RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Reich writes: "Purging the DNC of top officials won't remedy the DNC's problems. Those problems aren't attributable to individuals who didn't do their jobs. To the contrary, those individuals probably fulfilled their responsibilities exactly as those jobs were intended to be done."

Robert Reich. (photo: AP)
Robert Reich. (photo: AP)


Why the Shake-Up at the Democratic National Committee Is Doomed

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

04 August 16

 

he shake-up at the Democratic National Committee after an embarrassing breach of its email system continued Tuesday with the departure of three senior officials.

But purging the DNC of top officials won’t remedy the DNC’s problems. Those problems aren’t attributable to individuals who didn’t do their jobs. To the contrary, those individuals probably fulfilled their responsibilities exactly as those jobs were intended to be done.

The DNC’s problems are structural.

The Democratic National Committee – like the Republican National Committee – has become little more than a giant machine designed to suck up big money from wealthy individuals, lobbyists bundlers, and corporate and Wall Street PACs.

As long as this is its de facto mission, the DNC won’t ever be kindly disposed to a campaign financed by small donations – Bernie’s, or any others. Nor will it support campaign finance reform. Nor will it be an institutional voice for average working people and the poor. It won’t want to eliminate superdelegates or support open primaries because these reforms would make Democratic candidates vulnerable to non-corporate interests.

What’s needed is structural reform. The DNC has to turn itself – and the Democratic Party – into a grass-roots membership organization, with local and state chapters that play a meaningful role in selecting and supporting candidates.

And it has to take a lead in seeking public financing of campaigns, full disclosure of all donations, and ending the revolving door between government and the lobbying-industrial-financial complex.

Unfortunately, I doubt this will happen. Which is why no number of purges of individuals are going to make the DNC the kind of organization that serves the public interest. And why we’re going to need a third party, or a third force, to pressure the Democratic Party to do what’s right by America.

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

 
+30 # indian weaver 2016-08-04 08:47
But Reich, in his prior articles, still advocates Bernie supporters now vote for Hillary. He is fairly hypocritical for talking out of both sides of his mouth. Support a Third Party? Do it now, not in some distant future.
 
 
+79 # guomashi 2016-08-04 09:06
He seems to be evolving on the issue.
Each subsequent article is moving in a relatively straight line away from the standard cheer leading for team Democrat.

I found this article surprising coming from him, but not inconsistent with the direction of his last few articles.
 
 
+40 # CL38 2016-08-04 13:34
I agree. He is inching closer to acknowledging the truth about the DNC. Now a few steps further. Admit that Clinton is a huge part of the GOP/DEM 1% machine--she supports Wall Street, banks, oligarchic corporations, fossil fuels, war mongering, funneling the country's wealth UP..

Then to be more up-front, Mr. Reich needs to acknowledge the rigging and election fraud that investigators know took place...so far, he's completely ignored this.

Final step: advocate for those who refuse to vote for more of the same--for her or the 1% DNC!!!
 
 
+29 # lorenbliss 2016-08-04 15:12
@guomashi and CL38: I too agree. What Mr. Reich said on 2 August is intellectually pivotal: "The major issue the public is reacting to...(is) the increasingly tight nexus between wealth and political power. Big money has been buying political clout to get laws and regulations that make big money even bigger." ( http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/38354-the-real-reckoning )

This sort of awakening is the logical first step in the linear progression toward recognition of the fact capitalism is the quintessence of predatory moral imbecility -- that the only antidote for its deadly venom is socialism.

I believe Mr. Reich is indeed evolving -- and if this is actually true, it should give us all hope. For if someone of his protected class can at last acknowledge the truth -- that our only salvation both as a nation and a species is socialism -- what does that say about all the rest of us?

Semper sursum!
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-08-04 23:04
Glad to see him begin to demonstrate 'real change'.
 
 
+13 # kundrol 2016-08-04 16:21
Guo: Yes, I agree. He still has a ways to go though.
 
 
+50 # jimmyjames 2016-08-04 09:10
I totally agree, indian weaver! And I wish that bernie had left the Democratic Party when he got his proof that the DNC was against him and joined Jill Stein and the Green Party ticket. If the Democratic party cannot be reformed, it must be abandoned. And no time like the present.
 
 
+33 # wrknight 2016-08-04 10:00
Quoting jimmyjames:
I totally agree, indian weaver! And I wish that bernie had left the Democratic Party when he got his proof that the DNC was against him and joined Jill Stein and the Green Party ticket. If the Democratic party cannot be reformed, it must be abandoned. And no time like the present.

Bernie never really joined the Democratic Party. While he has caucused with the Democratic Party over the years, he has always been an independent. He was never a member of the club.
 
 
+29 # Bruce Gruber 2016-08-04 11:06
Bernie spent years 'leading' the Democratic Party BACK to FDR principles as the outside money pushed the DNC toward its pinstripe brethren in the GOP - allowing the Dixiecrat wing of the GOP to lock down hate and blame on its right flank. Trump has done a magnificent job of holding a mirror up to the ungovernable structure of tribal clans at war over their disparate fears of inferiority, universal equality, and religious fanaticism. He has drawn them out and put a spotlight on the GOP establishment's years of 'Sieg heil!" wink and nod, now being desperately disclaimed by its organizers.

Bernie has drawn out the criminal element of "all's fair" politics. The only way democratic, progressive, social, egalitarianism can be defeated is to divide, blame, lie, and cheat. Hillary is the "GOLD-Standard" for misrepresentati on, double-talk, and evasion with a 'mob' working the dark money and media blitzkrieg. She continues to "stand with" everyone, pretending to know "nothing" of what is going on.

Perhaps the ONLY solution is to vote Green; address climate change and financial restructuring, nationalize basic necessities of life and start clean. None of the current office holders need apply - save the few who stood up for people over Party, money, and power in this last go-round.
 
 
-8 # tgemberl 2016-08-04 15:12
Bruce,
Your comment started out good and then fell into the false equivalency that dominates this site.

Reich recognizes the problems you're talking about. He also recognizes that the worst response would be to facilitate the election of Donald Trump. We probably won't have much of a country left if we elect him. He is all about white backlash. There's little chance all those low education whites are suddenly going to decide to vote Green.
 
 
+6 # guomashi 2016-08-04 17:07
We don't have much of a country left now.
Hillary will start a war, maybe a major one.
Nothing Trump can do will be worse than that.
 
 
+11 # Bruce Gruber 2016-08-04 19:41
Donald Trump is a successful real estate developers with a flair for pompous ass-wholishness . He is politically naive and reactionary in natural competition. BUT, he is NOT America's enemy No. 1. Climate Change is. World wide conflict is second. AND man-made income inequality is third.

Hillary's (and JEB!s) supporters will not allow those issues to be addressed 'cause that' s where their money and power come from. So, any change you think Hillary represents is pure fiction... AND the oligarchs fear Trump might have a heart and a brain, despite his highly successful awakening of the 'base' that they created and maintained - and he stole from them.... ..
 
 
+7 # Brice 2016-08-05 01:43
I think most of your perceptions are so clear and lucid, and then you leap off into depair with assuming the answer to be the green party. I don't know you are wrong, it could happen I suppose. But I do not that the structure already exists to win in the Democratic Party ... Bernie was not able to knock down all their defenses this time ... but perhaps he will get another chance and fix the things he did wrong while getting his message out to more people. I think jumping to the Green party might work out to be good if the Greens got to the debate, but otherwise it's mostly a gesture that will be invisible to almost everyone.
 
 
+13 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-08-04 11:35
Bernie enrolled as a Dem to run in the primaries
 
 
+10 # wrknight 2016-08-04 16:37
Quoting bettysdad@yahoo.com:
Bernie enrolled as a Dem to run in the primaries

Only because he had to. But he's not a member of the club.
 
 
+12 # lfeuille 2016-08-04 13:41
Technically correct since Vermont doesn't have registration by party, all Vermont politicians are independents, but Bernie has publically committed to being a Democrat. He could, however do that without campaigning for Hillary.
 
 
-26 # ojg 2016-08-04 16:31
yes, wknight, i agree AND that is why he had NO business running for president from the Democratic party AND that is why he lost so miserably. Now he is wanting to start Our Revolution and that is what he should be doing. That way you all can be ready in 4-8 years. But NOW is Hillary's day and i'm so glad to be here to enjoy it.
 
 
+10 # kundrol 2016-08-04 16:25
I also agree with Indian weaver. I think Bernie should have gone with Jill. He seems to be tied to his promise to support whoever got the nomination, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me since the nomination was hijacked, which should have relieved him of his promise.
 
 
-11 # janla 2016-08-04 17:20
Why didn't Jill get out there and work with Bernie? Then I might have some respect for her.
 
 
+11 # jimmyjames 2016-08-04 18:00
Quoting janla:
Why didn't Jill get out there and work with Bernie? Then I might have some respect for her.

Jill was running against both major political parties. She had no idea whether Bernie would win or not. She has already asked him to join the Green Party on her ticket. I have the utmost respect for her.
 
 
+1 # gardenernorcal 2016-08-07 14:36
Bernie would never have gotten as far as he did as an independent.
 
 
+25 # wrknight 2016-08-04 09:45
Quoting indian weaver:
But Reich, in his prior articles, still advocates Bernie supporters now vote for Hillary. He is fairly hypocritical for talking out of both sides of his mouth. Support a Third Party? Do it now, not in some distant future.

I don't support Clinton and will vote for Jill Stein. Having said that, I will disagree with you as Reich is not contradicting himself. You cannot equate Clinton to the DNC. While Reich continues to support Clinton, he is condemning the DNC.

While I disagree with Reich's support of Clinton, I agree with his condemnation of the DNC and I state my case below.
 
 
+35 # tedrey 2016-08-04 10:35
"You cannot equate Clinton to the DNC."

You might have got more agreement with that statement half a year ago. Now a lot of people here view it as tantamount to saying "I oppose the Chicago Mafia, but support Al Capone to straighten it out."
 
 
+30 # BlueMorpho 2016-08-04 12:12
With respects, willful ignorance gets rather tiring. It's common knowledge that HRC bloody well owns the DNC.
 
 
+16 # Buddha 2016-08-04 09:56
Quoting indian weaver:
But Reich, in his prior articles, still advocates Bernie supporters now vote for Hillary. He is fairly hypocritical for talking out of both sides of his mouth. Support a Third Party? Do it now, not in some distant future.


