Bernie Sanders Surges Whilst Hillary Prays For An Eagleton Miracle.

Our candidate for the first woman president is a wife foisted upon us not once but twice.

No fish in the White House! Ever!

R2 = tranny

McGovern ran on a platform of immediately surrendering to the North Vietnamese, ending the Vietnam War and instituting guaranteed minimum incomes for the nation's minorities.

His campaign was harmed by his views during the primaries (which alienated many powerful Democrats), the perception that his foreign policy was too extreme, and the Eagleton debacle. With McGovern's campaign weakened by these factors, the Republicans successfully portrayed him as a radical left-wing extremist incompetent to serve as president.

Nixon led in the polls by large margins throughout the entire campaign. He ran a campaign with an aggressive policy of keeping on track with what had brought America greatness in the past.

Sanders smeared as communist sympathiser as Clinton allies sling mud

A war of words between Hillary Clinton and Sanders has erupted in recent days as polls show him in the lead among voters in New Hampshire and Iowa

Hillary Clinton angers Iowa fans who waited hours for five-minute speech

Not even a special performance by singer Demi Lovato improved the mood of some supporters who were unimpressed by Democratic candidate’s brevity

Hillary's butt, kicked --

Hillary's doing just fine. Thank you for your concern, freeper scum.

I'm with r8

winning Iowa and NH means nothing except it gives a running start. Those two states get way too press regarding the "importance".

They ought to put all the former First Ladies on the ballot so voters can compare apples to apples.

Nate Silver still gives Hillary the better odds in Iowa. Poor freepers and brogressives can't understand anything other than the latest cherry-picked poll. Jeez, can you imagine the advisers Bern would pick? Ugh.

It comes down to this, if Bernie loses Iowa it's over. She might lose New Hampshire but will have enough momentum to kill him in south Carolina. If she loses both she still be kill him in south Carolina.

Did Bernie serve his country or did he puss out?

If she lost there, it might help get her supporters to get out and vote in future primaries. If she's assumed to be the inevitable nominee, people may not see their participation as needed.

"Poor Granny," OP?

This is exactly the kind of misogynistic shit women hate. Trump is older than Hillary. Is he "poor Grampy"? When do men ever get talked about like that?

If you don't like Hillary or her policies, fine. But the continual attacks on her as being older than Trump (nope) or Bernie (double nope) make no sense. If you're going to ridicule people for their age, start with those two, they're older.

During the New Hampshire primary of 2008, Shillary said she will not retire to bake cookies. Looks like she is gonna be looking up recipes soon!

R17 = Delusional Trumpette, poor thing.

Oh well, you'll still have "The Apprentice" to watch, hon.

R16 is correct. BS won't win any votes if his supporters are mean-spirited assholes who troll fellow democrats.

are people hurting your feelings [R19] are you going to start a campus protest

The main thing I'm getting out of trolls like R20 is that Bernie supporters don't want the votes of Hillary supporters, and they would rather bully them out of the Democratic party than get any help electing Bernie if he happens to be the nominee.

If the Democratic Party doesn't stick together, there will be a Republican President. There goes every single thing President Obama worked for or signed into law including the Iran nuclear treaty, Obamacare, gay marriage...so long to Roe v Wade and the next couple seats on the Supreme Court for the next thirty years. But worshipping Bernie continually is far more important than winning an election. Anyone that doesn't worship endlessly at his feet as if he is the answer to life, the universe, and everything, is to be driven from the party as traitors to the religion of Bernie.

It's hard to believe there are people in the Democratic party that are so self destructive that they'd rather see Trump or Cruz as President than behave rationally, or count, but there it is.

It sounds like we may have an interesting Democratic presidential primary season.

R21 you are brainless filth, like Hillary, actually. We need progressive government in this country, urgently. HRC will do nothing to stop the slide towards third world. Nothing.

Even in very unlikely scenario where she is elected.

r23, did you vote for Obama? Just curious.

OP is a Brit, as we can tell by his use of "whilst." His opinion on our presidential race is meaningless.

Why shouldn't Brits be interested R26? I thought that one of the perks of the Presidency was that you got the British Prime Minister for a lapdog. Or was that only a Tony Blair thing?

Look, let’s get this out there once and for all: It’s not that I don’t think Bernie can win, it’s that I don’t want him to.

For some reason, that’s difficult for a lot of people to comprehend.

I am a progressive. I want the things Bernie promises for this country. I want universal health care, and free higher education, and reduced incarceration, and an end to the artificial redistribution of wealth into the pockets of the filthy rich.

But I also understand basic civics, and I read the news, so I know that the Republican party is simultaneously in shambles and completely entrenched in Congress.

Bernie Sanders has no plan for enacting his ambitious, domestic, legislative agenda other than “political revolution.” Vote for me, he says, and we’ll get the money out of politics and thereby force Congress to listen to the American people.

Putting aside the questionable idea that campaign finance reform is the only thing standing between the United States and truly representative politics (our politics was morally bankrupt long before Citizens United), we are not going to have a revolution in 2016. We are going to have a new president.

I know what a revolution looks like, and this election—using the complicated system of party delegates and the electoral college to choose the leader of one of the three branches of the government of the most powerful empire in the world—is not it. This is politics.

And if Sanders tries to force this Congress to do something like raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour nationally, the likely political result will be a government shutdown.

Bernie Sanders has no plan for enacting his ambitious, domestic, legislative agenda other than “political revolution.” This is not true. His website provides lengthy explanations of all the initiatives he proposes and how he will pay for them. He finds offsetting costs for all his proposals, and most of his radical liberal overhauls are more cost-effective and fiscally conservative than what we already have as the status quo.

I know what a revolution looks like, and this election—using the complicated system of party delegates and the electoral college to choose the leader of one of the three branches of the government of the most powerful empire in the world—is not it. This is politics.

R28 but why would a government shutdown over the minimum wage or lower prescription drug prices or student loan refinancing etc. be a bad thing? Clinton kicked Gingrich's ass in the shutdown in the '90s. Let the Republican House shut down the government to block policies that have the support of 65-90% of Americans. If we have a President who can make them pay a political price for that they'll at least compromise.

Frankly, I PRAY the Republicans shut down the government often-preferably right before midterm elections-so that they can finally get the public outrage they deserve and get voted out.

Nothing in that thinkpiece makes any sense. She says she is a progressive and she agrees with Bernie's platform, so why not vote for him?

[quote]but why would a government shutdown over the minimum wage or lower prescription drug prices or student loan refinancing etc. be a bad thing?

That you have to ask shows you're over-privileged and under-educated.

[quote]If we have a President who can make them pay a political price for that they'll at least compromise.

When have Republicans paid any price for doing stupid shit, or being consistently wrong? Are Republicans paying any price for Flint? Nope.

When have republicans compromised any time in the last, say, 15 years? They don't compromise anymore. They CAN'T. They've painted themselves into a corner.

And they're SURE as hell not going to compromise with a COMMUNIST like Bernie (their thoughts, not mine).

Sanders is 74 and you're calling Hillary "granny?" She can finish her first term and still be younger than he is now.

At 74y/o, his campaign has refused to release any health reports. When someone brought up the issue, they attacked the Clinton campaign of smear tactic. How is it a smear tactic to ask a 74y/o Presidential candidate for his official health report?

Sanders has actually run a dirty campaign, thanks to campaign manager Weaver. When stole Hillary voter database, they turned it around and blamed HRC campaign for allowing it to happen and then sues the DNC. Then Sanders goes on Maddow to attack Planned Parenthood and NARAL and EMILY'S LIST for endorsing HRC. Then try to walk it back by denying that he was even calling them establishing. It's dirty, negative campaign.

R33... because he has no plan, he has no support (inside or outside of Congress) from anyone he'll need to pass his legislation, he has no coat-tails, he's NOT a Democrat and thus has no interest in helping other Democrats win, to -- for example -- win back Congress...

Think about it. He's been in Congress (both the House and the Senate) for a VERY long time... and yet he has nearly ZERO endorsements from his fellow coworkers. That says a lot right there.

Also, taking him OUT of the Senate makes the Senate just that much harder to win back. We NEED him in the Senate. HE needs to be giving floor speeches, sponsoring and authoring legislation...

And he has NO foreign policy experience, and the ideas he's offered so far are truly awful.

Sanders has been in Congress for something like 26 years. He's actually never held a "real" job. He didn't vote until he was 40 and that was to cast a vote for himself. In all the years in Congress, he has accomplished anything. He's only 3 or 4 bills and 2 or 3 of them were to name Post Offices. This man doesn't know how to get his agenda through. He doesn't even have a good relationship with any of his colleagues. He's cantankerous and mean if you disagree with him.

How's he going to be able to work with a GOP Congress. President Obama is the most congenial person and even he can't push all he wants through the GOP House and Senate.

Congress are full of corporate whores. If anything, it makes him more trustworthy that he does not have any endorsements from that pathetic lot.

R38... and all that "trustworthiness" and a five dollar bill will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

All the integrity in the world is pointless if you can't get anything done.

What is it with people who would rather be a purist and get NOTHING (and risk backlash and going backwards), rather than accepting reality and gaining SOMETHING?

Yes I did vote for Obama. And I will vote for Hillary too if I have to. And what has she ever "gotten done"?

R40....

Honestly, I don't think I could take another "Old Angry White Guy" for President. Bernie hasn't the temperament for the office.

I want to see a woman in office, and I want to see Republican heads explode when the country elects her by a nice large margin.

Fuck republicans, fuck misogynists, fuck white supremacists, fuck male supremacists, fuck purists, fuck extermists... it'll be amazing to have the first Woman President right after the first Black president, and having them both be Democrats.

And she will continue and expand on Obama's legacy, and with Bill by her side, she'll get the negotiations done that need to get done in order to get ANYTHING done.

A lecturing moral scold like Bernie is the last thing we need.

R37

You are full of shit. What is your "real job?"

Bernie was mayor of Burlington, VT and has been senator of VT for years.

His leadership in congressional hearings abut the exposing the fraudulent

schemes of Wall St. and the banking hooligans is well-respected.

Bernie has more support than anyone in the mainstream media dares to realize.

He can beat Trump.

Winston Churchill served his second term until he was 80.

Bernie does not smoke cigars and is not fat.

He has not had a stroke, does not care about his hair or have a spouse that hangs out with a pedophile. He has integrity, is not owned by the banks, and for Goad's sake would not have ignored pleas for increased security at the embassy in Benghazi.

He sure as hell would not be sending sensitive or classified information in an email on his own freaking server.

R42

Fuck you

This Bernie thing is just a different flavor of the PUMAs -- it's all rightwing astroturfing from people pretending to be Democrats who oppose the strongest Dem candidate.

