It's been pretty tame and civilized so far. I think that changes tonight. I predict Hillary will go on the offensive like we haven't seen yet. I don't think Bernie will do the same. Hillary's in a tough spot....she needs to focus on the viability of Bernie's policies. It's a tough road cause tempering people's hopes and dreams in the face of realism is not typically a winning campaign strategy. She doesn't have much of a choice though. Hillary needs to attack. Bernie has the luxury of staying positive.

it's gonna be a long night for Hillary if the last word in is Bernie

her a liar; thats like their go to.

I think Bernie had a chance to differentiate himself from Hillary on race and he didn't really go for it. I think that was a missed opportunity.

The specific question was 'Do white people have the right to feel resentment?' Not really clear what their alleged resentment was ABOUT....but that was a chance to say something radical and gutsy. Something along the lines of 'No. They don't have the right to feel resentment. The statistics show that they are still less likely to go to prison....still less likely to be poor....still less likely to get brutalized by police.'

Unfortunately, they both danced around it.

>I think Bernie had a chance to differentiate himself from
>Hillary on race and he didn't really go for it. I think that
>was a missed opportunity.

...

>Unfortunately, they both danced around it.

nope.

peace & blessings,

x.

www.twitter.com/poetx

=========================================
I'm an advocate for working smarter, not harder. If you just
focus on working hard you end up making someone else rich and
not having much to show for it. (c) mad

She's really trying to hitch herself to his wagon, isn't she?

They're both doing a decent job so far

Also, loved Bernie's Henry Kissinger diss.

And he kicked her ass on no-fly zones, Libya, and Henry Kissinger. Her disastrous record on foreign policy should permanently disqualify her from office.

I will give her credit for naming Mandela after Bernie named Churchill. She made him look like the old white man that he is. But it was symbolism. Unfortunately, when we get past symbolism, Hillary is Bush Lite on foreign policy. She can't defend her own record with more than, "Obama trusted me enough to make me Secretary of State!"

about FDR had nothing to do with foreign policy.

Bernie's foreign policy positions are mainly a lot of pie in the sky pacifist shit that isn't realistic for the modern world.

And her decisions in relation to all three of those conflicts contributed to the rise of ISIS.

Also, Hillary's answer to the leader question was about 10 seconds long. They were both cutting in on their closing statement time anyway, which is why she said less than he did.

lmao!!

>lmao!!

And it just goes to show that Bernie is unwilling to be opportunistic in regards to Obama. He could easily review that whole Hillary v Obama campaign and cherry-pick things Hillary said that were critical of Obama. After all...that's exactly what she's doing to HIM. But that's not Bernie's style. I hope he doesn't pay for it.

so i dunno if him using quotes from 2008 would necessarily rebut her point.

his chosen rebuttal was likely more effective than he would've been going too much further w/it.

i didn't see her response to it (b/c i didn't watch this debate and have only seen a news clip this morning) - but if i were her i would've said "I opposed SENATOR Obama in an election campaign. I never opposed PRESIDENT Obama in ANY election campaign, Senator."

They're both obviously pandering to black voters. But when she talks about racism, I guarantee that Hillary will never say that the banks she takes millions from aggressively targeted black communities, including senior citizens, for adjustable rate subprime mortgages in the run-up to 2008. They made billions off these scams in cities across the country, while millions of people lost their homes, especially in cities like Flint and Detroit. And she has the gall to swoop in and act all concerned about lead poisoning, hoping black voters will be impressed in the run-up to South Carolina. She is so full of shit!

The crisis in places like Detroit has many causes, but financial deregulation and the subprime mortgage lending scam were the most devastating blows in decades. The idea that she will ride in on a pile of cash from the people who caused this, and do something to fix it, is overwhelmingly contradicted by the historical record.

Stump-speechy but still strong

Hillary's appeal to black voters is the political equivalent of 'I have black friends'. It's disingenuous and opportunistic. I hope it doesn't work.

things have been better because now White people have had documentation and video to prove Black plights, so now we kind of believe you. SC will be the showdown though. In that debate all gloves come off.

.

There are a number of Black Caucus members, like Barbara Lee, who haven't endorsed Clinton.

The Black Caucus PAC also gets funding from a private prison lobbyist. They don't even speak for the Black Caucus, let alone Black Democrats or the masses as a whole.

http://i.imgur.com/W1K0Fnd.png

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ca9hGOgUAAAs_dV.jpg

When Bernie makes an anti-establishment argument (ie campaign financing)....Hillary responds by saying 'well Obama got money from large corporations too'. She'll be able to say that til the cows come home because Obama himself had an establishment-like presidency.

So that puts Bernie in a tough spot. Ideally....he should be able to say 'And it was wrong when Obama did it too!'. Unfortunately, there's too much un-examined, knee-jerk Obama love to do that without risking votes. In this climate....you'll suffer if you say ANYTHING critical of Obama. The problem is.....Bernie's whole campaign is based on advocating for things that Obama didn't support. So the only thing he can really do is try to bring the focus back on the issue itself instead of what Obama supported/practised. That means Hillary scores points with the minority vote without Sanders being able to respond.

