I understand the frustration some Democrats are experiencing. Clinton has clinched the nomination and yet Bernie Sanders is still out there criticizing her. Why doesn’t he face reality and give up?
It’s an understandable feeling, but not one that Hillary Clinton has any footing to complain about. After all, she stayed in the Democratic race eight years ago, long after she was mathematically eliminated, and she actually finished the campaign winning more often than she lost. With Sanders, we’re just experiencing deja vu all over again.
I was an Obama supporter in 2008, and I made some of the same complaints about Clinton’s refusal to give up and how it was giving fodder to the Republicans, forcing Obama to spend precious resources, and delaying the unification of a divided party.
After I saw the results of the November election, however, I backtracked. I decided that, in retrospect, Clinton staying in had actually helped Obama in a variety of ways. The most important one was that it forced him to really organize in North Carolina and Indiana, which each held late primaries that year. When he went on to win both states in stunning but narrow victories, I realized that Clinton was probably responsible for adding to his Electoral College margin, and giving him just a little more legitimacy as an incoming president.
There were other factors, too. Clinton made a lot of attacks on Obama, but by surviving and prevailing against them, they were old news in general election. I’m thinking about things like the Jeremiah Wright controversy and the concerns about Tony Rezko. There’s also no doubt that Obama went from being a halting and unconfident debater at the beginning of the process to a polished and self-assured performer by the end.
Every campaign is different, and I don’t dispute that John Kerry suffered in 2004 because he had to worry about John Edwards and Howard Dean at a time when the Bush White House was already hitting him. But the Democrats aren’t running against an incumbent president. Whatever you think about Trump, he hasn’t even begun to build an election juggernaut like the Bush reelection effort, and it’s doubtful that he ever will.
One final observation is that the 2016 Sanders campaign is different in kind from the 2008 Clinton campaign. It’s much more issue-driven, so it’s clearer that it’s not just about thinking he’s more fit to be president and refusing, against all odds and evidence, to concede defeat. Clinton’s goal was to win, and it got to a point where that just seemed delusional. Sanders is honest that he’s focused on getting the most delegates at the convention because he has real substantive differences that he wants hashed out.
So, even though Sanders still makes the occasional obligatory assertion that he retains some kind of longshot chance, it’s clear that he has more limited and tangible and realistic goals.
I’m not convinced he’s doing more harm than good to Clinton’s chances in the fall, and I also think he has much better rationale for staying in until the end than Clinton did eight years ago.
Plus, I don’t see how it really helps anything to write these why-won’t-he-drop-out pieces. He’s not going to listen and it just irritates everyone on all sides of the debate.
Many Obama supporters never really forgave Hillary for her attacks on Obama, and have gravitated towards Sanders instead. Sanders doesn’t have to worry about that happening to him in 2020 or 2024, but it could make re-unification of the party more difficult in the short term.
However both have an easy out: they can focus their attacks on Trump, because here their common ground is enormous. Coming at Trump from two different angles could also be extremely useful in helping ordinary voters get a fix on Trump. Together they can define the conman, and it will have greater credibility coming from the two of them.
Assuming Hillary’s numbers pick up after the convention (if she and Sanders make their peace there) will also give Hillary much greater momentum going into the fall. Being 5% ahead in the polls now is no big deal. However being 5% ahead in August after both conventions and having been in a statistical tie for a while will look a little more impressive.
Three different directions with Warren, who is showing some skill at it.
.
whether Sanders loses, or due to the unforeseen, wins the primary, this is just step 1 for him and us, the Sanders supporters. The horse race approach to elections misses the point.
and obviously step 2 involves voting dem. rather than trump, but no way to start schoolmarming Sanders supporters, including me, about that until Convention time. In fact that talk makes me want to not vote at all, which of course I won’t do. the only ppl schoolmarming about it are Clinton supporters and ppl who’ve never done any social action before.
Agree on the logic of your piece–Sanders is going to do what he wants. I am more concerned about continuing after June, to the convention. How is that going to play out and look? He bows out gracefully like Clinton did after California, aims the guns on Trump, and goes all in for the Dems in the general, count me in just fine. But, I think you are kidding yourself if you think a back door campaign against the nominee and the party for another month after things are settled is going to play well for the Dems.
read my comment above. we actually exist in historical time, this is still May, not July
I read your comment and get it. My point is Sanders holding rallies, dissing the presumptive nominee and the party all through June, is not going to be a great look. I suspect it’s going to make a lot of elected Dems unhappy, and when news stories come out with these “insiders” expressing their frustration, Sanders supporters will likely feel more aggrieved. Maybe things will go differently though.