Look, I'm as fed up with the corrupted Democratic Party as the next Progressive, but it is ludicrous to believe that less than 3 months from the election we are going to be able to propel that 3rd Party into power. All we will be doing is propelling racist ethno-nationali st fascism under Trump into power (at which point we probably won't be having elections anymore). Sure, some of us fortunate to live in deep Blue States (yeah for California!) can protest-vote to Jill Stein and send a message to the Democratic Party, but nobody on the Left in any battleground state should do so. No, the time to start working for a Democratic alternative, a #Demexit, is the day AFTER the general. We will have a full year before the next mid-term election to start our exit from the hopelessly corrupted Democratic Party, getting the typical low-information barely-particip ating Dem voter to see the problem and move to an alternative in enough numbers to make it anything but electoral suicide is going to take TIME. It isn't going to happen in 3 months.
 
 
+18 # pbbrodie 2016-08-04 10:31
I completely agree. For the longest time, I have advocated for progressives to take over the Democratic Party or at least drastically reform it but that now appears to be impossible. The only alternative I can see now is to build a third party from the ground up, beginning with local and state positions, whether it be the Greens or something new.
 
 
-3 # newell 2016-08-05 07:50
Agree, but only after Trump is defeated. I stand with Bernie and the political revolution.
 
 
# Guest 2016-08-04 10:46
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+13 # DogSoldier 2016-08-04 11:14
I strongly disagree. The time to strengthen a 3rd party is now. Clinton will win by a landslide, so there is really no worry in the battleground states. She is being supported by numerous Republicans who will not vote for Trump. In fact, these moderate Republicans are her natural base. The DLC has been leading the Dems rightward since Bill Clinton's election. They are now indistinguishab le from Reagan Republicans. We need to strengthen a party on their left to actually have a progressive choice. That party is the Green Party, and if you are a progressive you should be supporting Jill Stein.
 
 
+1 # gardenernorcal 2016-08-07 14:38
I am not so sure she will win by a landslide. This is the general election not a primary fixed by the DNC.
 
 
+27 # DaveEwoldt 2016-08-04 11:17
Buddha, you might be right (3 months not enough time), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. The worst that could happen is that Hillary gets elected and the status quo--that is bringing life on Earth and civilization to an end--stays in power.

But the fact of the matter is that progressive ideology is supported by the majority of Americans. Trying to take over or reform the Democratic Party is a waste of time and energy. Traditionally the best the Dems have been is a slight check on corporate power, and that's the best they will ever be.

It makes absolutely no sense to wait another day to strengthen a third party that was designed to work for people and planet--the Green Party.
 
 
+21 # BlueMorpho 2016-08-04 12:15
There'll NEVER be a good time to do it. A person can always try to rationalize why now's not a good time, therefore it doesn't ever happen. In the meantime things get worse.
 
 
+5 # theherbalist 2016-08-04 16:55
Thank you. I loathe Clinton as much as the rest of you, but I live in Ohio. I plan to do what Cornel West said: "I'll wait and see." If the race is close by the end of Oct, I believe I have no choice. If it isn't, I'll vote Green. Whatever, the minute the election is over, it's time to start a new party.
 
 
+5 # AshamedAmerican 2016-08-04 20:31
I think I loathe her more. Trump would probably make things much worse. We know enough about Clinton to know that she would certainly make the situation much worse. I live in Ohio, and I will be voting for Stein regardless of how close it may appear to be.
 
 
-7 # janla 2016-08-04 17:22
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html?smid=fb-share

This might be what we get if the Donald is elected - scary.
 
 
+30 # grandlakeguy 2016-08-04 10:32
Nothing will redeem the Democratic party short of a full confession that the primary elections were rigged and that Hillary Clinton will step down and support the rightful nominee: Bernie Sanders.

That action should then be followed by exposing the absolute corruption of American elections and a demand to return to hand counted paper ballots with a completely transparent and open system of tabulation. Prison sentences should be sought for all who participated in subverting the will of the voters.

If these actions were taken not only would the Democrats retain the White House but Republicans at all levels of government would be swept out of office by the simple fact that they could no longer cheat the voters at the polls!
 
 
-10 # DogSoldier 2016-08-04 11:15
Dream on.
 
 
+7 # CL38 2016-08-04 22:03
NOTHING wrong with dreaming...as long as we back it up with effective, strategic long-term action to get where we need to be!
 
 
+7 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-08-04 14:53
Quoting grandlakeguy:
Nothing will redeem the Democratic party short of a full confession that the primary elections were rigged and that Hillary Clinton will step down and support the rightful nominee: Bernie Sanders.

That action should then be followed by exposing the absolute corruption of American elections and a demand to return to hand counted paper ballots with a completely transparent and open system of tabulation. Prison sentences should be sought for all who participated in subverting the will of the voters.
While the DNC could implement your first suggestion immediately, the second will take time. Most of the voting machines represent a substantial investment BY THE STATES, not the parties, and the States are not likely to walk away from those investments without a fight.
 
 
-11 # ericlipps 2016-08-04 19:50
Quoting grandlakeguy:
Nothing will redeem the Democratic party short of a full confession that the primary elections were rigged and that Hillary Clinton will step down and support the rightful nominee: Bernie Sanders.

Leaving aside, of course, the fact that Sanders is the "rightful nominee" only in he political theology of his worshippers, the reality is that if any such thing were to occur you could prepare to say hello to President Trump, elected in a landslide as millions of Clinton voters, now convinced that the "confession" was coerced and that THEIR candidate was being robbed at political gunpoint, would just stay home in November.

Then you could cross your fingers and hope there would be a 2020 election.
 
 
-10 # tswhiskers 2016-08-04 10:39
Indian weaver, I don't see Reich as hypocritical; I see him as being realistic. Yes, the party structure needs reforming, but we must deal with the situation that we have right now. So he is probably recommending Hillary's candidacy because he knows and respects her, and FOR RIGHT NOW, she is the one to vote for. Bernie et al will no doubt keep an eye on her and will do their best to keep her on a very progressive path. If there is a realistic alternative to voting for Hillary, you haven't given it in your post. I don't think Jill Stein is a realistic alternative. She and Gary Johnson will only steal votes from Hillary and give them to Trump.
 
 
+14 # Bruce Gruber 2016-08-04 11:17
Pe4sonalizing voters' decision to support a progressive candidate (who happens NOT to be a member of the sycophantic Democratic Party establishment 'cadre') is somehow a theft is as troll-worthy as offering the fantasy that Hillary ever gave up basic Republican organizational orthodoxy after college.

Jill Stein could offer a named "cabinet" as part of her campaign - choosing from among the (possible) 2-3 GOP progressive 'knowns', the Democrat's progressive leadership, and critics of the past three administrations ' insider traders. That might offer aq "realistic alternative" to 4-8 years of legal entrenchment of TPP, WWIII, and continued economic and social degradation that will lead to martial law at its present rate (and preparation).
 
 
+4 # tgemberl 2016-08-04 15:23
I wish we could have a moratorium on the use of the word "troll" on this site. A troll is often just somebody we disagree with.
 
 
+10 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-08-04 14:58
Quoting tswhiskers:
[Jill Stein] and Gary Johnson will only steal votes from Hillary and give them to Trump.
I would argue that Gary Johnson votes would steal from Trump as Johnson is an ostensibly moderate purveyor of no government (Tea party) ideology.
 
 
+6 # CL38 2016-08-04 22:08
twhiskers,

Another LOTE voter. The 'situation' is one the DNC rigged from the start, which included election fraud, to place Clinton as the nominee. How do you respect a candidate who blatantly cheats? How do you vote for THAT? To avoid a trump? It's an age old DNC set-up.

"She (Jill) and Gary Johnson will only 'steal' votes from Hillary....". If you don't see the absurdity/ irony of this comment...,
 
 
-1 # Brice 2016-08-08 04:29
realism don't fly here ... they want fairy tales, conspiracy theories and solutions that you can only implement if you were God almighty. Vanity and delusion.
 
 
-9 # bobhintz 2016-08-04 10:44
Indian Weaver, I think Reich is taking the long view.

A third party candidate at this time could quite likely be a spoiler, throwing the election to Trump. There is too much at stake right now, including four potential Supreme Court nominees in the next four to eight years; Scalia’s seat plus 3 more justices that are 80 years old, give or take. Trump, or any Republican for that matter, cannot be given the “honor” of selecting these justices. It would increase the stranglehold they have held on the court in recent times and prolong it for perhaps as much as a quarter century.

Reich said “a third party, or a third force” and I don’t see the hypocrisy in that. As he suggested in an earlier blog, vote for Clinton now and hold her accountable in the next election.

And don’t forget that ever-changing demographics are with us.
 
 
+18 # Radscal 2016-08-04 13:02
There is always some compelling argument by the Democratic Party to fear the opposition and vote D in this "most important election."

And the inevitable result of decades of voting for ever more evil "lesser evils" is the incredibly regressive current nominee.

2016 is unique. Both party flavors are torn asunder by popular disdain and disappointment from the electorate. Had the DNC permitted Sanders to win the nomination he clearly earned, then "reform" could have happened.

But they didn't. There is no way I'm going to reward their election fraud and vote for a warmongering liar.

Today is the first day of the Green Party Convention. Whoever gets their nomination will almost assuredly get my vote, and whatever assistance I can volunteer to help them (us) win.
 
 
+17 # librarian1984 2016-08-04 15:34
Furthermore, the most recent polls show that Trump's shenanigans are hurting several GOP senators, namely NH's Ayotte, PA's Toomey and others.

This is the IDEAL situation. If we can keep the Clintons out of the WH AND get a Democratic Senate (even some GOP Representatives are polling down), that would assure that we avoid the worst effects of a 'competent' neoliberal starting wars and catering to WS and Israel, while putting a Dem Senate (and maybe even House) in place to contain Trump.

I am disheartened to see so many Bernie supporters accepting that HRC is the lesser evil.

IMO the Clintons should be kept out of power -- even if that means dealing with a Trump presidency -- and I myself cannot believe I just typed those words.

The Clintons are dangerous. We will get TPP! We will have more wars. We will further empower Wall Street and Netanyahoo. We have got to stop that.

Vote Green -- even if it brings in Trump. The DP will not give one concession to progressives unless we prove to them they need us.

