Non-support for Sanders is, to me, a barometer of how sick and lost we have become

[Bonobo]

Imagine a leader who believes so strongly in his positions that he doesn't need to refer to advisors and polls to decide what he can say...

Imagine a leader who speaks with consistency born from a lack of political calculation

Imagine a leader who speaks what he believes wherever he goes and doesn't tailor his message to suit "optics" or "segments" or "focus groups"

Imagine a leader who is what he appears to be.

That is Bernie Sanders... and I fear we have become SO used to politicians being sleazy liars, we have become so used to them being in the pocket of corporations and donors, so quick to think about their speaking fees or their future as a lobbyist, etc....that we have GIVEN UP in getting a real, honest leader.

So yes, for those who purport to be liberals in any case, I think their abandonment of a Bernie Sanders is exactly in keeping with their abandonment of the principles or honesty and the hope that things can change.

[nruthie]

1. I agree with you.

[TM99]

2. Yes!

I agree completely.

Congruency, consistency, ethics, and authenticity seem to mean nothing anymore. It is all about money, optics, and winning...just winning.

Sad really.

[BrotherIvan]

57. +1

And for some, just winning is all they ask. You can see it on DU, unsurprisingly, support for the three candidates splits pretty cleanly along ideological fault lines. None of it is particularly surprising. What is surprising to most people I think is to find out how DU has been ruled by such a tiny minority for so long.

[Xipe Totec]

3. Sweet Jesus! What is it?

[GoneFishin]

43. That's great. Made me laugh.

[sabrina 1]

59. Lol!

[SoapBox]

62. Oh so true!

[dragonlady]

99. Russ Feingold had t-shirts

They had a spine depicted on the back.

[MuseRider]

102. So happy you posted this!

My favorite, from the keeping our powder dry days, and I had lost it and not able to find it!

[Scuba]

4. K and effing R

[ladjf]

5. It's most unfortunate that your assessment of the political situation

is probably correct. America is unable to appreciate a strong, creative, knowledgeable and honest politician.

[kenfrequed]

6. Don't despair

Stay positive and get more active. I think the more people hear him talk the more they will realize he is the real deal!

[MissDeeds]

7. Excellent post

one of the best I've read on DU. Thank you.

[fasttense]

8. Some people have lost their ability to recognize the genuine

Like you say, they are so use to the slick fake.

But Obama has made it difficult for the genuine liberal too. He came across so genuine. He had people who had not voted in decades come out and vote for him. And then......he turned into a moderate RepublCON. I was telling my Mom about Senator Sanders and she said yeah but Obama said the same things. I pointed out that un like Obama, Senator Sanders has decades of past liberal successes to go with it. I'm not sure she believed me.

[zeemike]

26. That is the tragedy of it all.

When fakes are the norm even the wise ones will doubt it when they see the real thing.

Fool me once, fool me twice and fool me again and again and pretty soon the truth cannot be recognized.

[questionseverything]

75. i have had the same convo with folks

we are scared to believe again

[sabrina 1]

103. I thin that is the key to the difference between Bernie and Obama, his very long record that is

totally consistent on the issues. We didn't have that to look at re Obama and even though I supported him, several things he did, the FISA vote Amendment eg, disturbed me, but of the choices we had, he was the best going by his campaign promises.

[yuiyoshida]

9. I just

donated another 50 dollars to his campaign.

[Helen Borg]

78. Hehe, I donated too...

[Dustlawyer]

10. You left out that what he believes in are common sense solutions

to our most serious problems.
Many Progressives are understandably afraid we would lose to Republicans. They are not thinking this through, if you vote for the lesser of two evils, it is still evil and we still continue our slide.
Still others swallow the propaganda that Hillary is better and Bernie doesn't stand a chance. They do this while laughing at the Fox Bots for being stupid and brainwashed.
At some point we have to take a chance and fight for what is best. Politicians s like Bernie don't come along very often. Bernie is what we thought we were getting with Obama. The difference is Bernie's long track record!

[Bonobo]

12. I don't know about you...

But there are people that I trust and those that I don't.

I assess people based on a variety of factors and I generally trust my instincts.

That is not hero worship. That is taking in all the signs that are available and making an assessment of a person's character -or in the case of Hillary - her lack of it.

I have many black friends and family members and none of them will ever forget the sleaze she pulled in her 2008 campaign, her racial dog-whistles.

