2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum
Why Bernie Sanders Won’t Attack Hillary Clinton
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) talked to The Nation: “Now, I’ve known Hillary Clinton for many years. Let me confess: I like Hillary. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on many issues. My job is to differentiate myself from her on the issues—not by personal attacks. I’ve never run a negative ad in my life. Why not? First of all, in Vermont, they don’t work—and, frankly, I think increasingly around this country they don’t work. I really do believe that people want a candidate to come up with solutions to America’s problems rather than just attacking his or her opponent.”
He added: “If you look at politics as a baseball game or a football game, then I’m supposed to be telling the people that my opponents are the worst people in the world and I’m great. That’s crap; I don’t believe that for a second…. I don’t need to spend my life attacking Hillary Clinton or anybody else. I want to talk about my ideas on the issues.”
###
http://politicalwire.com/2015/07/06/why-bernie-sanders-wont-attack-hillary-clinton/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Talk about the issues, and their approach to solving them. Cut out the negative ads, smear jobs, and surrogate slaps. Present their case straight up.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)you attack, disparage and deflect.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)you should. If other words, if you don't believe in what you stand for, you have no choice but to attack your opponent.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If you don't believe the voters will go for what you believe in, you have no choice but to attack your opponent.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)on the issues, due to their own records. And that is why they resort to these personal attacks which the country keeps telling them they are sick of.
People WANT to talk about issues. See how difficult it was for Bernie to get the Corporate Media 'journalists' to stick to the issues? They are so trained to try to get something sensational that over and over again he had to TEACH them he would not play that game.
He is teaching them their jobs. And now even Repubs are following his example when asked about other candidates. Two of them last week repeated his words almost verbatim 'I am not here to talk about Bush, Santorum et al, if you want to know what they think, you'll have to ask them'.
He is already raising the standard of discourse in this country and those who continue to try to smear him only look desperate and OLD style, nasty politics.
He is not affected by it at all, in fact his presence in this race only emphasizes how awful our political arena has become with all the money being spent NOT on solving problems but on attacking opponents and people are simply tuning out. See the huge non voter demographic in this country.
And Bernie is now beginning to bring those non voters back into the electoral system. I have signed up two of them already. 'Finally, a guy who tells the truth, that's worth registering to vote for'.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)And that is how he will win! 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)some of the largest demographics in the country, Independents AND non-voters! I'm seeing it every day. I have signed up two without even trying very hard simply by introducing them to one of the most honest people to run for the WH in a very long time.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)But a bit unfair for those not honest. Thanks. Great post.
HFRN
(1,469 posts)but he doesn't take the bait
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)dangle their bait in front of Bernie in an effort to get him to snap at it. I totally love it when Bernie tells them to "ask Hillary" what she'd do. "I'm not running her campaign."
marym625
(17,997 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 7, 2015, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)
One is that sometimes stating facts about policy are taken as personal attacks when they are not.
Second is that pointing out obvious differences are judged as attacking Democrats on a whole rather than what it actually is, stating differences in the candidates positions
historylovr
(1,557 posts)And I would add a third--people are not just seeing policy positions as personal attacks, they are taking it personally themselves, as if the candidates were family or friends, or as if feeling judged because of the person one is supporting. I admit to sometimes feeling the latter. The important thing is to not lash out at one another, and indeed, sometimes it's best not to say anything at all, lest one's words be misunderstood or twisted.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the "sometimes it's best not to say anything at all, lest one's words be misunderstood or twisted" part.
That's when you keep talking ... while not lashing out at one another ... even when they feel lashed out at.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)and not mutual acrimony, it's a good thing. *Feels like just channeled Martha Stewart* But anyway, that is a good point, 1StrongBlackMan.
longship
(40,416 posts)And furthermore, I believe him when he says that he has never gone negative.
R&
George II
(67,782 posts)It's good that he's not going to go negative. But if DU is any indication, his followers are doing that job quite well on their own.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....agree with most of what he says. What irks me is the swarms of Sanders supporters attempting to cyber-shout down anyone who doesn't agree 110% with them and him. I'm a middle aged Brooklyn native now living in New England who is further left than many would like.
