I'm 51 Years Old

[Chasstev365]

In second grade (1972), I was literally only the kid who voted for George McGovern over Richard Nixon in our suburban class election. In the first election I was able to vote (1984), I was one of the relatively few college kids my age that supported Walter Mondale and 4 years later, I worked for Sen. Paul Simon's 1988 President campaign. I have volunteered for numerous other Democratic Presidential, Gubernatorial, Senatorial, and House races, and served as my union VP for 3 years.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND: Bernie Sanders is the first authentically liberal in my life time to be a contender and with the ass clown Donald Trump as the potential Republican nominee, I believe he could actually win the presidency in November. Perhaps a President Sanders could at least TRY to put this country back on a Progressive path after it was killed off by some of President Carter's policies (deregulation) and then the Reagan Revolution.

What Hillary supporters fail to understand is that when you mock and belittle Bernie Sanders and his supporters with jibes of "free stuff" and "fairy tales" you're not just mocking a Progressive from Vermont; you're mocking the proud legacy of the New Deal, which saved this country at a radical time in the world where things could have gone horribly wrong even here at home.

[daleanime]

1. Unfortunately.....

I do not believe they care. Keep your head up and stay in the game, as a 55 year old I'm hoping to make it to 40 years a democrat.

[libtodeath]

2. It is sad to see defenses of Hillary that are condemnations of great Democratic principles.

[artyteacher]

3. I hate to be mean....

But he will suffer the same fate as the others. But he won't make it to the general.

And Hillary has a lot of the same principles. She just knows with the way the country works, you have to move in measured steps.

[Contrary1]

8. And a Repub will be president. n/t

[artyteacher]

10. Not likely. eom

[Contrary1]

16. I don't agree...

and I'm not trying to be mean either.

Hillary on the ticket will bring record numbers of Republican voters out. They cannot stomach the Clintons. The Republicans blame them for pretty much everything. And, since she is busy disenfranchising the true Liberals, they will go somewhere else...or nowhere.

Maybe I'm wrong, we'll see...

[marions ghost]

85. True

[Fawke Em]

49. All those young people at Bernie's rally?

Yeah... they're not voting for Hillary or Trump. They'll write in Bernie or vote Green.

All those Independents interested in Bernie? Yeah... they don't trust Hillary. Many of them simply will not vote or might consider giving Trump a try since he's not technically a member of either party.

Hillary cannot win. She inspires no one other than about 50 percent of 30 percent of possible voters. You do the math.

[MADem]

65. They'll vote for whoever Bernie tells them to vote for--or they'll (as they've been doing)

stay home.

[eridani]

67. And that's all they'll do

No doorbelling or phonebanking, no throwing $10 to the campaign occasionally.

[MADem]

73. That's fine. He'll have time to do a few DNC fundraisers at that point in time. nt

[jeff47]

69. Sanders supporters are not good at taking orders.

If we were, we'd have accepted our orders to support Clinton already.

Sanders ordering his supporters to back Clinton does almost nothing. We support the policies, not the man. (And yes, integrity is a policy.)

[MADem]

72. HUH? Sanders hasn't told you to support Clinton. Not sure what your post even means.

Sanders has told you to create a revolution--and you haven't done that, either.

We'll see what happens come November.

[jeff47]

74. Every single other Democrat ordered us to support Clinton.

And we decided to support Sanders. One more guy ordering us to support Clinton is not going to create an avalanche.

Sanders has told you to create a revolution--and you haven't done that, either.

Revolutions do not start in 6 months.

[MADem]

75. What an odd thing to say.

Such an aggrieved perspective!

I don't interpret the world in terms of "orders" and I don't think most do.

Are the GOP issuing you "orders" that you are ignoring, too--or is it just those awful Democrats?

I can't take you seriously when you attempt to suggest that campaign exhortations are "orders" and you're engaging in some kind of mutiny.

But thanks for the imagery!

Since so many Democrats are urging you to vote for her, maybe you ought to consider that they may have a point...?