But there are really so very many, many signs. And a person as intelligent as you cannot have failed to see them, so I must assume that you see them and somehow make peace with them. Perhaps she is the best candidate to support your economic position, I don't know.

In any case, the candidates are not, as you say, close on the issues as far as I see. Hill is far more likely to support Wall Street hanky panky, unnecessary military adventures, and there is sufficient evidence in my mind that she is willing to lie for political gain ("watch out for the snipers!&quot .

In summary, not hero worship at all. Merely the identification of a good and honest person and a recognition that they face someone who is neither.

[Chipper Chat]

27. Bernie goes on FOX News !!!!!!

He's not afraid to storm the enemy camp. We all know Fox's No. #1 goal is to derail Hillary so Bernie should take advantage of this and steal way some of the Senior vote from Jeb.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

35. So does Kucinich,....but that makes him a traitor. (At least for some around here.)

[azureblue]

71. so you say

When you say "I have many black friends" then go on to make an assertion based upon what your claimed friends have supposed to have said, without presenting references, links, etc., then you blow your whole case out of the water. Further, when you make claims of " very many, many" without a single iota of a link, then you just ruin your argument even further.

In sum, what you do here is juvenile - you make unsupported assertions about a candidate and throw in buzz words, then resort to personal attacks based upon not a single instance of first hand experience. Instead of comparing either candidates advantages as I do down thread you try to stir up emotions. How the eff can you say this: "I assess people based on a variety of factors and I generally trust my instincts. " when you have never met them?

Your paragraph 6 is stupid. There is no better word for that choice of words, but stupid. Vague accusations and an emotional response, is what it boils down to. And Paragraph 5 is no better.
Bernie is roasting the media for these very same tactics, of avoiding the issues in favor of gotchas, slams and smears, and here you are, doing the same thing Sanders deplores.

You want to support a candidate? Then tell us why we should vote for him, not slam the opponent. I do not vote on negatives and you should not either.

[smokey nj]

13. This group us a safe haven for supporters of Bernie Sanders

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. Sorry. Didn't see that. n/t

[Bonobo]

17. Actually I just realized what is MOST fucked up and ironic about your post!!!

What I described (honest and consistent) isn't a "hero" at all.

It is just a good person. Not that uncommon except among the sleazy politician class.

The irony -the BITTER BITTER IRONY - of what you said is that you have gotten so screwed up about what is reasonable to accept that you actually think that honest and consistency are "hero" traits when in fact they are to be expected and demanded.

That is what happens when you get used to swallowing dog shit and telling yourself it's caviar.

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. I will respect the sensibilities of this group ...

I self-deleted the above comment. Please respect that rather than pretend that your world view is anything other than your world view ... surrounding yourself with a few people that share your world view does not place yourself at the center of anything, other than that narrow band of opinion that you occupy.

[shaayecanaan]

82. Likewise

This was the first story that hit my RSS feed this morning:-

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/hillary-clinton-polling-wobbles-ahead-of-presidential-campaign-launch-20150602-ghfdmx.html

Nothing we didn't know already. Hillary is intensely hated by those on the other side (not a huge problem if they wouldn't vote for her anyway) and also widely disliked by not a few people on her own side (a potentially much bigger problem).

Fwiw, I've never seen a front runner more despised by the base of their own party. I realise that some centrist politicians have been successful, Barack Obama, tony Blair and bill Clinton come to mind- but apart from Blair in his later years I don't think that any of them have managed to isolate their left wing base as comprehensively as Hillary has. And the fact is that Blair took the reins in the wake of thirteen years of conservative rule in the same way that Obama and Clinton succeeded bush Jnr and Snr respectively. Hillary won't be able to rely on that.

I think she will struggle against Rubio in particular. He is younger, a bit more dynamic, and could make serious inroads against a candidate as bland and anodyne as Clinton.

I'm not a centrist, and I'll leave the selection of centrist candidates to your good selves, but I seriously think that you need a plan b. Of course I imagine someone will throw their hat into the ring at some stage.

[n2doc]

16. What it says to me is that people lie on surveys

Every so often someone will survey people about their opinions on politics, and invariably the majority have liberal politics. However they rarely seem to vote that way. The majority vote based on who has the most campaign ads and who the voice on radio/TV/the pulpit tells them to vote for.