It's starting to make more sense to me why the black vote is a problem for Bernie.

Part of her problem is she doesn't have a clear message like Bernie does. And she IS basically running for Obama's 3rd term policy-wise so she might as well embrace it

Bernie has given Clinton a lay-up....

Listen, we all have our criticisms of Obeezy. I don't think he did nearly enough enough on criminal sentencing reform for black and brown folk.....He dropped the ball there. Big time...

But rather than stick to pointing out how he would do better than Obama with specific issues, Bernie is questioning Obama's OVERALL progressive pedigree. The first black President who went through the hell of being called a Kenyan Socialist who is secretly a racist who hates whites...Bernie is outright saying "I will be a flat-out better President than Barack Obama..." I mean, Bernie actually said he would do better on race relations than Obama...lol...As if race relations is some trivial shit...Of course Clinton will take advantage of this. Why wouldn't she. She was Obama's Secretary of State for God's sake...She was in HIS administration....

Add the Bernie Bros. going crazy on social media calling John Lewis a sellout and (by some) an outright money grubbing relic who gets too much credit for getting beat in the head for standing up for the rights of HIS people, just for endorsing Clinton, and u got some dangerous ground ahead...

I say Bernie should just stick to his Civil Rights background and continue to go for the youth vote and leave the other stuff alone.

Why is it laughable that Bernie would do better than Obama on race relations? And how did his contending that trivialize anything?

Bernie HAS to think he would do better than Obama. He's essentially going up against Obama in the form of Hillary.

>Why is it laughable that Bernie would do better than Obama on
>race relations? And how did his contending that trivialize
>anything?


Because he's acting like Obama didn't do enough on race relations....He's not merely saying I WOULD BE BETTER FOR BLACK FOLK...He's saying he would be better for uniting the country...As if Obama was going around with a beret, black leather jacket and a shotgun on some crazed caricature of Black Panthers dividing the country....As if Bernie has some secret sauce on race relations....lol...Like for real?

>Bernie HAS to think he would do better than Obama. He's
>essentially going up against Obama in the form of Hillary.

Again...saying that I can do better than Obama on the economy, on criminal reform, etc is the better argument....That's a message I would stay on....

But saying that Obama failed as a leader and that he is some faux progressive is cutting it way too close...

...which is the shift of the Democratic Party to the right on economic issues since the Reagan era. He isn't running against everything Obama stands for, and praises him frequently.

It's very different to frame this is "running against a set of policies most Democrats have supported, and which make up one aspect of Obama's legacy" and "running against Obama's legacy." It's obvious why Hillary is trying to frame this as "Bernie is running against Obama's legacy," but it's more accurate to say Bernie is running against Bill and the Democratic Leadership Council's legacy.

It's the Tea Party coming to the Democratic Party...it's really that simple....

Yesterday's Progressive Politics is now viewed as faux Progressive....I can't find the actual post. But on FiveThirtyEight, which just sticks to facts and figures in breaking down politics, a writer made a great point about the current evolution of Democratic party. They basically said we are now seeing the same ideological zeal, lead by Bernie, that has taken hold of the Republicans creep into the Democratic party....

It's the reason why it's become routine for some supporters of Bernie to dismiss H. Clinton as Conservative Lite....And to say Obama wasn't progressive enough. I'm more interested and seeing where this takes the Democratic party in the future...

If we look at his policy positions, Sanders is just an old-fashioned New Deal liberal. The only reason his old-fashioned liberalism looks "radical" is that the Democratic Party leadership accommodated aspects of Reaganism after getting their asses kicked in 1980, 1984, and 1988.

Why is single-payer healthcare radical? Why is not using a SuperPAC radical? The mainstream of the party keeps moving to the right, deeper into the pockets of the 1%. Not following it doesn't make you a fanatic.

>If we look at his policy positions, Sanders is just an
>old-fashioned New Deal liberal. The only reason his
>old-fashioned liberalism looks "radical" is that the
>Democratic Party leadership accommodated aspects of Reaganism
>after getting their asses kicked in 1980, 1984, and 1988.
>
>Why is single-payer healthcare radical? Why is not using a
>SuperPAC radical? The mainstream of the party keeps moving to
>the right, deeper into the pockets of the 1%. Not following it
>doesn't make you a fanatic.

It's not so much why is x, y, z radical...It's why certain Democratic politicians who are viewed as liberals (and in some cases FAR LEFT) by the Republican party and folks in fly over states and in the South are deemed as faux Democrats by hardcore Liberals....

I think that's dangerous....

I mean, imagine trying to sell Romneycare, which is basically the template for Obamacare, in a Republican primary.

