem standing, as I always vote straight Dem.

..
 
 
-29 # lights 2016-04-07 12:43
Barbara K. I completely agree! In fact, that Iraq vote signed by many liberals at the time was not carte blanche permission to go to WAR in IRAQ.
In fact, everyone who signed it was SCREWED by George W. Bush. Those who signed it had included MANY provisions to be fulfilled before ANY action would be taken so that we could AVOID WAR! BUT George W. Bush who is the REAL war criminal - went ahead without living up to ANY OF the PROVISIONS!

So, why is Sanders again, distorting this because it is the apparent cornerstone to his not agreeing with Clinton.

Otherwise, Bernie has said..."I agree with the secretary on most things...except the war in Iraq." Distortion
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-04-10 01:43
How about beating the drums of war against Iran though? A War we hardly could afford after the near 2nd Depression Bush had put us in already. She sat right with McCain in the Iraqi Green Zone in a director's chair side by side. Watch that video it has to be out there. McCain preaches his Bomb,Bomb Bomb, Iran slogan like he's one of the Beach Boys. Hillary agreed with every word. And recently she said she would not negotiate with Iran at all unlike Sanders.
 
 
+1 # DrD 2016-04-10 08:13
Barbara K and Lights - you are both acting as if you and we were not alive in 2002/2003 to remember what she said. She didn't just vote for giving Bush authority to invade Iraq- she actively promoted the false narrative of WMD, ties to terrorists etc. If you've forgotten, see this clip and then google the full speech and her many appearances on news programs at the time and watch for yourself. . https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0
 
 
+55 # Desiderata 2016-04-07 09:31
It is very telling how CNN and others point at Bernie as the one who is the aggressor to date. Hillary has a lot to answer for . According to the media,educating the voters to her many gaffs constitutes "picking on her" .
"All's fair in love and war"is it not? However when $$ are thrown into the mix especially SuperPac $$ then the situation takes on new meaning. Hopefully the Clinton ramp up against Bernie will work against Hillary by exposing her for what she really is. I have noticed lately that the pressure does nothing to soften her edges..if anything,she is morphing rather quickly into the Cruella DeVille we know is under the surface. If Bernie stays on message clearly & concisely listing her military missteps,bad judgement re: trade decisions & how these have affected main street, her continued affiliations with Wall Street,the role the Clintons played in 1994 Crime Bill & how that exacerbated the lives of many Black families today hopefully he will rise above the ugly clamour of mass media and the Clinton regime.
 
 
-56 # rocback 2016-04-07 10:34
Hillary never said Sanders is unqualified. But Sanders said that about Hillary. so much for his claim of no negative campaigning.
 
 
+45 # DaveEwoldt 2016-04-07 11:11
You don't seem to understand that your statement makes no sense to thinking adults. I'd like to see the exact quote where Sanders said Hillary is unqualified, but even if true and in context, based on all of Hillary's bad decisions, it's not a leap to say she's unqualified to be POTUS.

Well, unless you're a neolib who believes imperialism is the only way to protect your assets. She's qualified for that.
 
 
-21 # lights 2016-04-07 12:49
You can find it online DaveEwoldt - it is a HEADLINE! You cannot miss it!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-qualified/index.html

Thom Hartman, progressive talk show host this morning said he was concerned that Bernie was saying this because he played the tape - Hillary Rodham Clinton did NOT call Sanders unqualified. In fact, pressed three times for a yes or no...she refused!

Thom Hartman, by the way - MADE Bernie Sanders by giving him a forum for the last 10 years in case you don't know.
 
 
-23 # Barbara K 2016-04-07 13:19
DE: Please post a list of her "bad decisions", I haven't seen any. So you can enlighten us, if you can.

..
 
 
+24 # DaveEwoldt 2016-04-07 13:34
This is just a short, off the top list.

On foreign policy: Honduras, Ukraine, Libya.
On economic policy: privatization, unwillingness to re-institute Glass-Steagall.
On energy policy: fracking proponent.

Except on a very few issues such as women's rights, Hillary is not on the side of people or planet.
 
 
-28 # lights 2016-04-07 13:46
I'm not going to say you are wrong DaveEwoldt. But I will say and as usual, you are distorting her record by your fanatical, extreme - narrow black and white thinking!

Hillary Rodham Clinton however - is not black and white on ANY of these issues because she is NOT a fanatic!
 
 
+19 # jdd 2016-04-07 14:32
She's very black and white in her opposition to Glass-Steagall and her commitment to provoking both Russia and China. She wavers on all issues regarding the general welfare.
 
 
-18 # Barbara K 2016-04-07 15:42
lights: Exactly!


..
 
 
+10 # Douglas Jack 2016-04-08 02:00
Barbara & lights, You pass coldly over DaveEwold, jdd & others' consternation about the murderous tragedy of Hillary's constant calls for war in support of Israel's Oded-Yinon-Plan & its US daughter Project-for-a-N ew-American-Cen tury & New-World-Order . It gives you appearance of being an automaton or a troll.

I find myself exasperated, calling out to the humans hiding inside your mechanizations, the same as was asked German soldiers & industrialists at Nuremberg. We know you are in there, but you give no sign of life or love for your fellows. What are your human priorities in this comment section exchange? Do you put human life first above all in this world of humans or do you have other masters, some chosen-people, some hatred & ultimately some fear which does not allow human suffering to penetrate?

Hillary is disturbed. She inspires us all even decades ago by her upholding of the statement, "It takes a village to raise a child", but then she hires mercenaries in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Honduras etc to bomb that very village. What is happening inside Hillary's soul to be so beholding to the money masters who run our system, so as to demonize whole religions, in fact nations, villages, households & our common flesh & blood?

Have you ever reflected how our colonial nations of USA, Canada, Australia, Britain, New Zealand & Israel torture the world for the things we want? Are we not one in mutual-aid? https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/home/2-mutual-aid
 
 
+15 # DaveEwoldt 2016-04-07 13:48
For a much longer and more complete list, see Douglas Jack's comments further below.
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2016-04-07 17:29
Syria and "welfare reform" come to mind, as well as her desire to mend the Obama "riff" with Israel. And Healthcare reform. She will not consider the best option - single payer.
 
 
+1 # fletch1165 2016-04-10 01:53
She was in lockstep with McCain when they were interviewed together when he first ran against Obama and she was trying to win the nomination. They wanted to bomb Iran. McCain had promised that war and it would have happened. Hillary now does the same. We cannot afford another big war and must stop the ones we already started instead of expanding the conflicts.
 
 
+1 # GreenBee 2016-04-10 03:59
Quoting DaveEwoldt:
This is just a short, off the top list.

Except on a very few issues such as women's rights, Hillary is not on the side of people or planet.


You are corect. HRC is a lousy environmentalis t. Her Foundation pushes GMo seeds in their third world Ag projects and she has commented that we are being too quick to condemn them. These products which allow and encourage massive use of herbicide glyphosate(Roun d Up) threaten the acquifers and water ways and our health.

One almost every issue where there is controversy she lets others push to educate and lead and then when it the progressive, smart position becomes accepted by the mainstream (due to our hard work, not hers) she suddenly jumps on board as she did with gay marriage, and pot legalization.
 
 
+15 # Femihumanist 2016-04-07 13:41
[quote name="Barbara K"]DE: Please post a list of her "bad decisions", I haven't seen any. So you can enlighten us, if you can.

Please post a list of anything she did RIGHT! Not what she talked about doing and promised poor women all over the world but what she actually did.
 
 
+9 # DD1946 2016-04-07 14:53
Honduras for one!
 
 
+12 # economagic 2016-04-07 11:58
As a matter of fact she did, though with careful phrasing to assure her "credible Reagan Republican deniability." Google it.
 
 
-41 # Barbara K 2016-04-07 12:14
rocback:
Absolutely right! She said he was not qualified to be called a Democrat, he was never a Dem until he decided to run for President. He lies about her in every speech; and yet this site supports him. I won't make another donation until after the election. None of my money will go to his campaign. I know I am not the only one who feels this way, and you can also tell by how their donations have dropped off.

..
 
 
-29 # lights 2016-04-07 12:53
I so agree with you Barbara K.

Sanders is lying about her all the time now. But many of his supporters DO NOT CARE that he lies! Under the rug we go...

