RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Rich writes: "Hillary Clinton is the first woman to secure the presidential nomination of a major political party. That is an honest-to-God historic achievement. And she got there even though she is (as she herself puts it) 'not a natural politician.'"

Hillary Clinton. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)


Hillary Clinton's Best Anti-Trump Strategy Is Coming Into View

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

09 June 16

 

Most weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich speaks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. This week: Hillary Clinton's historic moment, potential Republican defectors, and Dick Morris's return.

illary Clinton has clinched the Democratic nomination for president, the first woman to be a major-party nominee in U.S. history. How will her election campaign be different from her march through the primaries?

Let’s pause for a moment and reflect on the headline here: Hillary Clinton is the first woman to secure the presidential nomination of a major political party. That is an honest-to-God historic achievement. And she got there even though she is (as she herself puts it) “not a natural politician.” The question now: Can she become more of a natural politician as she steps into a cage match with an attention-commanding bully who doesn’t even speak the same political language she does? Clinton’s hallmarks as a candidate — civility, substance, caution, a strong work ethic, and a proclivity for fudging or hiding her actual views on tough issues — are the antitheses of Trump’s. He is crude, unprepared, reckless, and lazy, and full of strong (if often self-contradictory) stands on every issue. They represent two different American cultures even more than they do two different parties or ideologies.

Last week, in a “foreign policy” speech that was less about policy and more about Trump, Clinton at last showed signs that she gets it. Her dismissive, borderline-funny belittling of Trump was overdue. The more she does of this, the better. She has to get under his skin daily. She needs more surrogates like Meryl Streep, who, at a Central Park gala for the Public Theater on Monday, painted her face orange and strapped herself in a faux belly to savage Trump at the lowest burlesque level. After all, we’ve learned that angry, self-righteous sermons against Trump only backfire and make him stronger: Just look at how little of an impact months of spittle-filled op-ed pieces from the left, center, and right have had on his rise. Humorous ridicule of his persona — if executed by those with more skill than, say, Marco Rubio — rattles him.

Clinton is also going to need a message of her own that is more commanding than her thousand bullet points in a thousand position papers. She cannot be Bernie Sanders, and she sounds phony when she tries to emulate his populism. But she is going to have to speak to the anger out there, and she is going to need Sanders’s voters, especially the young ones, to turn up as they did for Barack Obama’s two victories. In this, her greatest ally will not be Sanders (assuming he stops pouting and folds his tent), or her husband, or her running mate, even should her vice-presidential pick come from the Sanders-Warren wing of the party. (Really, does anyone ever vote for a veep?) No, her most important ally by far is Obama himself. He is brilliant at skewering Trump (remember that White House Correspondents’ Dinner?) and matchless at rousing the Democratic base. The single most significant difference between Hillary’s primary campaign and her campaign in the general election will be the active, impassioned involvement of the president, upstaging Trump in every news cycle as Clinton has often failed to do, and giving Trump hell every day.

Surveying the damage that Trump is doing to the GOP by his racist vilification of the Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Lindsey Graham noted that if any of his colleagues were “looking for an off-ramp” from his party’s Trump bandwagon, “this is probably it." Are we close to seeing pockets of explicit Republican support for Hillary?

I doubt we’ll see much more than tiny pockets of Clinton support among the powers that be in the GOP. It has been astonishing to watch one Republican leader after another call out Trump’s racism this week and yet say they still support him because they hate Hillary more. Keep in mind that these are some of the same so-called leaders — typified by Paul Ryan — who were in a tizzy months ago when Trump didn’t immediately disavow David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan. They are the same leaders who had to wait several days to see which way the political winds were blowing before they called for the Confederate flag to come down in the aftermath of the Charleston church massacre. You have to wonder: Do Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Reince Priebus, et al, have even a single testicle among them? It doesn’t seem that way. McConnell’s cowardly strategy for criticizing Trump, for instance, was to demand that he “get on message.” What the hell does that mean? Trump is on message: It’s the nativist, birther message that the GOP has embraced throughout the Obama era, and that John McCain (who also continues to endorse Trump) legitimized by putting Sarah Palin on his ticket eight years ago. Trump’s misogyny is also consistent with a party whose favored Establishment candidate this year, Rubio, opposed abortions for victims of rape and incest. It may be only a matter of days before Trump declares that his idea of an impartial judge is Aaron Persky, who presided over the Brock Turner rape case.

But we are beginning to see a few signs of panic, if not courage, among GOP elites this week. They are starting to remember history. The Republican Party lost African-American voters in seeming perpetuity from the moment it nominated an opponent of the Civil Rights Act, Barry Goldwater, for the presidency in 1964. In the 1990s, the GOP lost California — once Ronald Reagan’s secure domain — after the Republican governor Pete Wilson unleashed the forces of bigotry on Hispanics by campaigning for Proposition 187, a punitive strike against undocumented immigrants. It’s finally beginning to dawn on the party elites that, yes, Trump could drive away America’s fastest-growing demographic group for as many decades as Goldwater drove away black people. Trump could turn red states blue just as Wilson did in California.

What are the party factotums going to do about it? Endorsements of Clinton aren’t happening. Bill Kristol’s farcical effort to launch a third-party candidacy around a right-wing blogger named David French was aborted by the would-be nominee before it began. And so we are starting to hear some whispers — mainly on The Wall Street Journal editorial page — that maybe there will be a contested convention after all. Certainly there are ways that the party can connive to “steal” the nomination from Trump — though such a conspiracy is still hobbled by the lack of an alternative candidate, by the prospect of Trump’s promised “riots,” and by the aforementioned lack of balls among Republican leaders. But in an election cycle when anything can happen, and anything has, we can’t rule out fireworks in Cleveland just yet.

Gabe Sherman reported Monday that Clinton friend turned critic Dick Morris is in talks to join the Trump campaign. Morris is perhaps best known for incorrect political forecasts and questionable ethics — a perfect fit?

To put it mildly! Writing in Slate four years ago, Dave Weigel said, "no single human made as many wrong, botched, bogus, and stupid predictions about the 2012 election as Dick Morris.” Among other things, he predicted that Mitt Romney would win 325 Electoral College votes. (Actual tally: 206.) Only last week, Morris had been hired by Trump’s favored publication of record, the National Enquirer, to cover the 2016 race. Whether there or in the Trump campaign, Morris will be doing the same thing: spewing dirt as spitefully as he can about the Clintons. Much of it may be no more credible than his electoral prognostications.

Let us also remember that, along with his sorry track record as an analyst, Morris’s résumé also includes the 1996 revelation (in the Star, not the Enquirer) that he enjoyed toe-sucking escapades with a Washington prostitute. At the very least, this credential puts him on the short list for Trump’s secretary of Health and Human Services.

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

 
+8 # fuzzbuzz 2016-06-09 14:57
I hate this war criminial. Everything about her is fake and hypocritical.
 
 
-18 # laurele 2016-06-09 22:49
If she is elected president, I plan to primary her in 2020, and I will be nowhere near as nice as Sanders. She will NEVER get my vote.
 
 
+20 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-10 00:34
Troll alert... Laurele had a +9 at some point this evening, and suddenly (as of 11:30 PM PDT) she is a -4.
 
 
+11 # cymricmorty 2016-06-10 09:05
She'll never get my vote or support, either.

I haven't seen so many trolls around since the Lord of the Rings trilogy. You'd think they'd piss off after HRC's "historical" staged coup of the candidacy (though not quite yet fait accompli.)

I also notice the DNC is ramping up its fundraising efforts by mail and by phone. The envelopes ask us to put our own stamp on there so the impoverished DNC won't have to be burdened with the postage. Let Goldman Sachs or one of establishment PACs pay the postage.
 
 
-6 # Kiwikid 2016-06-11 02:07
Perpective is a wonderful thing - for those of us who support Hillary we see you as the trolls and wonder when you're going to leave us in peace.
 
 
+5 # cymricmorty 2016-06-11 09:08
If you haven't already, you might mosey on over to Daily Kos, where I guarantee you HRC supporters would be left in the peace you crave.
 
 
-4 # Kiwikid 2016-06-11 11:02
I've been part of this venture since Marc broke away from Truthout. It seems to have changed. I haven't, and I'm not ready to let go yet.
 
