What matters is that Bernie fights for Democratic values.

[Ken Burch]

The technicalities of party registration are only a concern for those who want this party to ber "centrist&quot which is the same thing as wanting it to be conservative)and those who want the party to serve only Wall Street.

Those who still care about what Dr. King and RFK and Cesar Chavez lived and died for, those who want the party to actually fight for the 99%, those who want the voiceless to have a voice and the dispossessed to have a chance, know that the registration issue is a petty, trivial side show, and know that the greater good of the party is never served by nominating bland candidates on bland platforms.

We need Bernie in the race to make this campaign matter, to give those who don't have Super Pacs and multi-million dollar checking accounts to donate from to be heard. Without him in this race, the majority of the American people are powerless, ireewlevant spectators, whose lives mean nothing to anyone else in the race.

Bernie and what his campaign stands for are why this campaign is worth caring about-why it is something beyond a dreary, mundane formality.

If you don't want to vote for him, fine. If you want to criticize the guy, fine.

But there's no good reason for anyone who doesn't hate working people, the poor, and the dream of a better world to want Bernie out of the race.

[Juicy_Bellows]

1. Absolutely!

Great post!

[Cheese Sandwich]

2. Well, I think TPP is kind of a Democratic value. He's against that.

It's in the party platform to support TPP so it's kind of undeniable that's what the dominant part of the Democratic Party wants.

[Vincardog]

5. The party insiders may support TPP. They also support Keystone XL and Flat earth trade policies

The MAJORITY of Democratic voters and INDEPENDANT "swing" voters oppose them all.

[DanTex]

7. Actually, most Dems support TPP and TPA. Republicans are more anti-free-trade-agreement

than Dems.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/17/yougov-poll-republicans-now-more-critical-of-free-trade-than-democrats-are/
http://www.pcaj.org/news/2015/5/8/new-poll-shows-democrats-support-president-obama-on-trade

[delrem]

12. So your candidate is running to the RIGHT of the REPUBLICANS????

Wow, how fucked up is that?

[jfern]

21. That's a bogus argument

For the fast track Senate vote, only 4 of the 54 Republicans voted nay, while only 13 of the 46 Democrats voted aye.

[delrem]

37. Then you contradict DanTex, not my response to DanTex.

By your argument DanTex's candidate is running alongside the Republicans, to the right of the vast majority of Dems.

[Armstead]

25. Um, er...Which party has Presoident Obama turned to push it through?

You are welcome to support TPP (and "free trade" in general). It a complicated issue that is arguable.

But don't throw out horseshit about how opposition to TPP is a right wing Republican position, and not a Democratic value. That's just flat-out wrong.

The TPP is a huge wedge in the Democratic Party. The Third Way Corporate Democrats are all for it. But many of the leaders and the "base" are firmly opposed. There is also a large slice in the middle who are ambivalent. "President Obama is for it, I don't really know the details so I'll trust him."

Obama has turned to the GOP to support it as one of the only pieces of "bipartisan" legislation he has been able to form a coalition to get it through.

[DanTex]

27. When did I say opposition to TPP is a right-wing position?

The post I was responding to said:

The MAJORITY of Democratic voters and INDEPENDANT "swing" voters oppose them all.

This is factually mistaken, and I was correcting it. That's all.

I agree that TPP is a wedge in the Democratic party. But the narrative that some people push (i.e. the post I was responding to), which is that the party leadership supports it in opposition to the voters is wrong. Democratic voters are more pro-TPP than Democratic members of congress.

[Armstead]

29. "Republicans are more anti-free-trade-agreement than Dems"

I added the right-wing part, but that was your implication by associating it with the GOP.

The majority of the Republican establishment and much of its base supports TPP.

The ones who oppose it include grass-roots Republicans who share the legitimate concern about the further concentration of power it gives to the Corporate Elites,and the impact on the Ameican political and economic system.

Yes there are the fringe One World Masonic UN conspiracy theories among the right-wing opponents too, but that doesn't change the legitimate concerns.

[DanTex]

31. That's the result of surveys. It's factual.

It doesn't mean that people on the left opposed to TPP are secret right-wingers, or that opposition is a right-wing cause. At all. What it means is that, at the voter level, it's not much of a partisan issue.

Among congresspeople, Republicans generally support it, and Democrats generally oppose. But this is not a reflection of voters' feelings.

