February 5, 2016

The Tale of Two Democratic Candidates and the General election-2016 Edition aka Let it Sink In!

Look, I like both candidates, but believe that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified, bar none, and due to her Foreign policy chops, is also the best well rounded, even when comparing her to anyone on the Republican field. Her qualifications allows to knock down any unforeseen and unplanned foreign policy disaster that may occur anytime between now and November. We do not control these occurrences, so we certainly shouldn't naively act like nothing will happen, because one can only win if one is totally prepared in case it does.

I am quite concerned with those on Bernie's side who constantly sell the notion that Republicans will come out just to vote against Hillary....as many don't apparently want to understand that what would invigorate a large Republican turnout EVEN MORE than Hillary Clinton running, is a Radical Socialist calling for revolution and running on the premise of redistributing the wealth by taxing for spending and growing government bigger than ever before seen (which is exactly how they will frame Bernie Sanders, most likely even worse....unfortunately) and it would be true.

Also, I find that Bernie's approach of continuously holding up all other European countries as the shining beacon as to what the US should be, is flawed, as it incites the opposition (as much as they seem to be down in America) to become that much more nationalistic. That is not the best approach to get more Americans to vote for you.

The person who will win the presidency, is the person who isn't downing this country so much, and instead provides an optimistic message that, under Obama we have done much better considering where we were, and that we should build on that, as we can make this country even better. A positive frame, much more worthy than day in, day out, highlighting only how terrible this country has become...which is already the GOP's message. As well, Sanders proposing to re-fight healthcare, an issue that has so divided this country is chancy at best, and a dangerous calculation at worse. It only generates that much more zeal for Republicans to come out in droves....because now they are fighting a real government type healthcare like what they attempted to say Obamacare is, when it ain't.

The bottomline is that this a much more important election than some want to admit, which is why so I don't understand the so many who are saying if it ain't Sanders, I'm not voting. They are more invested in teaching everyone a lesson, than caring about how their action will only directly hurt the exact people that Bernie Sanders is supposed to be so passionate about helping. In addition, it is a divisive statement that almost sounds like blackmail. Of course voting or not voting is everyone's right, but to use it as a bludgeon is totally unhelpful to Sanders' cause d'etre!

AND from both candidates, we need to hear much more on the "HOWs" they plan on making the changes they promise. Anytime Bernie highlights a problem, and promises what he'll give us, I always scream at my TV screen....BUT HOW will you do this? Yes, I know; Sanders' offerings sound awfully good, but it simply isn't enough to propose what's wrong and what would be better, if one cannot specifically provide a reasonable plan of HOW all of this legislation would occur to make these awesome changes, besides an unreliable Radical Revolution.

As for this Revolution...it could certainly continue regardless of who the nominee is, and in fact encouraged, as it shouldn't be solely about Bernie having to be President in order to change things.

AND, we should be taking note that, in Iowa anyways, voting was down by 30% for Democrats and up 50% for the Republicans, and that was with the Radical Revolutionary guy on the ticket....so there's that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1146153

I'm thinking that young people, the most unreliable voting bloc there is, have only experienced how easy it is to win, but that's because they primarily remember Obama; but neither Sanders nor Clinton are Obama.

If you want to know my opinion about who will be the GOP Candidate, something I wrote some time back, and have been saying for months, here it is: http://www.democraticunderground.com/110738863

February 3, 2016

If I recall, John Edwards was supported by many of the current Bernie Supporters in 2008....

Those same current Bernie Supporters who discuss Hillary's "judgement" due to her Iraq vote,
BUT who just looooved them some John Edwards, who made the exact same vote she did while in the Senate, but only with more gusto as his speech wasn't even close to lukewarm on the idea of going into Iraq.

Hillary said at the time that it was a hard vote, and certainly didn't sound anything like the Republicans in her speech deciding to vote for it. In fact, she said it was the hardest vote that she had ever had to make, meaning she wasn't zealous about voting the way that she did.