PLUS how can you support people who STOLE the election?!
 
 
+9 # hipocampelo 2016-08-04 16:01
librarian1984: How do you always put your finger on the correct key? What you write
is exactly what I think.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-08-04 18:06
haha

Are you ranting all the time too? Do your friends not bring up politics around you also?

:-)
 
 
+6 # jimmyjames 2016-08-04 18:07
Quoting hipocampelo:
librarian1984: How do you always put your finger on the correct key? What you write
is exactly what I think.


"librarian" has my concurrence as well.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-08-04 19:00
Very well considered, librarian.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-08-04 22:25
Here. here.
 
 
-8 # theherbalist 2016-08-04 17:02
Do you live in a swing state?
 
 
+7 # futhark 2016-08-04 17:26
After the People's Amendment is made part of the Constitution to disqualify corporations as persons with rights, another amendment needs to be advanced to get rid of the Electoral College, which is responsible for the "swing state" phenomenon. If you are in a swing state candidates pander to the local conditions at the expense of the rest of the country.

In the meantime, work for a law that bypasses the Electoral College altogether, like the one in California, in which all that state's electoral votes go to the candidate with the nationwide majority.
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-08-04 18:07
Yes I do live in a swing state and I'm glad, even though I expect to suffer through PLENTY of political ads. I hope my vote helps keep the Clintons out of the WH.

BTW I saw a great ad for Jill Stein today featuring her and Cornel West speaking in Philadelphia last week.

Go Greens!
 
 
+16 # lfeuille 2016-08-04 13:47
The term "spoiler" implies that there is something to spoil, but both candidates are so rotten that the results will be "spoiled" anyway. I still see HRC as more dangerous as she would be more capable of getting her way.
 
 
+14 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-08-04 15:04
Quoting bobhintz:
There is too much at stake right now, including four potential Supreme Court nominees in the next four to eight years; Scalia’s seat plus 3 more justices that are 80 years old, give or take. Trump, or any Republican for that matter, cannot be given the “honor” of selecting these justices.
1) No President can permanently appoint even one Supreme without the Consent of the Senate.
2) Given their performance this year, the Republicans can be counted on to block ANY moderately progressive appointee.

Ergo, keeping SCOTUS from drifting back into a dark hole rests more upon electing Dems to the Senate than upon blocking Trump from the Presidency.
 
 
+21 # jdd 2016-08-04 10:44
Unless, the Bernie forces decide to roll-over, there may well be a split in the Democratic Party in the near offing between the pro-wall Street faction grouped around Obama and Hillary and the pro-labor faction around Bernie and Warren. Such a split needs to be issue based. If the crucial issue of a break-up of the big banks based on a return to Glass-Steagall, which was inserted into the platforms of both parties, is coupled with the demand to end perpetual wars of regime change, there can be no peaceful coexistence within the Democratic Party.
 
 
+7 # nogardflow 2016-08-04 11:53
In some ways, I think Hillary is more frightening than Trump, but the Supreme Court is the important thing. We can not allow the Right to fill the current open position or to put any more Justices on the Court. Trump or Clinton, they can be removed in four years, the Supreme Court is a life time position.
 
 
+6 # jimmyjames 2016-08-04 13:26
Quoting nogardflow:
In some ways, I think Hillary is more frightening than Trump, but the Supreme Court is the important thing. We can not allow the Right to fill the current open position or to put any more Justices on the Court. Trump or Clinton, they can be removed in four years, the Supreme Court is a life time position.

I understand your argument and do not necessarily agree with it. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to confirm a SCOTUS. The Democratic Party, and especially progressives, have a good chance to pick up Senate seats this year. My bet is that most if not all SCOTUS nominees will be middle of the road moderates and will not change the court all that much.
 
 
-5 # ericlipps 2016-08-04 19:28
Quoting indian weaver:
But Reich, in his prior articles, still advocates Bernie supporters now vote for Hillary. He is fairly hypocritical for talking out of both sides of his mouth. Support a Third Party? Do it now, not in some distant future.

I've said I before, and I'll say it again: any third party is doomed as long as the Electoral College exists as it is. The EC effectively GUARANTEES a two-party system by requiring a candidate to win an absolute majority of electors in order to win the presidency. And its role at that level influences congressional politics, which in turn affects politics at the local level.
 
 
+36 # DrD 2016-08-04 09:28
I think Reich is conflicted, like many voters. He supported Bernie strongly and forcefully, which had to have been difficult given his ties to the Clintons. But after the nomination went to Hillary, he (like Bernie) endorsed Hillary in order to defeat Trump. He, again like Bernie, seems to feel that they can change the Democratic Party from within. I don't agree but I do applaud his efforts to try and I hope he keeps up the pressure.

I don't understand the strong pull to stay the course with the Democratic Party. I will vote Green and will work for and donate to Stein's campaign. Btw there will be a CNN town hall event for the Green Party on Aug 17 - a very positive surprise!!
 
 
+8 # pbbrodie 2016-08-04 10:28
Did you just completely miss Reich calling for a third party effort to force the Democratic Party to change?
 
 
+16 # DrD 2016-08-04 11:56
No, I didn't miss that but he has not reversed his decision to support Hillary in November (as far as I am aware)
 
 
+15 # Radscal 2016-08-04 13:08
Until Reich renounces Clinton and endorses a true alternative, I take his talk about a "a third party, or a third force, to pressure the Democratic Party" to be yet another of his arguments to vote for HRC because Drumpf is SOOOOO bad, and HRC is on our track to some degree, and malleable once in office.
 
 
+6 # DrD 2016-08-04 19:45
Rumors are now flying that Trump may drop out. If that happens I wonder what Reich and others will do since the main reason put forward to vote for Hillary is to defeat Trump?
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-08-04 20:31
hahaha

Great point! Their WHOLE strategy is that she's NOT Trump!

THAT would be an amazing development! Didn't somebody (Radscal?) say that Manafort slipped and said Ryan would be the nominee?

HRC would definitely lose the GOP support she's been getting. Even D!ck :-D There would be fewer GOP defections to the Libertarians, and maybe even a few Dems who would vote for Ryan over HRC.

Could she beat Pence?
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-08-04 23:20
I expect it would help the Green candidate, too. So many people seem willing to hold their noses to avoid Trump winning, but take away the boogeyman and I bet some would decide to vote for the most good, not the least worst.
 
 
+31 # wrknight 2016-08-04 09:33
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The DNC (like the RNC) is a private club dedicated getting money to elect those people chosen by its patrons to political offices. Like any club, it was established by a small group of people financed by its patrons and remains dedicated to those patrons. It does not represent the people any more than your local country club.

Calling yourself a Democrat does not entitle you to membership in the club. To become a member, you have to become a patron - and that's not affordable for anyone not in the 1%.

Bear in mind that Bernie was not a member of the club and was not chosen by the club's patrons. That's why they blackballed him.
 
 
+6 # Patriot 2016-08-04 16:20
Exactly, wrknight. Just like owning a paino doesn't make one a pianist.

I'm a Progressive, and I want a Progressive presicent. There's only one running: Jill Stein!
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-08-04 19:07
" I want a Progressive presicent"

Perhaps the best typo of all times, by changing just one letter to get: Progressive prescient.
 
 
+4 # AshamedAmerican 2016-08-04 20:52
Yeah a progressive who can foresee (and prevent) every assassination attempt.
 
 
+28 # jimmyjames 2016-08-04 09:40
As long as the Democratic Party supports (and cheats to support) any candidate like Hillary Clinton, they will have lost my allegiance. Although I have been a Democrat for 44 years, enough is enough. All they seem to care about anymore is wealth and power.
 
 
-4 # wwway 2016-08-04 10:21
And how did it happen that the party seems to only care abut wealth and power? I'm disappointed that Reich hasn't explained it.
Bernie explained it...somewhat. But here it is in a nut shell. Those who didn't vote and get involved left those who did holding the direction of the party.
Republicans are committed to making this country a one party system. They're close because the Democrats didn't get committed support.
In an interview earlier this year with Rachelle Maddow, Hillary summed up the formidable character of the electorate. She said that "Republicans just fall in line and Democrats have to fall in love." Quite a dilemma for Democrats.
It's really time for Democrats to get serious because if they don't, those willing to stick it out have to still compete with big money Republicans and they will have no choice but to continue the rich man's own war.
 
 
+17 # wrknight 2016-08-04 10:28
Quoting wwway:
And how did it happen that the party seems to only care abut wealth and power? I'm disappointed that Reich hasn't explained it...
You really need to understand that the DNC is NOT a public institution. It is a private club which can make its own rules and do whatever it wants within the constraints of the law (which are damned few.) Get it out of your head that it represents you or works for you. It works for its patrons and no one else.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-08-04 22:20
Here's a great description of how the Democratic Party sank to the bottom, in 1% land.

Why Bernie vs Hillary Matters More Than People Think

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-studebaker/bernie-vs-hillary-matters-more-than-people-think_b_9209940.html
 
 
+1 # Aaron Tovish 2016-08-05 10:51
Quoting CL38:
Here's a great description of how the Democratic Party sank to the bottom, in 1% land.

Why Bernie vs Hillary Matters More Than People Think

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-studebaker/bernie-vs-hillary-matters-more-than-people-think_b_9209940.html


This is a very interesting article, thank you for pointing it out. However, it has very little hard info about how the DCN was in actuality bent to the aims of the neo-liberals. That would be good to know if "Our Revolution" wants to bend it to our aims. What are the Statutes of the DNC? What is the procedure for amending them? How are officers appointed/hired ? What role/rights do Party Members have? Who has the power to grant special privileges? And who has received them?
Anyone who is good enough to take the time and make the effort to get answers to these and related questions will be doing OR a big favor.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-08-06 14:38
Did you read the entire article?
 
 
0 # Aaron Tovish 2016-08-08 02:04
Yes, I did, beginning to end. What makes you think I didn't?
Do you find answers to my questions in the article? If so, please point them out. Thank you.
 
 
-13 # ojg 2016-08-04 16:42
bye-bye jj and crew.
 
 
+7 # jimmyjames 2016-08-04 18:15
Quoting ojg:
bye-bye jj and crew.


Why? Are you going somewhere? Off to bother some other people, we hope?
 