If I thought he had a remote chance of winning the general election I might be behind him, but if he were our (OUR!) nominee I'm afraid he'd do worse than Mondale did against Reagan.
The big thing we all have to realize is that the most important goal for all of us should be to elect a Democrat as our next President, even if we only agree with 80% of her policies. That sure beats winding up with a president who we barely can agree with any of his policies.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I'm a polite and well intentioned bernie supporter! 
calimary
(81,297 posts)I'm one of many Hillary supporters who've repeatedly stated they like Bernie a lot - but they like Hillary the same, or even more. A number of us, including myself, have even gone so far as to state, in some cases repeatedly, that we will gladly get behind Bernie AND support him AND work for him AND vote for him, if he were to beat Hillary to the nomination. But we bring up Hillary's name and BANG!!! we're swarmed like nobody's business!
THERE WILL COME A POINT OF DIMINISHING RETURNS ON THIS STRATEGY IF IT CONTINUES. I'm growing increasingly concerned that perhaps, for some of us on the Hillary side, that point is here already.
I seriously have to wonder if the Bernie supporters haven't thought ahead far enough - you pounce on the Hillary camp in an almost bloodthirsty manner and then probably wonder why you're starting to alienate some of us - not only from you yourselves, BUT FROM YOUR CANDIDATE. And that's not gonna end well for ANY of us, OR for you in particular. I'd hope some Bernie firebrands here would not want to turn people against HIM, not for anything he's said or done, but because of THEIR behavior.
If HE has the smarts and the class to take the high road, why can't his fans follow suit?
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)SOME Hillary supporters are on constant attack mode here. After a thread of getting beaten up by her supporters, I get weary when a non-combative person tries to say something too. I've been trying to walk away, but it's hard. It's just battle fatigue, really. Nothing personal.
murielm99
(30,741 posts)DU is not the real world. IRL, the two groups of supporters do not sit around and think up new and clever ways to insult each other. They sit together, sometimes at the same events, and explain to each other why they support their candidate.
I have not insulted Bernie. Some of his supporters on DU deserve to be insulted. I try not to do that, either. I still don't believe that all the people coming in here smearing Hillary are Democrats. Some are just internet junkies with too much time on their hands.
We see this happen on other websites. If I go to Amazon to find a book review, I don't like seeing all the right-wingers trashing books they have never read, calling them "liberal." If I go to a newspaper website to have an honest discussion about an article, I don't like seeing all the hate and name-calling.
IRL, I know a lot of Democrats. I don't know a single Bernie supporter. Considering how long I have been an activist, that tells me a lot. IRL, Bernie supporters are few and far between. I don't think he will win many primaries.
I have been at this website for quite a while. I have never seen such hate. Hillary will be the nominee. Then we can clean house on DU and GOTV.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... great post!
calimary
(81,297 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)LOL ... I think it's the nature of the internutz; but we are in a changing environment where posting something on a message board, and more troubling to me ... attending a campaign event is considered, ADVOCACY, and/or doing something to advance one's goal, i.e., supporting something or someone.
We are losing what is the "real work" of advocacy.
How perhaps, being 50+ years old, I am out of touch with the times; but, I am unconvinced that social media and/or appearing at a campaign event will overtake the hard work of registering people to vote, talking to them one on one, getting people the polls ... despite, what is/has been occurring in other undemocratic nations, around the world, e.g., Arab Spring, Russia, etc.
murielm99
(30,741 posts)Social media provides useful tools. But the real work is still out in the precincts and communities. I have been doing that work for most of my life. My parents did it before me.
The DNC provides organizations and candidates with software called VoteBuilder. It provides useful lists of Democrats, broken down by how they have voted and might vote. It helps with walk lists, call lists, scripts, etc. That is one example of a tool.
Also, because we have computers, it is much easier now to look at voter breakdown by township, precinct, etc. Numbers can be crunched to see if extra attention needs to be given to likely voters, possible voters, swing voters, in one area or another. It is a tool that can help GOTV.
We all know that DU is a useful tool. It is great to learn here. It is great to talk to Democrats all over the country. It is wonderful to be able to live stream events and read publications we would not see any other way. But people lie and misuse the internet, too.
I was a librarian most of my life, so I came to know quite a bit about reference material. I learned what was reliable, what a source's weakness or strength might be. I also learned that some stuff is BS and a waste of precious budget money.
