Democrats might be forgiven at being a little miffed at this news:
[Sanders] also confirmed on Tuesday that he will return to the Senate as an independent, not a Democrat.
“I was elected as an independent so I’ll stay two years more as an Independent,” he told reporters. As the longest serving independent in U.S. congressional history, Sanders had only declared himself a Democrat when he entered the presidential race last year.
When Sanders switched his affiliation from independent to Democrat, I think a lot of people saw that as a meaningful statement. Yes, it was a requirement if he wanted the nomination, but it showed that he was personally invested in the party. Or, it seemed to, anyway.
Think about it this way. How would it have gone over if he’d said at the outset that he had no intention of remaining a Democrat but was only running for the party’s nomination because it would make it easier to win the presidency than if ran as an independent or third-party candidate?
I bet a lot of people would have not liked the sound of that. Why has he been working so hard to influence the platform of a party he doesn’t even want to belong to?
It’s feels like a con game even if it isn’t necessarily quite that. But, believe it or not, a lot of people supported Sanders not because they actually thought he might win the nomination but because they wanted the party to adopt or more seriously consider his ideas. In other words, they were invested in him because they were invested in the party.
And, now, at the very moment when his influence is being most keenly felt within the party, he announces he is bolting and no doubt taking as many people with him as he can.
Some people might see in that a bit of betrayal or, at the very least, abandonment.
I’m afraid by pearls will snap their thread if I clutch them any harder.
I don’t suppose his decision could be justified by this week’s exposure of a tacit conspiracy within the Democratic Party to sabotage his campaign?
I try to look at things from all sides and not presume to know someone’s motives. Many years as a professional mediator have taught me to not make assumptions.
It’s possible he felt betrayed by the party. We can argue about this of course but there’s no point since he’s not here to explain his motives. It just strikes me as a politically myopic move. Just when he’s at the height of his power, and most able to push the party to the left, he opts out. Self defeating to say the least.
Yes.
Unless it was never about moving the DNC to the left. Or at least not mainly about that.
It makes sense if taken from the point of view that it was all about his ego.
He’s a career politician that has always used whatever was needed to get elected, including having the DNC clear the way for him, so he did not have democratic opposition. He was perfectly fine when that ‘corruption’ was to his benefit.
It’s not a shock to those who actually paid attention that, once he got the benefits, he would walk. Plenty predicted it.
.
Every candidacy can be examined by psychologizing the candidate’s ego. Suffice it to say, anyone who puts up with the crap associated with running for office is operating at some level concerning his ego.
Why do you think that Hillary’s dad died with a picture of her and Melvin Laird hanging on his wall? Why do you think that Clinton was giddy from Henry Kissinger’s praise?
Every election cycle is followed by someone psychologizing the President. Remember Bush On The Couch? Dubya used to stick firecrackers up frogs’ butts. He used to brand guys trying to get into his frat at Yale, and god knows what they did in the Skull and Bones Society. Not even Kerry is talking about that.
Your vote may be imbued with the spirits of magic, honesty, and generosity, but that doesn’t mean that Clinton is egoless and Sanders has an ego. We all do.
I’m sorry to hear about your mother. I took care of my mother and grandmother towards the end of their lives. It’s hard to go through.
Take care of your health as well. It’s important.
Thanks.
Nalbar’s sig:
Nalbar’s act:
Consistently the opposite of his or her sig.
Consistently.
Especially the “generosity” part.
More sig:
Go away.
AG
Wonder if he was told that he would lose the Chairmanship under Schumer in the new Congress? Otherwise, it seems incomprehensibly short-sighted.
I suspect there’s a back story to this, but I don’t know what it is.
Since he caucuses with the Democrats, I don’t see why his committee assignments would require his being a party member.
I’m pretty shocked at this, actually. Especially because of the timing. But I do have an idea. the announcement may actually repair his standing with those of his followers who feel he’s been getting too cozy with the DNC. He renews his creds. He will continue to campaign against Trump/for Hillary, and has a better chance of rallying these people as an Independent than as a Democrat.
As I said earlier, he knows the meaning of the word “co-optation”, and maybe he thought he was getting too close to that.
But I don’t know.
I was shocked at first, assumed he’d remain a Dem, but thinking about it, he’ll have the same status as before and it’s clearer in terms of developing a progressive bloc in Congress; the financial side of the wikileaks is pretty distressing
You’re right. Boo is making a mountain out of a molehill, and I fell for it at first.
yes, I think he’s going for the independence it gives him in a progressive bloc. the more I think about the financial shenanigans we’re learning about. also fladem’s comment about how he got things done in VT- keeping the pressure on, this would be the equivalent
Not inclined to read too much into this. He’s just being Bernie, the mensch, and that’s who so many people had an opportunity meet and come to like and admire over the past year.
You’re right. It’s no big deal.
I like that idea.
I do think Booman perhaps read a bit too much sauce into that pudding….”he announces he is bolting and no doubt taking as many people with him as he can.”
Whereas the actual report was…”He also confirmed on Tuesday that he will return to the Senate as an independent, not a Democrat.” Certainly not a call to follow me, boys. But I guess we will see.
Did anyone pay attention to what Bernie did about 20 minutes ago, or so? All those giving Bernie stick can go stick it themselves. He’s been nothing but magnanimous the whole way.
? Not watching. What did he do?
After all the votes had been announced, he moved that all votes be recorded as cast for Clinton. The whole convention (it seemed) yelled “second” and I couldn’t even here any nays in the voice vote.
It was a very nice moment, and I think it’s a good thing everybody got to cast their votes first.
So I made it to Philly, and I am drinking. And I really can’t stand WJC from the rafters where I am sitting. So:
But he is a dick. He really is. Most of the Sanderistas are. Vain. Self-righteous. Etc.
And its a dick move. After getting millions of voted in a Democratic Primary to then leave the Party is a dick move.
No other way to put it.
Now VT and NH are having joint breakfasts so maybe I will learn something tomorrow morning.
hope you’ll have a chance to post
Kind of awkward. Madeline Kunin speaks. First woman governor. Important figure in transition of Vermont to a democratic state
Bernie ran aganst her in 86. She talks about the first woman president. People are respectful
But the room is full of Bernie people. You can feel the tension. She wasn’t there. Leahy was not there. And the room knows it
I.l can think of two friendships that are dead. Leahy says we believe the same things. The Bernie people at my table look at their shoes
Bernie speaks. Emotional room. Some of us can remember the night in 81. And you realize what he has accomplished. He talks about people making 10 bucks an hour with passion. He means it.
And you realize how asinine these bloggers are. What Bernie has accomplished is amazing. And these smart ass bloggers mean shit compared to that. How absurd their whining is
And you see the softer side of Bernie.
He is extremely gracious to Madeline.
And I wonder in the end if Bernie has won
A friend tells me how much the campaign has personally effected Bernie. In my conversation I kind of sensed it. He is done as of this morning. No more fight with the Clintons and with the Party and with the media.
He seemed at peace. Happy.
He must be exhausted, too.
thank you
If HRC and Trump had had to match Bernie’s pace in the past year, neither would have made it this far. Bernie has had practically no down down. HRC’s schedule was constructed with plenty of down time. And Trump only shows up when he feels like. Bernie has run his campaign with what could be described as skeletal at the top. HRC has had an army of colonels and lieutenants. Trump doesn’t listen to anybody but the fleeting bats in his belfry; so, he only requires enough “help” to mop the floors.
Something that was little noticed in 2000 was that GWB’s schedule had huge blocks of down time. And not much to do during that time because others managed everything for him. Gore effectively had to manage everything and do a lot of the grunt work. ie. GWB’s campaign plane was kitted out with a chef that kept the reporters well fed and drunk. Journalists on Gore’s campaign complained about the lack of food and once at the last minute, Gore ran off and bought a bunch of sandwiches. Then they bitched that they were pre-packaged and not fresh deli sandwiches.