 
-4 # ojg 2016-08-05 13:44
Quoting jimmyjames:
Quoting ojg:
bye-bye jj and crew.


Why? Are you going somewhere? Off to bother some other people, we hope?

why, jj, are you suffering from a bout of oltimers? you just said a few posts back that you were done with the Democratic party, and i, as a proud Democrat, are bidding you and your comrades bye-bye!
 
 
+6 # SusannaDana 2016-08-04 09:43
And that is why we all need to hop on board with the REAL progressive party we can ALL believe in: The Working Families Party! We are already a presence in more than 10 states. We supported Bernie Sanders from the start! We fight for $15 minimum wage, paid family leave, equal educational opportunity, and MORE! WFP is the party we have been waiting for! Check us out and join now!
 
 
+15 # djnova50 2016-08-04 10:22
While I have not paid any kind of membership dues in the Green Party, I am going to continue supporting Jill Stein. Read Jill2016.com/pl an
 
 
+13 # wrknight 2016-08-04 10:34
You might consider going Green which has pretty much the same position on all the major issues as the WFP, but has a better chance at getting electoral votes.

The problem with too large a field of candidates is that they deprive each other of any chance of winning.
 
 
+16 # DaveEwoldt 2016-08-04 11:40
While I agree with what the Working Families Party is doing, they're a one-trick pony in a complex system. At this point in time, the Green Party with its Ten Key Values is the only one addressing the relationships among the issues affecting people and planet.
 
 
+10 # Patriot 2016-08-04 15:44
Hello, SusannaDana! I remember the Working Families Party from the New York primary. You folks must have hiked your tootsies off for Bernie, and I was so proud of you--and so grateful for the fight you put up! It makes me sad to say this to you, but I'm going to vote with the Green Party this year, because they're already on the ballot in 24 states and D.C., & well on the way to gaining ballot access in the rest of the states by November. Also, they already have 134 officeholders across the country, & will have almost 200 candidates on the November ballot. Several of those officeholders & candidates are New Yorkers, but I'll bet you already know that! Lots of RSN readers will be voting Green--but there must be a way WF & Green supporters can join forces & BOTH do well in the election, without either hurting the other. Check your RSN profile page, please, for a message!
 
 
+30 # lsapadin 2016-08-04 09:43
All Prof. Reich is saying is that you can't reform the DNC without getting money out of politics. And that simply firing people is nothing more than scapegoating. I agree completely.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-08-04 19:26
Getting the money out of politics is probably required to achieve any substantial progressive goals.

But I don't think firing people who actually commit egregious acts against democracy (and the long-term success of the party) is "scapegoating."
 
 
+4 # AshamedAmerican 2016-08-04 21:08
I only half agree with you on this one Radscal.

Wouldn't "scapegoating" be an accurate description when guilty parties are fired, but one or more other guilty parties higher up the bureaucratic ladder escape justice?
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-08-04 23:42
I usually try to stay out of semantic debates, but I stepped right into this one.

ScapeGoat comes from an ancient Hebrew custom on Yom Kippur of placing all the sins of the community onto one of their goats, and then casting it out to find its own way in the wilderness.

So, unless that goat was a real jerk, it was an innocent upon which all the guilt is laid.

Merriam-Webster defines it as:

"a person who is unfairly blamed for something that others have done"

So, I guess your point works - that a person who is guilty, but less so then someone else, is "unfairly blamed."
 
 
+3 # AshamedAmerican 2016-08-05 21:08
I don't mean to nitpick with you. I don't know Isapadin, and wasn't too concerned with what s/he was trying to say. What I thought was important is that a few got fired but DWS was rewarded, and neither she nor HRC suffer any consequences. So basically, the few who were fired were scapegoats, resulting in HRC followers (who know anything about this) being satisfied with this mockery of "justice".

I usually try to avoid arguing less meaningful points especially with those here whom I respect. And I hope you understand that it is a show of respect that I do so with you on this occasion. Because I consider you to be one of the most realistic, knowledgeable and reasonable people here, and figure others recognize this too, I probably want to try to hold you to a higher standard than most. And if these people being fired were scapegoats so DWS and HRC would be off the hook, then I had to object to what may have been interpreted as your opinion that the fired few were not being scapegoated for this purpose.

So do you think we can learn this ancient Hebrew custom, find a real jerk of a goat and cast the sins of the Dem Party upon it, thereby letting them move forward without necessarily continuing their sinful ways?
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-08-06 10:41
Quoting AshamedAmerican:
So do you think we can learn this ancient Hebrew custom, find a real jerk of a goat and cast the sins of the Dem Party upon it, thereby letting them move forward without necessarily continuing their sinfuil ways?
This is one position for which I would happily vote for Hillary Clinton.
 
 
0 # AshamedAmerican 2016-08-06 13:03
Sorry librarian, I cannot give you a thumb here. HRC would just be lying again.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-08-08 00:21
But wouldn't she be a goat out in the desert .. leaving us alone? I am FOR that.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-08-06 12:41
My goodness. Thanks for the kind words. Now I have to try to live up to them..... damned Catholic upbringing!

Catholic school joke (a whole, separate genre):

The difference between Jews and Catholics is that Jews are born feeling guilty. Catholics have to be taught.

Yeah, I agree (and agreed in my last sentence) that busting apparatchiks but not the actual leadership can be considered "scapegoating."

And like so many before them, these folks are taking the fall while the Clintons walk. Some, like Susan Mcdougall went to prison rather than testify against the Clintons. Some, like Peter Paul went to prison even though he told the truth.

And many are no longer with us.

The Dems seem to have a goat already. Or at least a goat-headed thing called Baphomet. ;-)

ps. I hold you in high regard, and enjoy and often learn from your comments. RSN is an amazing community!
 
 
+1 # AshamedAmerican 2016-08-06 13:32
Nah, the point is that you do live up to this, but perfection is unattainable.

Perhaps for having practically no religious upbringing, I cannot even comprehend your joke. I get the Catholic guilt, but not the Jewish side of it.

I have nothing to say, for once, about how evil the Clintons are, how systemically corrupt the system is or how blind the people are. You said something recently about being filled with hope over Mako's possible change in disposition. I didn't want to disturb that feeling. I wish I could experience it.

I had to google their goat, but at least I got your humor this time. Is this hidden in the dollar bill somewhere too?
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-08-06 19:34
LOL. Now you made me do a web search. And sure enough, some kooks do believe they’ve found Baphomet in the dollar bill:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vuUODD_S8

Not too convincing, eh?

But did you see the Opening Ceremony For that huge Gotthard Base Tunnel In Switzerland? I saw a minute of video on the news and thought, that’s WEIRD. So I went web surfing and watched the entire thing.

I tell ya. I don’t believe the 0.01% really are devil-worshippi ng, pagan blood-drinkers or whatever, but they sure do seem to go out of their way to make it look that way.

Here are a couple of short highlights.

Part One (Inside, includes weird sex and a baby-faced angel/demon with perfect bare boobs):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVw_mPvYcDM

Part Two (outside, includes Baphomet humping some virginal maiden):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1561971355&feature=iv&src_vid=JVw_mPvYcDM&v=K1Xg7lYuYus

Or, if you can handle it, here’s most of the “program:”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5gklIKcDg

Now seriously, is this just random art? I looked into the "artist" who designed it, and he's the son of a Nazi.
 
 
+3 # AshamedAmerican 2016-08-06 22:18
No, can't really see it. Maybe it is on the $100,000.

Had not seen or heard of the ceremony. If I had heard of the tunnel, it had not interested me. Still am not sure what it may have to do with the super collider.

My guess is that some of them are devil-worshippe rs etc. A percentage of common folk pursue the ugliest/strange st/etc existence they can find. So some of the wealthy, who have few hindrances, probably take this mindset to extents unimaginable to me.

I watched a majority of "most of the 'program'", and then a couple attempts at interpretations of it. "Random art"? No, I cannot go along with that. There was definitely an evil theme. And it had to have had something to do with more than just the opening of a tunnel. It makes me want to study the Hadron Collider.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-08-06 23:12
Yeah, I'd heard about the tunnel (it took them many years to excavate) but hadn't paid much attention until I saw that short news clip about the ceremony.

"Weird Scenes Inside the GoldMine," eh?

I haven't followed the crazy Christianist musings on CERN and how they tie it to this tunnel, except that it's all supposed to be related to calling up Satan.

But when I dig into some of the long-lasting financial dynasties and organizations, I can sure see why some believe they extend back to the ancient "mystery religions" and such.

After all, the FreeMasons specifically make that claim.

And like you, I cannot imagine their mindsets.
 
 
+1 # guomashi 2016-08-07 10:01
The operative principal is that everything is a metaphor for everything else.

i.e. everything both means everything else and is totally meaningless at the same time.
 
 
+1 # AshamedAmerican 2016-08-08 22:21
Meaningful to them, and meaningless to us?
 
 
+1 # AshamedAmerican 2016-08-08 22:20
I appreciate your giving me something pleasant to research for a change: the Doors.

I was going to suggest that maybe it was to open a wormhole. I decided to google it. The first entry was something sort of related. Out of time for now. But it does seem to have cost too much for its stated purpose. I must get back to this.
 
 
+10 # Skyelav 2016-08-04 09:45
Indian Weaver is correct and I don't think he deserves negative votes from us. Reich was going along with the Bernie movement until, and almost suddenly one day, he switched to Hillary, causing one to wonder what made him switch? This happened possibly when Bernie endorsed her. In any case, Reich has his own stuff going on as does everyone dependent on the political nonsense in DC. Who knows what kind of phone call he got. Lately I have been watching him slowly creep back to where he once stood. Sadly, that's the way the game is played. Personally I appreciate his efforts.
 
 
+8 # DaveEwoldt 2016-08-04 11:43
Umm, I think what made Reich switch is the fact that Bernie capitulated. The causal relationship seems pretty straightforward to me. But, as you say, who knows for sure.
 
 
+9 # markovchhaney 2016-08-04 10:26
Buddha, you use the word "fascism" in regards to Donald Trump. I wonder if you know what that word actually means. And if you do, why do you think it applies correctly to Trump, but not to, say, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Does where a "D" on one's chest mean that you aren't a fascist by definition, whereas an "R" on one's chest defines one as a fascist? Maybe it's time to stop using that word to mean, "The people whose politics I disagree with and/or who are on the other team."
 