One of the biggest of his distortions is about the vote related to the Iraq war which was NOT a black and white vote! In fact, it had MANY provisions that George W. Bush did not honor - he immediately went to war without living up to ANY of those provisions which said - 'you cannot go to war without living up to these provisions are met' and in order to AVOID WAR... and THAT was just a part of his CRIME!

Just another distortion that everyone puts under the rug.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-04-08 12:17
Barbara K and lights:

You seem to forget that the people on here are people with brains and memories.

Any movement toward the gutter has consistently come from the Clinton campaign. I thought at first it was just her people, but then HRC herself did so in the debates. He sticks to the issues, she smiles and hints that maybe he just killed a baby somewhere.

You are either the most naive apologists or you are willfully ignorant.
 
 
+20 # Billsy 2016-04-07 13:13
Typical of feckless pro-Clinton trolls, you focus on personal exchanges and invective but ignore EACH AND EVERY policy issue because Sanders wins on virtually all of them: universal health care, no more tax evasion by corps. and the wealthy, an end to massive campaign donations, an end to endless wars and wasteful military spending, protection for the middle class and poor from usurious credit lending, prosecution of fraudulent bankers, and the list goes on. Sanders means what he says and says what he means. I know Clinton is lying every time her lips move.
 
 
-19 # lights 2016-04-07 15:46
Next time you get a chance - read Sanders lips ...just today, Billsy!
 
 
+14 # DaveEwoldt 2016-04-07 13:39
Yep, and Sander's reply was the Hillary wasn't qualified to be a _progressive_ president.
 
 
-15 # lights 2016-04-07 15:52
I guess you didn't listen to the video, DaveEwoldt. He did not use the word "progressive" at all! So do not play games and expect to get away with it!
 
 
+1 # GreenBee 2016-04-10 04:10
Quoting Barbara K:
rocback:
Absolutely right! She said he was not qualified to be called a Democrat, he was never a Dem until he decided to run for President. He lies about her in every speech; and yet this site supports him. I won't make another donation until after the election. None of my money will go to his campaign. I know I am not the only one who feels this way, and you can also tell by how their donations have dropped off.

..


His campaign donations have not "fallen off" according to these sources, dated March and April of 2016, they are breaking records:

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-breaks-fundraising-record/

From the NYT

"In March, Mr. Sanders raised $44 million mostly from small-dollar Internet donations, compared with $29.5 million raised by Mrs. Clinton,"
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-04-08 12:13
She did everything but say the actual word "unqualified".

She hinted at it, insinuated it, smiled and suggested it some more. That's how she and her people have been operating.

Watch what they accuse Sanders of. That is exactly what THEY are doing.

Good news: when they recently said Sanders was attacking her because he is desperate, that tells us all we need to know about the HRC campaign.
 
 
+1 # grandlakeguy 2016-04-08 23:56
I think that is called"an artful smear"
I have heard that phrase somewhere once before...
 
 
+1 # GreenBee 2016-04-10 04:20
Quoting grandlakeguy:
I think that is called"an artful smear"
I have heard that phrase somewhere once before...


Yes, HRC is better "politician" than Bernie. She uses the "artful smear" as she did in debate 3 making those absurd claims that a Sanders presidency would endanger everyone's ACA benefits, Medicare and Medicaid. er people" the implication being - maybe he was incompetent and would neglect to veto a Repub bill to end these programs. Then she accused him in this debate of an "artful smear.!" bernie was being completely frank and upfront - nothing "artful" about it- no insinuations. Straight up.

In every campaign the candidates always insinuate or outright claim that their opponent is "unqualified" based on whatever they think. This is the standard operating procedure of campaigning. I think this "outrage" about his statement is just another tactic. I wish he would ask her for an apology for that whopper of a lie she told about him. tactic
 
 
+72 # RMDC 2016-04-07 09:32
Hillary has been talking about banning Sanders from the democratic party which she and her fucked up husband think they own -- or have mostly owned since the 90s. This election is also about taking the democrat party back from the Clinton machine. The Clinton machine gave us Obama and the republican control of state governors and both houses of congress, becuase the Clintons see the democratic party as the sub-altern to the republicans. The Clinton democrats do what republicans tell them to do. Or they compromise about 65% of the way to the republican side.

This is an important moment for US politics. Freeing the party from the evil Clintons is the best thing to happen in a generation.

HIllary's attempt to disqualify Sanders will fail. Anyone can change party affiliation at any moment. Most voters are actually registered as "independents" and Sanders will get a lot of these votes.

Hillary is just a bad candidate. She is losing and so she is now proposing panic solutions. They are all backfiring. She's beginning to look really bad. Bill looks even worse. They are hiding him from the TV cameras because he is a real horror -- whining and bullying people into supporting him as Hillary's master.
 
 
+58 # MidwestTom 2016-04-07 10:00
The Clinton machine is all about MONEY and POWER. Neither of them give a rat's ass about the working people. How is it that this couple who have spent their entire lives at the public trough are now close to being Billionaires. Compare that to Harry Truman, Nixon, Carter, and even Reagan.

The words Public Service do not fit this couple. Now their daughter is paid $6 million per year for running their Foundation, I am sure that she is qualified! What a crock.
 
 
+27 # pietheyn07 2016-04-07 12:00
If you have an extra $27.00, suggest you invest it n your country's future.
 
 
-33 # lights 2016-04-07 12:56
I agree pietheyn07!

SEND $27 OR $270.00 OR EVEN MORE

TO: HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON!
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/
 
 
+12 # DD1946 2016-04-07 14:54
I wouldn't send her seven cents. Got to be kidding!
 
 
+8 # Ken Halt 2016-04-08 02:06
DD: Yeah, HRC doesn't need your hard-earned $$, she's got plenty of fat cats stuffing it in her pockets! Much as she is fawning to the 99% these days, it's just pose, she's got the 1% support! The "send $3" appeal is a part of her phony "folksy" persona.
 
 
+5 # cymricmorty 2016-04-08 10:24
HRC is trying to build a crabgrass roots movement of small donations, heh heh. She won't even come close to Sanders' massive (and appreciated) small donor base.
 
 
+2 # fletch1165 2016-04-10 01:58
I thought she only took $3,500 a plate?
 
 
+43 # grandlakeguy 2016-04-07 10:49
A warning to those registered as Independent:
If you are in a closed primary state, Like California for instance, you must change your registration to Democratic or else you will NOT be allowed to vote for Bernie in the primary!
 
 
+21 # Hugh Manitarian 2016-04-07 12:15
Re Grandlakeguy's comment:

Californians must register as Democrat or No Party Preference to be eligible to vote for Bernie in the 2016 Presidential Primary elections**. Those registered Green, Peace & Freedom, etc., are not be eligible to vote for a 'Democratic Party candidate'!

Californians can register before: Monday, May 23.

See: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/june-7-2016-presidential-primary-election/key-dates-and-deadlines-june-7-2016/
and scroll down to "Registration and Voting - Key Dates and Deadlines".

California Primary: June 7 (Tue)

California is running a "modified semi-closed" system for voting for candidates of the Democratic Party.
See: http://www.fairvote.org/primaries#presidential_primary_or_caucus_type_by_state
"Modified Closed Primary - Parties can authorize non-partisan voters to participate in their presidential primaries. Democrats authorize No Party Preference voters to participate in their primaries. Republicans have not authorized No Party Preference voters to participate in their primary. Source: Cal Elec Code § 13102(c)"

** FYI, in California the Congressional Primary Elections are run under the "Top Two" system (not the semi-closed system). See http://www.fairvote.org/primaries#congressional_primary_type_by_state
 
 
+6 # grandlakeguy 2016-04-07 22:02
Thanks for the great clarification Hugh!
 
 
-29 # lights 2016-04-07 12:58
Yep. I changed my status from Independent to Democrat yesterday!

The clerk said that more people were changing their status to Democrat rather than to Republican and that most seemed to be excited about voting for Hillary Clinton.
 
 
# Guest 2016-04-07 13:15
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+46 # DaveEwoldt 2016-04-07 11:18
You know, and I'm just throwing this out there, a better framing might be to point out that the Clintons aren't evil, they just have a belief system that is incompatible with people and planet.

It's a belief system we have all grown up with, but the preponderance of evidence accumulated over the past couple of centuries shows it to be innately flawed and dangerous.

Elite control hierarchies, economic growth at any cost, and bludgeoning compliance is simply not the direction we can afford to continue going in.

Bernie may not have all the answers, but he's willing to ask the questions and head us in a new direction that is more compatible with people and planet.
 