Kind of awkward. Madeline Kunin speaks. First woman governor. Important figure in transition of Vermont to a democratic state
Bernie ran aganst her in 86. She talks about the first woman president. People are respectful
But the room is full of Bernie people. You can feel the tension. She wasn’t there. Leahy was not there. And the room knows it
I.l can think of two friendships that are dead. Leahy says we believe the same things. The Bernie people at my table look at their shoes
Kind of awkward. Madeline Kunin speaks. First woman governor. Important figure in transition of Vermont to a democratic state
Bernie ran aganst her in 86. She talks about the first woman president. People are respectful
But the room is full of Bernie people. You can feel the tension. She wasn’t there. Leahy was not there. And the room knows it
I.l can think of two friendships that are dead. Leahy says we believe the same things. The Bernie people at my table look at their shoes
Oh, for fuck’s sake, he came right out and said he only ran as a Democrat because he could get the party’s money for the general.
He was never, at any time, a Democrat. At least he admitted it. It doesn’t make it forgivable, but it’s not like we weren’t told.
Wow. You think that’s sabotage? I knew tougher cliques in high school. You think that’s a conspiracy? What illegal act was the object?
Are you afraid to go outside?
Highly commendable – staying true to his electorate who voted him into the U.S. Senate. Integrity! Likely disappointed in the DNC machinations and corrupt practices of voter suppression.
No comparison with low-blow Joe Lieberman, Obama’s mentor.
“Voter suppression” = derp.
The concept of voter suppression or voter suppression itself?
Oh yes, I agree! Using the party banner to raise money, then quitting is a sure sign of his integrity.
.
The party gave him no help in raising money, nor did he want any, nor did he need any.
Do you believe for one moment that he would have raised as much money if he had ran as a third party candidate? The part name itself helped him. He openly admitted so.
What a ridiculous argument.
He ran as a fucking candidate in the Democratic Party. Duh. So did Jim Webb. So did Governor Chafee. How much money did they get out of being Democratic candidates?
Sanders would have been stupid to run for a third party. But he did not take a cent from the DNC.
Willingly obtuse.
he admitted it
That took one minute. It’s easier to raise money in a party than as independent. HE ADMITTED IT. Nobody said the DNC gave him money. For fucks sake!
.
OK, then so what? What is the great sacrifice the Democratic Party made for Bernie Sanders?
Well, she did have to spend far more time than her coronation business plan called for on fundraising. Not that the time was needed to hold more campaign rallies in the small facilities that she could fill. (The RTD set doesn’t like to get out much.)
Ah, but you’re making the common mistake (also made, notably, by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) of equating the Democratic presidential primary with the coronation of Hillary Clinton. Technically that’s not so.
Technically, it was the plan. All the decks had been cleared (MOM would be out there for a few months for show), the checks lined up, and the only the jockeying for who would get what plum assignment remained TBD. When the mensch showed up, they thought he was a jester sent for their amusement.
How could they take him seriously? He did not ghost a five or six figure autobiography before he ran.
He’s not even a Democrat and doesn’t get in line and abase himself for Democratic big money donors. Gah — he’s probably never even gotten a buck from Trump and he will give to practically anybody. And 99% of the A list celebrities don’t want anything to do with him.
Sure, everybody knows that. But how does that equate to Bernie making big bucks out of running as a Democrat?
So did Lincoln Chafee (a Republican most his career), Jim Webb, and others. Bernie got the contributions because people wanted him. Most of those people ARE Democrats, though many are not.
Webb and Chafee didn’t get money because people didn’t want them. It has very little to do with the Democratic Party. It’s just a bullshit argument.
It doesn’t. That’s a different subthread.
She was always fearful of someone like Warren or Biden giving her a strong challenge. Bernie provided that challenge and if she weren’t a halfway decent politician with real support base or had he gotten off to a better start he would probably have beaten her.
Really, I always wonder why I bother. Like Sanders, his supporters lack integrity. They post nonsense, you prove them wrong with Sanders own words, and it’s ALWAYS ‘ya but….’. I have NEVER seen the like…so many projecting what they want him to be, thusly being completely unable to see what he actually is…an ordinary man. So they get grifted over and over, and live in a state of constant disappointment and angst.
Sanders is a quite ordinary politician. There is nothing special about him at all. He takes advantage when it’s to his liking, cashes in when he can, enriches his family when ever possible. That makes him like the vast majority of people on earth. He has no special honesty or morals. Perhaps less self aware and egotistical (probably why his coworkers hate him) than most people, but fits right in with politician attributes. A slightly better grifter than most, but that might be the schtick he has chosen. It fits with the times.
He has been busy the last months making compromise after compromise. Yet some still brag about his principles.
He has no principles. He sold them long ago.
So what is it? Do you dislike that he ran as a Democrat, do you dislike that he’s gone back to calling himself an independent?
It’s weird. I mean, David Duke was a Democrat then switched to Republican. How do you feel about him?
I am not following. Since when did he acquire a responsibility to join the party?
I am not following. Since when did he acquire a responsibility to join the party?
feel sorry for you, nalbar; cynicism and flame throwing.
I definitely never thought he’d remain a Democrat.
No. No. No. He was always an independent, a Democrat for convenience, and everyone with political sense knew that ahead of time except those who never had a party themselves (by and large) or were so new that this is their first election. He’s true to his principles: be a gadfly, a thorn in the side, not a team player. And then he wonders why he had only 1 senator back him? C’mon. Be real. It’s his history in the Senate. Nice guy, but not a team player.
Ever consider that he simply doesn’t agree with the team? he has principles. “The team” only has one, really. Win at any cost.
AG
But didn’t he agree to pay the cost of (potentially) winning by running as a Democrat? He could have ran without doing it within the Democratic party. But clearly he felt like winning was more important despite that cost. And he was right. Now he’s just welching on his payment.
This is complete nonsense. Sanders choosing to contest the primary as a Democrat instead of an independent was a huge favor to the Democrats and really to anyone left of center. Rather than play spoiler a la Jill Stein or Ralph Nader and risk electing a Republican through vote-splitting, he fought within the tent and endorsed the winner when he lost. He should be applauded.
He didn’t mind using the team to his advantage and then abandoning them. That’s an interesting principle.
Which team would that be? The team at the DNC pondering whether to use Bernie’s religious beliefs against him? Go team! The team that laundered tens of millions of dollars from the overseas donors to the DNC to 32 state parties, back to the DNC and then to Hillary’s Victory PAC? Maybe the team who shut off his campaign’s access to their computers after Sanders’ campaign told them their computer security was crappy. And apparently they didn’t listen.
People here talk like the Democratic Party is a cult and they’re offended that someone finds it lacking. It’s like getting upset because someone isn’t wearing a flag pin. There is clearly a division in the party that’s been exposed this year. A whole lot of people do not like the candidate, they don’t like the way the inner workings of the party, and they certainly don’t like what we got the last 25 years. If someone who is not a TRUE DEMOCRAT represents us better than the Democrats have the last quarter century. Maybe you’re right. Maybe we all should leave the cult.
Also, some of the same voices who are offended about Sanders leaving the Party didn’t want him in. It’s a cult.
He threw those principles away at the Convention.
So what should he have done at the convention?
And if those things helped Trump win, would he still be true to his principles?
Conceeded defeat and quietly left instead of licking Hillary’s boots and urging his followers to support the very policies that he attacked during the campaign.
Seems principled and understanding that elections are winner take all but that endorsing someone doesn’t mean endorsing everything about them nor does it mean that they are ignoring the things they don’t agree with.
He understands that politics, policy, and politicians are never perfect but that all require push, pull and constant vigilance in an imperfect system.
It’s so clear that you and Arthur don’t get what Bernie was trying to accomplish here. He was never in it to tear down Hillary or burn it all down if he didn’t win.
And because he didn’t act the way you wanted him to act you now feel contempt for him.
Where did I intimate that I “don’t get what Bernie was trying to accomplish?” Where have I dissed him?
AG
I’m sorry, Arthur. I noticed that you were the only one who liked this comment (a 4!) in which the writer accused Bernie of licking HRC’s boots and assumed you approved of the sentiment.
Oh well…sometimes this stuff gets too complicated to handle…
Sorry.
Here is what I think about Bernie Sanders:
1-He had no chance of winning…not because of his policies, but because this whole presidential thing has now devolved into is a popularity/beauty contest and he simply isn’t a potential King of the Prom.
2-He’s no dummy. He knew that and he did it anyway in order to make a point. he succeeded in in that to some degree.