As for revolutions, some of them start overnight--if they're actual revolutions. Differences of opinion that have little daylight between them are not going to fire up revolutions, though.

[jeff47]

94. The herd you speak of got us into our current disastrous situation.

After 30 years of failures, why on earth should I trust their opinion now?

[MADem]

96. No one is "ordering" you to do any such thing, though, so your question is

simply rhetorical. You don't have to trust people you don't choose to trust, and you can vote for whosoever you like. No one is taking that away from you.

[jeff47]

97. What, exactly, do you think condemning people to hell is? A gentle suggestion?

You don't have to trust people you don't choose to trust, and you can vote for whosoever you like. No one is taking that away from you.

You should probably go back and re-read all your posts then. You've got plenty all over this board demanding Sanders supporters "fall in line".

[MADem]

103. Even if that were the case (and I very much doubt it is) my name is not Mesmer.

Historical REF: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/05/09/psychologys-history-of-being-mesmerized/

You have free will, and no one is preventing you from exercising it, least of all an anonymous poster on an internet discussion board.

[angrychair]

99. That is wishful thinking

You said:
"Differences of opinion that have little daylight between them are not going to fire up revolutions, though."

In no world is there 'little daylight between Sanders and Clinton.' their is a small star of difference.
At best you can argue that they advocate for some of the same ideas but the how and end goals are very different.

To argue that true improvements and changes to items like healthcare and education will be made without everyone sharing some portion of the cost is lying. Both the wealthy and the middle-class will share some fraction of that cost. There is more than a little daylight There. They have very different understandings about what people really need.
Why?
Because to argue that true improvements and changes to items like healthcare and education can be done in a for-profit model is also a lie. As long as they can charge $1,000 a pill or $5,000 for an ER visit, as long as there as the US Department of Education can make billions of dollars of profit on student loan debt, you will never be able to make real improvement as the mindset is to turn a profit, not make it better. There is more than a little daylight there.

To make true changes and to implement real campaign finance reform, it is going to require real leadership, leading from the front. Not having SuperPACs would a big step forward. No matter what you think of Sanders, he has proven you can run a campaign without SuperPACs. Saying "I have to have SuperPACs because everyone else does" is not a little daylight.

I could go on and on but these are good examples.

[MADem]

102. Telling the poor that you're going to get it from the rich, though, that's not gonna happen.

Congress -- all those rich people voting in that body -- have something to say on that score. I can guarantee they'll say no. They simply are not altruistic when it comes to their wealth. They aren't going to commit TRILLIONS to anything. It just will not happen.

If everyone is going to feel some pain, the sad fact is that the middle class, as they always do, will bear the heaviest weight. And that's not what people are signing up for when they feel that Bern. They want the rich to kick in, and they won't, and Congress won't make them.

It will take 18 years--minimum--to "change out" Congress. And that's if there was any motivation to so do.

Most people hate "Congress," but they "love" their Senators/Representatives (at least if they share party affiliation).

Funny how that always seems to be the case.

[Fumesucker]

104. Hillary had no problem voting with the Republicans to commit TRILLIONS to the Iraq war

[MADem]

105. Yes, Sanders voted--long after Clinton left the Senate--to authorize those trillions. nt

[angrychair]

106. Big picture

I agree with some of what you're saying.

I don't agree with the "aim low, take what you can get" philosophy.

At the end of the day no one, not even Sanders, believes his policies will be implemented whole cloth.

That doesn't change the fact that real change requires bold action, not half-step measures. You have to push for the brass ring, you have to mean it. You have to spend all the political capital on it.
If you truly commit to an effort, it will show through. People know when you really mean it. The fault, if it fails, will not be your failure but of those (republicans) that stopped it.
That makes all the difference in the world. Real effort, real hard work and trying for those hard items, are what inspires allies and friends to your cause.
If you aim low and compromise, you inspire no one and get lip service support but little else.