[Armstead]

32. It's not an issue because it is complicated and gets absoluteely no visibility

As I said above, it's difficult to unravel because 1)the Corporate Propaganda makes it sound benign and innucuous and 2)It is filled with bureaucratic legalisms that are baffling to everyone.

Heck, it sounds good to me when I listen to the propaganda.

I suspect (and I say suspect) if it were actually publicized, and the purpose, specifics and implications were honestly debated in public in plain English, that support would decline precipitously.

[DanTex]

33. It is complicated, and it doesn't get much visibility, that's true.

It's hard to say what would happen if it were debated more and got more coverage. The media I read has a lot more anti-TPP coverage than pro-TPP.

[Armstead]

34. I don't know what media you read, but in mainstream media it is mostly crickets...

or else coverage that is extremal superficial, or treating the opposition in a way that is condescending and tilted towards TPP.

Unfortunately its neither as sexy as scandle, dramatic as violence or fun as Trump.

[DanTex]

35. Regarding TPP, mostly I read people like Krugman and Stiglitz.

Both of them are against it, though Krugman is only mildly opposed. The MSM coverage I've seen has been more about the politics and the chances of it passing than what's actually in it. Which seems to be the way the MSM covers a lot of things.

I'm aware, of course, of columnists like Tom Friedman who are super-pro-free-trade-agreement, but I don't read him or others like him much.

But, yeah, overall you're probably right that if the MSM had more substantive coverage of TPP, the electorate would be more opposed.

[Armstead]

36. Krugman and Stiglitz have evolved (in a positive sense)

Krugman was once an ardent free trader and big supporter of these deals. But over time, he saw the impacts, and became more skeptical.

Stiglitz was a honcho in the architecture of what is essentially modern investor imperialism. He too saw the error of those ways.

What needs to happen, IMO, is for those who are not economists, or paying close attention, to come to similar realizations about "free trade" and what the contemporary version of that is really code for.

[sabrina 1]

41. Yes, people are noticing how the once thought of 'Party of the People' is turning into the 'Party of

Corporations' and the mission to do that has been nearly accomplished.

I'm assuming you are not posting this to defend this fact?

How shameful, the buying of our electorate is almost completed.

[DanTex]

42. So what do you think of those polls, showing Dem voters support TPP more than oppose?

Do people who disagree with you about TPP no longer count as "people"?

[sabrina 1]

43. Do you base your principles on polls? I don't think about polls, I think about issues. I oppose

this Secret Deal and have ever since a few Dem members of Congress tried to warn us about it, told us they had been denied access to it, that they were gagged from telling the people they represented what little they did find out.

I am of the opinion that I live in a Democracy. So naturally I expect that our Reps WRITE OUR LAWS. It would never have dawned on me to think the Corporations including Foreign Corps are writing the laws for this country and denying our Representatives any input into what is in the legislation they are writing.


I am very proud of all the activists who, once alerted to this would be Global Coup D'etat, joined forces with Unions and thousands of other Citizen Orgs and made such a stink about it that they HAD to ALLOW (how do you like that word applied by Corps to the Reps of the people btw?) a FEW members of Congress to get a PEEK at SOME of what was in there, HOWEVER they were not ALLOWED to tell us what they say.

I am also very grateful to the Whistle Blowers who leaked enough to let us know what a disaster this Corporate Legislation is going to be for this and other nations.

So, after getting a tiny peek, they said things like 'if the people knew what was in this they would oppose it'.

Well, I oppose the entire premise of SECRET LEGISLATION being written BY Corps for Congress.

Do you vote for members of Congress so they can rubber stamp Legislation written by Global Corporations?

Why bother to vote then? They can't DO anything for you without the PERMISSION of Corporations.

And THAT is why Bernie Sanders is gaining so much momentum. Because as more and more people wake up to these egregious facts, they want their country and their Congress BACK.

As for polls, the majority of Americans oppose this legislation. But who cares, right? It isn't about the people at all, is it?

[DanTex]

44. Where did you get the idea that the majority of Americans oppose TPP?

[sabrina 1]

45. By a majority of two to one, a majority of Americans opposed the fast tracking of this

Corporate written secret trade deal. But it passed anyhow, why? Why do you think that Democrats, yes, they got it passed, OPPOSED BUSH'S fast tracking of HIS Trade Deal in 2007, but switched sides this time with an ever WORSE deal?