My hope is that Sanders follows Hillary’s precedent–I was for Obama in 2008–at the end of the primaries and bows out graciously.
Having the CEO of Blue Shield host the Democratic Convention doesn’t have a good look either. Your choice is to look or avert your eyes.
It will look like we have two candidates with widely differing positions w/in the dem party. that’s what democracy is about. it’s only post obstructionist Rs that disagreement is frowned upon. Sanders isn’t “dissing” the candidate, he raising other positions and options and policies. in the olden days that was considered good, diversity, democracy etc
Some very sensible posting on this thread. Appreciated.
thanx, difficult to remain calm and reasonable but it helps to vent over at the troll diary
You’re concerned about how fighting it out to the very end will look? Are you serious?
Be more concerned about Sanders pulling his punches and appearing to be a sell-out before it is really over. Because if that happens I predict a larger number of Sanders supporters will not vote, or vote for someone other than Clinton. And in this scenario, even if Sanders is out there supporting Clinton, he may find fewer people listening.
Sanders needs to fight until the bitter end. The movement will not stand for anything less
So, Sanders alleging corruption and all sorts of other stuff about the party and nominee through the convention is going to bring more unity? Gotcha.
He should stay in, but if he goes too long he will marginalized himself.
It’s a fine line, I doubt he can thread it. He does not seem to have great political skills, particularly for a career politician.
.
“He does not seem to have great political skills”. Then why do you want him to drop out so badly? If you went to a Bernie Sanders rally you would find out what an excellent politician he is. Trust me.
Here is my corrected response to nalbar. Thank you for pointing out my error.
“He does not seem to have great political skills”. Then why do some HRC supporters want him to drop out so badly? Is it because these supporters are getting worried because Sanders is winning primaries and will win more with big margins? Is it because in the last primary (West Virginia) Sanders trounced HRC, taking every county? Is it because Sanders has thousands and thousands of people standing in line waiting for ungodly hours, just to hear him speak? Is it because Sanders is the only candidate who is in net favorability terrority? If you went to a Bernie Sanders rally you would find out what an excellent politician he is. Trust me.
Here is something hot off the press:
“Many Democrats are having difficulty accepting the fact that Clinton, despite her résumé, is a weak politician. In this state of denial, their defense of Clinton becomes aggressive, as they lash out at Bernie Sanders for staying in the race, implying that Clinton has earned the right to glide to the finish line unopposed.”
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/14/this_is_one_weak_nominee_hillary_clintons_problem_isnt_bernie_sander
s_its_hillary_clinton/
What you call “alleging” I call the plain truth that is obvious. It is obvious that the megabanks and the Koch brothers do not give anyone millions of dollars in campaign contributions without expecting something other than “good government” in return. It is obvious that G-S does not pay a quarter of a million dollars to hear the investment insights of HRC for an hour. They might pay that for Warren buffet, not HRC.
you think Goldman paid for a speech about some sort of policy?
companies hire these speakers for their celebratory and really nothing more, I’ve been to enough of those types of meetings to know that the content is often meaningless
Besides Goldman employees aren’t going to take advice either way be it from HRC or Buffet being the nature of the beast on Wall Street
Are you for real? They hire George Clooney types for their celebratory status; they hire the likes of Clinton as a future investment. Really, you’ve been to the closed door meetings that Clinton and the firms involved refuse to release the minutes of? I find this hard to believe…
They aren’t paying them obscene amounts of money for their advice but for future access.
It’s really that simple.
“Are you for real?”
WTF.
Why don’t you try addressing the statement and not the person making it.
Hardly the same.
But thanks for playing.
the discussion doesn’t go much beyond, what’s the biggest name we can get for our event and Clinton is a big celebrity even if you don’t think so
it’s a game of one-upmanship at the highest level
Do you have a source for your claim? Especially since it runs counter to what little we do know about these meetings.
But I’ll throw you a softball: if the selection is as banal as you claim, why do both the firms involved and Clinton continue to fight the very idea of releasing the minutes of these meetings?
there’s an easy answer to why they would want them not release, they likely discussed business secrets every meeting I’ve ever had has been confidential (meaning not for release to the public)
I don’t know for a fact that these fell into any of these categories I just have a lot of experience we these types of conversations and decision making and I’m just saying there are more mundane reasons for the decisions that were made
Easy way to resolve that one, just release Hillary’s speech, certainly no trade secrets of the Vampire Squid in that one, is there?