 
+26 # Billsy 2016-04-07 13:19
Well said. I admired the way Dennis Kucinich avoided personal insults and maintained that it was the SYSTEM that was corrupt. This is my chief problem with Clinton and those of her ilk. They continue to support the status-quo. I've recently reread Robert Caro's biography of LBJ, "Master of the Senate" and it simply reeks of corruption in modern political campaigning. At least in the 1940s, the oil men that financed LBJ didn't care what he did as long as he kept the tax breaks, contracts coming their way and rid the federal govt. of effective industry regulators. But now the wealthy elite want wholesale social engineering, endless war and international domination, suppression of dissent and to turn our nation into a banana republic. Sanders is the best opportunity we've seen in my lifetime to redirect governance back to representation of the public, not corporate entities and private wealth.
 
 
+19 # Charles3000 2016-04-07 11:25
If HRC becomes the nominee of the D party I will depart the party and register as something else. I will have had it with the Ds who have forgotten what the party was all about. It would be very nice if some individual, handy with social media and good at organizing could get a ball rolling for a few million Bernie supporters to depart the D party in mass in one day or maybe one week. That type action would definitely send a strong message that would be heard far and wide. I think it would be as strong or stronger than "Bernie or Bust"
 
 
-20 # lights 2016-04-07 13:01
I dropped out of the Democratic Party after the 2008 election when the DNC completely betrayed Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Yesterday, I admit, I had to kind of hold my nose and sign up as a Democrat again so I would be able to vote in the primary! Whatever it takes to STOP the Republicans!
 
 
+1 # fletch1165 2016-04-10 02:08
Show us the Goldman Sachs speeches. I would love to believe your fairy tale world view. If only we could see those 3 speeches for $225,000 each, so she could prove it. It took about an hour per speech. So you think she was telling them off at the time about the overt corruption and collusive banking practices? Show us the speeches.
 
 
+18 # Polisage 2016-04-07 11:36
Go ask Ira Magaziner how he proposed paying for Hillarycare. Even after raiding every revenue source in sight (Medicaid, block grants, etc.) they still had to contemplate a payroll tax higher than what we paid for Medicare. The final plan was 12 volumes they couldn't get passed into law. And now she goes after Bernie for "not saying how he would pay for Medicare for All?" Medicare is on the backs of wage earners--but a just system would make the one percent pay one percent on all net income. They can afford it.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-04-08 12:19
The GOP was kind enough to get rid of Jeb!

Now it's our turn to return the favor and get rid of the Clinton political dynasty.

We cannot afford either of them. This is not a monarchy.
 
 
+10 # Bic Parker 2016-04-07 09:35
"it’s going to be called disqualify him, defeat him "

I don't see "defeat our movement".

That's been added by the Sanders campaign.

RSN editor's note: "This comes from Bernie Sanders campaign manager, Jeff Weaver"
 
 
-92 # ahaywood 2016-04-07 09:36
I believe Bernie means well, but he is NOT a Democrat. For this reason, I can not vote for him. The news media is creating all kinds of crazy politicians. First they prompt them up and when one reacts like a crazy person, they try to undo theie damage. This sounds like what we do to puppets in other countries. We build them up, then they become powerful and then we somehow manage to kill them off. Bernie is a dear Jewish gentlemen that the Republicans are dying to become the democratic nominee so that can kill him off with racial slurs. We are losing our power to affect anything anymore with voting becoming a joke thanks to the Supreme Court decision. God help us!!!
 
 
+78 # Steve B 2016-04-07 09:45
What IS a Democrat?
Someone who is Republican lite?
Someone who has voted for and votes for endless war?
Someone who cares more about her own personal career and ego than the American people?
Hillary has had the presidency handed to her on a silver platter twice, and only her own dislikeability (and NOT because she's a woman for goodness sakes!) had kept her from it. It will again, whether Bernie defeats her or some Republican does.
 
 
+18 # jdd 2016-04-07 14:27
Hillary Clinton is as far from a Democrat in the FDR-Kennedy tradition as one can get. She heads what should be called the "Wall Street Wing" of the party, which at this point is the majority, while Sanders heads up what can roughly be called the pro-labor minority. Her foreign policy is indistinguishab le from that of the neo-cons, some of whom have already given their endorsement.
 
 
+44 # Tweedy 2016-04-07 09:51
Quoting ahaywood:
I believe Bernie means well, but he is NOT a Democrat. For this reason, I can not vote for him.

I presume that wasn't a typo on your part, and that you will vote the Democratic party if Bernie is the nominee. Bernie represents the values of the Democratic party far more closely than Hillary ever has. Think FDR, then you will have a better idea of why so many of us are so committed to Bernie. Let them come after the "dear Jewish gentlem[a]n that" you believe they want to "kill off with racial slurs". A little honest disclosure on the GOP's part will help clear the air on where they stand--in case there's any remaining doubt.
 
 
+36 # djnova50 2016-04-07 10:55
Bernie Sanders is more of a Democrat than many of the Democrats that are in Congress right now. Bernie Sanders stands for what Democrats stood for back in the 40s, 50s, even 60s. Hillary will not lead the country back to what it used to be. With our help, this is what Bernie will do.
 
 
+32 # Charles3000 2016-04-07 11:29
Bernie is 100% what the Democratic party was before it was taken over by Corportists. Bernie is reclaiming the REAL Democratic Party!
 
 
-23 # lights 2016-04-07 13:05
Charles3000.

"reclaiming the REAL Democratic Party!" ???

Sanders has never been a Democrat! Always an independent until he decided to run for President
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-04-08 12:27
You are being willfully, trollfully ignorant.
 
 
+1 # lfeuille 2016-04-09 18:08
"trollfully" - I like that.
 
 
+21 # Billsy 2016-04-07 13:25
Sanders is a New Deal Democrat in principle and policy which is what truly counts (Expanding Soc Sec., univ. health care, free college tuition, challenging corporate lobbyists, fair taxation, limited military actions, etc.). Clinton is what we used to describe as a moderate republican up until Reagan directed the GOP towards the extreme right in 1980. Your argument is simply not compelling. This election is really a fight for control of both political parties as witness the success of independent politicians that thumb their nose at the establishment. The GOP is now an extremist bag of nut cases. Sanders remains the best chance to challenge and end political corruption. It's about principles not personalities.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-04-07 17:40
This is a rather narrow view. Party affiliation is not a religion. It is not a world view. It is just a bunch of people who form an organization because they have political interests in common. But over time, the interests can diverge at which point individuals will find another party that represents them better of just quit. Party membership is not sacred,
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-04-08 12:25
Funny, the Democratic Party has no problem letting Sanders caucus with them for decades! They have given him committee assignments, even chairmanships.

Thanks to his caucusing with the Dems, they were able to hold on to the Senate majority a while longer too.

He did them a favor. Then he decided to run as a Dem in order not to split the vote, and he has said he will support the Democratic nominee.

Also, Sanders' views, though he calls himself a democratic socialist, are in line with the New Deal Democrats of the 1940s. It is the Democratic Party that has moved WAY to the right, thanks in large part to Clintonian triangulation strategies from the 90s, making them Republican-lite.

If you vote for HRC, you are NOT voting for a Democrat.
 
 
0 # DrD 2016-04-10 08:38
The DNC assigned Bernie a Democratic Superdelegate vote!! So yea, the DNC loved him when he supported Democrats, but not so much when he decided to run against Hillary.
 
 
0 # fletch1165 2016-04-10 02:13
The fact he's Jewish and a social democrat is a plus because he will be able to stand up to AIPAC when they promote wars, when no one else could do much at all before. Hillary represents total appeasement to this body and the right wing corporate agenda it actually represents: The endless war for profit going to the 0.1% and next to no one else.
 
 
+36 # cymricmorty 2016-04-07 09:39
Those are desperate measures on HRC's part and a disgusting strategy. Already there are significant numbers of Sanders supporters who will not vote for her. Shutting Sanders out of the media to such a ridiculous degree hasn't been effective enough, apparently. HRC has said she wants everyone to love her, but employing abusive, Rove-like slash-and-burn tactics won't win over disillusioned and angry Sanders supporters.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/06/enthusiasm-crisis-quarter-sanders-supporters-unwilling-back-clinton-general
 
 
+33 # tswhiskers 2016-04-07 09:42
It's obvious that Hillary is becoming impatient with primary campaigning and wants to get on to debating with Cruz or Trump. On the other hand there is no way really that she can show that Bernie isn't qualified to run as president. It seems to me that tempers on both sides need to cool a bit and then get on with the primary season. Yes, the Dem. Party and the media are showing their biases, but that hasn't affected Bernie's crowds or his level of donations. Bernie doesn't need to get upset with Hillary's impatience; he just needs to keep on plugging, and with his funds he can plug for a long long time.
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2016-04-07 17:43
It may have affected the outcome of some primaries, however. There are still too many people who don't know enough about him because of the media bias.
 