In comparison....John Edwards spoke of being sure that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destructions, and that America was in danger. In fact, his speech sounded like a speech George W. Bush would have given! Just Listen. That speech was on YouTube in 2008.....and yet....
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=john+edwards+speech%2c+senate%2c+iraq+war&view=detail&mid=1BC46F021797FBB8CE9E1BC46F021797FBB8CE9E&FORM=VIRE1


So Why did Lefties-Liberals support John Edwards who was running, at the same time that Barack Obama was also running, Obama being the guy who had spoken out against the Iraq War in 2003? Because they had decided that Obama was a Corporatists....was the most frequent answer.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4030481

Edwards came in 2nd in the Iowa caucus.

HERE'S WHY:
John Edwards gave a super duper speech on the Two Americas, that's why!
Don't get me wrong, it was a great speech....and said all of the things that the Left wanted to hear! Didn't matter that John Edwards had worked for a Hedgefund Group - http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20070509/NEWS/705090381

Didn't matter that John Edwards "Foundation" to help the poor was nothing but a sham
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?_r=0

CAUSE apparently "saying stuff about class division" works everytime when it comes to gaining Left Left Liberal Support to become the President. One doesn't have to really "accomplish" anything in that realm....but if its said, that means everything! His words sound eerily familiar in this video....
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=john+edwards%2c+democratic+underground%2c+poll%2c+2008+primaries&view=detail&mid=7F78081A7A3CDFED005A7F78081A7A3CDFED005A&FORM=VIRE4

Here's a DU conversation about how John Edwards beats the (then thought to be who would win the GOP nom) Republican, back in November of 2007. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2287124

SOOOO, Why should I bring up old history of John Edwards.... who isn't even running (thank goodness)?

Because I just wanted to demonstrate how easily some folks fall for the unelectable cause they are saying cool stuff, as politicians know that its easier to get voters to vote from their Hearts, than to vote with their Heads.


JOHN EDWARDS, THE LAST UP TILL NOW, GREATLY REVERED POPULIST ON DU!

February 3, 2016

If Obama would have ran on a socialist platform and call for political revolution

He wouldn't have won Iowa....
or any other state for that matter,
even if the country was in financial freefall!
Obama would have been put under the floorboards about 8 months before any votes,
that's about all he would have got.

Instead,
President Obama had to be
perfect is so many ways just to win the election
and get elected....
had to be tall, dark (but not too dark), young, handsome,
Harvard educated, First Black President of the Harvard Law Review,
have a beautiful young family,
great Orator,
Best selling winning author,
Grammy winner,
Senator from one of the biggest state,
have center left policies,
sense of humor,
be a really cool guy,
and a super election organizer,
Keynote speaker of the 2004 National Convention,
win all of the newspaper endorsements,
have folks like Teddy Kennedy endorse him,
and prove both his patriotism and
his religious beliefs,
etc, etc, etc,


While Bernie can walk around being 75 years old,
at times appear disheveled,
have a family history that's quite complicated,
be non religious (even if he is Jewish)
have only a BA in Political science,
with Socialist affiliations going back decades
as he talks about redistributing the wealth,
and simply promises everything,

The guy can literally walk around any old way, and he's just great!

and don't let me get started as to what Hillary has to have done and been....
hell, from looking at Bernie, perhaps she's just too damn qualified!

Now.....that's some White Male Privilege!

February 3, 2016

I am exhausted with the politics of personal destruction!

I think that it is some of Bernie's supporters that will do him in. Currently I'm understanding that they are looking for the Black vote! I'm seeing movies posted of how great Bernie will be for Black people, and how we (Blacks) really don't understand what's good for us, because we just don't know Bernie! It is like Black folks aren't informed, and we just need to come around to understanding that Bernie will give us everything, but those really mean Clintons took away our welfare, and jailed all of the Black people. Plus she's a this$$$ and she's a that$$$! BTW, Remember 2008...oh and here's the video!

They continue to throw guilt by association, and red meat name calling without understanding that many of us simply don't believe that rainbows and Unicorns will be handed to us if we simply start to feel the Bern, cause first there's a serious election that would need to be won!