[-none]

50. It is not so much that people lie on surveys,

but the push polls, the lies, the outright BS, that are used to justify the candidates that are picked for us. The actual candidates we should be voting for, are routinely eliminated one way or another in the primaries, so we seldom even get a chance to vote for them.
What we are left with, are Right DLC and farther Right Republican candidates. So we keep voting for the lesser of two or more bought and paid for evils, because that is all our owners supply to us.

It is not so much that people lie on surveys, it is the fact we are being lied to and too many of us believe the lies.
They want us to be cynical, so we complacently either don't vote or we hold our noses and vote for the lesser of two evils.
Bernie Sanders is a chance to change at least some of this. We all need to take advantage of this while we can.

[n2doc]

51. What I am talking about are surveys like this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/06/why-most-conservatives-are-secretly-liberals

In Ideology in America, Christopher Ellis and James Stimson describe a striking disjuncture. When identifying themselves in a word, Americans choose “conservative” far more than “liberal.” In fact they have done so for 70 years, and increasingly so since the early 1960s.

But when it comes to saying what the government should actually do, the public appears more liberal than conservative. Ellis and Stimson gathered 7,000 survey questions dating back to 1956 that asked some variant of whether the government should do more, less, or the same in lots of different policy areas. On average, liberal responses were more common than conservative responses. This has been true in nearly every year since 1956, even as the relative liberalism of the public has trended up and down. For decades now there has been a consistent discrepancy between what Ellis and Stimson call symbolic ideology (how we label ourselves) and operational ideology (what we really think about the size of government).

Looked at this way, almost 30 percent of Americans are “consistent liberals” — people who call themselves liberals and have liberal politics. Only 15 percent are “consistent conservatives” — people who call themselves conservative and have conservative politics. Nearly 30 percent are people who identify as conservative but actually express liberal views. The United States appears to be a center-right nation in name only.

[jeff47]

87. Actually, they do vote that way when given the option.

Usually, they are not given the option.

Witness the difference between votes on referenda and House/Senate/Governor seats in 2014. Liberal referenda won, despite conservative candidates winning against moderate candidates. And conservative referenda lost. Almost like more liberal candidates might have been a good idea...

[fbc]

18. Well said

[Jester Messiah]

19. I think people just want to line up behind a winner.

Those who are not strong in their beliefs are very susceptible to bandwagoning, cults of personality, etc. This is why "inevitability" is such a force to be reckoned with. Lots of people just want to be on the winning team, with no thought to what's at stake.

[tblue]

28. Or they fill in the blanks

with their own wishful thinking.

No need for that with Bernie. He answers every question forthrightly because he is fearless and has the strength of his convictions. Isn't this what most of us cry out for every dang day?

[liberal N proud]

20. Oh Please spare me

You can't shame people into supporting the same candidate as you. That is just sick!

That is not how it is done in a liberal America!

[Bonobo]

22. What are you on about? nt

[ibewlu606]

21. Rec'd

I am still amazed that people I like and respect have given up on their OWN principles to support someone just because of "elect-ability".

[SmittynMo]

23. America is sick of 40 years of failed, corrupt politics

As of now, 99% of republicants and democrats are bought and paid for by the 1%. This Super PAC money is also buying the media. Is this what this country wants and needs?

It's time we put an honest, tell it as it is, supportive politician in the White House. I have high expectations and hope for Bernie.

Go, Bernie, Go.

Note: Has anyone noticed how the media completely ignored him at first? Look at them now. If you haven't seen it, check out his interview with Katy Couric. It's posted elsewhere at this site.

[djean111]

24. Just replied to yet another "I am a HUGE Bernie supporter, BUT" post, asking us

to be nice to Hillary and her supporters. This, when I have read some of the astoundingly mean-spirited crap about non-Hillary supporters in their HRC group. I guess this is the meme of the day or week Hillary does not need our little pile of votes, but Bernie would need HRC votes, if Bernie should get the nomination, so stop criticizing Hillary. Looks to me, frankly, like Hillary and her supporters are no more prepared for a real primary this time as they were last time.

DFA is suspending Run Warren Run, by the way, and I am curious to see what happens to to the money they have raised and what they do now. I told them I will be donating straight to Bernie. And that if they and/or Warren endorse Hillary, I would understand the politics, I would not be angry with Elizabeth or anything like that - but will never support Hillary.

[passiveporcupine]

79. Bernie would need HRC votes, if Bernie should get the nomination,

so stop criticizing Hillary.

Bernie is not going negative in this campaign. Why should/would his supporters? Maybe we should learn from him. Don't we all realize that you can't win over people, or even get them to listen to your views, if you keep bashing them?