They certainly wouldn’t be telling her their plans would they?
You don’t have to release anything but the words they bought from her for a quarter of a million dollars.
Your “claim” fails that test because her words to GS cannot be trade secrets because she don’t work for then doe she?
but that’s precisely the point. it’s not about Goldman or whatever company, it’s about the impact on the celebrity receiving the $$. the Clinton campaign argument is that receiving that $$ had no impact on her policies and future political actions; same with the Clinton Foundation, donors would have no impact on the Clintons, etc. otoh, what was the one county in MI that she won? the county where the Foundation made last minute donations. is it only to the needy that $$ given have impact?
Since some of what he is saying is true, you want him to just STFU and not say anything? Sorry, if that is what the Democratic party stands for now I no longer want any part of it.
And what has Clinton done to bring unity to the party? Why don’t you raise that issue? Both candidates need to address this problem, not just Sanders.
Sanders wants the voters to decide. Clinton desperately wants the West Coast voters shut out.
That’s what the Democratic Party stands for – kissing up to Wall Street and telling the voters that their opinions are not wanted.
Alleging corruption? Even if Hillary and Bill secured their three billion or so over the last fifteen years without breaking a law that they haven’t been corrupted by the money they’ve accrued?
It’s always a laugh to hear Clinton supporters telling Sanders supporters that they’re disconnected from reality. Yes, I’m disconnected from the reality of someone accruing three billion dollars from the rich without being corrupted.
I really don’t think that staying in matters much at this point. Sanders’s fundraising is down, he may or may not be going dark in California – whether it continues much longer or not, it seems that the campaign’s lifeforce is draining away.
Care to back this up with any sources? In CA I’m still seeing a lot of involvement for Sanders. So I’d love to see what prompts the “he may or may not be going dark in California” statement.
Probably this http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-weakened-heading-golden-state-n572541
Which mentions Sanders probably not doing more TV ads in CA and his CA state director bailing out.
From the story:
“The campaign parted ways with its former California State director, Michael Ceraso, this week. No reason was given for the departure, but a spokesperson said the campaign feels “great” with their new director, Robert Becker, who has run several states for Sanders.
Meanwhile, Sanders officials say they “probably” won’t spend more on television advertising in the notoriously expensive state, which some California political experts say is virtually a declaration of surrender.”
Yes, that was what I was thinking of.
They might also have internal polling which looks like this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_democratic_presidential_primary
-5321.html
Fair enough. This is not the sense I have gotten as a resident, but my area my not be typical.
Check out other sources.
He’s still drawing in 15-20 at his rallies. Funny what you miss when you rely on MSM.
My family counts for three of the people at his Sacramento rally. It was fun and educational. Lovely people all around. But my kids are too young to vote, and he didn’t change my mind. So three people, zero votes. Rallies don’t win elections.
Why did you go?
He’s been all over Montana and South Dakota this week. He’s in Kentucky this weekend. Bernie Sanders is older than I, and it’s impressive that this man can hold 4 rallies in one day. Few people could do that.
you should study more history about how change comes about. certainly not by refraining from holding out for what one believes in (that worked so well in the 2000 election)
Ryan Cooper:
Billmon reponds:
Currently up to #13.
Billmon is so anti-Hillary I have muted his tweets for now. Hillary Derangement Syndrome isn’t pleasant to watch in someone you have previously admired.
Billmon deranged? No — he’s been totally consistent since 2002 and probably long before then, but 2002 was when he first appeared at dKos. He’s very open about what he supports and opposes and assesses candidates on that basis. He doesn’t cut candidates much slack, but that’s because he’s clear about his principles.
Don’t understand how you could have once admired him and now view him as deranged. Do recall once when he declined to set aside an issue in evaluating a candidate and I chose to set it aside but acknowledged at the time that it was a close call. Later on had to admit that he got it right and I didn’t.
I’m sorry, but can’t any Hillary supporters realize that if you take lots of money from corporations and people who own corporations that you are obligated to those corporations? Don’t Hillary supporters know that there is a reason why people who own drug companies, health insurance companies and arms companies why give Hillary money?
I’m tired of Hillary supporters telling me that the inevitable is someone totally owned by the 1 % and you are a dreamer or worse for supporting Sanders.
I wonder if you, Cathie from Canada, will be happy with a continuation of the US conquest of the Middle East, because you know that that’s what in the cards.
As much as I dislike Hillary’s foreign policy instincts, they do not include “…the US conquest of the Middle East.” Get real.