 
-28 # turnoutthelights 2016-04-07 09:49
Oh Bernie! Who would ever doubt CNN's motives. Of course they would love to see Hillary as the Democratic nominee---NOT!
 
 
+8 # Charles3000 2016-04-07 11:38
You really need to be careful with that "loose cannon fascist"; his primary DNA is from a chamelion. I can just imagine him running against HRC and blaring to the world how horrible her neocon foreign policy was, giving us Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Honduras. He would do it because he can beat HRC with that one message.
 
 
+2 # Trish42 2016-04-07 10:06
This is a truly stupid move by Hillary's camp! I "feel the Berne," and I'll vote for him as long as possible. However,I'm not a lunatic: I will vote for Hillary if she is the Dem candidate. While I don't believe that most of the Dems another neo-liberal president getting us into endless wars while we pay for the lifestyle of banksters, it's better option than a loose-cannon fascist or a "Christian" Dominionist who wants to morph our democracy into a theocracy!
 
 
-45 # rocback 2016-04-07 10:39
It's not a "move" by the Hillary camp. this is tabloid trash written by Sanders campaign manager.
 
 
+34 # Douglas Jack 2016-04-07 10:11
HILLARY's DOMESTIC & WAR CRIMES (short list): http://HillaryIsANeocon.com
- says President Obama wasn't wrong to launch Syria missile strikes 2013.
- pushed hard for overthrow of Qadaffi 2011.
- supports coup government in Honduras 2009.
- backed escalation & prolongation of war in Afghanistan.
- vote for 2003 Iraq invasion.
- skillfully promoted White House justification for war on Iraq.
- doesn't hesitate to back use of drones for targeted killing.
- consistently backs military initiatives of Israel.
- laughs at killing of Qadaffi.
- doesn't hesitate to warn that she'd obliterate Iran.
- isn't afraid to antagonize Russia.
- helps facilitate military coup in Ukraine.
- has financial support of arms makers & foreign customers.
- waives restrictions for State Department selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, & Qatar, all states wise enough to donate to Clinton Foundation.
- supported President Bill Clinton's wars & power of president to make war without Congress.
- advocates arming fighters in Syria.
- supports surge in Iraq before President Bush did.
- sided with Republicans (& Lieberman) while a Senator to defeat an amendment that would have prohibited the continued manufacture & deployment of cluster bombs.
- As Senator, voted for: Confirmation of NeoCons: Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State, Robert Gates, Secretary of Defence
 
 
+34 # Douglas Jack 2016-04-07 10:14
- Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (& then as Sec. of State, promoted NeoCon Victoria Nuland to Asst. Sec. of State, leading to Ukraine coup)
HILARY'S LEGISLATIVE CRIMES
- "Free Trade" Agreements: HR 2739: 
U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, S 3569
: U.S. -Oman Free Trade Agreement
- S 3711"
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, "Drill, baby, drill.", S Amdt 2480: 
Border Fence & Customs Appropriations. Remember how much liberals hated McCain for wanting to "build the damn fence" & now deride Trump for "the wall?" Yeah, she voted for it.
- S 1050
: Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization. Ended the decades-old ban on new nuclear weapon development.
- HR 3162: 
USA Patriot Act of 2001, then twice more voted to reauthorize & expand its powers
- Establishing the Department of Homeland Security,
- HR 1
: No Child Left Behind Act. This was GW Bush's signature destruction and privatization of public education.
- Monsanto Protection Act, Labelling Denial-of-Right -to-Know DARK Act. Headchopper Hillary, Bride of Frankenfoods.
HILARY'S DARK OVERLORDS ". . . she's one of the more competent members of the current administration & it'd be interesting to speculate about how she might perform were she to be president." Dick Cheney "She ran the State Department in the most effective way that I've ever seen." Henry Kissinger "For this former Republican ... the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton." Robert Kagan
 
 
+21 # Skyelav 2016-04-07 10:13
I believe Bernie means well, but he is NOT a Democrat. For this reason, I can not vote for him.

Good stay home. The supremes are doing fine without a liberal tie breaker. The two party was set up as a check and balance tool which is way outdated but until that's changed nothing changes. I guess you wouldn't vote for. Sanders anyway. Poor you.
 
 
-39 # Shades of gray matter 2016-04-07 10:16
Now RSN is carrying partisan, PANICKY candidate press releases as reader supported news? Disgusting. Of course, "journalist" Karl Marx would approve. Now let's find an excuse for blowing off Sandy Hook parental assault rifle concerns, and for dismissing proposed prosecution of abortion recipients/assi sters as a "silly DISTRACTION." Distraction from buying votes by promising pie in the sky free university tuition for fraternity row?
From affluent sorority sisters trying to BUY INFLUENCE with their parents' credit cards? Leave less privileged IN THE DUST?
 
 
+23 # cymricmorty 2016-04-07 10:20
Is that you, David Brock?
 
 
+28 # Johnny 2016-04-07 10:19
If Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic Party nomination, all Americans with a conscience will stay home on election day or vote for Jill Stein. Nobody decent could vote for the mass murderer Hillary Clinton. Remember Libya. Remember Haiti. Remember Honduras.
 
 
-19 # lights 2016-04-07 13:10
You have to be a Republican Johnny!
 
 
+1 # Ken Halt 2016-04-08 02:09
lights: That seems to be your standard admonishment: Be a Republican, vote for Hillary!
 
 
+32 # Blackjack 2016-04-07 10:20
If Bernie had depended on the wealthy and super PACs for his campaign war chest, he would have already had to drop out because they would have abandoned him after SC. The fact that real people are financing his campaign means that he can stay in as long as we real people continue to support him. HRC made a big mistake in assuming that Bernie would be done by now. She thought he would be out of money and the nomination would fall into her lap. Guess who got this one right? Bernie! He put his trust in real people affected adversely by the Democrat's Republican Lite strategy of the last 30 years. Young Dems (or those leaning Dem) may not understand the Republican Lite thing, but we older Dems remember when Dems actually represented and worked for real people instead of bowing to the corporate world. Bernie is offering a way back to what Dems represented 30 years ago or so, a huge task by any measure. I will be eternally grateful to Bernie for taking this huge risk. HRC simply does not understand the old Dem reality because she has profited in every way by the Republican Lite strategy
and wants to keep shoving it down our throats.
 
 
+30 # Anonymot 2016-04-07 10:24
If Senator Sanders finally wants to lay out why I and a lot of others will not vote for Clinton under any circumstance he needs to deal with the Hillary period at State. As the Number One Diplomat of America her idea of diplomacy was plotting and putting into action the WAR with Libya, Yemen, Syria, Egypt and the Ukraine. She was but one of a number on Iraq, but the total destruction of the Middle East and the Ukraine was Hillary's responsibility even if the Republicans and CIA already had the raw idea. It happened on her watch. Period.

Hillary is for War.

The fleeing Syrians, Iraqis, and Afghans will destroy the culture and social fabric of Europe just as Bush and Obama ruined our economy and lives with War.

That is what the Clintons represent: WAR! America as a War Machine.
 
 
-47 # Shades of gray matter 2016-04-07 10:24
Bernie Santa Clause needed a lopsided landslide in Wisc like he's gotten in NRA state caucuses, you know, 11 votes to 4 votes, including moose that voted. Failing that, PANIC has set in. He's begun calling HRC "Unqualified to be President," lying about her saying she called him "quote-unqualif ied-quote" first. Tempestuous BS is burning his brand when he should be using his vast resources to challenge the suicidal Perpetual Growth model that's killing our ecosphere. And, pointing out that overpopulation is a bigger enemy than competitive Markets.
 
 
+26 # Douglas Jack 2016-04-07 10:52
Shades, RE: "Bernie Santa Claus" Thanks for exemplifying why we support Bernie. We need you here as a 'counter-point' , constantly reminding us of what our progressive peace, environmental & inclusive mission entails.