Clinton has already been vetted for like 25+ years, so I certainly already know exactly what I'll get. Sanders has yet to be vetted by the opposition, but when the Republicans get around to it, it will be a blood bath. Some Black folks just happen to know this, cause we've been paying attention to elections and how it all works! Most damn well know that the Supreme Court is at stake, along with both houses of congress, and most know the ramifications of losing this election! That means Affirmative Action, Voting Rights, Civil Rights, Gun laws. There will be cases brought on due to Police Brutality, Abortions, and on and on! That is not anything that most of us are unaware of! And don't let me get started on how a lost election would affect this First Black President's legacy, and the 8 hard years he will have put in. A lot of what he did was via executive order, meaning it can all be reversed on DAY one! They would also repeal ObamaCare...and that's a lot of Black folks finding themselves uninsured all of the sudden...again! They will also shut down Planned Parenthood, and a myriad of other services that enough Black folks use often. "Some say" they will never repeal the ACA, but they've already passed 60 bills to do just that!

As far as policies (which are important to me), there's enough similarities, although Clinton's plans are more detailed and achievable. That's what I want! Not grand promises of 40 acres and a mule! Rather, I would certainly want the details of how these policies can be achieved in this specific political atmosphere of GOP Lock on the legislative abilities to pass any laws.

If Bernie is relying on a Revolution to get it done, but only after he is elected, than I'm figuring he can still do that even if he is not. I don't have a problem with that plan. Just sayin'.....

February 2, 2016

Media attempts to instigates a fight between Dems...

The media was running from tarmac to tarmac on the landing strips, asking questions of both the Clinton and Sanders campaigns; questions that appear to have been crafted to get the two into a "Counting the Chads" type of situation.

It was very clear, that MSNBC reporters were prodding with their stick, looking for their next big story.

Eventually, once they felt they had raised enough issues of doubt that the Sanders campaign might object to, they moved onto covering the Republican Party showing first third-place finisher Marco Rubio kissing his wife.

I didn't appreciate the tone of the corporate media as it appeared to be baiting, and in fact, I resent it. The results were Close, so I'm not jumping up-and-down with my big victory banner. This is not the general election, this is not a primary that matters, to the extent that we should distract ourselves at the very start. I have friends that are Bernie supporters, and this is simply not worth anything! Certainly not me arguing with them about, what.....exactly?

I think that if the party divides too much, the GOP will win. So although we could call names, get mad, and be passionate… The bottom line is what we learned in this Iowa primary, The demographics of the types of voters each candidate attracts. that was good information, and at the end of the day we've only just begun.

As a Clinton supporter, I am proud Hillary bettered her position this year, then when she came in third place in 2008 She improved her numbers greatly; That's a good thing! It demonstrates the phenomenon that was Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

As for the Sanders campaign I congratulate them for their efforts. They did outstanding...but there won't be any big victory banner that I think they will waive either.

Now back to Marco Rubio coverage...

January 31, 2016

Why the GOP Establishment hate Democrats, and specifically the Clintons: History Refresher

why the Republicans Party Hate the Democratic Party so much
The GOP has always been deathly afraid, that one day, too many Americans would realize without a doubt, that this country does exponentially better under Democratic Party rule. In contrast, Republicans appear to only excel at stealing the American peoples' money and funneling it to their rich cronies, via tax cuts, corporate subsidies, pork, defense and war spending. Their special talent is giving to the wealthy more than they can spend, while cutting programs set aside to assist the poorest Americans.

Case in point; the most loved and effective Presidents in the last part of the 20th Century were Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Clinton and now, Obama (21st Century once the history is written); all Democrats.

Unfortunately, the only Republican Presidents worth noting are Eisenhower (who would be a Democrat in this era, no doubt), and Reagan (after much historical rehabilitation).

I’m sure you notice the difference in the numbers.

So what does this have to do specifically with the Clintons?
The Republican Hate & Smear Machine have been trying to discredit Bill and Hillary Clinton for over 24+ years now, and as hard as they have tried, today, Republicans are still sweating.