 
-3 # Kiwikid 2016-06-11 12:16
And its not that I don't agree with Bernie Sander's priority of wrestling power and resources away from the 0.1%. I do. I just don't happen to think an expectation that he can do it without the support of Congress is realistic. And they were never going to support him - they're owned by the 0.1%. That's why I would have supported Hillary's more incrementalist approach. I've seen the same scenarios playing out in my own country with issues of justice for the indigenous people - the Maori - Those that want revolution get nowhere - the incrementalists have brought real change over a period of years.
 
 
+6 # AshamedAmerican 2016-06-11 23:12
If one has been watching Clinton throughout the years, there is no reason to thing her actions would bring about change in opposition of the .1, incrementally or otherwise.
 
 
0 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-06-12 13:27
Better yet don't donate.
 
 
0 # cymricmorty 2016-06-12 14:04
I don't.
 
 
+10 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 09:14
I've been awake the past few nights and notice that in the very early am everybody starts getting a few down-votes. They don't post, just vote.

The times correspond to 9-10 am in eastern Europe.

I wonder if Troll Mistress Brock is outsourcing the troll work.

There would be some justice to that, yeah?
 
 
+14 # cymricmorty 2016-06-10 09:22
There's probably a troll temporary agency, as the trollish commentary (not just on this site) is even sloppier than usual.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 10:43
I think there's 5 or 6 of them. It's like a little herd of nerfderfers.

What a bunch of losers!

Oh wait, I mean .. what a herd of losers!!

Send lights out! I have a present for (s)he/it!
 
 
-3 # kalpal 2016-06-11 08:14
I look forward to your fund raising parties and am willing to act as your banker. I have an XL piggy bank we can use.
 
 
+4 # DogSoldier 2016-06-09 14:59
Hillary Clinton will fail to attract Bernie supporters. She is the opposite of Bernie in all of her positions. Bernie supporters know her to be a fraud and a liar, they will never trust her. I expect a very low turnout on election day, and the largest number of votes for third party candidates in many years. If that gives Trump the presidency, so be it.
 
 
+34 # MainStreetMentor 2016-06-09 20:32
Hillary's best anti-Trump strategy is: Endorse Bernie Sanders for President of the United States!
 
 
+13 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-09 23:25
Ah the perfect solution... I wish I had thought of that! Very nice MainStreetMento r. Now if only we could get the word to her campaign :) On a side humorous note: Obama endorsed the person that he once called a liar... Not to worry, he is confident in short memories. Some of us have memories that are not all that short.
 
 
-10 # ronjazz 2016-06-10 09:30
Quoting rural oregon progressive:
Ah the perfect solution... I wish I had thought of that! Very nice MainStreetMentor. Now if only we could get the word to her campaign :) On a side humorous note: Obama endorsed the person that he once called a liar... Not to worry, he is confident in short memories. Some of us have memories that are not all that short.


When did he call her a lair? During his campaign? Sorry, weak sauce, even for a Bernout.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 10:25
Let's see, he called her a 'lair' because she CAVED?

Hahahahahahaha a troll that says 'weak sauce'!!!

That is precious!

Didn't they give you some kind of glossary?

I heard the other trolls saying you were the dumb one. At least that's what rocback said.

Are you dumb, RJ? Or just very VERY misunderstood.

boo hoo. I'm weeping fake tears for you, you schmuck sauce eating mouth breather.

Buzz off and send a troll that can spell.
 
 
+10 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-10 13:51
That is a misquote... What he actually said is how can you believe her, "She'll say ANYTHING". My wife found Clinton/Obama footage on the internet last night... We should have copied and pasted the link to my previous comment...
 
 
+8 # Texas Aggie 2016-06-09 23:56
Hillary Clinton has no intention of "attracting" Bernie supporters. Her whole intention is that Bernie should order them to support her and that they should fall into line like sheep. This is the woman who has indicated that she has moved as far to the left as she's going to go while still being right of center. As someone below mentioned, she is as scary for her neocon military proclivities and her neoliberal economic stance as Drumpf is for his bombastic blowhard behavior.

We know that HRC will destroy the country both economically and militarily, but we don't know what Drumpf will do. Sometimes the devil you know is not better than the one you don't know, but who knows if that is the case now.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 09:15
THAT is the key question, and I'm sure we'll be discussing it a lot.
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-06-10 17:47
She can't possible believe that will happen. How could anyone be that out of touch?
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-06-10 17:53
You can't know for sure.. You can only act on what you know now. What we know now is that Hillary is a lying war monger who wants to keep the Mideast in turmoil for decades to make the would safe for Israeli aggression. We know that Trump is a loudmouth bigot with a short fuse and a short attention span. To me it seems that there is at least a chance that Trump won't be as bad as the worst case scenario. I think the chance is less with Hillary. I won't vote for her.
 
 
-1 # kalpal 2016-06-11 08:18
Texas Aggie - Does HRC know that you are reading her mind and know all of her intentions? If you send me a million dollars I won't rat you out.
 
 
-7 # ronjazz 2016-06-10 09:29
Quoting crzkat:
Hillary Clinton will fail to attract Bernie supporters. She is the opposite of Bernie in all of her positions. Bernie supporters know her to be a fraud and a liar, they will never trust her. I expect a very low turnout on election day, and the largest number of votes for third party candidates in many years. If that gives Trump the presidency, so be it.



Actually, you bernouts are the frauds and liars. She is not the opposite of bernie in all her positions, liar, and she will be far more effective than Bernie could ever be given the makeup of this Congress, which Hillary has a much better chance of changing than Bernie does.
 
 
+13 # Buddha 2016-06-10 11:48
Quoting Frank Rich:
...she is going to have to speak to the anger out there, and she is going to need Sanders’s voters...in this, her greatest ally will not be Sanders (assuming he stops pouting and folds his tent)...No, her most important ally by far is Obama himself.


The Establishment Dems simply don't get it, do they? First, good luck "attracting Bernie supporters" when you then demean us with comments like "assuming [Bernie] stops pouting". When I hear HRC surrogates say stuff like this, it even more makes me happy I live in solidly Blue CA and don't have to vote for HRC to prevent a Trump presidency. And second, Mr Rich, if you had a clue you'd realize that many of us Progressives find Obama to be a very disappointing President, one who campaigned as a Progressive but ran the White House as a Center-Right pro-Wall St pro-Corporate shill, exactly what we all know HRC herself is down deep. The only difference between Obama and HRC is that, as you yourself pointed out, HRC sounds phony when she tries to pretend she is Progressive.
 
 
+11 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 12:03
I saw today Obama's approval ratings are 80-something percent among Democrats.


We are a gaggle of Cassandras, forced to know the truth but never to be believed.
 
 
+11 # cymricmorty 2016-06-10 12:39
Next the deep pockets of the Democratic Party will spring for distinctive social leper garb and warning bells for us.
 
 
+13 # Buddha 2016-06-10 12:44
Not all Progressives are Democrats, especially as the Democratic Party moved so far to the Right over the last 30 years. I'm not, I'm "No Party Preference". You might have noticed how much lower Clinton's approval is with Independents too. Simple Tribal Identity among people who still lock themselves into one party or another is going to give you that kind of "approval ratings". I bet even at his worst, W had positive approval ratings if you just looked at Republicans.
 
 
+12 # harleysch 2016-06-10 16:14
If Obama's approval rating among Democrats is really 80%, it shows what's wrong with the Dem Party. It is not necessary to restate all his Bush-League policies, as many have done so on this site. For Dems to support Obama after his pro-war, pro-Wall St. administration is a disgrace!
 
 
# Guest 2016-06-11 13:18
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-06-11 22:40
The approval rating is 88% among Democrats and, get this, 82% among Sanders supporters.

It means we really are the fringe. I don't feel like the fringe. Well. Maybe a little.
 
 
+18 # At Liberty 2016-06-09 15:44
Bernie Sanders is the Best Anti-Trump Anti-Wall Street High Horse Hillary Strategy! I am voting for Bernie Sanders regardless! A lesser of two evils vote is a wasted vote!
 
 
+12 # wrknight 2016-06-10 07:49
Quoting At Liberty:
Bernie Sanders is the Best Anti-Trump Anti-Wall Street High Horse Hillary Strategy! I am voting for Bernie Sanders regardless! A lesser of two evils vote is a wasted vote!

Besides that, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
 
 
+16 # guomashi 2016-06-09 18:04
Does Hillary have anything at all worthwhile to offer other than "I have a vagina and I'm not Trump?"

I think not.

