2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhile watching Rachel Maddow interview Hillary Clinton, I heard one remark Rachel made
Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2016, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)
that will always stay with me. While discussing the subject of Hillary impugning Bernie Sander's character, Rachel suddenly exclaimed:
"He doesn't have a single enemy in Washington."
Hillary blinked. She knew immediately she had no answer for that statement. Here from where I sit inside the Beltway, I can tell you that is indeed a stunning statement for a commentator to make about a politician running for President. I have never seen or heard the likes of this in the decades I have been following politics. It is almost impossible to function in the political arena and attain one's goals without making enemies. Yet he has not one.
Honesty is a rare commodity in our political world. One cannot buy it, one cannot bargain for it, it must be inherent in one's psychological makeup. Bernie Sanders is an awe-inspiring example of what our government could be like if only we work hard enough to put people with his character in the Oval Office.
Sam
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Thousands and thousands of Republicans will declare him the Socialist Satan.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)I guess we have to expect that and put them on Ignore!
Sam
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)rynestonecowboy
(76 posts)with all the evidence that HRC has supported single payer for her entire career up until this election why would her supporters keep bringing up healthcare when she has obviously stepped right in it on this issue? How can every other industrialized nation in the world have universal healthcare, and has worked for decades, all of a sudden not be able to work in the wealthiest and greatest country in the world. I'm sorry but I love this country more than anything and things such as letting insurance company crooks tell me how much I owe them and what they will and won't cover is a disgrace.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)play for it.
Uncle Joe
(59,913 posts)will be crystal clear to any political opposition.
The political dynamic in the Congress will change as result and for those still foolish enough to stand in the way, many will bite the dust in 2018.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)You'll find very quickly how wrong you are.
"His proposed bill was reject 9 times" according to who exactly? You frequently post garbage and virtually never back up your BS.
As you've been told in the past; link or slink.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)He has never accomplished anything in the Senate but talk, he
is a fraud.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)"He has never accomplished anything..." *snip* "...but talk" or projecting. I'm gonna go with option b.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Until then... bye!
enid602
(8,956 posts)Remember though, if the SC overturns any part of it, the rest of the provisions are still in effect. According to 'The People's View,' a liberal blog:
"If courts invalidate just that part of a hypothetical Sanders law, remember that the remainder of the bill would remain in effect. In other words, if the courts block a federal authority to set up a health insurance body in a state in which it is unwelcome, the defunding of Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP, and ACA exchanges remain in full effect, leaving the residents of those states - including their elderly citizens - with only private insurance as an option for health coverage."
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/1/15/chelsea-clinton-was-right-everyones-health-care-is-threatened-under-bernies-plan
Samantha
(9,314 posts)So if you ask who do I believe, Chelsea or Sanders, it is his plan and I believe he knows it as well as the potential consequences more thoroughly.
But thanks for kicking my thread.
Sam
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Just imagine what they will do to Hillary who will also be called a "Socialist".
Especially NOW that she has "evolved" on so many issues that Sanders has introduced to the campaign.
She has given them so much ammo.
SharonAnn
(13,847 posts)This could also change!
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)even though he may at this time be liked by everyone. So Rachel's point, though true at this moment will not be true after he is nominated. And at that point his character will mean nothing because if the Republicans can't find anything significant in his background, they will just it up and hate him anyway.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)so?
I understand that republicans are going to officially hate anyone who is nominated, that's how they're attempting to hold on to power, what I don't get is two fold.
1-Why that should even enter our thought processes?
2-If we were concerned about it, why would be be better to go with someone who's already hated over someone who isn't?
Human101948
(3,457 posts)The infighting here is getting a bit tiresome.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)don't. Very easy and pain-free. Have a great day.
Response to daleanime (Reply #66)
Post removed
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Truth is, no one knows.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)I can predict that will not happen.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)Spelling is important...
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)What's that... they meant greet? No matter what I said is still true.
Two very solid points.
Good god, the hand-wringing just drives me nuts sometimes.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)"Who care what they think?"
Sounds to me like that is what you are saying, and I totally agree.
Sam
rynestonecowboy
(76 posts)onecaliberal
(35,412 posts)They cannot get elected.
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. It's coming out that there's some real suspicion that the voting machines even that far back were hacked. I mean machines had just been introduced into some states when it was Dukakis vs. Bush.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)we should just settle for Hillary and all her existing and future enemies that span the globe.
Thanks for that, because I was about to vote for the honest guy.
Rockyj
(538 posts)& what Maddow was saying is that Sanders REALLY doesn't have any real enemies in DC. However, as we all know Republicans & that includes Blue Dog Dems, will hate him if he's elected as President. Why? Because that's what republican's do.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)We better run and hide, because ... Conservatives don't like liberals ...
Btw ... That's DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST ...