It all began with the 1992 election which foiled the GOP’s grand master plan, and subtracted four years of theft they had already counted. Unfortunately, Bush Sr. (Reagan’s heir) had proven inept and brought about a premature recession. After one short term, a young and charming Bill Clinton unexpectedly defeated their War President Bush, who was forced to raise taxes due to his war. So, a three way race abruptly ended twelve years of Republican administrations. We must remember that after Nixon’s Watergate, Republicans weren’t quite sure they would ever see twelve straight years in the White House, and at some point had gotten very comfortable that the twelve would turn into sixteen years. Well that didn’t happen.

The GOP establishment's hate for Bill Clinton, and the start of the constant smearing started when Bill Clinton won his first Presidential election and succeeded in ending the 12 year Republican White House reign, but also changed the record held by Republicans prior to Clinton’s election; 20 years of holding down the Presidency vs. the Democrats’ 4 years (Pres. Jimmy Carter). He won by winning over what were then called Reagan Democrats who had supported Bush Sr. in the previous election, but switched their support to Clinton, who was moderate enough for them to pull the lever for, in contrast to Populist Ross Perot who was viewed as an unknown quantity and had showed signs of possible instability. He won by pointing to his Moderate record as Arkansas Governor, but in so doing, did alienate some in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

The rage and extreme jealousy the GOP projected due to Bill Clinton’s victory and Republican’s failure to steal four years of additional billions soon manifested itself into one simple goal;discredit the new charming President who possessed the gift of oratory, at all cost. They would make him feel the pain, and get him out of office after his first term. After all, if it had happened to President Carter and George H. Bush, it could happen to Bill Clinton, they figured.

Almost immediately, the scandals search started. Upon entering office, with a modest majority in both houses, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 in August of that year, which passed Congress without a Republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2 percent of taxpayers. Additionally, through the implementation of spending restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years (Paraphrased per Wikipedia/Bill Clinton).

President Clinton introduced to Congress his intentions to revamp the country’s healthcare plan on September 22, 1993 (9 months into office). The aim was to achieve universal coverage through a national health care plan. President Bill Clinton had made this the top priority on his agenda, and asked his very able wife, Hillary Clinton, to head the task force to put it all together. Until then, it had been unheard of, with the notable exception of Eleanor Roosevelt, for a wife of a President to insert herself into serious policy matters. The entire endeavor was eventually doomed by the well-organized opposition from conservatives, the American Medical Association, and the health insurance industry.

Clinton also helped pass the Brady Bill in November of 1993, which imposed a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases. He also expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit to subsidize low-income workers.

There were many accomplishment during Clinton’s first two years in office, but in the mid-term elections of 1994, less than two years into his first term, President Clinton lost his majorities in both the House and the Senate . He never regained majorities. In essence, he was made a lame duck for six years of his eight years in office.

In 1996, Bill Clinton, to the dismay of the Republicans and their scandal searching, won a 2nd term as President running against the much older Senator Dole, and in so doing, saved the nation from 100% Republican rule. His success was due to a booming Internet economy, and the tax increases he had imposed on the very rich filled the Government coffers. He left office with a 20 Billion surplus.

During Clinton's tenure, as mentioned, there were many failed Republican attempts at smearing the President, but most never totally quite hit their mark until 1996. At such time, their golden opportunity finally appeared in the form of a young Intern, who was discovered of having had an affair with the President. A scandal ensued of enormous proportion, and in 1998, the President was impeached by the House for lying under oath about the affair, but after much drama, in 1999, he was acquitted by the Senate. The vote was 50 Not Guilty, 50 Guilty on the obstruction of justice charge, and 55 Not Guilty, 45 Guilty on a perjury charge. The Republicans had failed again, as the vote tally did not meet the Constitutional two-thirds majority rule to convict and remove him. The voting was pretty much along party lines. None of the Democrats voted guilty, and a few Republicans went along.

The American people were dismayed of the affair, but they were even more dismayed by Congress’ response to it. That's why Democrats who actually know history understand that the Clintons saved our beacon for 8 years straight.