When I switched to teaching, I taught some computer classes to grades 5-7. I taught the sixth and seventh graders about how to judge the quality of a source. I did it by having them visit joke sites, propaganda sites, and reputable sites. They understood it!
Those students are in their early twenties now. I hope someone is still teaching kids about how to use 21st century tools in an intelligent way.
aggiesal
(8,916 posts)www.isidewith.com
Take the test. It's about 30 questions on different topics.
It then compares your positions against ALL the candidates D or R, and
lets you know how you compare against each.
One of the better tests, I've seen.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and would recommend anyone doing so, clink through to the expanded choices and the additional questions at the end of the grouping.
I come out solidly Bernie; however, policy agreement is but one of my voting/support criteria ... as someone noted above ... I'd rather elect a Democrat that I, perfectly, agree with on 80% of the issues, am ambivalent with on 15% of the issues, and flat out disagree with on 5% of the issues; than allow a republican that I disagree with on 80% of the issues, disagree with how he/she might implement the 15% of the issue where we agree, and am ambivalent with on 5% of the issues.
aggiesal
(8,916 posts)Here's the thing though ...
If everyone voted based on this test, Bernie would win in a landslide.
Why can't we see that?
If we tell ourselves that Bernie can't win regardless, we're implementing
a "Self fulling prophecy". I say he can and will win.
I believe that he will win Iowa by a very small margin, and then go into
New Hampshire and win walking away. After those 2, watch the polls then.
He will pull in a ton of swing voters.
I will support Hillary (holding my nose) if she wins the primary.
But I want the most progressive candidate possible, and Hillary in not that.
Don't be afraid to support Bernie. He can and will win.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)The entire assertion that he doesn't have 'a remote chance of winning the general election' is the biggest negative of them all. Stating that you don't believe his election against one of a bunch of buffoons is even remotely possible, and further inferring that anyone who doesn't share this view is contributing to a Republican presidency beginning with the next election, is rather insulting to those who have arrived at a contrary conclusion.
Of course he has at least a 'remote chance of winning the general election.' Christ, Charles Manson has a remote chance of winning the general election. And Sanders, a skilled politician and orator (of the 'speak frankly' school), and a broadly well-liked United States Senator, is not a 'Mondale' to any Republican's 'Reagan.' The calculus is utterly unlike 1980, with the still fresh wounds of the oil embargo and an ongoing Iranian hostage crisis very much on the minds of the electorate.
Several years ago Hillary Clinton looked like the near-certain nominee of the Democratic Party. Then she faced a vigorous challenge from a relatively unknown Chicago politician, who went on to become a two-term President of the United States. In other words, a robust intra-party contest for the nomination, for which Hillary Clinton was one of the two strong contenders, did not result in a Republican presidency. If you feel that is necessary that 'we all have to realize.. that the most important goal for all of us should be to elect a Democrat as our next President,' and that, for that to happen, we should not encourage a vigorous primary contest, which obviously means that some will support one candidate, some another, etc., then you have apparently already conceded that Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the election are better if no one challenges her along the way. That's negative all around, and a rather bleak outlook for the future.
Paka
(2,760 posts)I could not have stated it any more clearly.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)And, we are supporters of Bernie, not "followers." That may be the source of your confusion. We are not proselytizing. I think it is an error to think that people post on DU to garner support for a candidate. That is not what the vast majority are here doing in GDP.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That's quite the, honest, statement!
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Most of the posters in GDP are fully entrenched in a respective camp. They aren't moving and they aren't looking to convert those form other camps. It's all about scoring points and cheering on their preferred candidate in most cases. There are some who focus on perpetuating or countering propaganda, but even those aren't really looking to garner support.
And everyone takes their little board spats too seriously.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that's quite the admission ... one that has been argued against by supporters in both camps.
I see very little space between the two activities.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)McCaskell, Guitierz, etc.
calimary
(81,297 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Have you glanced at the home page here on DU recently?
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)..what's his name? the socialist..." or " ....but he's a socialist.." Note: they always "forget" the "democratic" part of democratic socialist... If you can find them post em' up here. Otherwise it's "I know you are but what am I"...
