Actually it was Bernie Sanders who said single payer never had a chance

[BainsBane]

On March 10, 2010, Sanders insisted single payer was never a possibility. That was during a period when Democrats had a majority in both the House and Senate.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reminded the progressive media gathered on Capitol Hill today that single-payer health care reform was dead before it started in the Senate.

"It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that's it," he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday. . .


Sanders said it was still possible for single-payer to come to the U.S. eventually -- but he said the road will not begin in Washington. If a state like California or Vermont ever instituted a single-payer system on its own, Sanders said, it would eventually lead to national adoption of universal coverage.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance

Now, when we have a Republican majority in both houses, we're supposed to believe that he can deliver something he insisted was not viable a few years ago. Do you actually think the GOP is more amenable to single payer? Or is he making promises he thinks will help his presidential campaign? Do you think the failure of single payer in VT actually makes it more possible nationally? I seriously doubt it. You can blame Clinton supporters for Sanders' double talk, but it doesn't change what he said. There is no logical basis to conclude it is more possible under a GOP majority than a Democratic one.

Nothing is.easier than promising the moon. Delivering on those promises is another story. What is sad is that some actually want to hear promises, even knowing the candidate making those promises said the opposite just a few years ago. All a candidate has to do is tell you what you want to hear, and he's golden.

We are told we are "conservative" for critically examining such promises. Actually it means we aren't gullible. We care about what can get done, not empty rhetoric. Blaming Clinton supporters for what your own candidate said about single payer is just sad.

[randys1]

1. There is a difference between politically viable and viable.

[BainsBane]

6. Of course

but the context here is clearly political.

[randys1]

7. I know, and that is the problem. But I cant support Bernie while showing my

deep deep anger at many of his supporters without being silenced so I almost have to stay out of the discussion all together.

[BainsBane]

9. I understand

You're in a tough spot.

[randys1]

12. Certain folks have pushed POC and others so hard, so far, that I dont know how

Bernie could ever get their votes now.

I tried to intervene here at DU when I thought there was a chance to stop them from lecturing AfAm and acting ridiculous, but it is worse now, not better.

[BainsBane]

17. They certainly pushed me

and you're right. Those bridges are burned.

[BlueCaliDem]

18. They're tone-deaf when it comes to that. It's their way or the highway, and if anyone

disagrees, they're automatically labeled low-information people - and they stick to that position no matter what...even if it destroys the chances of their preferred candidate from ever coming near the White House (which they'll blame on PoC, too, btw). I guess they believe they can attract more flies with vinegar rather than honey?

All we can do is remain positive of the Democratic front-runner and counter their misinterpretations with facts and back those up with links to substantiate them.

When Sanders loses the primaries (and he will), we know (and they might, too, but will deny it till the end of days) that they and they alone are to blame.

[randys1]

42. I have sat here and read over and over how frustrated they are that the Black folks dont

know who Bernie is.

sigh

Oh well, what I do know and what is more important than all this is the cons can win with 45% of the vote since they will steal the other 5%.

And that whoever we run, every sane American must vote for them OR ELSE

[noiretextatique]

37. who are they?

because what i've seen, as a black woman, is this ridiculous meme being pushed by clinton supporters. what has been completed ignored is white clinton supporters telling me they know how black people will vote, black people do not support sanders, etc. unlike some, i see this as politics, not an opportunity to emotional manipulate and play the victim...for purely political purposes.

[randys1]

39. I have no idea how Black people will vote. I can only observe that which is

said to them, the attitude of what is said, etc.

Then I listen to what they say.

I suspect most Black people will vote for whomever the dem is since they have so very much more to lose than white folks, but you never know...

[LiberalArkie]

72. I do believe that probably everyone that discusses things here and cusses people here

will vote for whoever the nominee is. The only reason a lot of people in Arkansas did not vote was nothing but pure racism. They would have voted for HRC, but they could not vote for "that man". And for the south that was a little improvement. They used to call him something else in 2008.

Slowly things are changing in Arkansas and probably most of the deep south. Of course when I was a young man in the 70's I thought that racism, bigotry etc would be over in the 80's.

I keep hoping that one day we will not say "I have no idea how Black people will vote" or "how white people will vote" or "how the Latinos will vote" or "how the American indians will vote" etc but "How is Chicago going to vote" or "How is Little Rock going to vote"

One day. I am almost 68. I hope to hear someone say that instead of prefacing it with some ethnic or racial term.