[djean111]

83. Criticizing Hillary's policies is not the same thing as "bashing" Hillary.

[passiveporcupine]

85. Unfortunately, that is the way the HRC camp reads it

Yet they seem to have no problem criticizing Bernie.

I do agree with you, but am still glad Bernie is not getting into that game. Let Hillary speak for herself and her policies, and Bernie will speak loud and clear for his. I'd rather hear her policies from her, and judge for myself, than hear an opponent try to waste time he has talking about his policies, while criticizing hers. Let that happen in the debates. Plenty of time to challenge each other's views there.

[djean111]

86. Here's the thing - IMO, of course - Hillary cannot articulate much in the way of policies because

she and her advisers still have to decide what policies will get the most votes. There is no there, there. For example, I doubt Hillary will say anything definite about the TPP until it is passed, or not passed, so that she won't be seen as having supported something awful, or seen as being against something she herself worked on and spoke up for in speeches. She has plans to make plans, she has conversations, she has carefully vetted (and paying, looks like) "grass-roots" people she speaks to. So, I make my decisions based on what she has already done. Not said, done. Her supporters seem to want universal approval of her as a candidate, and I do get the feeling that this was not the way they thought the primaries would go. And they, again IMO, have been ugly about this, they have hijacked threads, I have asked - how do you think this helps Hillary?

[passiveporcupine]

88. again

So, I make my decisions based on what she has already done. Not said, done. Her supporters seem to want universal approval of her as a candidate,

I couldn't agree more. But I've seen some of this "needing unconditional approval" from both sides.

I think we need to understand that even in one party, there will be legitimate differences, and the best way to get our points across for "legitimate discussion and criticism" is calmly and respectfully. As long as it's legitimate, we should be able to discuss the various "faults" we see in the other party (but maybe not when in their candidate's support forum .

We should also be willing to accept that not all people in our party will agree with us, and that's OK.

[djean111]

89. "But I've seen some of this "needing unconditional approval" from both sides."

Actually, it has seemed to me that Bernie supporters do not expect nor give 100% approval of everything Bernie does, and this is viewed with disappointment by those who have made a career out of labeling liberals as "purists".

[Javaman]

25. People say here that Bernie won't have a chance, but

But I choose to paraphrase Eugene Debbs:

"I'd rather vote for someone that I believe in and them lose; than vote for someone I don't believe in and have them win"

[L0oniX]

38. +1

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

93. I'm afraid that the label "socialist" would be the kiss of death in the Presidential election

Too many Americans have been brought up to hate and fear it, despite not knowing what it actually means.

I love Bernie. I just don't think he's electable.

[Javaman]

100. as I stated...

I'd rather vote for someone I believe in and have them lose then vote for someone I don't and have them win.

at the end of the day it's our conscious that we have to live with.

I will never ever vote again for the "lesser of two evils".

Bernie is changing the conversation and for me, that is a very good thing.

Come election day, if his name isn't on the ballot, I'm writing him in.

I can't vote for yet another candidate that promotes war.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

104. One of the main reasons that George W Bush won in 2000

Was that Ralph Nader siphoned off 2,882,955 votes that otherwise would almost certainly have gone to Gore. Personally, I liked Nader, but I realized that if I voted for him, I would, in effect, be voting for Bush.

[Javaman]

105. LOL

nice try.

Gore ran a crappy campaign no matter how much anyone who supported him is at pains to admit it.

and besides, the vote count was called off prematurely and it was sandra day o'Conner that cast that vote to make george. w. moron* prez., not nader.

but if you wish to argue that point until you are blue in the face, knock yourself out, I have better things to do than rehash insanity, such as weed my garden.

if we are to be an nation/democracy of two parties based upon the lesser of two evils being our only options, then we as a nation are fools who deserve all the pain we get.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

107. I notice that you did not actually respond to what I wrote n/t

[Javaman]

108. about what? you made a statement and didn't ask a question. Look at what you wrote.

and if you mean something regarding nader, go crazy, blame nader for everything, I don't care.

Gore ran a crappy campaign. that's the answer you don't want.

Sandra day O'Conner installed George w. moron* as prez. which was completely unconstitutional. that's the answer you don't want.

