This, to me, is the crucial difference between the HRC and Bernie campaigns

[Ken Burch]

Bernie's campaign is a campaign to win the election(that is automatically true of any presidential campaign), but it also calls on us to work together to reshape the nation, to change life, to work for something longer-lasting and more important than just getting the most votes on the first Tuesday of November,2016.

HRC's campaign is about power for power's sakes. It will work for tiny, mundane, incremental change(the kind that never matters and never helps anyone)but it doesn't want to transform anything and it isn't about building anything that goes on after the votes are counted.

If you vote for Bernie in the primaries, you are voting for the renewal and revival of the best of the American spirit.

If you vote for HRC in the primaries, you are saying(tragically), that all hope for anything but tiny increments, is dead, and that nothing but "winning in November" matters at all.

And you are also enabling(and I hope this isn't something that most HRC supporters, whom I generally believe to be good people who want a better country, consciously endorse) those within our party and those outside of it and to its right who believe that politics should be practiced solely by the elites during election campaigns, that the voices of the powerless should remain silenced, that the way things are now is the way things must always be, and that ideals and dreams are nothing but bullshit.

Please consider this.

The polls prove that anyone we nominate can beat anyone they nominate.

You don't have to settle for the least you can get.

Let your better, more beautiful, more challenging spirit guide you.

Dare to be alive again.

[upaloopa]

1. Why should anybody listen to a Bernie

supporter define Hillary's campaign?

No objectivity at all.

I am proud to be supporting the 45th President of the U.S.
Madam President

Don't define us OK?

[Ken Burch]

6. I'm defining the campaign, not you as a person.

The choice is between mundane, defeatist centrism(a politics that can only lead to long-term Democratic decline, as the Nineties proved)and a long-term movement for social transformation that could totally reshape and humanize this country.

HRC might win if nominated(and she'd appoint moderately decent Supreme Court nominees, which some people think is the only thing that matters)but nothing transformative can happen while she is president.

A month after she's in, all the air will be let out, and any effort to change anything beyond tiny increments(which, as we both know never matter)will be abandoned.

The polls prove that both of them can be elected, if only we unite behind the nominee.

Why not back a campaign that revives our dreams? Why settle for mere transactionism?

[pangaia]

23. +10000

[rhett o rick]

13. 50 million people living in poverty may be very interested. If the 1% manages to

control who gets to be our president, they won't care to help those in poverty. They want more money and more power. They may pretend to want to help but since they also own the Republicons we know they lie.

We must get the corrupt money out of our political system or we will see the poverty rates continue to climb.

[taught_me_patience]

2. People see things differently than you do

Your characterization of the Hillary campaign is not accurate.

[Ken Burch]

8. Of course other people see things differently than I do. It would be absurd to dispute that.

But no one thinks a HRC presidency will be genuinely progressive or transformative. No one thinks movement activists, or labor, or the poor, would be listened to in that presidency. Or that she will encourage the building of a long-term grassroots movement for change. She proved she was against all of that in the Nineties.

HRC's supporters, from all I can see believe that she is "the only one who can win"-even though the polls now totally discredit that belief. They assume we have permanently lost the argument to the right on all the major issues and can never hope to do anything other than to tinker around the edges of the edges of the edges.

They are progressives, in some cases, but they have no real confidence in the idea that progressive ideas can truly prevail. They assume that history ended on Election Night, 1980.

[TIME TO PANIC]

3. A vote for Hillary is a vote for the status quo.

[NurseJackie]

4. If any Hillary supporters are persuaded by this post to change their vote, please check in!!

And when you do, be sure to let us know if it was the snide comments, or the sarcasm that helped to convince you how shallow you are, and that only through your tragic stupidity did you ever consider Hillary in the first place. (You elitist unethical swine! What were you thinking?!)

What a bullshit post this is!

But, perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe this will be the post and the moment in time that everyone will be able to point to as the turning point for Bernie's campaign.

[reformist2]

7. I don't expect any strong Hillary supporters to change, ever - good thing they are only 20% of dems.

[Ken Burch]

10. There was no sarcasm, and no HRC supporter was attacked.

My tone was respectful.

No one believes any idealism will flower under HRC. No one believes a real people's progressive revival will be allowed. Why would they?

[Chico Man]

17. I wholeheartedly agree

The OP was written with exceptionally poor taste.