A deal that is kept secret even from THEM?


Where did YOU get the idea that the American people supported this awful legislation?

Dems shamefully who had no idea what was in it but when polled, said 'okay, it's our guy this time so it must be okay'?

But even among that demographic the support was not strong.

Do YOU support it, did YOU support Bush doing the same thing?

Every single Union in the country opposes it. Thousands of Advocacy groups, labor, progressives every one of them opposed it.

I don't support or oppose legislation because of polls. Do you?

[DanTex]

46. Do you have a link to that poll? The TPP polls I've seen show about one-third in favor,

one-third against, and one-third undecided.

[Sheepshank]

54. I think fast track was seen as a separate issue from TPP

but I may be wrong...will not take the time to look it up, since you were talking about TPP and the goal posts were moved, and likely would be moved again by the person you are responding to.

[progressoid]

61. 60% of Americans believe in the story of Noah’s Ark as fact.

Not sure I would use the opinions of Americans as a bellwether of common sense.

[Cheese Sandwich]

8. Then I guess maybe the Democratic Party is not very democratic...

If the rank and file think one way but the dominant controllers of the party do the opposite, that's not exactly a good advertisement for wanting to join up.

Which BTW I totally agree with with you that the rank and file Democrat voters have much better values than the establishment . Like the people on DU, for example seem (mostly) very good.

There are a bunch of issues like that. Single-payer health insurance. Most of us support it but you just don't hear anything about it from elected Democrats, except a few.

[Vincardog]

9. That is why I am working hard for BERNIE. We have to build a MOVEMENT that will not allow

POLITICS AS USUAL.
No More can we allow the elected officials to sell us out as soon as they are elected.

Regardless of who gets the nomination.

[Cheese Sandwich]

14. We can build an organization.

An then the next time a movement like Occupy Wall Street or something like that breaks out, the organization can support it, and be a political arm. We also have a street-level civil rights movement. We have an environmental movement that is also sounding an emergency alarm. We have a lot of people wanting popular control over the food and water supplies. A proper party of the left would represent these movements instead of representing corporations. I don't know if we we can force the Democratic Party to represent us or not.

[Vincardog]

15. The TeaBaggers took over the GOP. We need to take over the Democratic Party.

[Cheese Sandwich]

16. Didn't it always seem like the tea people were funded by a shadowy group of billionaires?

Like the tea party was a Koch Party astro-turf movement to take over the GOP? Or something like that?

I know what you mean though.

[delrem]

38. Not so shadowy. American Enterprise Institute and co.

Always a nice supply of buses, talking points and a compliant press.
That's why it was so easy, it was (still is) in the plans.

So how come the progressive caucus is the largest, yet almost instantly after it was invented the DLC assumed absolute leadership and control of all positions of power? I must be missing something about this "democracy" thing...

[Vincardog]

40. TeaBaggers = KochRoaches yes. We the PEOPLE need to take over the Democratic party.

[Sheepshank]

55. is that the analogy you realy want to use?

alrighty then.

[Vincardog]

76. Dammed straight. The baggers did it funded by RWingnutz. We need to self finance.

[Maedhros]

53. I don't think the Democratic rank and file are as enlightened as you suggest.

On many issues, the rank and file simply toe the Party line without regard to principle.

Consider:



Under Bush, only 37% of Democrats considered NSA surveillance "Acceptable", and 61% considered it "Unacceptable."

Put a Democrat in the White House, who expands the surveillance program and hunts down any whistleblowers trying to warn us about it, and - Voila! - the numbers completely flip: 64% find it "Acceptable" and only 34% "Unacceptable."

The Democratic rank and file, at least on this issue, is every bit as authoritarian, tribal, and lacking in integrity as is the Republican rank and file.

[Art_from_Ark]

13. TPP is a "kind of" Democratic value?

If you mean by "kind of" that it is supported by mostly Republicans in Congress, while opposed by most Democrats in Congress (especially those who have read the damn thing), and opposed by most left-leaning groups in member countries, then I guess it is a "kind of" "Democratic" "value".

[Cheese Sandwich]

17. That's a good point. But isn't it weird though how however many Democrats and

Republicans there are they always seem to come up with just enough votes to pass stuff like that.

