Questions for nominee Sanders

Well Jon, there are few that can compete intellectually with you and Walt, and I will not even try. Doesn’t matter anyway as Hillary is going to win whether she is in or out of prison. That being the case I am still giving Uruguay (or maybe Why AZ) a hard look, so I can live away from here but be able watch the bodies fall shortly after disaster Hillary takes Command of this rudderless ship, called the United States.
I GIVE you Robert Parry,
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/08/is-hillary-clinton-qualified/

U know not many folks gave Jesus Christ a chance around 1 AD and Sanders is not “Muad’Dib” but he just might be the person we SHOULD Have gone with.
Time for me to sign off and go pet a Saguaro cactus.

For the sake of discussion, let’s agree to everything that you say. How is it that a newcomer to the DP could have such destructive force? There wouldn’t be a column to write if he weren’t attracting a lot of followers (what is it, 6 primaries in a row?) The mainstream of the party hasn’t brought them in. So let Wasserman-Schultz triangulate them out, at the peril of the party’s chances. Why did it take a non-Democrat Socialist to bring so much passion? We can blame Nader for 2000- but why did anybody listen to his message in the first place? Why were “Reagan Democrats” significant? At least BS is bringing in people who will register Dem in order to vote for him. What can the party do to keep them in the fold until November? It doesn’t have a clue. I think that Bernie needs a nap. He can walk back a lot of this, and I expect that he will.

Very Excellent points. Thank you.

Bea, Tom Fitzpatrick would have identified whose and what points?

An elderly student radical is running for president by promising Denmark-style social democracy if we simply subscribe to his pet unicorn theory of political change – revolution! It’s all completely daft but he is enjoyable in limited doses, and contrary to the manners and mores of other political actors, comes off like he really means everything he says.
This can be a problem. Most people have no idea how politics works. They assume it must be something where less-than-decent types are ground into ethical pygmies by corporate donors. They find someone who doesn’t play the game and assume he’s Gandhi/Jesus with a Brooklyn accent. Except he’s been talking this way for 60 years and has very little to show for it. Listen up: there may be a reason why.
Politics is a very grubby exercise in finding common ground. We get less than optimal results, it’s true. But we usually get something, and that something can be improved on later. Example: Social Security. Another example: Medicare. One more example: civil rights. Now, if you have the attention span of someone who watches a lot of TV, you think that if we simply got rid of the bad actors, the political theater could be left to those who only behave with the noblest of intentions. This is a common fallacy, particularly on the Tea Party right, and increasingly on the left with Berniemania. Purity is a siren song whose dulcet melody bewitches the most cynical soul.
Bernie Sanders is temperamentally and intellectually unqualified to be president. Yes, he’s a stirring speaker and a decent human being. But he hates politics because like so many others on the far left, he assumes first and foremost that compromise is always hurting the most vulnerable among us. That’s not entirely unreasonable given the fact that so many people are really assholes (see: Republicans). But politics is the only means we have to get things done absent violence and tyranny. Sadly we also live in a nation where the angels don’t vote like they should and the assholes never miss a bond election.
Bernie taps into our revulsion with complexity, details, nuances, and shades of gray. Finally someone who tells it like it is! Except when asked to spell out his program in more detail than red-meat rhetoric, he comes across like a befuddled senior citizen in a barroom debate. His interview with The New York Daily News was a trainwreck. He couldn’t begin to spell out how to accomplish his signature issue, breaking up the big banks. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/05/this-new-york-daily-news-interview-was-pretty-close-to-a-disaster-for-bernie-sanders/
Donald Trump’s less than rigorous command of details hasn’t hurt him with his base and I doubt Bernie’s gossamer-grade policy explanations will hurt him with his. Most people aren’t interested. They simply want the tribal rush of voting for someone who validates their own prejudices and worldviews. There is one candidate, however, who doesn’t fake it. She does her homework, she’s policy fluent, she works well with others, and she’s roundly hated for all that. Yep, we’re the kind of nation that celebrates ignorance and hates depth. We console ourselves by calling her a “tool” and a “corporate whore”. Because we’re so hip and savvy about seeing through other people. If you voted for George W Bush, you’ll know what I’m talking about.

I am all in for a president that is Female and if Warren was running I’d call Bernie and tell him to go back to sleep.
Hillare posed the question, is Sanders really a Democrat which made,about as much sense as is Hillary really a woman!
My question, is she the right woman?

Soleri, that’s the best summation of the situation that I’ve seen yet. Thank you.

God, I’m mystified by the enduring love for Hillary Clinton expressed here. I recall this blog, like Paul Krugman, pushing back hard on Obama back in 2008, making many of the same points.
Here’s how I see Clinton, based on her 25 or so years on the national stage:
I’ll begin with her four desultory years as Obama’s secretary of state, a job from which she bugs out to run for president, with the key task, negotiations with Iran, left for John Kerry to complete.
Before that, eight years in the Senate, where she pleased the likes of Robert Byrd with her professed reverence for the institution. Along the way, she takes the politically expedient act and votes for George W. Bush’s Patriot Act and glorious vanity war in Iraq.
In her eight years in the ceremonial role of first lady, her major policy endeavor, universal health insurance, is an utter cock-up.
And yet she’s hailed by “Soleri” as a hyper-competent technocrat. Even if she were, so what: she’s running for president, not chief policy analyst. I think she’d be shitty at that job, too.
With her husband, she has done a fine job of getting rich while in public service. The frequent grab-assing with the likes of Bill and Melinda Gates at gala events paid off well.
Sanders, on the other hand, presents what I consider to be an appealing life story: A knockabout guy who finds his calling, at age 40, in politics as a small city mayor. I would think Mr. Talton would appreciate the value of that kind of experience.
Then he moves on to a couple of decades as the most liberal back-bencher in the House and Senate, a voice of reason and sanity during the Clinton and Bush-Cheney years.
I understand why the party hacks are galled that he only recently became a Democrat. The rest of us couldn’t care less.
And as for his leadership and management skills, look at the campaign he has built.I said the same thing about Obama in 2008. You recall the train wreck Clinton campaign, right?
People like Sanders because, throughout his public life, he has stood for helping average folks who have been left behind by Clinton-Obama neoliberalism. He understands the obvious truth that the rich can take care of themselves.
We no longer believe or trust our technocratic, Ivy League-credentialed betters. They have lied to us and let us down.

Why I am thinking there is no reason for me to vote: It’s gamed!
“Welcome to the Elitist Jerks forums, a WoW discussion forum targeted towards topics regarding high-end raiding and analysis of game mechanics.”
Soleri, I dont go to bars but you did describe me.
“he comes across like a befuddled senior citizen in a barroom debate”
That said it’s this type of intellectual elitism that pushes me further into the desert and inviting less and less folks that talk like they should be making all the decisions for “befuddled seniors”. Guess that’s why I will never live in NY or Seattle or Portland, I cant think well enough to exist thar.
I am now going to send Bernie more money. If I can remember where I put my wallet.

“In a period of Total Political War, Republicans have weaponized language, meaning, and empirical reality. There is no possible compromise with zealots/white nationalists. The answer is not to counter their insanity with our own. The best we can do is bide our time until we either have super-majorities or Republicans recover their sanity.”
This argument is literally why political Reconstruction failed. Republicans lost control of congress in 1873–It wasn’t until the election of William McKinley in 1896 (during the Nadir of Race Relations and in the throes of the Gilded Age) that they again held Congress and the Presidency for longer than a congressional term. Waiting twenty years to build a majority (as opposed to confronting white supremacists) led to Jim Crow segregation.
So my question is–why try to wait them out? It doesn’t work. They always come to roll back whatever social progress has been made (either because progress benefits people of color or they don’t want progress to benefit people of color.) White supremacist ideology gives reactionaries the political cover to unwind liberal advances–or just as importantly, prevent more progressive policies. The honorable political tradition spoken of is one of capitulation–not compromise.
My argument is this–We’ll get the government we’re willing to fight for. But some of us are less willing than others to fight for it. I don’t say this derisively or dismissively–political violence is repulsive. But isn’t war politics by other means? The proudest moment in American History (the uncompensated emancipation of slaves) occurred primarily because those mushy moderates embraced the discourse of left-wing zealots. The dimmest moments generally stem from the inverse relation.
Honestly, if the Dems had done something to hold Wall Street accountable when they had a supermajority, this anti-establishment trend may have been abated. Clinton is clearly the better candidate, but she works for the people who own our student debt; she works for people who own our prisons. They robbed us of our future. How is compromise with bankers NOT capitulation?

#theintellectualassassin, said,
“Clinton is clearly the better candidate, but she works for the people who own our student debt; she works for people who own our prisons. They robbed us of our future. How is compromise with bankers NOT capitulation?”
U think Hillary cares about the poor and the masses more than being Queen?

#theintellectualassassin, I pretty much reject your capsule history of Who’s to Blame for Everything, but I’m not steeped in the legal arcana of DOJ to know if it’s wrong in its law or its political assumptions. Still, there’s a lot of conflating going on in your screed. Hillary wasn’t the president. Yet, somehow you blame her for student debt. I know we’re in a fact-free Bernie Zone here, but you could please explain why someone who was a senator and then Secretary of State is responsible?
About your Taking It to the Streets fantasy: violence is always fun to talk about, but probably less fun to experience. Let’s remember who has all the guns. It’s not the hippies.
Liberals are going to eventually win this battle for America’s soul. Republicans are in the same situation Afrikaners in South Africa were in the 1980s. They know they’re losing and they’re desperate. In 10 years, Democrats should be in solid control of Congress and the statehouses. I suggest that it’s not only premature to start shooting, but it would likely backfire on us.
Desperate candidacies call for desperate means, which I suppose is part of Bernie’s appeal. I suspect he’s always been a romantic, but, sadly, his lodestar has always been his own legend. Suddenly, late in life, he’s on center stage getting the crowd worship he’s dreamed about. This is the stuff personality cults are made of.

So…a full quarter of Sanders supporters say they won’t support Clinton if she’s the nominee, while what was it? 14 per cent of Clinton supporters say they’ll support Sanders. Considering the baggage Clinton is bringing, I think that speaks very highly of the Sanders supporters overall. It’s getting really, really hard to think about holding my nose and voting for her, personally, especially now that her association with the House of Saud and the Clinton Foundation’s racking up big speaking fees for Bill in countries visited by Clinton as Head of State shortly thereafter is coming to light. I think everyone who votes Clinton in the general just to stop Trump, Cruz, Romney, or Jeb (I always say, never count the Bush’s out until after there’s no way left to cheat) should be sainted, because it’s really, really becoming more unappealing everyday, and November is so very, very far away. And you know what? I don’t care if Congress doesn’t “work” with President Sanders, as long as he has the veto pen, it’s better than passing Wall Street and MIC friendly legislation, which is all Clinton would be able to get through Congress.

What MWC said.

Sorry, I meant 14 % of Clinton supporters say they WON’T vote for Sanders.

And that should be Secretary of state, not head of state. I’m tired, I’m outta here.

I’m not a Bernie Stan So I’m not here to defend him.
Liberals won every big city in the country; then white flight happened and, just like South Africa, virtually every city faced economic insecurity. So that’s not an inspiring vision of liberal victory.
But this is part of the point: we all know white supremacists have all the guns. And yet we can do nothing about it. We have mass shootings like the Middle East has suicide bombers. Maybe not in frequency but certainly in political impact.
And I never said Clinton was responsible-just that she works for those who were. Am i mistaken in that assessment.
Finally, if you doubt my history, check Wikipedia.

I think that there are 2 discussions here- one about who would be the more electable candidate, and who would function better when in office. I still think that it’s HRC. One advantage that the Dems had, perhaps still have, is that their primary race is less likely to divide the party than the GOP ‘s is to divide theirs. Someone needs to get in there and straighten this out before it gets way out of hand, but I don’t think that DW-S is equal to the task. Fortunately the GOP anagram isn’t either.
There’s another discussion generally by former or alienated Dems who are very pissed off at the party. ( Cal Lash is as always sui generis.) HRC to my mind in many ways is the moderate Republican of the 60’s and70’s, probably like her Dad and Mom were. “Liberal” like Chuck Percy. It galls me that she’s the standard bearer, but there she is and the barbarians are over there, so what are you gonna do? BS wasn’t even in the DP a year ago, but he has very substantial traction, despite his shortcomings. The DP is mortgaged to the wrong people, and it angers me.
by the way as a kid I spent a lot of time passing candidates’ petitions, stuffing their envelopes, ground game stuff. I did this a long time ago. I spent the summer of 64 in DC living with someone who was right in the middle of real reform, and who paid a big personal price for it. My Daddy did a lot of no-cost heavy lifting for AZ Dems. I know how “it works.” Spare me your realpolitik civics lessons

HRC for President!

Bernie Sanders and Jose Mujica or Hillary and Bill for Prez and VP.

Those, “who never oppose the rich and powerful, are not better in my view than Solzhenitsyn’s village dogs. The dogs bark; the caravan moves on.”
Ed Abbey

MWC I missed your post until now. Excellent post. Goes along with a lot of what Robert Parry points out in his column that I posted above.

Soleri and Jon a comment on Robert Parry’s, views?