 
+11 # wrknight 2016-08-04 14:38
Quoting markovchhaney:
Buddha, you use the word "fascism" in regards to Donald Trump. I wonder if you know what that word actually means. And if you do, why do you think it applies correctly to Trump, but not to, say, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Does where a "D" on one's chest mean that you aren't a fascist by definition, whereas an "R" on one's chest defines one as a fascist? Maybe it's time to stop using that word to mean, "The people whose politics I disagree with and/or who are on the other team."
Actually, the American Heritage Dictionary, 1976, defines fascism as follows:

"fascism: a philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism."

As the old saying goes, if the shoe fits, wear it.
 
 
-4 # PeacefulGarden 2016-08-04 10:26
A third party is too little and way too late. The neocon neoliberal monster has taken over. The monster will fight against any third party system and it will use the RNC and the DNC to fight for it.

All we can do is be grateful for what the neocon neoliberal monster has not eaten. We, the working class, are left with the scraps.

Robert knows this.

We, the working class, are left under the gun of banks and the police departments. Voting does not matter, and educational merit does not matter.

It is time to stop pretending Robert, stop pretending that elections are a solution to our problems.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-08-04 13:17
You express the George Carlin world view.

There's a big club, and we're not members. They own us. They don't care about us.

So be happy with what little they let us have for now, because they're going to take away even that soon.
 
 
-4 # PeacefulGarden 2016-08-04 20:50
Do you honestly think that either the RNC or the DNC represents the working class of this country? Please. You are pretending. They do not care about you, unless you have money for them. Do you have money for them? Do you have access?
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-08-04 23:45
Where do you get the sense that I believe that?
 
 
+9 # wrknight 2016-08-04 14:42
Quoting PeacefulGarden:
A third party is too little and way too late. The neocon neoliberal monster has taken over. The monster will fight against any third party system and it will use the RNC and the DNC to fight for it.
It's only too little and too late if you surrender.
 
 
-2 # PeacefulGarden 2016-08-04 20:37
What? If I surrender? There is no surrendering.
 
 
-13 # wwway 2016-08-04 10:33
When Hillary was First Lady and working to reform health coverage she was told to go home and bake cookies. Remember that?
Well, she didn't. So, are you all going to retreat and split up? Criticize your party rather than fight for it? Those who attempt to lead you will be deflated and with it your cause. I've been a Democrat since age 8 when Nixon and Kennedy ran. I've been active since that time and I'm as frustrated now as I was hopeful until now. I really don't think Americans (who generally side with the Democratic platform) are really serious about progressive values and achieving progressive goals. It's more about being right in the ideal than uniting to get the ideal done.
 
 
+21 # Naneaopupukea 2016-08-04 11:01
It's like being a battered spouse. One day, you simply leave. Likely struggling, poorer, frightened, brave . . . . and FREE.
 
 
+5 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-08-04 11:45
I don't remember it, because no one told Hillary to go home and bake cookies.
 
 
+15 # jimmyjames 2016-08-04 12:08
Quoting bettysdad@yahoo.com:
I don't remember it, because no one told Hillary to go home and bake cookies.

I checked it out - she said that about herself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EGranwN_uk
 
 
+18 # jimmyjames 2016-08-04 11:54
America would have been better off if Hillary had heeded their advice and baked cookies!
 
 
+14 # lfeuille 2016-08-04 13:51
American would have been better off if Hillary had never met Bill Clinton and become a Democrat. As a Republican, there would be not confusion about what she really is.
 
 
+10 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-08-04 15:16
Quoting jimmyjames:
America would have been better off if Hillary had heeded their advice and baked cookies!
Unfortunately, there would simply have been another neo-libcon to take her place :(
 
 
+19 # djnova50 2016-08-04 12:39
I'm done fighting for the Democrats. They were done fighting for me long ago. I can't say that I am ungrateful for the scraps that they have left for me; but, I am done, while I still have my self respect.
 
 
+9 # Patriot 2016-08-04 16:23
Me, too!
 
 
+18 # Radscal 2016-08-04 13:25
I remember her health care "reform" very well.

She wrote it in secret meetings with health industry insiders and specifically kept all single payer advocates out.

Her plan was the same sort of mandatory purchase of defective services from private corporations later promoted by Republicans. In fact, based on her "managed competition" plan, with ridiculously high fines for failing to buy just the "right" service or provide the "wrong" service, it was even more onerous than the HeritageCare, RomneyCare, Obamacare plans.

And polls at that time showed 2/3 to 3/4 of all USians wanted Universal Single Payer Healthcare. But like always, she doesn't care what we want. She only wants to con people into voting for her so she can carry out the policies of the moneyed interests who have made her so phenomenally wealthy.
 
 
+22 # Ted 2016-08-04 10:36
I just don't get it. Why does everyone seem to think the democratic party has to be rebuilt in some way? As though it MUST be reformed because it MUST exist.

It's like some crazy "Too Big to Fail" argument.

The democratic party has been fatally corrupted and thats that.

No need to "rebuild" anything. Let it die or even just hang around as a catchall for lost political souls, whatever, but please stop pretending that it's some kind of permanent feature in the universe that we have no choice but to fix.

There's nothing left worth fixing.
 
 
-7 # tgemberl 2016-08-04 15:39
So, you're going to do that in 3 months? Build a Green Party that beats Trump?
 
 
+6 # Patriot 2016-08-04 16:23
Yep!
 
 
+1 # AshamedAmerican 2016-08-05 21:14
AND Clinton!
 
 
+11 # RadicalLeft 2016-08-04 11:00
Finally, Dr. Reich.
How long did we have to wait to hear the voice of reason...
So, let's get started and moving with the new party.
 
 
+9 # jimmyjames 2016-08-04 11:14
"wrknight" made an interesting comment above. If enough people vote for Jill Stein and/or Gary Johnson, the election would most likely end up in the Congress. With a Republican majority, they could pick the next President. It would be a scenario that would shake up American politics and have ramifications for a long time. It might even wake up those damn politicians to start representing the people who voted for them. New, and strong, political parties would begin to gain strength and be a viable challenge in the future.

Listen, the majority of Americans dislike both major candidates. Why give either of them a chance to be our next President?
 
 
+18 # Ted 2016-08-04 11:55
I agree. This eternal stalemate that the duopoly wants us to believe we are stuck in is basically the same as corrupt price-fixing between "competing" corporations. There's a reason 'Anti-trust' laws exist.

I say screw 'em.

Vote Green. Jill2016.com/pl an
 
 
+16 # anarchaos 2016-08-04 11:19
The Green Party fits the bill. If enough of us do not buy into: "They can't win so I can't vote Green" (self-fulfillin g prophecy?}. And we DO vote Green - as indicated previously by wrknight and jimmyjames - then a very different scenario will emerge. Hillary is demonstrably the WORST choice.
 
 
-6 # JCM 2016-08-04 11:32
The more I read about Hillary, and I think from good sources, the more it is difficult to vote for her. Still, if Jill took away three quarters of Hillary's votes, which even that seems impossible, they would both loose and Trump is elected. I can't cast a vote that would in any probability create a President Trump?
 
 
+12 # jimmyjames 2016-08-04 11:53
Quoting JCM:
The more I read about Hillary, and I think from good sources, the more it is difficult to vote for her. Still, if Jill took away three quarters of Hillary's votes, which even that seems impossible, they would both loose and Trump is elected. I can't cast a vote that would in any probability create a President Trump?

I don't believe that will happen. If most of the Bernie supporters went Green, and many Republican voters vote Libertarian (as they well might) then possibly neither Trump nor Clinton will win the Presidency. And that would be good for America.
 
 
-6 # JCM 2016-08-04 12:37
jimmyjames: The numbers really don't add up that way. In my reply above, the libertarians have voted the way they will so the fight is mostly between H and J with the same result, President Trump.
 
 
+14 # jimmyjames 2016-08-04 12:55
Quoting JCM:
jimmyjames: The numbers really don't add up that way. In my reply above, the libertarians have voted the way they will so the fight is mostly between H and J with the same result, President Trump.

I'm sorry JCM, but I don't buy it. Voting for a person I do not like or respect, so that another candidate I don't like or respect does not win the Presidency is not the way I vote. If Trump wins because Hillary is such a poor candidate, then the fault lies with the DNC and Hillary supporters. Do not fault me or others who believe like me, for voting for the best candidate for President.

Jill Stein!
 
 
+10 # jimmyjames 2016-08-04 13:03
(continued)
If Hillary Clinton had any integrity or trustworthiness , she would renounce her nomination by the Democratic Party "machine" and endorse Bernie Sanders for President. IMHO, Bernie Sanders actually won the Democratic Primary if it were not for the DNC and the literal stealing of numerous primary elections. With all Hillary's baggage and illegal actions, she deserves to be in prison, not the White House!
 
 
+4 # JCM 2016-08-04 13:23
I went to see Bernie in Atlanta. I really wish he had become the nominee, and the President. It didn't happen and blaming who or what doesn't change where we are now. Again, I understand how you feel about your vote but have seen the consequences of casting a vote for an unrealistic candidate. We're at the point of just arguing about it. I will continue to look at Jill's chances and would hope that you might think about what I have said.
 
 
+13 # librarian1984 2016-08-04 15:54
You are operating under the assumption that Trump is the greater evil but many disagree with that. No one WANTS a Trump presidency but he is preferable to the Clintons.

Trump is against military adventurism, HRC is for it.

Trump is against TPP, HRC is for it.

Trump can be contained, especially if we can get a Dem Senate (which looks possible) while HRC will quite competently do more damage to the 99%.

The best outcome would be a Stein presidency. The worst would be a Clintons presidency.

If you support progressive causes you should vote for a real progressive, one who did not steal her party's nomination.

If we get a Trump presidency we can deal with that more easily than a Clintons presidency -- and we send a radically strong message to the DP. By their own actions they have made that the only way to impact them.

If we reward their theft and unresponsivenes s, what is the incentive for them to take us seriously? We would just be folding again, walking back into that abusive relationship.
 
 
+4 # AshamedAmerican 2016-08-04 21:22
I agree with all of this, and would like to add that if Trump wins, we get a chance at another primary race in 4 years. If Clinton wins, we will probably get 8 years of her with no chance of defeating her in the primaries.
 