Fyi, thank you for being willing to have a conversation about this. I much more enjoy an exchange of ideas over an exchange in snark.

[MADem]

108. Obama has endured years of gridlock.

Sanders would have as tough--if not a tougher--time of it. He wouldn't be able to accomplish anything, and he'd be excoriated for it by the people who presently support him. You can't spend political capital in an atmosphere of complete and total gridlock. Congress just won't take your cash.

The people who supported Obama as a candidate to the point that they called Clinton supporters ugly names were the same people who turned on him quite viciously and excoriated him for not delivering on all his promises of Hope and Change. People who have been here for eight years or more know what I'm talking about. It's all in the archives.

The names the POTUS was called--here, too--by people who name-called Clinton equally viciously as his opposition candidate--are mind-boggling.

Sanders would get the same treatment -- and sooner than Obama did, too.

I always like a conversation, it's a shame there aren't more of them here. I have been looking for another internet "home" because of the acrimony after all these years.

[LibDemAlways]

91. As my 22-year-old daughter's boyfriend put it the other night--

"Vote for someone who sat on the board of Wal Mart?" No fucking way.

[artislife]

33. You are correct, of course. nt

[Cassiopeia]

27. Hillary does not have anything in common with Bernie.

She is a fighter for the 1% and will do everything she can to further enrich herself and her close personal friends at the very top.

That's it. That is her only goal in life. Power and the money that comes with it.

[notadmblnd]

29. But don't you see- that is the point?

Sanders wants to change the way the country works because it doesn't work well for the 99%

He wants to change the way the country works by garnering the involvement of all the people not just corporations and the 1/10 of 1%.

[RoccoR5955]

43. Look, the Dems have tried running these middle of the road

third way DINOs for some time now, and have LOST, practically every time.
Every time they trot out someone who has some of the values of RepubliCLOWNs, along with a few progressive items, people do not buy it.
This is a similar reason why tRump is leading. He seems genuine to those who support him.
Bernie is GENUINE, and we have been losing with the previous plan on who to run.
What is it, the first sign of insanity, or is it stupidity, is doing the same thing over and over, and failing?
I think it's high time that we changed, and ran a radical LIBERAL candidate, and let the chips fall where they may.
I predict that if we do this, we shall win.

[Maedhros]

44. You are projecting onto Hillary the characteristics you wish she had.

There is no evidence that Hillary has traditional liberal principles.

I don't think even YOU believe what you posted.

/ignore.

[MellowDem]

54. Hillary doesn't seem to have any principles..

beyond what her handlers tell her the latest polling is. That's the issue.

[AwakeAtLast]

58. You cannot negate the point made in the OP

Your post may be true, but that doesn't mean the OP isn't true.

[gregcrawford]

60. Your cynicism serves no worthwhile purpose...

... and the so-called "pragmatism" that is extolled as a virtue in some quarters, is nothing more than flexible ethics that bend with the slightest breeze.

[artyteacher]

81. It's not cynicism.

It's reality.

[CorporatistNation]

64. A TOTAL PILE... Hillary HAs Been "Hired" By Goldman et al To Do... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

She is "compensated" to keep "things" the same because that is the way that The Powers That Be Like It! WE NEED CHANGE... and CHANGE is the enemy of The Powers That Be that fund and support Hillary Clinton The Corporatist.


Here is Hillary ... at her best...

[KPN]

76. Really?

[nashville_brook]

83. check that word "principles" -- it's not as flexible as some think.

nor is it fungible. principles are hard and fast, unchanging. hardly anyone would burden HRC with that.

[pdsimdars]

100. meaningless babble

Since the 80s the WEALTH created by the American workers has increased by 250%.
Since the 80s the WAGES of the American workers have stayed the same.
All that wealth seems to have floated up to the top. No bankers in jail, too big to fail are too bigger to fail now.

We have had 2 Democratic Presidents in that time -- Obama and Clinton and both had 8 years. Those wages didn't go up at all. And that wealth kept floating to the top and the racial inequality seems not to have changed or BLM would have nothing to talk about.