The Republicans have moved so far to the right that they will now call positions once associated with Eisenhower, or Mitt Romney's father George Romney, "far left." Nixon almost looks like a Communist to them, with his wage controls and his signing of environmental legislation. All you need to get the "extremist" tag from them, these days, is to be where their leaders once were.

If the Democrats have moved to the right on economics, it's because they've been following the Republicans. And that just opens the door for the far right a little bit wider every year.

Good points....

I just think the Liberal wing of the party was always there to keep the "Safe" Democrats honest...To make them go hard on certain issues....To mix it up...To force an establishment Democrat candidate like Hillary Clinton to start talking about income inequality...To force Obama to make a move on gay marriage....

But I don't think the Democrats win with the Liberal Left wing part of the party leading the entire charge...

That's just me, homie...

I think Bern would do at least as well as Hillary in the GE. She's been losing voters who make less than $100,000/year. Her performance would probably be slightly worse than Al Gore's in 2000.

That said, it's a moot point, because the interests Bernie rails against control the DNC, and the superdelegate system is designed to foil upstarts. So the Dems will nominate a candidate who, like Gore, is wooden and largely disliked by working-class voters. Trump could easily capture that energy.

I'm going to go by history and say no....Those fly over states and the South will not be very receptive to Bernie "The Socialist"...These are not terribly bright people. These folks think being a socialist = communism....lol

She does well with people doing well in the current economy, particularly upper-income suburban and urban professionals. She isn't capturing the votes of people whose living standards are stagnating or declining.

Some of the dislike for her is based on sexism, but most of it is based on her economic policies, which offer very little to people making under $100,000/year. She is rightly perceived by many as a very wealthy insider, who will do massive favors for other wealthy insiders (and herself) when in office.

This is not an all or nothing thing...I never said anything about Hillary's appeal vs. Bernie....Whoever gets nominated this will be a VERY ugly, close general election campaign against the Repugs....

I'm saying that Bernie's appeal to the far left wing of the Democratic party should not be mistaken for an appeal to the rest of the country. Hillary Clinton has been beaten up on since she was First Lady. She is battle tested. I think Bernie is going to go through the ringer. He's never been truly vetted by the public, media and more importantly, the Republicans....Going to be interesting to see how he and his supporters handle that..

....and she needs those people to come out in November.

Most of the people who fear Bernie's socialism also can't stand Hillary.

And this^^^is the problem....

The same way Kasich alienates a lot of the Repug base....He could beat both Hillary and Bernie if THEY got behind him...But he's not Conservative enough...U see that Bizarro World pattern I'm getting at?

U got to be in the Oval Office to make moves for the country....The Dem Base just may outsmart itself...We will see....

because BHO was an upstart, and the superdelegate system worked in his favor.

>because BHO was an upstart, and the superdelegate system
>worked in his favor.


^^^^^^^

Basically echoes what I've been saying all along about the purity test that's starting to become part of the Democratic Party...An interesting read.....

---
How Are Democrats Trying To Win?
JULIA AZARI 10:15 PM

About a year ago, political scientists Matt Grossmann and Dave Hopkins published a paper arguing that Democratic voters base their decision on which party is better for different social groups (“group benefits,” in polisci speak), while Republicans vote more based on ideology. This thesis, like several important political science theories, isn’t an obvious fit for what we’re seeing in this nomination season.

What’s interesting in the Sanders-Clinton contest is that the terms of debate seem to encompass both ideology and group interests. Sanders invoked ideology when he said that you can be either a progressive or a moderate, but not both. This kind of impulse toward ideological purity is what Grossmann and Hopkins identify as being far more common among Republicans.

But there’s been a lot about group benefits too. Obviously, which candidate is better for women has been the subject of hot debate – Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright’s controversial comments are the most prominent but hardly the only ones in that vein. Two top African-American intellectuals, Michelle Alexander and Ta-Nehisi Coates, weighed in for Sanders this week, citing their experience as black Americans.

In the opening statements, Clinton drew on pretty standard Democratic group benefits language. Sanders invoked group benefit language in a slightly different way – talking about ordinary Americans and the abuses of the campaign finance system. This is a different kind of group benefit, but it also invokes the ideological purity point that he keeps raising against Clinton.

One thing I wonder going forward is whether these two streams of argument – group benefits vs. ideologies – merge or remain distinct.

this administration is full-blown establishment

>this administration is full-blown establishment


Maybe to the hardcore Left...But when other folk see the President getting attacked by Republicans for being an outright socialist who has given too much time to gay rights, climate change, gun violence, etc, it's hard to envision Obama being some light weight Progressive who sleeps in the middle.... Obama has even gotten shade from Purple State Democrats who believe he has taken the country too far left....lol

So when folks hear Bernie's comments about Obama's administration, a lot of people take offense to that...

Bernie calling Obama's administration the establishment is not the issue...That's a normal statement. Bernie is a socialist democrat...He is def. waaaaaaaaay further to the left of Obama....

The issue is making Obama out to be a fake ass progressive just because u (Bernie) r holding down the FAR left wing of the party....It's kind of naive...