I'm beginning to think the polls showing Bernie making gains = Repugs mascarading as Dems. They always pull dirty tricks and they're scared shitless of the Clintons.

Hillary had three fainting spells in last two months, heavily medicated, Bill getting treatment for undisclosed illness, it's gonna knock them both out before they hit home stretch. Very sick and elderly. Sad.

Hillary the strongest democrat? Hardly. Bernie polls strong.

Talk to people, especially young and old. They support Bernie.

Hillary is yesterday's trash---- bought and paid for by the banks and Wall Street.

She, her husband and the cronyism of the old regime democrats have wrecked the party.

It is all the same players as the Bush puppeteers. Banks have bought these people lock, stock and barrel.

Bernie Sander’s history of being a conscientious objector will add to the factors that make him unelectable. It matters not what YOU or I think about WAR, or THIS war, or THAT war. Bernie can't win the general election.

Conscientious Objector: “A person who, because of principles of religious training and moral belief, is opposed to all war regardless of its cause.”

** ALL WAR, REGARDLESS of ITS CAUSE **

“By law, a conscientious objector is one who is opposed to participation in all wars. The person's opposition must be based on religious belief and training, and it must be deeply held.”

Republicans will fucking eat him alive in the general. His loss will be as spectacular as McGovern's.

[quote]Hillary is yesterday's trash---- bought and paid for by the banks and Wall Street.

Thanks for parroting that right-wing smear... but it's no more true of Hillary than it is of Obama. You're a fucking idiot.

The intellectual dishonesty of Bernie Sanders supporters clinging to the ONE poll (CNN's) that shows Bernie in the lead in Iowa, while ignoring all the others that show Hillary in the lead... well, it shows everything that is wrong with Bernie Sanders supporters. They're as divorced from reality as some of those on the right.

Donald Trump dodged the draft on five separate occasions and avoided military service at every opportunity.

R47 not nearly as elderly as Bernie and The Donald.

Bill's undisclosed illness is sex addiction which is fed by his close friendship with pimp, pervert, pedophile, blackmailer Jeffrey Epstein. Trump knows Epstein too.

Read Hillary's leaked emails. Huma tells a staffer that Hillary forgets her schedule.

They also show discussion of Hillary looking cute in photos.

Holy fucking Christ.

Give me Bernie... plans, smarts and integrity.

Anyone who says that he does not have detailed plans has not bothered to read his material on his website.

He talks about many, many important issues.

R51 There are 2 polls showing Sanders leading in Iowa and a third (the Des Moines Register poll which is pretty much the gold standard for polling the Iowa caucuses) shows Clinton with a statistically insignificant 2 point lead.

R50

Thanks for proving my point. Hillary and Obama are both owned by the banks.

And to the dolt talking about Sanders being ahead of Hillary in only one CNN... you are delusional. Google.

And it's important for everyone to know that Bernie's viable in case it makes a difference to them. Before we didn't feel we had an option, now we do.

I'm so tired of hearing people like R36 say that Clinton has SO much foreign policy experience and Sanders has none. First of all, lack of foreign policy credentials didn't seem to be a problem for Democrats when the party nominated the Governor of Arkansas in 1992 when the world was adjusting to the collapse of the Soviet Union and there was genocide going on in Europe.

Secondly, experience and judgment are two different things. Clinton voted for the war in Iraq and then advised Obama to make the EXACT SAME DAMN mistakes in Libya. Sanders on the other hand voted against the war in Iraq and understands that the defeat of ISIS, not kicking out Assad (which is impossible for us to do on our own anyway) should be the main priority in Syria.

Having a job title on your resume doesn't make you some fucking expert. The only president in history to have an MBA was George W. Bush and look how he managed the economy. If past jobs rather than judgment qualified you to be a good president, then Herbert Hoover would have been the ideal president to lead us through the Depression and James Buchanan would have been one of our greatest presidents ever!

People are sick of war, sick of politicians and sick of being broke.

Bernie is the only hope of getting this country back on track.

He will have bi-partisan support.

Hillary is hated by all. She could never get anything done.

Trump as President is a terrifying prospect. Bernie can beat him. Hillary can't.

R58

I just saw something in a book where famous Scots talk about what it means to them to be from Scotland.

One recounted that George W. Bush told him that his "folks were from there."

When asked what place, Bush said, "Tipperary."

So much for foreign policy...

This is the one that kills me: Sanders had the nerve to call HRC the establishment candidate!

I guess he conveniently forgot that he's been in Congress for 26 years! And was elected mayor of Burlington 10 years BEFORE that! Hillary was in the Senate for 8 years. It doesn't WHAT party he belonged to. Or if he was not in a political party. He IS the establishment! Almost 40 years in office.

Of course he walked THAT claim back, proving he will say and do anything. But Hillary is worse. NO MARY she isn't!

P.S. That Jeff Weaver is a piece of work himself. Not a compliment.

R61

Read Bernie's voting record. He advocates for normal people not billionaires. I call that anti-estàblishment.

Congress is in stalemate.

We need someone who can work with Democrats, repugs and independents.

The republicans are imploding, and yet somehow, the Democrats will find a way to lose. I honestly think that I can't be a Democrat if we lose the White House. I just can't take the way we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, over and over.

First, this is not 2008 all over. The economy is booming and is not showing any of the signs that it did in 2008. We are not fighting a losing war in Iraq, with dead bodies piling up at Andrews. And Iran is no longer on a path toward a nuclear weapon. We didn't invade Lybia to get rid of Gaddafi, but correctly read the mood of the Lybian people to get rid of him. We didn't do THE EXACT SAME THING as Bush and Cheney did in Iraq, and are not mired in their civil war. For the first time in a long time, there is hope for the Middle East. A glimmer, but still, more then we had 8 years ago.

The Bernie mantra is eerily familiar to the Obama mantra. Remember "hope and change?" Well, the republicans set out to prevent any real change, and have been astonishingly successful at keeping the status quo. The main difference is that Obama came into the office with majorities in both houses of Congress, which the next president, if they're a Democrat, won't. At best, we can hope the Democrats take the Senate, but Paul Ryan's House will still be there to stop anything and everything Sanders has proposed,

So, on one hand we have a guy whose ideas are solidly progressive with no chance of getting them enacted. On the other hand, we have an old-school Democrat who has fought and beat the republicans over and over. She has had more mud thrown at her than any other political figure alive. For all the talk of emails and suggestions that she is some doddering old grandma, her 11-hour testimony in front of the rabid republican House Committee on Banghazi sure blew that out of the water. And funny how every time they debate, the general consensus is that Hillary won. Yet she somehow forgets her appointments and looks cute in photos. Oh, the horror!

And the bottom line is that the next president will pick at least two Supreme Court Justices which will have farther reaching impact than any of us can imagine. But let's pretend none of the facts matter and that if we elect Bernie he'll somehow overcome the moneyed interests, the republicans, a biased media that knows no republican who doesn't deserve respect and rapt attention, and a segment of the population that is convinced the end of times is here. And that all of the millennials so enamored with Bernie will drag their asses to the polls in two years.,

This idea that Bernie will be a do-nothing schmuck and ineffectual president is ridiculous. If anything, he will be a bigger change agent and transformative figure than Hillary just by way of how radical him even becoming president would be. Do you think Hillary's moderate agenda will be greenlighted in any way, shape, or form by the Republicans in Congress, and to an extent higher than Bernie's left-leaning one? Please. We will get 4-8 years of gridlocked politics and Clinton-directed obstructionism from the GOP and very few transformative bills passed if we elect HRC, and that is just the truth. If Bernie gets elected, that means the American people support his campaign promises, and are expecting that they get implemented. Anyone in Congress who gets in the way of that might find themselves ousted by their constituents.

I'm glad the economy is booming for you R63. Meanwhile back in reality, markets around the world are experiencing corrections, one of the Wall Street banks advised their investors that they believed the odds of a recession this year are 50/50, and analysts expect that next week the government will report that economic growth in the 4th quarter was under 1%. That's not a crash but that's not "booming" either.

Oh my God.

The economy is not booming.

The only ones doing well are the bank criminals who got bailed out by the taxpayers they defrauded.

The Dow has been crashing in the last week.

A bigger crash than 2008 is being forecast to hit very soon.

Clinton supporters can't have it both ways R61. You can't argue that Sanders is the establishment candidate because he's been in politics for decades and then argue that he's so outside the establishment that his colleagues won't pass his bills or endorse him. Establishment isn't about time in politics, it's about your mindset and whose interests you serve while in power. To suggest that Bernie is an establishment candidate is preposterous.

A Republican Congress would vote to impeach Hillary just like they did Bill.

[quote] The economy is booming and is not showing any of the signs that it did in 2008.

Is it now?

A poll was released this week which showed that 55% of Democrats preferred experience to change, while 61% of general election voters wanted change instead of experience. This is why Sanders hasa better chance than Hillary of beating Trump. However one feels about President Obama, it seems that most Americans don't want a candidate who represents a third term for Obama.

In 2008, we were losing 750,000 jobs per month. Today, we're gaining 200,000 per month. But there's no difference to Bernie supporters, and they haven't been influenced by Fox News and the GOP at all.

The economy is slowing down. Jobless claims jumped this week to the highest they've been in months. Austen Goolsbee (or however you spell his name), one of Obama's leading economic advisors and a Hillary supporter, was on Morning Joe this morning saying that a recession this year was a possibility and that the economic situation predicted that Democrats would have a tough time this fall. This is why we need Bernie. When people begin to realize over the next few months that the economy is slowing down economic issues will be front and center in the general election campaign.

R54, anyone who thinks Bernie has any actual plans for how to implement his many ideas is delusional.

All he has is "wave a magic wand".

And he's demonstrated some seriously scary cluelessness in his tweets and FB posts regarding the Supreme Court and foreign policy.

People like you forget that the President doesn't write or pass laws. Congress does. EVERY SINGLE ONE of his ideas requires an act of Congress (he's not detailed much of anything that he can or plans to do with executive orders). And Congress will oppose him as vehemently as they have Obama, if not more so.

People like you are the ones that got "disappointed" in Obama after he was elected, and stayed home in 2010. Ignorant arrogant and clueless PURISTS who don't get it, and through your actions, fuck us all over.

Bernie is TOO FUCKING OLD.

He's also very cantankerous... completely lacking in the temperament required for the job.

He has a lot of troublesome votes in his record... every bit as many as Hillary.

You can love his ideas, and still recognize he'd be a disaster for liberals and Democrats as President.

And the notion that he's the "last chance" or "only chance" we have to make things better is pure hyperbole.