Cal,
I don’t know Consortium News or Robert Parry. Remember, this column assumes Sanders has won the nomination, so Hillary is irrelevant now. I’m asking for answers to my questions about Sanders.
For those seeking a good primer on the solid reporting on Hillary, there’s…
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-best-reporting-on-hillary-clinton-over-the-years?utm_source=pardot&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailynewsletter

I just finished reading your Parry post, which confirms my greatest reservation about Clinton – her neocon hawkishness. I’ve mentioned before my own speculations on the subject, whether she might be overcompensating for reasons of gender given her aspirations to be Commander-in-Chief. That said, there’s an interesting duality here given that other major Democratic players like John Kerry and Joe Biden aren’t subject to the intense demonization that she is on the AUMF vote. Even Susan Sarandon’s 2008 candidate, John Edwards, voted for it. The Libya question is more complex given that the country had already collapsed into civil war prior to our intervention. Anything we did or didn’t do would probably have resulted in a moral and political disaster. The lesson here is that the exercise of power seldom results in clean outcomes. Does that mean we should never use power? Reading Parry, I get that sense of moralizing that is inherent to left-wing critiques of imperialism. This mixing of categories – politics and ethics – blinds us to the exigency of power. We are necessarily actors first and foremost and only philosophers after the fact.
In my view, we should stop short of McCain-level resorts to military force in every situation. On the other hand, you never say never, and given the nature of some intractable problems, it is probably inevitable that military power will be used. At the time, our European allies, particularly France, wanted to clean a festering wound on its doorstep. It didn’t work out that way. This illustrates another issue with having a gigantic military which virtually begs to be used if only to justify itself. Is this always wrong? Well, Bill Clinton did stop a genocide in the Balkans with that military, and it might be that Hillary saw a similar opportunity in Libya. Of course, the playing fields and protagonists were different. Some things work, other things don’t.
Anyone we elect president will probably have to genuflect before the realist rump of the foreign-policy establishment. It would be an extraordinary event to see a critic of American power be elected president and I’ve speculated before whether the Deep State would even allow that to happen. The tragedy here is that being the “indispensable nation” forces us to act in ways that are usually contrary to our democratic values. It’s a conundrum I cannot solve, and I doubt Bernie himself has ever thought deeply about this issue. But if this election becomes a referendum on the American military, its size and mission, Bernie will lose big. This may be wrong and it’s probably tragic, but it is real. This is not the Republic of Ben & Jerry. We’re a nation that is always ready to “support the troops” and spend more, not less, on the military. Maybe Hillary gets that about America and the price we inevitably pay when we see ourselves as the primary bulwark of global order. Nationalism mixes with Realpolitik to create this unassailable political reality: Pax Americana. We on the left can critique its logic but we’d be well advised to respect its rationale.

From my view, Sanders’ approach looks nothing like a “vicious campaign against Hillary”; however, I’ve purposely stayed out of the day to day “horse race” of this election so my emotions haven’t been ginned up by the 24 hour news cycle.
MWC makes some good points as to why Clinton is a perennially weak candidate. How does Sanders’ “unify the Democratic Party”? I had to double check that I was on the Rogue Columnist site and not This Week with George Stephanopolous after reading that. Campaigns are won by clearly articulating a vision and guiding principles, not by diving into the weeds of technical policy wonkery or soothing the hurt feelings of partisan hacks.
I also disagree that the strategy to take back the Congress is to keep circle jerking the various good ol’ boy DNC fundraising networks. The Congress will be won back with the same strategy that Bernie is using on Hillary: campaigning on a reform platform (as opposed to that of compromising and dealmaking with the Insane Clown Posse of today’s GOP,). We are not in an era of statesmen or good faith actors where a Lyndon Johnson-type candidate can arm-twist and back-slap his way to legislative outcomes. Even if we were, HRC would be the last candidate who could succeed at this, as she is universally hated in the GOP. Cackling is not an interpersonal communication skill.
As for your Question #4; HRC is not going to win the New Confederacy and definitely won’t win “angry white makes” either. The only way to make gains in the South is to disconnect from party politics and run on pocketbook issues while simultaneously inspiring young people and new voters. Having an actual Angry White Male as a candidate may help a little as well.
#5 – Yes, they have succeeded in destroying the Clinton brand among Republicans over many years and many millions. This combined with a lack of enthusiasm on the left makes her a weaker general election candidate. I agree it will be a risk to run a Socialist but it’s one I’m willing to take. I’d rather play to win than to not lose.
#6 and #7 – Experience is relevant only because it’s assumed that the wisdom derived from it will guide a candidate to make better decisions. HRC’s experience at State and in Congress include two epic fuck-ups: one she is under criminal investigation for and the other is the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country. Obama didn’t have experience either (or the fuck ups)
#8 is mainly just you shit talking, but elections are won by repeatedly articulating a bold vision. Exhibit A is the Washington state primary and the fact that Bernie is crushing HRC in the most educated places in the country.
#9; yes, the stakes are high in this election which is exactly why HRC is a dangerous choice, as it’s heads the world loses, tails the world loses. Time has run out for incrementalism. If you pay any attention to facts and empiricism you already know this.

Ex Phx Planner, thanks for addressing the questions.
Washington state was a caucus, not a primary. Only 4 percent of voters were represented. It was exactly the venue when Sanders supporters believe his inevitably. Yet the state as a whole is highly competitive between Rs and Ds, not at all like a Seattle protest.
Incrementalism is all we have given the reality of a divided country.

Agreed; the point about Washington was not about his ability to win a primary but in response to the repetitive “angry old man” schtick getting old. It would seem that this trait/strategy would first begin to wear on the educated class, but the opposite is happening.

Cackling is not an interpersonal communication skill.
Thanks for the clarifying misogyny.
HRC’s experience at State and in Congress include two epic fuck-ups: one she is under criminal investigation for and the other is the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country.
I’m going to take a wild guess that you voted for John Kerry in 2004. Was he also responsible for “the worst foreign policy mistake…..”? No? I guess you’re weren’t quite the purist then that you are today. As for the “criminal investigation”, there is none, just another right-wing talking point Bernie Bros uncritically repeat.
Incrementalism is how politics works. We’re not going to have a revolution and if we tried, we’d probably lose to the people with lots of guns. We won’t make Mitch McConnell cower by have a big demonstration in front of his Capitol Hill office, as Bernie asserts. This is the kind of dopey nonsense that fantasists engage in. It’s as real as Susan Sarandon imagining she’s part of the proletariat. This unhinged personality cult of St Bernie is rapidly becoming a parody of itself.

And; I disagree that we have “a divided country”. We are only 50/50 when comparing the platforms of DNC and GOP; The country is not as divided if you aren’t tethered to partisan positions and have the ability to build coalitions around existentially important issues of climate change and economic inequality.

Yes; I did vote for Kerry but didn’t support him in the primary. Just as I’ve said I’ll vote for HRC but don’t support her in the primary.
One advantage of Bernie’s “pure” voting record is that his positions can’t be called out by the GOP as bullshit when trying to draw a contrast in the general election. Remember how well that worked out for Kerry?
Am I wrong that Clinton is not under investigation? Maybe “criminal” is technically wrong but your naive if you think she’ll be able argue semantics when it’s being conducted by the FBI and talk herself out of that corner when Koch industries propaganda machine is unleashed on her.
And, I just cackled at the fact that you, of all people, attempted to call out someone on political correctness. I guess what your think is of most importance for “purity” in the public square are a little different from mine. And you wonder why we keep losing elections.

Jon, your column is about an uncertain and unlikely happening. I take away from this column and comments how Sanders supporters have driven the campaign to a progressive position that I believe Hillary would have otherwise avoided. Sanders has brought to the forefront issues that most of us care about, DEEPLY. And I believe at one time in his life Soleri had more fire in his belly than he does today in his older sage version of incrementalism. He has moved from Socrates (“what I do not know I do not think I know”) to Aristotle (best purpose).
Soleri thank you for reading Robert Parry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry_(journalist)) he is an award winning journalist and has been a thorn in the side of Neocon and GOP politicians for years. He and Gary Webb were very involved in the Contra and other such investigations. I fault Sanders for not talking about the Bush and Clinton Crime families even though you seem to think that’s not really true or even important. The House of Saud has been a part of the Bush crime family (and now the Clinton empire) since old man Bush got inducted into the good ole boys organization that’s allegedly has Pancho Villas head stored away for ceremonial rituals. I believe the Clintons not able to join the good ole boy posse decided to create their own. There was no way the bankers of the world were going to let trailer trash Billy aboard and they have done everything possible to destroy the Clintons. However now she may be just Hawkish enough to get those boys on board her train. They are still caught up in killing Joe Smith, hence there is no way they will willing let theocratic Ted Cruz get the nomination. They just got to figure out what to do with Trump.
Good column Jon, good to see Soleri catch on fire again. And other commentator’s throwing gas on him to keep him burning. Keep Scribbling, its good.

It’s been brought to my attention by Jerry about the Skull and Cross Boys;
A piece by Parry that also may relate to the organization that’s allegedly has Pancho Villas head stored away for ceremonial rituals.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/05/the-mystery-of-shakespeares-tomb/

Krugman bad mouths Bernie for something Krugman said Sanders is right about. U cant have it both ways Paul.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-krugman-is-wrong-about-the-financial-crisis_us_57080537e4b063f854dfa21a

Clinton for the poor?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-clinton-welfare-reform_us_5707cbf4e4b0c4e26a227a34

Good questions. Interesting comments; a little heavy on the GD incrementalism . . . .
Compromise? Capitulation? The Word of the Day is Quisling.
Props to Ex Phx Planner. Yes! Always play to win! Bern, baby, Bern!
What would a Sanders’ general election campaign & administration look like? Well, obviously, instantaneous fluffy clouds, rainbows & unicorns.
Or, maybe a slow-cookin’ revolution. You know, replace the elected jerks over the next few elections; kind of an old-fashioned, out-of-date concept: democracy.
Or, if you prefer the status quo, you can support HRC, Wall Street’s fav. She’ll make sure our betters stay in charge. How does it feel to live in the industrialized world’s #1 most unequal nation? (Do I hear a “We’re Number One” chant?).
To the Revolution!

So, besides a few interesting points made above, only more slogans from the Bernie supporters: Like Bernie, little substance, high hopes. I don’t know what really irks me more: Sanders forgetfulness regarding his role in deregulating banks during the Clinton Administration, his pandering to the gun lobby, and his indebtedness to the Military Industrial Complex (think F35s in Vermont) … or Bernie supporters blinders to these facts.

Phxsunfan that’s why this Bernie fan is leaving the elitest folks like you to taking care of the important things. As the sun sets, I’m stoking up my desert campfire and yelling a few slogans at the coyotes.
Every screw-up Bernie did pales in comparison to the Clinton criminal empire.
What is it you don’t understand abut illegal?

Hows about this: Trump and Sanders both run as third party candidates. Now I got someone to vote for. Or Just Write in under Other.

I wonder what kind of answers candidate Barack Obama would have had to those questions 8 years ago……
What did “Hope and Change” mean?
You progressives have a choice between someone who voted for the Iraq war, against the surge, who gladly takes wall street money and then won’t release those speech transcripts, who made $20 plus million last year with her husband, and who has a lot of experience but a dearth of accomplishments, and who has much higher negative than positive ratings:
https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/
and then there’s the stench of the emails and the Foundation.
The other choice is scandal free, with unquestioned integrity and who is at least 2 to 3 standard deviations to the left of choice A.
And WHO are you supporting?

Why isn’t the Democratic Party (along with the Republican Party, which is doing a fine job of burning itself down now too) already overdue for being burned down?

INPHX,
Bernie and Jose Mujica
and YOU.
Be Honest now!!!!

American Eagletarian, the Democratic party in Arizona went up in flames in 1950. And the Theocrats in Salt Lake intend on it being Tits on a Boar until they are all safe and tucked away with their wives in their own Universe where they are one with god.

The election of criminals and
Regarding the last blog on gangsters.
Here is a guy we need Interpol and the US feds to send into exile in Israel.
Between him and the Coke bros they are a national menace and disgrace.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/sheldon-adelson-gop-donors-sidelines-221765

Queen Clinton turns on 1984 static machine.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-static-noise-speech_us_570930dae4b0836057a16748

Note: I dont scare easily.
but for president this is what I find scariest. The scariest in order being,
Ted Cruz (theocrat evangelistic kook)
Hillary Clinton (power hungry criminal)
John Kashish (GOP stooge and a Kook)
Donald Trump (ignorant but not that scary)
Sanders (Naive but wiling to learn)

I added this to the column above:
the most energetic, youth-based political movement in modern American history took down the “sellout” Democratic Party establishment in 1968. It had at its back the wind of the anti-war movement, black power, feminism, the New Left, “days of rage” and, internationally, the youth-fueled rebellion that ultimately drove Charles de Gaulle from power. Americans chose Dick Nixon. Four years later, the Vietnam War still going on and scandal gathering over the White House. Yet the idealistic Sen. George McGovern (a genuine war hero) and his “Come Home America” movement were crushed.
Bernie lived much of this American history. What has he learned? How have we changed into a nation finally ready to turn left?