You are right that eventually Bernie can challenge Hillary on her Perpetual-Growt h model, but this issue needs to be cued behind Hillary's Perpetual-War for greater-Israel' s Oded-Yinon-Plan OYP & its US Project-for-a-n ew-American-Cen tury PNAC & New-World-Order NWO murderous aggressions. with schedules for destabilizing 7 Middle-east & African nations, to which the timing has been on-track. Here's US 3-star General Westley Clarke describing when he was informed of the US role in OYP. http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166

The first step in overcoming US, Canadian, NATO & Israeli genocidal colonial aggression pathology worldwide is to accept everyone as having value & being part of the solution. We have a colonial-settle r sickness which allows us to kill with distorted murderous-exclu sive & finally genocidal logic in our minds. The death toll for the past 500 years of colonization stands at some 400 million people killed worldwide in Africa, the Americas, middle & far east, Australia & unnecessary deaths due to removal of 'indigenous' (Latin 'self-generatin g') 1st Nation government. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/e-history/7-work-play-overpopulation
 
 
+20 # Michael Rivero 2016-04-07 10:29
Bernie Sanders dismissed Hillary's email scandal during the first debate.

Maybe he was a bit hasty to do so, as this is an issue that could put him in the White House!

Remember China-gate from 1996? Then President Bill Clinton authorized the sale of sensitive US technology to China and Chinese money was donated to his re-election campaign!

Was Hillary playing the same game, selling US secrets delivered via a private server with weaker security than the Ashley Madison website in exchange for "donations" to her "charitable" foundation?

It is time to look past the server itself to what may be the biggest spy scandal in US history!
 
 
+5 # Krackonis 2016-04-07 11:33
I agree Mr Rivero. btw love your site.
 
 
+2 # Archie1954 2016-04-07 10:35
I don't know what is meant by disqualify.
 
 
-41 # rocback 2016-04-07 10:36
Make history. Vote for our first woman President.
 
 
+22 # DaveEwoldt 2016-04-07 11:30
So you're going to vote for Jill Stein after Bernie gets the Democratic nomination?
 
 
+22 # Ken Halt 2016-04-07 11:43
Make history, vote for our first Jewish president!!
 
 
-20 # lights 2016-04-07 13:13
Ken Halt:

A first Jewish president would be nice - I agree but let's do it at another time.

Let Sanders come back and run later like Hillary had to do after Obama cut in the line.
 
 
+9 # dipierro4 2016-04-07 12:20
Too late. Sen. Warren did not run.
 
 
-21 # lights 2016-04-07 13:15
dipierro4: Smart woman, Elizabeth Warren.

She is letting the strongest of all pioneers, Hillary Rodham Clinton cut the snarly, high weeds on the path - for ALL of us!
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-04-07 17:52
Make history. Vote for a non-practicing Jewish Socialist.
 
 
-11 # RMF 2016-04-07 10:38
Trish42 -- I am with you on that -- I have supported Bernie from the get-go, and at regular intervals have contributed cash to his campaign. But I too am not a lunatic and will strongly support and vote for Hillary if she is the Dem nominee, which does seem likely, unless something unexpected happens in the NY primary. As Bernie has expressed, she is better than any of the GOP crazies. Those who allegedly think a GOP presidency will only hasten the revolution are delusional. When one considers the damage done in 8 yrs of W, it's clear we cannot take the chance on another GOP presidency. Hillary may not be my ideal candidate, but I will take a half-loaf over no-loaf.
 
 
+4 # dipierro4 2016-04-07 11:22
I hope you are correct, but I'm not sure.

Cruz scares the daylights out of me. Agreed. If Trump is the Repub nominee, I might consider him. He is not in bed with the neocons, and that is a VERY big deal, for us, for the Middle East, and for Latin America. He would work cooperatively with Russia in the Middle East, and he's right IMO. He likes single payer healthcare and is not into destroying Social Security. He would be a weak president, with other grownups actually running things. Assuming he couldn't really pull off the Mexican wall thing, he might actually be better than Hillary.
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-04-07 17:55
He released a health care plan that was just like all the other Republicans. Repeal Obamacare and replace it with an all private system. Nowhere near single-payer.
 
 
+11 # dsepeczi 2016-04-07 12:22
Quoting RMF:
Trish42 -- I am with you on that -- I have supported Bernie from the get-go, and at regular intervals have contributed cash to his campaign. But I too am not a lunatic and will strongly support and vote for Hillary if she is the Dem nominee, which does seem likely, unless something unexpected happens in the NY primary. As Bernie has expressed, she is better than any of the GOP crazies. Those who allegedly think a GOP presidency will only hasten the revolution are delusional. When one considers the damage done in 8 yrs of W, it's clear we cannot take the chance on another GOP presidency. Hillary may not be my ideal candidate, but I will take a half-loaf over no-loaf.


I'm well aware of the destruction of 8 years of republicans under Bush. But I'm also well aware of the economic destruction the establishment democrat, Bill Clinton, released upon the US. I'm aware of the death and destruction that establishment democrats like Obama and SOS Hillary Clinton unleashed on the Middle East. You can't demonize Bush for Iraq and then just shrug your shoulders when your "team" does the exact same shit. Voting in Hillary as the lesser of two evils will only send a message to the democrats that they can keep plugging along, sliding further to the right so long as they take the correct positions on a few social issues. Voting third party wakes the dems up to the fact that their base is sick of their games and they better change their tune fast.
 
 
+7 # Robbee 2016-04-07 10:54
this is the kind of "hit piece" i don't care for! - even when it comes from jeff weaver, a normally reliable source!

yesterday npr played hill's public comment challenging bernie's plans on two grounds - 1) they cost so much we can't afford them, and 2) we can't get bernie's plans thru congress - the pragmatic defense!

hill's points are good arguments for electing her instead of bernie - she has no plans that cost anything! - bernie needs to answer hill's invitation to respond a-s-a-p-!

while hill has focused media attention on his answer, bernie must respond promptly!

on his website bernie explains how we can afford each of his plans! bernie must simply pick a plan or two and show how they are fully funded by taxes he proposes! when bernie has a free media spotlight, he must use it!

bernie must explain that his plans are un-passable in this do-nothing repug congress, but not to the next congress, the one that voters elect to serve with him!

it is not good enough to duck behind jeff weaver, who ducks behind "The Clinton campaign has been watching these Wisconsin results come in, and the delegate race of course is tight there, but the reality is they're running out of patience. So they're going to begin deploying a new strategy, it’s going to be called disqualify him, defeat him and then they can unify the party later."

in other words, it is not good enough to duck behind "they are just trying to disqualify bernie!" - get back to "the issues"! - go bernie!
 
 
-22 # lights 2016-04-07 11:02
THOM HARTMAN is a progressive, a Bernie supporter who literally made Bernie Sanders a celebrity over the last 10 years!

AS I write Thom Hartaman on his very successful radio show is honest enough to clarify.... playing the actual interview....an d saying...

...." Hillary Clinton DID NOT SAY that Bernie Sanders was not qualified." Thom Hartman is in fact, saying it was actually the Washington Post who said it and tried to associate it with her.

THOM, is concerned that Bernie has either decided to perpetuate what the Washington Post is responsible for saying and speak as if it was Clinton OR Sanders was misinformed about who actually said it. Either way, it is serious to be doing this sort of thing IF we want to WIN this election. My guess it was Jeff Weaver misinforming Sanders.

WE DO KNOW....that Bernie Sanders is now saying she said it - as if it was true. Only one thing to say about that: IT IS NOT TRUE, Bernie! You are perpetuating a LIE or you are hugely misinformed and you are running with it!

Do you care?
 
 
+6 # Hugh Manitarian 2016-04-07 14:54
Quoting lights:

WE DO KNOW....that Bernie Sanders is now saying she said it - as if it was true. Only one thing to say about that: IT IS NOT TRUE, Bernie! You are perpetuating a LIE or you are hugely misinformed and you are running with it!

Do you care?


Come off it, "lights"!

Hillary made the subject statements in response to a softball question fed to her by interviewer Glenn Thrush, Politico, recorded last Friday. Here's an excerpt of the relevant section of the official transcript:

"
...Yet within two minutes of sitting in front of the microphone, Clinton’s icy reserve began to melt, especially when I brought up the issue of Sanders’ fealty (or lack thereof) to the Democratic Party establishment Clinton proudly champions against the anti-establishm ent tide.