All this arguing is pointless. Let the Bernie supporters rant and rave all they like. They sound like those "Occupy" idiots and we saw how that turned out. They had a few good ideas and didn't know how to get anything done. Bernie Sanders will not win the Democratic nomination and will not be on the ticket. He has said that he will not run as an Independent candidate and I take him at his word.

The Republicans don't have a viable candidate. The next president of the United States is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Howard Dean called for breaking up big media... and the media utterly DESTROYED him within the week.

Bernie is calling for breaking up big media, breaking up the banks, breaking up the military industrial complex, and more. Do you really think he won't be UTTERLY DESTROYED by them?

[quote]In 2008, we were losing 750,000 jobs per month. Today, we're gaining 200,000 per month.

All created jobs since 2000 have been going to immigrants. A boon for H1-Bs is not a boom for Americans.

"A Republican Congress would vote to impeach Hillary just like they did Bill. " R68. A Republican Congress will vote even harder to impeach an admitted Socialist, they don't even need to make up a reason, they will start it on day one.

R31, it's hilarious that you're comparing BS to BC.

Trust. BS is no Bill Clinton. Hillary, however...lol. You might want to try another tact.

Not true, R26. Some dumb Americans who want to sound smarter also use "whilst".

BS is pro-war and pro-guns. I'm shocked that the far left have embraced him.

He's not even radical. If he were, he'd support reparations. But instead he has said reparations are not feasible and are divisive. Unlike everything else he proposes...*eye roll*

All of our Boomer presidents and these current boomer candidates were draft dodgers, or married to draft dodgers

[quote]A Republican Congress would vote to impeach Hillary just like they did Bill.

No! We'd never impeach a woman. Instead, we'd march her naked through the streets of DC while Jan Brewer (in a wimple) walks behind her saying, "Shame! Shame! Shame!"

Not true r82, Barack Obama was born the same year I was. They eliminated the draft by the time I was 18, and there was no war. All you had to do was register just in case they decided to reinstate the draft. That said, Donald, took 5 deferment, George W, dodged it by getting into a 2 year training program for the Texas national guard, his VP Dick Darth Vader Cheney was also a draft dodger with 5 deferments , Mitt Romney (who lost to Obama) also dogged the draft by going on his Mormon mission recruitment drive to Paris no less. Burnie was a CO. And woman were not drafted back in the day. Obama and Hillary are literally the only ones that didn't avoid the draft. Sorry, facts don't lie.

Those areas in which a Democratic Executive branch has no power are those in which Sanders demands aggressive action, and the areas in which the Executive branch still has power now are precisely those in which Sanders has the least to say.

Barack isn't a Boomer -- he's a Joneser. No draft is part of the definition

The rest are correct

Those areas in which a Democratic Executive branch has no power are those in which Sanders demands aggressive action, and the areas in which the Executive branch still has power now are precisely those in which Sanders has the least to say.

I remember when the presidential election didn't even *start* until New Hampshire (no one paid attention to Iowa)

[quote]All created jobs since 2000 have been going to immigrants. A boon for H1-Bs is not a boom for Americans.

A flat-out bullshit lie of course. It's amazing the idiocy and lies Obama-bashers will believe.

Endorsements and delegates are part of how you get the nomination. And Bernie is not off to a good start at all:

Total Governors, House Members and Senators endorsing Hillary: 162

Total Governors, House Members and Senators endorsing Bernie: 2

He's not going to be the nominee, and it's not going to be because the awful Debbie Wasserman Shultz has somehow rigged the game.

Hillary Clinton holds a 45-to-1 super-delegate advantage over Bernie Sanders.

The rank & file of the Dem. party do not get it. Hillary has Katy Perry and Demi Lovato giving free concerts and is still struggling to fill seats. Bernie is the rockstar of this election. He is filling crowds even in deep red states like Texas, Alabama, and Louisiana. He has raised 75 million and counting of which over 80% percent of is donations of 50 dollars or less. Super PACS & no moneyed interests are supporting him and yet he is still surpassing Hillary. Why cant the first female POTUS generate the same kind of excitement and investment from people? She is the textbook definition of an establishment candidate.

And yet, he's not going to win, R92, because he doesn't know how to actually get elected, and he's set every single ally he needs to GET elected against him...

And even if he WERE elected, he'd be an utter disaster, unable to do anything, and all these rabid fans would turn on him faster than they turned on Obama... even if he managed to get the Senate back (no way he's enough to get the House back), he'd lose it, and he'd be done. Besides, he's so old, there's no way he could run for a second term. He'd be out in 4 regardless, and the backlash would probably revive the dying Republican party, and we'd have total Republican rule in 2020... meaning the gerrymandering would get even worse, and Democrats wouldn't get power back for a generation. And this country would die, and democracy would die, and that would be the end of it.

What is this magical thinking that people have that Bernie Sanders can somehow MAGICALLY fix everything all by himself??

Has Bernie said anything about whether he might retire after one term? If so, a carefully chosen VP would have a good chance to replace him. I'm sure I'll like his VP choice so I'm not worried about sudden death or retirement, also a possibility with Hillary.

This could be 1968 all over again. Most people in the country want change but the Democrats turn their backs on insurgent outsider candidacies and instead nominate an establishment member of the current unpopular administration. Angry young people stay home in November. The GOP wins.

How is Obama "unpopular"? He's had the most successful, most scandal-free administration in living memory.

And if ANYONE stays home in November because their preferred primary candidate didn't win, they're just fucking STUPID. Doing so is ACTIVELY voting for the GOP, which goes against everything they allegedly stand for. I don't understand that kind of idiocy. So you can't have your idea of perfect, so what? Guess what? This is a democracy. IT's all about compromise. If you can't put on your big-boy pants to keep the obviously corrupt Republicans out of office, then you're not really serious about Bernie. You're just stupid and you'll deserve the nightmare you'll get from Republicans having control of everything.

Meanwhile, we could make history with the first Woman President, someone who can get things done, who will CONTINUE the legacy of Obama and expand and build upon it. If that's not "good enough" for you, then you're beyond hopeless.

Please name one thing Bernie Sanders has accomplished in 25 years in Congress... besides voting against the Iraq War.

He talks a good game. I actually agree with most of his proposals. But he'd make a terrible President, and I can't understand the fanaticism in his supporters. His supporters strike me exactly like Trump supporters. Magical thinkers.

Basic math is how Obama is unpopular R96. His job approval has been under 50% for a long time now.

Bernard voted to fund Obama's war.

R97 exactly I think all his supporters are Old Lefties, naive college kids or SJWs

R96, I'm talking about among Democrats.

Who the fuck cares what brain-dead misinformed morons who think Obama is a Marxist communist socialist Kenyan out to destroy America by taking all the guns away from people and instituting Sharia law??

Among Democrats, Obama is VERY popular. And Obama's Approval rating did top 50% recently. So shut the fuck up, you moron.

A quote about Bernie that everyone should consider:

"Bernie alienates his natural allies. He is completely ineffective as a lobbyist because he completely offends just about everyone." - Al Franken

Right R101. I forgot. Only Democrats are allowed to vote in November. That's why we shouldn't give a fuck what other voters think. So let's nominate a former member of the Obama Administration who is basically running for a 3rd Obama term because that's what we Democrats want. A poll last week showed that 61% of general election voters want change this year even though less than 45% of Democrats want change. You're the moron if you can't understand what that disconnect means for the general election.

Obama may be popular among Democrats, but nobody wants a holdover from the Obama administration and that is how people perceive Hillary. Bernie has criticized Obama and has called out our current economy as weak and struggling. Hillary cant do that and or publicly criticize the administration, and she will suffer for it.

Oh and R101 I just checked the RCP site and as of yesterday the last poll they have which showed Obama over 50% was a Rasmussen poll from early September. His average right now is at 46%. The last time his average was above 50% was in March 2013. So quit making shit up.

Bernie's fangurls suffer from his dementia.

R103 seems to be confused, and apparently doesn't remember that Obama won re-election twice, by margins larger than most presidents in his lifetime.

(rolling eyes at the fucking moron)

R104, its' precisely Bernie's attacks on Obama (unjustified, baseless) that are why I cannot and will not support him.

Yup... this:

And this:

Karl Rove PAC is supporting Bernie Sanders. That's all you need to know.

And yes, there was a poll showing Obama over 50% this week. But go ahead and change the subject to "moving average polls" in order to dismiss it. Fuck off, Obama-basher. I'm sick and tired of Republican assholes pretending to be Democcrats.

Dear U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill,

Do you think a Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders can carry the state of Rhode Island in the general election?

R111 is unhinged. I was a naive ultra-liberal purist earlier today and now I'm a Republican asshole!

[quote]I'm sick and tired of Republican assholes pretending to be Democcrats.

Me too. That is why I do not support Hillary, the Neo-con shill for Wall Street.

In Bernie's DECADES in Congress, he's only managed to pass 3 bills... and two of them were to rename post offices.

Seriously, THIS is the guy you think can get things done?

R114, She's no such thing of course. Just more propaganda and smears and bullshit.

Karl Rove loves you.

R115, I think the Post Office is a wonderful institution. It certainly helped me when I was about to be thrown in an insane asylum.

What I'm sick and tired of are hawkish, corporate, neoliberal Democrats who help the GOP push the country to the right. If this were the '50s-'70s the Clintons wod be considered Eisenhower Republicans. In an interview with Bill O'Reilly a couple of years ago Obama admitted that if you compare his policies to Nixon's policies, Nixon was more liberal on many things than he is.

The legacy of the Clintons is NAFTA, TPP, deregulation of Wall Street, creating the too big to fail banks, creating the modern prison industrial complex with the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill, gutting Welfare, DOMA, the idiotic War in Iraq, the idiotic War in Libya, the Patriot Act, Wall Street bailouts which left ordinary Americans to fend for themselves, etc. If a Republican candidate had supported half this nonsense we'd tear them apart!

I want Democrats who point out that the GOP's ideas are discredited bullshit, not someone who embraces watered down versions of the bullshit.

Look at what Eisenhower stood for... he'd be considered a left-wing Democrat today. Being aligned with him isn't really an insult, though you seem to think it is.

[quote]In Bernie's DECADES in Congress, he's only managed to pass 3 bills... and two of them were to rename post offices.

This needs to be repeated every time someone said H. Clinton never achieved anything.

You're making my point for me R119. Both parties have drifted so far to the right that today Eisenhower and Nixon would be considered on the left. That's not a good thing. I want the old Democratic Party of FDR, Truman, LBJ, etc. which stood up for the poor and built a strong middle class. Not a Democratic Party indistinguishable from the Republican Party of 40 or 50 years ago.