Bernie goes to visit Taltons religious sage;
Will he come back wiser?
https://www.vice.com/read/bernie-sanders-is-speaking-at-the-vatican-next-week-vgtrn
We will only go Bernie’s way if we have the desire to die for the cause. Screw Hillary and her gang. May Ted Cruz be exiled to Canada as a religious terrorist. And Jeb Bush sent home to his mommy, the only real person in his tribe.
From the base of a Sajuaro somewhere in the great Sonoran Desert, what’s left of it. Whats left of it after the Mega city advocates.

Jon, a note from the desert rat gang is in your snail mail. May Sunnyslope mesquite be its recognized flower.

Probably accurate:https://www.vice.com/read/a-bernie-sanders-victory-just-got-a-little-less-impossible

Soleri, it may be that the truth is fiction and reality is what the rich and powerful decide it should be.
But then maybe Woody Allen was wrong?

Why Bill Clinton should have not taken free food and money from Tyson Chicken.
https://munchies.vice.com/en/articles/peta-says-eating-chicken-will-give-your-kid-a-tiny-dick

Can any president be more powerful than the CIA?
https://news.vice.com/article/cia-helped-produce-top-chef-covert-affairs

Last Chance:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-sanbonmatsu/new-york-bernie-sanders-is_b_9629028.html

Because the time of the gop-lite, hedge fund run, war mongering “democratic” party is over and on the down swing. The current usa usa model is broken and will go, and suddenly like the USSR model went. What will it take? Another recession, inability to fund endless wars on debt, social security cuts for more wars, or when Bernie/Trumpistas fly together like the Eagle and the Dove…..

HRC for president!

OK, Rogue,
Let me close my eyes and meditate for just a moment on that particular era of US history, the days of Nixon/McGovern.
You asked, “How have we changed into a nation finally ready to turn left?”
Hmmm . . . what has changed for Americans since the 70s?
Americans have learned what it is like to plunge into poverty. Income inequality is a phrase which most Americans now know. But before they heard the words, they lived the slip-slide down the mountain: good jobs gone; wages stagnant; all the new jobs created post-2008 are part-time, sh*t-wage, no-benefit, slave jobs. All the increased productivity in the US economy has benefited the 1%, not the workers; the American middle-class is gone. We’ve been Walmartized.
Hmm . . . what else?
Education funding at all levels is reduced. (Arizona and Kansas lead the way, but the rest of you are on the edge.) Because of student loan debt, getting a college education is now akin to signing up for lifelong indentured servitude. There is no longer a shared expectation that our children will have a bright future and a good life here.
Pensions are gone. Unions are neutered. Employers are emboldened to routinely cheat workers out of wages and benefits.
Our justice system has been exposed for what it is: a massive, grinding machine set to keep the poor and people of color down; a system where bias is so entrenched that generations have been ruined by contact with it. And now the rise of the sinister prison-industrial system. Great. American corporate investors can make money off of prisoners.
Oh, and don’t forget unprecedented corporate greed/corporate welfare. And crumbling infrastructure. And all the dark money flooding into our political system.
Yes, there is a chance the American people are fed up and will look left.
Please, God. Please.

The slogans here are flying faster the than the drool at a Tea Party convention, and the difference between it and Bernie’s personality cult is getting increasingly tenuous. Sound, fury, signifying, whatever.
Imagine if an airliner were take over by a group of 15 year-old boys who then decided the best way to fly the plane would be to let the most authentic of them take control because the pilot was a “corporate whore”. Or think of a teach-in at a nuclear power plant where the technicians decided to Feel the Bern instead of monitoring the temperature in the reactor core. Or think of some hospital orderlies who insisted that neurosurgery wasn’t brain science so they took over the operating theater, donned surgical masks, and brandished scalpels at the anesthetized.
Bernie’s moment is arriving at the same moment Trump’s is receding. Coincidence? Popular enthusiasm is fickle but its demands are never less than a compound of hysteria and certitude. You don’t need to know stuff in our idiocracy. Reagan proved that and now it’s Bernie’s turn to excise the limits of the imagination. He’ll hire the best minds! Susan Sarandon for Fed chair, Arianna Huffington at State, Cornel West for AG. It’s too late for incrementalism in this Republic of Berning Man. Power will flow only through the legitimate vector of revolutionary consciousness.
We’re free to abandon our political parties now that the One Authentic Voice speaks though Facebook directly to our civic soul. His inner Denmark will guide us through the dark night and stormy days. We will trust him because he’s never lied to us in the six months that we’ve been aware of his existence.
When does the fever break? Or has the body politic already escaped its earthly trammels for the pure and ethereal? Reality no longer has the power to oppress those who can see beyond its vexing complications. All you need to do is believe for the clouds to part to reveal the heavenly mansion of political paradise. Power to the people!

Always good to know the voice of the status quo is ready to chime in and scare us all with . . . Cornel West and Denmark.

Oh, dear. Now the revolutionary guard is upset and will miss his Molotov cocktail lesson.

Not to worry! Luckily, the revolutionary guard has thick skin.
Power to the people! [sans sarcasm]

Soleri, that was some of the best poetry I have read. Great cadance, rythym and the power of the words still echo in my old but today not so befuddled brain.
I wait for “The Fire Next Time”.

HRC for president!

JMAV U have a preference for Parrots?
How about a job at the circus as an organ grinder.
Or maybe in India.

I always learn from Soleri. The one subject I doubt we will ever agree on is Ronald Reagan.
When his on-duty nemesis and after-hours friend Tip O’Neill called Reagan an “amiable dunce,” Dutch had the Speaker right where he wanted him. Reagan thrived on being under-estimated.
We now know from the extensive writing he did on legal pads that Reagan was a sophisticated political thinker. He was one of the most gifted politicians of the 20th century. Being “the Great Communicator” was a massive advantage. He peeled away the “Reagan Democrats” perhaps permanently from the Democratic Party.
Before entering the White House, he had served two terms as governor of the (then) nation’s second most-populated state. He was largely a pragmatist. Despite his anti-Berkeley rhetoric and some early symbolic moves, the University of California system ended up better funded in the Reagan administration. His friendship with Arizona Gov. Jack Williams helped soften California’s opposition to the CAP.
This same pragmatism, along with his communication skills, allowed him to manipulate a Democratic Congress to get much of what he wanted. He raised taxes more times than he cut them.
Reagan grew to hate nuclear weapons, particularly after the near catastrophe of the Able Archer ’83 exercise, which the Soviet Union believed was the beginning of a NATO invasion. He worked effectively with Mikhail Gorbachev — a much more flawed leader than most in the West realize even now. The two came very close to total nuclear disarmament at the Reykjavík summit, to the alarm of Reagan’s aides and the Deep State. The “amiable dunce” foresaw years in advance that the Soviet empire would disintegrate.
Don’t get me wrong: most of Reagan’s policies were ill-conceived and his tax cut religion, “government is the problem” mantra and Southern Strategy are cancers that still haunt us. But there’s a reason that candidate Obama cited Reagan, rather than Bill Clinton, as a model.
Until the left realized what a formidable adversary Reagan was, it will never move forward to win. And, of course, Reagan couldn’t even win a GOP school-board primary today.
My second point is that given the difficulty of this election, it might be a gift to see Sanders as the nominee. We could see if the liberal echo chamber is real. Otherwise, if HRC goes down in November, the echo chamber will continue to believe its tweets and Facebook missives.

Jon, your last paragraph is right on point and had been faintly echoing around.

Clinton the hawk?
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/10/would-a-clinton-win-mean-more-wars/
and Jon said,
“foresaw years in advance that the Soviet empire would disintegrate.”
Reagan saw what many had predicted,
it was not whether but when the economic model would fail.
And Putin is trying to put the pieces back together with his KGB tools and the help of who he decides should be a Russian capitalist billionaire. And the US has helped by once again supporting the wrong corrupt politicians.

Bernie has become an arsonist:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-clinton-judgment_us_570aa61de4b0142232494789

How would Bernie have handled it?
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/08/covering-up-hillarys-libyan-fiasco/

Will Bernie appoint Michael Moore as Secretary of State?
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/10/where-to-invade-next-is-the-most-subversive-movie-michael-moore-has-ever-made/

Clinton isn’t a hawk. Right wing propoganda has taken root and with left wingers. It’s really a sad state. What Clinton is, is a strong candidate and powerful woman. For whatever reason that is threatening to some men and it’s wearing thin! Bernie is not a purist and has played the political game, albeit in the Farm Leagues while Clinton was batting with the majors. Nonetheless, his supporters have purchased the snake oil.

Cal,
Want to take a shot at answering even one of my questions. Remember, the assumption is that Bernie is the nominee and Hillary is history.

From the new end of the column:
While a wide-ranging conversation is always welcome here, this column assumes that Sen. Sanders is the nominee and Hillary Clinton is on the sidelines. So more anti-Hillary/pro-Bernie rhetoric is less helpful. Please answer/discuss at least one of the questions that will confront the Sanders campaign in the general election. Thanks in advance.

Rogue, the “amiable dunce” remark came from Clark Clifford, not Tip O’Neill. Tip and Ronnie got along famously both personally and politically. By contrast, Tip detested Jimmy Carter, which is helpful in understanding why Carter’s presidency was so flawed. The pundit Joesph Kraft called Carter “a factionalist of the center” which is key to understanding Carter’s priggish disdain for deal-making. Ultimately, his personal “virtue” is what his presidency ran aground on. In this light, you Bernie Tots might want to rethink the efficacy of purity politics. I can’t think of a single example where it enhanced either the country or the reputation of its practitioner.
Reagan could compromise, make deals, admit mistakes, and regroup. He raised taxes eleven times during his presidency when voodoo didn’t deliver the promised magic. Republicans today are utterly incapable of learning from his example (see: INPHX).
But Reagan was still an ideologue, and more than anything else, his harebrained belief system helped establish the permanent rejection of pragmatism among conservatives. By 1993, the Republican Party was in full thrall to nostrums and bromides that belong more in Amway meetings than in the governance of this nation. Reagan himself was a compulsive anecdotalist who often believed crazy things he heard, such as trees causing pollution. His anti-intellectualism paved the way for Republicans to reject science and empiricism. And his cynical politicization of religous values helped radicalize the nation to such a degree that we are now virtually ungovernable. The damage Reagan has done to America is not excusable because he was a good writer and “thoughtful”. The Iran-Contra scandal alone would have resulted in the impeachment and removal from office of a Democratic president. Consider for a moment Barack Obama selling arms to terrorists in order to fund an illegal war in Central America. Reagan only got away with this because of his sweet personality along with the sense that he had already entered his dotage. When Nancy Reagan shook up his staff and brought in Howard Baker to run the West Wing, congressional leaders took that as a cue that Reagan himself was now on a short leash and would no longer embarrass the nation.
Reagan’s political legacy is today’s Republican Party, probably the most dysfunctional major party in a major democracy and very nearly insane with ideological nonsense and radicalism. It is true that Reagan today would be considered a RINO in this party but that sidesteps the point that his presidency began its devolution in earnest. I recommend the Rick Perlstein book if you’re at all vague about the era of Reagan’s rise and his role in transforming his party.

Soleri:
Don’t you dare try to misrepresent Reagan’s tax revolution by selectively (and probably incorrectly) alleging that he raised taxes 11 times.
Even if that’s true (and you’re not a guy especially good at accuracy) , tax rates were much, much less when he left office than when he entered office. The 1981 tax cuts were massive and despite most liberal predictions of the bankruptcy of the country, GNP took off (as predicted) and the country did just fine. There were indeed some small and subsequent “give back” later during his stellar tenure, but nothing that even began to approach the tax relief he achieved in the 1981 Act.
Despite several democratic presidents since Reagan, there is one primary reason why no sane person will discuss pre Reagan income tax rates as a reality today. And that reason is Ronald Reagan.
You can’t learn from his example because you don’t even understand it. Stick with the insipid defense of HRC you’re presenting here.
Want to read more about Reagan? Spend a little time reviewing the 1984 election. You know, the last time a President actually generated unity in this country.
Those were the days……

Christ. My bad for bringing up Reagan — good reposte by Soleri, though. Back to the SANDERS questions.

Jon, as I mentioned above “What would Bernie do” questions, are irrelevant. He is going to lose! I much more concerned about what HRC is going to do. Even more important NOT do.
Like not taking on the NEOCONS and the financial community, not legalizing drugs, not saving more wilderness.
AND every reader on this blog knows I am not smart enough to answer even one of the, What would Bernie do questions.
If I was I would run and have Warren as my running mate.
Phxsunfan, said, “Clinton isn’t a hawk. Right wing propoganda has taken root and with left wingers. It’s really a sad state”.
Pure bull shit
AND Elizabeth Warren is a strong contender that should be running.
I am so old I know the guys that invented snake oil. For a world traveler you certainly seem not to be up on Crime by the rich and famous, or maybe you are up on it?
Well I have ran out of slogans so I leave it to the wise guys.

“The answer is not to counter their insanity with our own. The best we can do is bide our time until we either have super-majorities or Republicans recover their sanity.”
If the Dems nominate BS,it will rank right up there with nominating George McGovern in 68.(Sorry to say,I remember that).The Rep. oligarchs know that BS is their best hope to win by painting him a wild eyed socialist and scare the hell out of the independents.Don’t fall for the bait.