[rtb61]

22. Closet Conservative

Your post reads exactly like a conservative right wing corporate propaganda post. Before you post on progressive liberal web sites you should read them for a while and get used to the difference in writing style from far right tea bagger sites.
There is really no point bothering if you are not winning any one over. Reality is those market droids who fail to be effective in forums campaigns are dumped, and they are dumped double fast when their posts actually achieve the opposite affect of their intention.
Bernie Sanders has a clearly defined track record and Hillary Clintons has a clearly defined track record, Bernie Sanders track record clearly shows he is a progressive liberal and believes in social democracy, Hillary Clinton's track records shows she is a blatant conservative autocratic Republican from being a young Republican in university (there is no denying how fanatical they are in that environment) to championing the corporations cause through her legal and political career.
Do not vote the fantasy of empty promises vote the reality of their track record or be sucked in by millions upon millions of dollars of idiot box corporate advertising favouring Hillary Clinton, that alone should speak volumes of who she really is and who she will really serve.
PS Seriously, post on social progressive forums, adjust your writing style, what suits tea bagger sites simply does not work and makes your marketing claims look really lame.

[redstateblues]

30. That does it!!

The 51,004 anti Hillary post on DU telling me I've been a fool has convinced me that Bernie is the savior who will usher in a Socialist Utopia.

[reformist2]

5. Hillary is a pragmatist, just like Bill - all about the "art of the possible." Problem is...

...what's possible right now, given the status quo, given the majority Republican congress, is ZERO.

So when you're in the minority, being pragmatic is actually quite stupid. You not only don't get anything you want, you depress your supporters and end up losing ground.

What we need now are idealists who can inspire and upset the status quo, and regain political control.

You never regain political control without going out on a limb, being bold, and taking risks. Cautious pragmatism is the politics of someone already in control... and maybe that's why Hillary practices it after all..

[LuvLoogie]

9. No. The difference is the amount of calories burned

and the size of her rolodex

[GusBob]

11. Tiny, mundane, tragic, power hungry, enabling, elitist!

But sexy

[seabeyond]

12. It is offensive to state Clinton is about only power. And I disagree with the statement

[hootinholler]

20. What % of Hillary is not about power seeking?

She seriously doesn't come off as a champion of the oppressed. Whenever she tries it is saccharin to me.

I agree that she will help people when she can and that supports that she's not totally about power seeking. That said I think power seeking is a large motivator for her. I would put it in the high 90's.

[seabeyond]

28. "She seriously doesn't come off as a champion of the oppressed" She has spent her life actually

accomplishing it. So, you can state until the cows come home that she is not serious about it. Reality, action, accomplishing, tells us otherwise.

People are not going to buy your words telling us what we otherwise see her do.

[hootinholler]

35. Ok.

Welfare Reform was a great accomplishment!

Making those lazy poor people get jobs!

Allowing states to recover welfare money by taking child support payments, even when those payments are more than what is distributed by welfare.

Great accomplishment there!

[seabeyond]

36. Really, if you come up with nothing, it lets me know you are not seriously looking.

With that, it would just be a waste of time. So, whatever.

[beerandjesus]

14. You speak the truth, 100%.

And I have yet to hear a Hillary supporter give me a coherent reason as to why giving up in advance, i.e. voting for Hillary, is somehow better for the country than fighting for change, i.e. voting for Bernie.

[Chico Man]

18. Because they have not given up anything

Hilary doesn't use the same emotional tactics Bernie does. He certainly says all the right things and gets folks fired up. I don't believe it.

[daleanime]

25. And where has what he says....

differed from what he's worked for?

[immoderate]

38. Argument from personal incredulity, and "That Old Black Magic" that Bernie weaves so well...

--imm

[SoapBox]

15. K & R!

[Major Hogwash]

16. Imagine it is 1969 again, Humphrey just lost to Nixon, and the Vietnam War escalates.

We didn't learn back in the 60s to stop nominating war hawks for President, which is why the riot at the DNC in 1968 took place, to begin with.

If we nominate Hillary, it will be 1969 all over again next year.

Except, this time, there will be no Woodstock concert take place in the middle of summer.

The voters who are under 50 don't understand very well because they weren't there when it happened.
We were, so it is up to us to prevent our party from nominating a war hawk this time around.
That is why the election this primary season is so very crucial.

Social equality and economic equality take a back seat to starting wars all over the world.

Social equality never helped the dead, and the dead don't need economic equality.
That's reality.

*Mic drop*

[jalan48]

19. Thanks for the post.

I am reminded of Humphrey also. He was the Democratic Party establishment candidate at a time when the country needed real change and an end to the Vietnam War. He lost to Nixon in 68. I keep reading "Madam President" by HRC supporters as if that's an end in itself. So, we are just going to feel good for four years because we have a woman President? That is without a doubt some of the shallowest political thinking I've ever heard.

[zeemike]

21. I agree with everything but this...

"anyone we nominate can beat anyone they nominate"

I don't think that is true and is based on the assumption that the GOP will run a clown.
They could run Romney and if I remember last time he got 47% running against and incumbent popular Obama.
Hillary does not have that mojo and many people will come to the polls just to vote against her...so it is no slam dunk by any means if we run more of the same.