 
-7 # JCM 2016-08-04 22:07
librarian1984: Trump has no idea what his policy is on anything except to promote Trump. A discussion on who is worse, to me is irrational. If you can't see it for yourself there is nothing I can say to change your mind. I don’t know much about Jill and I’ve tried. It doesn’t much matter. There is no way Jill can win. In a head to head between H and J, there would be a good chance I would vote for her even though she has little political experience, as far as I know. Hillary scares me too. Again, under no circumstance would I take a chance with Trump. Unfortunately, at this time voting for Jill could be the worst vote in your life and the worst vote for the planet. Your love for your country and this planet should be greater than the hate you feel for the DNC
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-08-04 22:55
I do not hate the DNC or HRC nor do I value this planet or my country any less than you do.

I have agonized about what the choices are and their consequences.

You say a discussion of who is worse is irrational and then proceed to tell me Trump is worse. Well I disagree. Trump has consistently said he is against militarism, against the TPP and for improving relations with Russia.

Trump is only out for Trump but you think HRC is for anyone but HRC?

My preference is that Jill Stein become president now that Senator Sanders has been cheated of his victory, but even if she doesn't win she can take the win away from the Clintons and I am okay with that -- and that's assuming Clinton doesn't also steal the general election.

Clinton has done her best to increase fracking -- which is disastrous for the planet. HRC promotes war -- which is disastrous for this planet and our citizens. HRC supports corporations over people. She has repeatedly shown herself to be a liar, a WS shill and a warmonger. She STOLE the nomination.

If Congress does its job they can contain Trump but nothing will stop the rapacious Clintons.

I don't know why you choose to support such a corrupt individual and reward her dishonesty and theft, but I don't make assumptions about your love of country or planet.

This decision isn't an easy one but I am a rational human being with one vote all my own and I don't appreciate your questioning my motives or patriotism.
 
 
+1 # CL38 2016-08-05 17:40
JCM: IMO, you forgot to say, "IMO".
 
 
+10 # Patriot 2016-08-04 16:06
JCM, you have class! At the moment I'm firmly committed to Jill Stein & every progressive or moderate who's on my ballot in November. However, that's still a long way off. I'm afraid nothing is likely to induce me to believe anything Hillary says, & I'm planning on working for the Green party, but.... I'm watching polling numbers, which probably won't be much help, because the MSM isn't likely to give the Greens the time of day. I'll also be watching to see how much more ballot access the Greens are able to swing. AND I wish everyone would check to see whether they will be able to write in candidates & have their write-in vote counted, so we know for sure whether enough of us can write in Bernie to have any effect.

Still, I'm fairly confident that, if we can't write in Bernie, if all of us who are anti-Dems, & all of us who are eyeing the LOTE choice, & all the disenchanted Repubs, too, can get & hold a good grip on our courage & will vote for Stein, we just might wind up with a progessive in the WH.

What do you think about that? It requires each voter to move firmly in the direction heorshe REALLY wants to WIND UP, & vote for what we really WANT, not just against what we hope to high heaven we won't get stuck with! It's a terrifying leap of faith, because each of us will need to trust that enough of us are doing the same thing (voting for Stein, I hope) to avoid simply fragmenting ourselves & winding up with the House picking our next president.
 
 
+9 # Patriot 2016-08-04 16:08
When my courage fumbles, I remind myself that I do NOT want HRC or Trump (and NEVER Pence!), so I have no choice but to reach for what I really want, which is a progressive in the White House. Gulp.
 
 
-7 # JCM 2016-08-04 22:13
The only important effect is who wins.
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-08-05 17:44
"The only important effect is who wins." or in Clinton's case, 'who STEALS yet another election.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2016-08-05 20:07
But if the "winner" is either Trump or Clinton, the only important effect is THE REST OF US LOSING.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-08-05 22:24
JCM, you might seriously consider jimmy's comments.
 
 
-16 # carytucker 2016-08-04 14:31
Quoting jimmyjames:
ossible, they would both loose and Trump is elected. I can't cast a vote that would in any probability create a President Trump?

I don't believe that will happen. If most of the Bernie supporters went Green, and many Republican voters vote Libertarian (as they well might) then possibly neither Trump nor Clinton will win the Presidency. And that would be good for America.

You've reached the ultima Thule, the last proposition possible amongst the gaggle of Hillary-haters here on RSN. By all means, join the 2-percenters, and give the cult of Stein a chance to compete with Gary Johnson's 'I got mine and I want more' Party on the tail end of the tail end of the 8 November poll. Enjoy.
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-08-05 22:28
carytucker:

"Hillary haters here on RSN".

Holding a candidate 'accountable' for rigging and election theft, constant lies about her decades-held positions and actions are not about 'hate'.

Surely you understand that?
 
 
+12 # Ted 2016-08-04 12:04
Calm down JCM. The outcome doesn't rely on your single vote. The beauty of a democratic system is that the winner will be the one that has the majority of votes FOR them.

It's each of our responsibilty to vote FOR the person whom we believe is best for the Nation.

I believe Jill Stein is the best of what we have to choose from this election. If enough voters agree and ACT on that belief, we can began to face and fix a lot more problems than just "Who will be the least harmful for our Nation".
 
 
-9 # JCM 2016-08-04 12:31
Ted: In this political twilight zone, I believe it is our responsibility to vote for the person that would result in the best overall health of the country. It comes down to the consequences of your vote and the consequences of the person elected. Additionally, it is important to think as though your vote results in the final outcome. It amplifies the importance of your decision. If you knew for sure your vote would result in President Trump, would you still vote that same way. If yes, you are essentially voting for Trump.
 
 
+14 # djnova50 2016-08-04 12:59
JCM, do not let the Democrats tell you that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Donald Trump. That is simply not true. Unless you are using a rigged voting machine, if you vote for one candidate, it will not show up in another candidate's tally. The scare tactics, coercion, etc. that is coming from the Democrats to get you to vote for their chosen candidate, are tactics that abusive spouses use. At some point, you have to say, "No More!" and leave without looking back.

I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. I will vote for the Greater Good. I will vote for the plan that puts People, Planet, and Peace before Profits. Jill Stein.

If you want to vote for Hillary Clinton because she is the candidate that you believe represents the greater good, then I will defend your right to vote for her. But, I will disagree in the sense that I do not believe Mrs. Clinton represents the greater good.
 
 
+4 # JCM 2016-08-04 13:24
Simply, to me it is not just a vote for who I like, it is a vote that would result in the best outcome for the country. That isn't very different from how you feel but I see it as a vote that will elect the best candidate that can win. Honestly, I wish we had better choices that have a real chance to win.
 
 
+11 # Ted 2016-08-04 13:31
To me, the best outcome would be the Election of Jill Stein, and I suspect you agree.

The numbers that Sanders was able to garner show that enough people also agree and so if all those people support and vote for Stein, we've won.
 
 
-5 # newell 2016-08-05 07:56
If everybody did the right thing, life would be one continuous orgasm.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-08-05 17:45
not with the oligarchy, wall street, banks, 1% and military, in control.
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-08-04 19:55
The numbers are definitely there for Dr. Stein (presuming she gets the Green Party nomination).

In 2012, the winning Presidential candidate got 65 million votes.

45 million people have outstanding student loans that Dr. Stein will vacate.
15 million people voted for Bernie Sanders over HRC.
2 - 5 million people thought they were voting for Bernie Sanders, but their votes were not counted.

40% of eligible voters are independents. Bernie averaged about 70% of them in states where they could vote.

That's FAR MORE than 65 million votes.

And in terms of electoral college votes, bear in mind that HRC did best in deep red states.
 
 
-6 # JCM 2016-08-04 22:51
Do you have sources for these numbers?
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-08-05 00:03
Seriously?

Which of those fairly well known and easily searched numbers do you need help finding?
 
 
-10 # tgemberl 2016-08-04 16:02
djnova,

I think you're kind of misunderstandin g JCM's point.

Do you remember the old saying that coffee will stunt a child's growth? Now, there's nothing in coffee per se that keeps a child from growing. But when the child is drinking coffee, he's not drinking milk, orange juice, or other things that will contribute to his growth. The analogous point is going on if you support Stein or Johnson over Clinton. You are not taking away from her votes in a literal sense, but you are making it easier for someone else (Donald Trump) to win. I think what JCM is saying is that your responsibility is not just to vote your conscience, but to vote for the kind of country you want.
 
 
+10 # Patriot 2016-08-04 16:28
And that, tgemberl, is precisely why I'll be voting for Stein.

I don't want' HRC's type of country, and I certainly don't want Trump's. I want what Jill is offering, which is quite like what Sanders offered.

Actually, I think I have nothing to lose.
 
 
-11 # tgemberl 2016-08-04 16:52
Except maybe your country. Do you care what happens to this country? You call yourself Patriot. Do you want this country to be on the road to being Haiti or Somalia?
 
 
+7 # AshamedAmerican 2016-08-04 21:30
This is a rather ironic question given what the Clintons did to Haiti.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-08-05 00:07
And Somalia. That poor country has been a mess since Bill Clinton invaded it.

Actually, even before then, along with Yemen and Djibouti. The US/GB has maintained control or driven them to failed state status owing to their squeezing the Red Sea into a 20 mile wide strait though which all Suez Canal shipping must squeeze.
 
 
+4 # guomashi 2016-08-05 07:52
Quoting Radscal:
And Somalia. That poor country has been a mess since Bill Clinton invaded it.


Actually, Bush pere invaded Somalia.
Clinton took a lot of hits for pulling out.
It was already a catastrophe, adn our presence in less than genocidal proportion was unlikely to leave a stable state.

Much of Sub Saharan Africa presents inconceivable problems for military intervention. It should never be attempted.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-08-05 09:27
Quoting guomashi:
Much of Sub Saharan Africa presents inconceivable problems for military intervention. It should never be attempted.
Clinton translation: Let's GO!
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-08-05 16:46
Yeah, the US and GB have been mucking with Somalia for a long time.

But Bill Clinton definitely did invade Somalia. Sanders voted FOR that, as well as the Kosovo bombing. I got some flack for pointing that out some months back.

May 25, 1993
S J Res 45
Authorization for Use of U.S. Armed Forces in Somalia
Bill Passed - House
(243 - 179)

Clinton sold the invasion of Somalia as a "humanitarian" act, and the TV even showed film of soldiers landing on the beaches to cheering Somalians, and offloading food and such.
 