Cal, it’s starting to look like you were right to be more worried about Cruz than Trump, I never would’ve thought the Republican Establishment, the Fourth Estate’s service to them, and Trump’s own big mouth could’ve slowed Trump down, but it’s beginning to seem like it can happen. I don’t believe they’re gonna let Cruz be President after he gets rid of their Trump problem for them, he’s really guilty of the trysts The Enquirer accused him of, or he would’ve sued them. They’ll roll the thing back out before or at the convention, kill Ted off, and make Romney, Jeb, or Ryan the nominee.
I see Sander’s gun legislation record is being brought up again. I personally don’t like guns at all, but I can’t see any logic in holding mom and pop gun shop owners liable for crimes committed with guns they legally sold. And then, there’s also the fact that back when Obama made his statement regarding people clinging bitterly to their guns and bibles, Clinton proudly stated, “I’m a Second Amendment-loving churchgoer!” Please explain how that’s ok, as long as we’re asking questions about the candidates.

Pat, Trump talk a lot chit but Cruz is one diabolical evil dude.
Killing Che, Not to worry Soleri and Jon, it will not be pretty but Clinton will dispatch Sanders, ending the bloodless revolution he offered up and you refused to be a party too.
Aging does funny things to all of us. Some get more conservative (wise?) and a few get more radical (stupid) that I am.
I give you the loser:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/sanderss-successful-insurgency/477249/

I’m ready for Sanders. I wish more would address my questions.

OK Jon, I slept on it and this is the best my old Befuddled mind could come up with.
Question one: Sanders plan for the Democratic Party is to march straight ahead, win or lose.
Question two: You are overthinking this: Same answer as number one.
Question three: Other politicians need to follow Bernie’s lead.
Question four: Ignore (stupid) white males.
Question five: It’s time to quit lying and time for a Socialist to point out the US really is a socialistic country.
Questions six and seven: Putin does it all the time. Sanders will have to get some good advice.
Question eight: Everything goes stale eventually, just have to work up some new stuff.
Question 9: Is not a question, but a statement of opinion. I would rather have Obama again than Hillary, Thank You.

I Googled “I’m a Second-Amendment loving churchgoer” and could only get one result: Pat’s comment here. It’s not a big deal since the difference between the candidates on this issue is negligible, at best. Hillary might be pushing it a bit too hard if only to show she can play purity politics just like Bernie. I actually appreciate Bernie’s position here: he voted with the NRA because Vermont is a rural state where people own and love guns. There’s no shame in voting their interests. Props to Bernie for living in the real world! I wish he’d make a habit of it (see also: his support for the F-35 boondoggle). This is how the system works and congresscritters shouldn’t apologize for it.
Bernie’s real problem is just the opposite: he’s a sanctimonious critic of others doing what he has done with the gun issue. You want to make the system implode? Demand that we only elect purists to office. Fortunately, you have an example very close to home: the Arizona State Legislature. Instead of people crafting deals to solve real-world problems, you have dim-bulb zealots like Sylvia Allen writing bills to turn Arizona into a theocracy. I’ve stopped arguing with my lefty friends that the answer to these kind of problems is term limits, which makes my teeth hurt just seeing it in print. Please people, wake up. You’re tired of nutty pols stinking up the government, you want the opposite of term limits. You want experienced pols like Burton Barr and Alfredo Gutierrez making deals. Arizona actually used to work before voters got particularly stupid in the 1990s. In this thread, the overriding tenor of the comments is how we can’t trust Hillary Clinton because she’s taken campaign contributions from people we don’t like, which means she’s on the take! The dumbness of this naiveté is best answered by Jesse Unruh’s famous observation: “If you can’t take their money, drink their booze, eat their food, screw their women and vote against them, you don’t belong here.”
Bernie Sanders is the US Senate’s Betrayal Queen. Life is so horrifying because everyone isn’t Atticus Finch! Or Jimmy Stewart in Mr Smith Goes to Washington! Bernie Sanders gets it! We need to pretend politics is like a religion! That way, we can pretend we’re in heaven all the time!
I will be so happy when this season will be over.

Ah, yes Soleri on fire!!!
This has been a really great column no matter the disagreements.

Soleri’s post reminds me of Burton Barr’s observation that you don’t get a lot of Winston Churchills for $8000 per year.(I think he was answering a question about how the Az. legislature could be so stupid-a quaint question compared to the present lege.)I agree that Bernie is a little late coming to the party.He had chosen to be an outsider instead of getting “in the arena” of politics like HC has done.None of us or the candidates are without sin so think in terms of evolution,not revolution.
It took us 50 years to get into this mess and it’s going to take a long,long time to get out.Hopefully,without too much pain for my kids and grandkids.Worst case,they can live like I did I did growing up in a small town in a 50 year old home,with one bathroom,no carport and only a work truck to ride in.Didn’t hurt me that much.

What Mike no corn cobs?

Props to Bernie for living in the real world!
That’s right! Compromise for the sake of compromise, that’s how I vote!
Think the Iraq war was a bad idea? Then vote for someone who supported it!
Hate the idea of the proliferation drone strikes? Why then, it only makes sense that I vote for one of their most vocal supporters!
Think Climate Change is a problem? Then support a candidate financed by carbon polluters who lobbied on their (not that those two things could be connected) and proposes a completely ineffective, impractical Rube-Goldberg system for addressing it.
Historic income inequality a concern? Why then we should support the candidate bank-rolled by Goldman Sachs of course. It’s naive to think money influences politicians. Antonin Scalia told us so.
All of the above is a positive to our up-is-down “Democrats” on this blog, since it shows she’s “in the real world” and not “riding on unicorns”.
I’ve read you long enough to know that you’re too smart to be this stupid. So, I’ll say it: you’re cowards.

Think the Iraq war was a bad idea? Then vote for someone who supported it!
Yep, like you voted for John Kerry in 2004, but without that telltale demonization before the fact.
Think Climate Change is a problem? Then support a candidate financed by carbon polluters who lobbied on their (not that those two things could be connected) and proposes a completely ineffective, impractical Rube-Goldberg system for addressing it.
Yeah, Hillary getting marginally more lobbyist donations from energy-sector employees than Bernie means she’s in the tank! And no one knows how to solve global warming like Bernie! After his election, we’ll all be riding bicycles to Revolutionary Council meetings.
Historic income inequality a concern? Why then we should support the candidate bank-rolled by Goldman Sachs of course. It’s naive to think money influences politicians. Antonin Scalia told us so.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Huh? Oh, yeah. She’s in the tank!
I’ve read you long enough to know that you’re too smart to be this stupid. So, I’ll say it: you’re cowards.
Oh noes! We’re weak people not feeling the Bern! Purification rituals might be necessary!

“bicycles to revolutionary council meetings”
Fun! let’s play nonsense!
We’re a divided country so let’s support the Very Serious Candidate and work with the GOP to:
– deport 5 million Mexicans instead of all 11
– Only bomb 6 countries instead of 15
– Limit prosecutions to non-Christian women who get back alley abortions!
– Close the borders but allow white people.
Compromise = progress. Only a “purist” would oppose issues on principle.

Cowards NO.
NOT burning High Octane leaded fuel, anymore. YES
But vote
Knowing “with our industrial civilization sinking deeper into its misery and squalor, drifting into universal civil war”.
Ed Abbey

One of the reasons I support Hillary Clinton is that I DON’T love her. She doesn’t make me want to join a cult of like-minded zealots who know with absolute certitude what the truth is. In other words, she’s an ordinary human being not promising paradise but what is reasonably possible in a sharply divided nation. No fireworks, only as much competence and respect for others that an astute political practitioner can muster.
We all know people who bore us with their absolute convictions. They know that Jesus is the only path to eternal life. Or that Barack Obama is the worst president ever. Or that taxes can only be cut, never raised. Or that vaccines cause autism. Or the real truth about chemtrails. Or that Hillary is the most corrupt person who ever lived. Or that only Bernie can save the world. Most of us give these zealots a wide berth. Some of us are these zealots.
I was never on the fence about Bernie. I knew he was a lone wolf and a gadfly. I also understand politics well enough to know that you don’t elect people like him, or Ralph Nader, or Jill Stein president. You look for the person who can encompass as much support as possible that is reasonably aligned with your values. And if you find other candidates generating fanatical support, your eyebrows tend to arch. Because that’s a danger sign about both the candidate’s beliefs and his personal appeal. You never elect someone from the fringe precincts of passion, theirs or your own. You elect people who are cool, calm, and sane. If you find this idea upsetting, there’s a good chance you’re making a category error. Politics is not religion. If you believe too passionately in a candidate, chances are you’re polluting quotidian reality with messianic fervor. Take a deep breath, calm down, and stay rational. Elections are not meant to be raves.

No cobs,Cal,but I do remember using baking soda to brush teeth when money was tight.Economists in the 50’s were predicting that too much money and people only needing to work 20-30 hours per week would be the future problem as they didn’t foresee that desires soon become necessities.The beat goes on.
As for the Presidential election,it’s the shiny thing that keeps us staring while the Lege. has less turnover than the Russian or Chinese Parliament.We should be talking about that.

HRC for president!

OK, I’ll try, after your FaceBook invitation.
1. “Unify” is not the operative word here. Let the centrifugal force of the disunity send those who are so inclined out of the Party, since by definition Bernie would be the head of it. Oh, do you want to pitch in on the new New Deal Democratic Party? Welcome, comrade. Oh, you don’t? Well, you going to the GOP, then? Or maybe third party land. That would be ironic, eh, you pragmatists, you?
(I am going to not the hostile framing of the question. “Vicious campaign,” “recycling Republican attack points,” etc. It is why I decided not to participate yesterday.)
2. I don’t know. I’m not a political strategist. I’m not sure any exotic strategy would be necessary, however. Sanders winning the would already be a signal of a shift, and if Trump is snaked out of his populism by the GOP, then there are a lot of potential angry right-wingers that just might protest-vote with the other rebel, Bernie Sanders.
3. “Revolution” is not violent or blood-sheddy. If it’s like that, it’s recycled history, no revolution at all. It is meant in this case as something “new.” We cannot see how it will manifest beforehand. I presume in good faith that Sanders is talking about a new generation of voters seeing their role in government oversight in a new light, as in not “othering” their own government like many in the Boomer (my) generation reflexively do.
One does not “assemble” such a House and Senate – one feels compelled to step up and echo the President’s agenda and presumably, in this revolutionary environment, to topple the intransigent legislator(s).
4. The presumption is that this class is becoming more aware of how they are being ripped off and manipulated by divisive politics. Yea, there are some who will never change, but they are older and overly represented and concentrated in that media circus called the Trump campaign. Fuck them.
5. The billionaire dark-money Republican puppetmasters and their media lackeys are shitting themselves right now because of what is happening in their own party. OK, the media lackeys are having a bit of a laugh, which does not bode well for the puppetmasters. I don’t think they have the credibility to effectively red-bait the Senator from Vermont.
6. The same way the Tea Party effectively did it. “Outsider” status. Now they could rejoin that he’s been in government for decades, and try to have it both ways, but that might be easier to swat down when you think about it.
Also, sell the Presidency for its bully-pulpit, and emphasize intent and morality over experience (especially because “experienced” folk got us into this mess in the first place.) Name an outstanding cabinet that reflects the vision of the candidate.
7. Name an outstanding cabinet that reflects the vision of the candidate. As in, not a load of recycled neoliberals and neocons.
8. It’s already old for some people. Like people who frame questions like that. What you see is not what all of us see.
9. I don’t believe this is Russian roullette. If Sanders wins the nomination, it should be a bellwether for the revolutionary mood of the country (mostly centered in the young, who are the future.) Let me qualify that – if he wins definitively. That is why I do not like the trashing of Clinton, have no hopes that there are “gotchas” from the FBI, etc. I want him to win fair and square, otherwise it might be dicey. I admit these last weeks have been heating up but, unlike you, Jon, I see just as much culpability from the Clinton camp, if not more. I’d be happier if Sanders shook it off more, but I’ll give him the status of being human.
(I apologize in advance for typos or word misuse – this was complete stream-of-consciousness writing.)

Petro, thank you for engaging. This is what I have been seeking from Sanders supporters.

De nada, Señor.

Well, Soleri, if you want to take the blinders off and google around some more, you can find clear documentation of Clinton pandering to the white gun owning demographic in 2008. She even boasted of having more support from whites than Obama. But, you probably don’t, your mind was made up at the outset, as was Mr. Taltons. I don’t guess we’ll see any anti-Clinton tirades from Mr. Talton on this blog after she’s elected, as we did with Obama, anyway, since we’ve established that we don’t have any right to expect much from her, and we should be satisfied with a teeny bit of incremental progress here and there.