R118 has it right. Bill Clinton's legacy consisted of deregulating the banks, cutting millions off the welfare rolls, DADT and DOMA. All Republican wet dreams. I am tired of how far right both the Democratic and Republican party have gone in this country. Clinton started this centrist bullshit (which worked for the time we were in, and gave us the electoral map we now have). Obama is slightly to the left of that (but still Clinton-esque). Now it is time for the party to veer even further left. Bernie and Trump are the most left options politically speaking on both parties.

r121 is too stupid for words. Eisenhower was anti-gay and FDR had the Japs put in internment camps. Nixon was anti-Jew and broke into Dem headquarters. You sound like a typical dumb bleeding heart spouting whatever bullshit line MSNBC shat out of its prolapsed asshole today.

If you honestly think that Hillary wouldn't be better as President than ANY of the GOP clowns... in EVERY respect.... then you are truly lost to propaganda.

R122, you realize all those things were pushed by the GOP Congress, right? Bill Clinton didn't ORIGINATE or CAMPAIGN for any of those things.

So why are you blaming the Clintons for what Republicans did? Why aren't you far more adamant about taking about Congress from GOP rule?

R125, Clinton could have vetoed. He signed those bills. He spent his entire 8 years in office scared shitless the Republicans would expose his private life, so he bent over for Gingrich at almost every turn. You wanna talk about someone selling Democrats down the river? Clinton is your guy. No wonder Sen. Kennedy could not stand them.

r89 is right because r89 says he is right.

All the threads where people talk of great American minds working in Apple stores so Sateel and Fung Wok can get imported and take his former job.

That's one reason it seems that nothing has changed since the 90s -- Sateel and Fung Wok just keep copying the work that the now-Apple clerk produced.

This is absolutely on the nose, and it's sad to see so many people here falling for this...

[bold]

The Right Baits the Left to Turn Against Hillary Clinton [/bold]

R126, you're politically naïve. Many of those things were attached to bills that really couldn't be vetoed (a common strategy among the right-wingers). Other bills had margins that would easily over-ride a veto. Vetoes expend political capital, and Bill Clinton burned off a lot of his trying to lift the ban on gays in the military. I lived through his administration, so don't try to spin it on me like you're doing. Your post was simplistic and betrays a lack of knowledge about the complexities of how things work.

Keep the blame focused on where it belongs: The Republicans.

Yes R123, when I said I wanted the Democrats to go back to being the party of FDR I clearly meant that we should bring back the Japanese internment camps. That's EXACTLY was I was referring to when I said we needed to go back to the policies of fighting for the poor and middle class. You're so smart to have figured that out.

This thread reeks of freeper koch-puppet shills. Hope you earned your 25 cents today.

R129 Clinton did support many of those Republican ideas. For example, in February 1995 the Clinton Administration told the Congress that the President supported the effort to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and then Clinton sent his Treasury Sec Robert Rubin to help get it done (Rubin was rewarded for his efforts with a big job at Citigroup, one of the new too big to fail banks created in the aftermath of the repeal). And NAFTA and the "let's increase harsh mandatory minimum sentences and throw record numbers of black and brown people into prison" crime bill were passed by a Democratic Congress during Clinton's first two years in office.

R121 writes,

You're making my point for me [R119]. Both parties have drifted so far to the right that today Eisenhower and Nixon would be considered on the left. That's not a good thing. I want the old Democratic Party of FDR, Truman, LBJ, etc. which stood up for the poor and built a strong middle class. Not a Democratic Party indistinguishable from the Republican Party of 40 or 50 years ago.

—Anonymous

_____________________________________

Accurate.

R123 is not a Liberal.

The transformative Democrats from that 1930s to 1960s period were Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.

Bernie Sanders would be transformative here in the 2010s. What we get from Hillary Clinton devotees is that they don't give a shit she's owned by Wall Street, that she came out a lot later than Bernie Sanders to support gays for issues like same-sex marriage, and that she is definitely for the status quo not only on Wall Street, but on income inequality, on the military industrial complex, on national security.

No one here who actually thinks Hillary Clinton is better than Bernie Sanders, for policies that are supported and championed by Liberals, are Liberal. They are full of shit.

R131, It is really tiring that DL thinks any anti-Clinton remark comes from the right. Some of us are true lefties opposed to her. A good Democrat would hate the Clintons. The blue dogs have done nothing but bend over to the Republicans at every turn meanwhile the GOP spits at the sound of the word compromise. The GOP does not even have to worry about left-wing reform because those Dems make sure it is done for them.

Bernie is a Teddy Roosevelt Republican, and Franklin Roosevelt Democrat. Hillary is a Richard Nixon Republican, Bill Clinton Democrat.

"But 10 years ago, the revocation of Glass-Steagall drew few critics. In the House, 155 Democrats and 207 Republicans voted for the measure, while 51 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 independent opposed it. Fifteen members did not vote." ...

"Today, President Obama seems to have softened his views a bit when it comes to Glass-Steagall. The administration’s proposal for overhauling financial regulatory system makes no mention of resurrecting the firewall between commercial banks and investment banks and still allows insurance companies to deal in securities. The change of heart may have something to do with the fact that one of his senior economic advisers is Mr. Summers."

This is why some people claim both parties are essentially the same. They are both in bed with wall street.

My only complaint about Obama was his connection to wall street, especially in appointing Summers and a few others. It's my main uneasiness with Hillary too, but Hillary more so than Obama.

My main problem with Bernie is what another poster (or a few posters) have said that he has a hard time getting anything thru congress.

I do not want a Republican elected. I am very concerned about health care and the next supreme court appointees.

What's REALLY tiring is the way some purists on the left are so eager to parrot right-wing talking points about Hillary Clinton, and then get all whiny when called out on it.

If you can't see Hillary is dramatically better than ANY Republican running, then you're delusional and dogmatically blind.

If you can't see that Bernie has ZERO plans to help Democrats in down-races raise money and win, in order to take back the House and Senate... and that he will be POWERLESS to implement any of his grand ideas should he win the White House if the GOP still controls all of Congress... then you're delusional and dogmatically blind.

If you're going to hold Hillary's feet to the fire over liberal issues (AND YOU SHOULD!), shouldn't you also be holding Bernie's feet to the fire to lay out how he plans to actually get any of his grand ideas and policies passed? BECAUSE YOU SHOULD.

Anyone who claims both parties are the same is about as intellectually dishonest and lazy as can possibly be. It's called cherry-picking... choosing ONE item and basing your entire claim on that, while completely ignoring the HUNDREDS of others issues on which they're practically opposites.

Anyone making the claim both parties are the same loses ALL credibility. They're fucking idiots.

'My main problem with Bernie is what another poster (or a few posters) have said that he has a hard time getting anything thru congress. "

If one is harping on this, he may as well hope the Republicans win a pickup of the presidency in 2016; the Democrats win a pickup of both the House and Senate in the midterm elections of 2018; an actual liberal - good luck to getting that out of this Democratic Party - with a "D" after his/her name wins a Democratic pickup of the presidency in either 2020 (a one-term Republican president who becomes unseated) or 2024 (an open-seat presidential race from a two-term Republican president).

This Democratic Party is full of Wall Street Democrats. They want their status quo; they don't want a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren breed of Democrat ever nominated for, or actually winning, the presidency; and the answer to anyone's question, "Well, isn't just a matter of time before a Real Liberal is supported by self-identified Democrats and the Democratic Establishment for the same election? the answer is a big fat fucking no. The Democratic Party would rather lose the presidency than have an actual liberal at the top of the ticket and win. That's how this party operates.

Becoming a media buzzword is the public relations dream of every Washington policy cabal. It is the signal that the media is ready to collaborate. The great PR success story of the 1980s was the "supply-siders." The term, which suggests a conservative concern with investment and producer efficiency, is still applied to those who promoted the decidedly demand-side Reaganomics of economic stimulus through the deficit financing of military and private consumption.

So it is with the "New Democrats." The label creates the image of a collection of Democratic politicians and policy technocrats freeing the party from its bondage to a liberalism that is out of touch with mainstream America. Closer to reality, the term reflects a confused attempt to bring intellectual respectability to the moderate-conservative coalition that has ruled Washington for most of the past 25 years.

There is a great deal of overlap between New Democrats and those politicians who used to be known on Capitol Hill as Boll Weevils-- southerners who rose to committee chairmanships as Democrats and voted like Republicans. New Democrats include Senators David Boren of Oklahoma, Sam Nunn of Georgia, and John Breaux of Louisiana, and Congressmen Charles Stenholm of Texas and Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma. Southern conservatives who favor big business and expensive military budgets while opposing social spending are hardly new. They have been a fixture in the party even longer than big-city northeastern liberals.

But all New Democrats are not southerners. And those who sell their political wares under the New Democrat label insist they are an entirely new political phenomenon. In a June 6, 1993, Washington Post op-ed, Al From, director of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which holds the principal copyright on the New Democrat label, tells us their opinions add up to "a new public philosophy--a synthesis of progressive ideas and a nonbureaucratic approach to governing, grounded in mainstream values." He quotes Bill Clinton, when the latter was the chair of the DLC, saying that it "plainly rejects the old ideologies and the false choices they impose. Our agenda isn't liberal or conservative. It is both, and it is different."

The New Democrats score points with their criticism of the liberals, and some of their specific policy suggestions are reasonable--if not terribly new. But their reach to establish a new ideology far exceeds their intellectual grasp. When faced with such central public problems as falling real incomes, impoverished cities, uncompetitive industries, and stubbornly high unemployment, their vision falters. Like their own caricature of the Left, the New Democrats are trapped in a "politics of evasion," obsessed with abstract debates over social values, while the nation stumbles into decline. If it turns out that Bill Clinton truly is a New Democrat, then he was elected on the basis of bait-and-switch advertising, and America's next four years will be much like the last four.

The promise of being beyond left and right has perennial appeal in American politics. As George Lodge of the Harvard Business School pointed out years ago, we are among the most ideological of peoples, yet the conventions of American political life hold that politicians must present themselves as non-ideological problem solvers. This has advantages. Ideological rigidity is not helpful in a complex, changing world, and liberals and conservatives can learn from each other. Moreover, there is a case for a posture of pragmatism; in any election, 35 to 40 percent of the electorate is locked into one party or the other; the contest is for the middle. Not surprisingly, most candidates for president present themselves as more "centrist" than the mainstream of their party.

So there is a useful role for honest "plague on both your houses" politics in America. But those who carry the intellectual baggage for the Democratic Leadership Council do not curse the House of Liberalism and the House of Conservatism with equal fervor. For them, liberals are clearly the enemy.

The spine of the New Democrats' argument is this: for the last 20 years, the Democratic Party has been dominated by its extreme left wing, which is out of touch with middle-class America. New Democrats represent a set of new, bold ideas uniquely relevant to the nation's problems. These ideas will bring back "Bubba"--the stereotype of the Reagan Democrat who defected from the party in the 1980s.