Sanders had just told an interviewer that he was iffy about raising money for down-ballot Democrats, so I asked Clinton the obvious question: Did she think Sanders is a real Democrat?

“Well, I can’t answer that,” she said with a smile. Then she proceeded to answer the question. “He’s a relatively new Democrat, and, in fact, I’m not even sure he is one. He’s running as one. So I don’t know quite how to characterize him.”
.. "

Ref: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-has-had-enough-of-bernie-sanders-221495
 
 
-9 # lights 2016-04-07 15:58
She was asked (3)three times if Sanders was qualified to be the President. She refused to answer (3) three times! Finally, being that pressed, she did leave it with the answer that it sounded like he might need to do some homework.

That is HARDLY the same low blow that Sanders is now throwing. LYING about what she said or did. Saying it himself and justifying it by saying "she said it."

You ought to get angry with Weaver! I think he mislead Sanders!
 
 
+4 # Hugh Manitarian 2016-04-07 17:25
Quoting lights:
She was asked (3)three times if Sanders was qualified to be the President. She refused to answer (3) three times! Finally, being that pressed, she did leave it with the answer that it sounded like he might need to do some homework.


The statement by "lights" (between quotes above) is inconsistent with the audio and transcript published by Politico (see http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-has-had-enough-of-bernie-sanders-221495 ).

Clinton makes the subject remarks in response to the leading question asked by Glenn Thrush starting at 56 min 28 sec into the audio file that's provided by Politico on that web page.
 
 
0 # Ken Halt 2016-04-08 22:40
lights: "She refused to answer (3) three times!" No, COMPLETELY BOGUS! She answered each time: "the numbers don't add up", "got to do his homework", "isn't a read Democrat". And the consecutive three questions were a rhetorical strategy to give HRC three times to insinuate that Bernie is not qualified. HRC is being slippery and devious, Bernie answered directly. Get over your absurd posturing!
 
 
-4 # PsychePhixer 2016-04-07 19:24
Lights, I agree with you, Thom is a huge supporter of Hillary so when he demonstrates concern you know there is good reason for it. I think some of the people here are confusing the Joe Scarborough interview where he did his damndest to get Hillary to say Bernie is not qualified and she would not go there with an interview by Politico. This is so nuts, any of us who are progressives should vote for either of them if they end up with the nomination. if Bernie is the nominee Hillary will give all her delegates and support to Bernie and that should be the case if the situation is reversed. Hillary, for her entire career has worked to get Democrats nominated and the money she raises now she shares to get Dems nominated. Bernie does not. That is because he has never identified as a Dem and he hasn't really taken hold of that role. He raises money for Bernie only. The allegations about her taking money are disingenuous because he has the monopoly on donors only, that will only work for him. Until Citizens United is overturned and the playing field is leveled, the only way any candidate for political office can get elected is through corporate donations. So a holier than thou stance is really not a justifiable stance but it's working for him.
 
 
+14 # jimmyjames 2016-04-07 11:31
To "shades of gray matter" which I prefer to refer to as NO matter"...., you need to get off your girlie horse and pay attention to this political revolution going on in this country that has been brought about by Bernie Sanders and the millions of Americans that support his candidacy. Why on earth would anyone support a Presidential candidate only because she was a woman? That's about the dumbest thing any intelligent person could do!

Anyone who has done the least bit of research should know that HRC is a corporate shill. Despite her rhetoric, she could care less about the common people of our nation. Just look at all the position changes she has made over the years, especially since Bernie became a challenge to her "coronation".

I would not vote for Hillary for my Mayor, much less our President!!
 
 
+6 # economagic 2016-04-07 12:03
I can't believe you people don't know how to look up a quote via Google, and also did not see Sanders' email last night (7:36 PM EDT). I have to go run an errand, but I'm getting tired of my own people going all Republicoid. I will return later.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-04-07 13:25
My apology. Clinton did not actually say that Sanders is "unqualified," nor can I find the alleged quote from CNN in a cursory search. Wapo said (URL above), referring to Sanders' interview with the New York Daily News:

"Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton on Wednesday questioned whether her rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), is qualified to be president.

'I think he hadn't done his homework and he'd been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn't really studied or understood," Clinton said in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe. . . .'"

CNN DID say (at the URL below):

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-democrats-unity/index.html

"Hillary Clinton's campaign is taking new steps to try and disqualify Bernie Sanders in the eyes of Democratic voters"

Also:

"The campaign's deputy communications director, Christina Reynolds, argued that Sanders is unqualified, sending a full transcript of a New York Daily News editorial board interview of Sanders."

I read a transcript of that interview yesterday, but today it is nowhere to be found. The questions seemed to me to have been designed explicitly to make Sanders look bad. I later saw a story that he had provided some details of his plan to break up big banks, lack of which NYDN had complained about. Not surprisingly, both candidates are now behaving like politicians.
 
 
+6 # Hugh Manitarian 2016-04-07 14:56
Hillary made the subject statements in response to a softball question fed to her by interviewer Glenn Thrush, Politico, recorded last Friday. Here's an excerpt of the relevant section of the official transcript:

"
...Yet within two minutes of sitting in front of the microphone, Clinton’s icy reserve began to melt, especially when I brought up the issue of Sanders’ fealty (or lack thereof) to the Democratic Party establishment Clinton proudly champions against the anti-establishm ent tide.

Sanders had just told an interviewer that he was iffy about raising money for down-ballot Democrats, so I asked Clinton the obvious question: Did she think Sanders is a real Democrat?

“Well, I can’t answer that,” she said with a smile. Then she proceeded to answer the question. “He’s a relatively new Democrat, and, in fact, I’m not even sure he is one. He’s running as one. So I don’t know quite how to characterize him.”
.. "

Ref: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-has-had-enough-of-bernie-sanders-221495
 
 
0 # Ken Halt 2016-04-08 22:45
econo: You don't have to apologize. While HRC did not actually use the word "unqualified", her insinuative answers communicated the equivalence. And she got, from the enabling interviewers, three chances to do so! What should warrant apology is the blatant posturing of HRC supporters when Bernie called them out on their smarmy tactics.
 
 
+5 # Robbee 2016-04-07 12:11
ducking issues, pt. 2

how are we going to have a transportation system that competes with what they use in japan and europe, without, as they do in japan and europe, investing the difference between the rate of tax an executive secretary pays, and the far lower rate a CEO pays here, on infrastructure?

how are we going to have an educated workforce that competes with what they have in japan and europe, without, as they do in japan and europe, investing a transaction tax, a/k/a speculation tax, on public education thru grad school?

how are we going to have an affordable and healthy workforce that competes with what they have in japan and europe, without, as they enjoy in japan and europe, single payer?

how are we going to have a quality of life that compares with what they have in japan and europe, without, as they enjoy in japan and europe, gov't for we the people? we need, as rump says, a better deal! we have the worst deal possible!

someday, somehow, our reps have to find the will to do what our nation needs to do to compare with advanced societies! - go bernie!
 
 
+2 # DaveEwoldt 2016-04-07 13:54
Can't disagree with any of that, Robbee.
 
 
-11 # PsychePhixer 2016-04-07 12:32
Senator Sanders, if you watch the interview on Joe Scarborough with Secretary Clinton, she never said you were "not qualified to be president". If fact, she went to great lengths each of the three times he tried to get her to say that, not to do so. Everything she stated was fact based on your own words in your interviews with the Daily News on how you will break up the big banks and your own words on foreign policy regarding Israel and Palestine. By your own admission you said you did not know the specific mechanism by which big banks would be broken up nor do you have criteria on "what is too big" in order to break up a banking institution. On the Israeli/Palesti ne issue you stated you could answer the question, "...if I had a piece of paper in front of me." Your reaction in stating Hillary Clinton "is not qualified to be president is a huge overreach and is based on a falsehood since Hillary Clinton never said you were "unqualified to be president". This is not the way we progressives behave and needs a correction ASAP.
 
 
+6 # dotlady 2016-04-07 12:33
When asked by the interviewer whether she thinks Bernie unqualified, Hillary did not SAY that Bernie is not qualified, but instead said, so artfully, "he hasn't done his homework after a year (on foreign policy), and his numbers don't add up (health care, tuition free state colleges)." Clear implications taken as yes by interviewer. Now to go back and read Bernie's actual quote.
 