George II
(67,782 posts)....Clinton's political background and the source of her financial support.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)Of bounds? How so?
George II
(67,782 posts)Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)about a hypothetical attack by Iran on Israel. In it she states "We could obliterate them" in response. It is a very unflattering response that I'm sure makes some of her supporters upset. The link provided full context by both the narrator and the interviewer. For the next few hours I had dozens of responses from HRC supporters accusing me of ;lying, Half-truths, distorting her words, attacking her, taking it out of context, etc....I did nothing of the sort. FULL context was provided multiple times and still l was attacked personally and repeatedly. I did nothing more than post HRC's own documented response and yet most of her supporters attacked ME personally. My point is that discussing a candidate's own words/record/policies is NOT an ATTACK. It is the hard work of participating in a democracy. If a candidate's supporters are uncomfortable with that I'm not sorry in any way for posting the TRUTH. And yet, I was repeatedly personally attacked for doing so. I have no personal axe to grind with HRC, in fact, I find her accomplishments and service quite admirable, but that doesn't mean I have no right to critique her record.
George II
(67,782 posts)I didn't see the interview but I don't put much stock in hypothetical questions.
Do you have a link to the post in question?
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)[link:http://
|RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)'political background' and the source(s) of her/his financial support is kind of 'evaluate the candidates 101.' 'derogatory comments about Clinton's political background?' If there are aspects of a candidate's political background that are of concern to some who might vote for her, then the candidate's got a substantial vulnerability, and it does no one any good to ignore it. The candidate herself should be made well aware of it, so that she may consider what changes she may need to make in order to address the concerns of these voters.
As for the question of 'financial support,' is it of no consequence that the campaign for a candidate for the Presidency is heavily funded, in terms of millions of dollars, by major financial corporations, most of whom were heavily involved in a near-collapse of the nation's banking infrastructure due to extreme overvaluation of shady mortgages? Or that one of her major donors is News Corp., which operates the most visible and influential right-wing propaganda machine in the country?
Is it your suggestion that any aspects of a candidate's political history or financial backing that might suggest a conflict with the values of some who might be concerned about the candidate's resulting agenda once in office should keep quiet about these concerns in order to reduce the candidate's vulnerability to related attack? We might as well just hand over our voting rights to the various media establishments that decide things like who the front-runner is at any given time and let them vote ours by proxy.
BTW - I am very interested in Bernie Sanders, and I will almost certainly support him in my state's caucus. However, I have a substantial concern about his time spent living in Israeli Kibbutzes as a youth and how he may perceive the Israel/Palestine situation. I don't mind vocalizing this concern, as I would very much like to see a stable, conclusive resolution of the question of a viable Palestinian state, or, at the least, an end to my country's virtually unconditional military support to Israel while it is still annexing occupied land. I would like to hear Sanders address these concerns, and so I voice them. I don't try to hide them so that, perhaps, I will improve the chances that they will pass under the radar. What's the point? Should I vote for political candidates purely on what I perceive to be their strengths and utterly ignore what I might regard as weaknesses? What if I conclude that the weaknesses outweigh the strengths?
George II
(67,782 posts).....the tone, the innuendo, and manner in which that scrutiny is discussed, not to mention the comparison of various positions over the years as if someone established political positions as High School freshmen and they're not permitted to waver from those positions for the rest of their lives.
I would guess if that's the way it has to be, membership here at DU would be just a fraction of what it is today.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)you're ignoring millennia of human history . Very intelligent and thoughtful people often end up in situations of petty bickering over trivial nonsense. I'd rate politics, religion and the annoying thing the next door neighbor is doing among the likeliest origins of public bickering....
George II
(67,782 posts).....I point it out to our leaders. The response invariably is "that's the way politics is", to which I say "no, that's the way you WANT politics to be", and I turn around and walk away.
senz
(11,945 posts)Commenters here who hold Mrs. Clinton in disfavor are not "Bernie surrogates."
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Is sort of a professional that has direct contact with the campaign is part of that strategy
What Sanders has here are wild populists that occasionally can get a bit rowdy and are frequently derailed by even the easiest to spot trolling.
Hillary has surrogates. Bernie has internet people. There is a difference.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Bad form.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)The posters seem to be Hillary supporters, I may be wrong.