Is that NOTHING, that TOTAL LACK OF PROGRESS the "measured steps" you are talking about? It does not look like ANY progress to me.

Noting but empty rhetoric.

[leftofcool]

4. Proud Legacy of the New Deal?

When Blacks couldn't get home loans or any other loan? When Blacks weren't offered the same jobs as whites on this "new deal'? Where the President wouldn't sign anti-lynching laws? Quite frankly, the new deal wasn't a good deal for all.

[Chasstev365]

15. Relatively speaking; it was good.

It was a hell of a lot better than the Robber Barons days and it was a huge step up from the Laissez-faire Republican policies of the 1920's. An adviser to FDR once said, "Mr. President; if the New Deal works, you'll be remembered as one of the greatest presidents." FDR, said, "And if it doesn't, I'll be remembered as the last."

[Loudestlib]

19. That's because all the black folks back then were super-predators.

[ellennelle]

30. amazing

you can find the limitations in the greatest legacy of our country and our party, and rightly so, yes, there were limitations.

yet you support a candidate who is so far to the right of them, she never utters a single one of those policies without using the word "can't."

[artislife]

34. There is no time in our history including now

that has been great for minorities.

The only thing in looking at the New Deal, is seeing how we can retro fit it for all of us today. We have no other structure that is a good one to use.

[notadmblnd]

35. No, it wasn't all wine and roses for POC. In fact conditions were no where near it.

Still, Roosevelt's record on civil rights was modest at best. Instead of using New Deal programs to promote civil rights, the administration consistently bowed to discrimination. In order to pass major New Deal legislation, Roosevelt needed the support of southern Democrats. Time and time again, he backed away from equal rights to avoid antagonizing southern whites; although, his wife, Eleanor, did take a public stand in support of civil rights.

Yet, the New Deal did record a few gains in civil rights. Roosevelt named Mary McLeod Bethune, a black educator, to the advisory committee of the National Youth Administration (NYA). Thanks to her efforts, blacks received a fair share of NYA funds. The WPA was colorblind, and blacks in northern cities benefited from its work relief programs. Harold Ickes, a strong supporter of civil rights who had several blacks on his staff, poured federal funds into black schools and hospitals in the South. Most blacks appointed to New Deal posts, however, served in token positions as advisors on black affairs. At best, they achieved a new visibility in government.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3447

[RoccoR5955]

46. Yeah, especially when the last act of the New Deal

that was put forth by Johnson, the Civil Rights Act, didn't help people of color I guess. This was the end of the New Deal, when Nixon took over, then Raygun, Bush, Clinton, and Dumbya. Clinton was one of the best RepubliCLOWN presidents we ever had. He cut welfare programs, increased prison sentences, and I am afraid that under pressure, Hillary would do the same.

[passiveporcupine]

53. It was a different time

Do you seriously think that a revolution now would only be for white men?

Because women were pretty much left out too, and gays...well they couldn't even safely come out of the closet yet, and many Hispanics were just migrant workers with no rights, not even working for minimum wage. Back then, minimum wage, adjusted for inflation (2012, not current) would have been $5.00. Not enough to even keep one person, much less a family.

Today, we are fighting for social justice on more than one plane. Bernie is putting out policies for racial justice too...for all minorities.

[MADem]

56. Ah yes, the days of a segregated military as well as daily life, and "redlining!"

The New Deal was a great deal for white people. Not so much for those of color.

The Green Book--don't leave home without it!!!!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129885990

That link is a good 'un.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

95. The New Deal did not create these conditions. In fact, the existence of

long-standing, rabid, proud racism is exactly why Roosevelt couldn't commit to the anti-lynching bill, though he supported it. The so-called pragmatism of Hillary supporters suddenly fails when looking at this (well, this and many, really) issues.