I'm voting for Bernie and that's it, you can't convince me otherwise. In fact due to your inane obsession, if I were even the slightest bit on the fence about voting for Bernie, I'm not now. Thanks to you I'm now squarely in full and utter support of him.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

109. The so-called "crappiness" of Gore's campaign is wholly irrelevant

You were saying that you would rather vote for someone who was unelectable than someone who was not really to your taste but might well be electable.

I pointed out that in 2000, Ralph Nader got nearly 3 million votes that otherwise would probably have gone to Gore. Thus, a vote for Nader was actually a vote for Bush. Had those votes gone to Gore, Gore might well have won. Now, I don't know about you, but I would much prefer to have seen Gore in the presidency than Bush. How about addressing that, rather than waffle irrelevancies?

To put that another way, who would you rather see as President, Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush?

[Javaman]

110. It's apparent you wish me to rehash my above comments. Which is apparent you didn't read.

if Gore had run a better campaign it wouldn't have been close.

and you seem to willfully ignore my comment regarding Sandra day O'Conner. funny that.

Look we are done. you want to blame everything on nader, knock yourself the fuck out. I don't care.

And I love the tactic of Hillary or jeb as a choice. LOL it's funny, I would like to see neither.

this rehashing of history that we can not change is just completely ridiculous.

and I go back to paraphrasing Eugene Debbs once again, "I would rather vote for someone I want and lose then vote for someone I don't want and win."

I can not, ever vote again against my conscious.

you. will. not. change. my. mind. More over, as I stated in my previous post, I am now firmly committed to Bernie. And I will actually donate some of my hard earned money to him now. And I will put a few bumper stickers promoting him as well. Thank you for helping me make up my mind completely. You did a great job.

Now if you wish to have the last word, you may, because it appears that it's so very important to you that nothing else matters.

Good day.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

111. No, I did not want you to rehash what you said before

I want you to RESPOND TO WHAT I SAID. I said that in 2012, a vote for Nader was, in effect, a vote for Bush. You have not addressed this in any way.

I'm not wild about Hillary Clinton. I'm far less fond of Jeb Bush. However, those are the two likely candidates of the major parties, and, of the two, I will take Clinton over Bush. Given that choice, who would you vote for? A vote for anyone other than Clinton would be, in effect, a vote for Bush. Do you really want another Bush in the White House? I sure don't.

[Javaman]

112. Nice caps by the way...

so someone who votes for someone that aligns with their own stance on politics is bad? that's a very interesting concept that you obviously feel is wrong. It's not that Nader "stole" votes from Gore, it's that Nader, at the time, had a platform that appealed to a part of the population the felt the same way. Feel better now? Are we going to be doomed to a two party system which only allows the lesser of two evils to run? if so, that's pretty sad. and it's terribly sad for democracy.

I will spell it out, once again, because it's apparent you haven't or refuse to read my previous posts:

1. Gore ran a crappy campaign.

2. all the votes in florida weren't counted.

3. sandra day o'conner voted to make george w. moron* prezzz.

now if you wish to continue your bizarre rehashing of history and gnash your teeth over something that happened almost 15 years ago, knock yourself out, but don't include me. and last time I checked we haven't the technology to go back in time and fix it. Go crazy, my friend, everyone needs a hobby.

however, I choose to live in the present.

And right at this very moment and for the foreseeable future, I love Bernie, he has my support and will now have my donation dollars. (I donated last night, mostly motivated by your screed)

And quite frankly, I felt the desire to respond because, with your CAPS, how could I pass it up when a fellow internet person demands, with caps, and shouts, with caps, to have an answer to a complete superfluous question. I mean honestly, how could I stop myself????

So now you may respond with more hyperbole, more caps, more self satisfied smugness over how I didn't answer your question exactly the way you wanted me to.

get another hobby, this one is not working out well for you.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

113. The "crappiness" of Gore's campaign

Has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Nader stole enough popular votes from him to cause him to lose to George W Bush. This is the point which you refuse to address. And that is the point that I want you to address. I have only told you this four or five times.

If you want to vote for Joe Shlabotnik because you don't like Hillary Clinton, you have no one to blame but yourself if Jeb Bush gets elected.

[smokey nj]

114. You are trolling a safe haven for supporters of Bernie Sanders.

[Javaman]

116. oddly he only want to grind his axe with me.

the poster has an odd obsession with the fact that I don't want to vote for Hillary.

and his specious arguments aren't winning any converts here. LOL

[smokey nj]

117. They don't want to win converts, they want to suppress enthusiasm.

[Javaman]

118. well, they are having the opposite effect of that. LOL nt

[smokey nj]

119. You got that right!

[Javaman]

115. actually the crappiness of Gores campaign has everything to do with how well nader did...