Most of what I see are posters stating facts and asking questions and like Hillary her supporters don't seem to want to deal with facts or questions.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)being honest about their plans, their stances and their personalities.
It is the job of the voters to observe, listen to and study the candidates and talk about how they differ, and why one is better than others.
The candidates should honestly present themselves. We have the job of picking the best candidate for the political office.
Thus, our job is to criticize the ideas and proposed policies of the candidates and especially in this primary stage, the ability of the candidates to win votes.
The clean campaigning is the responsibility of the candidates. Speaking our minds about the qualifications, policies, experience, vulnerabilities, strengths, etc. of the candidates is our job. We are not buying the paid ads or giving the speeches. We are exercising our right and responsibility of free speech.
We can be as negative as we want about candidates. Because we have to make the choice. The candidates should not waste our time being negative about each others. That's how they can help us make our choice.
George II
(67,782 posts)Especially this:
"It is the job of the voters to observe, listen to and study the candidates and talk about how they differ, and why one is better than others.
The candidates should honestly present themselves. We have the job of picking the best candidate for the political office.
Thus, our job is to criticize the ideas and proposed policies of the candidates and especially in this primary stage, the ability of the candidates to win votes."
Unfortunately there is a knee-jerk reaction when a candidate DOES honestly present him/herself, an immediate skepticism as to it's honesty. In fact, when it was announced on Monday that Hillary Clinton will be doing the CNN interview Tuesday afternoon, it was immediately greet with things like (direct quotes!):
"Will she attack, or will she stick to issues."
"This I gotta see."
"I only hope that she doesn't tell the same lies that Clare McCaskill told last week."
The immediate presumption is that she'll go on the attack and she'll lie. Is this the way people should act even before an interview takes place? As a matter of fact, NEITHER happened yesterday.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but its unthinking reactions like what I show above, however, that belie your well-reasoned analysis of what we, as voters, should do.
It is truly sad.
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)Stay classy.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)calimary
(81,297 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)There was some show (might have been "Meet The Press"
where members of the media discussed it for about ten minutes and in the end came to the conclusion that the media was unbiased.
drynberg
(1,648 posts)
ismnotwasm
(41,986 posts)He certainly is not my choice for president, but he seem fundamentally decent.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Negative campaigns turns off most normal voters leaving the craziest, or most determined to come in and vote. That's how fools like Raygun and the bushes got voted in. That and some help from terrorists and partisan hacks on the Supreme Court.
But I think recently, after the reign of the bushes, most people decided to wade through the bile anyway and negativity doesn't have the same affect on as many voters anymore.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)That's how he got in. He cheated and committed treason.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Promote your guy and his postion. Don't do the work of the teabaggers.
SCantiGOP
(13,871 posts)He doesn't need to attack Hillary cause he has an army at DU to do it for him.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)it should.
NHDEMFORLIFE
(489 posts)This is the first candidate in my aging memory who sounds better and better every time he opens his mouth.
tclambert
(11,087 posts)Can he say he respects Donald Trump and his ideas? When it comes to facing off against the Republican stupidity machine, I don't see how he can stay positive.
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)I expect those could be the first words Bernie could say before he then turns around and utterly destroys Mr. Trump's chances of being even considered for being the President's dog sitter, let alone President. A President needs to be patriotic, relatively honest, hard working and caring for the country. A President should not be asked to show their papers to the whole world to legitimize them as a President - even after more than fifty State and Territorial officials affirmed the eligibility of the candidate to hold the office of the President.
Now I'm not Bernie, and my language is going to get a bit crude here but Donald Trump is a bloody wanker, a hypocrite and about as honest as a 99 Euro banknote.
tblue37
(65,391 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)very little in the way of personal attacks. Using history and actions to illustrate why you dislike a candidate is not "attacking" it's analysis.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)They attack on
Hillary's, success in the Dem party, her intelligence, her ambition
as if there is something wrong with an ambiguous woman.
Sanders supporters completely trash Hillary's 30 years
of working for the Dem party.
Sanders supporters, have slut shame Hillary, list goes on and on.
Sanders, doesn't have a record of , outside his state, he
has lived quietly in his small state, while the Clinton's and Obama's
have put their lives on the line for the party.