3-He didn’t foresee Trump’s rise. Not many people did. When it became obvious that Trump had the nomination, he conceded in a fit of practicality. Was it “honorable?” In his eyes, I suppose it was. Ee shall see what comes of that.
I do not blame him for trying.
AG
AG
I don’t blame him for trying, either. I blame him for that servile display of prostration. It would have been enough to concede defeat and point out that they proved a campaign can be run without plutocrat dollars. Instead he urged everyone to support the candidate that opposed all his reforms. That’s throwing your principles down the sewer. I’m shocked and dismayed that Ted Cruz showed more principle than Bernie Sanders.
While not endorsing Cruz in any way, I have to admire how he didn’t crawl to Trump but left on his own two feet like a man.
He’s entitled to his opinion that Trump would be worse than HRC. Who among us can say that we never set aside our most cherished principles when concluding that Y is much worse and dangerous than X? Whether we get that right or wrong, we never know because we only get one bite at such apples.
Not a team player? The record says rather otherwise.
I did not use 2015 as it would not have been typical, given his campaign efforts.) https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2014
I don’t see betrayal, but this seems unwise. Bernie ran as a Democrat because he realized that was the only way to push Hillary to the left, and he succeeded (I assume) beyond his wildest expectations. If he really wants to continue the revolution, he should have said “I’m joining the Democratic Party, and I would urge my supporters to do the same. Run for your county council, for your school board, for dog catcher. We need real progressives in the Democratic Party.”
With this, he’s announcing his de facto retirement. And that’s a shame.
I think he already did tell his followers to get involved and he suggested last night he was still going to be involved.
I also suspect that at 74 years old, he knows he is nearing retirement age and may choose to go out as he has been for years.
Yes, he said that, but how will he be involved? He’s not a member of any party.
I think your second sentence is absolutely right: he’s getting ready to leave politics.
He cashed in, now it’s time to retire.
.
Yeah those $200,000+ Goldman Sachs checks have his name already embossed on them and he can hardly wait to cash them. And there are all those monarchs, oligarchs, dictators, and faux elected head of state waiting in line to drop mega-bucks on his foundation that will spend 10% of charitable activities and 90% on employing all the BernieBros.
Maybe Hollywood will cast him instead of Leahy as the generic politician in the next movie needing such a seat filler.
Jane can get the mullti-million dollar book advance that Heidi Cruz and all the wives of losing primary candidates get. Bernie might even get one of those book deals for himself and get an advance as large as the one that the last Democratic primary loser got.
Excellent! You do snark very well. Seriously. I can’t compete.
Snark or honest?
If the latter, not really. Few people are accomplished at snark off the top of their heads. In blog/twitter land, Billmon beats all, but he has his clunker. Excellent snark has to be a) appropriate b) well crafted (which takes time) and c) funny. On this one I only hit a. The thread would be dead by the time I managed to accomplish okay crafted. Funny is so rare that have to conclude that my muse doesn’t much like me.
Most snark attempts here fail on all three. Snark is appropriate far less often than some people seem to think it is. A reason why it’s rare for me even to try it. (This instance was a hanging low ball and a a bad swing at it would get a single.) Although participating in snark riffs is fine.
I never expected him to become a democrat. He could have done so his whole career. I expect he will stay involved – democrat or not – and then retire in two years. Who knows what he does after then.
Who cares. I do think he could’ve waited to make the announcement. OTOH, maybe this is better.
What do people think? Which would most mollify (or upset) some of the more already-upset Bernie supporters? His announcement he will return to the Senate as an independent? Or not hearing that news till after the convention?
At this point, that’s all I really care about.
I was just thinking the same words, “Who cares”? As far as I’m concerned, he could stay in or not stay in, but it seemed better if he could stay in because he’s be reforming “from the inside.”
But as you also indicate, it’s the timing of this. The real campaign is just beginning. So maybe it’s got something to do with that.
Or, you know what? I have been thinking all along that he had the option to walk at any time. I just thought it would be after the election, and that if it happened it would be for a definite reason, such as, that it turned out they were going to ignore the movement after all. And not simply that he’d walk, but he’d take the whole movement with him.
But before the election? Something doesn’t add up.
In answer to your question, and as I already said above, I think that it would somewhat mollify the disgruntled Bernie supporters if he left the party, and, paradoxically, this could actually increase the chances of defeating Trump.
I’m thinking you might be right about it mollifying his supporters, especially those most inclined to be upset and remain upset. I hope so.
Maybe you’re right and the timing is a message. Politically, Bernie is savvier and more astute than we among the hoi polloi that hang out here.
It’s as if he’s been saying I’ll be there and with the party if it needs me in this election cycle, but from this point forward, what is will be. What if last month instead of giving HRC a pass, she’d been indicted? What would the party have done then? Bernie was a viable fallback candidate. Tim Kaine is now that guy should any new nasty surprises surface. All the “loser-loser-loser” noise/crowing from the Hill camp wrt Bernie over the past month has effectively defined the party’s path forward. And that path doesn’t include Bernie doing any driving or steering of the bus. (But please Bernie leave behind your donor lists and order you voters to “get with her.”)
I don’t see it as dark as all that. If it were, all his work would no ben in vain. Actually, I think it’s been about as successful as it could be. Nearly half the party are Berniecrats, and there’s another large contingent outside the party.
All he’s got to do now (of course, it’s a lot) is keep up the momentum. But he’ll have the help of many, just as he did in this campaign. If the establishment really does try to screw this huge bloc of voters, such as by passing TPP (and I’m sure a lot of Clinton supporters don’t want TPP either), then we shall see what we shall see.
But first, let’s win this election.
I meant “all his work would now be in vain.”
Sorry didn’t intend that to be read as dark. Only what is (exactly what the Hill camp has wanted for months). The choice has been made and now we live with it for better or worse.
They’ve wanted it, but it didn’t come without conditions. It wasn’t given away for free.
We shall see how much they will end up paying for it.
She desperately wanted that extra NH debate, did she pay up on the agreed upon price? That would be no.
Democrats have gotten a lot of criticism for neglecting the 50 state strategy and Obama got a lot of criticism for deactivating his organized supporters after his election.
I don’t think that Sanders will do that but he has built something here and it would be a shame to see it wither away like the Occupy movement.
I dunno. I think he just blew up his chances for Chairmanship of Budget Committee if Dems retake the Senate. Not smart.
Not just not smart. Bad for the progressive movement, of which he is supposed to be a leader. He’s helping himself out the door.
I sure hope I am wrong. Don’t think privatization bills would get a lot of help from the staff he organized last yr.
Why? He’s always caucused with the Democrats as an independent and he’ll have seniority.
I think anyone watching knew that, and Sanders admitted it in May:
http://americablog.com/2016/03/bernie-sanders-says-ran-democrat-order-get-media-cover.html
I agree it’s a mistake to leave now and counteracts any good he may have done in his convention speech. If Sanders didn’t want to stay, he could at least have waited until after the election, preferably until the Senate convenes next January. He can’t fully support Clinton from outside the party.
But he’s an idealist – except when he’s actually running for President, apparently. The promise of that kind of power corrupts just about anyone.
He’s going to keep fighting for the principles Democrats say they believe in right? He’s going to vote for Mitch McConnell? No. Inside outside, Thats what matters.
Well, apparently all that mattered several months ago is that it was easier to raise cash as a democrat. Once the cash is raised? Pffft!
Thats bullshit and you know it. Stop trolling.
LOL.
Stop being willingly obtuse.
Of course he was in the Democratic Party to raise money.
But yes, him running as a democrat and raising money, getting media attention beyond his influence, never releasing his tax returns, then quitting (after his kids cash out) is actually a sign of his honestly, integrity, and him being a mensch.
Keep believing that, keep being disappointed.
Sanders supporters really are the equal of Trump supporters. No matter how many times, and how many ways they get grifted, they come back for more.
.
.
Yeah, and that money laundered through the state Dem parties. That wasn’t done to raise money, was it?
Weird scale you’ve got there, nalbar. Do you think it’s immoral for a progressive to run as a Democrat?
Don’t feed the troll.
Ah!
Proving you wrong with Sanders own words makes a poster a troll. Make fun of a woman looks and that makes you part of the Sanders alliance.