I feel like maybe they can be free to vote how the people want because there are already enough votes to pass it. I don't know that's somewhat

[delrem]

39. It does seem that the R's can *always* run rings around the D's,

and the D's never seem to get upset by this, or change their tactics, or talk about party discipline.
Joe Lieberman is a case in point. Going on campaign tours with McCain, fucking up everything D, yet the D's granting award after award, positions of power - for a job well done.
It's not "something wrong with this picture", it's "nothing's right about this picture".

[rhett o rick]

65. Wait a minute. How can the TPP be a Democratic value when we are told over and over

THAT WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT.

Besides that, I think the conservatives of our party had a hand in drafting the platform. Doesn't it still say we want to spread Democracy (code for imperialism)?

[jeff47]

3. Just don't play the game. The same people will be making this attack two weeks from now.

All the logic and reasoning in the world just does not matter. He doesn't have the right letterman jacket, so the cool kids insist he must eat lunch somewhere else.

[99th_Monkey]

4. Yep And that's exactly why Bernie is running!

and one of the most compelling reasons I'm "in this" FOR Bernie, so I won't
need to cast another tepid vote, for a tepid candidate, who I know is wheeling
and dealing behind closed doors with at least a chunk of the 1%.

[NanceGreggs]

6. Yesh, some Democrats have a nerve ...

... thinking that someone who allegedly "fights for their values" - but doesn't want to actually BE one of them - should stand up and be counted as one of the Party whose members he wants to support him.

"The technicalities of party registration are only a concern for those who want this party to ber "centrist&quot which is the same thing as wanting it to be conservative)and those who want the party to serve only Wall Street."

In other words: Anyone who doesn't agree with my view of things is a "centrist" or a "conservative". There is absolutely NO ONE ELSE who would support any candidate other than the one I'VE chosen to support.

"Those who still care about what Dr. King and RFK and Cesar Chavez lived and died for, those who want the party to actually fight for the 99%, those who want the voiceless to have a voice and the dispossessed to have a chance, know that the registration issue is a petty, trivial side show, and know that the greater good of the party is never served by nominating bland candidates on bland platforms."

In other words: If I conjure-up dead heroes and associate them with my candidate-of-choice, some people might actually believe there IS a connection there. In addition, everyone else's preferred candidate is "bland" - why? Because I said so.

"We need Bernie in the race to make this campaign matter, to give those who don't have Super Pacs and multi-million dollar checking accounts to donate from to be heard. Without him in this race, the majority of the American people are powerless, ireewlevant spectators, whose lives mean nothing to anyone else in the race."

In other words: The lives of citizens "mean nothing" to HRC or Martin O'Malley. ONLY Bernie Sanders cares about anyone. In addition, this campaign to keep the White House in Democratic hands and ensure that someone like Donald Trump doesn't end up as POTUS "wouldn't matter" to anyone if BS wasn't a part of it. We'd all just be sitting on our thumbs and decrying the fact that the upcoming election "doesn't matter" if BS wasn't running.

"Bernie and what his campaign stands for are why this campaign is worth caring about-why it something beyond a dreary, mundane formality."

Ah, yes, yet again we are reminded that if not for Bernie, the 2016 election would just be a "dreary mundane formality" that wouldn't be worth caring about.

"There's no good reason for anyone who doesn't hate working people, the poor, and the dream of a better world to want Bernie out of the race."

Again we are reminded that if you want Bernie out of the race - which he will be eventually - you hate working people, the poor - and probably puppies and kittehs, too.

Oh my, oh my, what shall we do when Bernie has to drop out because he doesn't have enough support of Democrats to continue? I guess we'll all just have to go back to the bland candidate we DO elect as our nominee, and forge ahead with a dreary, mundane formality of a campaign that is no longer worth caring about, as we elect someone who our dreary, mundane lives mean nothing to.

[zeemike]

10. Yes I suppose you are right we will have to go back.

Back to a declining wage for working people and back to too big to fail banks and perpetual war.

And why not, it has all been profitable for the top 10% and they are the ones who count...the rest of us can just get another low paying job to pay the rent...no sense in being lazy and expect to have time off once in a while...put the kids to work too it will be good for them.

We must learn to stop worrying and love the status quo...yes, mundain is the answer.

[Juicy_Bellows]

18. I wanted to post a picture and I imagine you know what I would post.

However, I will refrain from that photoshop wizardry as it would only appear as a jab and in poor taste - but I know you can picture it!

Cheers!