Hillary is carrying the only real chance for Dem's to keep the white
house.
If Hillary were running against Barbara Box, then that would
a race worth contending. Sanders has done nothing but talk,
during his career, now at 73 he wants to pitch in and help the Dem,
I say to little to late. We have better accomplished Dems
George II
(67,782 posts)....it has only been "HIS" party for a few weeks.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)You know, the money the Sanders supporters hate, because
it was by fund raisers.
Fund raisers take donors, the very people Sanders supporters detest
the most, and claim control Hillary.
George II
(67,782 posts)....Democratic Party sources of legal revenue, or will he rely solely on his "grass roots"?
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)They attack on
Hillary's, success in the Dem party, her intelligence, her ambition
as if there is something wrong with an ambiguous woman.
Sanders supporters completely trash Hillary's 30 years
of working for the Dem party.
Sanders supporters, have slut shame Hillary, list goes on and on.
Sanders, doesn't have a record of , outside his state, he
has lived quietly in his small state, while the Clinton's and Obama's
have put their lives on the line for the party.
Hillary is carrying the only real chance for Dem's to keep the white
house.
If Hillary were running against Barbara Box, then that would
a race worth contending. Sanders has done nothing but talk,
during his career, now at 73 he wants to pitch in and help the Dem,
I say to little to late. We have better accomplished Dems
Do more liberal leaning members of DU criticize Hillary's positions and bedfellows? Sure. Even sometimes attacking. I concur. Sometimes the concern boils over. Her top ten donors tells a story. Her close relations with Wall Street playas. Her military hawkishness. Her involvement in developing the TPP while at Secretary of State.
But you defeat your whole argument by listing things rarely, if ever, used as criticism against HRC on DU. I do not hear anyone question her intelligence, nor scoff at her ambition, although I would have to agree that "ambiguous" is not a trait of a great political candidate. I haven't heard anyone complain about Hillary's many years of working for the Party, nor have I read any slut shaming going on. Are you getting her confused with her husband?
And WTF is this "put their lives on the line" but Bernie has not, BS? Calling yourself a "Socialist" that long in public life in America I'd say was a tad risky too.
aggiesal
(8,916 posts)and knowing where her money is coming, will tell us where her positions are.
I don't see an issue here.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)As far as either Bernie or Hillary supporters being ugly to the other it's a tie, it's reality. I can only try to be fair to Hillary supporters, and for the most part, I am.
My biggest problem with Hillary stands for all of the other candidates except Bernie, they all take a lot of money and owe favors for it at our expense. None of them are trying to jump on the get rid of money in politics bandwagon in a significant way. They really should because they are selling us out when they don't!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
malthaussen
(17,200 posts)... but I find it curious that Mr Sanders would put utility "first of all."
-- Mal
rocktivity
(44,576 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 7, 2015, 01:50 PM - Edit history (1)
sell himself to the public in the wake of a disinterested national press.
rocktivity
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)"I like Hillary".
Who of the "Feel the Bern" folks said that?
rbnyc
(17,045 posts)Ite hard to appear not to be gutter sniping when every criticism is instantly labeled as gutter sniping.
And also, I don't like her. And I don't have to like her.
If I spent time with her, I would probably find things to like about her. I am a human being. But I'm not her colleague, I was her constituent. I don't work with her. I voted for her. I voted for her to represent me in New York. I don't like the way that worked out.
Also, she is a celebrity. I know her the way I know Dennis Quaid. I can't stand Dennis Quaid. He just bugs the crap out of me.
senz
(11,945 posts)Bernie. Though I personally cannot imagine anyone disliking Bernie.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Enough with the attacks on Sanders supporters. Have you been reading what the Hillary supporters are doing on DU? They have gone so damn low it's truly incredible.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts) 
patricia92243
(12,596 posts)fbc
(1,668 posts)
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Hillary is her own worst opponent.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
marble falls
(57,097 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Nowadays, with what he is saying it, it almost seems like UN-common sense. Logically, if they get you to spend enough time on defense, you will never have any time for the offense.
Telling the king he has no clothes on should not be a shock to anyone.
(That is if they were paying attention for any mild length of time 
)