But, even worse, anyone seeing what she actually does have to offer is more frightening than what Trump has to offer.

We are off to the cage fights on this one, as the two most loathed politicians in the history of country mud wrestle their way to the execution of the American dream of a free and democratic people.
 
 
-2 # chuckvw 2016-06-09 23:06
She's paying people big bucks to design her campaign, and here you've done it for free!
 
 
-1 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 10:49
Yay, another one.

Are you a newbie? Didn't they give you ANY training at all?

Lil Davey, I'm VERY upset!

I've been begging and begging for better trolls, and THIS is what you send?

A herd of nerfderfers with teeny jazz hands who can't spell and do not seem to grasp the finer points of harassment? How very VERY disappointing.

upchuck, you need to ask for another assignment. Try a middle school. They can probably still outspell you, but they're a little less discerning about content. Do you know anything about dinosaurs? They like dinosaurs.
 
 
+47 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-09 21:51
Rich lost me completely with his accusation and admonition of Bernie pouting rather than folding his tent. Obviously Rich does not get it, at all, on any level. He, and many Hillary supporters continue to believe that this is about Bernie, and that Bernie is about Bernie. It is not! It is about reclaiming this country from the 1% and the democratic party that has fully embraced that 1% over the rest of America.
 
 
+23 # Radscal 2016-06-09 23:08
Exactly. Rich and HRC and many of their fans are engaging in classic "projection."

They look at Sanders and his many supporters, and can only see us through HRC's own lens of egotism and evil intent.
 
 
+17 # mebemo 2016-06-10 04:55
Face it, how many people with Rich's annual income have been Bernie supporters? A few deeply committed progressive movie stars.

Suppose news and talk shows would start posting a scroll with the salaries of their talking heads and anchors whenever they bloviate. It would help clarify the root of their opinions.
 
 
+33 # economagic 2016-06-10 06:07
Just as members of Congress should wear the logos of their sponsors like race car drivers!
 
 
+15 # DrD 2016-06-10 07:09
Oh- that is a truly awesome idea!! The bigger the donation, the bigger the patch! Hillary would be plastered with huge fossil fuel, weapons-industr y and Wall Street patches, so heavy that she could barely walk. Bernie would be covered with millions of tiny light flecks like lint representing $27 donations! The image makes me smile. Thanks econo!
 
 
+11 # wrknight 2016-06-10 07:52
Quoting DrD:
Oh- that is a truly awesome idea!! The bigger the donation, the bigger the patch! Hillary would be plastered with huge fossil fuel, weapons-industry and Wall Street patches, so heavy that she could barely walk. Bernie would be covered with millions of tiny light flecks like lint representing $27 donations! The image makes me smile. Thanks econo!

The only problem with that is that few politicians have sufficient body surface to put all the patches. Or else you would have to make them so small that you couldn't read them. (Something like writing the bible on the head of a pin.)
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 09:17
hahaha lol
 
 
+5 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-10 14:54
I think it was Jon Stewart that made that same suggestion a few years ago... That members of congress and candidates for office be required to wear the emblems and logos of their benefactors/han dlers.
 
 
+6 # Salus Populi 2016-06-10 21:28
He borrowed the idea from Ralph Nader, who proposed it way back in the nineties. Needless to say, with the "pwogwessive" hatred of Nader, blaming him for the 2000 stolen election debacle, neither Stewart nor anyone else bothers to give credit where credit is due. It's like the Soviet encyclopedias in the thirties, where in each new edition the pictures of bigwigs gathered together would be doctored to replace the images of those who had fallen out of favor with potted plants and the like. :-)
 
 
-12 # ronjazz 2016-06-10 09:33
Quoting rural oregon progressive:
Rich lost me completely with his accusation and admonition of Bernie pouting rather than folding his tent. Obviously Rich does not get it, at all, on any level. He, and many Hillary supporters continue to believe that this is about Bernie, and that Bernie is about Bernie. It is not! It is about reclaiming this country from the 1% and the democratic party that has fully embraced that 1% over the rest of America.


Actually, it's about whining little dreamers losing to a more experienced, tougher and smarter opponent. Sanders and his many supporters are unrealistic idealists, with good intentions but absolutely no grasp of the real world.
 
 
+17 # cymricmorty 2016-06-10 09:56
Sanders supporters DO have a grasp of the real world and demand change from global corporatism, trade agreeements, environmental destruction, nonliving wages, labor bashing, crippling student debt, war, regime changes...

P.S. It's pounded into us from birth that we should follow our dreams, so who are you to sneer about "dreamers"? Especially the young?
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 10:13
Hey, ronspazz --

Can't the big trolls come out to play?

Is lights sick? (s)he/it has been so fragile lately. Weepy. Weak.

Are you the substitute?

Tell Brock we want one who has conceptual intelligence. This one is stuck in 4th grade (and that's being nice).
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 12:06
I don't understand the constant condescension and insult. WHY on earth is that okay?

Van Jones has been decent, and Pelosi (at least publicly) seemed conciliatory, but it's like every single other person has been demeaning, including Hillary. Why?
 
 
+17 # Glenn Becker 2016-06-09 21:59
The hyper-righteous indignation of some Berniacs is misplaced in a political campaign. They echo "Clean Gene" McCarthy in 1968. We learned, as corpses piled high all over SE Asia, that the greater of two evils can kill millions who would have survived a Humphrey presidency. Hillary Clinton has made mistakes and is smart enough to learn from them. To cede the Presidency to Don the Con would be an amoral act of political masturbation.
 
 
+25 # dipierro4 2016-06-09 22:30
...[in 1968] We learned, as corpses piled high all over SE Asia, that the greater of two evils can kill millions who would have survived a Humphrey presidency....

Very true. But today, HRC appears more invested than the bad hair guy in having certain foreign nations and their leaders defined as Evil, to be destroyed: Putin (who has more common sense than we do about Islamic radicalism and would like to work together); Assad (a secular guy who we defined as the devil and now we can't walk away from that); Gaddafi (who voluntarily gave up nukes, like him or not). She's supported bad causes from Iraq to Honduras. She spent her years as Sec. of State refighting the Cold War.

As President, HRC will be able to cause a lot of human suffering, and likely will do so. Who would be Sec. of State under her? Victoria Nuland, who was her top person at the State Dept.? HRC is a not a Humphrey to the Repubs' Nixon. Not even close.
 
 
+22 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-09 23:01
Okay... Looks like we are back to the "lesser of 2 evils argument". For many Bernie supporters, it is not clear which candidate (Hillary or drumpf) is that lesser evil. One has an actual track record of war-mongering, which I point out because you mentioned the corpses in SE Asia. The other has simply exhibited blow-hard bluster. If Hillary would actually promise to endorse a truly progressive platform, I might consider her for president. However, based on what I have seen from her (arrogance, Wall-Street connections, possible indictments, poor judgement) I just don't see her coming around by November with a "change I can believe in". What is a fact is that a Trump Presidency scares the shit out of me. But a Hillary Presidency scares the shit out of me equally. She has already said that she would put Bill in charge of the economy. That it itself proves that it will be more of the same. It was his presidency that saw the biggest rise in minimum wage jobs in forever. Of course, if she leads us to more wars, especially with Russia, that point will be moot. Them that control the black boxes that flip and eliminate votes will pick our president just like they picked the democratic "presumptive" nominee. So, who I vote for is the least of your worries. We need verifiable, honest ballot counting rather than our current ballot "fixings".
 
 
+43 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-09 23:15
Bernie has not so much been running against Clinton as he has been trying to pull the curtain so everyone can see the sham that is our current political process, and the money behind it. The money controls it all, and the corporations behind that money. It was clear from the start that that monied interest was scared to death of a possible Bernie presidency.
 
 
+7 # economagic 2016-06-10 06:31
"For many Bernie supporters, it is not clear which candidate (Hillary or drumpf) is that lesser evil."

To some extent that is precisely what the "discussions" (food fights) in these pages have been about for months. For many people the idea that T-Rump could be the lesser evil compared to Clinton is simply inconceivable. Coming out of nine years attempting to teach economics honestly at a community college, always starting with a week of discussion of "critical" thinking as such, I'm not surprised. The critical thinking got me some heat from certain administrators, even though we were urged to include that skill set in our classes, because it was not in the book!

And most of the claims that T-Rump cannot be the lesser evil rest squarely upon the assumption that we know with certainty what he would do in office, based on taking his unscripted and often contradictory ravings at face value.