>>this administration is full-blown establishment
>

you been quick to call Obama a centrist tho...
>
>Maybe to the hardcore Left...But when other folk see the
>President getting attacked by Republicans for being an
>outright socialist who has given too much time to gay rights,
>climate change, gun violence, etc, it's hard to envision Obama
>being some light weight Progressive who sleeps in the
>middle.... Obama has even gotten shade from Purple State
>Democrats who believe he has taken the country too far
>left....lol

so which is it? Is Obama progressive or nah? of course the GOP would view him as such but Obama could have GOP talking points and still get criticized by the Repubs because that's what they do.
>
>So when folks hear Bernie's comments about Obama's
>administration, a lot of people take offense to that...

lol, it's politics, fuckers are always offended
>
>Bernie calling Obama's administration the establishment is not
>the issue...That's a normal statement. Bernie is a socialist
>democrat...He is def. waaaaaaaaay further to the left of
>Obama....
>
>The issue is making Obama out to be a fake ass progressive
>just because u (Bernie) r holding down the FAR left wing of
>the party....It's kind of naive...

funny how Obama is now a progresivewhen every other time you are quick to point out how he is Reagan lite. I know the tide has shifted but you keep flip flopping on who Obama is when it comes to being progressive vs a centrist.

you should be a politician bro...

>>>this administration is full-blown establishment
>>
>
>you been quick to call Obama a centrist tho...

Remember....When we were talking about Bernie and Obama? We were talking about CAMPAIGNING....We were talking about how Obama worked the middle and made himself look like he wasn't the Liberal Loon candidate....We never talked about Obama's actual presidency....He RAN as a Centrist the first time around...Once he got in? He got pushed center left and at times further...


>>Maybe to the hardcore Left...But when other folk see the
>>President getting attacked by Republicans for being an
>>outright socialist who has given too much time to gay
>rights,
>>climate change, gun violence, etc, it's hard to envision
>Obama
>>being some light weight Progressive who sleeps in the
>>middle.... Obama has even gotten shade from Purple State
>>Democrats who believe he has taken the country too far
>>left....lol


>so which is it? Is Obama progressive or nah? of course the GOP
>would view him as such but Obama could have GOP talking points
>and still get criticized by the Repubs because that's what
>they do.


It's simple...Obama ran as a moderate Centrist to get them votes....He tried to do the moderate thing his first few years in office. But he recognized that after being called a socialist out to destroy the country just because he wanted to enact affordable healthcare that mirrors Republican Mitt Romney, that they are going to hate him anyway....So he pushed it further left after the Right overreached...Not "Bernie" left...But "Gay Marriage, gun-control, climate change" left....


>>So when folks hear Bernie's comments about Obama's
>>administration, a lot of people take offense to that...
>
>lol, it's politics, fuckers are always offended
>>
>>Bernie calling Obama's administration the establishment is
>not
>>the issue...That's a normal statement. Bernie is a socialist
>>democrat...He is def. waaaaaaaaay further to the left of
>>Obama....
>>
>>The issue is making Obama out to be a fake ass progressive
>>just because u (Bernie) r holding down the FAR left wing of
>>the party....It's kind of naive...
>
>funny how Obama is now a progresivewhen every other time you
>are quick to point out how he is Reagan lite. I know the tide
>has shifted but you keep flip flopping on who Obama is when it
>comes to being progressive vs a centrist.
>
>you should be a politician bro...

Nah...Just detailing what happened....Obama is a shrewd politician. He knew he couldn't run as a Left leaning progressive. He played the middle...he even name checked Reagan....

But I think the Tea Party actually pushed Obama left in a lot of ways.......

rather, i was speaking to the fact that he's a party stalwart, just like Clinton. he took super PAC money and courted superdelegates just like the rest of them. he's no less of a traditional Democratic pol than any of the other folks not named Bernie Sanders.

Cool Cool....

in more ways than one

the obvious, pander to the black vote

but what I find convenient, is the disconnect from Bill's administration

that is, as an adult having lived through both administrations, I don't think it's a big leap to say most hold Bill's administration in a higher regard

no war
economy peaked

obviously, she's trying to distance herself from the Clinton scandals

which I've already stated my concern for in the ge

but it is strange, IMO, that she can't even refer to her husband's administration at all, or be subjected to the infinite can of worms

she won't have that convenience in the ge

and if her new angle is to attack Bern on being anti-BHO

I think it's fair game to take the gloves off and start talking about the policies from Bill's administration that had profound impact on blacks

mass incarceration
welfare reform
nafta

and at the same time, he's implicitly endorsed her campaign. i don't see her embrace of his administration as anything but the natural order of things. it's certainly a lot more relevant than bringing up her husband's policies.