Good to know your standards.
.
Look, nalbar, I’ve tried, but I just can’t make myself stupid enough for your point to appear to make any sense whatsoever. So I’m afraid you’ll just have to give up.
I’ll make it clearer, then give up,
When the person to your left is waving a confederate flag and saying ‘send them back where they came from’, the woman on your right says ‘black people only do whatever their ministers say’ and wants to rebuild Tara, the person behind you is shouting how funny a fat woman is, and the person in front of you says ‘black people never came to Oregon because it’s too far’….
you might want to reassess your crowd choosing, because they ain’t progressives.
.
been saying that for a while. Just goes over the heads of most.
If your words are the same as the words of your enemies
If your meanings are read as support by your enemies
If your intentions are gauged as favorable by your enemies …
YOU ARE YOUR ENEMY
WTF are you talking about?
You have bought deep into this fucked-up stereotype of the “typical” gaptooth, Sanders supporter. For some reason, I guess, it makes you feel special.
You know as well as I do, but it just doesn’t fit into your fucked up viewpoint, that a substantial percentage of black and latino people, particular under 30, support Sanders. Including a lot of Black Lives Matter people.
According to your scenario, the only reason they would do that is because they’re Stepan Fetchits and Uncle Toms. And that’s just fucking not true and you know it.
Wow, talk about projection.
Read the words. If you are using the same words about HRC as Trump and Limbaugh, if your crazy uncle thinks your on his side and if your RWNJ brother thinks you’ll vote for Trump then you need to re-think what the fuck you are doing and saying. Unless, of course, they are right.
Yeah, a substantial number are Bernie supporters. Are you saying that that substantial number won’t support Hillary?
Who in the world has ever said anything about “gap-toothed” supporters? And if you aren’t a ’60s British movie maven what the FUCK would you know about gap-toothed anyway? (Terry Thomas, you know)
I have no idea what you’re talking about. But thnnks for sharing.
scroll down this thread to see how one of these guys views Bernie. Like a creature without a single redeeming human quality (and his record is nothing but a inflated pack of lies) and his supporters are just like him.
I’m well aware of how one of these guys views Bernie. He’s been on my case for months about it. I guess Bernie just doesn’t make him “feel special” enough. Anyway, he’s full of shit.
As for the other one, I don’t know what he was smoking, but his reply, though nasty, bore no relation to anything I said.
http://aplus.com/a/bernie-made-me-white-tweets?utm_source=aplus&utm_medium=infinite_scroll
Are you a Brit?
Over here there are a couple uses of that term. 1) A child missing baby teeth or a baby with only a few cut.
2) A person too poor to pay for dental work.
So it is a slur when used against an adult.
He’s not a troll. He’s expressing skepticism. I kind of disagree with him, but he’s not outside the bounds of plausibility.
Actually the people I described to the left, right, behind, and in front of pris are people who post on Booman Tribune, and those are true quotes of things they have said repeatedly. Of course they will not fess up to those quotes, because they know what those beliefs make them.
.
Maybe its that signature that makes me view his posts in a less charitable light.
He’s not a Democrat and we all knew that all along. But we’re supposed to be surprised that the party didn’t completely support him? Huh.
I’d hope for more than a blind tribal loyalty from my elected officials.
The party is a private organizations with only one guiding principle– elect Democrats. Bernie used them, and they very kindly allowed him to use their money, time, people, and information. But to expect them to fully support someone who doesn’t support them is unreasonable.
Fully support? They didnt support him at all. Maybe they should think about why they themselves weren’t fully supported in the first place.
I know! I was shocked, shocked I tell you, when I found out the DNC was supporting the actual democrat!
.
Didn’t Hillary switch from the Republican Party? Has she helped to bring her neoliberal beliefs to the Democratic Party? Yes, just like Bernie tried bringing progressiver beliefs to the party. Who’s worse?
And that guy Murphy who’s running against Grayson in Florida. He switched from Republican to Democrat, at least in the initial in the parentheses behind his name.
I may be out of the Democratic Party by year’s end.
Hillary started supporting the Dems in 1968. She’s fought hard for them ever since. It’s not remotely the same situation.
That’s not known. Sure she participated in the ’64 Goldwater campaign and attended the ’68 RNC convention, but she was only first eligible to register and vote days before the ’68 election. By ’72 she was already with Bill and a Democrat. So, as an adult (which is only when people should be judged as to political affiliation) she may have been a Republican and switched at some point over the subsequent four years or she may have always been a Democrat. Interpret her silence anyway you want.
In my opinion it’s not what you’re registered as, it’s what you believe in and do.
That too. But people that engage in politics for sport place more value on form over substance. Why HRC bragging the Kissinger is one of her biggest fans and their families vacation together did lead to a majority of Democrats screeching and running in horror from her was a major tell. As was the disclosure of her huge haul from private speechifying for the likes of Goldman Sachs.
One of the bots should be along soon to tell me that I’m parroting a rightwing talking point.
Since 1972 means nearly her whole adult life.
Not just a bunch of vote splitters.
A real one.
Coming your way before 2020.
Watch.
AG
I’ve felt abandoned by the Democratic Party for decades.
And I bet I can pin point when it happened.
.
Actually, it was a slow process, starting with the Vietnam War. I felt abandoned in 1980 when Jimmy Carter conceded before I got home from work. Was disappointed with the choice of candidates during the Reagan-Bush years. In December 1992 I wrote an op-ed in my union paper about NAFTA regarding Bill Clinton. I said, to the effect, that our man won, but what will our man do?
In 2004 I was still willing to cheer the other Skull and Bones candidate, Kerry. I held out hope that Obama would be more liberal. He wasn’t.
When did you think I felt abandoned?
I’m not sure this really means much. The majority of young folks who voted preferred social democracy and they will eventually push the party to the left.
I’ve been following him since well before he decided to run for President. His plan was always to jump in and push HRC to the left if no one else stepped up to do it. He succeeded. Bernie’s got a personal brand to maintain and he’s always been more comfortable as an outsider.
Why in the hell is anyone surprised by anything except the timing?
He’s long been an Independent, Democratic Socialist, and has caucused with the Democrats for over twenty-six years.
Should those few people that manage to get elected by being too principled to join either of the two parties that have little claim to being principled and beholden more to their elite patrons than the people that voted for them be eliminated from consideration for becoming POTUS?
As of 2015 there wasn’t a chance in hell that a third party candidate could win the office of the Presidency. Or an Independent. In part because getting on the damn ballot is an expensive and huge task. As an Ind, the primary objective of Sanders campaign wouldn’t be met. He wouldn’t be heard. Older Democrats wouldn’t have seen a man reminding them of what it meant to be a Democrat when they were young. Younger people would not have seen anything other than nutso Republicans, culturally out-of-date and economically out of touch Democrats, the faux libertarians indistinguishable from Republicans except on drugs, and the very nice and hapless Green Party that everybody blames for GWB’s installation.
Sanders offered his services to help his Democratic colleagues get back to their early/mid twentieth century roots. Back to a party that he could more wholly embrace and be an official member of. There sure weren’t any “real Democrats” signing up for the task. Most were too busy signing onto more of the same (and that means more for the haves and more war just as has been delivered over the past seven plus years).
Smug Democrat will never accept their well-deserved responsibility for facilitating all the changes that they criticize but vote for year after year.
I have no problem with him doing this, as he was elected as an independent. What I wonder is what is this going to do to his chances to head a committee should the dems retake the senate.
He has been serving as an Ind on various committees for years. Unless the Dem Senate leadership goes out of its way to antagonize a block of voters, he will get some leadership position. He will also form a block in the Senate that will have to be accomodated in the future, so yeah follow seniority rules.
R
yes.
I’m curious – which senators do you think would be part of his block?
Good question.
.
Well it could vary as to issue to issue but I think its core could be Warren, Sanders, Booker, Markey, Brown, maybe Franken. Depending on their persuasive abilities, that could be a block to build a voting majority around, if the Dem retake the Senate and Schumer allows bills they support to come to the floor.
Certainly that could be a block to bargain with the Admin for bills they want, especially if the majority margin is slim.
R
Not Booker. He’s a died in the wool DLCer (or whatever label they are using these days).