William Galston and Elaine Kamarck laid out the political case against liberals in a 1989 booklet, The Politics of Evasion, which became the guiding political manifesto of the DLC. In it, the authors, both of whom now work in the White House, declared that since the late 1960s the Democratic Party had been beset by a rigid "liberal fundamentalism." As a result, the public has come to associate Democrats with politically bizarre attitudes like "tax and spending policies that contradict the interests of average families: with welfare policies that foster dependence rather than self-reliance." According to Galston and Kamarck, "Liberal fundamentalism has meant a coalition increasingly dominated by minority groups and white elites--a coalition viewed by the middle class as unsympathetic to its interests and its values." Echoing the 20-year-old analysis of Kevin Phillips, Galston and Kamarck tell us the result is a political realignment working against the Democrats. Proof is that after 1988, the Democrats had won only one out of the preceding six contests for the White House.

The notion that the Democratic Party is a captive of left-wing extremists is a familiar one to readers of the American press. It has been a staple of conservative Republican doctrine since 1932. In itself, this does not make the point incorrect, although it suggests that it is a bit musty. Reminiscent of the analysis that has been nurtured for decades in places such as the National Review, New Democrats have a tendency to argue at a level of abstract generalization that permits them to leap over some facts that would otherwise puncture their case.

The first set of facts is historical. With the exception of McGovern in 1972, in five of the last six presidential campaigns, the Democratic candidates--Humphrey, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis--ran as centrists. Humphrey was the establishment candidate against Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy. Carter ran as a conservative southerner moderate on race. The centerpiece of Mondale's campaign (for which Galston served as chief issues adviser) was deficit reduction. And Dukakis ran as a technocrat who, until the last two weeks of his campaign, avoided attacking Ronald Reagan because he didn't want to sound too partisan. Even McGovern didn't run as a "tax and spend" Democrat; a central part of his platform was a proposal for a huge middle-class tax cut. Indeed, the Carter presidency--the failure of which still weighs heavily on the Democratic psyche--was the exemplar of the New Democrat spirit. The New Republic reports that when Al From talked with Carter about forming the DLC, the latter said: "Boy, could I have used a DLC to back me up."

It would be interesting to know why Vermont likes him, or if they just accepted him via the state political power brokers.

Bernie Sanders' ideas and proposals sound wonderful and I would support them fully. However I don't think it will be possible for Sanders to get anything through the senate. Sure, mainly because of the Republican Party, but the Democratic Party has its fair share of corrupt representatives who would not want their powers to be limited and lose being courted and bribed by greedy lobby groups like the NRA, the pharma industry, oil companies, etc.

The only way Sanders could make his vision reality is when, as soon as he gets elected. all the members of the senate and congress and the media (owned by right wing conservatives) get replaced by Sanders' fans and supporters. I don't want to sound like a Debbie Downer, but I don't see that happening. Instead Bernie Sanders, if elected, will be ridiculed by the media for being incompeten, because he is not able to convince enough elected representatives to work with him.

Hilary Clinton knows how to deal with the present senate and how to handle them to get some stuff done. It is not much, but thanks to the Republican Party controlling the senate that is the best one can hope. If people would get their shit together and give a Democratic President a liberal, democratic majority in the senate then more things could be accomplished that will help the 99%.

I don't understand people who argue that Hillary can work with Republicans in Congress to get things done. That's probably true in the same respect that Obama can work with them to get through Republican ideas like TPP and other " free" trade deals, new god awful student loan legislation that will cost students more in the long run, cuts to Medicare, new oil drilling, etc. But the GOP has been anti-Clinton for decades. Working with Hillary would be just as toxic from day one for any republican as compromising with Obama is for them today. Hillary won't get the Republicans to help her pass any of her agenda. Hell, she couldn't even get Democrats to bring her health care proposal up for a vote in 1994 when Democrats controlled large majorities in both chambers.

R144, she was very successful working with repubs as a senator.

NY was reluctant to elect her the first time, but enthusiastic to elect her a second time. Sorry, but she's a natural leader with a proven track record.

She's not a Nixon republican. Actually, she worked on the watergate hearings when she was fresh out of law school.

BS didn't have a real job until he was 40. He published a rape fantasy when he was 30. He voted along with the NRA, and supports war against the Palestinians, whom many liberals feel are the victims of Israeli apartheid. He's tone deaf re: race relations, and has nothing to show for his decades on congress.

BS is part of the problem not the solution.

It's less that Hillary Clinton can work with the GOP than she knows how to work around the GOP. She knows where executive power is weak and knows where it's strong. Bernie does not. All of his major promises require a House with over 50% Bernie Sanders acolytes and a Senate with over 60%.

Sanders never talks about action where the president has power. Those don't interest him because they don't let him act as the nation's preeminent scold. His campaign is filled with promises that he can never possibly fulfill, which makes him either a liar or a fool. He would be a complete failure as president.

Hillary knows how to handle Republicans and where the skeletons are buried. Behind the scenes she will bust their balls while they run to the media and pound their chest like primates. Sanders has no rapport with the Republican Party and they would ice him out from day one and all Sanders could do is step in front of the camera and explain why nothing gets done what he promised and he will look weak and more and more people will lose confidence in him. For decades not a single thing the Republicans did stuck to the point where Republicans saw a defeat in seats when it was time for the general public to vote. You think Bernie saying "The Republicans are being mean to me!" will mobilize the public to vote them out?

What's going to happen if Hillary wins is that around January 21 next year the Republican House will set up a committee to begin investigating bullshit faux scandals from her email server to whatever else they can dream up and it will be one long nonstop investigation for 4 years. In other words, it will be the '90s all over again.

r148, and as she as proved in the past she will rise above it and still get things done. And, again, in this sad political (and public media) climate, that is all one can hope for.

Sure, the GOP will have a ton of fake scandals if Hillary is elected. Just like the 1990s. And the 2010s (Fast and Furious! Solyndra!). They'll do the same for Hillary, Sanders or Martin O'Malley.

Anyone who thinks they'll be nicer if the president isn't a Democrat who isn't Hillary hasn't been paying attention.

I don't look at the way Hillary Clinton has run her presidential a campaigns R145 and think, "Wow! She is a natural leader!" Her 2008 campaign was an incompetent mess and now she's repeated many of the same mistakes so that a 74 year old socialist who few people had ever heard of and who was polling in single digits in polls 8 months ago is now leading her in several polls in IA and NH. If she runs the country the way she's run her campaigns, we're all fucked!

OP, isn't Hillary beating Bernie in Iowa right now?

[quote]If she runs the country the way she's run her campaigns, we're all fucked!

And that statement is productive, how? Does that mean Bernie Sanders is more electable the way his campaign goes? Would Donald Trump make a better president because his campaign is so, what, popular (as Trump loves to say, have you seen the polls)?

It comes down to past records and accomplishments. Hillary, even under scrutiny, accomplished a great deal of things. Bernie Sanders can't match that.

Polls and all that are media hyped bullshit to get ratings and clicks.

Can you trust what a polititian promises during his election campaign? No, because either he has no intention to follow through or he gets blocked by the senate. If one bases his opinion on polls and how good someone runs his or her campaign and completely ignores actual facts (like past voting records and accomplishments and other actions from the past pre election campaign) is a gullable fool.

I guess it comes down to this: if I have to choose between Sanders in the White House accomplishing nothing he wanted to do and Hillary sitting in the White House triangulating and helping the GOP hurt the middle class even more by further deregulating Wall Street, signing more "free" trade treaties, and launching us into more stupid wars, then I choose the former. Neither is likely to get a progressive agenda through Congress and both can appoint Dems to the federal bench and issue executive orders. But the Clintons have a history of working with the GOP to sell the poor, the middle class, gays, labor, whoever they need to sell to advance their own selfish interests. And I don't want 4 more years of that nonsense.

I don't think Hillary's campaign is BAD or incompetent in the least. Everytime I see her I think she does very well and comes off as the most qualified. She can be having a good campaign and that doesn't mean that Sanders strikes a cord in the zeitgeist. The Republicans are going with an outsider for the moment, so why can't the dems have the same. So Bernie is doing very well. And Hillary is doing fine.

The voters know what they are saying when they answer polls as do the pollsters. People want something fresh and Trump and Sanders are not the same old same old.

[quote]He has integrity, is not owned by the banks,

That's because he was already bought by the NRA.

[quote]the Clintons have a history of working with the GOP to sell the poor, the middle class, gays, labor, whoever they need to sell to advance their own selfish interests.

This is total bullshit. The Bernie shills are a bit insane, kind of like he is.

It's not that that Democrats in Congress that wouldn't vote to support Bernie's far left schemes are "corrupt," it's that if they vote too far left in their red or purplish state, they'll lose their seat, which means a Republican will have it. More Republicans, less gets done.

A lot of those Democrats are holding those seats by the skin of their teeth now. Their states are gerrymandered, which means they all have to compromise to satisfy at least some Republican voters.

If they have to vote more conservatively than they personally care to do, it's not because they're evil or corrupt, it's because they live in a democracy and they're trying to represent the people back home, not their own personal opinion against the wishes of the majority of their district's voters on particular bills. And they know they'll lose their job if they don't.

Claiming there is no unselfish motivation for these people to try to keep a Republican out of their chair is not fair. They understand about the importance of just a few more votes.

What's insane about the truth, r157?

For starters, there was DOMA. Then there was DOMA. Next, there was DOMA. Finally, there was DOMA.

Add to that what he did to the poor, to blacks, to labor, and to banking.

Lovin' NAFTA r157 ? -- you would.

[quote]For starters, there was DOMA. Then there was DOMA. Next, there was DOMA. Finally, there was DOMA.

OMG, really? DOMA was all Clinton was able to push through the senate, because, guess what, the Republicans blocked every other proposal! It was a compromise that was only a little bit better than what was already in place. I find it hilarious posters like r159 who act like Clinton demanded DOMA and the Republican Party cowered in fear and didn't object.

If Bloomberg jumps in Hillary loses.

That is supposition, R161.

He's talking about DOMA R160. The Defense of Marriage Act, not Don't Ask Don't Tell. You know, DOMA. The anti-gay bill that Clinton shamefully signed into law at midnight one night without a formal signing ceremony because deep down he knew what he was doing was awful. He could have vetoed it or at the very least allowed it to become law without his signature as the Constitution allows. But no. He signed it. He signed it so the Republicans couldn't paint him as gay friendly on the campaign trail in 1996. Instead of standing up for us, he sold us out.

R163, GTFU.

Had Clinton not signed DOMA, our republican enemies (like Bruce Jenner) would have passed something far worse.