I don't think he's given the official endorsement yet, to my knowledge

"i don't see her embrace of his administration as anything but the natural order of things."

well, as has been stated, this love fest is not what happened when she ran against him in 08'

the pander is her painting Bern as anti-BHO

the approval rating for BHO is 92% for blacks

it's pretty obvious.

and don't let the facts get in the way of her BS

despite what she's spinning now, Bern campaigned for BHO.

"it's certainly a lot more relevant than bringing up her husband's policies"

more convenient, yes

but relevant, no

IRT the black vote, see Michelle Alexander.

>I don't think he's given the official endorsement yet, to my
>knowledge


Listen to his words about staying the course.....Also, pay attention to Obama's former staffers who still talk to the President...Carney basically spelled it out....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/politics/jay-carney-president-obama-supports-hillary-clinton/

.

.

about the conversation both candidates had about race.

I thought the moderators' questions about race and improving race relations were good. Unfortunately, I think Sanders' and Clinton's answers were flops and missed opportunities.

Neither candidate is really *there* when it comes to discussing race and racism.

Both, ironically, claimed to be inspired by FDR as an influencing force in domestic and international policy, yet the dubious domestic ramifications of the New Deal in practice (and its legacy) for African Americans (which have been well documented) seemed to not register for either candidate as relevant or problematic in light of their impassioned "understanding" of improving race relations or the various ills plaguing the "Black community". Nevermind FDR's hazy legacy when it comes to Japanese Americans.

Woulda been cool if Clinton mentioned Eleanor to contrast Sanders' FDR. But FDR is the bread and butter of the Democratic Party, so waddya gonna do? Sanders' so-called admiration for FDR was intriguing. Perhaps when he considers how African Americans fared in the New Deal, he will get a clue about why or how someone might have questions about the "new deal" he's proposing. And maybe the question about reparations might make more sense to him.

I don't look to Sanders or Clinton as crucial voices or leaders in conversations, work, and progress around the issue of race-- past, present, or future. NEVER have. And likely never will.

And so discussions about which candidate is more ___________ when it comes to Black voters and issues is trying my patience because it insinuates there's more of a choice than there really is. And it's kind of insulting. Legitimately, maybe Obama was the first President that offered Black voters an opportunity to not cast a vote between the lesser of two, three, or four evils with eyes wide open.

My evaluation of the candidates has little to do with them "understanding" Black voters or being some "ally" to the Black community. In my mind, neither candidate "understands,* neither is an ally. And I don't need them to pander or convince me otherwise, either.

Whatever the extent of the candidates "understanding" or "support," as it is, is ok; it doesn't preclude them from being the next leader of the Free World. It doesn't mean they aren't competent or decent or whatever else one wants to say that's positive about either one.

I expect nothing from either camp that's substantial or helpful on the issue of race. Short or long term. And I'm weary as hell with being asked to make a choice on grounds where there isn't much of one. Lol. I feel like if Sanders or Clinton got that, their conversation and "courting" of the so-called "Black community" might be more productive.

Other things: I wish Sanders had a chance to respond to Clinton's closing speech.

Kinda think Sanders "won" the debate.

I can't figure out the specific reason why Clinton isn't running a better campaign. It's like she (or her people) didn't fully get why she lost to Obama. Sanders isn't unbeatable, but she's running a campaign like he is.

...and has no instinct for economic populism, in a time when people are pissed off about the economy. That explains most of her campaign's floundering, IMO. But she will almost certainly still get the nomination, because of the rigged superdelegate system and her overwhelming corporate/Wall Street backing.

I agree with you that Sanders should have pointed out that the New Deal was fatally flawed by FDR's compromise with white supremacy re: redlining and Jim Crow in the South. But the Democrats have also moved so far to the right on economic policy since Mondale's defeat in '84 that Eisenhower looks radical. In that context, aspects of the New Deal SHOULD be defended--the same ones that Ella Baker, A. Philip Randolph, and Bayard Rustin supported. What Sanders needs to do is make a strong case that racial justice goes better with social democracy than Clinton's vapid neoliberalism.

he said something to the effect of "unemployment is actually at 10%, because people have given up looking for work." i've seen it tossed around by so many GOPers over the last few years that i was surprised to see someone largely aligned with this administration toss it out.

the problem is that while that's a true statement, that angle is less than accurate. yes, the U6 #s are higher than U3, which is what's traditionally discussed when we talk about unemployment. but U6 is *always* higher than U3, and U6 has improved year over year under this administration the same way that U3 has.

here's U3: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNRATE
and here's U6: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/U6RATE

they're two different #s that explain two different things, and should not be used interchangeably. you have to compare U6 to what's normal U6, at least in a good economy.

there are changes in our economy related to who works, where they work, when they work, and how many jobs they have that are better illustrated with more comprehensive stats.

the g.o.p. is bringing that shit up, and people are frustrated by their economic situations. democrats have to deal with that and explain why their policies are better even measuring by different metrics.