[GoneFishin]

40. Yep. She will inspire a most successful get-out-the-vote tsunami ... by Republicans.

[SandersDem]

24. K/R 1000+

[DrDan]

26. Lol

[CharlotteVale]

27. K&R. Bernie's in it for us. Hillary's in it for her.

[Beacool]

29. Oh, please..........

Yeah, it's all about power for Hillary (insert evil laugh). It's the same kind of crap that Republicans bring up. Their candidates are all about the betterment of America, Hillary is about her own power. Every other candidate is not ambitious and doesn't want to hold the reigns of power. They want to be president because they ooze the milk of human kindness and self sacrifice. It's only nasty Hillary who is Maleficent, the rest are Snow White. What a load of crap!!!!

I wonder if some of you realize how condescending and insulting you sound when you assume that people support Hillary because we just don't understand how magnificent X candidate is.

I will NOT support Sanders in the primary. If by some miracle he does become the nominee, then I will vote for him in the general election. End of story!!

[darkangel218]

31. K&R!!!!

[NanceGreggs]

32. Please consider this - or not.

I have been told by BS supporters that if I vote for HRC, I am on the side of the banks, Wall Street, corporations, the 1%, the MIC, Citizens United, job outsourcing, student debt, tax breaks for the wealthy, the medical insurance industry, and the “status quo” – oh, and let’s not forget endless war.

In addition, I have been called a DINO, a Republican-lite, a paid Hill-shill, and a low-info voter whose support for HRC is based solely on name recognition and/or the fact that she’s a woman.

I have been told that I am stupid, wilfully ignorant, woefully ill-informed, and that I lack common sense, a conscience, a moral compass – and, of course, any principles whatsoever.

Here’s the thing: You do not define who HRC is, nor do you define who I am. Your characterization of Hillary is of no more worth to an HRC supporter than any of our opinions of Bernie would be of any interest to you.

From the beginning of this primary campaign, I have seen endless attacks on HRC – along with every Democrat who has endorsed her, praised her, or defended her. According to BS supporters, anyone who does so has either been “bought-and-paid-for”, or has been threatened by the Big Bad Clinton Payback Machine – which, to hear some tell it, is all-powerful and can ruin lives and careers in the blink of an eye.

And that fact brings me to the obvious: If BS was as awesome as his fans think he is, the constant negative attacks on Hillary would not have been deemed necessary – Bernie would have held his own based on his own record, his own words, his own actions, and not based on casting HRC in the most negative light imaginable in order to make BS seem like the better choice.

When anyone harps endlessly about how bad “the other guy” is, it becomes blatantly apparent that “their guy” just doesn’t have enough substantial positives to be raised and discussed. And when anyone insists on characterizing the supporters of “the other guy” (or gal) as being on the side of everything that is evil in the world, it becomes equally obvious that they have nothing substantial to say on “their guy’s” behalf.

The real “crucial difference” between the HRC and BS campaigns is that HRC’s campaign is successful, and BS’s is not. The poll numbers are there. The vast majority of Democrats are supporting her, not him. Now, you could (and undoubtedly will) tell yourself that all of those Democrats are warmongering 1%-ers in love with the status quo – but the truth is that people just don’t see her the way you do, and that’s simply because she is not the person you so desperately want people to believe she is.

BTW, I AM alive - and thanks for your concern - and am fully cognizant of the fact that I don't "have to settle for the least I can get". That's why I'm an HRC supporter - appreciative of the fact that I can vote for the best.

[Ken Burch]

34. I was never one of the people personally attacking you. n/t.

[NanceGreggs]

37. No, you don't "personally attack" ...

... you just attack all HRC supporters as a group:

"If you vote for HRC in the primaries, you are saying that all hope for anything but tiny increments, is dead and that nothing but "winning in November" matters at all.

And you are also enabling those within our party and those outside of it and to its right who believe that politics should be practiced solely by the elites during election campaigns, that the voices of the powerless should remain silenced, that the way things are now is the way things must always be, and that ideals and dreams are nothing but bullshit."

IOW, those who support HRC are supporting/enabling everything that is negative, evil, anti-Democratic, and destructive to the Party and the country.

But as I've said, if BS was the Saviour his followers think he is, they wouldn't find it necessary to constantly smear HRC and those who support her.

It's not unlike the Fundies preaching that anyone who doesn't adhere to their form of "Christianity" is a fornicating, child-molesting, lying, drug-addled sex fiend - instead of extolling the virtues and example of the Jesus they claim to follow.

[Ken Burch]

43. I posted with respect to all in the OP.

And I don't see Bernie as the "Saviour&quot an analogy just as offensive as the claim that Obama supporters saw him as a "messiah"-a claim I basically took to mean "how DARE anyone actually feel enthusiasm for the candidate they support!".

Look, like you, I was disappointed in the last eight years. But you can't seriously think more would have been accomplished if we had nominated HRC, the person who helped create the DLC, and the candidate who was always to Obama's right. Why would you ever think such a thing?