Despite Hillary's close ties to corporate America, and more specifically to the prison industrial complex, and her blacks as super-predators stance, she has the support of those who dislike the New Deal for its weaknesses, despite its overwhelming strengths.

[Rod Beauvex]

5. Isn't is amazing...

....how things like socialized health care and college are decried as 'fairy tails, free stuff, and fantasy' here in the US, when they are in fact REALITY in all the first world nations?

People should point this out.

[Arugula Latte]

31. And ridiculously expensive corporate giveaways and needless wars are always funded exhorbitantly.

There is ALWAYS, ALWAYS plenty of money for that shit, thanks to politicians like Hillary, who preferred to spend trillions on invading and slaughtering Iraq than in making college affordable for young Americans.

[GoneFishin]

61. Yep. Proof that they are full of shit when they whine that we can't afford programs that give help

to the people who need it most. I have never, ever them say that we can't afford free shit for corporate freeloaders or more weapons.

[appalachiablue]

50. Bernie Sanders is the most influential candidate in this campaign and progressive.

It's historic, rare and worthy of cherishing. Yuuge!

In 2008 Obama was also called fairytale by Bill C. ~ SAMO.

[LibDemAlways]

92. My dad attended Penn State from 1939-43, tuition free. I attended

Last edited Fri Feb 26, 2016, 08:48 PM - Edit history (1)

a Cal State campus from 1970-75, again tuition free. This isn't the stuff of fairy tales. It was the reality. We already have single payer for seniors. It's called Medicare. Nothing pie-in-the-sky about any of this. Ratchet down the war machine and start taxing corporations and Wall Street trades and we just might become a 1st world country.

[maddiemom]

109. I remember tuition at a state university I attended in the mid-sxties as $125 a semester and

a small activity fee which got you into all the football/basketball, games, student union activities. Of Course, there were other costs: books, housing (if you weren't a "townie&quot ...BUT "free college" does not mean EVERYTHING, just tuition. Free tuition was not unheard of, (especially in California prior to Saint Reagan) for many years back in the day. Political candidates need to be more specific about this to the "uneducated voters" Trump so loves. A free college education only means free tuition (which has gradually become outrageous in itself in recent years.

[Martin Eden]

6. I'm 58 years old ...

... and my experience has been very similar.

In my 6th grade class (southwest side of Chicago near Midway Airport) we had a presidential election. I was one of two who voted for Humphrey; 6 voted for Nixon; and 18 voted for George Wallace.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. I was the only McGovern supporter in my 4th grade class.

I hear you loud and clear.

[maddiemom]

110. Hey, you youngsters:

I was one of only two kids in my first grade class who were Adlai Stevenson supporters in 1951. I grew up in a very Republican town, and my parents were among the few Democrats, but my dad registered Republican because he felt it was judicious in his making a living. In 1960, when JFK was barnstorming around the country, I was 15 and helped recruit a lot of high school girls to be "Kennedy Girls." They wanted to wear the plastic boater hat and sash, and most of their parents indulged them, even though they were voting for Nixon. My mom was one of those greeting JFK and was up on stage with him (he was probably there for less than half an hour from arrival to departure). Mom was really pissed by all the local Republican officials who surrounded him and gushed, shutting out the few real Democrats in the crowd that she knew. Ted Kennedy wandered through the crowd and shook hands, especially with those of us with the hats and sashes. "I'm Jack's brother, Ted. We thank (or appreciate) you for helping out." It is hard to believe at any given point in time, that someday, if you're lucky, you'll be an old-timer remembering when election time comes around, realizing how different it was in the "old days."

[UglyGreed]

9. I'm fifty

and I agree 100% with you

[tk2kewl]

11. "I never thought that Members Only jacket would go out of style." -- Hank Hill

[UglyGreed]

18. My mother bought me a leather one

for my confirmation at the age 17 and I looked damn good in it!!!! LMFAO

[azmom]

21. That's vintage. $$$$$$$

If you still have it.

[UglyGreed]

25. No I worn it out

wish I did hold on to it for the memories not the cash value.....