I had a fantasy last night about a book or movie in which a T-Rump-like president (!) decides to launch the nukes, and the many ways that situation might hypothetically be played out. Does anyone know of such a book or movie?
 
 
+14 # Linda 2016-06-10 09:26
rural oregon progressive,
"Them that control the black boxes that flip and eliminate votes will pick our president just like they picked the democratic "presumptive" nominee. So, who I vote for is the least of your worries. We need verifiable, honest ballot counting rather than our current ballot "fixings"."

Here here ! You have that right and it needs to be fixed sooner than later !
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-06-10 18:14
But only Bernie will fix it for real. Neither Hillary or Trump will.
 
 
-13 # ronjazz 2016-06-10 09:35
Quoting rural oregon progressive:
Okay... Looks like we are back to the "lesser of 2 evils argument". For many Bernie supporters, it is not clear which candidate (Hillary or drumpf) is that lesser evil. One has an actual track record of war-mongering, which I point out because you mentioned the corpses in SE Asia. The other has simply exhibited blow-hard bluster. If Hillary would actually promise to endorse a truly progressive platform, I might consider her for president. However, based on what I have seen from her (arrogance, Wall-Street connections, possible indictments, poor judgement) I just don't see her coming around by November with a "change I can believe in". What is a fact is that a Trump Presidency scares the shit out of me. But a Hillary Presidency scares the shit out of me equally. She has already said that she would put Bill in charge of the economy. That it itself proves that it will be more of the same. It was his presidency that saw the biggest rise in minimum wage jobs in forever. Of course, if she leads us to more wars, especially with Russia, that point will be moot. Them that control the black boxes that flip and eliminate votes will pick our president just like they picked the democratic "presumptive" nominee. So, who I vote for is the least of your worries. We need verifiable, honest ballot counting rather than our current ballot "fixings".


You're as easily misled as any FOX-sucking teabagger, i see. And you're a liar.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 10:11
Hey look everybody! It's a big hefty pile of steaming ronjazz!

Jazz hands, everybody! Let's pay tribute to the lowliest substitute on Troll Mistress Brock's playlist.

Just do little jazz hands, though. Trump jazz hands. This one's not very good.
 
 
+8 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-10 14:11
RJazz: And the "lie" I told is specifically where in my comment?
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-06-10 18:11
Even endorsing Bernie's platform in it's entirety would not be enough. Platforms are not binding and Hillary also has an actual track record of lying.
 
 
+25 # Radscal 2016-06-09 23:16
So let's see. In 1968, the Democratic Party decided NOT to nominate the popular, progressive anti-war candidate, and instead foisted their deeply Establishment, long pro-war candidate (who disingenuously "evolved" as his campaign was crashing and burning and said he'd stop bombing North Vietnam).

And the voters rejected that Establishment Candidate, no matter how many of us they had beaten, both on the streets and on the Convention Floor! How rude of us not to have learned our place and thanked them for setting us straight.

Yeah. In the eyes of these "New Democrat" corporate sell outs, it's the VOTERS' fault that Nixon took the Presidency.

And let's not forget that LBJ chose NOT to tell the public that Nixon was TREASONOUSLY negotiating with South Vietnam to reject the Peace Treaty to help him get elected.

But no. It was the VOTERS' fault.

Clearly the DNC has either not learned its lesson, or it's decided that it would rather see the Drumpf elected than allow a real progressive to lead their Party to triumph.
 
 
+5 # Salus Populi 2016-06-10 23:14
The institution of "super-delegate s" was created in 1982 [after the party oligarchy had decided that Ted Kennedy should be the nominee, but Carter won the primaries] specifically to prevent democracy from breaking out in the nominally Democratic Party, as it had when, in the wake of the Chicago fiasco, George McGovern had been chosen to reform the party rules, and in 1972 took advantage of the rules he had instituted to run an insurgent candidacy, which the DNC and the labor movement successfully sabotaged, preferring four more years of Nixon to "amnesty, acid and abortion," as they contemptuously labeled McGovern's reformist policies.

Carter ran in 1976 as an "outsider" against the Beltway, which engendered permanent animosity and enmity from the party oligarchs and the Congressional time servers, even though he had been vetted, indeed chosen, by David Rockefeller's eminently insider Trilateral Commission.

So, beginning in 1984, the party put 20 per cent of its nominating power in the hands of lobbyists, governors and Congresspeople, the party's executive committee and the like, in order to prevent the grass roots from pulling a McGovern. (The percentage was later reduced to 15.) And, beginning in 1988, debates were also controlled by the Toxic Twins instead of the theretofore sponsorship by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters.

So yes, they would rather lose with "one of their own" than win with a challenger to their power.
 
 
+28 # Texas Aggie 2016-06-09 23:44
What mistakes has she ever learned from? She saw what NAFTA did and then went and supported TPP until it became politically inopportune. Every one of the progressive positions she's adopted since beginning to feel the heat from Mr. Sanders has been a flip flop from previous positions. There is no way that she won't flip back once there isn't any sword over her head.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 15:02
ALL the neocons are like that. They push through these military actions, which go horribly wrong, and then they proceed to plan the NEXT one.

It's as if everyone is irrational but us.

That's the first sign I'm losing it, isn't it?
 
 
+12 # markovchhaney 2016-06-10 00:47
You likely know a lot more about masturbation than about progressive Americans.

As for 1968, which would have been my first presidential vote had the voting age been 18, I'm hardly convinced that HHH would have been any better than Nixon when it came to Vietnam. He supported the deception of the American people for 4 long years under Johnson. They were both war criminals. So was Nixon. So was Kissinger. But old Henry would have been happy to steer a Democratic president further into the muck. And there were plenty of Democratic advisors already in the existing administration. You have heard of Bundy, McNamara, et al., right?

Democrats have been kidding themselves for decades about how marvelous and humane our post-war presidents and the ones who didn't get elected were. For the most part, it's bilge. Our last two contributions to the White House, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, haven't exactly improved on our war record, and neither of them even served in the military. We already know what we'll get in President Armani Pants-suit. She's yet to see a military action she couldn't support.

There is zero evidence that supporting McCarthy got Nixon elected: the Vietnam War and LBJ and Humphrey and Richard Daley likely did. So go back to your hobby: yanking your crank. You're way out of your depth here.
 
 
+10 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-10 03:29
And no one yet has even brought up the Drone War... Wherein, current presidents become judge, jury and executioner. I am certain that Hillary will expand this program and fight her own undeclared wars... She starts as a criminal and will expand on that criminality. It is not looking good for us. Now that Elizabeth has gone to the dark side, the light at the end of the tunnel is dimming. Come on Philly... Let's make this convention memorable!
 
 
-10 # ronjazz 2016-06-10 09:38
Quoting rural oregon progressive:
And no one yet has even brought up the Drone War... Wherein, current presidents become judge, jury and executioner. I am certain that Hillary will expand this program and fight her own undeclared wars... She starts as a criminal and will expand on that criminality. It is not looking good for us. Now that Elizabeth has gone to the dark side, the light at the end of the tunnel is dimming. Come on Philly... Let's make this convention memorable!


Yes, make the left look even more out-of-touch, violent and crazier than the right. That should work.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 10:10
Oh pitiful!

Lil Davey Brock? Is THIS the best you can do?

This one can't even spell!

And the sentence structure. Embarrassing for all concerned. The parents, the teachers, the parole officers ....
 
 
+7 # Salus Populi 2016-06-10 23:24
Unfortunately, Sanders, too, supports the drone wars and kill programs; he is simply not an enthusiast for them.

But on foreign policy, no one can possibly be elected unless they support the unlimited and exclusive right of the U.S. to attack anyone it wants any time it wants, in any way it wants, for any reason it may make up, and using any weapons, banned or not, and any techniques, likewise.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-06-11 00:12
Sanders is anti-Empire enough to have appealed to a broad swath of USians, but not so much as to be dead.
 
 
+17 # kath 2016-06-10 03:49
The problem is, she DOESN'T learn. "Learning" from Iraq would have given different outcomes in Syria, Libya and Ukraine, to mention just a few. She's an unreconstructed , Israel-first hawk who admires Kissinger of all people.
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-06-10 18:18
She doesn't "learn" because she doesn't recognize her decisions as mistakes. She considers them to be temporary set-backs on the way to neo-con heaven.
 