That's the reason why he lost. if perhaps he had run a better campaign, (which everyone with half a clue agrees) then nader may not have garnered as many votes as he did. See how it works? nader appealed to people and enough people to get 2+ million votes. Gores terrible campaign failed in getting those votes. Again, see how it works?

if Hillary by some amazing feat runs an amazing campaign that speaks to me as a middle to lower middle class voter that paints a clear picture of her shedding her corporate controlled campaign, support for the TPP, etc, then perhaps I will give her another look, but that won't be a long look, because, no matter how many mia culpa's she gives, she still voted for the war. And as someone with a conscious, I can not, and will never endorse that position.

In essence, you will never ever convince me to vote for her, or agree with your position on nader.

Bernie didn't vote for the war; to me, that's an automatic plus one in his column for me.

oh and one more thing, the old "a vote for so and so is a vote for the other guy" statement, is such a weak argument. really, you pulled out that old tired canard? even you can do better than that. that tired old trick only works on the very very least informed.

I don't ignore many people because I think it's pointless, but you really enjoy beating a dead horse to an undead state. So as a result, with heavy heart, you are now ignored.

I truly hope you have a great day and enjoy DU. I honestly mean that.

Cheers.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

121. Finally you address my point, more or less, because you just blow it off.

Here it is again: In 2000, a vote for Nader was, in fact, a vote for Bush. Would you answer that with a Yes or No? Don't blather "oh that's weak", give me an answer.

[chev52]

29. free trade

If the TPP passes and people find out she was proponent of it when she was Secretary of State? Might be another boost for Bernie who is vocally against it.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm

[Paka]

30. That says it all.

He is so real and so genuine and we are so accustomed to phony and false we are blown away by his integrity and honesty.

[Ed Suspicious]

31. I couldn't agree more.

[antigop]

32. if you benefit from the status quo, you won't want a candidate who campaigns against the status quo.

nt

[Ed Suspicious]

33. And it's such an easy sell. If we would just throw our collective weight behind him, it

would be a Democratic landslide picking up so many voters from the mushy middle.

[malthaussen]

34. Lost, possibly. Scared, possibly. Sick? Depends on your definition.

Many are afraid that Sanders supporters will not line up behind Mrs Clinton if she is the nominee, and that the party will thus fail to win the WH, which would be an undesireable result. Many are so enamored of Mrs Clinton, they see any failure to support her as an attack. Many are convinced that Mr Sanders cannot win in a general election. There are a multitude of reasons to not support Mr Sanders. While I personally think they are primarily based on expediency, that does not make them unreasonable.

-- Mal

[jeff47]

44. No, that's the excuse they will use.

Many are afraid that Sanders supporters will not line up behind Mrs Clinton if she is the nominee, and that the party will thus fail to win the WH, which would be an undesireable result.

No, that's the excuse they will use if she loses. Third-way style politicians do not do very well in elections, so having the scapegoat ready is very important. See: Nader.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

36. It's also how people have surrendered to "The Establishment"....

(Damn, I'm old.)

[L0oniX]

37. I remember being part of the anti establishment group.

Yea I'm old too. Remember plastic people?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

40. Yup. Self absorbed consumers that were fake even to themselves.

[Maedhros]

61. Yes :)

[L0oniX]

39. One of the best ops I've ever read on DU.

[chknltl]

41. Excellent analysis. KnR nuff said

[George II]

42. I know this is the Sanders Group, but.....

....aren't specific groups supposed to be positive about their "subject" or candidate and not tear others down?

I'll get banished from here, but I resent being told I'm "sick and lost" because I don't support Sanders. Does that not violate the basic principle of a Group?

[Ed Suspicious]

48. Really? You resent being told by revolutionary anti-corporatists that political allegiance to

corporate interests over populist interests is viewed as a morally deficient position?

I think the fact that you don't support Sanders is a much more dicey proposition when it comes to the operation of this group.

[George II]

54. That's not what I said.

[smokey nj]

65. If you resent what's posted in this group, you should stay out of it.

[George II]

67. Well, for one the thread was on the DU home page with no indication of where it was located....

....it could have been in General Discussion, 2015 Politics, etc. Only once I clicked on the post did I learn that it was in a "safe haven" group.