[tk2kewl]

78. .

[Stallion]

12. None of Those Liberals Won

I supported them all except Simon but a party can't exist unless you govern-Democrats went about 24 years without putting g forth electable candidates except Carter who basically won by default. That's how you lose the SCOTUS and we have the generational chance to get it back by putting forth our strongest candidate

[RobertEarl]

20. Thing is

All those candidates who lost were establishment candidates. And the republicans ran as populists. And all were running in a climate of a controlled media. Now we have the internet. Using past runs as an example is not valid.

Remember too that Gore won in 2000. And the 2004 election was stolen. Then we elected a Black man. Don't even sit there and tell us we can't win. The evidence is we can.

[Nyan]

24. FDR won.

All four times.

[Hoyt]

37. And the first time, he was a rich seemingly Establishment type.

[Stallion]

48. ...that was running after the worst economic collapse in history of the Country

nm

[Hoyt]

57. But he was more of the same apparently. Rise to the occassion, although Social Security excluded

most minorities and women at first. It evolved, like ACA will.

[Le Taz Hot]

66. Wow! And you shit on FDR.

You need to change your avatar because you obviously don't get his message.

I kept you on my screen to see just how low you guys would go. Shitting on FDR. That did it for me.

[Hoyt]

68. No, I described how he evolved. Look it up if you don't believe me. He was not

a particularly liberal candidate the first time, and he was rich.

[artislife]

36. Translattion: Fear, fear, fear.

This is the most polorized time. This is the time with the greatest income equality. This is the time with the greatest debt. This is the sickest planet. This is the first generation who will not live as long as their parents, will not by pass them on income.

I think this is the perfect time for the "great unwashed" to storm the government and take it over.

[femmedem]

13. I argued for McGovern in the 3rd grade class debate!

Thanks for the post.

It has been so strange to see the Democratic Party move away from what it was when I was growing up, and so exciting to see a new generation working to return it to its progressive roots.

[rufus dog]

14. Two years older than you

I started a thread last week and I will add another link on edit. The attempt was to give Hillary supporters a better understanding of our thought process. Good luck on your efforts.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511279878

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511282409

[H2O Man]

17. Thank you.

Recommended.

[jwirr]

22. 74 years old and totally agree with you. I was one of four

who voted for Adlai Stevenson against Ike Eisenhower.

[valerief]

23. K&R

[OhZone]

26. I'm not that old, but my uncle has given me a complete education on politics.

And @OP, it seems someone isn't learning from mistakes. Oh well.

[doc03]

28. I see a pattern here everyone you supported lost the election n/t

[Lithos]

32. Good comments

Even though I'm your age (slightly older), I've seen the benefits of the New Deal and *know* it's one of the greatest social programs of all time. To see people casually forget a long term program for short term gain has always irked me.

I'm tired of people calling foul with cries of "entitlement" when almost all opportunity in this country is the result of shared sweat and labor.

L-

[tokenlib]

38. There are so many of us who have waited so long...

..and now we see the free trade, the Wall Street deregulation and stuff that Bill started were like corrosive slow acid with lingering effect on jobs, wealth inequality, etc. And I think Hillary is going to pay the price for thinking it can go on and on..

[SoLeftIAmRight]

63. waited so long

i am another one

[Yavin4]

39. Progressives have to get away from fighting for individual presidential candidates and fight for

causes themselves.

I too am 51. I've seen McGovern, Mondale, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, Dukakis, Jerry Brown, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Bradley, John Edwards, Howard Dean, etc. all get a passionate following and then crash to earth. Meanwhile the progressive movement gets lost in a sea of anger and bitterness at the "establishment" or the DLC or whatever.

Putting all of your hopes and emotions into Bernie Sanders is plain dumb. Put your hopes and dreams into raising the min. wage. Making college more affordable, etc.

[jeff47]

71. What makes you think we haven't?

We keep running into people like you that tell us to shut up and vote against our efforts. Fun and exciting times like the county party removing a "seat" on their board when it looked like the wrong kind of Democrat might win.