One day.

[randys1]

76. One day but not in our lifetimes. We literally have a resurgence of fascism

here in America to the tune of tens of millions who are practicing it.

Maybe fascism isnt the right word or term, what to call it, not sure.

[BainsBane]

86. You have access to the same polls the rest of us do

Polls that indicate voters preference at a given point in time. It's not a meme, and it's not predictive, but it does suggest a pattern.

[Treant]

55. I am the whitest guy you've ever seen.

PoC aren't the only people alienated, either. Apparently I'm a paid shill of the Clinton campaign in addition to really wanting to see nuclear bombs going off in Washington or some such crap.

It's to the point where I suppose I've give a lackluster, unmotivated vote for Bernie in the event he gets the nomination...but only if my state is in contention. Otherwise I'll just vote down-ticket.

[randys1]

64. I know for a fact Karl Rove and the GOP have plants or shills

everywhere trying to get people to attack Hillary or to get people NOT to vote.

I know this is how they operate.

I have seen it here but I am not allowed to say it when I see it, and I am not the only one.

Most Bernie supporters who are being obnoxious with the lecturing of Black people and so on are sincere supporters who are just politically immature.

When you cant see the big picture, that is a lack of experience, or immaturity.

It is easier for a Black person or Woman or Gay person to see the big picture, given they are usually the ones focused on when the shit goes down.

When it comes to voting enthusiastically I could easily say that when I will likely be voting for Hillary (likely in that she is likely to be the candidate) it wont be all that enthusiastic, because I have huge issues with her on Wall sTreet and so on, but it will be VERY enthusiastic because she is a decent person and the alternative as certain death for many.

[tk2kewl]

53. the context being "political" is in fact the point

Bernie is very consistent here. Without a massive organized public outcry for single payer it's not going to happen. Why do you thing he keeps saying that we need a political revolution?

[BainsBane]

87. and somehow that revolution is all about electing him President

That's not a revolution. It's a campaign slogan. He appropriates the language of class struggle for his own political career. He pretends capitalism is socialism and electing him and only him head of the capitalist state revolutionary.

[tk2kewl]

90. Okay then

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. From where I stand Bernie is the presidential candidate least driven by personal ambition in at least 50 years.

[arcane1]

93. One thing that's important to remember about some posters: it's all an act n/t

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. It had no chance when Democrats had a majority.

Last edited Tue Nov 24, 2015, 05:24 PM - Edit history (1)

Republicans will never even attempt to legislate a bill.
I think it is safe to predict that no part of Sanders agenda will ever have a chance in the Congress as it exists.

I don't think that any item in Clintons agenda will be legislated by Republicans.

[BainsBane]

5. Not just that

but these quotes shows he knows that single payer doesn't have a chance.

[BlueCaliDem]

21. It would have had a good chance of passing had President Obama had the majorities FDR

had in his time. Personally, I would have preferred a Public Option as opposed to Single-Payer. But we never really had a super-majority in the Senate (61-plus) to break the Republicans' fervor for filibustering, and we had one too many "moderate" Dems (Baucus, Landrieu, Lieberman, Webb) making it all but impossible.

HOWEVER, thanks to subsection 1332 in ObamaCare, the State Innovation Waiver (the Wyden Amendment), States can implement single-payer if they so choose come January 2017. Vermont has applied for the State Innovation Waiver, and although it's on a backburner now, we'll see if it can materialize in 2017.

[Agnosticsherbet]

38. We hvenot had FDR class marorities since Johnson. Siinglepayer failed in Vermont.

Why single payer died in Vermont
“It is not the right time for Vermont” to pass a single-payer system, Shumlin acknowledged in a public statement ending his signature initiative. He concluded the 11.5 percent payroll assessments on businesses and sliding premiums up to 9.5 percent of individuals’ income “might hurt our economy.”

Yes, other countries do it, but even in those countries it is expensive. Convince Americans to take a massive increase, even if you promise that they will pay less in the long run, is not an easy sell.

[Volaris]

62. I agree with both of those assessments.

I'm not convinced yet, however, that if it needs doing, that a President Clinton will risk the last 2 years of her first term spending the first 2 years out in the Bully Pulpit attempting like hell to GET the Blue Congress that WILL do those things, and the Haters and Monied Interest that have bought them be dammned.
I think Sen Sanders has already prepared himself for that when it becomes necessary (pretty sure it will).