As a politician Warren isn’t mature. She has her one area of expertise and is passionate about it. Otherwise, she’s pretty much a standard issue 2000 Democrat. A couple of times she has appeared to have thought through an issue that she hadn’t considered in the past and came out on the right side. By right, I mean that it is consistent with her main issue. She has still to connect the dots wrt to other issues, and may never do so as she’s in a comfy spot even if it means that her accomplishments in advancing her primary issue will be meager.
Brown. How sad to observe him in this election cycle. I always get concerned when seeing something like this from good solid liberal progressives because more often than not they don’t return to their roots.
Markey, probably.
Merkley is at the top for me. Schatz has promise but he’s been a bit wobbly in the past year. (That siren song from party elites/elders is very seductive.) Heinrich is worth watching. These three are young. They have time.
Just noticed that other than Markey (a first term Senator who wouldn’t be expected to deviate much from his long-term House record, but he’s 70 years old), the ones on my list are all from the west. The east is and has been under the control of the Clintons over two decades and it shows in who gets the nods to run and who gets favored in Congress. Surprising given that they were DC transplants, from a backwater mid/southern state no less. When they left AR and the region, they didn’t look back and it’s become redder and redder since then.
While Bernie did well in many states (other than the deep south and its near neighbors), he was stronger in the the northern tier from ME to ND (where down ticket Democrats have been faring very poorly of late) and the west where the institutional Democratic party carries less weight. WA, OR, HI, CO, ID, UT, MT, WY and even KS, OK that aren’t classified as ‘west.’ Would also include NV and IA which Sanders either lost my a nose or were manipulated into losses for him.
Absent the strong and large Democratic party strongholds in CA (LA, SF in particular), Sanders had a better chance to win. The Clintons just aren’t like ordinary westerners.
Due to their prominence in this election cycle, I think Sanders and Warren could form a core group whose membership may shift from time to time. The question is, will they strong arm a Clinton Admin to follow through on their promises? Can they hold a group of votes together to bargain? Or, what if McAuliffe is right and they push through TPP with a few cosmetic changes? Will they have the courage of their convictions? Sanders, probably and he could raise a big stink with any number of supporters he could call on. Warren? Don’t know.
R
what do you think they might coordinate seriously w. the House as well?
There is a “Progressive” Caucus in the House but how active or influential they are, don’t know. Probably not much due to the rules in the House.
R
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191?lo=
ap_d1
Makin’ her way, the only way she knows how. That’s just a little bit more than the law will allow.
Someone’s noticed:
Yeah, imagine that. I’ll bet they noticed at 200 West Street too.
When Donald Trump refuses to release his tax returns, it’s because they are discreditable.
When Hillary Clinton refuses to release the transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches, it’s because… principle?
It’s just adorable when Bernie supporters use Trump’s talking points.
Strange how that happens so much.
Yes, almost like its planned.
.
Well, why won’t Clinton release her speeches to Goldman Sachs? Any clue?
Like I said yesterday, one major problem with Clintonistas is that they assume any criticism of Clinton is from the right. It’s gotten tiresome. It might be some kind of way for Hillary supporters to deny that they aren’t really very liberal or progressive. If anything to the left of you is really to the right of you, then you’re still liberal. It’s a convenient mental dodge. I think that’s how it works but I’m open to a better explanation. It seems to me if, say, Hillary laundered money through the state Democratic parties then she laundered money through the state Democratic parties. Anyone can point it out or (in the case of Clinton supporters) ignore it.
Although I can’t say I listen to every speech and soundbite, I’ve never heard Trump mention her speeches to her masters on Wall Street. In fact, Trump, being a billionaire (maybe), can’t just attack secret relationships among the wealthy. But maybe he has mentioned it. Perhaps we can keep a list of things Trump said so that we know it’s against the DiTourno Rules.
Is Hillary allowed to use any talking points against Trump that may have been used by Ted Cruz or the rest of the Republicans? I need to know this section of the DiTourno Rules. What about the talking point that Bernie is a Jew/atheist? Is that a Democratic talking point?
We need to know these things.
Yes, briefly:
That’s right. Sorry.
Nevertheless, the point about Clinton supporters not telling the difference between left or right, or for that matter full spectrum criticism, still stands.
Bob, I was responding to Eric Krupin’s implication that Trump’s refusal to release is taxes is comparable to Hillary refusing to release here speeches. The problem isn’t just that it’s literally one of Trump’s talking points, but also that it’s idiotic.
Since Richard Nixon, every GOP presidential nominee has released all or some of their taxes. It’s especially important that Trump do so, since he’s almost certainly lying massively about his wealth, and since he has some very shady dealings. That doesn’t come close to the text of speeches given to banks. You’re comparing apples and bicycle tires.
In an attempt to smear Hillary, Eric literally used Trump’s utterly bogus defense for his refusal to release his taxes. That’s a strange thing for a Bernie supporter to do.
Kevin Drum explains why:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/everyone-knows-why-hillary-clinton-wont-release-her-go
ldman-sachs-speeches
I just read the linked article. It’s funny, once again, to see how you’re making a big issue of this and there is no sense of that in the actual report.
He did NOT say he’s “bolting” now. He said he will go back to the Senate (that means after the election, doesn’t it) as an independent, which is what he has always served his constituents as.
“… no doubt taking as many people with him as he can. ” indeed. Just where would he be taking them — to Vermont?
That makes a lot more sense. there’s no “there” there, folks.
This is the second time you’ve done this today, Booman. Maybe you drank too much coffee. You seem to be pretty hyper.
If Sanders wanted to hurt the Democratic Party he would have bolted to the Greens after he was mathematically eliminated from the candidacy. There are tons of things he could have accused the Dems of if he so desired. He could have pulled ten, fifteen, maybe twenty percent between disaffected Dems and independents. Not enough to win but certainly enough for Clinton to lose.
If we’re crying crocodile tears for the poor, deluded Dems who voted for him, I don’t think so. He’s gotten more static at the convention and on the net about him calling for unity.
I don’t see any reason to be surprised. Sanders has been an independent for a long time, and was elected in his state as an independent. There was no illusion that he was going to be a permanent member of the Democratic Party, nor at least initially was there much expectation that he’d potentially win a Presidential nomination. The modest goal was to reform the Democratic Party to some extent – a goal that Sanders himself is invested in to the extent that he has consistently caucused as an outsider. There was certainly success on that front, as is evident from the current platform and from some reform to the role the superdelegates will play going forward in future electoral cycles. It’s not exactly the stuff of revolution, but that really was never the point. Just my two cents.
Nice anecdote, especially the part about FDR and the New Deal.
It’s interesting to contrast this item with the sort of nasty stuff (not by you) that I’ve read regarding Chelsea Clinton introducing her mother.
I thought Larry’s remarks were nice, succinct, and echoed Bernie’s campaign. Even if Bernie is too modest to have tried directly to exploit the memory of FDR and the New Deal. He might have gotten a few more votes had he done so. (My strictly partisan GOP b-i-l might have had some cognitive dissonance if he heard that because he still holds FDR in high regard.)
Did anyone around there parts write nasty stuff about Ivanka introducing her father? Only nasty and foolish people go there. However, I might make an allowance for anyone that was highly critical of Ivanka AND Chelsea because at least that person wouldn’t be a hypocrite.
Seems best to me to hold one’s tongue when candidates and parties are merely following well known conventions. Regardless of how trite or hackneyed they may be because ultimately they aren’t all that important.
Better that he run in the primaries as a Democrat, than that he run in the general as a third party candidate. The latter might have helped Trump.
True ‘dat
Sanders remaining an independent is about as predictable as Hillary Clinton passing TPP — “with tweaks” as Terry Mac has more or less affirmed
Terry talks with the Clintons on a daily basis, particularly Bill. Predictable as the sun rising. As I said in comments several days ago, look to the platform to see what’s going to be the focus and/or what will she drop once the election is done. TPP will pass at some point during her admin if not during lame duck. Kaine’s selection as VP only furthers this. She will not support the Palestinian cause or rebuke Israel in any way. She will not try for climate legislation dealing with cap and trade or a carbon tax. This is why Clinton’s trust ratings are in the toilet — people know she doesn’t mean what she says with regard to TPP.