Gonna be tough for Bernie to continue to bring up on the stump given that doing so would be viewed by many as Obama doing a shit job on the economy....

but when his criticisms boil down to "obama did a better job than any of the other potential presidents would have and i believe that we can do better than that," he is not attacking obama.

and really, honestly, we can all be grownup enough to see it for what it is. it's dirty that her team wants to spin it this other way. it's shameful that the media are running with that angle as well.

i worry a little given last night's debate that he's not going to be aggressive enough is making those arguments. he could have hit a lot harder and i think he answered sometimes with half-reasoned sound bytes instead of thorough explanations. he needs to know that that's not his lane. people don't want "do i sound electable enough?" bernie.

>but when his criticisms boil down to "obama did a better job
>than any of the other potential presidents would have and i
>believe that we can do better than that," he is not attacking
>obama.
>
>and really, honestly, we can all be grownup enough to see it
>for what it is. it's dirty that her team wants to spin it this
>other way. it's shameful that the media are running with that
>angle as well.

It's not dirty at all....Clinton served four years in Obama's administration....It would be political suicide not to wrap yourself in the arms of the most popular Democratic leader since B. Clinton in his heyday....Again...SHE WAS HIS SECRETARY OF STATE...lol...So with that, she is going to protect the legacy of a President that, no matter how much it baffles those on the far left or pisses off people on the right, saved this country from a depression like economic fall...If this was a Republican President he/she would be doing a victory lap....

It's one thing for Bernie to say that the way the ECONOMY is structured it doesn't give a fair shake to the little guy/girl....It's one thing for him to call out the banks and corporations for skating waaaaay too long on low taxes and partying on the backs of people who continue to see their savings and work hours savagely cut...And I CAN def. get with Bernie's message that the deck is stacked against both the poor and middle class due to the 1 percent making a mockery out of our capitalistic system....U wanna say Obama could have done more against the bankers? I buy that as well...We agree...

BUT....It's quite another thing to say AS A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE that the man who has been vilified by Republicans for doing a shit job on the economy, is doing a shit job on the economy...

This is politics....U use EVERY advantage...And yeah, Obama is Clinton's advantage....

And yet, Clinton vs. Bernie has been incredibly civil compared to what's happening on the Republican race...Those fools are cursing each other out...They are using dirty trick after dirty trick (That shit Cruz did to Carson was crazy...)...They are calling each other "boy" and all kinds of derogatory shit...lol....

Hell, Clinton vs. Bernie is a battle about the issues and the future of the Democratic Party...

I will take THAT every time...

you're saying a lot about why it's okay to play the game, but she's still wrong about how often (and why) bernie *sometimes* disagreed with president obama. the specifics really matter here, especially because she had as many disagreements and she *actually* ran against him.

and this isn't good for the party or her in the long run.

1) she muddies the waters about what democrats did and want to do even more. confused people play into the hands of candidacies like trump's.

2) she turns off voters by appearing (once again) disingenuous.

All of you mofos are smart as hell.

Thank God for higher education.
Wish I could convey my thoughts so elegantly.

This post alone is a prime example of why we need FREE higher education in the United States. IT gives everyone a better playing field. And I bet it will lead to way more democratic votes. Seems the dumber you are in America the more likely you are to vote Republican. At least in the South and mid west. LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9J97b_oOMc

same lies from july

Sanders said, "I think there are millions of Americans who are deeply disappointed in the president, who believe that with regard to Social Security and a number of other issues, he said one thing as a candidate and is doing something very much else as a president, who cannot believe how weak he has been — for whatever reason — in negotiating with Republicans. And there’s deep disappointment."

"I think one of the reasons that the president has been able to move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him, and I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting what is a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing. … At this point, I have not (encouraged anyone), but I am now giving thought to it. There are a lot of smart, honest, progressive people who I think can be good presidents."

these were addressed when they were first floated 6 months ago

you'd have to spin yourself dizzy to equate these remarks with Sanders himself calling BHO weak, a disappointment, and recruiting candidates to oppose him

"There's a huge gap right now between Congress and the American people. What presidential leadership is about closing that gap," Asked if he believed President Obama had closed that gap, Sanders said: "No, I don't. I mean, I think he has made the effort. But I think what we need, when I talk about a political revolution, is bringing millions and millions of people into the political process in a way that does not exist right now."

again, he didn't say the POTUS failed the commander and chief test, or whatever HRC spun this too

BTW, BHO stated after the SOTU, that his inability to get more done with his R colleagues was his biggest regret

What Sanders wrote was more of a promotional blurb than a forward: "Bill Press makes the case why, long after taking the oath of office, the next president of the United States must keep rallying the people who elected him or her on behalf of progressive causes. That is the only way real change will happen. Read this book."