[Agnosticsherbet]

70. The Bully Pulpit works by pulbic opinion. Republicans do not pay attention to public opinion.

The Bully Pulpit is not going to change the composition of Congress, and there is no indication that the bully pulpit works in modern times.

To do that, we need to retake a majority of states by 2020, so we can create voting districts that better reflect the population instead of being designed to elect Republicans. That would be a reverse gerrymandering.

The party could do that, but not the President except that she or he is the leader of the Party and could find people to work on that. Being exclusively a political process, there are limits to how the President can use the office to change the makeup of Congress.

[Volaris]

84. Well, constant and unadulterated truth-telling regarding

Bought and paid for Intentional Obstructionism is a good place to start...
=)

[Agnosticsherbet]

88. Republicans voters like what Republicans are doing.

We need to retake a lot of states, but the Democratic candidates best suited are likely centrists or even conservative.

Rep. John Bel Edwards ran as a pro-life, pro military, pro national defense, and pro law and order.

If we can elect State legislators, we have a real chance of changing voting districts so that Democrats like him can be elected.

[treestar]

95. Exactly, the bully pulpit is not some cure-all

Last edited Wed Nov 25, 2015, 12:21 PM - Edit history (1)

and is not going to work without supporting public opinion anyway - the people in Congress have to feel they would lose re-election if they didn't vote for single payer.

Bush had the bully pulpit and there was no way he was going to convince US here at DU of anything.

[BlueCaliDem]

97. I'm convinced that, except for the GOP, the bully pulpit doesn't exist anymore.

When President Obama tried to allocate primetime air time to make his case to the American people, all media began the meme that the GOP had put forward: that the president should spend less time taking precious commercial airtime and spend more of it "leading the country".

Predictably, all U.S. media propagated the GOP-approved meme with the result that President Obama was forced to stop. It didn't much help, either, that Republicans were given equal time as President Obama in order to pontificate their lies - and they made good use of it - without pointing out that Republicans, not President Obama, were spending more time in front of eager mics and media cameras.

This led some progressive hosts on MSNBC back then to opine that the bully pulpit no longer exists. At least, not for this president.

And this also underscored the 2011 Pew Research Center's study that President Obama was getting the least favorable coverage than all Republican presidential candidates except for Newt Gingrich. For some strange reason, Pew Research has removed this study from their pages, so I needed to link to a CBS article that printed the findings in its entirety.

[treestar]

98. Yes. And the polarization.

Getting people behind a President like FDR in the 40s in wartime/the Depression wouldn't have been tough. People had respect for the office and a President you didn't vote for was still your President. Now people are so far from that, it doesn't matter what happens. There might have been some that got behind Bush because of 911, but wouldn't necessarily extend that to economic issues. I wouldn't have been convinced by Bush of anything. And there are those who would never be convinced by Obama just as a Democrat, and then the rest who can't deal with a black President.

[99Forever]

3. Maybe you should reset your watch.

[Rose Siding]

20. So you think a GOP (or more) Congress would pass it?

Wake. Up.

[99Forever]

24. I'm wide fucking awake.

Awake enough to know a DINO when I see one.

[Rose Siding]

26. Omg, you're right. He is, isn't he! -just to get on the ballot.

His is a DINO

[99Forever]

30. It isn't Senator Sanders who's the DINO.

It's the neoliberal Third Way corporate approved pretender.

[Rose Siding]

33. "neoliberal Third Way corporate approved pretender"

Oh, that's the BEST. He's been a dem since, what, last week when he started claiming credit for every hard won battle the Democratic Party has fought in the last 80 years?

SBS (DINO-VT)

[99Forever]

45. Have an adult explain ....

...what the NAME ONLY part of DINO means.

Thanks for the presentation of a perfect example of same.

[Rose Siding]

49. No, I get it. He's an independent who just signed on as a Democrat In Name Only

He's a Democrat in Name Only

[99Forever]

67. Actually....

...quite clearly, you don't get it at all.

[Enthusiast]

60. Huge +1!

[Enthusiast]

59. Me too.

[Enthusiast]

58. Huge +1!

[Hekate]

4. Recommended

[arcane1]

8. There was a time when women's suffrage never had a chance too.

I'm glad they didn't give up just because it wasn't popular at the time

[ejbr]

48. +1

Or Civil Rights or the ACA or...