 
+4 # AshamedAmerican 2016-08-05 21:35
I would have bet on that, but our countless invasions are just too numerous to keep up with, let alone remember.
 
 
+11 # Ted 2016-08-04 16:36
Tgemberl, your logic is flawed. I take that back, your logic is non-existent.

Drinking one beverage does not neccesitate the abstinence of any other beverage.

However, with voting, we DO only get one vote BUT that one vote is virtually completely diluted by the millions of other votes also cast.

What effects the outcome of an election is the perception of a majority that they will be voting correctly in light of their desired effect on the Nation.

So our choice is this..

Do we vote to acheive what is closest to the worst possible just to avoid the worst possible?

Or do we vote in an attempt to achieve the very best possible and be prepared to accept whatever shortfall we may experience?

Try for the BEST we can do or try to barely avoid the worst we could do?

Success can not be measured by the amount of failure you avoid, only by the amount of success you achieve.

Sander's exceptional success in just a few short months strongly indicates that a Jill Stein WIN is not only possible but probable IF voters accept their democratic responsibility and vote FOR the best running candidate.

Jill2016.com/plan
 
 
-11 # tgemberl 2016-08-04 16:50
"Drinking one beverage does not neccesitate the abstinence of any other beverage."

Well, you can only drink one beverage at a time. So the more time you spend drinking coffee, the less time you have to drink milk or orange juice.

"Do we vote to acheive what is closest to the worst possible just to avoid the worst possible?"

Yes.
 
 
+5 # tedrey 2016-08-04 21:19
In that case, you're advising me to vote for Trump because I see Clinton as somewhat worse, right?
 
 
-10 # tgemberl 2016-08-04 16:47
Let me take my analogy one step further. Just like a child will drink coffee after he's had his growth and become an adult, progressives can vote Green after we manage to keep Trump from destroying the country.
 
 
+6 # Ted 2016-08-04 17:00
Unless I'm mistaken there are still 'checks and balances' in place to keep one branch of the government from "destroying the country"

(Maybe you can tell that fear-mongering doesn't work on me that well.)
 
 
-8 # tgemberl 2016-08-04 17:48
Checks and balances won't work too well if the Republicans put another hard right justice on the Supreme Court.

The only real check I have heard about is some military leaders say they would not obey some of Trump's commands (like to bomb the families of enemy combatants). It could be the best chance we'd have to stop Trump would be a military coup. Do you want that?
 
 
+5 # Ted 2016-08-04 17:57
I guess I'm too much of a "cynical optimist" to believe that trump would ever make it to office.

I know, I know, no one believed little bush could do it either but we all know he WOULDN'T have made it to the White House without all the various forms of election fraud they used to get him there.

And if we're going to let them get away with that plan again for trump OR hillary we should all stop pretending we live in a democracy anyway.
 
 
-1 # tgemberl 2016-08-05 13:10
Ted,
Let's talk about facts here. I supported Gore, but he wasn't robbed in 2000. If he had just won his own home state, Tennessee, and Clinton's state, Arkansas (he was close in both), he would not have needed Florida. Gore should have been elected, off course: he won the popular vote. But he was gracious enough to accept defeat when he knew there was nothing he could do about the Electoral College result.

This is serious business. Our democracy is flawed, as the Gore example shows. But Trump is the biggest threat we've seen.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-08-05 22:31
JCM: that's what you believe. now consider what other's think and our right to vote our conscience WITHOUT subjection to guilt trips and manipulation.
 
 
+17 # BlueMorpho 2016-08-04 11:50
Prof. Reich, You're with Hill, after having first endorsed Bernie. You said she's still better than Trump. I saw Jill Stein's interview on Democracy Now and her explanation-exa mples of some of the ways in which the Clintons have already done some of what we fear from Trump. (And NO, I'm not a Trump supporting Rethug. I'm a tree hugging (literally) progressive Dem who's pissed off about what's happening).

Now, you speak of making more muscular third parties to push Hillary's DNC-Dem to do what's right? How about withdrawing your support for Hillary? You must know about the attempted censoring that took place during the convention FOR Hillary and for the sake of appearances. Except it failed. Just as the emails exposed them.

Are you willing to do what Obama hasn't? Obama's a hypocrite. He asks for Rethugs to retract their endorsements of Trump. While as the current party leader and prez, he's backing someone who got caught doing what we've blamed Rethugs for. Her, Brazile (of "cuss them out" infamy. She gonna cuss us Sanders supporting Dems out, too??) and DWS who're in cahoots.

I just wonder what how badly they threatened Bernie and his family. His and his family's life? And we have a non-binding platform w/ no refusal of TPP. Where do you stand, Prof. Reich and for what? The clock is ticking on us and Mother Earth.
 
 
0 # Brice 2016-08-05 01:39
Part of, maybe not all of, the reason Hillary serves a corporate agenda, and Bill too, is that she has no clear constituency for say single-payer, or $15 minimum wage, or a living wage, or any of a ton of other left wing dreams ... because the Left simply does not work together, prioritize or think any more rationally than Trump supporters. Corporations are allowed to get away with whatever they want because their is no competing rational leadership structure. Bernie has said it as well ... we need a revolution. People will not even do it, because they are scared they do not really know what to do.
They are afraid others will take over and no one will listen to them anyway.
 
 
+2 # BlueMorpho 2016-08-05 06:43
I've read your comment 2x. What you've said is so ahistorical and currently so inaccurate that it's difficult to reply here.
 
 
0 # Brice 2016-08-05 15:51
So thanks for replying and calling me names ... very productive and factual and historical.
 
 
+16 # BlueMorpho 2016-08-04 12:09
Prof. Reich, I read that there was an am roll call and that Sanders won. That Clinton's delegates or enough of her delegates weren't there and he won. But the DNC wouldn't allow anyone to document it and insisted on an afternoon re-count w/her super dels.

Even if that weren't the case (and the DNC is too corrupt for me to disbelieve what I read), we've reached that point, long beyond that point really....

Prof. Reich, I was sickened by Obama's endorsement. I was sickened to see our FLOTUS parrot Repubs with that arrogant, dishonest and embarrassing: America is the greatest country on this earth crap. (Unless one has a taste for war vs health, education, etc., we're great for what exactly?)

Prof. Reich, do you have the courage of your convictions? Will you take a stand and withdraw your support for Hillary's candidacy?
 
 
+12 # anarchaos 2016-08-04 13:03
Prof. Reich should do exactly that!! Agreed, BlueMorpho
 
 
+14 # lfeuille 2016-08-04 13:38
You are exactly right, Mr. Reich. But how do you get the party to reform with HRC, the poster girl for corporate funding in charge? It seems to me that in you panic over Trump you didn't think through all the implications of your endorsement of her. Time to rethink. And that goes for Bernie also.
 
 
+13 # ChrisCurrie 2016-08-04 15:15
Hillary Clinton's disastrous support for clandestine "regime change" coup de tat and insurgency movements in Honduras, Syria, and Libya and her apparent plans to pass Obama's dishonestly promoted TPP/TTIP/TiSA rigged "trade agreements" (with minor modifications) next year could STILL SINK the Democratic Party (and its establishment corporate sponsors) this November!
 
 
-9 # ahollman 2016-08-04 15:42
I'm a Sanders supporter who will hold my nose and vote for Clinton. You choose from what choices -are- available, not from what choices you -want- to be available.

I agree with Reich that the DNC's purpose is to raise money (and, in my opinion, to launder it when necessary), mostly from the wealthy, and that having a few more functionaries resign won't change that purpose. Thus, the only two choices are to reform it or replace it. Those two choices are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who works on one or the other should not be criticized.

A third party will have significant leverage on the DNC, and it can elect candidates. That said, Jill Stein has even less change of getting elected now than did Ralph Nader in 2000. Thus, progressive voters who live in "safe" states (ones that will go for Clinton, not Trump) have the luxury of remaining morally pure by voting for Stein, rather than soiling themselves by casting a vote for Clinton. However, progressives in states whose outcomes are uncertain lack that luxury; they remain pure at the possible cost of swinging their state (and possibly the US) to Trump.

I will not vote for Jill Stein, despite being from "safe" Massachusetts. My personal criteria for voting for someone for higher office include successful election to lower office first. Stein, elected twice to Lexington Town Meeting, failed all 6 attempts at election to state or national office.

She'd be a great US Sec. of Health and Human Services.
 
 
+4 # BlueMorpho 2016-08-04 21:57
"You choose"? Perhaps you meant that you, yourself choose. I can and will decide, for myself, to vote for any or all categories in Nov, or to abstain altogether. You're comfortable with money laundering? That's you. I'm not. I'm also not too thrilled that things have gotten so bad that a class action suits been filed on behalf of those who donated to the DNC AND Sanders, because of the HRC-DNC debacle. Or that the bulk of donations went to Hillary's campaign when they were meant for down ticket people.

Speak w/ disdain about morally pure people, etc., if you like, if doing so makes you feel better some how. It's not new.

Apropos criticism, a reminder: the 1st amendment hasn't been overturned. Not yet. Your statement that anyone shouldn't be criticized is rather droll. Especially since he left himself open to criticisms and questions by publishing here.
 
 
-2 # Brice 2016-08-05 01:36
There is no other real solution. The wider the margin Clinton gets elected with the better Bernie Sanders looks to influence whatever happens next, there is not getting around that.
 
 
+5 # BlueMorpho 2016-08-05 07:21
What you're calling a real solution, I'd call something many of us feel we'd have to potentially tough out and try to survive. I say potentially, cause she's not been appointed, oops, elected yet.

Does Bernie have wholesome influence? Of course. And, his name alone, brings a LOT of lovely people together. But, as the censorship and terrible disrespect of Nina Turner, among others, during the convention taught me, there's a limit to his influence. (I still think Hillary thre ....nah, I won't go there. Not here)

You mentioned corporations that work for the public good, etc. If you can and would find some that possibly meet that description, it sounds like a good idea. I'm for whatever works.

Please do consider, apropos things to focus on and consider: trust me, some of us do focus, consider, try to accomplish what we can. And when we're lucky enough to meet other like minded people, we welcome them and get them working with us.
 
 
0 # Brice 2016-08-05 16:00
> there's a limit to his influence.

Yeah, that limit is broken by sticking with Bernie and doing what is necessary to stand by and support him.