He didn't write Buyer's Remorse

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-obama_us_56bd55d6e4b08ffac124a349

"One of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate," #feelthebern

both CNN and MSNBC focused on Bern coughing and waving his hands as their main topic post debate

and never connected his reactions to her lies

I believe the Chris Matthews quote was 'he looked like he was flagging down a waiter'

one CNN commentator repeatedly said 'his eyes glazed over'

way to cover the issues guys

I couldn't imagine what my reaction would be to somebody lying on my name in front of a national audience

I would also like to point out NO MAJOR MEDIA outlet gave the Iowa 'discrepancies' any coverage

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaUeDQSWAAARj4o.jpg

HRC came off very Dick Cheney last night, IMO.

I dont need a 2hr post debate analysis and discussion.. For what!??
For you to tell me how I should feel. No...I watch the debate. when its over, I form my own opinion and then make a decision on the candidate that speaks most to my issues and concerns.

debates, and use the coverage to decide what happened

that's what frightens me

Now things are really going to get interesting.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/free-beacon-poll-clinton-and-sanders-tied-in-nevada/

Free Beacon Poll: Clinton and Sanders Tied in Nevada

BY: Lachlan Markay
February 12, 2016 9:45 am

Nevadans expected to participate in next week’s Democratic presidential caucus are evenly split between the party’s two candidates, according to a new Washington Free Beacon poll.

The poll shows Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders tied at 45 percent each among likely caucusgoers. Clinton narrowly edges Sanders among those who have completely made up their mind. But undecided caucusgoers and those who might change their mind say recent scandals involving Clinton make them significantly less likely to support her.

The survey was conducted between Feb. 8, the day before the New Hampshire Democratic primary, and Feb. 10, the day after. It shows no bump for Sanders after his 22-point victory in the nation’s first primary; by a single point, respondents the following day said they supported Clinton.

The stakes for both candidates are high after Sanders’ drubbing of Clinton in New Hampshire and her razor-thin victory in the Iowa caucuses the week before. Once seen as inevitable, Clinton’s candidacy has been dogged by allegations of federal crimes, official misconduct, and corruption.

Those scandals could plague Clinton in Nevada as undecided or swing voters settle on a candidate in the days before the caucuses. In 2008, more than a quarter of Democratic caucusgoers in the state decided whom to support in the final 10 days.

Of the 10 percent of undecided respondents, 87 percent say that Clinton’s failure to disclose foreign government donations to her family’s foundation make them less likely to support her. More than three-quarters say the same about her support for the 2008 Wall Street bailouts and subsequent paid speeches at investment banks.

In the past week, Clinton has come under fire for her refusal to release the transcripts of those speeches, and the Clinton Foundation has revealed that it was subpoenaed by the State Department’s inspector general as part of its investigation into federal government support for its donors.

In the Washington Free Beacon poll, a 47 percent plurality of undecideds say that Sanders is the more trustworthy candidate. Just 10 percent say the same about Clinton.

Clinton’s campaign has worked to downplay expectations in Nevada ahead of the Democratic caucuses there. “There’s going to be a narrowing in —we’re clear-eyed about that,” campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said this week.

Fallon falsely claimed that Nevada is 80 percent white, suggesting that Sanders does better among white voters while Clinton leads among minorities. In fact, the state is roughly 51 percent white.

Polling in Nevada has been sparse, but the Free Beacon survey suggests that Sanders has managed to close a double-digit gap in the state. In December, a Gravis Marketing survey showed Clinton up by 23 percent.

Though Sanders’ numbers have improved, it remains to be seen whether Nevada voters who support him will turn out in large enough numbers to hand him another early-state victory. Among those who have participated in the Democratic caucus before, Clinton leads by 11 points, while first-time caucusgoers support Sanders by six points.

Like Iowa’s Democratic caucus, Nevada’s is open to any registered Democrat—including those who register on the same day. Sanders is hoping that a sizable chunk of independent voters end up participating; among Democrats, Clinton leads by 11 points, but she trails by 27 among independents, according to the poll.

The demographic breakdown in caucusgoer support reflects the trends of the previous two Democratic presidential contests. Sanders enjoys overwhelming support among young people; by 63-16, voters between the ages of 18 and 29 support the Vermont senator.

Clinton leads by seven points among women, but women under 30 back Sanders by a 40-point margin.

Sanders’ more radical policy proposals enjoy moderate support among likely caucusgoers. Sixty-one percent say that his plan to hike taxes on corporations makes them more likely to support him.

However, respondents were split on his $15 trillion proposal for a new health care entitlement and the large tax hikes proposed to pay for it. Fifty-one percent said it made them more likely to support Sanders, while 47 percent said it made them less likely.

The survey was conducted by Targetpoint Consulting, and includes responses from 1,236 likely Democratic caucusgoers. The margin of error is 2.9 percent.

I got a few Bernie heads in Las Vegas...They r even laughing at that poll because they know all about that paper...The Beacon is basically a Right Wing rag....Kinda like taking stock in a Fox News poll....Don't do it to yourself....

My favorite quote about the Beacon: "The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf called the Free Beacon's stated mission 'decadent and unethical.' Media Matters for America founder David Brock sent a letter to news organizations in 2014 saying, "If credible media outlets regard the unethical practices of The Free Beacon as valid, all of journalism will be debased...."

