Look at this picture of Mount Rushmore...

[AZ Progressive]

Imagine if these people thought like Hillary Clinton

There would probably be no Mount Rushmore, nevertheless the United States of America.

Great times of need require great presidents.

[MariaThinks]

1. what does that mean?

honestly, Bernie is so likeable and so smart. Then I read stuff from his supporters ....

[firebrand80]

2. LOL nt

[AZ Progressive]

9. There would be no United States if these people thought like Hillary

America was built by bold leaders, and Hillary is not one. In fact she's the opposite, trying to destroy a bold leader with "no we can't."

[boston bean]

3. Where are people coming up with this stuff?

Note that women werent allowed to vote when those men were presidents.

[HERVEPA]

4. No Mt. Rushmore would be great.

Destroying a mountain for that is disgusting.

[LuvLoogie]

5. Yes. Perhaps instead, the native majesty of the Black Hills would not have been stolen

and desecrated. And our Native peoples might have retained stewardship of their lands and become executors of their will. Perhaps thinking like a woman while they were relegated to being chatel and voteless, might have given these storied men a bit of pause to look deeper into the world about them and further enhance their legacies with a deeper compassion.

[NCTraveler]

23. This. Nt

[earthside]

6. Mount Rushmore without the dreams, the vision ...

... the boldness to take on great tasks.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."

[wyldwolf]

8. so you're saying FDR celebrated the desecration of the Sioux's holy land...

... and the US government's violation of their treaty?

[earthside]

12. Go recommend to Hillary that she adopt that stand ...

... and go sell it to middle America.

If she were the nominee with that position it would be a 50 state landslide for the Repuglicans.

[wyldwolf]

14. So you're avoiding the question?

[earthside]

17. Pres. Roosevelt can speak for himself.

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Remarks at Mount Rushmore National Memorial.
August 30, 1936

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15109

I don't have any problem with Mount Rushmore.
Except I liked the old visitor center much more than the new one.

I'm also rather pleased by the Crazy Horse Memorial.
There was real progress being made on the sculpture when I was there a couple years ago.

[wyldwolf]

18. So you're avoiding the question?

[earthside]

19. You're one of those Hillarians that can't accept an answer ...

... aren't you?

No matter how I or any person responds you just have to pick, pick, pick.

What do you want? A denunciation of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt?
You won't get that from me.

[wyldwolf]

20. So you're avoiding the question?

[wyldwolf]

7. the Lakota Sioux consider Mt. Rushmore to be a desecration

The Black Hills are sacred to the Lakota Sioux, and in the Treaty of 1868, the U.S. government promised the Sioux territory that included the Black Hills in perpetuity. Perpetuity lasted only until gold was found in the mountains and prospectors migrated there in the 1870s. The federal government then forced the Sioux to relinquish the Black Hills portion of their reservation.

Your OP doesn't surprise me, though. Bernie supporters are historically-challenged.

[Metric System]

10. Women and African-Americans weren't even allowed to vote during these Presidents' terms.

[zappaman]

11. LOL!!!!

It's getting funnier and funnier here.

[stonecutter357]

13. all white and all men?

[doc03]

15. I visited Mount Rushmore 2 years ago, impressive but

much more impressed with Crazy Horse. Unfortunately I will never live long enough to see it finished.

[Hoyt]

16. There would be 3 less slave owners and racists, for sure.

[jehop61]

21. Always thought

My Rushmore was a descecration of beautiful natural land. Saw it and wasn't impressed.

[treestar]

22. This theme is simply untrue, repeating it over and over

does not make it true.

They did have to convince their fellow Americans to fight a war - they did that. They didn't sit around demanding it before that.

Nobody wants a Revolution or a Civil War right now. Not enough people want it. You have to convince them, not cry and blame Hillary.

Not going to happen - people are all talk now. They aren't going to upend the system.

[Attorney in Texas]

24. Hillary: "We can only do what Paul Ryan lets us do." Sanders: "We can do what the people demand."

The reason Obama was a rock star in the 2008 campaign and the first 18 months of his presidency, is that he campaigned to the people and he began running his administration through that direct link to the people.

This is what Teddy Roosevelt did, and what FDR did, and it was through the Kennedy family's direct contact with the people that allowed LBJ to pass the progressive JFK-LBJ legacy.

After a set back in 2010, Obama stopped governing to the people and began governing to Congress. This is where Obama stalled.

If Obama had kept campaigning from 2008 through 2016, he could have taken progressive legislative ideas directly to the public which overwhelmingly favors there ideas. This would put the Republicans in Congress in the position of (a) passing Obama's popular progressive platform or (2) defying the will of the voters. Either the platform gets passed or those who frustrate the will of the people face repercussions at the ballot box.

FDR's Congress didn't want to pass the New Deal either. Those "fireside chats" weren't because FDR was chatty by nature; they were campaigning for his agenda AFTER the election. FDR went AROUND Congress to the people who elect Congress and he made the electorate into a body capable of enforcing the will of the majority (instead of capitulating to the naysayers in Congress).

This is what the Sanders campaign is all about. It's not about Sanders; it's about transforming the electorate into a political body empowered to accomplish the goals that large majorities favor.