 
-13 # lights 2016-04-07 13:19
dotlady:

SANDERS Does NOT tell the truth about what Hillary Clinton said. Here is the video

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Sanders+says+clinton+not+qualified
 
 
+4 # Hugh Manitarian 2016-04-07 14:51
Quoting lights:


SANDERS Does NOT tell the truth about what Hillary Clinton said. Here is the video

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Sanders+says+clinton+not+qualified


(BTW that URL does not link to a video.)

Come off it, "lights"!

Hillary made the subject statements in response to a softball question fed to her by interviewer Glenn Thrush, Politico, recorded last Friday. Here's an excerpt of the relevant section of the official transcript:

"
...Yet within two minutes of sitting in front of the microphone, Clinton’s icy reserve began to melt, especially when I brought up the issue of Sanders’ fealty (or lack thereof) to the Democratic Party establishment Clinton proudly champions against the anti-establishm ent tide.

Sanders had just told an interviewer that he was iffy about raising money for down-ballot Democrats, so I asked Clinton the obvious question: Did she think Sanders is a real Democrat?

“Well, I can’t answer that,” she said with a smile. Then she proceeded to answer the question. “He’s a relatively new Democrat, and, in fact, I’m not even sure he is one. He’s running as one. So I don’t know quite how to characterize him.”
.. "

Ref: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-has-had-enough-of-bernie-sanders-221495
 
 
0 # Ken Halt 2016-04-08 02:17
Hugh: Thanks for hammering away at "lights" misdirection, don't know where you get the stamina! In his response, at least Bernie was specific in naming HRC's weaknesses, rather than vague innuendo "wink-wink".
 
 
+3 # elkingo 2016-04-07 12:43
WHOEVER SAID WHAT, IF BERNIE DOESN'T GAIN THE PRESIDENCY, IT WILL BE THE GREATEST TRAGEDY FOR THIS COUNTRY EVEN RELATIVE TO PEARL HARBOR AND 9/11, AND MAY WELL BE THE BEGINNING OF ITS END.
EMPIRES HAVE APEXES YOU KNOW, AND THEN, LIKE THE MAN SAYS, DECLINE AND FALL.
 
 
+9 # pinkmondy54 2016-04-07 13:08
This tactic of H's smells of fear, panic & desperation and only makes me dislike her even more. Remember, it was H that put all the Muslim, Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers stuff, with all the negative implications, out there against Obama that the Republicans and other maniacs picked up and used to bash him continually, too. Those attacks were and are horrible and by doing that she wounded him long term as well as those of us who cared about him as a human being.

I support Bernie and was really offended by H's choice to attack him in this particularly offensive way. If she's planning on Bernie's supporters just getting over this I think she's mistaken; many will not. She's running by saying she 'gets things done' & I don't like the things she chooses to get done.

I support RSN, too...let's make sure we don't forget them.
 
 
-8 # Robbee 2016-04-07 13:08
says gross over-simplefier ! - # Anonymot 2016-04-07 10:24
"Hillary is for War."

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

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

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

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

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

unsaid above, we all prefer bernie's muslim armies plan! - but bernie is not our nation's only "peace" candidate! - go bernie! - then, whether bernie or not, go dem nominee!
 
 
+7 # jimbo 2016-04-07 13:28
Chris Hayes on MSNBC last evening had Barney Frank and Robert Reich on to debate. But what we saw we've seen before, an all out assault by Frank over Reich, yelling over Reich, and totally monopolizing the time. I've seen this before, when Clinton supporters used the tactic. Here's my response. As a Bernie supporter I have a container full of support for Hillary. If any of my support for Hillary remains after this election cycle, and Bernie loses, I'll vote for Hillary. But after seeing Barney Frank filibuster Reich, some of that container's contents were spilled, wasted on the floor. So there is a little less support for Hillary remaining, so that if enough is spilled there won't be any support for Hillary at the end of the campaign. I won't vote for her, period. So take care Hillary and Barney and the other fools who filibuster the debate, you're costing your candidate her recognition and support, I won't tolerate your ignorance and your apparent disdain for your opponent.
 
 
-1 # economagic 2016-04-07 13:56
I agree that Ms. Clinton is getting nasty. So is Mr. Sanders, whom many of us have urged to be more aggressive. Her comments about him not being a Democrat are directed at her blue-dog/yellow -dog Democratic base, and at the truly clueless who don't know anything about Sanders. I consider his not supporting the Democratic party as one of his best qualities.

My primary complaint, however, is with the supporters of both candidates, insofar as we expect political candidates to get nasty and distort each other's words. Just a couple of weeks ago I was defending Sanders' supporters against charges of vitriol from Clinton's supporters. That civility seems to have evaporated.

I will not vote for Ms. Clinton, on the basis of her policies and those of the people in here inner circle, including H. Kissinger: Not sufficiently different from any of the Republican candidates given what president is actually permitted to do. But regardless of who serves as President for the next four years, this country and the world are in for a rough ride for the rest of this century and likely beyond. None of us needs to be burning bridges at this point, as we are all likely to have to collaborate with people with whom we have serious disagreements in order to survive. As the facilitator of a non-credit class in Permaculture I am taking says, our future lies not in self-sufficienc y but in interdependence . I say that "self-sufficienc y" is an illusion. Think about it.
 
 
-10 # PsychePhixer 2016-04-07 15:25
I will happily vote for Bernie if he is our nominee and I have always liked Reich in the past but please consider this, on Free Speech TV today it was pointed out by John Fuglesang that Reich is not fully educated on how Dodd-Frank works and in not anywhere as nearly knowledgeable as Frank on this issue. Stephanie Miller read every interview with the Daily News where Bernie was asked a series of specific questions about who has the power to break up the banks and the mechanism for how this can be done by answered by Bernie with "I don't knows" and "I think" and other vague replies on the breaking up of the two big banks and on the Palestinian questions gave a Sarah Palin type reply saying he couldn't answer since he didn't have "a piece of paper" in front of him. Clinton's replies on Morning Joe were fact-based and she never said Bernie is not qualified to be president, quite the opposite, he tried multiple times to get her to go there, she refused and artfully replied with actual facts about Bernie.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-04-08 12:31
Saw that exchange also. Frank began by accusing Sanders of being confused, then proceeded to ramble on for 2 minutes all over the map.

He then proceeded to hog the conversation and be insulting, dismissive and full of misinformation.
 
 
0 # elkingo 2016-04-07 14:06
This country is as corrupt as shit. From the disgusting, unscrupulous "badinage" of the candidates, (expectable in the quaternal American Bullshit Festival - read election) - but now at an all time low of vileness, notably from Hillary on the Dem. side, and of course from all the Repukes, --- to such things as the criminal neglect/abuse of vet's health services, right on down to the "mom" in GA. shaving her son's head and parading him around Walmart's in a tutu - across the board. Not everybody will sign on to this of course - but this is the accelerating historical advance of American/world patho-capitalis m, in a world of dwindling resources and increasing cruelty. Amen.
 
 
+6 # Vardoz 2016-04-07 14:22
I would like to know more about her strategy. This article doesn't explain it. I know that money for Clinton was funneled through the DNC that was given to the state senators which gave the funds to the DNC and then to Hillary if they agreed to be a Superdelegate. This is how she bought her delegates.
 
 
+7 # Blackjack 2016-04-07 14:51
If we don't elect Bernie, we will not have this opportunity again in my lifetime. We have only once before had such an opportunity and RFK was assassinated. We may not survive as a country, much less as a democracy, if we don't get money out of our electoral system. That is the premise behind everything else that Bernie stands for. No one else will do what Bernie is doing because everyone else (both Repukes and Dems) is on the money train and that impacts all of their other actions. And when HRC loses the general, remember we had another alternative and blew it!
 
 
-3 # PsychePhixer 2016-04-07 19:07
I agree with you Blackjack that we have to get money out of our electoral process. It is solely because of Citizens' United being put into place in Jan 2010 in time for mid-terms that allowed special interests to pour unlimited funds into the campaign elections which purchased the House and Senate seats for the GOP. The GOP has obstructed the recovery of our economy. That is the crux of the problem. The solution is not "a revolution". We have all the tools we need to make our system work, but it will only work with Democratic leadership. If Bernie is our nominee, he can do it but Hillary has the experience and track record of knowing how to make it happen and she is ready to make sure we get an amendment to Citizens United. Once that happens the problem is solved. Corporations are NOt people and money is NOT free speech.
 