Pat, different people have different views not to torment you with the injustice in all that but merely because we disagree and often for good reasons. I supported Obama in 2008 gladly. I don’t recall any strong feelings about Hillary Clinton then but I do recall some of the bitterness leaking out as she worked the white working class precincts in Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. That’s politics and it wasn’t anything too awful.
What is different eight years later is that the president is term-limited and the outsider campaign of Bernie Sanders is a completely different animal than Obama’s campaign was. For one thing, his radical critique of American politics includes the Democratic Party, which I’m loyal to. Bernie himself is not really a Democrat and has shown absolutely no loyalty to the party, or raised money for it, or even promised to do that in the future. This causes me to support Clinton. My own feeling is that if it were Biden instead of Bernie, I would be sorely tempted to go with Joe, who is a real Democrat and was certainly worthy of serious consideration.
In other words, I have no reasons to support Bernie aside from liking his oratory and some of his values. But what good are those things if you’re not loyal to the party under whose banner you’re running? How do you accomplish a “revolution” without adding support in Congress? Bernie seems to think he’s the vector that accomplishes everything. He is delusional.
Cults can be very blinding and controlling when it comes to their leaders. Bernie is a virtual messiah now on the left, and I’m not the type who is religious. I tend to get very nervous when the language starts getting messianic. I’ve noticed how tetchy the Bernie people are about even mild criticism. I recoil when they begin using abusive and ugly language toward Clinton, and their chronic victimology about everything from superdelegates to media “conspiracies” is exhausting. Scientology has nothing on you guys.
My own feeling is that gadflies should not be president. If Bernie were somehow to be elected president, I think it would be a disaster since he has never worked all that well with others. He’s intemperate, inflexible, and sanctimonious. Those are not the personality qualities you want in a president unless you think this nation really wants to be lectured to by a cranky old blowhard. You should count your blessings that this potential catastrophe is not going to happen.

“Yout should count your blessings that this potential catastrophe is not going to hapoen.”
Soleri I have said that its not going to happen every Bernie/Hillary conversation we have had.
So are you of the opinion Gadfly Bernie should never have jumped in the race so that Hillary and the party were a completely solid block rolling forward over the insane out of control GOP?
I think the discussion Bernie has brought to the table was a good thing.
R U upset that Trump jumped into the GOP race?

Jon, Answering your questions would solve nothing about the storm we are headed for. You are still inside the box of thinking your reasoned opinion will make any difference. The designated parties and status quo establishment couldn’t care less. By pulling out the stops to box us into voting for candidates who’s judgement, strategies and tactics so many of us find repulsive they stand exposed for what they really represent, corrupt top down control. I am sick playing their game by voting for the lesser of evils hoping for incremental change. That hasn’t been working. I will be voting my conscious and if others find that upsetting then give me a real choice next time. Anyway, if I were a Republican I would be praying for a HRC nomination. She is their only viable candidate.

Someone up there said “spare me with realpolitik” but, sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
In Arizona in 2014 Fred DuVal lost the gubernatorial election badly and a lot of liberal dudes want to think it was because he wasn’t thrilling enough or whatever but what really happened is DuVal was buried in negative ads accusing him of everything from unilaterally raising college tuition rates as a Regent to being in league with terrorists. They ran over and over and over again and demolished him, probably taking out the Dems down ticket along with it. That only took two months.
Admittedly, Bernie will be in a better position running for President of the whole country in 2016, and certainly if Trump is his opponent, but surely you didn’t think Karl Rove has been pouring money into helping Bernie in the primary because he likes him and wants him to be President, did you? If Sanders got the nomination that would happen in June, and June to November is an eternity for the GOP to redefine him.
And no, it’s not Double Secret 11th Dimension Chess where they really want to face Hillary. Oh no, they want to go up against Bernie, who has a past rife with opportunities for painting him as a delusional weirdo. Like how he didn’t have a real job until he was 40. And has a history of expressing his thoughts, many of which will not go over well with voters.
Take those fascinating sex essays he wrote as a man in his 30s. Now, I know, stop being so prudish and provincial, Donna! What damage could possibly be done by either of these statements:
“A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.
“A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.”
Being on billboards on freeways and at a busy intersections across Ohio and Florida. Think they won’t be? Think again. You try explaining that to moms in the suburbs. I wouldn’t know where to begin.
Then imagine how Bernie’s history of playing footsie with various communists during the Cold War will play. It’s true that red-baiting doesn’t hold the kind of sway that it used to, but it holds enough to alienate a whole lot of voters old enough (and olds vote like MFers!) to remember. Maybe not enough to make Bernie lose, but maybe enough to dampen turnout and make it difficult for him to win.
More recently, you have Bernie saying he’s going to raise everyone’s taxes at a CNN town hall in January. That will make for a great soundbite in an attack ad. I know, everyone’s going to get single payer health care and tuition free college (somehow). You’ll just explain that too. Sure you will.
Sanders’ plan to accomplish his goals involves the dubious prospects of taking back both houses of Congress through the sheer force of his magic coattails and of galvanizing millions of pissed-off Americans into the street. The first is difficult to imagine due to Sanders’ refusal to raise money for state Democrats and to what is so far a small and lackluster list of “Bernie candidates” currently running for Congress.
The second is not looking too plausible considering how Bernie isn’t motivating enough people to the polls to beat Clinton in the primary (and is constantly, and unwisely, dissing many of her voters) and also how Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are not likely to give a hot shit if 10 million people are amassed outside the Capitol. When have they cared about public opinion if it doesn’t directly affect their midterm electoral prospects? Recent history has shown that it probably won’t.

So are you of the opinion Gadfly Bernie should never have jumped in the race so that Hillary and the party were a completely solid block rolling forward over the insane out of control GOP?
I think the discussion Bernie has brought to the table was a good thing.
R U upset that Trump jumped into the GOP race
Cal, discussion is a great thing, delusional thinking not so much. The passion that’s been unleashed at the bacchanal Saturday night will not simply evaporate into Sunday morning’s sobriety. Berniemania is a phenomenon that demands a release of some kind, and my fear is that it will live to bear toxic fruit. Here are a few scenarios.
The first is that the Greens make Bernie an offer: run under our banner. They’re already on the ballot in every state where they usually get less than .5% of the total presidential vote. Bernie could get them past 20% and help elect the Republican. Bernie has said he will support the Democratic nominee but his lack of enthusiasm for that prospect is obvious. Imagine some slight he deems a deal-breaker. It’s not that hard.
Another is that Sandersistas decide to create a new party, which would have no impact this year but might damage the Democratic Party later on. New parties are notoriously difficult to create and flourish (and explains why there are few seldom competitive third parties). Still, the threat is there to punish Democrats for their “stab in the back”. This threat is already being discussed openly.
One more option would be an open campaign to advance a Leninist agenda of advancing the prospects of a Revolution. Heightening the contradictions by voting for the Republican was brandished by the noted “revolutionary” Susan Sarandon on MSNBC. I notice on this thread how even the more intelligent Bernie advocates seem to think we’re at some kind of pre-revolutionary stage where the nation could just blow up at any time. Be there or be square.
The older I get, the more I hate passion, certitude, and absolutism. These are qualities that twist minds and intoxicate souls. It’s not a lack of courage that makes me quiver before idiotic mobs of self-righteous zealots. It’s the experience where suggestible people collapse all distinctions for the thrill of being part of something bigger. I would prefer they just take up another hobby, say pot smoking.
As far as Trump goes, it was fun while it lasted. The Republican Party is still dangerous but it’s dying. You can’t base a party’s appeal on cruelty, ugliness, and stupidity without it eventually undermining its larger purpose (enriching the rich and comforting the powerful). Trump was simply the first candidate to “go there” since the buffers between the party and mob have all but disappeared. That said, we should check our schadenfreude since an insane GOP is bad for the nation. At some point, we have to hope they regain their sanity. A half-crazed nation is dysfunctional and makes political progress virtually impossible.

Donna, You make vague references to soft core porn writings and secret financing, how about citing some sources? While your digging for those check out Hillery’s stellar record as Sec. State. Here’s a link that might help https://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/hillary-clintons-six-foreign-policy-catastrophes.html As for endorsements and dirty money here’s another https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/25/neocon-kagan-endorses-hillary-clinton/ And soleri, the old pinko straw man meme falls right into the game plan the owners of the designated parties always pull out of the closet and dust off when they can’t address the question. I expect better from you. The way I see it we all owe Bernie and The Donald a big thanks for forcing this corrupt political system to expose itself for what it is, a united top down tool of the owner class designed to insure outcomes in their favor. If you are ok with playing that game that is your call. I’m done with it.

ross, I keep asking this question how Bernie leverages the political process to make this revolution. Now, you’re telling me the process itself is a top-down tool of the owner class. In other words, politics itself is too contaminated to work anymore. Which means we go to extra-political means. Say, violence.
You’re not going to win this way, either. For one thing, hippies are not very good when it comes to shooting people. Indeed, most don’t even have guns. And if they did decide to arm for revolution, they’d still have to fight the U.S. military along with the para-military local police forces. But I’ll admit I’m curious how the Tea Party of the left will go about it. I have heard no convincing scenarios but there are still plenty of unicorns out there to saddle up.

More good stuff. Thanks folks.

Out of fairness, I will add another argument I hear frequently. Namely, it doesn’t matter if Bernie wins in 2016 as long as he denies the White House to Hillary Clinton.
Under this scenario, the Republicans would win in November and make such a mess that the political system finally purges itself of corruption, “GOP Lite” in the Democratic Party, etc. and progressives score massive victories in 2020, in time for reapportionment.
I find this unconvincing, even dangerous. But it’s something I hear a good deal about.

If you look at the crowds of Sanders and Trump,they are almost completely different.Sanders fans are young,convinced that are getting conned by the politicians,and committed to changing the game.Trump’s crowds are basically old people who want to complain about how somebody has “moved their cheese” and want to believe they can have all the new stuff without any new taxes.They buy beer and lottery tickets with their discretionary income which might be why Trump self financing his campaign is so attractive.It would be interesting how many would show up if Trump charged to attend his rallies.
Trump is the beginning of the end of my generation and Sanders represents the enthusiasm of the young.Neither will win in the end,but I think they both have added to the conversation.I see Trump running as independent and continuing to lob bombs at the politicians. Sanders, moving Dems to the left and more responsive to the income inequity question,will have a substantial effect on Dems and future voters,but not this year with this Congress.

Froma Harrop’s column in today’s AZ Republic reports that 15% of Sanders voters, under the slogan “Finally, something to vote for,” voted only for him in the recent Wisconsin election, not voting for any down-ballot races.
In the same election, a right-wing state supreme court appointee of Gov. Scott Walker narrowly edged a progressive candidate.
Is this what we can look forward to in November? That if Sanders is not the nominee, there’s nothing to vote for? Or that if he is, there’s nothing else to vote for?
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by the political shallowness, ignorance, and apathy of the “Snapchat liberals,” as Harrop calls them. But it just confirms my feeling about the state the nation is in: Republicans turn my stomach, but Democrats break my heart.

soleri, I don’t recall saying anything about violence being a tactic to bring about the political reform this country is so desperately in need of. There are other means that will raise awareness and effect change. How about non compliance? How about non participation in rigged processes. This government spends billions teaching people in other political systems how to bring down corrupt systems. Maybe we could write a grant proposal?

ross, well, it’s a nice idea. We won’t vote! That will show ’em!
Civil disobedience, which I gather is what you mean by non-compliance, still demands great organizational and tactical skills. OWS might have given some of you an idea about the difficulties in that. What’s telling is that most people didn’t really don’t know what they were protesting. It was analogous to shouting Power to the People! It sounds good but it is so nebulous as to be meaningless. You need more than a generic devil like Hillary or corporations. The more specificity, the better given that we can’t really litigate attitudes much less opinions.
The rejection of incremental politics is not a revolution without offering a tangible alternative. You’re not going to reinvent the political contract on Facebook or at rallies. You need a better idea than we’ll make Mitch McConnell piss in his pants by thousands of people demonstrating outside his office. I get the feeling you have no idea what you’re advocating but not to worry. Neither does Bernie.

Jon, GOP wins WHITE house?
If you are not WHITE or Staight or a climate change denialist best U find another country to move to.

“Neither does Bernie. ”
I disagree, I think Bernie has known all along he was not going to win the nomination. I have not thought for a nano second that was his plan. I have always thought his plan was to jerk the country to the left and in that he has least awakened a few formely sleeping folks.
I think it was the intellectual that was mistaken in fear that Bernie might win.(And the GOP hoping)
I have met some “dumb” Trump supporters who are also Bernie fans?
So maybe just maybe, Soleri there has been a “revolution” of sorts? At least on this blog some roots of formentation have risen.

He never said violence.
He never said “do not vote”.
Mr. Soleri, with the blinders you wear, you look, but you do not see.

Cal, I was arguing against the idea that Bernie’s theory of political change – revolution – was intellectually coherent. In effect, he wants to have it both ways, that politics is irremediably broken and that you can use the existing process to fix it. Except as so many of his supporters on this thread insist, you can’t because incrementalism doesn’t work.
If you’re serious about fundamental change, you can’t simply wave off the half of the country that would sooner shoot black people (and now Latinos) than share the bounty of this nation with them. It’s why Bernie’s theory is so daft. He imagines something happening that has never happened before. Even during the New Deal, FDR had to cut out domestics and farm laborers from SS since Southern congressmen demanded as much. And this is not just an artifact of history. Look at all those Southern Republican governors refusing to accept Medicaid through Obamacare – at no cost! – simply to stick it to black people. Yes, Republicans are that evil.
I’ve made the point in this forum over and over: we’re going to win eventually. Within 10 years, Democrats should have enough of a demographic advantage to reclaim Congress and the statehouses. But that’s boring! So, along comes Bernie who insists we can have a revolution just like that! Just elect this elderly blowhard president and unicorns and rainbows will magically take care of everything.
Cal, this is not “revolution”. It’s delusion. On the other hand, if you were actually able to get our pious Bernsters interested in voting in elections for people with a reasonable chance of winning (say, Democrats), you might possibly get there sooner. But they are not really interested since Democrats are sell-outs and “corporate whores”, etc. Gotta feel that Bern!
When the message is inseparable from its messenger, you haven’t created a revolution. You’ve created a personality cult.