She supports the Iran nuclear deal, for starters. That, and other parts of her policy platform and history, are meaningful.
Meanwhile, Trump is all but promising to use our military to commit genocide in the Middle East, and wants to jack up the DoD budget. And his bullshit claim that “I was always opposed to the Iraq war” is, well, bullshit.
why do you label voters, and candidates, for that matter, who disagree with Clinton, “anti-Hillary”. we are not. we oppose her positions on various issues. that is the essential to the democratic process.
Just make all this mention of CLASS differences go away, please. lol
Money means nothing.
Karma…
it’s what’s for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
LOL
Regarding staying in until June, I do not believe that Hillary’s motives in 2008 are comparable to Bernie’s motives now.
In 2008, the United States and the world had barely survived 8 years of Republican horror. Hillary desperately wanted the Democrats to win against McCain and she was not certain that Obama could do it — also, I think she saw Obama’s belief in bipartisanship to be naive. Of course her ego was part of it too — she believed she was the better candidate. She also had enough Supers supporting her that her own “electability” argument had some basis in reality.
But when she realized she was not going to win the nomination, and that even the Supers were switching away from her, she was able to find within herself the humility to accept the will of the Democratic party. Motivated by her belief in the importance of a Democrat winning the presidency, she was also able to campaign strongly for Obama, and she brought Bill and her followers along with her.
The same circumstances are not in play this year. Bernie is not a Democrat and he doesn’t seem to believe as strongly in the importance of a Democrat winning this election to maintain Obama’s achievements. He certainly doesn’t seem to be humble enough to accept the party’s judgement against him. And when it comes to the “electability” argument this time — though Bernie himself may believe he is more “electable” than Hillary, he has to realize that the Supers are simply not going to switch away from Hillary, a party stalwart they have known for years who has millions more votes anyway.
Bernie could be a pivotal figure in defeating Trump, leading independents to vote for Hillary. But I’m afraid he’s just going to let his ego continue to get in the way. He risks turning into a bitter old man, hindering and de-legitimizing Hillary with meaningless convention battles.
Hillary the selfless patriot? A laughable opinion if it weren’t so pathetic.
I think it’s both possible and acceptable for someone to have a different opinion of Hillary Clinton’s motives than you do.
Don’t get in the way of their insults,
it’s all that brings joy to their lives.
.
WTF.
Why don’t you try addressing the statement and not the person making it.
I voted for Bernie because of his positions.
Why should I vote for Hillary? Certainly not because of most of her positions. Not because I think we’ll finally get a break from my lifetime of endless warring.
So why would someone vote for Hillary? Because Trump will be worse? That’s it?
Um, if you’ve eliminated every other line of argument, then yes, exactly.
That’s not going to be my approach, but it’s not an illegitimate one. Depressing, yes. But not illegitimate.
When the average voter is faced with the lesser of the two __, that is not much of a motivation for voting.
I wouldn’t worry about Sanders so much. he already is an old man. and he’s got this far without becoming bitter, chances is he won’t become bitter.
actually the motives matter not at all, it’s the impact that matters.
Bernie Sanders is an FDR Democrat. Bernie was born in 1941, when FDR was president. FDR was one of the greatest presidents in American history. Here is what FDR did:
“In politics, FDR and the Democratic Party built a power base which carried the party to electoral, if not ideological, dominance until the late 1960s.”
http://millercenter.org/president/biography/fdroosevelt-life-in-brief
Then the Democratic party changed. Enough said.
A competitive and long primary season with high voter turnout may helpful for the eventual nominee, but there is only one election in that data-set from which to draw that conclusion. So, the primary season/elections may not be all that relevant to the general election.
The following is misleading:
The IA caucus was on 1/19. Until then, there were GOP attack ads against Dean but don’t recall any against Kerry. Was Kerry even viewed as the leading candidate before Iowa?
Gephardt was out on 1/20, Clark out 2/11, Dean out on 2/19, and Edwards out on 3/3. (Kucinich withdrew on 7/22). However, after NH (1/27) Kerry won several multi-candidate primaries with a majority and through 2/3 had only lost in SC and OK. So, it was effectively over before 3/3 when Edwards dropped out and the 3/11 deal the clinched the nomination. Other than DK (and he never matters), no Democrats were challenging Kerry throughout most of the primary elections and he was free to swing as much as he wanted against GWB.
IMO it should be noted that HRC’s campaign was broke at the beginning of February ’08 and if not for a personal loan, she would have had to fold. Recall that she began her campaign with a $14 million rollover from her Senate campaign coffers. By the time she suspended her campaign in June, she was more than $22 million in debt with half of that owned to Hillary.