 
+12 # dsepeczi 2016-06-10 08:29
Quoting Glenn Becker:
The hyper-righteous indignation of some Berniacs is misplaced in a political campaign. They echo "Clean Gene" McCarthy in 1968. We learned, as corpses piled high all over SE Asia, that the greater of two evils can kill millions who would have survived a Humphrey presidency. Hillary Clinton has made mistakes and is smart enough to learn from them. To cede the Presidency to Don the Con would be an amoral act of political masturbation.


The problem with your narrative is that Hillary has demonstrated, clearly, that she doesn't learn from her mistakes. Iraq was a huge mistake. I could have forgiven her for that vote, though, if she hadn't then gone one to endorse our actions in Libya, Syria, Honduras, Ukraine, etc. After all that, it's time to recognize that she's learned nothing and the Iraq vote apology was just a ruse. She's more hawkish than the republicans. Why would you include the prospect of war at all in a defense of Hillary ?
 
 
# Guest 2016-06-10 09:19
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
0 # kerwinskeepers 2016-06-14 21:09
Glenn Becker; I salute your comment even while I'm puzzled by the positive score you got on this forum. Could it be that they didn't understand that you were saying that history proves that choosing the 'lesser of two evils" can be the best choice. On the other hand, seeing your name may have led them to believe you were one of them.
 
 
+17 # John Cosmo 2016-06-09 22:28
Before she develops an anti-Trump strategy, she really needs to have a pro-Clinton strategy and she doesn't seem to have one. I guess I shouldn't be surprised because as a candidate she is very much like Trump in that neither of them seem to have any redeeming qualities, except to Wall Street and the military-indust rial complex.

Before wasting time on Trump, she needs to work on reaching out to the Democratic base and to Sanders supporters. Start waiving an olive branch and offering meaningful concessions.
 
 
+16 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-10 00:18
But as has been noted before... She will give no truly important progressive concessions... Arrogant people don't play that way.
 
 
+9 # cymricmorty 2016-06-10 12:43
Somehow, HRC will have to come up with something more persuasive than Status Quo's the Way to Go 2016
 
 
+8 # DrD 2016-06-10 18:51
That makes a great bumper sticker slogan though! How inspiring to our young voters!
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-06-11 00:17
Great Slogan!

I've been floating another one for the Lesser Evil proponents.

"Hillary: Not the Worst Possible"

It would appear, cymricmorty that HRC and the DNC already came up with what it takes to "win" elections.

And apparently, they believe they're better at it than the Republicans.
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2016-06-10 18:20
Have you missed that part where many of us said it won't work because we don't believe her?
 
 
+12 # dipierro4 2016-06-09 22:40
...Before she develops an anti-Trump strategy, she really needs to have a pro-Clinton strategy and she doesn't seem to have one...

Agreed. And this in itself is a sign of how unsuited she is to the job: Connecting with people and warming up to them is not natural to her (which is okay in other contexts, but not in the Presidency), and she does not even have a clue that this is an essential part of being a successful President.

I fear that she will be a worse disaster than Nixon, even if she enters the White House with noble goals (leaving aside for now her affinity for the neocons, with their penchant for war and world domination).
 
 
+21 # laurele 2016-06-09 22:48
She has NOT clinched the nomination, as she does not have the required 2,383 pledged delegates.
 
 
+15 # desertprogressive 2016-06-10 08:05
Exactly. Why do we allow news agencies to "call an election"?! It's like when John Ellis, George W's first cousin called W the winner. He was a freelance political advisor to Fox News to head their election night "decision desk."
 
 
-1 # Caliban 2016-06-12 17:49
"Why do we allow...etc."-- It's called "freedom of the press" and RSN (among many news/opinion sources) couldn't thrive without it.
 
 
+10 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 09:23
That's the sentence that got my goat too. NPR. Corporate swill.

And boring too.
 
 
+27 # Radscal 2016-06-09 23:00
“Let’s pause for a moment and reflect on the headline here: Hillary Clinton is the first woman to secure the presidential nomination of a major political party.”

No. Let’s pause for a minute and reflect on Rich’s duplicitous propaganda here. HRC is still about 200 pledged delegates short of “securing” the nomination.

“her greatest ally will not be Sanders(assumin g he stops pouting and folds his tent)”

Yeah, let’s pause and reflect on THAT bit of ridicule. Nice job trying to win over Sanders’ very energized and inspired supporters. Let me rephrase that for you, Frankie, “Damnit Kids. GET OFF MY LAWN!”

“her most important ally by far is Obama himself.”

So, today as Senator Sanders was standing on the White House lawn, thanking President Obama for remaining neutral in the primary, the HRC Campaign released a video that Obama had pre-recorded in which he endorsed Clinton. No one can doubt that Obama has long planned on passing the baton to Clinton, but if he wanted to endorse her today, don’t you think HE would have released that video?

But no. She CANNOT control herself. Her unbridled ambition and egotism prevents her from even letting Sanders get a single headline and allowing the President to announce his endorsement himself.
 
 
+26 # Radscal 2016-06-09 23:04
Dream all you want hill-bots, but the fact is that HRC’s ratings keep dropping.

As Rich notes, in her “Important Foreign Policy Speech,”she said almost nothing about foreign policy, but instead tried her hand at stand-up comedy by calling Drumpf names to the glee of everyone in the 320 seat Ballroom (BTW: congratulations “hill” on finally picking the right size room). She cannot control herself.

If Drumpf really tries to take her down, he will succeed. And HRC will drag Congress and State governments even further down with her.

Debbie Wasserman-Schul tz, whose brilliant leadership lost the Democrats majorities in first the House and then the Senate, and sacrificed State gubernatorial and legislative branches from Coast to Coast to boot, will be fondly remembered and long cherished.... by the Republican Party!
 
 
+18 # Texas Aggie 2016-06-10 00:02
"the fact is that HRC’s ratings keep dropping. "

And that's a problem. She didn't start too high anyway, and the more people know about her, the less they like her. Mr. Sanders was the opposite as is evidenced by the massive gains he made in all the polls as the primary campaign moved along. If she keeps on nose diving, even though Drumpf or whomever the repubs replace him with at the convention may be jerks, they at least will have enough support to beat her and win everything.
 
 
+14 # economagic 2016-06-10 07:11
I'm speculating that a lot of establishment Republicans may be every bit as afraid of T-Rump as many Democrats are. The fact that they are not endorsing her now is by no means evidence that they would not ultimately vote for Clinton in a Clinton-Trump match. They may be aware that their party is as fragmented as that of their rivals, but unwilling to acknowledge it publicly.
 
 
+13 # dipierro4 2016-06-10 07:50
A year or so ago, Nate Silver published his well-supported conclusions that HRC tends to be popular when she's out of the news, but whenever she's in the middle of something -- healthcare, Iraq, or anything else, her ratings plummet.

I think what he was getting at, is that she may a generational feminist symbol in a positive sense, in the abstract, but people don't like her or trust her when they observe her in an actual situation.

Whether my interpretation is correct or not, I wish Mr. Silver's article had gotten wider attention at the time, because it was prophetic as to how she is doing as a candidate, and how she is likely to do as President.
 
 
+9 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-10 00:24
Yep. you nailed it Radscal.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 09:28
@ Radscal

"but if he wanted to endorse her today, don’t you think HE would have released that video? .... But no. She CANNOT control herself"

The Clintons have a LONNGG history of declaring victory before the votes are counted. Reminds me of W in 2000.

It goes to show Hillary has as much impulse control as Trump.

I am not giving up on Bernie. We cannot afford either of those two clowns.

I think a lot of people figured Sanders' DC rally yesterday would be a capitulation. I was thrilled to find it on CSPAN3 only to hear him mentioning "my two opponents".

Go Bernie!
 
 
+7 # Thomas0008 2016-06-09 23:37
so frankie rich is whoring for the psycho killer hillary eh? They will make a cute couple in a dark damp prison cell...
 
 
+10 # cymricmorty 2016-06-10 09:19
I'd love to see HRC in an orange jumpsuit rather than one of her ubiquitous pantsuits.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-06-11 00:19
Did you catch that she gave a speech about income inequality while wearing a $15,000 Armani jacket?

You have to admit, she does have a YUGE set of brass ones.
 