Also, I seriously doubt that "safe haven" groups were set up to allow members of DU to insult and/or attack with impunity others who don't agree 100% with their thinking.

Just my opinion.

[smokey nj]

68. The OP was criticizing the system, not individuals. If you feel it applies to you, perhaps you need

to do a little soul searching. As far as accidentally wandering into this group, I'm going to help you out and block you so it doesn't happen again.

[asjr]

73. You are being too kind. "safe haven" has become a place to go to blast others who do not

agree.

[gordianot]

45. I am not sure Sanders is being abandoned he is swaying me and I can be swayed.

Democratic vote for sure, I know others who feel the same as I. Also, I do not need multimillion dollar ad campaigns to get my vote in my case they would be counterproductive.

[onecaliberal]

46. SOOO agree! Can't take yes for an answer. It boggles the mind.

Bernie is the candidate that supports all the things we are all supposedly for, yet some people refuse to take yes for an answer.

It will not deter me.

[WilliamPitt]

47. Bang on.

Hammer, nailhead, thud.

[raouldukelives]

49. It really exemplifies just how far we have slid rightward.

One is armed with common sense. One is armed by Wall St.
One stands only with a stone of truth. One stands with a quiver full.

[HassleCat]

52. Perspective

Please don't tell liberals, "Bernie is too good for you." I am democratic socialist, so it's a no-brainer for me, but others are not coming from the same perspective. Many people are life-long supporters of conventional liberalism, and a good share of those people probably subscribe to the Democratic Leadership Council version of liberalism, which emphasizes getting elected. They see their candidates as honest enough and principled enough, and they accept it as an unfortunate reality that national candidates have to accept corporate money. They believe compromising certain principles is not only real, but perhaps a good thing, as long as the Democrat is more honest than the Republican. I don't agree, but we're not going to get very by implying moral turpitude because they aren't rushing to support Sanders. We need to figure out how to attract them to a candidate who is far less willing to compromise than anyone they've seen before.

[NorthCarolina]

55. Perhaps some are simply wolves in sheeps clothing when it comes to progressive ideals.

The Democratic party has been purposely flooded by fiscal conservatives who will don a mantle of social progressiveness, when deemed politically safe to do so, as a cover for their full support of Wall St. fat cats which the MSM always seems to neglect mention of. That's how it appears to me anyway.

[McCamy Taylor]

56. I am so sorry that I want to win in 2016. I'm a pitiful failure of a lifelong Dem.

[Bonobo]

94. Why not vote for Sanders in the Primaries?

Do you imagine that if Hillary can't beat Sanders, she can still win the GE?

[raindaddy]

58. K&R

100%

[colsohlibgal]

60. Great Point And So Sad

The Hillary supporters either are oblivious or don't care about the serious third way lean of both Clintons. It's like they have a blind spot about Wall Street.

[840high]

64. ...^ that

[SoapBox]

63. Exactly!

[aquart]

66. Your way or the highway, huh?

That's actually the attitude that makes me sick. What appalling disrespect of everyone in this country who doesn't think exactly as you do.

[azureblue]

69. Let's put this in reality

The reason for people being skeptical of Sanders is because of the fact that idealism does not always win the day. Yes he has a lot of congressional experience, and yes he is saying the right things and yes he has a track record of walking the talk. BUT, we have to face this reality- can he overcome the GOP? Can he stop the corruption of Congress? Can he stop the sellout of America to the rich?

Singlehandedly, no. If we had a populist uprising, and voted the Goopers out, and marched on Washington, and drowned out the histrionics of the teabaggers and we all got actively involved in getting America back on track, then, yes, Sanders could be a successful President. He will need a lot of very vocal support if he is to succeed...

Clinton's advantage is she has been attacked by the GOp for decades, so she knows how they operate and where their weak spots are. And what skeletons they have in their closets. That is why the GOP is so fearful of her. She is a Scorpio - she knows that revenge is a dish best served cold - she remembers the attackers very well, and the years of smears and innuendo. She is saying good things on the trail right now, and it is my feeling that she will use some of her weaponry to force the GOP to its knees and get things done. She has the Women's vote and she is addressing women's issues which usually overlap issues that face America. She could ride into office on the backs of women's votes alone. Plus, she has the support and respect of world leaders. Ideologically speaking, she may not be as progressive as Bernie, but I think she has a better chance of getting things done.