And what about Hillary? She can win, and the Republicans know that damn well!

I can't wait to see her sitting in the Oval office,
while the Republicans establishment shit all over themselves and their heads explode!

Not only a Democrat,
not only a Woman,
but a Clinton!

<----Republican Establishment

January 31, 2016

Prediction: Who will win the Republican Primaries...it ain't Trump nor Cruz

I.e., who our Democratic Nominee will face in the general election.

Those of us who believe that Donald Trump will be the eventual nominee are more than likely mistaken. Those of us who believe that the primary race is between The Donald and Cruz, I believe are also incorrect.

The way I see it, both of these men have been a distraction and a media shield for who will be the eventual nominee; Senator Marco Rubio.

If you haven’t noticed, Rubio has been in the middle of the pack all year. The review of his debates performances have been glowing, and although he has been polling 3rd in Iowa and New Hampshire for some time, the media has been oddly silent about him until very recently, while they discuss Trump and Cruz ad nauseas.

Rubio is the GOP establishment pick. He is the one that can bring in Latino Voters (so they think), excite enough of the Republican party youth, and win Florida (as he has already won statewide there).

He is a decent looking young guy; a mix between Rickie Ricardo and Frank Sinatra in appearance, has a cute family, a compelling life story, and can talk up an awfully good word salad (I've watched him on C-Span) that will leave many unclear without noticing. You will note how tough he's sounded on Foreign policy; the exact thing Republicans love to hear, as for them, that connotes strength. His only Tea Party failure is his noticeable participation on immigration policies, as he was 1 in the gang of 8 who attempted to fashion a bi-partisan somewhat reasonable policy. This may not play well in the primaries, but will play much better in the general election. Additionally, he is not another Bush aka Jeb.

The current strategy is to have him come in strong third in Iowa, and then, we will see him surging in New Hampshire, a state that dislikes Cruz, and although Trump is currently leading, the establishment will be working hard at bringing Trump down. I doubt Trump survives, as his intended use will have expired; to keep the country distracted during most of the pre-primaries.

After Iowa, some of the other losing establishment candidates will leave the race. More will quit after New Hampshire. This will consolidate the non-tea- party vote to Rubio, who polls show as 2nd or 3rd pick on most GOP voters' list.

If Rubio wins the primaries, he will most likely select former Ohio Governor John Kasich as his Vice President. That's why Kasich is even in the race. The Republicans need Ohio, and they need someone on the ticket that has not only won statewide there, is still liked by many, and almost sounds reasonable, especially after what has taken place during the Primaries…plus a la Biden, he will be more reassuring to Middle America quasi racists to have Kasich on the ticket, when there is a Cuban as the head of it. Please also note that Between Rubio and Kasich, the two have won almost all of the newspaper endorsements.

Rubio, they believe, is their Obama, and Kasich is their Biden.

The GOP Establishment does not believe that Republicans will vote for Hillary (that's why Rubio has to win, cause if Trump win, they just may), But they are worried about Women (who may stand in line for 7 hours to vote for the first woman Prez, including those single woman voters who have not bothered to vote as of yet), Minorities, and Middle of the road Independents (socially liberal, but fiscally conservative) who remember the 1990s as great economic years.

They also know for a fact that the country, in the majority, will not vote for a Green Party/Naderite/Democratic Socialist old guy screaming revolution from Vermont while demanding tax hikes, and another fight on health care, and free college (GOP will term that over and over again as the redistribution of wealth to give out free stuff and government controlled health care); not in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida (and some other states as well). They also know that any National Security "October Surprise" will be the end of Sanders for sure, as long as they can present a somewhat "reasonable" alternative. If they can run against Sanders, far as they are concerned, they will end up winning and achieving their long awaited wet dream; a GOP Trifecta! That's why the GOP is (not so) silently rooting for Bernie Sanders to win the Primaries.

That's my analysis backing up my prediction.