 
+1 # cymricmorty 2016-06-11 09:31
I had to look...someone should have warned her that it made her look like an animated upholstery project.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 09:31
He does go on Rachel Maddow often too. They seem to like each other a lot. Peas in a pod for Hillary.

Why can't any of them manage tact or grace? They are all so vile, from the top down. How on earth was Clinton Secretary of State with those mad non-diplomatic skills?

She must have made us enemies wherever she went.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-06-10 13:28
Frank Rich, Rachel Maddow and Hillary Clinton are all equally critical of Israeli policies of ethnic cleansing, human rights abuses and disdain for International Law and the record-number of UN Resolutions which Israel has violated.

Which is to say..... crickets.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 15:06
You are really good at that bait and switch humor. It gets me almost every time.

That's why I stay away from the boardwalk games.
 
 
+20 # Villon 2016-06-09 23:52
For a perfectly articulated response to this specious reasoning that not voting for Hillary Clinton is the same as voting for Donald Trump, go to www.democracynow.org and watch the segment with Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. As she emphasized, it's time to stop voting your fears, voting for the lesser of two evils, and vote your values. I would never vote for Hillary Clinton, but that doesn't mean I'm voting for Donald Trump. Everyone is dreaming if they think that Hillary Clinton will be a progressive president because the Sanders campaign moved her more to the left. With a Clinton presidency, I think you're going to see the same utter disappointment that was extant when people realized that Obama was really an establishment Democrat and not the progressive savior that people wanted him to be.
 
 
+9 # economagic 2016-06-10 06:52
Some people still worship him. Not surprisingly their faith in Clinton is unshakable. We should have learned from T-Rump's campaign -- if it was not already obvious -- that there are a lot more members of the tinfoil hat crowd out there than actually wear their identifying headgear.

It's not that they are delusional because they lack good reason to be angry, and angry at "The Government" in particular. Rather, their "understanding" of the systemic nature and causes of their very real problems is based on combinations of ignorance, fear, fantasy, and "what he said." Not surprisingly many of them are evangelical Christians.

"Critical" thinking again, my reply to rural oregon progressive, above. I don't know whether this link will work outside of the email in which I received it, but it's one of the best short essays on the importance of that body of understanding and how it is developed that I have seen.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/reasoned-discourse-as-a-vital-21st-century-skill/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160608
 
 
+7 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-10 17:11
And you are correct, absolutely, regarding critical thinking. That is what we found lacking in our sons' high school education. Fortunately, my wife would discuss with the kids what they were learning in school, which was mostly what was in the text books. She understood that teachers were tasked with moving kids through the system, and getting to the next chapter on time. There was precious little time for the school to actually teach critical thinking skills. She would then remind them that they should never simply take what they read or told as "fact" without examining all sides of an issue... To think critically, challenging things that did not add up, and then decide.
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-06-10 21:26
Good for you and your family! Ideally CT would be integrated with all subject matter across the curriculum, but don't hold your breath. Simply questioning everything is a good starting point. The Foundation for Critical Thinking (yes, it's in California, but it's OK!), criticalthinkin g.org, has a pretty good "Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking" -- a bit outre but quality. I just saw an article yesterday that I want to follow up on:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/reasoned-discourse-as-a-vital-21st-century-skill/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160608
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-06-11 00:22
Ralph Nader's sister, Laura told us that when they were children, every night their father would ask them about school. And he always asked:

"Did they teach you HOW to think or WHAT to think?"
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-06-10 13:31
Decades of "liberals" choosing to vote for "the lesser evil" has inevitably resulted in the presumption that this November voters will be faced with two PROFOUNDLY EVIL candidates.
 
 
0 # WYThomas 2016-06-10 00:16
Despite all the moaning, groaning, and Hillary-hating comments above, I'll proudly vote for her in November.

I loyally supported Bernie Sanders, because he did start a political revolution the Democratic Party can use for the good of our country.

President Obama and Senator Sanders, among other fine Democrats, will help defeat Donald Trump and other down-ballot Republicans.

We need an FDR-like sweep to throw the Republican rascals out.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 10:19
Can we get a little remedial training for this one, Lil Davey? It's not very interesting.

Hey, dumdum -- Do you make $15 an hour like Sanders' people do?

I heard Brock is going to start outsourcing trolls. Better start falsifying that resume!
 
 
-13 # WYThomas 2016-06-10 00:18
Thanks to Frank Rich for a fine article.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 10:17
Yay! It's a troll party! THAT's what that smell was. pee-YOU, tom-tom.

You give the beautiful state of WY a bad name. Did they give you permission to be so freaking lame?

Yikes, all the people I know from Wyoming are pretty smart.

Are you just PRETENDING to be from WY? Why? YYY.

(When you can't figure that one out, go ask your boss. He'll get it.)

HI, LIL DAVEY BROCK! Sorry, I mean Troll Mistress DB.
 
 
+14 # davehaze 2016-06-10 00:24
So Frank Rich finally mentions Sanders but only you say he should "stop pouting."

I have a question. Has anyone ever thought to characterize Sanders as "pouting?" I thought so. Frank Rich is a disgrace. I would be sorry to say it but I've been saying it for some time.

Has the mainstream media ever treated Bernie Sanders and his supporters fairly? No, not really. And that is my complaint.

And that is why I feel I can never vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment. It has been fixed race from the very beginning. And though it is to our detriment eventually it will be to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party's detriment also.
 
 
+8 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-10 01:00
And on top of the insult of Obama endorsing Clinton today, Elizabeth Warren also endorsed her. This is scary. In addition to Bernie, Elizabeth is one of the most progressive senators (supposedly). This makes no sense whatsoever. How can the person who is most vocal about Wall Street and Big Bank excesses and abuses embrace the candidate that is in bed with those same entities? Is the party so corrupt that they have threatened her very life??? Has she seen the light and recognized that she can do nothing for us, but instead can begin to line her own pockets? I am beginning to regret that I actually donated to her campaign during the first democratic debate (when the republicans ran the Elizabeth equals Nazis commercial). Maybe, she has gone to the dark side only so that she might be named as VP candidate on Hillary's ticket. Maybe she has completely sold out. Or maybe she thinks she can be a moderating force if Hillary is elected. But when has a VP been anything but a place-card at a presidential dinner or other fine occasion. Oh wait, Dick Cheney ran the Bush administration. Maybe she is planning a coup.
 
 
+8 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-10 01:03
Or maybe, she was told, in no uncertain terms, by the DNC that if she did not endorse Hillary, that she would be primaried in her next election, and the exit polls will not match the election results!
 
 
+7 # economagic 2016-06-10 07:01
Good chance of that. But I would not pillory Dr. Warren for failing to live up to our hopes in that respect. It's easy to forget that our strong belief that the path to a better future does not lie in a Clinton Presidency is a conclusion drawn from broad and deep knowledge that unfortunately but inevitably incomplete and uncertain: The future is unknown, and unknowable. Intelligent and well-meaning persons (which I take Warren to be) can evaluate the same information and come to a different conclusion.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 11:10
I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. She was probably under a LOT of pressure to endorse HRC all along. Remember those desperately bad streaks. They were most likely telling EW to endorse then.

Maybe she said she'd wait until there was a nominee.

Her not endorsing back when all the other women senators did was definitely noticed, and embarrassing for HRC.

And she did say several nice things about Sanders. I assume if his win had been recognized she would have endorsed him.
 
 
+11 # DrD 2016-06-10 07:25
Rural - I have felt betrayed by Warren ever since she failed to endorse Bernie early on. Her endorsement before Mass primary would have put Bernie over the top there, even with Bill's infamously-slim y politicking INSIDE the polling locations.

I got an email from a progressive group after the Tuesday primaries headlining that Warren has now joined the call to ban Superdelegates. How ironic that AFTER Superdelegates are used to coronate Hillary and depress CA vote, now she calls to ban Superdelegates?

I don't know if Warren felt threatened but I do know that Tulsi Gabbard was brave enough to not be intimidated. We need to help Tulsi with donations because my guess is she will be in the DNC crosshairs.
 
 
+6 # economagic 2016-06-10 08:06
If the super delegates are banned before or at the convention, there is still a chance that the coronation will be avoided. Of course that is what the Party apparatchiks fear, so will resist with great force unless it becomes clear to them that they will lose if Clinton is nominated to run against T-Rump. Again, Warren is on our side, but has her own understanding and interpretation of what will be necessary in order for our interests to be served.
 