A minimum wage increase, reducing Medicare to 55, college affordability, guns, and immigration reform; that’s the bag of goods she’ll pick from. Maybe O’s DEA will deal with marijuana because I don’t see her touching drug reform. Let’s see if any fruit comes of Kerry’s talks with Russia re: Syria.
Yep. And it will all be the fault of the left who did not clap hard enough. Sheesh.
Not optimisitic
Back to keeping this one open for HRC to do her way?
Might now be reduced to waiting to see what Erdogan does between now and the end of the year.
Read somewhere in the other world that two of the divisions involved in the coup were connected to NATO, and the air tanker that refueled the jets that bombed Ankara was from the US base in Turkey. Operation Gladio, anyone?
Erdogan isn’t directly accusing the US but he’s pointing to the CIA’s pet Turk, the Gulen guy. Some of the “moderate” beheaders in Syria are already feeling the cut off of supplies that had been passing through the Turkish border.
Erdogan is holding his cards to his vest. The viability of his regime would be better long-term by throwing his lot in with Russia and Iran, but moving away from or out of NATO might force the US’s hand and try for another coup.
Or not.
Hilarious. You are highly skeptical about the evidence that Russian hackers were behind the DNC email leak yet here you are again stating with certainty that the US was behind the coup in Turkey. This after making a similar assertion about events in Brazil.
Somewhere in the other world… I like that.
I don’t know who hacked the DNC. I don’t see any proof in the articles. Someone saw cyrillic. Not proof.
But somehow this is an international bad act, as if the US with its vast electronic surveillance array doesn’t do this constantly. We know that various federal agencies have been spying on American citizens. We know that Germany complained loudly a couple of years ago about US spying on Merkel. The ECHELON Program and subsequent spy satellite programs pretty much presumes a world-wide spying network.
Remember the Panama Papers? We know someone released them, released them for a purpose. The media tried to make a connection between a friend of Putin moving money through Panama. Not Putin, mind you, but a friend of Putin. I don’t remember the sanctity of internet privacy or bank privacy being an issue in the American press with the Panama Papers and I still haven’t made the leap that even though Putin’s name never shows up in that information dump that he’s somehow proven corrupt by the release of those documents. (By the way, I have no doubt that Putin gets his, as all world leaders get theirs.)
I’ve pointed out over and over how Americans are being primed, like against Saddam and Assad, how US propaganda prepares Americans for the next war by bad-jacketing the leader of our next conquest. So whenever I hear a wild charge against against a foreign leader I take notice. It often is American propaganda preparing the US for war.
(Bad-jacketing is a propaganda exercise that attacks a figure by somehow relating him to something or someone deemed evil. Trump/Putin is an example. I recall that when the whole OJ thing happened that a right-wing meme at the time was that during one of his haircut stopovers in LA that he planned to play a round of golf with Simpson. Whether true or not doesn’t matter. The links that the human mind creates between the bad jacket and the targeted individual can be more persistent in one’s mind, and propaganda never has to be exact. It has to generate emotions, generally hateful or fearful emotions.)
I am not sure about whether the US is behind this most recent coup, but we’ve got a long track record at coups originating at Langley. You know that, right? You know the CIA has overthrown more governments than any other entity in the world since WWII.
There are reports in news that different units of the Turkish military that participated in the coup attempt were attached to NATO, and I’m presuming you know about Operation Gladio. Do you? You might want to look up past coups, like the Greek coup in 1967.
A couple of other clues: During the coup, when spokespeople in Moscow and Tehran offered support to Erdogan John Kerry hoped for “stability”, a weasily word in coup jargon used to justify military control. If the US were opposed to the coup it would have said something about the rule of law, blah blah.
The biggest clue is that Erdogan is blaming the US, but not directly. He’s blaming Gulen, who is essentially the CIA’s Turkish favorite son. Gulen is rich, moves money around the usual places, is actually involved in the charter school scam/business here in the US (a means of propaganda to Muslim students?), and is viewed by Erdogan as a traitor to Turkey. Gulen is a rich, powerful man, but he’s not capable of overthrowing the government of Turkey. So Erdogan blamed the CIA’s poster boy.
Of course, it could be another entity, but Erdogan has been constant trouble for NATO, the EU and the US lately. The fact that the pilot who shot down the Russian bomber last winter was arrested in the coup is either a sop to Russia or an indication that the US may have played a part in that shootdown.
The group of rebels formerly known as al Nusrah is a formation of al Qaeda. They are the people described as “moderate rebels” and monetarily backed by US allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other players along the Persian Gult. The moderate rebels cut off that 12 year-old disabled boy’s head last week. That group and others fighting against Assad are complaining that weapons and supplies aren’t freely floating through the Turkish border anymore. That suggests a change in Turkish foreign policy, since the west’s war against Syria depends largely on supplies from Turkey. Now Turkey is actually cutting off supplies. That’s against America’s covert policy there. So there are immediate indications after the failed coup that Turkey is no longer in step with US policy.
At first, because from western reporting it appeared it was a pretty poorly planned overthrow, but that Erdogan was using a little coup to justify wide-ranging arrests of his political enemies. The coup was apparently a bigger deal than our media mentioned. I’m guessing that Turkey, like most of our “allies”, is rife with intelligence assets working with the US. It’s the way we do business.
If Erdogan is blaming the US (through blaming Gulen) then that’s a pretty good indication that on the ground in Ankara that’s what the perception is in his government.
The US is pretty quick to point the finger at anti-American coups, down to identifying the people behind the coup. But when the coup fails and the US essentially shrugs and doesn’t have an immediate theory of the coup, America’s (CIA’s) fingerprints are usually on it.
When Honduras was overthrown in 2012 fingers pointed to the US, which we denied. But, as we know from the news of the last ten years, the US electronically spies on everybody, even our allies. The next logical question is could there have been a military coup in Honduras without the US knowing? Well, first off, if you followed the history of the School of the Americas, Latin American militaries are riddled with US assets who are paid to tip off their superiors to what’s going on. Further, most of these regimes are connected through training their officer corps, arms deals and through their intelligence services to the US. The coup in Honduras was against the sitting president because he had made adverse decisions affecting businesses, like raising the minimum wage. So it was a right v. left coup. You might want to look at America’s post WWII track record for what side we are invariably on when coups occur. It would have been suicidal for the coup plotters in Honduras to risk their connections with the US in staging a coup. It is further impossible to imagine them risking their lives knowing that the US was opposing the coup. I don’t have the information in front of me but I’m guessing SOS Clinton may have made a statement about the US looking for “stability”.
If the coup in Turkey was a false flag by Erdogan himself in order to alienate himself from the US it essentially repeats the same meme: Turkey is making moves away from the EU, NATO and the US. Keep an eye on this. If Russia’s Turkish Stream gas pipeline starts up again, you’ll know what Erdogan knows.
As far as whether or not “Putin” hacked the DNC computers, by last December the world knew that the DNC’s computers had lots of security problems (the Sanders kerfluffle). If the Russians hadn’t hacked those computers before I’m sure after that news story they would. Or anyone else, to include NSA, CIA et al. Maybe the Russians did it to embarrass Clinton. They have the motive. Why? Clinton is a biggest cold warrior in the run for President and Russia presumes she’ll be continuing it next year. But it could be any number of different hackers.
But story is a clever use of bad-jacketing. It supplies endless Putin/Trump memes, Joe McCarthyesque red-baiting. If you’ve absorbed the propaganda against Putin you are free to merge it with propaganda against Trump.
What the real story of the hack revealed, aside from suggesting that Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s nephew isn’t very good at computer security, is that the DNC actively worked for Clinton and against Sanders. Maybe you got that impression before. I did.
Words left out. Bill Clinton playing golf with OJ Simpson.
Just wondering: how many random voters, as opposed to people who read this blog, even know what TPP stands for?
Just wondering: does it matter?
I only found out what “PBR” stood for last year.
So you’re getting into Professional Bull Riders? Wouldn’t have expected that.
You know, everyone who retires should find a hobby.
Well, this doesn’t fit with the ultra-cynical narrative:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/kaine-comes-out-against-trans-pacific-partnership-deal-226064
Podesta also came out with a no wiggle room denial in response to the Governor’s statement. Let’s hear what Clinton says during Thursday’s speech.