(updated 2/11/16 - My Prediction was incorrect, as Robot Rubio proved to be nothing more than a lightweight, as GOP candidates normally are, but it showed early with this one - I'll write another one of these when I have a better inkling! LOL)

(updated 2/24/16 -= My Prediction may still be correct, as Rubio has been rehabilitated, and now is "bad boy Rubio". He is their last chance! So we shall see)

January 29, 2016

League of Conservation Voters to Sanders Campaign: Stop using our Logo in your Campaign Mailers,

ADVOCACY GROUPS CALL FOUL ON SANDERS CAMPAIGN IN IOWA, NEVADA

the League of Conservative Voters, an environmental advocacy group, IS SUPPORTING Sanders’ Democratic foe, HILLARY CLINTON.
http://www.newsweek.com/sanders-complaints-iowa-nevada-420806

January 29, 2016

MailerGate- AARP: We did NOT authorize the Sanders campaign to mention AARP NOR to use AARP Logo

Apparently, the Sanders campaign has been sending out mailers with AARP name and Logo attached, without permission....


Des Moines, January 26, 2106 — In response to the Sanders campaign mailing featuring AARP and the Association’s Take A Stand campaign, AARP does not endorse candidates, have a political action committee (PAC), or make contributions to political campaigns or candidates.

While we have encouraged the presidential candidates to lay out their plans to update Social Security, AARP did not authorize the Sanders campaign to mention AARP or use the AARP logo, and we did not participate in its production.

We have a proud 30-year history of non-partisan voter engagement, providing voters with information on where the candidates stand on issues important to our members and their families, so they can make their own decisions on Election Day.
http://states.aarp.org/aarp-statement-in-response-to-sanders-mailing/

January 29, 2016

People Who self-identify as Black instead of African-American may be "suspect"? Getta outa here BS!

Conversation that I had today with an alleged African-American BS Supporter on FB.
Posted without further comments -

BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS Here comes the electability argument again. As I pointed out before, it's too early for that.

As the book, "Winning in the White House 2008" pointed out, in a late January 2007 Gallup Poll, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said Barack Obama only had a 21% chance of beating the Republican nominee.

Barack Obama's perceived electability was low at this point, and guess what? He was elected.

As far as Democrats in Congress aligning with Hillary now, they'll align with Bernie if he wins the primary.
Like · Reply · 14 hrs

FrenchieCat Here you go making that argument comparing Barney to Barack. That would be like saying that, if your White you can run espousing any policies that you want, No matter what the down tickets candidates believe. The only issue with Obama, was precisely that he was black, and possibly inexperienced, but he ran on a platform agreed-upon by the party.

Sanders, on the other hand is not just doing the exact opposite, but he also has other issues, like his age, his faith, Along with calling for a political revolution.

The only thing those two have in common, is that they are both senators, are/ were both running more of a people power campaigns,and they are/were both running against Hillary Clinton.

Sanders is not running against the George Bush administration, a failed financial system, and two ongoing wars, One of which was sold with lies... And that may be the biggest difference of all!

I will add that I don't personally think that Trump will get nomination. Republicans may be a whole Lotta things, but they are not totally out of their mind. They love power and money too much! They stole the 2000 election, and did it boldly, and I believe will do whatever it takes, to get back that White House, especially since it would result in A GOP trifecta.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs · Edited

FrenchieCat Polls that currently show sanders beating most of the Republicans pre-Iowa, are the same polls that showed Obama losing to the Republicans at the very same time period. There's a reason for that, Because with Obama, Everyone automatically assumed that his race would keep him from winning. In the case of Barney, most people don't know who he is or what baggage he might have.

Obama had already spoken to the national Democratic convention in 2004, so Democratic voters knew exactly who he was and what he stood for. And it is when Oprah Winfrey endorsed him, that he really took off nationally. Barney has not experienced anything close
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs · Edited

BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS With Obama, people automatically assumed that his race would keep him from winning. With Bernie Sanders, people automatically assume his being a democratic socialist would keep him from winning.
That's a fair basis for comparison.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS Even with his speech at the Democratic Convention, and even with Oprah endorsing him later (she had not endorsed him yet at this point in the process), 79% of Democrats and Democratic leaning voters saw Obama as unelectable at this point in the process, and he was elected.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

FrenchieCat No it isn't a fair comparison. Being black is not something you choose, while being a socialist is exactly that.