The BS whackos are clueless, immature and naive.

Have you not noticed how much our political enemies hate us? Have you not noticed they comprise about half of the USA?

Are you really unaware of how government works? Do you really think the president is all powerful and can simply do whatever the hell he wants?

Those fuckers tried to overturn an election because of a blowjob.

HRC has the chops, gravitas and balls to deal with those fuckers. They would play BS like a violin and laugh at him. AS IF he could EVER get elected.

The only hope the repubs have to prevent HRC from winning the presidency is if BS wins the primary. They know she's unbeatable in the general.

A vote for BS is a vote for the Koch brothers.

If BS is the nom, hello Pres. Trump. It'sthat simple.

I guess you don't have to be a dem to be the dem nominee.

If Hillary is the nominee, it's almost a lock that Democrats will take back the House. There really isn't a path to taking back the house, but Dems should at least make gains.

If Bernie is the nominee, I can see us easily losing it all.

It pains me to say that because on the issues, I'm with Bernie. But he's not demonstrated any ability to get things done, any willingness to work with Democrats or Republicans, or any ability to describe how he plans to enact his plans.

We're probably better off with him staying in the Senate. That's one less seat we have to fight for.

Hillary just got the Des Moines Register endorsement.

Will be interesting to see whether that gives her the momentum to beat Bernie in the final week before Iowa on February 1.

Hillary got the Register's endorsement in 2008 too. It didn't seem to help her then.

True, but she was up against Obama then, R168, and doing worse in the polls in Iowa at the time.

She appears to be in a stronger position there this year, but we'll see.

[bold]Hillary Clinton Is One of the Most Ethical (and Most Lied About) Political Leaders in America[/bold]

If the headline of this piece blows some minds, you can thank three decades of relentless lies and smears by the conservative attack machine and its mainstream media enablers, who have labored for decades to create an aura of corruption around Hillary Clinton. Hillary’s detractors on the right, left and center reel off a laundry list of unsupported accusations with an air of absolute authority, as though it is simply a given that she is a terrible, horrible, no-good human being.

And that is precisely the intention: Taint her through innuendo and guilt-by-association, throw enough dirt at her that voters develop an instant negative association with her name. Accuse, accuse, accuse until the accusation becomes the reality, and may the truth be damned.

Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and billionaire conservative moneymen like Paul Singer have spent inordinate sums to paint a malignant picture of Hillary, using sophisticated propaganda techniques to render her toxic to the American electorate.

Sadly, many on the left imbibe and regurgitate these fabricated narratives, spewing falsehoods and filth at Hillary with gleeful abandon. They are joined by mainstream media operatives with personal vendettas like Maureen Dowd and the Morning Joe crew, whose venomous words reveal more about their own failings than about Hillary.

But the fact is this: no one has ever produced an iota of evidence that Hillary has behaved improperly because of a campaign contribution. No one has produced a scintilla of proof that there is a quid pro quo when it comes to her speaking fees. From Whitewater to Benghazi to her emails, nobody can point to a single instance of corruption or purposeful wrongdoing on Hillary Clinton’s part.

None. Zero. Ever.

Bernie might be another Chavez, or Maduro. We cannot take the chance on someone who would lay waste this nation.

Don't give Sanders that much credit. He's a cranky old man who should be sitting at a bus stop bench kvetching about the weather.

Hillary will be in prison before her first day in office, Sanders/Warren 2016!

It's amazing how those completely pure Sanders supporters sound exactly like Republicans sometimes.

Poor Elizabeth Warren. She says she's not running a thousand times and no one cares, because what she thinks doesn't matter.

She's not running. She's not running with Bernie Saunders because she's not running. You may as well say Saunders/Tinkerbell 2016, because that's not happening either.

But but but ... she's less evil than Ted Cruz!

R176, please go back and read R170's link. And then read it again.

Will do, R177.

Right after I cash my $600,000 speaking fee check from Goldman Sachs.

R178, Barack Obama bailed out Wall Street. None of those fuckers have been prosecuted.

The BS supporters are simplistic, obsessed and fixated. He's a single-issue candidate.

He's been in congress for decades now and has nothing to show for it. He's part of the problem.

R179, no one is more ESTABLISHMENT than the Clintons. No one.

Sanders SUPPOSEDLY spent FIFTY years fighting for Civil Rights - Yet No Civil Rrights Organization has endorsed him. Think about that.

R180, Bernie is ALSO establishment. He's spent a quarter century in CONGRESS.

Nope. Hillary is toxic. I will not vote for her. She can't win.

Hillary is the single most beatable candidate in political history, and nobody knows that better than Bill, even he has trouble stumping for her.

The panic in the Clinton camp is palpable, R183. Fuck, even Bloomberg knows he has more charisma than HRC.

No... Hillary isn't 'toxic' and no amount of repeating that lie will make it true.

Glug glug glug ...

The Krugbots of DL are up in arms about R176.

Blue Nation Review? It's written in a toilet stall, wake me when it's for real.

Bloomberg/Oprah 2016!

"Barack isn't a Boomer -- he's a Joneser. No draft is part of the definition " R86, You mean Gen-X right? He was born in 1961, defiantly NOT a Boomer, even though some people keep trying to push up the Gen-X age to start at 1965. The original people who coined the term start at 1961.

Gen X starts in 1965 -- by the time they sexually matured, sexual freedom was past.

Democrats who think it is impossible for left wing politics to thrive in America are part of the problem. The middle ground way has only veered the party more to the right. Such a shame our party looks down on people like Sanders, Kucinich, and Howard Dean. Young people get it. Socialism is no longer the paralyzing perjorative it once was 35 years ago. The millenials will show up for Bernie. Unfortunately, working class minorities unfamiliar with Bernie will vote Hillary, and so will old Democrats who are scared of being called leftists. He has a tough battle ahead, but hopefully, his first two wins in Iowa and New Hampshire will be definitive.

I'm not sure Bernie is the right person to be the Democratic nominee, or whether he can beat the Republicans.

I will say that I agree with R191 that there was a time when there was a very successful Democrat called FDR, and something called the New Deal.

If Democrats could get back to those days, they might get somewhere.

Bloomberg now serious about running. Will decide in March. If it looks like Hillary is okay, he won't run. But if vulnerable, he will.

Nanny Bloomberg, running interference for the elites.

Bloomberg wont stand a chance. Cuomo is the one who should be running.

Sanders reminds me a bit of Bill de Blasio. Very liberal and very ineffectual.

Sadly, Hillary gets bashed on DL far more than Donald Trump. That's very telling...

R196, DL is racist & misogynistic. Trump may as well be patron saint of DL.

I don't even think Trump is as racist as a lot of DL'ers, posts dripping with their bitter white "victimhood." Trump is probably just playing the rubes, like them.

Link, R47. And Fox News or rightwing blogs don't count. Her health is fine. She's released her health records, unlike some of these other candidates.

[quote] This thread reeks of freeper koch-puppet shills. Hope you earned your 25 cents today.

Yes, "shills" are flocking to an obscure gay message board to collect 25 cents from the Koch brothers. I can't even type it without laughing.

R199 Bernie looks fine to me.

R190, Nope sorry, Gen-X actually started in 1961 not 1965. You can tell by Obama himself, his attitude was to make compromises for the better good, Boomers never compromise, they want to win at all costs....which is what we saw when he came into office. The whole Republican mantra was to make Obama fail for the next 8 years, nothing else really mattered. They are all Boomers.

Obama is still so young. He would be perfect for the Supreme Court.

[quote]Nope sorry, Gen-X actually started in 1961 not 1965.

Gen-X started in 1964. Generations run eighteen years because that is how long it takes a newborn to become an adult. The Baby Boomers are 1946 through 1963. Gen-X is 1964 through 1981.

OP, I realize Hillary is a grandmother, but I get a kick out of how you call her, "granny" when Sanders is fucking 69 years old himself!!!

Obama is definitely not a boomer. He was not even a teen when Vietnam happened.

He's older than that

R200, I don't think the Koch Brothers pays people to post on DL, but anyone who's been on this board for more than one election cycle knows that we do get a lot of right-wing trolls here.

[quote]Bloomberg now serious about running. Will decide in March. If it looks like Hillary is okay, he won't run. But if vulnerable, he will.

Bloomberg sounds like an idiot.

"Gen-X started in 1964. Generations run eighteen years because that is how long it takes a newborn to become an adult." NO, that is not how it works, generational labels are based on changes in society not mathematical birth numbers. That is why there is a debate about when these things actually start, there is always years of overlap. The current view is that Gen-X started around 1961 by many authors who were the first to identify and coin the term.

I've always heard 1965

Bloomberg's is such a nice store, but I get better buys at Sears.

"Obama is definitely not a boomer. He was not even a teen when Vietnam happened. " Obama was born in 1961, that puts him at 14 years old when the war ended. the draft actually ended 2 years earlier in when he was 12.

So yeah, Obama was definitely not a Boomer.

Trump = born June 14, 1946, age 69 70 at inauguration.

Hillary = born October 26, 1947, age 68 69 at inauguration.

Bernie = born September 8, 1941, age 74. 75 at inauguration.

Ted Cruz = born December 22, 1970, age 45. 46 at inauguration.

Oddly enough, my partner and I who are pushing 53 thought Ted Cruz was older then us. He does not look like a 40 something year old guy. He talks like a 65 year old preacher. On a side note, why does Trump look so weathered considering he doesn't drink or party even as a youth?

Trump looks so unhealthy and out of shape. Probably more than Christie even. He was the only one who complained about standing up during the debate, and he was fidgeting throughout like a boy bored out of his mind during church service.

R205 Sanders is 74.

r201 if Sanders is "fine" healthwise, then why not release his health record like many other candidates have done? He's 74 and the public has the right to see it. I remember when HRC announced her candidacy, it was practically demanded that she release hers.

His people have said that they will release it AFTER the IA Caucus. Then the campaign raised money on what they call an "attack" for asking his campaign to release his health report. There's a lot things Sanders campaign has done that has been not only sneaky but hostile to anyone who dares questions them.

Reagan was the oldest President at inauguration so far, at 69 years old.

Bernie would be 75.

He's too fucking old.

My concern with a Sanders win is that he's unlikely to win a second term due to his age. There is no way the country is going to re-elect an 80 man. He's going to be a one-termer.

I was wondering the same thing about Trump. For a guy who doesn't drink at all, he looks pretty awful. He never buttons his suit jacket I notice. So his suits kind of flop off him while concealing his big girth when he's on stage.

He must have a big appetite to be that big.

I can't believe people think Clinton has released her health records. She'd rather lie than live.

Boomers are 20 full years AFTER WWII.