 
+12 # DrD 2016-06-10 08:23
Econo - I don't think party rules can be changed to ban Superdelegates for 2016. It would be effective in 2020. in the Maine state party decision, they only encouraged the supers to vote in proportion to state vote at 2016 convention.

Yes, Warren is free to interpret and act in accordance with what she sees as best for this country just as I am.

(Btw I donated to her campaign and signed multiple Run Warren Run petitions. I respected her decision not to run. I believe in my heart that Bernie would have endorsed her immediately. Their stated policy goals on economic issues are almost identical. If you have any insider information as to why she didn't, I'd love to hear it.)
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-06-10 21:28
I think you are correct about the rules, but this is 2016 and rules are being broken all around!
 
 
+3 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-10 14:27
economagic, DrD and librarian... all good points. Warren's pre-convention endorsement simply has hit an emotional 'vein' and feels (at least for now) like betrayal of principles. The rumor I like the best is that Warren is being set up to be the main ticket IF HRC was to be indicted between convention and the general election...
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-06-11 00:29
I've long stated here at RSN that I was certain that if HRC was about to lose to Sanders, the DNC would foist upon us some other Corporate, Wall Street, Military shill.

If the Democratic Party Establishment were to anoint Senator Warren, that would remove any doubt about her sincerity.
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-06-10 18:32
I don't think she would be afraid of a primary opponent. She is a fund-raising dynamo. I do not believe that she is an across the board progressive, but I don't think she is a coward. It would be really difficult to cheat enough to defeat her.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 09:35
Maybe she just waited to see who the nominee was going to be, didn't want to take sides.

Sure that's one way to go, but why now? It's still not official.

I think Obama, Warren and Biden are chomping at the bit to go after Trump, but I don't see why that requires we have the nominee (shoehorned) in place.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-06-10 13:50
Back in the days before and immediately after the MA Primary, those of us who questioned Senator Warren's decision not to endorse the candidate whose economic policies closely matched hers were vilified.

There can be little doubt that her endorsement of Senator Sanders before her State's Primary on March 1 would have changed the results in MA and all States that followed.

Even if Sanders was still denied the nomination, Warren's early endorsement would have encouraged Clinton and the Democratic Party to embrace her economic views. And when the Party "unified" afterwards, if she chose to campaign for Clinton, that would have only strengthened Clinton's campaign.

That is, unless Warren knew that Clinton would have carried a grudge against her, there was no reason for her to have refused to endorse Sanders.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-06-10 21:30
Whoo, sounds like a pretty big "unless"!
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-06-11 01:38
Quite deliberately.

If Ms. Warren was more concerned about a grudge by Hillary than the welfare of the 99%...

Well, that'd be a reason, just not a GOOD reason.
 
 
-11 # carytucker 2016-06-10 07:04
Quoting davehaze:


Has the mainstream media ever treated Bernie Sanders and his supporters fairly? No, not really. And that is my complaint.

And that is why I feel I can never vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment. It has been fixed race from the very beginning. And though it is to our detriment eventually it will be to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party's detriment also.


Yes, this is the way to advance a social change/social justice agenda. Sit home and pout and abandon the people you claim to care about to the likes of Mr Trump and a Republican party of extraordinary mendacity, greed, and bad faith. Wonderful strategy. Were that to happen, why in the world would anybody take you and others of like mind seriously as political actors? Same old shameful story of the American 'Left': we don't get everything we want right now, so lets throw a temper tantrum (or chairs, whatever's handy). That'll show YOU, Debby Wasserman-Schultz!
Why not try something different: lick your wounds and work at whatever level is appropriate to change local political institutions according to your lights. i.e. grow up and work. Your sniveling ill becomes you.
 
 
+7 # economagic 2016-06-10 08:14
Please read my reply to rural oregon progressive, halfway or farther up the page. You have no doubt that a Clinton presidency would result in less evil than a Trump presidency. Many of us are not so sure. It is not a matter of not getting everything we want, or of believing that Trump is less evil than Clinton, but of no way to know in advance which candidate would wreak more evil on this country and the world. Many people seem to overlook how much evil Ms. Clinton has already done in the service of good, of which she has done or tried to do some. To insult our intelligence, our reasoning capacity, or our good faith -- that is, to refuse to take us seriously enough to respond to our arguments instead of dismissing or ridiculing them -- does your cause and ours no good.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 09:39
b^zz off, cary. People are allowed to take a breather.

Who are you to show up occasionally and start telling everybody what they should do?

You've got a decent point to make. Why do you feel the need to insult people?
 
 
-8 # ojg 2016-06-10 21:59
a breather from what? complaining ad nauseam?
 
 
+9 # davehaze 2016-06-10 10:24
Carytucker


If the only way to advance a social change/social justice agenda is to vote in the general election for the Democratic Party candidate (who is diametrically opposed to social change/social justice agenda) because the Republican candidate is diametrically opposed to a social change/social justice agenda, instead of voting for the candidate who is for a social change social/justice agenda -- say, write in Sanders or Jill Stein -- there will only be more of the same.
 
 
# Guest 2016-06-11 18:53
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-4 # kerwinskeepers 2016-06-11 18:56
Well said, Cary. Some common sense is a welcome change.
 
 
+5 # mim 2016-06-10 06:29
Nothing specific about Hillary Clinton, but i'd like to know:

In these conversations, which is Rich and which is Carp? Who is the questioner in boldface, and who is the responder in lightface?
 
 
+5 # economagic 2016-06-10 07:03
Carp, the questioner, is in boldface; Rich's discursive replies are in regular font.
 
 
+7 # mim 2016-06-10 07:17
Thank you, economagic.
 
 
+7 # economagic 2016-06-10 08:16
You're welcome. I don't understand the negatives, unless some idiot thinks you are stupider than they are for not figuring that out!
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 09:40
I think troll waves just roll through once in a while, like the tide.

**

A wave of 5 or 6 just went through like a gentle breeze from the sewage dump.
 
 
+9 # John Escher 2016-06-10 06:31
Real is an Orca whale grabbing an attendant by her shoelaces. Amazing is the whale dragging her to the bottom of deep water.

Oh, sorry, I may have posted this in the wrong place. Think of the Orca whale as Donald Trump and the attendant as the United States of America.
 
 
+7 # hectormaria 2016-06-10 07:03
I think we will be seeing a lot of people without a nose after November's election.
 
 
+6 # DrD 2016-06-10 19:04
Ok this is cute so I give you a thumbs up for originality

But if you have read any of the discussions above, how can you really believe that we would vote a certain way out of spite?
 
 
+4 # RMDC 2016-06-10 08:37
Tarring Trump with Dick Morris is really funny. But it does not work. Dick Morris is pure Fox TV. He's a big friend of Hannity and O'Reilly. No matter that they had a falling out, Bill Clinton and Dick Morris are locked together forever. Two clowns of the same kind.

Morris was doing a lot more than toe sucking in the Mayfair Hotel. And Clinton was doing a lot more than cigar banging in the Oral Office. These were two sex perverts who enjoyed a 20 year relationship of kink.
 
 
-6 # RMF 2016-06-10 09:05
As a progressive and supporter of Bernie I am very surprised to see this comment thread turn into such a pro-Trump rant. I for one will not be casting my vote to hand the govt to Trump/GOP.
 
 
+8 # economagic 2016-06-10 09:48
Are you sure you have actually READ the comments? Opposing a Clinton presidency is not in any way an endorsement of Trump, contrary to what some people claim. The reasons people are unwilling to support Clinton IN SPITE of T-Rump have been spelled out in considerable and repetitive detail in these pages for many weeks, including at least two of mine above.

If you see a comment in this thread that you consider a "pro-Trump rant," Please identify it. NOBODY here thinks T-Rump is what this country needs. To say that this implies that Clinton IS what is needed suggests a deficiency of basic reason and of logic itself.
 
 
-5 # RMF 2016-06-10 10:04
Au contraire...a vote against the Dem party is a vote FOR Trump/GOP. And just read above -- the overwhelming majority of comments constitute a rant against Hillary. No matter how one attempts to slice and dice, or indeed, to rationalize a voting choice, the result remains the same in our electoral system, wherein a refusal to vote for the Dem nominee lends support to Trump/GOP. Moreover, in light of the tenor and focus of the anti-Hillary comments, international relations is not the sole issue worthy of consideration in choosing a president -- we also have a domestic and economic policy worth consideration as well, policies such as Obamacare, which as a progressive I don't want to see moved to the chopping block, as a way to finance tax cuts for Trump and his buddies.
 