We can’t “tweak” the deal unilaterally. There’s a dozen countries involved in the negotiations. If the U.S. were to propose changes which benefit us, all the other nations would have to agree to accept changes in terms which favor us.
The current Partnership terms took years and years to accomplish. A change in the terms would not be completed quickly, and would have to be approved by Congress.
The only way I’d take any of this TPP posturing seriously is if Obama himself were to come out against TPP either in his speech or on the campaign trail.
I just don’t see it happening because he considers it part of his legacy that people will one day credit him for accomplishing. The accomplishment being stronger US-centric trade with TPP nations rather than China-centric trade.
This is his baby, at least through the lame duck. I don’t trust that HRC would keep her commitment on TPP.
Dude get real lol. When I say tweaks, we are talking about window dressing so Clinton can save face. Clinton is not about to undo the neoliberal order here. This is why it matters how people arrive at particular political positions. Ideology matters. Clinton is a neoliberal. Obama went and redefined slave labor essentially just so Malaysia could be accepted. So Terry Mac spilled the beans too early and had to walk it back. Is it so hard to accept that there’s a reason why they couldn’t get TPP language in the platform, and that it has nothing to do with “embarrassing the president”? Clinton supports TPP. Kaine supports TPP. We all know it.
Did you believe Obama re: NAFTA? I never did. And we got evidence before the campaign was even over that this was the case.
Let me explain how this works.
Small changes are made that, perhaps, make the shit sandwich slightly less odorous. And then Clinton and Kaine can lend their enthusiastic support to the agreement in its new form.
Even Jonathan Chait, one of the Democrats’ most loyal water carriers, is honest enough to admit that Kaine’s opposition to TPP is an unconvincing pretense for the rubes.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/terry-mcauliffe-hillary-clinton-tpp-trade-226253
Not surprising. He’s one of the most astute politicians around and can surely sense the disaster that’s about to befall the Dems. He wants to keep his distance. And in any case, the Democratic party is not very likely to survive this election as a major mainstream party, so it really doesn’t matter. It may survive for a while as a regional party on the Atlantic seaboard, but not any more than that.
You know.. you should consider writing a diary on this if you really believe this crack-up theory.
I’ve wondered about it but the conclusion I’ve come to is that this would be a disaster for any policies Bernie favors.
Basically.. think the UK since Thatcher and the collapse of the old Labour party. The larger rump left might be far more to the left but out-positioned by a conservative/nationalist party that siphons off moderates.
Seems rather odd, but whatever. He’s doing his part, he can do whatever he wants afterward.
This is so true. I have my problems with him, but he stood up like a good politician, and made the compromise necessary to his goals.
A good article from Lawyers, Guns, and Money.
blinkered
‘Blinkered’, I like it, and so very apt.
.
why digby dumped comments.
Digby’s mobile site has comments
Including the model/structure of it. (I.e., why at one and not the other?)
I did know she tweets, which I think means anyone can tweet back, but that’s not what you’re talking about, right?
If you mean smart-phone-accessible-only stuff (which is my guess), I’m a dinosaur with only a dumb phone, so that’s irrelevant to me, I think.
I assume that Booman’s remarks simply reflect the fact that politics is his work. Blogging is quite secondary. So he has a lot invested in the institutional Democratic Party. People just following politics view things differently. Both perspectives have merit.
I’ve been a regular here for more than a decade. That is not the BooMan I know. He is not invested in the institutional Democratic Party. He is totally invested in progressive political organizing literally from the ground up.
Blogging has been one of his major contributions to that end. Go back and read some of his articles from years past. Go back and read some of his old articles on DKOS. There is a constant and consistent theme running through them from the beginning. He’s more about shaking up institutions than being part of them.
I’m always a johnny-come-lately: the rights and wrongs of Bernie Sanders’ continuing in the Senate as an independent. What I still don’t get about the whole thing is why the Democratic Party ever agreed in the first place to let him campaign as a Democrat, Hillary Clinton’s rival? Was it all theater on the part of the Democrats? I find it baffling. What was in it for them? Too many questions. I hardly find it surprising that he now wants to distance himself from the party. What self-respecting person wouldn’t?
It was all pre-planned by Hillary, Obama, and Huma Abedin’s ISIS contacts, to make Hillary’s CoronationTM seem more legitimate.
Also: Vincent Foster.
What an inanity. Obviously the question is below you. I still want to know Why did the Democrats ever let Bernie Sanders run within the party? They had a strategic reason? Not because they’re so tolerant and democratic. Or did it have to do with identity politics: a man and a woman? The answer would go far to clarify the riddle of Bernie Sanders.
good question; my guess is a few things – they didn’t think his campaign would last long, and both Moveon and DFA membership was behind Sanders running so best to let it happen and run out of steam; at the time O’Malley was running as well – Sanders did a couple survey of membership before announcing, don’t recall all the details but I recall one conference call about it just before the announcement. there was also a draft Warren group at the time, as I recall, and Sanders running would presumably take the steam out of the draft Warren movement and compete less w HRC because he’s just some old white guy
Thanks a lot for your thoughtful answer. Yes, Elisabeth Warren was also a woman, couldn’t have that, you know, then people would find out that other accomplished, articulate American women are walking around today. Maybe someday we’ll hear more background information. The question fascinates me. I haven’t seen an answer anywhere.
it’s strange, one would think the anti-Sanders posters would be resting on their laurels now, instead they’re nastier than ever. I sense some insecurity there
Yes, it is remarkable. Maybe they feel guilty because deep down inside they know Sanders was a better choice. Or they now realise they’ve been had, taken for a ride, don’t belong any longer to the glitz club chaired by the Clinton family. Is buyers’ remorse already surfacing? We’ll soon see.
yes, or maybe not buyers remorse per se but they’re perched on top of a flawed candidacy as many have pointed out from the outset.
Here’s the thing, chief.
In order for you to express your super progressive best principles and stay home or vote for Jill Stein or whatever it is you’re going to do without helping Strongman Trump walk into the White House, you rely on people who are willing to vote for Hillary Clinton to give you that freedom.
Every single time someone talks about how they’re allowed to be pure because they live somewhere that is going to vote for Clinton regardless of their vote, that person is perched on top of a bunch of progressive-hating neoliberal neocon Democrats who are pulling the lever for the non-Trump candidate who can actually win.
And while you and your super progressive, all-the-best principles-having buddies are perched on top of those Democrats, you continue shitting all over them every chance you get.
Democrats are the ones who have to sully their hands to make sure Strongman Trump doesn’t walk into the White House, while coming out in a large enough number to allow you to vote the Stein/Mouse ticket.
I know it won’t penetrate your bubble, but those of us who are going to vote for Clinton because we’re not insane don’t necessarily want to, but unfortunately, we’re not allowed to be super progressives with all the best principles, because we have to provide Hitlery enough votes to allow you and your buddies the room to be super progressives with all the best principles. So you can brag about how where you live your vote won’t turn the election, because there’s a bunch of evil neoliberal neocon Democrats doing the actual work of keeping Strongman Trump out of the White House.
Congrats on that I guess.
Well done.
I’m not being ‘nasty’ because I have buyers remorse. For one thing, I don’t ‘buy into’ any politician. I’m being ‘nasty’ because it’s gut check time. I don’t want to hear any pony seeking bullshit about how you wasted votes in the past. I don’t want to hear how you learned your lesson in the 70’s, blah blah blah. From here on out if you post republican memes directly off red state I will call you what you are…a republican. Real people will get hurt if Trump wins. Jesus Christ, not even Sanders can stand you people.
Stop posting right wing bullshit. I’ll stop being ‘nasty’.
.
Same mindset as anti-vaxxers. And about as selfish.
well, that’s just my point. calling me names? there’s a lot of commenters posting things I don’t agree with, but for me anyway I’m trying to address the reality of the situation. putting your fingers in your ears and singing lah lah lah may make you feel better but it doesn’t diminish the flaws of the dem candidate and the touch and go of this situation. that recent post of Booman’s – I tried to write about that about a week ago and got a chorus of “why are you voting for Trump”? – ?because I’m not, because I’m voting for Hillary? you are not thinking this thing through!