There were other troubling aspects of her campaign that called into question her decision to remain in it. It has been agreed in advance that MI and FL weren’t to count. But she continued to claim the votes in MI (where Obama hadn’t even been on the ballot) and FL (where Obama hadn’t campaigned) as a reason for staying in. (Then there was her appeal to white people to vote for the white candidate, and it can never be known if that ultimately hurt Obama in the general, but it did seem to hobble him after that.)
If HRC is so formidable why do her campaigns keep rewriting the rules to favor her?
“Because Shut Up,” he explained, kindly.
I recall reading blogs at the time that disputed your understanding–which was also mine–of the Michigan and Florida primaries. I’m going to grant those bloggers the benefit of the doubt and say that they weren’t lying or trying to deceive, in which case I have to conclude that there were some ambiguities in the rules pertaining to those two states.
As I recall, in the end, the Rules Committee came up with a Solomonic resolution and awarded the two candidates roughly equal numbers of delegates. Made no difference, of course.
I think the so-called “appeal to white people to vote for the white candidate” is a peculiar rendering of Hillary Clinton’s clumsy statement about the role of white working class voters in her contest with Obama. And the idea that her statement, however you wish to interpret it, “hobble[d] him” after winning the general election is even more peculiar: the GOP campaign of both overt and covert racial appeals was underway from day one of the Obama administration. Even if you wish to ascribe the worst motives to Hillary Clinton–and it commonly appears that you wish to do exactly that–it’s pretty tough to see how the effect of that one remark of hers even remotely measures up to what the GOP pulled off.
No, there was no confusion about MI and FL in real time. By not abiding by the DNC primary scheduling rules, they were both sanction and the candidates had months earlier pledged not to campaign or participate in either state — that’s documented.
After NH, HRC began whining — David Plouffe called her on it in this statement:
That a deal was made later by the DNC (undoubtedly with the approval of Obama and HRC) to allow HRC and the MI and FL delegates to save face is irrelevant because it didn’t change the outcome.
wrt to playing the race card — it was team Clinton and not HRC alone — how you missed all that (including that it was the reason many superdelegates abandoned her) is amazing. I didn’t claim that it was responsible for the racist freakout after the election, only that it could have happened. What’s bizarre is those like you that keep attempting to rewrite the HRC ’08 campaign. Agree that a single remark wouldn’t have lingered on after the election.
Have never denied that I hold people responsible for what they and their surrogates say and do during campaigns and in office. Therefore, I’m consistent and for you to say otherwise and impugn my honesty and consistency demonstrates who you are.
marie3, with maximally sanctimonious conclusions like these, you’re the wrong person to try to lay claims and issue demands regarding the behavior of others here.
If you’re going to dish it out as belligerently as you do these days, you should be willing to take it. The level of respect that we hold for each other here is determined by the day-to-day online behavior of each of us.
I’d prefer that you not issue these blanket character attacks on Frog Ponders with whom you disagree, but you make it worse by following up these attacks by attempting to set absurdly different behavioral standards for others. And these trends of yours are getting more extreme, month by month.
You are appealing to Marie3 to change the tone of her comments when you sling the following insults: “maximally sanctimonious”, “belligerently”, and “blanket character attacks” in your spewings? You deeply offended my sensibilities when I read your comment.
You have anything to say at all about marie3’s treatment of others here recently?
From my perspective, there is no change in Marie3.
Surely this is back-asswards, and people are telling Hillary to drop out.
I mean, after the being-nice-to Nancy-Reagan gaffe and the Charleston gaffe her goose was pretty much cooked, I thought.
Politico How the GOP Can Stop Donald Trump With This One Weird Trick
Billmon reponds:
LOL Politico…no surprise there.
Politico has become irrelevant. They just don’t know.
Yes, I think it’s particularly important that Sanders drop out before the Oregon and California primaries.
Everyone already voted in Oregon. It’s vote by mail. They just count them on Tuesday. Maybe we can talk the Dems into just not counting the ballots.
good idea.
Is this a serious position?
Do you understand the uproar that will result from such a move?
There is a very real risk of a high percentage of Sanders supporters voting for someone other than Sanders, or not voting at all.