Putting all of your hopes and emotions into Bernie Sanders is plain dumb

Dumb is thinking we are doing that.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

40. I think my folks were

definitely in the minority enthusiastically supporting Adlai Stevenson. Our town was swarming with big I LIKE IKE buttons. Ike seems pretty liberal today.

[WillyT]

41. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[kgnu_fan]

42. K&R

[Armstead]

45. Yesss

[deutsey]

47. Same here

You articulate my sentiments exactly.

[zentrum]

51. Yes, you're right

…they are turning their backs on FDR. The soul of the Democratic Party. The very set of policies that is the backbone of the middle class.

[PatrickforO]

52. Yes. This is true.

Let us not denigrate the New Deal. It worked and was definitely the stuff of 'fairy tales.'

[Old Crow]

55. Very well stated. I'm with you 100%. (N/T)

[democrank]

59. "Authenticaly liberal"

So true

[smiley]

62. k&r

Thank you for your dedication and your words of reason.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

70. That was so well done!

My first ever vote was cast for Jesse Jackson in the 1984 primary. But don't let my Chicago residence fool you. I grew up in Whitey McWhitestown in NorCal and had no connection to Chicago until 1991.

[Laughing Mirror]

82. That made me laugh

"Whitey McWhitestown." My experience being the diametric opposite of yours, and a couple of decades earlier, I got a big chuckle out of your expression. The only connection I had to such a town was through TV like Leave it to Beaver or Ozzie and Harriet.

My first vote cast for president was Benjamin Spock and Julien Bond on Citizens Party ticket, 1972, after supporting Shirley Chisholm in primaries. Sanders, to me, is in the same line. I think he was for Jesse Jackson too.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

86. Ha! Yeah, all white Northern California. And we're all appalled by racism

after moving to Chicago over 20 years ago, I had to laugh at my friends. So insulated from racial contact through gentrification. But to a person, we are not racists! I told them they need to move to Chicago and put that belief to test. One of them got it and giggled at her naivety. I moved to Chicago for a number of reasons. I came here alone. And I've stayed here alone. No family within thousands of miles. I stay for a number of reasons, too. Diversity is one of the first things I'll say. In my last field, I was the only male in the room and 15-25 years older than my coworkers. In my present field, I joined the union and am one of 2 white, American men. The union is otherwise exclusively immigrants from Africa and the Middle East. We get together every week and refer to one another as brother. We're union brothers. And you're right. Bernie was one of 3 white public officials to endorse Jackson (I heard him say that today.)

[MisterP]

88. Piedmont? XD

[Laughing Mirror]

90. Well then I'll call you brother too

Is the town still all white? I'm trying to remember if I've ever been in one. Can't think of one. And California is a majority-minority state.

Thanks for the pics. Reminds me of home.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

93. 82 blacks in 2010!!!!

That's 82x the number of blacks than when I was a youngin'. The Robinsons (seriously). Those were our blacks back in the '70s and '80s. Half Moon Bay is a surfer, skateboarder, and cowboy town. It's a white thing, you wouldn't understand

[KPN]

77. Well said!

Keep on Bernin'!

[Mufaddal]

79. Corporate dems are a right-wing 5th column

The only silver lining to a Hillary win in the primary would be its possibility of heralding the collapse of the two party system, when disillusioned leftists and progressives realize the best effort for change within the dems in decades failed. Just wait and watch the exodus, particularly of youth.

[hwmnbn]

80. K&R.....excellent post

[myrna minx]

84. K&R

[Mbrow]

87. K&R

[Attorney in Texas]

89. kick

[silvershadow]

98. Those who don't understand this basic principle are privileged enough to not

even have to understand how their bread was buttered.

[Enthusiast]

101. K&R! I'm pleased to see this post has hundreds of recommendations! Make it 300!

[Dont call me Shirley]

107. K & R!