[NanceGreggs]

19. And as we all know ...

... Bernie would put an end to all of the country's woes.

[Vinca]

24. I think I've heard that statement before.

Oh . . . right . . . swap "Obama" for "Bernie" and have it coming out of the mouth of a Republican.

[Armstead]

26. At least he is going to TRY

I just saw a report on how millennials income has gone down dramatically since 1980, and they are mired in college debt and basically see their opportunity evaporating.

The Corporate, "Centrist" Third Way Status Quo of the Democratic Party has done SO WELL in countering trends like that over the last 30 years. Yeah, let's have more of that. Don't change a damn thing. Let;s just continue hitting ourselves in the head with the same hammer, and then complain about the headache and blame it all on the GOP.

[NanceGreggs]

48. So Bernie is "going to try"?

Well, that's good to know - because no one from the Dem Party has ever even tried to accomplish anything.

BTW, are you a Democrat? I only ask because if you think the Democrats haven't achieved anything in 30 years, I wonder why you would bother with the Party at all.

[Armstead]

49. Yes and I know one can't be a perfectionist

They're much better then the GOP in many ways, and have accomplished some good things. And I grew up with an inherent identification with Democratic liberalism.

But over the last 30 years I've too often seen them sweep important issues under the rug, or take the wrong (conservative) position, or be too timid for the wrong reasons. And worse, I've seen the revolving door between Big Big Money and "Public Service" spinning too fast. There are elements of it that are too much like Republicans for comfort.

(I could be specific about examples (again) but I haven't the time, and you'll just say I'm going on or pontificating.)

All of the above is in my own opinion, of course. But my opinion is what I go by, just as you go by yours.

[zeemike]

30. No but every ending has a beginning.

And we have to just stop before we can end it.

[Scuba]

28. Hey, if a pro-war, pro-Wall Street, pro-fracking, pro-TPP, pro-H1B Visas woman can be a Democrat ...

... so can Bernie Sanders.

[NanceGreggs]

47. Congratulations!

That's five across in a straight line - you win this round of DU cliche bingo!

[Armstead]

50. Facts tend to be cliches

[NanceGreggs]

51. Here on DU ...

... it's the cliches that are accepted as facts.

[Sheepshank]

56. well done! n/t

[noiretextatique]

63. you are right about that

e.g., the ridiculous notion that economic justice somehow ignores or excludes social justice.

[Ken Burch]

58. Truth is never a cliche.

Why doesn't it matter to you that there's so much conservatism and militarism in HRC's voting record? She won't be able to be progressive or transformative on much of anything if she has a pro-war foreign policy as president...escalating in Vietnam is what ended the Great Society, and not getting all U.S. troops out of the Middle East on 1/20/09 while pushing for intrinsically right-wing trade deals is largely what reduced Obama to center-right deal cutting(and would have destroyed a HRC presidency as well, since we can assume she'd have made every right-wing choice on foreign policy that Obama made).

The lesson is clear- a president needs to commit to leaving the rest of the world alone militarily, or accept that she will be a mediocre, center-right president.

I want the first female president to be clearly radical and life-changing. How can you possibly think someone who'd be content to keep U.S. troops forever in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely and who'd be open to bombing Iran could be that president?

War can never be feminist or progressive(it hasn't been since 1945) and can never free women again. War can't do anything to help women or children or anyone who is powerless or oppressed anywhere. And neither can anything that happens in a corporate boardroom.

The first woman president will only matter if she is someone with the soul of Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm or Barbara Lee-not someone who has ever been part of the establishment. Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel and Indira Gandhi prove this.

[NanceGreggs]

62. Along with your usual baseless cliches ..

... there's the downright laughable hyperbole:

"HRC made herself the pro-slaughter candidate. That's what pledging to do "whatever it takes" means on "keep(ing) this country safe".

You'll excuse me if I don't take anything you say seriously. Not. A. Single. Thing.

[Ken Burch]

64. How are they baseless? They're only baseless if they're wrong.

And "whatever it takes" DOES mean abandoning any pretense of morality or humanity in foreign policy. You can't use phrases like "whatever it takes" and still have a foreign policy dedicated to eventually creating a peaceful world.

"Whatever it takes" means no limits whatsoever. It means no decency. it means being willing to keep U.S. troops in the Middle East forever and going to war in Syria(probably to save Assad).