[Douglas Carpenter]

73. I remember saying very clearly that same sex marriage would never - ever be the law of the land. It

certainly looked that way when even the idea of gay rights in employment and housing wouldn't fly even in rather liberal areas.

It's clear that some members of this forum are completely clueless about how political change is made. If you give up and have the philosophy of only trying to tweak the status quo - that is all you will ever get. Sometimes you have to keep going until you win.

I realize Hillary is a lot better than any of the Republican candidates and if she become the nominee I will support her. I even defend her now when she attacked from the right - usually on rediculous charges like Benghazi. But it seems to me that many of her most enthusiastic supporters are indistinguishable from moderate Republicans and their core philosophy is at least center-right.

[BainsBane]

89. Any movement for social change has come about because people have been willing to work for it

If you want single payer, organize around the issue like the suffragettes did around women's suffrage. Social change doesn't happen because people elect someone who promises them the world, all while knowing he has no capacity to deliver on it. It's astounding how little it takes to win your votes. The irony is many here claim to have felt betrayed by Obama, when it's clear you aren't even interested in what can be implemented but instead want to be pandered to. You see that Sanders is directly contradicting himself. He not only is making unrealistic promises, he KNOWS it. His remarks from 2010 reveal as much. Even knowing he isn't being straight, you lap it up and want more. Obama didn't even promise the rainbow. He encountered opposition in congress with more modest proposals. The reaction to that isn't how can we get more progressives elected to congress to counter such opposition, or elect someone who works better with congress, but to find someone who promises more with absolutely no track record of delivering on any of it. I think what you all are really voting for is someone to give speeches to validate yourselves, and you don't even care if nothing gets done, as long as you get your entertainer in chief on cable TV. If government is shut down, no skin of y'all's nose. Let others worry about that--the little people who depend on government just to get by, the ones people here denounce as corporatist, Third Way, and victims of Stockholm Syndrome for having the audacity to worry about their own lives.

And you claim Clinton supporters are uninformed. What a joke.

[arcane1]

92. "It's astounding how little it takes to win your votes"

Like maintaining the status quo, which means literally doing nothing?

[treestar]

99. Another good point.

the suffragettes worked for decades. They didn't think the POTUS of that time was going to bring it about with the bully pulpit and simply criticize him for not doing so. You have to get the public behind you in enough numbers, which they did. We have to do that with single payer rather than just wait for Bernie to do it.

[treestar]

96. No one is giving up permanently

You're arguing more like Lincoln could have gotten the women's vote in the early 1860s by using the bully pulpit. Not so.

As to single payer, this is more like the 1880s not 1920.

[mmonk]

10. So he shouldn't propose it

because both parties are against any kind of government solution or involvement?

[BainsBane]

13. He should be straight with voters

Tell them what it is going to take.

Your post above is clearly false. Obamacare is government involvement, and improvements to it will take government involvement. Many of us would love to see single payer. If Bernie or anyone else is going to propose it, they need to tell me how they are going to make it happen. Wishes are meaningless, worse than that when disingenuous.

[Fearless]

16. Like... a political revolution??

[Rose Siding]

23. Can you explain to me exactly how that works?

We're supposed to stand up and speak out. So far that's the only instructions I've heard beyond "millions of people coming together" and showing up on days there are important votes in congress. Do we all just take to the streets? In DC? For how long? How will the district handle that many showing up? And they'd have to stay for awhile because I've seen a million women there for rallies and anti-choice crap still passes.

How do we get time off work? What if we can't afford it? I'd need to kennel my dog and have the car serviced, put aside for gas and hotels. I don't know where that'll come from. Some people might need to find child care because the kids will have to stay home for school. Could we just phone, because I already do that. When we do all this, will the congress critters in red districts listen this time? Why when their constituents don't want them to? Or will everyone spontaneously realize that there's only one way to go?

Has there been any organizing of this epic undertaking? How will it work? What is the plan? We need way more details before deciding to attend this "revolution".

[mcar]

36. Really good questions

I'd love to see the answers.

[Rose Siding]

44. I don't think we'll ever have the pleasure.

No one has thought it through. But I've been wrong before!

Wouldn't it be funny if someone busted out a grid with all the mark-ups and scheduling and funding allotments, strategically located air shuttle developments, space food included!