Nobody is ever a progressive in office after getting elected as a centrist. History proves that.

I respect you and those on your side...I just fundamentally disagree about your belief that the less-progressive candidate could possibly be a progressive president. It has never worked out that way in the past.

If Bernie isn't nominated, those who campaign for him will keep working to build a long-term movement for changre. If he is elected, we will do the same. How likely do you think it is that HRC will encourage any of her supporters to do the same, given the contempt she displays for anyone who doesn't think politics is about nothing but election campaigns? I'd like to be surprised and think she will no longer be as relentlessly anti-activist as she has been since 1972(the year she seems to have decided history was over). Can you offer me any reason to hope for such a surprise, to believe that she will ever stop seeing politics as the sole preserve of people with large checking accounts?

You trust her, for some reason. Tell the rest of us why we should.

[NanceGreggs]

45. I don't know where you got the idea ...

... that I have been "disappointed in the last eight years". I was an Obama Girl in 2008, and remain a staunch supporter of the man and his administration.

Why did I support Obama over HRC in 2008? Because I felt he was the better person for the job. It was not because Hillary was unfit for the office - or because she was the personification of evil, as she is now being labelled. It was a choice between two highly qualified candidates, and not because either was the "lesser of two evils" - another term people here love to trot out.

And I'll say it yet again: the thrust of BS supporters has been, to a very large extent, smearing one candidate in an attempt to make their candidate seem like the better choice. No sooner were the words "I will not run a negative campaign" out of Bernie's mouth when his supporters immediately did the exact opposite of how the man himself wanted to be viewed by voters - i.e. as a viable alternative to HRC, and NOT as a man who needed to trash the competition in order to be perceived as more viable by way of comparison.

And again, it is reminiscent of Fundie "Christians" who claim to follow Christ, while doing exactly what He himself preached against.

From the start, BS supporters have been more interested in labels (progressive, liberal, Third Way, centrist, DINO, Republican-lite) than they are in anything else. And guess what? The average voter doesn't even consider labels - they consider who they think will make the better POTUS, and vote accordingly. Do you honestly believe that the average voter takes "labels" they see bandied about on political websites seriously? If you do, there's that bridge in Brooklyn that I understand is still for sale.

"How likely do you think it is that HRC will encourage any of her supporters to do the same, given the contempt she displays for anyone who doesn't think politics is about nothing but election campaigns?"

You seem to think that because you say so, that makes it true. It doesn't. I've seen no "contempt" displayed, and not an iota of evidence that she thinks "politics is about nothing but election campaigns". But again, you seem to think that if you post that meme enough times, it will become accepted as reality.

What it comes down to is this: HRC is supported by the vast majority of Democrats, who apparently want HER to be their standard-bearer going into the general election. And you can rant and rave all you want about labels, about how anyone who votes for HRC is voting for war, famine, pestilence and death - and the truth still remains that Democrats want her to be the next president, and simply aren't buying what you're so desperate to sell.

I know that's a heartbreak for people who obviously don't believe that majority rule has anything to do with democracy in action.

As has been noted by many, BS's biggest problem from the get-go has been his supporters. They have maligned HRC and her supporters, have vilified her and them, and have arrogantly held to the idea that they alone have principles, while those who prefer HRC are bereft of same.

So have you seen the polls? How's that strategy working out for your candidate?

[Chico Man]

46. Excellent

Thank you

[Live and Learn]

33. K&R nt

[Admiral Loinpresser]

39. KnR! n/t

[GoneFishin]

41. K & R

[WillyT]

42. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[emsimon33]

44. Great post

I argued with my yellow dog Democratic brother yesterday regarding HRC vs Bernie and the only justification he could give was that only Hillary can beat the Republican nominee. He even stated that he was a centrist Democrat which was news to me. He reflected everything that you stated about many HRC voters: win at any cost; the Supreme Court is at stake; country has swung to the right and the Democrats need to hold the center; the country only wants incremental change if any change, etc. It was sad to see him ignore the fundamental tenets of that once inspired the great Democratic Party and settle for less.

[RiverLover]

47. Thank you Ken B. What a beautiful post. One of the things I'm thankful for is people like you

who can see the corruption within our government by the Moneyed Interests which control (most of) our candidates & "representatives.' Bernie is the only running for the People of this country.

He isn't purchased...

You & others like you bring true hope for change, right along with Bernie.

We may or may not win this battle, but the war will be far from over.





GO Bernie!!!!

[treestar]

48. I doubt there is a huge mass of voters

who want to Defeat the Establishment and Change the Nation. Most people are OK with the Status Quo. On DU we have too many people who have convinced themselves somehow that miraculously the voters will want sudden huge changes. We can look around and observe that they don't. They will allow incremental change. But there's not going to be a big show and drama. Even Bernie doesn't think this.