It's best to wait for a more balanced poll that splits the difference like Wall Street Journal/NBC poll...Or better yet Five Thirty Eight/Nate Silver...They have it very close...But not tied...

It's def. getting close though...Bernie has been doing a good job courting Latinos....I think he could sneak out a win in Nevada....

But Clinton's supposed "firewall" looks rickety in Nevada. It's going to be close one.

It's a bad look if its close in SC though....If Clinton loses there? It's all but over in my opinion....

>But Clinton's supposed "firewall" looks rickety in Nevada.
>It's going to be close one.


It's going to be a TIGHT race...No other way around it....

One sided?...lol

This is the Beacon's online store, courtesy of Rachel Maddow who has been pretty hard on Clinton....She has been a tough interview on ol' girl....Needless to say, that poll is bullshit....

---

"Here are some things you should probably know about this poll that nobody was expecting. The outfit that commissioned this poll is a very, very conservative website called the Washington Free Beacon. If you go to their online store, just for a little flavor here, you can buy, for example, Washington Free Beacon tactical vests.

You can also buy a walker that says ‘I stole this from Hillary.’ That’s nice. You can buy t-shirts that have pictures of George W. Bush on them that say ‘Greatest Living President, Fantastic Painter.’

That’s who paid for the poll. And the group who did the poll, it’s a group called Target Point. They are a Republican company. This is their client page on their website: Bush-Cheney, RNC, the Republican Governor’s Association, Mitt Romney.

Also, Target Point has no real track record on public polling. One thing you look to see if a new poll you’ve never heard of to see if it’s legit, one thing you look at, you look at their methodology and their track record has been borne out over the years. For Target Point, there’s no numbers over the years. There’s no public polling trail to follow. There’s just this poll. Just the one. Isn’t it kind of weird, if you think about it, that it’s only a Democratic poll?....."

link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATRRTUTK5C0

^^^Context....

She hit him hard on the Planned Parenthood "establishment" comment, and recently said he couldn't win. Yes, she has recently called bullshit on Hill and Bill's claim that all the vitriol is coming from "Berniebros," pointing out that Hillary stans say nasty shit all the time. (She should have mentioned David "Anita Hill is a slut" Brock.) But that just begins to even things out.

As for the poll, I'll buy that it's bullshit when I see proof that the numbers are wrong.

...cracking up on Twitter...lol

Dude doing his best to save his boy Jeb....I think he's more excited that he believes Kasich and Rubio won't beat him out as that Establishment candidate...lol...That inside political game is a trip....

Tweet:

mike murphy
‏@murphymike
"Source I trust sends these SC tracking numbers from a non-Jeb campaign; Trump 34, Cruz 17, Jeb 12, Rubio 10. Kasich in single digits."

https://youtu.be/RawGr83DxpE?t=66

She first says superdelegates are there to make sure that party leaders and officials are not running against grassroots candidates (why are grassroots candidates a bad thing??)

Immediately afterwards she says that the democratic party emphasizes diversity and inclusiveness of the grass roots, so they separate out the delegates to ensure that there is not competition.

What the hell is she saying? Even the interviewer was confused, but he let her off the hook.
It seems like she was accidentally disclosing the corruption of the system.

this is exactly why bernie is popular.

dem leadership needs to recognize his restraint in not shouting this from the rooftops already (i damn sure he goes there eventually). it demonstrates that he's a team player and and trying to build up this party.

imagine what trump would do if republicans had the same kind of superdelegate system.

All political chairmen/women have one job: Get Democrats/Republicans elected...It's alway been this way...If Bernie is as strong as his run is being touted then this will go the way it did in 2008...Many of of the super delegates switched over to Obama once he started winning delegates in states over Clinton....

Too soon to be crying about how the fix is in for Clinton...This is par for the course in politics......I mean, there were states in which Clinton got more votes than Obama but lost in delegates...These people need PROOF that Bernie is the real deal. Give it time if u r a Bernie booster.....

My hope is if whoever wins, whether it's Clinton or Bernie, that Dems show up and vote...No use crying in a corner because your GUY/GIRL didn't get the nomination....When you got the Repugs controlling the Senate and the House can't afford to be shortsighted....

>https://youtu.be/RawGr83DxpE?t=66
>
>She first says superdelegates are there to make sure that
>party leaders and officials are not running against grassroots
>candidates (why are grassroots candidates a bad thing??)
>
>Immediately afterwards she says that the democratic party
>emphasizes diversity and inclusiveness of the grass roots, so
>they separate out the delegates to ensure that there is not
>competition.
>
>What the hell is she saying? Even the interviewer was
>confused, but he let her off the hook.
>It seems like she was accidentally disclosing the corruption
>of the system.

That was a weird yet honest response...

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/12733627_465689790302328_5021837747359230240_n.jpg?oh=e28c39be1966727476c95e761e828f47&oe=57279528

too easy