If Bernie can being a marginal number of voters to Hillary that is credibility to him.

If you are so keen to get people to agree with and work with you why is it that every time I read a post from you it sounds disagreeable and condescending? You are just like the typical Lefty on RSN ... you all this ... like you all want to be the authority and judge and correct everyone else ... and I've never seen any consensus or anything positive some out of this place.

The result is there are a few people who write and write that agree with each that are completely intolerant of anyone else's opinion.

You say you are for whatever works, but you kind of also have to be against whatever doesn't work, and I don't see this website doing anything but taking people's energy they put into writing and then deleting it a few years later. There is no attempt to cross-reference , statistically analyze, bring people together.

I talked about corporations because they have progammed ways to get things done apparently the Left has not ever dreamed about and probably could not do.
 
 
+12 # Patriot 2016-08-04 16:34
Clinton's never been elected, and, in fact, has lost three national elections. She was a miserable, war-mongering, environment/cli mate destroying, law-breaking Secretary of State. She never even sat through the security briefings, but, as she's always trumpeting, she did sit in the WH for eight years, and knew darned good & well what the secruity of classified documents was all about. Yet she broke at least four laws, deliberately, knowingly, then lied--and now has stolen an election. She can NOT be trusted. She is NOT what I want in the White House.

I want a Progressive, and I will vote for one: Jill Stein.

Geez, is my face red. Yes, she was elected, to the Senate from New York. How could I forget that? Can anyone feed us her voting record as Senator, aside from voting for the Iraq war and stating that it would be a good business opportunity?
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-08-04 18:18
Given recent evidence, how do we know she actually 'won' the Senate seat?

Does anyone know if there were questionable election results?
 
 
+4 # jimmyjames 2016-08-04 18:38
Yes, Hillary was elected - only once to my knowledge. She got elected after she and her minions had JFK Jr. killed. The "shadow government" has many ways to insure the people they control get into positions of power. The Democratic primary season is another perfect example....Quoting librarian1984:
Given recent evidence, how do we know she actually 'won' the Senate seat?

Does anyone know if there were questionable election results?


Yes, Hillary was elected - only once to my knowledge. She got elected after she and her minions had JFK Jr. killed. The "shadow government" has many ways to insure the people they control get into positions of power. The Democratic primary season is another perfect example....
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-08-05 00:11
She "won" in 2000 and was "reelected" in 2006. Then she quit in 2009 to become probably the best remunerated Secretary of State in history.

Have you heard the theory for why JFK Jr. named his magazine "George?"

ie. He was also naming the person in charge of his father's murder.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-08-05 09:34
Oh sh!te! I never heard this. I liked JFK Jr. I liked that he kept trying to pass the bar for his mom (and shortly after she died he quit the law). He seemed like an earnest, sincere young man and I was saddened by his untimely death.

I've asked this before, so forgive the repeat but: HOW DO YOU KNOW ALL THIS? You're amazing and I'm so glad you're here.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-08-05 17:01
Hehehehe....

I guess I just set my antennae to scan whatever I read or see and filter it through lenses of radical perspectives. What Economagic refers to as "critical thinking... which used to be called 'thinking.'"

My daddy used to say to me frequently, "The Good Lord gave you two ears, but only one mouth." It didn't shut me up, but it did make me try to listen better.

Now, why we remember some stuff and forget others is one of the great questions of philosophy. But I do frequently use search engines to verify and clarify stuff I think I know before posting.

And I keep records of stuff I find interesting, which I refer to frequently.

It's my "Artificial Intelligence." ;-)
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-08-06 10:49
I thought maybe you had eidetic memory.

Whatever your method I applaud your willingness to share with us.

Thanks, dude!
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-08-06 12:49
Now you've given me a new word of the day!

Thanks back atacha.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-08-06 17:07
WOW. Another bombshell.

Have you read about MAJI 12 and John F. Kennedy's attempts to force this highly secret entity to report to him, as President?

http://exopoliticsjournal.com/vol-3/vol-3-2-Salla.htm

Also see: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_mj12_32.htm
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-08-09 18:54
Great sites and articles. Thanks.
 
 
+7 # Ted 2016-08-04 18:22
Yo Patriot, the fact that you owned up to and corrected your mistake says a lot more about your integrity than the outright lies and manipulations some of these posters resort to.
 
 
# Guest 2016-08-04 18:36
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-08-04 20:17
Highlights from HRC's Senate voting record. Voted FOR:

a) Unlimited global war on terror (S J Res 23).

b) USA PATRIOT Act, and then twice more reauthorized and expanded it (HR 3162, HR 3199, HR 3199).

c) Creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the largest expansion of government, and all of it for the Military Industrial Complex. (HR 5005).

d) Invasion of Iraq (and all later authorizations to fund it) (H J Res 114).

e) Bush II's NeoCon Artist appointments:
Condi Rice and Robert Gates. (PN 8, PN 2191).

f) Bush II's signature "No Child Left Behind"
destruction and privatization of public education. (HR 1).

g) Two out of Three "free trade" agreements (HR 2739, S 3569)

h) Border Fence and Customs Appropriations (2480)

that we all chided McCain (and now Trump) over supporting.

i)  Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (S 3711)

"Drill, baby, drill." Can you say "Deepwater Horizon?"

j) Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization-P assage (S 1050)

Ended the decades-long ban on new nuclear weapon development
 
 
+11 # futhark 2016-08-04 17:20
"...those individuals probably fulfilled their responsibilitie s exactly as those jobs were intended to be done."

This sounds eerily like a quote from Adolf Eichmann.
 
 
+5 # BlueMorpho 2016-08-05 07:35
I read your comment 2x and felt compelled to go back to Reich wrote. Oh, dear God!!!! You're right. It's unnerving. It remind me of Portia Boulger, that wonderful Sanders delegate (and one of my (s)heroes now) who said that the cops inside were just doing their jobs, when she was asked about what she meant about needing to be let out of the room. I gather she was trying to be fair (or generous?) to the those cops, but still...

Doing ones job is one thing. Doing what's right is something else.

@Prof. Reich,
Damn. Did you really say that???
 
 
0 # Brice 2016-08-05 16:02
The people here if they ever want to organize into something useful have to do better than clap every time someone calls someone else a Nazi.
 
 
# Guest 2016-08-04 18:36
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+9 # Donna Fritz 2016-08-04 18:59
Actually it's the perfect time to build a third party like the Green Party because since the Republican Party also looks like it's going to break up, we probably won't have to worry about splitting the liberal vote thus making it easy for a Republican to win in 2020.
 
 
+4 # jimmyjames 2016-08-04 21:04
https://citizensagainstplutocracy.wordpress.com/
 
 
0 # Brice 2016-08-05 01:33
I think what we need is to enable those corporations and plutocrats that work in the public interest. That should be our mission statement, not just this unfocused bad-talk about corporations and the rich, because it gives us nothing to focus on or do. We need to have strong rights, like an extended bill of rights, and then a checks and balances that reward or punish corporations who either fulfill that vision or work to destroy it. Monsanto is a corporation that works to subvert and destroy the rights of people and the Earth, for example. Is there any way to bring Monsanto to heel without destroying the whole corporate structure that does benefit us - the bottom line is that corporations need to serve the public interest, not just their own bottom line.
 
 
+1 # Brice 2016-08-05 01:29
Well, I don't want to sound like Donald Trump, but here is the thing that I think every but me is missing ...

> Those problems aren’t attributable to individuals who didn’t
> do their jobs. To the contrary, those individuals probably
> fulfilled their responsibilitie s exactly as those jobs were
> intended to be done.

I totally agree with Robert Reich, and i heartily approve of the activist and radical voice I hear coming from him since the beginning of the election.

The issue is this ... the way this problem is set up is this ...

The solution to the problems of the US is for the people
to take back democracy, then everything will be fine.

As much as I hate what our corporate world have given to
us, I think this "mission statement" is very much wrong.

The reason the Democrats and the Left are getting their asses handed to them and being crowded out of the system is because money driven corporations are experts at planning and strategy and they will win every time.

What is needed is way to leverage both the organized corporate powerhouse of the US, and include the power of the people as well. Both interest are valid, but the people must come first. My suggestions is take the Constitution to the next step, FDR's second bill of rights, and then let corporations fulfill it anyway they can, with citizen input. What is missing is mostly a country FOR the people. We cannot kick out or threaten the corporate world with death.
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-08-05 13:20
reich's premise is silly! - Why the Shake-Up at the Democratic National Committee Is Doomed, Robert Reich's Blog, 04 August 16 - "But purging the DNC of top officials won’t remedy the DNC’s problems. Those problems aren’t attributable to individuals who didn’t do their jobs."

- that all depends on what you see their jobs as!

purging officials who rejected neutrality has to be done!
 
 
-2 # Brice 2016-08-05 16:05
The DNC is just used as a passthrough to vet people to bring them into the political system. Wasserman-schul tz was fired and then hired by Hillary. She will be taken care of. That's how a system works.

Compare that to here where people are great to each other until they find a topic of disagreement, then they spit and hiss at each other and call each other Nazis and gang up until one of them is kicked out. This could not work better for the right-wing than if they actually planned it this way ... which, personally, I think they somehow did.
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-08-05 14:03
reich says - "The DNC has to turn itself – and the Democratic Party – into a grass-roots membership organization, with local and state chapters that play a meaningful role in selecting and supporting candidates.

"And it has to take a lead in seeking public financing of campaigns, full disclosure of all donations, and ending the revolving door between government and the lobbying-indust rial-financial complex.

"Unfortunately, I doubt this will happen."

my open letter - 8/3/16 -
To Info@BernieSanders.com

bernie! - congrats! to us all! on your wonderful campaign!

to do what cannot ever be undone, please promote a constitutional amendment! -

reversing "citizens united" - most securely by public funding! only! of federal! state! and local! elections! - no private money allowed! - no political ads funded by anyone but the public! thru the candidate's campaign! - a con-am that says that no business shall advertise anything but products they make! or apolitical services they provide!

you've been noodling same for years? how about it?

love,

- robert! my prayer is that bernie's grass-roots "our revolution" org - NOT a 3rd party! - many independents and conservatives MAY AGREE! - gets after public funding only! - a revolutionary change from 230+ years of private funding!

- go bernie! and go dem!

prof. reich? what do you think?
 

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