If you’re voting for Hillary despite her flaws, you’re not an anti-vaxxer analog and the comment doesn’t apply to you.
Maybe you should try thinking the analogy through.
you wrote it in reply to my comment – I had no idea what you were talking about since it pertains to me 0%
I see myself called names and I’m supposed to spend time thinking about why someone is name-calling me? thanks, but no thanks
well, you’re just flailing around otherwise you’d know I wrote multiple times in the past days how I’m voting for Hillary. this is why your comments strike me as some kind of emotional reaction – I’m voting Democratic, as I have all my life, and write as much explicitly, but it doesn’t matter, you fly off the handle and respond to whatever I write that I’m voting for Trump and all kinds of things out of your imagination.
so that’s why I read your reactions as emotional and defensive and instead of celebrating that your candidate won, you are out writing nasty comments to Sanders supporters.
I voted for Sanders. My candidate didn’t win.
Right, more cognitive dissonance and projection.
The super progressives with all the best principles aren’t nasty. Not at all.
It’s just the Hillshill Hillbots supporting Hitlery and her CoronationTM.
Christ almighty are you super progressives with all the best principles dense.
Yes, I’m dense. Take it or leave it.
I’m not anti-Sanders.
I know it comes as a surprise, but when you and your super progressive ultra principled buddies continue to talk shit about posters here who aren’t boycotting the election, it gets tiresome.
I’m anti-asshole.
Fuck me,
How do I follow this?
.
I don’t follow your question. John Doe collects X signatures, pays Y dollars to the state bureau that administers elections, and that’s it. At least, that’s my understanding of how things work here in Oregon.
Link to State of Oregon document about running for office
Sorry. My point is that elections are administered at the state level. There’s no requirement that the DNC give its permission for someone to register as a Democrat and then collect the signatures and pay the fees required to run.
Dems “letting” Sanders run as Dem. Think that was entirely his prerogative.
Thanks for the information. I obviously did’t know that. Live and learn. That’s why I keep coming back to this site.
Because unlike the Bernie-or-Bust crowd who turns on anyone who stops promising unicorns to super progressives with the best principles, the Democratic party is a big tent party that allows heretics and obvious murderers to run under their banner.
The bigger question is why someone like Sanders would ever run as a Democrat, or end up endorsing a known murderer and terrorist like Hillary Clinton after losing the primary.
Just kidding. Those of us here in objective observable reality know why. We don’t have to consult our conspiracy notebooks and read horse entrails to know why.
Take a deep breath, man. You’ll feel much better after that.
CNN — rules for running as a Democrat for POTUS, Necessarily not too restrictive. An the generic requirements are interpreted very generously. What support did Sharpton have in ’04? And there’s always a possibility that there’s a DDE lurking out there and neither party wants to pass on such an opportunity.
Many candidates demonstrate the existence of voter support by first setting up an exploratory committee. Bernie gathered support without an exploratory committee and opened an official campaign on April 30, 2015. The DNC could have thrown a hissy fit about Sanders’ candidacy, but they didn’t and what would that have accomplished anyway? IMO it would have been a nice set-up for him to run as an Independent and the Democratic Party is always fearful of an independent candidate of some stature.
If he’s running again I would have advised staying pat. Home state electorates can be prickly if they see you chasing after another, and the median Bernie delegate is not exactly the median off year Vermont statewide voter.
OTOH if he is retiring, then it’s not going to matter.
Back from my modem/router outage.
Please tell me after this convention how Sanders could possibly be influential in the Democratic Party on the inside. He was given not real power or real concessions, thinking that his constituency would be forced to vote against Trump and that meant automatic votes for Hillary Clinton, regardless of her position.
He came close enough to frighten them before the convention, but forcing him to be the one to submit to reality for party unity was a symbolic demand too far.
The choices are grim. The real fights are downticket and getting a Congress that can provide a smidgen more political pressure to the progressive side than the status quo.
Does the Democratic Party want Sanders voters’ support or not? What will Democrats do now to earn that support before November?
Good to have you back.
yes
Normally, if you were Jerry Brown you’d be left out of some of Democratic Party functions and perks as discipline for running a “subversive” campaign. The less power you actually have the less discreet they have to be in showing their disdain.
But the fact that so many Sanders supporters are hostile to Clinton and the DNC strongly suggests retribution against Sanders is the kind “cut nose/spite face” exercise. I would also suggest that any pushback by Senate Dems against Sanders will be quickly noticed. Right now the progressive side of the party is ready to be cleaved or cleave itself from the the neoliberal rump party. It would be bad strategy for Democrats to directly attack Sanders if they intend to keep the progressives in the fold.
I’m sure that Hillary will do her damnedest to cultivate middle-of-the-road Republicans, but it’s hard to imagine the party absorbing enough to abandon the progressives.
It will be interesting to follow the campaign rhetoric this fall.
I have thought for the past month or so that the Clinton campaign calculus is that they will make up the partial Sanders losses from between-the-parties independents (swings) and disaffected registered Republicans who are totally turned off by Trump and want to ensure that Trump is not elected. That instead of broadening the tent and bringing the national ideologcial fight (but not the cultural fight) within the Democratic Party. They are calculating that they can absorb the Sanders losses and instead of a wave election, just make it over the line. And a win is a win, isn’t it.
It is the downticket that has the potential to suffer under the “just squeak by” strategy.
But the combined Obama and Clinton experience has the capability of mounting a hugely effective ground game to offset the media wanting a horserace for ratings and rates. If that is extended to the downticket offices, it could be a huge shift. If not, more gridlock.
Now that I’ve caught up a little, by far the most interesting events of the past almost two weeks do not have to do with the conventions. The failed coup in Turkey and the seeming diplomatic charm offensive that Putin and unleashed on Ergodan is fascinating to watch. At worst, it means that Nuland badly overplayed her hand and got someone to greenlight it. At best, it means that there is serious dissension within the Turkish military that was the senior staff at Incirlik; some US officers just lost some close professional colleagues. The consequences could be Turkish demands for downsizing Incirlik’s operations or its total repatriation to Turkey.
No doubt Putin’s objective is to cause a break between Turkey and NATO entirely. Rumors from those covering Russia are that Putin envisions an alliance of Russia, Turkey, and Iran tilting toward a Eurasian policy of stablilization and infrastructure development (an markets for Gazprom) that aligns with Chinese Eurasian policy directions.
The other report that caught me is how militarized and complex the security perimeters were at both conventions. The ghost of Richard J. Daley is envious.
But, never has the separation between the people and the political profession been so dramatically evident. It’s a clear side–effect of of out-of-touch hard-ball politics of both parties.
Someone who did pay attention over the last two weeks: Was there any mention of peace and prosperity as national goals? What concretely were were the means that the candidates sought to use to gain these goals?
How do the respsective VPs function as impeachment insurance? Assuming a hostile Congress to pursue impeachment, Pence accelerates that propensity is there are the facts in evidence against Trump. Kaine looks like the type of VP the convention foisted on FDR. Despite the reputation for being lackluster and failing to nail down Democratic gains in 2010, who knows how he would respond to a 3 am phone call, to use Hillary Clinton’s image of Presidential readiness.
BTW, Mumia has stated that Trump would be worth enduring if it transformed the country. In some respects, it is easier for him to take that point than if he had to deal with a less predictable personal future.
But my Trump-supporting friends are telling me that the first slaveholder in America was African-American. (It wasn’t; it was the govvernor of Virginia in 1619, either Samuel Argall or Sir George Yeardley. And the governor paid in foodstuffs–“victualls” — for the ship that brought the 20 Negroes after being blown off course.) But the subtext of the argument is “I have not obligations to black people because I myself never owned slaves. They need to lift themselves with their own responsibility like I did instead of demonstrating that “Black live matter”.
IMHO, they (my Trumpist friends and relatives) are like lambs to the slaughter who never figured out what they got (besides religion) from Ronald Reagan.
The Nazi get-up doesn’t speak to Trump’s issue, which is that he is more like a dissolute monarchial heir than the steely-eyed haranging dictators recording in sound and film for the past century. Certainly demagugue and authoritarian, more Theodore Bilbo and Cotten Ed Smith than Hitler or Mussolini.