If Bernie's platform was so popular, Ralph Nader would've garnished many more votes when he ran, and the Green party would have more representation in Congress. But that isn't the case.

The fact that Obama is black, and Bernie is Jewish, and Hillary Clinton is a woman, those are similarities, but not what you're talking about.

If Obama have been advocating a socialist platform, and calling for revolution, he would not have gotten anywhere. Even in the running for the Senate, he wouldn't have won that! ...because Illinois, as a state is more representative of America then Vermont or/and Iowa.

So Bernie may has some white privilege, but it is not going to get him where you think.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited

BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS Bernie Sanders faith is a big issue? To you maybe, and to the mainstream media that does not want him to win, but remember, the Republicans nominated a Mormon to run against President Obama last time around.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

FrenchieCat That is not what Bernie Sanders electability issue is, the fact that he is Jewish. It is the fact that he is non-religious at all.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited

BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS FrenchieCat, as an African American who was born in the sixties, I say yes, it is a fair comparison.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

FrenchieCat As a black person, born in the 50s, I'm saying that Bernie Sanders has a whole lot more to overcome in order to win an election then even Obama did! And I listed those issues.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited

FrenchieCat In this country walking around while black is absolutely not the same thing as walking around being a socialist. So I will just agree to disagree with your contention that the two are a fair comparison.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited

BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS: Why didn't Ralph Nader get more votes when he ran?
Because he didn't run as a Democrat, and he had to overcome that party loyalty.
Running as an independent, I don't even think he had ballot access in every state.
Plus, he had to overcome people like you throwing out that unelectability line.
As a result, many, many people who wanted to vote for him didn't, so that's why so few people did vote for him. Bernie Sanders won't face the same issue, unless people fall for that unelectability propaganda.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS: Being a black person born in the 50's does not, by itself, make specially qualified to make that assessment.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS By the way, I noticed you said you're a black person, but you didn't say you're African American. Are you an American citizen? Do you live in America?
Like · Reply · 1 hr

FrenchieCat i'm a realist, and so when I look at an election, I handicap it from many different angles, because that's what one does if one wants to win. It's not good enough to simply say will the people that people shouldn't do that, because politics does not work that way. People should not have been questioning Barack Obama's pastor, but they did. People should not have been undermining John Kerry's veteran Bonafide, but they did. Voters should not have made fun of Al Gore because he allegedly said he invented the Internet, but they did. The opposition only needs enough of the people manipulated through an election cycle.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

FrenchieCat Yes I live in California. Yes I have been naturalized because I was born in France. That is why I don't use the label that you do, plus I come from an era where African-American did not even exist. Like Obama I am of A white l mother and a black father! I hope and prays that it makes me black enough, because I'm certainly not white!
Like · Reply · 1 hr

FrenchieCat But why are you questioning me about that? I've been a member of this Forum since 2011! Far as I'm concerned, it's very possible that people who have a black picture on their Facebook page, may not be black. These days anything is possible!
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited

BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS Read my post again. I never questioned whether you were black or not. SMH...
Like · Reply · 1 hr

FrenchieCat That response was prompted by your post right before it, since you told me you were an African American born in the 60s
Like · Reply · 1 hr

FrenchieCat no, I was trying to figure out why you were questioning me about where I lived and whether I was eligible to vote. I don't know where you live or if you're eligible to vote. Me not calling myself African-American would not normally prompt those following questions of yours .... Because many people of my era label themselves black, which is exactly what I did. So I didn't say anything unusual.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

FrenchieCat I really don't want to feel like I have to personally prove myself to Sanders supporters. I'm starting to feel a little bit like I'm living in Russia, since it appears that I need to answer questions about myself that are personal. Again I'll agree to disagree. It was a great discussion though
Like · Reply · 1 hr ·