That would January 1, 1946 to December 31, 1965. SSN has grandfathered these people into the system by this metric.

People born in these years are guaranteed some kind of benefit unless the SSN is eliminated.

So Trump is over a year older than Hillary, R215?

Interesting.

He hasn't had three strokes either. Put the cow out to pasture and get a real candidate.

I'm not crazy about Hillary or Bernie but we can't let the Republicans take over the White House either.

As agist as the millennials are, I'm surprised they'd put all their eggs in BS's basket.

He's a straight, old, white grandpa who is pro-guns and pro-war. Just like 90% of congress. How is that radical?

F&F r226 for old school misogyny.

R224 is right. That makes Obama and David Brooks boomers.

And I guess new school misogyny is ok R229?

Your would guess that r231.

Neil Howe and William Strauss, the guys who started naming generations and all that, have Gen X starting in 1961. (Link attached) Starting Gen X in 1961 runs counter to the prior theory that everyone born during the demographic baby boom which ended in 1964 was a "Boomer" but they argued that people born after 1961 had very different experiences and upbringings than those born in the 1950s and were more closely aligned with the generation that came after them.

My experience (and if you can't tell, I do demographic research for a living) has been that it's not black and white, that when the youngest child in a family was born in 1961, they tend to identify with their Boomer siblings and also have older parents, whereas when the oldest child was born in 1961, they identify with Gen X and have younger parents who were not GIs (too young to have served). Obama likely identifies as Gen X since his mother was very young when she had him and he is the oldest child.

[quote] Strauss and Howe followed in 1993 with their second book, 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?, which examines the generation born between 1961 and 1981, "Gen-Xers" (alias "13ers", since they are literally the thirteenth generation since America became a nation). The book shows how 13ers' location in history—they were children during the Consciousness Revolution—explains their pragmatic attitude.[14]

As for Hillary, she has always struggled to get people excited about her candidacy.

Even the people who support her use words like "competent" and "experienced" to describe her and especially this year, that's not what gets people excited.

If she were a car, she'd be a Toyota Corolla or a Honda Civic, whereas Bernie is a Prius or (to some of his supporters) a Tesla. You can extrapolate from there.

R234 whatever car Bernie might be,he will be a loser if run against any republican

R233 no one cares what those two people think.

No R236, no one cares what you think. Now put the Lady Gaga back on and go back to dancing in front of the mirror

R234, you see what you want to see. And you see it from a patriarchal perspective.

'Hillary, can you excite us?': The trouble with Clinton and young women

To some, shattering the ‘hardest glass ceiling’ doesn’t seem so revolutionary any more. Others, like Lena Dunham, aim to help bridge a generational divide

No one says Generation Jones. I never hear it in the media.

The main definition of Generation Jones is "ignored." Especially by Boomers.

[quote]He's too fucking old.

And Hillary is too fucking tired and corrupt.

F&F r229 for not understanding reality.

Three recent Vermont Governors have all endorsed... Hillary Clinton. Huh.

The fact that people need to 'get excited' in order to get out and do their civic duty to vote, and keep the idiot asshole corrupt Republicans out of office to prevent them from DESTROYING THE COUNTRY is just ridiculous. What the fuck is wrong with people?

The fact that 'excitement' is needed, and somehow trumps competence and experience is just... disgusting. It's a microcosm of everything wrong with this country and this society.

I don't want my government employees to be EXCITING. I want them to do their damn jobs, and do them well.

[quote]I don't want my government employees to be EXCITING. I want them to do their damn jobs, and do them well.

Unfortunately, the a mainstream media has a for-profit motive to turn our Presidential elections into a two-year show. That means EXCITEMENT is the order of the day. Note that the media outlets themselves have taken over the debates and turned them into reality TV.

[bold]Introducing Bernie Sanders the Hypocrite [/bold]

Just 9 years ago Bernie won the Vermont Democratic primary for the 2006 Senate race as a write-in candidate — there was no serious opposition — but he declined to accept the nomination. Why? Because he's always insisted he is NOT a Democrat. In fact, he has said that it would be hypocritical of him to run as a Democrat:

[quote]"It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party."

All Howe and Strauss do is pimp millenials to sell books. Only insecure millenials take them seriously.

Bernie doesn't seem to understand how the Supreme Court works...

It's going to be hilarious watching Bernie getting to spend all his sheeple's money when he doesn't win.

[quote]if Sanders is "fine" healthwise, then why not release his health record like many other candidates have done? He's 74 and the public has the right to see it.

He just had to have surgery.

It wasn't life threatening surgery though, and people knew about it. What other chronic or long term conditions does he have at age 74?

If Bernie turns out to be lying about his fitness for office, it's going to damage not only him, but the Democratic Party as a whole is going to be seen as falling down on their job of making sure he was vetted and found to be a qualified candidate.

And what if he took office and got sick shortly after? There's a gray area constitutionally about when a President should be relieved from office due to illness. It's left to the President to decide. What if he's unfit and refuses to listen to reason and resign? Edith Wilson ran the country after President Wilson's strike. People just pretended they didn't know because there was no precedent or other way to deal with it, other than Wilson resigning which he wouldn't do. People with dementia or other mental incapacity often don't realize themselves how impaired they are.

Impeachment due to incapacity makes it look like there's no President, and until the President dies, resigns, willingly temporarily transfers power, or is impeached, the Vice President has no authority. Meanwhile, other countries see our weakness with a President unable to serve.

Everyone knows the older you get, the more likely you'll have some type of health problem. It is not unreasonable for people to want to know if a candidate is healthy. Every candidate eventually has to disclose their medical records, both sides. No one gets to run for President and maintain their privacy. Don't like it, don't run.

These claims that he's being "attacked," for having to provide the same information every other candidate has to provide, are unreasonable. It also makes it seem like if there is now, or was later, a serious medical issue that would affect his fitness for office, he wouldn't willingly disclose it.

Correction: President Wilson's stroke. ^^

I agree r248.

After all silly Sally @r233, THEY will NOT cut your checks when you're Bernie's age will they?

Only the gullible would fall into their trap.

Have you read the Constitution R252? There's no "gray area" about what happens if the President is clearly unable to discharge his duties but refuses to step aside. Section 4 of the 25th Amendment addresses that possibility quite nicely. Quit making shit up!

I'll always love Bernie because of this. It was back in '95, when his position was not the popular one and when so many politicians would throw gays under the bus, but he stood up for it anyway. That's always meant a lot to me.

There's a difference between what people are supposed to do and what actually happens, you know that. Who in their right mind wants to say, "the President is an incompetent nutter, no one's running the ship! Oh my god, somebody do something!" right in front of Putin, DAESH and the rest.

Do you think no one knew Reagan had Alzheimers? Everyone knew it. All those people in his cabinet, and his wife, knew. I've recently read an account that described Reagan being briefed on issues at a White House meeting, then when they asked his opinion, he started talking about something else like he hadn't heard a word, about the old days in Hollywood, which is what people with Alzheimers do, their mind regresses. They could never get him to discuss the topic at all. They just gave up and decided without him. No, that is not a good thing.

What fresh hell do you think we would have gone through if that had been public knowledge at the time? It would have been a partisan football and you know it, spelled out for the entire world to see. Do you think nobody would notice if suddenly there was a different President one day?

Even in 1995 he looked old.

I admire many things about Bernie Sanders, but I think his candidacy is very problematic on a number of levels.

And the fact that he hasn't been a Democrat all these years is another odd part about him deciding to run for the Democratic Nomination.

r258, I think that's because he didn't dye his hair, unlike that dickbag Cunningham. We're conditioned to see white hair and think old. He also had the "cranky old man" way of speaking about him even then. Nevertheless, I enjoy him, and I appreciate that he's been so consistent in his support.

It's unfortunate that you brought up Reagan to make your point R257 because actually Reagan's closest aides DID attempt to have him declared incapacitated around the time the Iran-Contra affair broke and Reagan appeared more and more distracted. They brought in well-respected Republican Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker to be the new Chief of Staff and he was told that if he thought Reagan couldn't handle the job any longer, then the cabinet was prepared to endorse his view. However by all accounts, Reagan was alert at their first meeting and had recovered enough that Baker felt he was competent enough to continue. Reagan's ramblings about Hollywood during meetings weren't a sign of dementia. Reagan was just a fucking idiot who didn't care much about policy details and was basically the movie star figurehead spokesman for the conservative movement. But had Reagan appeared even more brain dead than he usually was, Baker and the Cabinet were prepared to make Bush the Acting President. So the process can in fact work.

Reagan deserved an Oscar for his performance at president. He was a Hollywood liberal who managed to usher in the greatest right-wing cultural rise our country has ever seen, and he managed to be an effective communicator throughout despite being half senile.

Reagan is one of my least favorite people but I don't think he would have swung to the right had the far left not pummeled him so bloodily when he was the head of SAG. They threw the first stones.

[quote]I admire many things about Bernie Sanders, but I think his candidacy is very problematic on a number of levels.

And chief among them are his over-zealous supporters. Such complete turn-offs. Over the last month, they've cured me of supporting him. They've absolutely pushed me away with their extremism, constant attacks if you don't agree with them 100%, and name-calling should you ever say anything that isn't 110% supportive of Bernie.

Such a cunt.

[quote]"Bernie alienates his natural allies. He is completely ineffective as a lobbyist because he completely offends just about everyone." - Al Franken

You know who Bernie reminds me of? Playwright Larry Kramer. I imagine he would be as effective in working with others.

Al Franken is progressive -- why won't he run?

I don't agree that no one realized the extent of Reagan's incapacity. There were rumors for quite a long time. He had trouble remembering words also. Republicans covered it up and made excuses. Anyone who thinks people weren't aware something was wrong wasn't alive then.

Ron Reagan now claims his father was showing beginning signs of Alzheimer's years before he left the Presidency. Reagan associates call him a liar. Why he would lie I have no idea. Reagan's associates would obviously lie to protect themselves.

This intrigues me because when my mother had early dementia, several family members absolutely refused to believe it, as well as a couple doctors who claimed I was lying. Every time I tried to bring obvious symptoms to the attention of doctors they claimed I was exaggerating. I knew my mother's ordinary speech patterns very well and recognized when they deteriorated.

People that did not know her did not realize anything was wrong for a long time, probably not until the last year. No doctor was willing to admit they had misdiagnosed, even when she was grossly impaired. No one took into account that people who knew her best recognized the problem first. I can believe Ron Reagan and family members would first see deficits not noticeable to others. I know how frustrating it is when people defensively claim there's nothing wrong and you know there is. Our family fought over it right up to the funeral. The ones that were convinced it was "ordinary aging" rarely saw her.