This is a stupendously bad idea, if serious.
no, I just thought I’d phrase really really clearly what the Bernie should drop outers are really getting at
I think BooMan’s analysis of primaries strengthening candidates applies even to 2004. Too bad the other two didn’t attack Kerry for the propensity of taking vacations when he should be looking out for hardball campaigning breaking what was a traditional August vacation period after the conventions. Had he, the Heinz heir’s spouse unleashed the same attack on Bush–but Bush did “real American” things (cutting brush) on his vacation. And who knew a party made up of plutocrats had an aversion to windsurfing.
And then there was the media failure on the Swiftboats for “Truth” and the long, long Kerry delay in answering the charges. Punishment for opposing the Vietnam War was what it was — the reason a lot of people had been waiting for a Kerry Presidential run.
But neither Dean nor Edwards had developed alternate sources of funding that allowed them to run the full primary season until the convention, come what may. It was the drying up of finances that made the Dean Scream the end of the Dean campaign instead of just a bump.
There should be primary challengers toughening each other up and reducing the inevitability of every Republican candidate in the country. There should, but it is a difficult thing to do and to finance and to find time from other commitments (which just so happen to conspire to provide only some people with time).
If we’re to be honest, the Democratic machine delivered the nomination to Kerry in ’04. If you recall, his campaign was broke and he had to loan it several million dollars or fold. The key that year for the Democratic elites was to nominate someone that had supported the IWR.
I think Mr. Sanders would be wise to pack it in, if not now then very soon.
He risks burning not only his but also his acolytes bridges to Democrats.
I don’t think you understand. A lot of Bernie supporters would be happy with burning the present Democratic Party to the ground. They don’t care for DWS and Barney Frank, among some others, one bit.
I do understand my friend.
Democrats, not you, are going to nominate Mrs. Clinton.
Democrats, not you, are going to see her elected the first female President of the United States.
Democrats, not you, are going to retake the Senate and
Democrats, not you, are going to try their damnedest
to take the House.
I’m also sure Democrats, not you, care.
And the Democratic Party is going to shrink and not grow especially when it comes to recruiting young people.
The Democratic party reminds me of some of these malls I see. A few businesses close and then the rent increases to make up the difference. Then more businesses close because of low profit margins. Now it’s like a ghost town and only a few anchor stores and small businesses are operating. Very depressing. It used to not be this way.
The number one thing in politics is votes. If your reply to Phil Perspective had been addressed to me, I would not vote for your candidate if the election were tomorrow. The art of politics is persuasion, not alienating a potential voter. You need Phil’s vote and many more. There are not enough registered Democrats to get a Democrat elected to dog catcher. There are not enough Republicans to get a Republican elected dog catcher. Many people are either independent or non-voters. Furthermore, if you alienate people in your own party, you are in real trouble. Just my $.02.
Your vote belongs to you and you alone.
Who you do or do not vote for is entirely up to you.
It seems that you were trying to wax literary in your post. I congratulate you for this effort. The content your post set off associations to the titles of three novels–The Sound and the Fury
As I Lay Dying
For Whom theBell Tolls
very nice.
The fuck?
Have you placed Barney Frank on the evil neoliberal list now? Is Senator Warren on your list as well? I know she’s been listed by others.
This stuff is hard to keep up with, and harder to parody.
Of course Barney Frank is on the other side, man. It’s Frank’s fault he’s had a chip on his shoulder ever since his time at Harvard over the Vietnam War. He hates the DFH:
Barney Frank’s `Stupidest’ Decision
You can’t understand Frank’s contempt for Bernie Sanders without reading that article.
Barney Frank, noted conservative.
I mean, I can’t even…
LOL!
Did I call him a conservative?
No you completely missed the point again.
Barney Frank, Vietnam war apologist during his time at Harvard. Not siding with the facts defending those who prosecuted an unjust immoral war.
You know the kind of people we railed against during the immoral illegal invasion of Iraq, Franks actions mirror those who defended the Bush war machine.
You’re talking about the same Barney Frank who voted against the 2002 resolution authorizing the W. Bush Administration to take us to war against Iraq, and the same Barney Frank who has spoken out in support of the President’s nuclear deal with Iran, among other anti-war actions and statements.
But now he supports Hillary’s nomination, so it’s time for some to go back to 1966 to tar him with a warmonger claim. Preposterous.
I’m just comparing his reaction to Vietnam to others reaction to Iraq.
If you are displeased as to how history lays out the facts your argument is with history, and those who created it, not me.
we’re probably not real Americans either, n’est-ce pas?
I’m with Martin. I’m to Hillary’s left amd have been supporting Bernie but I’m most concerned about winning in November. Browbeating Saunders & his supporters is counter-productive.