[mcar]

51. That would be great!

[arcane1]

77. This is in large part getting people off their asses and into the voting booth

And then actually paying attention and being engaged in the process after election day.

It's not complicated, despite your efforts to pretend it is.

[Rose Siding]

80. I already do that.

By "engaged" do you mean calling, writing letters and signing petitions? Because I do that. What is the plan to get more people to do that?

[arcane1]

83. Excellent. The rest is up to US!

Talk to people, get them on board. That sort of thing.

One of the primary reasons we can't have nice things is that too many people think they can vote once every 4 years and someone will fix everything for them.

[Ed Suspicious]

56. He tells them every fucking day.

[mmonk]

74. You have to advocate for it.

It's been proposed. HR 676. Being honest is telling the Anerican people why you are against it, even when you've been in the majority. That's honesty, not selling out the American people for a few pieces of silver.

[earthside]

11. So pessimistic.

That seems to be the general theme of the Hillary supporters here.

Repuglicans are going to keep control of both houses of Congress for the foreseeable future.

The bedrock of liberal Democratic proposals since Pres. Truman is "pie in the sky".

It is rather sad to see Democrats become so glum and 'practical' and down-in-the-mouth over progressive proposals, but that appears to be the line being pushed by the Hillarians. Gosh, folks who hope for a progressive future are now even described as gullible.

[Rose Siding]

25. Maybe you can answer the questions I asked upthread

Regarding the 'political revolution' method of achieving BS's policies including health care, with a gop congress, or one more evenly split than now.

We're supposed to stand up and speak out. So far that's the only instructions I've heard beyond "millions of people coming together" and showing up on days there are important votes in congress. Do we all just take to the streets? In DC? For how long? How will the district handle that many showing up? And they'd have to stay for awhile because I've seen a million women there for rallies and anti-choice crap still passes.

How do we get time off work? What if we can't afford it? I'd need to kennel my dog and have the car serviced, put aside for gas and hotels. I don't know where that'll come from. Some people might need to find child care because the kids will have to stay home for school. Could we just phone, because I already do that. When we do all this, will the congress critters in red districts listen this time? Why when their constituents don't want them to? Or will everyone spontaneously realize that there's only one way to go?

Has there been any organizing of this epic undertaking? How will it work? What is the plan? We need way more details before deciding to attend this "revolution".

[Rilgin]

94. It is not easy, you seem to want a pat answer.

First the opposite. Doing nothing is not the answer to our current problems: income inequality, climate change, militarism both overseas and in the police force.

We no longer have time for the status quo in some of these areas like climate change. Thus we actually have to do something different if we want great quantifies of the worlds population to survive with any semblance of a good life or a life at all. We may fail at changing but if you want our species to survive, we have to do something. Survival outright means getting off carbon energy. The other problem areas in our society may be more solvable.

Now, what is the theory behind Bernie Sanders "revolution". It is not a panacea. Everything posted here is correct as part of the status quo. If the republicans continue to control congress past the election, they will not pass progressive legislation. However, if you propose it and actually fight for it and do not actually help enact republican light policies in the name of compromise, you actually start building trust between the population and our party, the democratic party. That's really the basis of the revolution, trust that your politicians are not telling you one thing in their speeches then doing something different behind closed doors.

Political change will not be easy nor will it come overnight it will come from an electorate that is engaged because it actually matters who they vote for. If they vote for a candidate, they know that the candidate is not actually bought by Goldman Sacks and other financial institutions.

[Doctor_J]

14. And Hillary said it's not right for America

I'll take Sanders outlook, tyvm

[NRaleighLiberal]

68. is she devolving or revolving?

[Fearless]

15. AT THE TIME. So stop distorting the truth.

[MineralMan]

19. You think it's more likely now?

Really?

[Cali_Democrat]

22. When he said that Dems controlled the Senate and the House

You think it's more likely to pass now with Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress?

[BainsBane]

102. They won't answer

because there is no logical reason that it should be easier now. Note than any changes in Clinton's rhetoric is labeled as "camp weathervane" or "triangulation." Yet not this, even though they see the candidate himself doesn't believe it.