Then, what Doctor is willing to publicly diagnose a President with Alzheimer's? There would be endless partisan attacks on him and he would probably lose his license, if not have an "accident." People here don't seem to understand that people in power will lie, cheat and steal to keep it. The naive idea that "no one would ever lie to keep their positions, they're all truth-tellers in Washington," doesn't pass the smell test.

A geriatric psychiatrist told me it was very common for people with dementia to be able to fake it for an hour or two "when they had to;" adrenalin kicked in and helped them seem better than they were for a short time. When the adrenalin wore off, they got tired and worsened again. That's why it's so hard to commit people with dementia. The psychiatrist described people who could barely speak or feed themselves, seeming coherent in a courtroom, then directly afterwards falling apart again. They fooled the judge and were able to continue to live at home, at tremendous risk to themselves.

When it was announced that Reagan had Alzheimer's, no one was surprised, because it explained a lot of previous public behavior.

Nobody is going to call a President out on mental impairment, certainly not his own party. They will cover for him and defend him until the bitter end. To them it's political survival, not a medical crisis.

R172 u r a fucking moron

Respect for Sanders going. It's one thing after another. HRC isn't desperate, she's running a campaign against both the loony left and right.

In a quarter century of work in Congress... he's accomplished virtually nothing. He got THREE bills passed (averaging one every eight years), and two of those were about renaming a post office.

What makes anyone think he'll be able to accomplish anything as President... especially if he has a full GOP Congress to obstruct everything?

r268 -- that was what the movie Dave was all about.

[quote] A quote about Bernie that everyone should consider: "Bernie alienates his natural allies. He is completely ineffective as a lobbyist because he completely offends just about everyone." - Al Franken

Just to set the record straight: It was Barney Frank, not Al Franken, who said that.

Then I guess the Bernie fans are going to start calling Barney Frank a right winger, along with pretending they're too young to remember who he is.

Jeez...

[quote]Reagan is one of my least favorite people but I don't think he would have swung to the right had the far left not pummeled him so bloodily when he was the head of SAG. They threw the first stones.

HUH?? Reagan was the President of SAG, a LABOR union, who made deals so bad it was as if he WAS management or in this case the Hollywood producers. You are aware of what a labor union is,, aren't you? If the members of your union think you are a weaselly stiff, it's likely YOU ARE!

At a certain point, you max out on the number of delegates you can garner in a district, regardless of how many additional voters show up.

R275's video was uploaded in 2007.

Frank Richard has it right in this week's NY magazine. This country will find it VERY hard pressed to vote for a Jew. Sorry but it's true. They are not to be trusted. Their first allegiance is to themselves, then Israel, and then themselves again. Nasty nasty snakes. And Frank Richard is a jew himself so if he is saying it what do think non jew people are thinking.

That should be Frank Rich above not Richard.

R265, almost every politician was against gay marriage a decade ago.

Obama was against it until 2012, and even then he only spoke in favor of it after Joe Biden gave him the nudge.

People (conveniently) forget that in her 2008 campaign, Hillary said she was making gay rights a priority. Here's an excerpt of an interview when she was on Ellen that spring (the rest is in the attached link):

[quote]Ellen: All of the things that you talk about are important to me and important to everyone. One thing that is very important to me, and another reason that I like you so much, just today, this was just announced that you are going to defend gay rights as president and eliminate inequalities for same-sex couples in federal law.

[quote]Hillary: I am. I want to tell you a story about that, because my mother, who is still alive and lives with us, she and my dad moved to be with us when we were in Arkansas. And they moved into a condominium that they bought and it was great because they could be with Chelsea and we used to spend a lot of time with them. And the couple next door was a gay couple. Now, my late father, that was all news to him. And, so, he would spend a lot of time with these men. They would come over, they would help my mother, they would do yard work. They’d sit and talk to my father about sports and the stock market and one time my mother and father were watching a television show and something happened and there was a gay couple on and my father says, “Well, I just don’t know what I think about that”. And my mother says, “Well, what about our neighbors?”. And my father said, “Well, what do they have to do with that?”. When my father died, after he had this massive stroke and was in the hospital for so long, and I was there, and Bill was there, and Chelsea, and my brothers and everyone, my father was a very strong person and although he was brain dead he did not die. And so they were thinking they were going to have to move him to a nursing home. So, my mother, the people who were with her the whole time were the two neighbors. And, when my father did finally die, it was one of his neighbors who was there with him holding his hand. Well, fast forward. One of the men got sick, and was in the hospital, but because they had no rights, his partner was not allowed in the hospital. And the family of the man who was sick could say, “No, he’s not a member of the family.” They had been together since Vietnam. One was a doctor, one was a nurse. And, all of a sudden, the partner was a non-entity. That made such an impression on me. And I am going to do everything I can to make sure that people like you, and Portia, and other’s have a chance to have rights. To be able to go to the hospital, to inherit property, to make sure that you can list somebody as a beneficiary on an insurance policy. We just have to make this much more fair.

Thanks for posting that, R282.

Oh, puhleeze. She was making anti-gay remarks as recent as 2006 when she had to pander to upstate New Yorkers.

Six term Vermont Govenor Howard Dean refused to endorse Bernie Sanders for President. Howard oughta know! He instead endorsed Hillary Clinton.

Am quoting an ealier post, Democrat Al Franken ""Bernie alienates his natural allies. He is completely ineffective as a lobbyist because he completely offends just about everyone."

Bernie is a creepy dude, nice progresive ideas that will hand 40 STATES TO THE GOP, that is by GOP ESTIMATES! Why do you think they are running campaign ads for him??

Howard Dean won't endorse him? Are there any particular known instances where they didn't get along?

Maybe it has to do with the fact that Dean sold out and now works for a big lobbying firm and has (quite coincidentally I'm sure) changed his position on certain issues like health care reform.

Too bad Dean is no longer the DNC chairperson. DWS is a total hack, and has completely abandoned the 50-state strategy.

R288 what's the 50-state strategy?

Of course that whole story is a lie, r282, but she has good intentions.

R224 + R229 =two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the government put some arbitrary number on something does not make then the authority on society, in fact they are always behind the curve. They used to keep homosexuals out of the military because they thought they were not real men and/or mentally ill. Should we go by that standard too? Google: Douglas Coupland born 1961, he wrote the book!

There are too many reports surfacing that Sanders is a real asshole, very very nasty old man to his employees. It must be amazing to his overloaded ego after alifetime of actually accomplishing very little as a Congressman that his Candidacy has become a 2 state sensation.

While he has good ideas that many find appealing and are needed to facilitate manageable change, the bottom line is he is suckering in Millenials and GenX'ers who simply never had a Civics class. Both Regan Bush and the GOP made sure that education aabout Government was the first to go on the old budget chopping block. in the 80's 90's and oo's....dumping that education for Neil Bushes Educational TESTING Company.

Bernie will crash the Democratic Party for 20 years. He will hand the Presidency and the Supreme Court to the GOP that already control the Senate and Congress. He is your typical far left wing, nacissistic asshole that has been scolding people for years. This time he is using a much larger Megaphone. We al know the type, and they are awful.

Lies R292. He's a kindly old man. Democratic Underground told me so.

I'm fully prepared to believe that Bernie is an asshole in private. But so is Hillary. Read books recently published about the Secret Service and the White House staff. They paint Hillary as a major asshole. Most politicians whose egos are large enough to drive them to run for president are narcissistic assholes.

I don't really care which of any of them are assholes. I care which one can work with the dysfunctional Congress that we have, because that's the only way to get anything done in real life.

[quote] R252: No one gets to run for President and maintain their privacy. Don't like it, don't run.

If I recall correctly, Romney did a slight of hand with his tax records. I think he promised to revise his taxes after the election or something like that. I'd love to know if he ever followed through on that promise. I'd bet he did not.

He did not.

I like both Hillary and Bernie. I am happy that Bern is raising Leftish issues. Like, "Big banks should be broken-up". I think a lot of big companies should be broken-up. Like the super markets, department stores, pharmacies, Amazon, you name it. We've got "too big to be" all over. But - I can't see Bern winning the nomination. So, then it's up to Hillary to keep the awful conservatives away.

"Bernie Sanders is no Barack Obama" -- Barack Obama

[quote]As agist as the millennials are, I'm surprised they'd put all their eggs in BS's basket.

Their misogyny trumps their ageism.

Hillary was on Meet the Press yesterday. When Chuck Todd asked her banks like Goldman Sachs expected anything in return for paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech, she responded, "Absolutely not."

If her voters believe that whopper, then Hillary should feel comfortable joining Trump in shooting someone in public because her supporters will stick with her no matter what unbelievable nonsense she spouts.

She owes nothing to the banks.

It's not like they are going to demand their money back

[quote]It's not like they are going to demand their money back'

It's not like she'll give them any reason to. The Clintons are the property of the Too Big to Fail banks they were instrumental in creating.

That's nice r291. So when you're ready to retire, Douglas will be cutting your SSN checks personally. How generous of him! Goofball, he is NOT the final say on this! He's selling books numbskull.

The SSN has determined when benefits will be reduced due to population reduction, therefore less people pay into the system. The naming of the generation is irrelevant. What YOU get or not get in retirement is.

Given your hardened defense of his nonsense, let me guess. You're going to get nothing. Oh but he will. In fact, he's already got some of your money. He won. You didn't.

Fyi the Banks are not suppporting Clinton in this election, she has served notice with her policy - unlike Sanders. They are already dividing up assests and slowing down the big shadow operations. PObama needed the Banks to recover the Economy, Hillary will not. The Economy is Back with a vengence.

Hillary will be Jailing Bankers that gamble with their money - 10 year statute of limitations, Taxing the FUCK out of institutions with over 10Bill, also taxing and FINING Frequent traders that Violate the Volcker Rule.

And you can Bet she will met Justice to those Bankers but fast. I seen one in Jail within a year. That will be all it takes. The people will be satisfied.

Sanders would totally shit can the economy forever, 'cept it will never happen because GOP Congress and Senate will shit can him immediately.... and he wont win anything.

This is not a well woman...

Wow R305. And the Hillary supporters accuse the Sanders supporters of living in a fantasy world!

R306 = republican

They're desperate for BS to get the nom. He is their only hope.

Is it true that Karl Rove's pac has been donating money to Bernie?

Yes, it's true.

Just like they supported Nader in 2000.

She'll run again

[quote]Hillary was on Meet the Press yesterday. When Chuck Todd asked her banks like Goldman Sachs expected anything in return for paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech, she responded, "Absolutely not."

[quote]If her voters believe that whopper, then Hillary should feel comfortable joining Trump in shooting someone in public because her supporters will stick with her no matter what unbelievable nonsense she spouts.

Preach, R301.