 
+11 # cymricmorty 2016-06-10 10:14
Contrariwise, a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. I live in AZ, which will go for Trump because it's a racist, flaming red state with Big Border Issues. I'm not voting for Trump and I'm not voting for HRC. I want my vote, whether for Sanders or Stein, to be included in the total of national counter-Trump and counter-HRC votes. (And I'll make sure AZ counts my vote.)
 
 
-4 # RMF 2016-06-10 10:55
Yes, the national vote is somewhat set in stone, esp in the south and other regressive states, such as AZ. However, this only underscores the importance of not abandoning the Dem party and Hillary in more balanced or even progressive jurisdictions. Hillary will not carry the south -- an area where she performed very well in the primary season -- so to abandon her in the more favorable states would raise the RISK of a Trump/GOP presidency. At this stage RISK avoidance is a priority.
 
 
+10 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 11:19
Hey I've got a FANTASTIC risk avoidance strategy. Make Sen. Sanders the nominee, as the votes indicated.

You can't insist on the weaker candidate and then demand WE fix your problem.

Good luck with Trump!! Have fun!! I heard the Wall Street transcripts are being turned into a teleplay starring Meryl Streep as Bill and a roll-on travel bag as sHill.

Can't WAIT!
 
 
+8 # cymricmorty 2016-06-10 11:28
Quoting librarian1984:
Good luck with Trump!! Have fun!! I heard the Wall Street transcripts are being turned into a teleplay starring Meryl Streep as Bill and a roll-on travel bag as sHill.


Hahaha, great graphic images! A roll-on travel bag stuffed to bursting with scandals and weak points. Not to mention...oh, never mind, that would be catty. Thanks for the first big laugh I've had in days! I owe you one.
 
 
-4 # RMF 2016-06-10 12:50
It's very unseemly to express glee in anticipation of a Trump presidency.

While I support Bernie, and hope his campaign will have a lasting impact on moving the Dem party leftward, I am not going to cast my vote in a way that increases the risk that Trump/GOP may win the presidential election.
 
 
+4 # DrD 2016-06-10 19:43
That's great RMF. Do what you feel is best. But to admonish us to not abandon the Democratic Party is just really too much. You've been on this site for a while so you have to know- Many of us have been life long Democrats who feel the party abandoned us. I won't be guilt-tripped into voting for anybody.
 
 
-4 # kerwinskeepers 2016-06-11 19:44
And what will you do about the GOP? how will you help prevent their perpetual disruption of anything even remotely progressive, Are you aware of their dedication to abolish Social Security and Medicare? What are your plans for increasing the minimum wage and getting the banks under control? As desirable as it would have been to have Bernie in control, his cause will be stalled indefinitely, if not permanently under a GOP administration. The only viable and available remedy at this time is the installation of a Democratic POTUS and congress. There are still plenty of progressives in congress and could be strengthened by the addition of current candidates on ballot for this election. We need an evolution now, in order to have a revolution later. The Green party may be the party of the future but we won't have a future unless we take the right step now. Vote Dem regardless of the candidates. Dems have the tools and the people to get it done. Remember, this is the party of FDR and we intend to get it back on track and keep it that way!
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-06-12 15:46
My loyalty is to certain values, not to the Democrat Party.
 
 
-9 # logical1 2016-06-10 11:31
THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN REMOVING "CITIZENS UNITED"
WE HAVE TO VOTE HILLARY AS AN ANTI RETHUG ANTI TRUMP.
THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE A KANGAROO COURT FOR THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS OR MORE IF RETHUGS WIN THIS ELECTION.
THIS IS THE MOST CRUCIAL ELECTION OF OUR LIVES.
THERE IS NOT A GOOD CANDIDATE.
SOMEHOW CAN WE WIPE OUT THE PARTIES THAT EXIST AND HAVE AN AMERICAN PARTY THAT IS FOR A HEALTHY AMERICA AND A HEALTHY WORLD?
 
 
+8 # cymricmorty 2016-06-10 11:47
THANKS TO YOUR VIRTUAL BELLOWING
MY EYEBALLS ARE RINGING
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-06-10 12:15
Hmm.

DO YOU THINK THIS ONE'S A TROLL?!?!

Do you notice that they never ever ever mention a policy or a plan HRC has that's going to make all our lives better?

She doesn't even pretend she's going to do anything for 99% of us -- just a little pat on the head and a mumble about incremental change.
 
 
-4 # RMF 2016-06-10 12:42
I can think of one or two things -- Hillary has spoken out in support and even expansion of Obamamcare, rather than repeal as Trump/GOP advocate. And while she has not gone as far as Bernie, she too proposes an increase in the federal minimum wage. Repeal of Obamacare under Trump/GOP does not get us closer to single payer, but instead moves us backward.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-06-10 14:05
Mandatory purchase of a defective product is progressive?

It was a bad idea when HRC proposed it in 1993/1994. It was a bad idea when the Heritage Foundation pushed it. It was a bad idea when Romney passed it. And it was still a bad idea when Obama passed it.

Obamacare created a few bandaids to cover the hemorrhaging wound that is our for-profit healthcare system. For those whose situation is covered by one of those bandaids, it's a good thing.

For the rest of us, it's a disaster that only served to strengthen the Medical Industry's grasp around our throats.
 
 
+7 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-10 17:16
Well presented and stated, Radscal... But, according to ronjazz, I am a "liar", so you'll definitely have to take what I say with a proverbial grain of salt :)
 
 
-1 # librarian1984 2016-06-11 13:31
Thank goodness we are not defined by ronspazz. Shudder to think.

Oregonian, I'd play darts with you over the phone, whereas I wouldn't trust Hillary to manage my kid's college fund.
 
 
+4 # economagic 2016-06-10 21:34
And provided insurance to roughly a third of the 15 percent of the US population with none until the subsidies ran out and premiums soared, as we all knew was part of the plan.
 
 
+2 # cymricmorty 2016-06-11 09:54
Obamacare has been a disaster for working people. "Yep, I just drank shots of whisky, bit down on a stick and we set my broken arm at home. We've got insurance, but we just can't afford to go to the ER."

Another great thing about Sanders' plan for universal health coverage is that it includes dental care. A set of teeth in good repair has become prohibitively expensive for many people, older or younger.
 
 
+8 # lfeuille 2016-06-10 18:43
Overturning Citizens United without also overturning the decisions that it rests on: "corporate personhood" and "money as speech" will accomplish very little. They will just find another way to channel money from corporations and the rich into campaigns.
 
 
+6 # economagic 2016-06-10 21:36
Good -- most people miss that. I think Move To Amend still has the tightest and most comprehensive amendment, but yes, Buckley and Santa Clara County should be mentioned explicitly.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-06-11 00:44
And McCutcheon.

This has been a long, slow and incremental change along the path to corporate fascism.

Hmmm... "incremental change." Where have we heard that lately?
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-06-11 13:37
The changes to screw the people are always rapid and monstrous (and often in the dark) yet the corrections always need to be incremental. Odd.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-06-11 17:59
The creation of "personhood" for corporations, then the equation of money with speech, and finally the "freeing" of unlimited money spent by anonymous "speakers" took almost 1 1/2 centuries.

It's the boiling frog analogy. As untrue as the analogy may be, it still describes quite well how the public is led to gradually accept as normal that which should be abhorrent.
 
 
-1 # librarian1984 2016-06-11 22:44
If we transported someone in from the 1950s, we might expect them to be awed by the technology, but I think they'd actually be more shocked by the political changes in America.

Uh, isn't that what we were fighting AGAINST? they'd ask.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-06-11 13:35
@ lfeuille

Amen! Those are the ones I yearn to strike down.

From the moment I first heard of them and every time I'm reminded of them my blood boils.

Shameful, disastrous decisions.
 
 
-2 # kalpal 2016-06-11 08:21
The number of posters to this article who are proud possessors of PhD's in BS is fascinating. Certainty based in ignorance and hatred is numbskullery.
 
 
-8 # pupdude 2016-06-11 23:09
Most of the + seem to be trollz, the - seem more like people.

Next POTUS may have 1-4 SCOTUS appointments. Trump has provided us with a list of fresh young Scalia wannabes. HRC would obviously go in a different direction.

The hideous hated Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Sorry trollz.
 

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