[Fearless]

103. He said that when America didn't want it.

[Enthusiast]

61. Huge +1!

[Rose Siding]

27. He evolved.

[notadmblnd]

28. Senator Sanders has not made that promise.

Senator Sanders has said our goal should be to join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all Americans.
http://bernie.to/defend-medicare

Saying what SHOULD be and what WILL be are two different things. And if you believe that he has made this a campaign promise, please provide a like to the actual quote where he made that promise. Thank you.

[Rose Siding]

47. Are all his policies more like suggestions?

More like an explanation of what would be good, or better than what we have now, no real plan involved?

[notadmblnd]

75. I think you should do your own homework

The Google is a fairly easy tool to use.

Many here are just throwing crap out to see what sticks. If one can not back their crap up with citations, then perhaps one should consider what they post as they're only adding to the dissension by posting un-truths.

[Rose Siding]

78. I did!

I see lots of 'we must do this' or 'we have to do this', but no plan for how to make it happen beyond the whole notion of a 'revolution'. And the information on that consists of 'millions of people coming together'. Do you have any link to the plan?

[notadmblnd]

81. Riiiiight.

You have a nice day Rosie.

[Sheepshank]

29. you do realize.....

that you will need to repeat this post almost dailiy until the elections before any Bernie supporter finally dropps that talking point against Hillary?

It's willful ignorance pretending that Bernie hasn't mentioned this...and starting yet another thread extolling the evils of Hillary and her supporters for not standing behind Single Payer, and attempting to make Bernie the hero in this topic.

just saying, it may be easier to book mark this thread for quick and easy c&p

[riversedge]

31. And Bernie has evolved from thinking it not possible to thinking it is possible.

[Sheepshank]

32. it's actually not possible for Bernie to evolve...I read that right here from his supporters.

[Javaman]

34. that's from 2010...

you are being disingenuous.

so in other words, you would rather go with an old story and run with that as proof of today, rather than fighting what society needs.

Gotcha.

[Sheepshank]

35. seriously...BERNIE DOES NOT EVOLVE

please check with the home office for clarification.

[Javaman]

91. He's been the same on civil rights, against corporate control of everything, and against wars...

he's been like that for 50 years. Give me more of that "not evolving".

now go and watch the latest "evolving" of clinton, otherwise known as flip flopping.

[Demeter]

40. WE, the People of the United States

fed up with the "nattering nabobs of negativity", to borrow a phrase, will rise up in the revolution that Bernie leads and DEMAND single payer!

Plus, the insurance companies are throwing in the towel. They can't make money off Obamacare, they say.

[SHRED]

41. As a goal...where does Hillary stand on single payer?

[Hekate]

43. That Bernie -- what a triangulator.

[SHRED]

46. When did Bernie "promise" single payer?

He touts the benefits of it but where has he said that he will deliver single payer if elected?

I sense some exaggeration here by Hillary supporters.

[MaggieD]

50. Yes, he is clearly lying now

Or was he lying then? SMH.

[Bonobo]

52. Above all else, it requires advocacy.

Without that, there is no beginning.

[Ed Suspicious]

54. "The revolution never came, Bernie."

Which cynical and jaded politician said that?

[TIME TO PANIC]

79. The most obnoxious thing said at the last debate.

The revolution came to the rest of the industrialized world.

[Autumn]

57. It's not March 10, 2010 anymore. nt

[SoapBox]

65. You beat me to it.

[Autumn]

71. Obama never fought for single payer. Bernie will.

[Enthusiast]

63. Completely and enthusiastically unrecommended.

[grahamhgreen]

66. Single payer is not just possible.... It is inevitable. Cuz what we got just doesn't work.

[MannyGoldstein]

69. Because the President had already negotiated it away

in then-secret meetings with hospitals and pharma.

Having a different President could change the situation, of course.

[Cheese Sandwich]

82. It doesn't have a chance without a mass movement pushing for it. That's the "political revolution"

The Democratic nominee should be the person helping to inspire that mass movement. Helping to lead it and organize it.

[Bluenorthwest]

85. So is that which was said in 2010 now the perma-view?

Because back then Hillary said marriage equality was impossible. Things are impossible until they are not. It's our job to midwife the possible.

The 'moderate center' of this Party argued that marriage equality was impossible, not pragmatic, they lectured and preached and pushed their small minded worldview at us unmercifully for years. People who lack vision simply lack vision, their opinion of that which is possible is based on a parsimonious philosophy.
Damn the mediocre, full steam ahead!

[BainsBane]

101. Hillarite propaganda

straight from Bernie.