Both will face bitter GOP opposition - Sanders for being a populist and Clinton, well, for being a Clinton. I will vote for either - I think their strengths and weaknesses about balance each other out. I would prefer to vote for Sanders, but I relish the forecast of what havoc Hillary would bring down upon the GOP. We have to realize that the GOP has wrecked America, and they will continue to do so, until the party has been rendered ball - less. Progressive ideas are useless with an opposition that uses tactics like the GOP does. IOW - cuttign the balls of the the GOP and their backers will have to be the first job of the new president. And Clinton can do that - she has the ammo. Sanders can, too but he will need a lot of help. So it is a choice between practicality and ideology. Better put, which one comes first?

[Romeo.lima333]

70. i like them all (dem candidates that is ) and prefer bernie but keeping the white house is more

important

[geek tragedy]

72. "abandonment of Bernie Sanders" People do not abandon candidates by failing to vote

for them.

It is the candidate's job to win voters over.

I'm voting for Sanders in the primary, but branding everyone who doesn't agree as a heretic is very small-minded and petty. Not to mention counterproductive.

"Not voting for Bernie? Fuck you, you're a rightwing piece of shit!" That is not effective candidate advocacy. That's just authoritarian hectoring of people.

[TheKentuckian]

96. Too funny from the group with a bunch of haughty centrist ideologs that started just such shit

before the last inauguration though I'm sure that you'll dutifully declare you nevah evah saw any such thing or some weird rationalization why that is just swell.

[geek tragedy]

98. Perhaps you should reflect on the difference

between primary candidates and nominees/presidents.

[sabrina 1]

106. The OP made the point that people who have been saying they want a candidate who represents them

on all the ISSUES BERNIE HAS STOOD UP FOR, often when few did, now have that candidate but for some reason are not supporting him. Why would anyone who has been screaming about the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, Wall St Corruption, Gay Marriage (Bernie was for it 20 years ago and did not need to 'evolve' on it as other candidates had to do, and so many others. He is their dream candidate, so why are they not supporting him?

I totally agree with the OP. There is just no reason why someone who has over the years railed against all things Bush, would not support a candidate who was RIGHT on all those issues and voted accordingly. It makes no sense.

Oh, and I think you should edit your post before someone alerts on it. Calling a DUer a 'rght wing pos' or whatever you called him, is bad enough in any forum, but this is the Bernie Sanders Group.

[Maedhros]

76. Why should we vote for the lesser of two good candidates in the primary,

just so we can vote for the lesser of two evils in the general?

[Bonobo]

84. Exactly fucking right!. nt

[BeanMusical]

77. Kick and R. Good post.

[oxymoron]

80. A big K&R

[chapdrum]

81. Completely agree

Did anyone see Howard Dean Monday night on MSNBC?
When asked by guest host Ari Melber what he thinks of Bernie's candidacy, one of the first words of his response was "strident."
To me, this is almost exactly the same reaction that Dean received when he made the whoop to cheer and acknowledge his supporters in Iowa when he was running for president. The press jumped all over it, and Dean's candidacy was over, just like that.
To even imply that Bernie should receive the same treatment for his outspokenness is, at the least, very bad form for a putative leader of the Democratic Party.

[joshcryer]

90. Who is abandoning Sanders?

I refuse to set myself up for failure.

[TheKentuckian]

95. That is what more cancerous Turd Way politics is, setting up the present and future for failure.

[cliffordu]

91. Bonobo- when you're right, you're right.

Perfect.

[NYC_SKP]

101. YOU!

.

.

.

.... How the FUCK are you doin'? Give me a call later if you're so inclined, glad to see you posting!

[green917]

92. I couldn't agree more!

Sen. Sanders shines a light on the corruption and bs on both sides of the aisle for the very reasons you mention so eloquently in this post. He is that rarest of commodities, a politician who doesn't lack the courage of his convictions! He is a politician who says what he means and does not waver, ever, because he doesn't care about political expediency, he espouses the policy positions he does because he actually believes in them. His idea to hold debates between Democratic nominees and Republican nominees, prior to the general election is brilliant in its simplicity and grace! I would love to see him be able to call Sen Paul, Carly Fiorina, and all of the other yahoos on their side of the aisle on the ridiculous bs that they spew and get away with because the "journalists" they have mediating their debates, currently, let them get away with saying whatever ridiculous shit they want to. In short, I believe, firmly, that he is exactly the leader we need to right our listing democracy!

[marym625]

97. K&R!

[dreamnightwind]

120. Proud to supply Rec #200