 
+1 # Salus Populi 2016-04-08 15:11
Do you really think (or believe) that Hillary will be able to get an Amendment overturning Citizens United through Congress?

If the Republicans nominate anyone but Trump, she is likely to lose. If they nominate Trump, and she squeaks by, she is unlikely to have sufficient coat tails to turn the House Democratic.

[The Senate is likely to go Dem in any case [[if the election is not stolen by the Republican-owne d black box voting machines]], since there are around six to eleven, depending on who's counting, vulnerable Dem seats, and 24 Repubs.]

Consider, then, that she will be trying to get an Amendment passed by two-thirds of both chambers, a majority of the members of which benefit immensely from the status quo; that she is number one on the Republican hit list, and roundly hated, even despised, by virtually all the Republicans serving themselves in the Congress; and that it is very likely that the progressive movement will be demoralized to the point of paralysis by the loss of a mandate for change to the whoreporate kleptocracy of the DLC.

Shades of Gray Chatter talks about Sanders's "pie in the sky" proposals. I think the idea that Hillary would be able to get rid of Citizens United is, frankly, delusional.
 
 
0 # Robbee 2016-04-07 15:05
simply astounding! says - # economagic 2016-04-07 13:56
"... (hill is) not sufficiently different from any of the Republican candidates given what president is actually permitted to do."

- whatever can you mean?

- do you doubt that any repug nominee, provided a repug congress, will enact a repug budget? with massive new tax cuts for the 1%? a massive military buildup? a world war on muslims?

astounding! what tint are your glasses?
 
 
+2 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-04-07 16:01
Having no ideological reasons to vote for her, Hillary has no choice but to eliminate the competition, leaving voters no choice but to vote for her.

She'll be surprised how many will stay home if she's the nominee
 
 
+4 # rofo47 2016-04-07 16:44
For all the HRC supporters who are so upset Bernie said she isn't qualified: Please listen to the entire speech. Hillary may not have actually used the words "not qualified" but when you read what she said you get the idea that's what she was saying. She was being the adept politician she is to say something without using the words.

Bernie was replying but he said "in my opinion she's not qualified" and then went on to list the reason she shouldn't be president. He probably didn't actually technically mean she wasn't qualified but she shouldn't be president because of her being on the wrong side of the issues.
 
 
-3 # PsychePhixer 2016-04-07 18:54
I will vote for Bernie or Hillary but there is an important issue at stake here regarding the truth. As a licensed clinical psychologist I can assure you seeing and listening to a person is essential in order to not make errors in communication. E-mail is a poor way to communicate as is reading an interview because you cannot hear the person's voice tone or see their body language. If you will watch the interview which I will post, you will see Joe tried 3 times to get Hillary to agree Sen. Sanders is NOT qualified and she artfully dodged that trap. What she said is factual based on Sen Sanders own words in interviews with the Daily News. Sanders exact words from the Daily News interviews was read on FSTV on the Stephanie Miller Show near the end of the 6am segment tthis morning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfQr5RmSUAE
 
 
+3 # angelfish 2016-04-07 19:46
When people begin to understand that Hillary is a Goldwater RePublican and Bernie is a Democratic Socialist, and to REALLY understand the meaning of just WHAT it IS to be either of those things, maybe THEN we can find some common ground. Hillary's ambition is limitless and she wants to be President MORE than she wants to help this country and/or her people! Bernie's slogan is, "NOT Me, US!" This says it ALL! Bernie is talking about how he will reverse the damage inflicted on us by the ReTHUGlicans since Reagan's Administration and Hillary is just MORE of the same. THINK about it. Hillary has missed her window of opportunity. Bernie deserves a shot at helping this country and steer us away from the Perpetual Warmongering of the Right-wing Lunatics in our Congress. God willing, many of whom will be voted OUT in November with replacements by sane, thoughtful, level-headed men and women who want to see this country be all that it can be, once again! We are OVER the Hill, now, FEEL the Bern!
 
 
-1 # Rain17 2016-04-10 05:36
The Goldwater Girl smear gets old. She was only a teenager at the time. In comparison, for example, Elizabeth Warren was a Republican well into her adulthood. Yet somehow people hold Hillary to a different standard.
 
 
0 # Robbee 2016-04-07 19:54
to be clear! i agree with all you say but - # economagic 2016-04-07 13:56
"... Ms. Clinton ... (is) not sufficiently different from any of the Republican candidates given what president is actually permitted to do."

see my comment, above
 
 
-8 # RBREDFOX 2016-04-07 20:22
Berne must win all of the remaining primaries by an average of 67% of the vote---he cannot win. So what does he do? He makes a video for the GOP to use against Hillary in November. He's not even qualified to
be a Democratic Canidate. He is a rank amateur!
 
 
+5 # Salus Populi 2016-04-08 15:19
RBREDSTATE: It's 57, not 67 -- surely just a typo on your part -- and preliminary analysis shows that he actually won Wisconsin by as much as 67+ per cent, based on exit polls; and this doesn't include the close to a third of a million would-be voters who were disenfranchised by the criminal regime of Scott Walker.
 
 
-1 # PsychePhixer 2016-04-11 01:48
I agree with you, I don't think Bernie can win. I think Bernie and Trump have a lot in common in their persnnality functioning. Both are thin-skinned and both have a short fuse and both are quick to retaliate when criticized. These really are not the characteristics we want from our commander-in-ch ief and leader of the free world. We need someone who is able to be calm, stay on an even keel, take time to think things through, to consider situations from different angles, to surround themselves with competent advisors. No one is perfect and I don't agree with all of Pres. Obama's decisions but he has those qualities and I feel Secretary Clinton does as well.
 
 
+4 # Blackjack 2016-04-07 20:38
PsychePhixer, as a licensed psychological counselor I agree with you that body language is important in giving meaning to language. However, I would suggest that I am likely older than you and have had an opportunity to observe HRC, (mostly from afar, but also in person a couple of times) ever since she was first lady of Arkansas. What I have observed is a continuing behavioral change. As first lady of Arkansas she was down-home and folksy, able to interact with common folks. After Bill was elected president she became a study in determination of how to share power with him, as though she deserved her slice of the governing pie. Later, she gritted her teeth and stood by her man and began to withdraw from the spotlight while learning the role of a very disciplined, poised, carefully programmed communicator, still lusting for power and the limelight, but learning how to play all the political games to get her that recognition, including serving as senator and secretary of state. In the present, she has determined that she has played the game long enough and deserves the nomination just because of who she is and what she has been through. She has endured a lot of hurt and pain, which has left her a bit jaded and when she feels cornered, comes across as overly ambitious and ruthless. In many ways she is a tragic figure. If elected president that may well play out in public. I feel empathy for her, but do not think she is good presidential material. Bernie is.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-04-08 12:34
Exactly. I think HRC is a tragic figure. If Shakespeare were alive he'd be penning plays about the Clintons for the rest of his life!

And I further agree that her having been mistreated: by Bill, by the GOP, by the media -- does not mean she should be president.

I can pity her, but that does not mean I want her to be my/our leader.
 
 
-1 # GreenBee 2016-04-10 07:32
HRC had the choice to rise above the negative treatment and be an authentic leader instead of letting everyone else do the heavy lifting, promoting the progressive and moral stands, then as soon as she sees that the majority has accepted these policies she jumps on the bandwagon(like she has done with gay marriage, legalizing pot, somewhat now with fracking and the TPP.) She's an opportunist and she has been as dishonest and she has been as insulting and dishonest in this campaign as Sanders.
 
 
0 # PsychePhixer 2016-04-11 01:39
That's interesting you have seen HRC in person a few times. I appreciate your thoughtful analysis however if I look at anyone, including myself at different ages and stages these could apply to many people. I think all of us tend to read things into the lives of public figures that are mostly subjective in nature. I don't see her as a tragic figure myself nor do I feel she feel entitled to the nomination. In my opinion she is probably the most qualified candidate to ever run for president. I think she is better presidential material than Bernie bu I will happily vote for him if he the nominee.
 
 
+1 # PCPrincess 2016-04-09 10:36
I'll just say this on this matter. I don't give a rat's ass who said what. Bernie has a history of supporting what is important to the majority of the U.S. citizens and is the only candidate who is willing to do what's right in the face of pressure, lobbyists, bribes, and corruption. It is that simple.
 
 
0 # lfeuille 2016-04-09 18:24
Yes, that is the bottom line. This brouhaha about who said what first doesn't change anything.
 

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