I think Mr. Talton has read way too many “Bernie Bro” posts and articles. 🙂
Personally, I don’t see the Senator from Vermont ruining the Democrat’s prospects for the White House. The Republicans are practically handing the keys! I’m surprised the Senate hasn’t just said, “Forget it! We give up! Garland, welcome to the Supreme Court!”
Unfortunately, what concerns me (more) after this election is the continued gridlock and fascination with people’s sexuality by politicians on the right. 🙁

So, let me see if I have this right: If we all just quit whining and go along with the program (that is, the totally rigged, plutocrat-controlled political system that has screwed us into the ground), then in 10 years, we will magically have a Democratic controlled Congress and statehouses.
Huh?
Well, I guess that would presuppose that we all trusted the Democratic party to govern in the interests of ALL the people. Unfortunately, over the last 30 years the American people have been f*cked over in a totally bipartisan manner.
We need a revolution, not more corporate Democrats. And certainly not a condescending pat on the head and counsel to “wait 10 years.”
Nope. Not waitin’.

Soleri, I’m agreeing with you. Its just your revolution is a ten year war.
To the Walls we go.

“Loyalty” is a derivative value, a transactional one. It has no anchor in virtue.

Well said Petro.

Soleri, you seem unable to discuss Bernie Sanders without attributing your own perceptions to his supporters. Young. Naive. Old. Foolish. Simplistic. So, in that spirit, I’ll be equally reductive and describe my general impression of Clinton supporters: either self-isolated and affluent, or churchy. Oblivious to what’s being done to the lower classes and people in other countries by neoliberal “ideology.” Condescendingly announcing that everyone who hates the Clintons (with very good reasons, as well as stupid conservative ones)is somehow not a Democrat (like yourself, of course), and is really just a nuisance party crasher. And finally, my number one stereotype of Clinton supporters is that they represent the interests of an increasingly mediocre American professional class, degreed to the hilt and dumb as posts. Of course, none of these things are strictly true, but it probably makes Clinton supporters mad to hear, like “Bernie Bros” get mad at the stereotypes you lob at us.
And speaking of the worthless, ever-churchy Arizona Democratic Party (which we weren’t, but I can’t help myself), who is the sleazy, ridiculous little Al Sharpton mini-me convict, Maupin, backing this cycle?

Ha! Never mind, I just googled him and found out he’s backing Clinton. This is why the Democrats have been whipped so hard in Arizona, they abandoned the working class left years ago in favor of buffoons like this. Jesse Jackson was ultimately bad for the Party, and Dr. King started going beyond civil rights and began focusing on the Democrat’s warmongering and weak labor policies, so he was killed. Once the churchy buttplugs who hijacked the Party with the election of Carter have been dispensed with, the “BernieBots” might return to the fold. Until then, Arizona will always be a Republican stronghold. Sad and completely unnecessary, but there it is.

OK, I’ll play 🙂
1. Easy. Compared to the monster on the GOP side, is much effort really necessary to *unify* Democratic voters.
2. I don’t think Sanders does any less than a Clinton candidacy would do with deep red state voters and actually might garner more votes, given his outsider status v. that of Clinton, who, in perception if not total truth, is in the pockets of banksters.
3. I find it funny this question is asked of Sanders but I never saw this floated against Obama, Kerry, etc.. Let’s face it, whatever Democratic candidate wins the nomination, and if gains the presidency, it will be an uphill battle v. a GOP controlled Congress. Again, here I like Sanders better because there is a wide swath of neoliberal / neconservative planks that Clinton has common ground with GOP interests (i.e., school privatization, private prisons, FTA, etc.)
4. Again, I think Sanders scores better with the “angry white male” demographic than Clinton — and I think that actually plays into Clinton’s support from people of color, despite prominent civil rights voices like Cornel West, Michelle Alexander, Ta-Nehisi Coates etc. that have spoken out in favor of Sanders over Clinton.
5. True. The *socialist* bogeyman. I think voters under 40 are immune to it but OTOH, they don’t vote in the same numbers as elderly. Can Sanders ignite enthusiasim like Obama did in 2008? I don’t know definitively here.
6. These charges are rubbish. Sanders rose from nothing, converted enemies to allies at just about every stage of his political career. You can say, “oh that’s just Vermont” but what would be the big problem with making America like Vermont? His record, IMV, is head and shoulders above Clinton, even in foreign policy, where the egregious Clinton boasts of her kinship with Kissinger and pledge to include neconservatives like the Kagans in her suite of advisors.
7. See #6 — that Clinton considers war criminal Kissinger as trusted friend and confidant disqualifies her in my view — also, her track record as secretary of state is not stellar — she’s not much different than neoconservative hawks.
8. LOL.
9. Historically, this is true, I will concede. But I don’t think 1968/1972 are proper analogies either. Hard for a leftward ascension when in post-WWII (ironically, due to liberal & progressive advances), the economic arc was on a rising slope. Contrast to present day, when last 35 years (since Age of Reagan) have seen a downward slope for 90% of Americans (all the while 1% status escalated immensely).

Well said naum

Thanks for the serious response, Naum.

Pat, I apologize profusely for disagreeing with you. Feel better?
I’ll admit I’m at the point where I don’t give a damn about your tribe’s chronically wounded feelings. I’ve stated above that I’m supporting Hillary without love. That is, I think she’s qualified to be president but I don’t think she’ll usher in a golden age, or that she has super-human qualities that can create an entirely new politically paradigm, or that her election is the only way we can save America. I’m not a zealot. I don’t confuse politics with religion and create a cult around a political candidate. Go ahead and blame her and Bill for everything. She cackles. She thinks she’s a queen. She’s on the take with every donation she gets. She singlehandedly created bad trade deals. She’s responsible for the Iraq catastrophe. She’s best friends with a war criminal. Etc, etc.
I’ve been hearing this stuff for decades now. Karl Rove is a very busy plying his trade so people like you can be sure they hate the right person. We wouldn’t be America without folks like him whispering gossip in our ears. And it saves time when the discussion gets boring for want of a devil. Oh, and some dude called Maupin supports her. Enuf said!
Yeah, yeah, I know: I’m dumb as a post. So sue me! Or better yet, just talk to your tribe. That way you can feel the Bern without heretics like me bumming you out. Cults cannot fail, they can only be failed.

soleri, you’re one of the few Clinton supporters I am actually listening to, and parsing your arguments. Most of the other pro-Clinton stuff I read just smacks of DNC apparatchiks or is beyond petty.
But I think the Clinton supporters are blinded with cult-like traits too — disregarding *all* criticism of her as *right wing conspiracy* fodder — while she isn’t the hideous creation they wax on about, there’s legitimate questions on her conduct in public offices she’s held. And you can write it off to conservative smear campaigns, but her *unfavorability* ratings are in league with Cruz (and not that far from the odious Trump).
I get the pragmatism bent — in fact, I’ve held my nose and been in line with it too, until now. And I’m not ruling out tipping over to Clinton in November (thus far, if Sanders doesn’t get the nod, my vote is for Jill Stein — but of course, as an Arizona native, it probably won’t matter who the ‘R’ candidate is, Arizona will go red).

Oh, my! Am I detecting a little thin skin?

Naum, thanks for a thoughtful response from a Bernie supporter! First one I’ve gotten here so I’m happy to acknowledge it.
You might be right that there are Hillary cultists – say elderly feminists – but as much as I read internet comments, I just don’t see that much evidence. Of course, they might not be on the internet that much.
Re: the “legitimate questions” about her conduct in office. If there is something more than perfume and heavy breathing, I’d like to get something or anything that really spells it out. But in fact, these “legitimate questions” are often just talking points pretending to be “legitimate questions”. It’s like this McCarthyite insistance that speaking to Goldman Sachs or getting Wall St contributions means she’s “on the take”. Bernie himself goes there, pretty much calling her a dupe if not co-conspirator of Wall Street. These are the kind of smears that reduce politics to guilt by association and worse. It’s like saying Obama “palled around with terrorists” because he once met Bill Ayres, or that he hated America because of what Reverend Wright said. The right excels at this kind of garbage. When the Sanders campaign traffics in this manure, we somehow assume that St Bernie must be right. The critique has substance in its broad outlines but not on its specific associations.
Barney Frank correctly called out Bernie on this stuff, and also noted Hillary was a lot more involved in the crafting of Dodd-Frank than Sanders ever was. He also said it’s insane to expect Democrats to unilaterally disarm when Republicans have a battalion of billionaires who can fund their campaigns. If Democrats are guilty of playing by the rules on the ground, good for them. We’ve got to fight them with the weapons we have, not the ones we think we should have. Eventually, if our circular firing squad doesn’t mortally wound us this November, we may get a liberal majority on the Supreme Court and overturn Citizens United. Public campaign financing is a liberal ideal and one that both Hillary and Bernie support. We would have been on track to achieving it if Al Gore were “elected” in 2000. But left-wing purists had decided there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the parties, so they helped George W Bush through the agency of Ralph Nader, who this year, unsurprisingly, supports Bernie.
My core reservation about Bernie is not his “socialism” although that does undercut his electability argument. It’s his political theory of change. I keep hammering on this because there is really no evidence that supports the idea that one messianic figure can transform this nation into a Scandinavian social democracy by dint of his rhetoric and appeal. I know if you go to a Bernie rally, you can let yourself “go there” because it almost seems that way. But this is classic wishful thinking. If he were the nominee, Republicans would have a treasure trove of personal stuff about Bernie (see: Donna Gratehouse’s comment above) to use against him. But putting that aside, just imagine them telling the average middle-class voter that Bernie would significantly raise his taxes for single-payer health care. We probably both agree that it would be a wonderful thing in and of itself, but the electorate is not there. When it’s explained to them what Single Payer involves, support drops from 39% to 33%. This is fairly devastating.
The unicorn of “revolution” means people believing Bernie to such an extent that the nation voluntarily decides to raise its taxes, cut its military, overcome its racist preoccupations, etc. This is a millenialist fantasy that we should be highly skeptical of. The reason I keep talking about demographic change is that people are predictably rigid about their political values. It’s why you don’t see many Democrats in north Scottsdale or Republicans in central Phoenix. But America is changing. We’ll be a minority majority nation by 2050 but I think the magic year politically is 2024.
By the way, if young people, who love Bernie, would vote at an 80% turnout rate instead of less than 50%, we would be well on our way to a much more liberal America. But it means voting for Democrats, including DINOs and other imperfect people (see: Krysten Sinema). I know purists don’t want to hear this but this transformation has to be gradual because systemic change is difficult. We should be doing everything possible to lay the groundwork for this transformation now. When Pat trashes the Democratic Party, he’s helping Karl Rove and INPHX in their task to ratfuck liberals into purity politics.
If I seem like the enemy in this comment thread, it’s because a) I’m not a child, and b) I’ve seen these children crusades (Eugene McCarthy in 1968, George McGovern in 1972) before. I want to win. I want to rub my boot heel on the neck of the Republican Party. But this isn’t going to happen with a third party or street fights or mysticism. It’s going to happen with hard work, discipline, and partial victories. This is reality. Berniemania is a lot of fun but it’s based on an aging student radical’s romantic ideals that really don’t apply to many polities outside of New England and the Pacific Northwest. If these United States were just Vermont, Minnesota, Oregon, and Massachusetts, this would indeed be Denmark! But it isn’t. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change reality. We’re also Arizona, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kansas, and Texas. We can make this happen but it’s going to be a slog. Let’s not make it tougher with purity politics.

Great stuff, Soleri. Bravo!

Well said Soleri. Bravo, Ole

Another perspective on Sanders and the Democratic party.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/11/sanders-annoys-democratic-establishment/

Gadfly = character assassination with a college degree. American culture has turned denial into such a fine art that people actually believe that a Presidential candidate funded by the same people who ruined the economy will hold them accountable once she’s in office.

A global perspective:
https://www.theglobalist.com/sanders-trump-clinton-elections-united-states/

Diane, along those lines, what has Obama done? I’m not a lawyer, and even if I was one, I suspect the law involving securities fraud is so abstruse that it might be impossible to explain it to laymen. I haven’t seen anyone even try, not Paul Krugman, Brad de Long, or Dean Baker. Many people believe that there should be laws or that if there aren’t, it’s proof that Wall Street owns Congress. But blaming this on Hillary Clinton is McCarthyism. Nothing less.

Sanders is running the same style of campaign against Hillary as Obama did. Soleri playing the same conceited “adult” persona, bringing up McCarthy, McGovern, Muslim name, black man, inexperience, unicorns (playing right into the “hopey changey” Rovian strategy). He was profoundly wrong on all fronts.
Like in ’08, many Hillary supporters are simply acting out of fear. Fear about who will be more susceptible to rightwing propaganda. Fear of “revolution” (“because rightwingers have all the guns!” really? you’re the adult here?). And, like other elderly Americans who have a relatively stable retirement, fear of change, even if it’s the only chance to benefit future generations.
And, you’re assertion that Sanders’ theory of change is 1 election and everything magically changes is completely wrong. I get it that you start hyperventilating every time he says “revolution” but next time maybe try popping a xanax with your viagra and blood pressure pills and actually listen to what he is saying.