[NanceGreggs]

68. The fact that you think ...

... the phrase "whatever it takes to keep the country safe" can ONLY mean "abandoning any pretense of morality or humanity" with "no limits whatsoever" says it all.

That's the same brand of black-and-white thinking that was once the domain of the GOP and FOX-News. It's sad to see it embraced here, and regurgitated as though it were the result of actual intelligent thought.

[Ken Burch]

69. What should I think instead?

That wars and coups and drone strikes are ok so long as they're perpetrated by "a Democrat"? That's It's-OK-When-Our-Gal-Or-Guy-Does-It thinking and it always ends up destroying Democratic presidencies from within.

Why even pretend that any war other than defense of our own territory could ever again liberate anyone or make anything better? Why even pretend that war and progressive change are anything but enemies?

Have you totally forgotten the Sixties, Nance? It all stopped when LBJ escalated. Everything died. All further gains in the fight against oppression and bigotry stopped.

[NanceGreggs]

70. To use a well-worn, but apt phrase ...

... "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" what you think, nor am I interested in telling you what your thoughts should be.

Your consistent use of over-the-top hyperbole is not only tiresome, but has, by its very nature, become irrelevant.

I came of age in the 'Sixties - and guess what? I didn't decide that "everything died". Apparently, you did. That's your problem - and you might consider not projecting your own pessimism on everyone else.

I've never found professional crepe-hangers to be worth listening to on any topic - especially politics.

[Ken Burch]

71. All the gains stopped when LBJ escalated.

That's why everybody who truly cared about social justice and social change backed the peace candidates in the 1968 primaries.
There was still lots of activism, but it was all in opposition to LBJ after that.

Why even pretend that war and progressive change can happen at the same time?

If you want a better country, you have an obligation to be antimilitarist.

I'll back HRC if she's nominated, but don't delude yourself that she'll ever back the people against her corporate donors. It'll be a couple of Supreme Court slots and that's it. Nothing else. Why even think anything beyond that will ever be allowed to happen under her? Why even think anything will be transformed at all?

Why do you even think she cares about anything you care about?

[NanceGreggs]

72. Yeah, okay, whatever. n/t

[Ken Burch]

73. Not a rebuttal.

The Johnson Administration gave up on doing anything progressive after it escalated. You know I'm right about that.

[NanceGreggs]

74. It wasn't meant as a rebuttal.

I've made it abundantly clear that I am not interested in your opinion about anything.

[Ken Burch]

75. Then why do you respond to my posts?

It's not as though snark proves me wrong.

If you really weren't interested in my opinion(or obsessed with discrediting it), you'd just put me on ignore. What bothers you, I think, is that I reject your curious that the progressive is best served by always nominating the most conservative(centrist and conservative are basically the same thing here)Democratic presidential candidate possible, and also the bizarre idea that a hawekish president can still be feminist(in an era in which was is intrinsically anti-woman).

You've never offered any real arguments in favor of either idea.

Why is that?

And why do you always attack the Left with more venom than you ever unleash towards the right? It's not as if anything would have been better if we'd all just shut up and settled for crumbs like you want us to do, or settle for half-loaves when that's no different than losing and small gains are always meaningless.

[Ken Burch]

60. You can't deny that all of those statements are factually accurate.

Calling them "cliches" doesn't make them untrue.

And there is no "nuance" that makes them irrelevant.

[dionysus]

52. i have a lot of respect for your posts Nance, and there probably are some folks out there who are as

you describe, but I think it'd clear that Bernie has a lot of support because he is the most populist candidate in the race.

I don't think Hillary or her supporters hate poor people, or that they don't care; I just think Bernie is more passionate about the little guy; it's his keystone campaign issue.

I'm also pragmatic; Bernie is a very, very long shot to win the nomination. But it's nice to see someone out there with such passion, ad that he keeps attracting disaffected people who might not vote otherwise. I see Hillary rallying the base, I see Bernie trying to expand the base by bringing new people into the fold...

When I vote for Hillary next November, i'm hoping she's taken some of Bernies points to heart, not just pay lip service to them, and that she'll be a stronger candidate for it.

I've been on DU for 14 years and seen every primary; they get uglier and uglier each time. I hope it doesn't happen again, although it's starting to look as if it will.