Ex Phx Planner is one of the most thoughtful commenters on this blog. I would love to see him or her address a few of my questions on Sanders. I think at least a few are worth serious discussion. Remember, I didn’t write this column to re-litigate Clinton v. Sanders. I am assuming Bernie is the nominee. And here are some issues he will face in the general.

Ex Phx Planner, is there a way you might actually address my arguments instead of demonizng my person? It’s so tempting in a political forum to give in to frustration and simply decide the other person is not merely mistaken in their opinions but wrong as a person. Ageism and misogyny are part of an age-old tendency to demean other people when the polemicist loses confidence in his own reason and resorts to personal attacks (see also: Donald Trump).
This is a political campaign where we strongly disagree about the candidates. While our viewpoints are opposed, our larger values are not. You diminish your arguments by resorting to bigotry and the ad hominem fallacy. You have no proof my personal characteristics prompt my opinions just as you have no proof that it’s cowardice, old age, and a conservative’s anxiety about personal security to think differently than you about a political campaign.
I have admitted on several occasions that my “voice” is off-putting. It’s an amalgam of William F Buckley’s and Gore Vidal’s in its icy disdain for what I consider spurious and weakly reasoned arguments. There have been times I’ve crossed the line with language. I wish I could stop calling Republicans “assholes”, for example. But to my knowledge, I’ve never implied the person I’m talking to is wrong because of something they have no control over. This is poison and you really ought to stop polluting this space with it.

Ah yes the drivers have sank into their upholstered bucket seats and their knuckles have gone white from their maddening grip on the wheel but hopefully a calm will come as there is “Miles to Go.”
I prefer bench seats as it makes relationships much closer.

Well, we agree that this conversation has descended into ad hominem nonsense, but maybe check your own self too?
If I seem like the enemy in this comment thread, it’s because a) I’m not a child
this is a millenialist fantasy
Cults can be very blinding and controlling when it comes to their leaders. Scientology has nothing on you guys
Or that only Bernie can save the world. Most of us give these zealots a wide berth
This unhinged personality cult of St Bernie is rapidly becoming a parody of itself.
While I always enjoy reading your comments, it’s you who took this thread from a cordial pick-up game at the Y to full on trash talking street ball. You don’t like it? Maybe stop playing.

Now come on folks, keep playing, no blood no foul.

Ex Phx Planner, thank you for the opportunity to discuss openly this Bernie Bro phenomenon you shamelessly embody. Sanders’ thugs aren’t content merely to oppose Hillary Clinton, but to allege all kinds of nefarious deeds, corruption, and generalized evil-doing. The right has been doing this for years, of course, and your tribe has simply picked up where they left off. As I’ve remarked before, there is an amazing degree of congruence between the Tea Parties of the right and left. Both tend to be comprised of low-information wack jobs and zealots. It was one of the first things I noticed when Bernie’s thugs began posting provocative memes on Facebook that were not merely pro-Bernie but anti-Clinton in a highly personal way. They were almost analogous to those right-wing memes you might get from an in-law in Alabama showing a picture of Obama photo-shopped with a bone through his nose.
Now, I’m not thin-skinned. I really don’t give a fuck what you think of me. I’m a veteran of these flame wars, although I’m usually pitted against the right. To tell you the truth, I’ve probably mocked them in ways that you’ve mocked me, so your instinct here is right. I’m protesting too much. That said, we are on the same team if you’re still sane enough to understand that Republicans are assholes and Democrats should be your allies.
What we’re fighting over here is something of an abstraction (a theory of political change), that you and all your teammates on this blog are utterly incapable of explaining. So, you get a tad tetchy and frustrated, and let the bigotry rip. I understand. You want to believe with all your heart and soul that Bernie is the messiah. I’ve seen this movie at least a dozen times in my long life and it never ends well. People are insane with belief and contort reality in a million different directions to justify that belief. The problem is that Bernie is not going to be the nominee but he is damaging the candidate who will be. There is no telling what you glassy-eyed zealots will do in Philadelphia but I’m not optimistic. I do think Hillary should win the general even if you Full Mooners vandalize the convention but I’m less and less able to contain my contempt not only for your tribe but for Bernie the candidate. He’s really a pompous, self-righteous jerk who real Democrats are starting to openly loathe. And for good reasons.
My own wish is that all of you should simply stop pretending to be Democrats since you’re openly contemptuous of the party’s rules and bylaws. You could pack up en masse and create a party organization suitable for a religious cult pretending to be a political organization. Call it The Sacred Cult of St Bernie the Immaculate. You might eventually try to get a tax exemption that other churches enjoy. When Bernie dies, you can harvest locks of his hair and and fingernail cuttings to sell as holy relics on e-Bay. There are endless commercial opportunities here. Just remember: this is America. Most people have short attention spans. Your ultimate fate is to be an answer on Trivial Pursuit.

I’m not a glassy-eyed zealot, or a jerk. And I don’t believe that Bernie is the messiah.
I’m a reasonably well-read adult, and I’ve chosen to support a candidate that I find trustworthy and intellectually honest.
I don’t like the idea of a candidate who flip flops or “evolves” on positions after campaign focus groups or internal polls. I am also skeptical of a candidate who is beholden to big donors.
Since the national Democratic party saw fit to try and shove a less-than-stellar candidate down our throats, I don’t owe the Democratic party loyalty for loyalty’s sake.

^ word.
So, we should all leave the Democratic Party because we are “contemptuous of the party’s rules and bylaws”? Maybe we’re a tribe of idealists, but at least we’re cooler than one of bureaucrats. BTW; I agree with you that Nader supporters made a big mistake; however, Gore would’ve probably won the general if Nader ran as a Democrat in the primary and forced Gore to move to the left – just like BS. Careful what you wish for, if BS did this (which he won’t) HRC would be done.
Pretty sure we’ve explained Bernie’s “theory of change” pretty well. He’s explicitly defined it – bottom up change based on a bold, reform platform. Contrast that with the business as small ball ideas, incremental tweaks, compromises with the most rightwing GOP probably ever and the usual elitist fundraising and party politics that have been ineffective (and continue to be, as evidenced by this election).
The only “personal” thing I’ve ever criticized HRC over is her cackles. In which you promptly called me out as a misogynist. Contrast this with the litany of pure shit talking from you and the rest of you hair-on-fire Hillary…something (Tommy Bahama and Chico’s-wearing Baby Boomers?) about everything from Bernie’s age to his sanity and weird perv tendencies.
Her fundraising and questions about the FBI investigation are completely fair game (not because I actually think she is a criminal, but because it was an extremely stupid mistake and will be a major weakness in the General Election.)
And, while I also don’t give a fuck what you think of me, I am a reasonably educated professional and every Bernie supporter I know does not come close to your characterization of “thug, zeolot, bro, etc.” While I’ll admit that I’m probably a more “low information voter” than you are, at least I don’t let my world view be shaped by tweets and Facebook posts.

The revolution continues.
Balls of fire and the smell of singed hair

Yes! The smell of singed hair!

I was really struck watching the debate last night how Clinton was the adult who talked about the difference between diagnosis and instrumentality. Sanders is great at diagnosing problems and then giving some maximal solution (raising the national minimum wage to $15, a carbon tax for climate change, a Wall St transaction tax to pay for free college, etc). The crowd was on his side because it was probably too subtle a distinction to see given the Circus Maximus atmosphere of the evening. In my impolitic way, I wanted Clinton to simply come out with a sharp right hook and announce that his “solutions” were easy since they were based on nothing more than hot air, that they would never pass Congress, and that political change itself ultimately has to be anchored in real-world possibility, not just a utopian wish list. But most people don’t understand how politics works, so Clinton can’t simply spell it out bluntly. It’s not and never has been an exercise in ideological purity. Sanders gets away with this stuff because people can’t see this distinction. It’s like we think politicians should wear togas and angel wings. It’s frightening how stupid we are.
Here’s a link that suggests even Bernie’s supporters aren’t willing to pay for these fantasies.https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/4/14/11421744/bernie-sanders-tax-revolution

Soleri, I know you must be a little older than me, and I’m living on borrowed time. What is it that makes you think we’ll be better off as a nation in ten years? For purely selfish reasons, I don’t want what may well be my last presidential vote to be squandered on Hillary Clinton just to deny Trump or Cruz or Romney the presidency. I will, but I really, really don’t want to, and I resent the Clintons for popping up yet again and forcing me into such an odious choice. The reason I WILL vote for Clinton, if I’m denied any realistic option (no, that’s not a snipe at the Greens, I have the utmost respect for them) may well be selfish as well, because had I not had a child who is going to be inheriting whatever mess we leave her and all of our children, I might well look at life from a different perspective. But since I see the world the way I do, I’ll vote for Clinton because she might not finish us off as quickly as eight years of the crazed opposition. But before we get to that point, may I offer a proposal? Sanders has released his and Mrs. Sanders tax returns, as the Clinton Machine has been so loudly and self-righteously demanding, and there isn’t much to see. Can we agree that Clinton should release the transcripts of her speeches to bankers and hedge funders now? Since she wants to be President, shouldn’t she be willing to let us see what she told them?

Pat, I’m sorry you’re on “borrowed time”. To extend the metaphor, so is this country and the world. I’ve written a lot of navel-gazing ruminations in this space whether there is a reasonable hope that we can do what is necessary to prevent the worst of catastrophic climate change. Increasingly, the answer appears to be no. So, you might ask, why “waste” a vote on a pragmatic incrementalist?
I’ve written too passionately in this thread why I think politics has to be grounded in what is real instead of ideal. To give up on the political process now pretty much concedes the Hobbsian nightmare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_%28book%29) that appears to be our fate in any event. We see this train barreling down on us and we’re mesmerized to the point of unconsciousness. We literally can not see what is happening to us. The human brain evolved to meet short-term threats like snakes and sabre-tooth tigers, not decades-in-the-making environmental crises. We will in all likelihood not do what is necessary to save human civilization.
When I was born, there were two billion people on Earth. Now there are seven billion. We’re each hungry, anxious, self-serving, and short-sighted. We’ve overutilized the planet with our appetites for comfort and security. The current dyspepsia in the western world relates to the sense that our bacchanal may me running out of steam. We’re angry and bitter for the wrong reasons, however. We should, as you say, be worrying about the next generation. Instead, we’re only feeling sorry for ourselves.
We’re not going to wish away our predicament with messiahs, political or religious. I can only recommend the greatest clarity each of us can individually muster. We need to do this within the painfully limited amount of power each one of us possesses. We need to concede the rights to viewpoints other than our own because the only other possible path would be tyranny and violence. That’s why we have politics – to forego the need to capriciously impose our demands on others. We get to vote within an elaborate framework of checks, balances, buffers, and associations. We each have a “say” as microscopic as that may be. We’re not going to improve this system with a “revolution” since there is no magical escape from one’s individual limitations. Politics is both a blessing and a curse in that we get to participate but not dominate.
There is no reasonable alternative despite the severe crisis we’re facing. At some point, the system might collapse and the human project is pretty much over except for a few survivors. But until then, I recommend honoring the only process that gives us just enough power to behave responsibly and ethically. If we impose a politics of virtue as Sanders (or Cruz) would, we better stock up on guns first. We’re not going to make this work somehow by taking away other people’s political rights (romantic as the scenarios might be). While I don’t believe we will ultimately do what is necessary to survive, giving up now only ensures a life that is nasty, brutish, and short.

soleri, You forgot to respond to Pat’s call for Clinton to release her 1/4 million dollar per each speeches. Let me pose the question a little differently. Why would Clinton be so adverse to releasing her comments to big finance? Clearly she must feel they would damage her standing with those she wants to support her with their votes. No doubt there are recordings of those comments. I mean who would pay $250,000.00 for one hour of anything and not keep a record? If you ever took a loan from a bank you know how obsessive they are about records. The banks have copies. If she fakes a copy of her comments the big money guys with the real deal have a very nice lever on her as if they don’t already own her. They can dispense with the bribes and proceed with the blackmail.

ross, I didn’t forget it. I just think issues like that are so trivial they’re hardly worth the pixels.
But, since you ask, what do you think were in those speeches? A promise to help the 1% confiscate what’s left of middle-class America’s wealth? These right-wing talking points all have this quality in common: lots of speculation mixed with demonology and leaps of logic. The Bernie left and the nut-case right have similar epistemologies. Barney Frank called Bernie’s attacks McCarthyite for this reason (Barney, who has done infinitely more for financial reform that Bernie ever dreamed about also spoke to GS for a fee).
Now, I know why Hillary is being so cautious. Anything she says will be taken out of context and fluffed into one more attack point by people like you who traffic in conspiracy theories. That said, it is politically damaging given this country’s taste for paranoia and Clinton Derangement Syndrome. So, she should release them. Whatever media hysteria will result in it probably won’t impact the race against Cruz or Trump.
One more point since I get the feeling you will still want to believe the absolute worst about Clinton regardless of what is in those speeches, but if she really was some evil person on the take with Goldman Sachs, would she give a speech about it to a bunch of workers? No. She would call up Lloyd Blankfein or whomever and say, “hey Lloyd, how about I give the Evil Vampire Squid that is GS everything it wants when I’m president for $250,000! Because I’m evil!”. That’s how they roll. You don’t just tell a bunch of middle-level executives this stuff in a canned speech.

soleri, Thanks for the reply. You may attempt to slough off what many of us see as legitimate questions as “Clinton Derangement Syndrome” but I hope you don’t think this will make her any less a target for the R attack machine the day after she gets the nomination if she gets it. Her problem is with so many questions about her she presents a huge target. She’s a Titanic of questionable positions and actions. If you care to get into it I would be willing to list a few more.

It’s an interesting irony that the (very real — see Jane Mayer’s “Dark Money”) vast right-wing infrastructure of Richard Mellon Scaife et al got its start demonizing Hillary because it saw her — much more than her New Democrat husband — as a dangerous threat from the genuine left.

I’ve seen the lists of Clinton’s sins, many of which are simply the inevitable consequences of taking action in office where the outcomes are less than ideal. Welcome to the real world! Others, like the GS speeches are simply slanders dressed up as “legitimate concerns”. Still others, like the AUMF vote, are “gotcha” kind of embarrassments. The most valid complaints about Hillary, to my thinking, concern her foreign policy hawkishness. I’ve mentioned this before upthread, so I won’t get into that again.
Bernie Sanders, by contrast, has been remarkably pure and unsurprisingly ineffective. If you want to be an agent for change in the world, you need to do actual things that demonstrate that ability. Bernie has, time and again, demonstrated a consistent talent for making stirring speeches about other people compromising and somehow sullying the ideals he lives by (and by which he also judges their motives). He has, in my opinion, a first-rate mind and a second-rate temperament. He would make a terrible president.
Bernie, fortunately, is not going to be the nominee, which will be Hillary Clinton, who will most likely win election and be your next president. You can pretend she’s Caligula in a pant-suit if you want to feel superior to an accomplished human being for no better reason than misogyny and a college sophomore’s need to blame competent people for exercising power. Just remember she’s been in the vortex of actual political battle for a quarter century. Her peers, even Republicans, respect her. She is consistently prepared and serious in ways that most people can’t even begin to emulate. People who’ve worked with her speak in awe of her work ethic and comprehension of issues. There is no one else running who comes close to her qualifications for high office.
One of the best political movies ever made was Alexander Payne’s Election in which one Tracy Flick, a too-competent goody two-shoes runs for high-school student body president. The high-school civics teacher, played by Matthew Broderick, intensely dislikes her for her ambition, and recruits a high school jock, played by Chris Klein, to run against her. In the end, she wins not with our love but sheer grit. In the movie’s last scene she is shown getting into a limousine in Washington while the civics teacher has been fired and humiliated for his efforts against her. It’s very easy to see Hillary Clinton here, who is very ambitious, focused, and a gritty survivalist. Those are the kind of qualities a president needs, but we’re put off by the fact a woman possesses them. My advice to you is get over it. Misogyny is a very powerful instinct among some people, and even in women. Payne, the director of Election clearly despises Flick. She’s set up by Payne for the audience to loathe and mock. That said, why? Why do you need to hate her so much? On the flip side, do you think “liking” the person who is president is important? How did George W Bush work out for you? I want to tell people to grow up and get over this need for purity in politics and fairy tales about good and evil. Something else is going on here. It’s more like a child’s need for an ideal mommy (who stays home while Daddy works). Hillary hatred is not based on anything more substantial than right-wing smears and left-wing credulity.

OH no Soleri I just drank the Bernie Koolaid!
Hillary and Ted are Satan unmasked.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/16/yes-hillary-clinton-is-a-neocon/
your dying pal, Socrates.

Soleri Said, (the most important question of all, CLIMATE CHANGE) “Pat, I’m sorry you’re on “borrowed time”. To extend the metaphor, so is this country and the world. I’ve written a lot of navel-gazing ruminations in this space whether there is a reasonable hope that we can do what is necessary to prevent the worst of catastrophic climate change. Increasingly, the answer appears to be no.” AND
“We will in all likelihood not do what is necessary to save human civilization.”
The GOP and Hillary will just continue the same ole chit. But then pessimistically, not even Bernie or JC can save the “Manunkind”.

Jon said,”It’s an interesting irony that the (very real — see Jane Mayer’s “Dark Money”) vast right-wing infrastructure of Richard Mellon Scaife et al got its start demonizing Hillary because it saw her — much more than her New Democrat husband — as a dangerous threat from the genuine left.”
Left of who Stalin right of Lenin?
On Oct. 20, 2011, when U.S.-backed rebels captured Gaddafi, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him, Secretary of State Clinton couldn’t contain her glee. Paraphrasing a famous Julius Caesar quote, she declared about Gaddafi, “we came, we saw, he died.”

Cal, Hillary is not a climate change denialist. Demonizing her is fun, but you’d have more credibility here if you didn’t stoop to the level of her right-wing critics. The primary reason we can’t do much on climate is your party, the GOP. Please: blame where blame is due. This blanket demonization of Hillary for everything is getting old.

Regarding Neo-Cons and Wall Street, they have declared war on any country that doent follow their rules. Financially the bankers of the world are after countries that do not want to participate. Lets hear Hillary’s speech to wall street.
And I give you The women’s vote.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/15/hillary-clintons-gender-argument/

Hillary at the Helm.
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/dr.strangelove.jpg

More Hillary the Neo-Con.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/14/duping-progressives-into-wars/

Why U should not TRUSTED. (Thats his LOGO)
A TRUS, “Basically, it’s an anal probe. Which makes us even more certain that he’s actually an alien.” per daily KOS

IN support of Soleri and Hillary, I give U,
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/8/1478776/-Why-Do-People-Hate-Hillary-Clinton-So-Much?detail=emailclassic&link_id=5&can_id=f5f12d0f0be543239c4150dc5c38366e&source=email-trump-rally-no-joking-matter-4&email_referrer=trump-rally-no-joking-matter-4___59291&email_subject=donald-trump-gets-into-twitter-war-with-modern-family-writer-is-obliterated

And finally Meryl Streep tells us why we should vote for Hillary.
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/18/1248523/-You-won-t-see-Hillary-Clinton-in-the-same-light-ever-again?

soleri, I regret that you choose to belittle my serious and justified concerns regarding Clinton. I have a simple question. Is she willing to release the text or recorded words of her fund raising speeches to Wall St finance? These questions are not going away as much as you and she want them to. Copied is a link to a clip of her evasions to that question.
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/04/15/23961337/what-is-hillary-clinton-hiding-why-wont-she-release-transcripts-of-her-wall-street-speeches .
Click on the clip of her dodging the question. She sure is acting like a woman who has something to hide. She is running for President of the USA and as a citizen I still have the right to ask that question. Evasions and diversions may be ok with you but they don’t work for me. If questions like this are misogyny, as you intimate, and not allowed then we are in worse trouble than I thought.

Ross, here’s Keven Drum trying to make sense of the Goldman Sachs’s fake scandal:https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/everyone-knows-why-hillary-clinton-wont-release-her-goldman-sachs-speeches
You folks on the right and far left know Hillary is the devil. Anything I say will not change your mind since we’re dealing with theology here. A cult does not reason. It finds the evidence it’s looking in virtually every utterance she makes and position she takes. And yes, it’s motivated by misogyny because the overwhelming tenor of Clinton Derangement Syndrome is that she’s evil. Say, like a witch. Which rhymes with….

Soleri this had been an extremely informative blog and also fun. I appreciate U hanging in there with nuts like me posting slogans. But rest assured U know when it comes Down to voting that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate and whatever kook my party, the GOP ends up with, Hillary is going to be elected the next president.

soleri, Thanks for the link. My take on the argument expressed by Drum is why in hell would so many banks pay so much money to have Clinton pat them on the back. Maybe they have a need (for an ideal mommy) to use your term, so they can feel better about themselves.
Chances are better that she cut a deal that if they gave her the money she would pass out their bribes to the faithful (super delegates) if they agreed to tow the corporate line.

Jon, How about a set of questions for nominee Clinton.

Ross,
This is what I wrote in February:
https://www..com/rogue_columnist/2016/02/the-trouble-with-hillary.html

Ross, your allegation that Clinton got bought off by Goldman Sachs is based on nothing more than neo-McCarthyism, which is the use of innuendo and broad-brush attacks to impugn someone else’s character. Sanders himself is engaging in this kind of demagoguery, by making the same suggestions. He is, in my opinion unqualified to be president for this and other reasons.
I can’t defend Clinton against your blind hatred of her and I won’t try. I will say this: the Sanders’ campaign started off on a bright, idealistic note and, meeting success, has descended into a cesspool of self-righteous indignation and contemptible smearing of his opponent and the Democratic Party. I notice that Bernie supporters seem to emulate him. They don’t take criticism well, suggesting anyone who opposes their messiah is a corporate sellout or a shill for big business or a neoliberal. They are nearly the mirror image of Tea Partiers with their over-the-top attacks on Obama. Since I know a few of these people, I can say they’re nearly psychotic with hatred for someone whose very political personality is based on transcending fixed ideological positions and partisan polarization. The irony here is that their accusations are, in reality, pure projection. Similarly, the Bernie Tots seemingly demand that the Democratic Party purge itself of anyone who is not “progressive”, coupled with purity tests, and threats to form a third party. If you think the rest of us are so terrible, why do you want our party besides the fact that Bernie couldn’t win if he ran as an independent?
Question: why should anyone who is not a member of your cult care? You don’t build bridges, you burn them. You don’t seek the broadest coalition feasible but the narrowest ideological faction possible. Bernie’s appeal is to the far left and low-information voters who don’t understand how politics works. They think Bernie has magical powers when in fact his congressional career resulted only in three bills getting passed, two or which were for renaming Vermont post offices.
These left-wing fever dreams are evidence of group hysteria. I support Hillary Clinton because she’s sane and understands what’s possible in our politics. She’s the opposite of Bernie. She knows how the process works and how to make deals. Bernie knows how to give speeches based on his morally absolutist principles and not much more. It’s what makes him an instinctive demagogue.

Jon, Thank you for the reply I was traveling at the time and missed that posting. I appreciate your work and thanks for providing such an accessible forum.

Well, I guess I have my answer: there’s no reason for Clinton to let the Peasantry know what she says at big-bucks talky-talks because Soleri has officially sniff-sniffed, harrumphed and pooh-poohed the whole trivial non-issue away, and predictably included a condescending snipe to go with it. Ok, man, you’re right, as always, it was just darned hypocritical of me to want to see those transcripts when I’m not demanding to see those of the Republican candidates as well (Oh, yeah, she really did float that). I’ll just say one more thing on this thread, though: you Clinton-pushers better hope Mitt Romney doesn’t somehow emerge as the Republican candidate, because the Clinton-bashing you think you’re seeing from the “far Left” has been a real lovein compared to what’s coming.

Pat, you’re right. I’m condescending, particularly to theatrical lefties who imbibe their anti-Clinton demonology in big gulps from right-wing talking points. I should simply cede the moral high ground to purists since that’s the only terrain they care about. But then I notice who lives in the real world of political struggle and who lives in the world of ideology. One actor has been at the forefront of virtually every issue, wrestling with the gritty details of implacable reality and while the other lives in a kind of college dorm room of the mind with the smell of incense, well-worn paperback editions of Karl Marx, and a Che Guevara poster.
You’re possessed. You think politics is about ideological purity and saintliness. You can’t name one effective political actor who has exemplified these “attributes” but you absolutely know that’s why America sucks. Because we haven’t chosen our leaders according to their moral absolutism so much as their engagement with reality. Finally, a saint appears from Vermont, who demands we do things now like bringing back the manufacturing sector, unions, 1968, and food co-ops .
Ain’t gonna happen because politics isn’t about ideals so much as tangible things that happen in a place we call the real world. If you thought more deeply about this, you’d understand that you only live here, not in daydreams. But it’s a lot more fun to preen your moral superiority in ideas that lost their currency decades ago. Because that’s how you Feel the Bern.
The real world is a place where unions are diminished and dying, where the financial sector has mushroomed in size and power, where Americans live not in communities but housing pods, and where the world has interconneted in ways that spell low wages and low prices. I don’t like it much either but it’s reality. And if you just hold your breath and demand a new reality, you’re not changing anything. It’s this world that demands your focus, not the daydream you live in.

Pat, Have you seen this article?
https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44495.htm

Pat, Have you seen this?
https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44495.htm

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/18/democrats-march-toward-cliff/

What an absurd person you’ve revealed yourself to be. You rely completely on cheap, dramatic rhetorical flourishes to make empty accusations against everyone who disagrees with you. You know what? I’ve resisted the urge to point this out before, since this is Mr. Talton’s blog, and he does like you (He liked Emil Pulsifer, too, though), but you aren’t even an interesting person. How ridiculous is it for a person to spend his career as a civil servant in a conservative city to retire and move to Portland, Oregon, because it’s more liberal? I have friends who left Phoenix over forty years ago, and have lived in Portland ever since. They’re Portlanders now, they’re OF Portland. You’re just a malcontented tourist. I suspect your biggest involvement with the community involves a bar stool. There. I’m done with you, pal. As long as I’m allowed to post here, you won’t get a shred of respect from me. I know, boo-hoo, huh?