I know in the past I was involved in many flame wars, first as a Deaniac, then as an Obama supporter. I'm going to try not to get into any nasty fights like in the past.

keep up the good work, I always enjoy reading your posts... I haven't seen you around here as much as I used to. then again, I got so sick of the infighting here I went to DI for a while. If I'm going to argue with people on a message board, I figured I might as well argue with republicans instead of fellow liberals... I came bck here and everything is the same as it ever was; dms taring each other apart...

[NanceGreggs]

67. Thanks for your very thoughtful perspective.

I've only spent one primary season on DU - that of 2008. By 2012, I had already moved on to different sites.

The difference I see immediately this time around is that despite the vitriol often indulged in between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters back then, no one was calling supporters of the "other candidate" Conservadems, Republican-lite, water carriers for the 1%, corporate shills, spineless centrists, people enamoured of the status quo, etc. Posters were not reduced to questioning the Democratic bona fides of those who disagreed with their choice of candidate. We were all Democrats, but with differing views on who was best suited to fulfill the duties of POTUS.

When I returned to DU after years away, I returned knowing that this was no longer the "Democratic-supporting site" it once was. It is just another political message board, where anyone and everyone is free to bash Democrats - and each other - under the guise of being "more progressier than thou".

I believe the problem is that there are waaaaay too many RWers on this site that are posing as "disappointed Dems". Many of them have been here for years, and are accepted - due to high post counts and star memberships - as being Democrats. They're not. I see more RW talking points here than on many GOP-dominated message boards - and now, with primary season upon us, many posters are willing to embrace and repeat those talking-points if it means tearing down members of the Party.

HRC gets the worst of it - simply because she's the front-runner. If you're looking to disrupt a "Democratic website", you're obviously going to go after the most likely Dem nominee rather than the underdog. That's just common sense.

There are, of course, many honest Bernie supporters on DU. They are passionate about their candidate-of-choice, and post positive things about him on a daily basis. Unfortunately, there are also "pretend BS fans" here, who use their alleged support of Bernie to post anything and everything they can that is anti-HRC and anti-Dem Party.

It is no coincidence that the same posters who have bashed Obama since joining DU under the guise of being "disappointed Democrats" are now bashing Hillary - often using the same language, the same cliches, the same talking points. It is also no coincidence that some posters here have NEVER posted anything positive about the Party or its elected representatives - what with being "perpetually disappointed" and all.

I've never posted on DI - and only read a few threads there in its earliest days. It strikes me as pretty much the same as what DU is now - the only difference being that no one has to "pretend" to be a Democrat there as they do here.

I miss the DU of old - when it was a "sanctuary", as the TOS then stated, for Democrats to discuss issues of importance with fellow like-minded people. We argued, debated, discussed; we disagreed on some issues, and totally agreed on others. Now it's just another political website, where bashing Democrats and the Party are passed off as merely being an expression of "differing viewpoints".

In any event, it's good to reconnect with you - I hope all is well with you and yours.

[John Poet]

66. Yeah, that's MY feeling about it EXACTLY!

"what shall we do when Bernie has to drop out because he doesn't have enough support of Democrats to continue? I guess we'll all just have to go back to the bland candidate we DO elect as our nominee, and forge ahead with a dreary, mundane formality of a campaign that is no longer worth caring about, as we elect someone who our dreary, mundane lives mean nothing to. "

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. No no no!!!!

Dems have invested far too much into gaining a reputation as being better for Wall Street than Republicans to throw it all away just because the fringe wants a pony.

[bravenak]

20. I'm glad he's in the race.nt

[olddots]

22. but what could be more American than imported apples in a home made pie

or down home political ads about your mom ?
We get the " simple folk " tea baggers fronting for the facists like they always do and the new show bizz Mussalini .
They tell us what to think but Bernie tells us to think and see what WE want for everyone to have justice and equality .We have to fight for these values and Bernie shares them with us without the hot air and identity politics .

[NCTraveler]

23. So much win in your comment.

I want to give you one of those stickers teachers put on kids test. A little start. Maybe one that says GREAT!?!?!!!?!

[SidDithers]

57. If he doesn't self-identify as a Democrat...

then there will be some small percentage of Democrats who won't want to vote, in the primary, for someone not willing to call themselves a Democrat.

Bernie must think he can do without those voters.

Sid

[Ken Burch]

59. Those voters could only be in the far right wing of the party.

And none of them could possibly have any genuine ideals.

Bernie is more in tune with the party's values than Bill or Hillary every were.