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST! .. not socialist ...
Edit: oh .. Human is gone - booted from their own thread ... Tis a shame ...
I'm guessing he/she is back in the Gungeon, discussing their bitter hatred of Liberals ...
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Stellar Character? The "TRUTH" is in the pudding...
Armstead
(47,803 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They're stuck in the Reagan campaign in the 80s claiming wages are low because your boss is going broke because the government is taxing and regulating him to death.
As far as foreign policy? They have a list of targets that includes Hollywood.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)as they have in Vermont for decades.
NOt all republicans are suicidal psychotic fools. True alot of them are, but more are not
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)As someone who's not obviously as up on the issues as you, can you explain what makes him a fraud? I'm sincerely curious to know.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)your point is, what that Republicans tend to attack and demonize Democrats?
Gosh whoda thunk it?
Segami
(14,923 posts)thats where Bernie and I are the SAME!...
Samantha
(9,314 posts)At least that is the longstanding rumor in DC. See the difference?
Sam
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)Here when it comes to Camp WV's Fresh New List.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511010801
Segami
(14,923 posts)'enemies list'..........Just what we need in the WhiteHouse....A revenge team holding all the powers that comes with the Executive branch at their finger tips....
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)LeFleur1
(1,197 posts)has enemies. Anyone. If a person, Senator, President, Representative introduces a bill, then works to get it passed he/she will make enemies. Anyone who works with other countries who do not particularly like or want whatever deal is in the making will have enemies. ANYONE. Pushing people to do things they don't want to do is not a popular job.
Gary 50
(395 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 16, 2016, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)
emulatorloo
(45,507 posts)but that's how I remember it. They were talking about how weird HRC campaign was in overreacting to Bernie,s ad. That being said my memory gets things wrong sometimes, lol
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)had to recover for a moment, take a deep breath, before she replied.
She may well have said that also to Chris Hayes, but I didn't see that one.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)This was definitely hard for Hillary to hear at this particular moment in time. One could almost hear her thinking, "Did you have to say that?"
Thanks for posting on my thread.
Sam
appalachiablue
(42,712 posts)HRC replied she has the support of the VT Gov., Senators and others. For trying, Rachel gets beaucoup credit. The way she handled monitoring the Dem. Forum event was extraordinary.
The Clinton presence and era in DC will change with time, naturally. It already has.
INdemo
(7,014 posts)but the fact is there are voters that pretty much despised that and the fact that Obama used former Goldman Sachs and other Wall St employess in cabinet.
There are progressive voters that did not back Obama and will back Bernie Sanders because of his stand against big Banks and Wall St.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)at about the 6:30 mark
Exact Quote was "doesn't have an enemy in the world in the Democratic Party"
emulatorloo
(45,507 posts)tecelote
(5,141 posts)LiberalArkie
(16,222 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)"doesn't have an enemy in the world in the Democratic Party"
Was she saying that all the Hillary camp are not Democrats?
I've long suspected it. LOL
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)Maybe they know who ever wins the Primaries will need the support of the whole Democratic Party. Just because you endorse one candidate doesn't mean you dislike the other candidates.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)They are just competing against each other.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Only one of the competitors cares about my ass.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Well I've seen it stated here many times that no one in Congress likes Bernie.
senz
(11,945 posts)around here.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)those who vociferously assert that HRC is "inevitable."
(Dare I say they are finally feeling the Bern?)
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Something like "Why Bernie has a chance to get things done in D.C.".
Because he hasn't one enemy in Washington, or Vermont (Rachel also said that).
Hillary, on the other hand......
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Like that one?
Thanks for posting on my thread.
Sam
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)considering how low the Congress is rated.
I think Bernie is the only one that keeps them afloat. LOL
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2016, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)
Hyperbolic and intended (or, maybe not ... that hasn't been her style) to throw gas on a smoldering fire.
Bernie may not have any "enemies"; but, he doesn't seem to have many "friends", either.
HRC was smart not to bite.
senz
(11,945 posts)Rachel! Watch out for moving objects!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)She has a lot of respect for the man. It shows when she sits down and talks to him one and one. I think there is a lot of respect between the two of them for each other.
Sam
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)never the less, my point stands.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Hillary Clinton with everything she's got.
That said, let people be reminded that this was an impromptu interview. She had met Hillary Clinton in the building for another interview earlier that day and asked if she'd like to be on her show. And Hillary Clinton graciously said 'yes'.
So in light of that information, Hillary Clinton did very, very well - extremely well - against Rachel's gotcha questions. That's what true leaders are supposed to be able to do - think on their feet.
And yes, I believe Bernie's ad was an indictment on ALL Democrats, even President Obama, and although they can make the claim that that isn't true, there's no other way to see that ad - and I've watched it five times. Sure, Bernie doesn't have any enemies in DC, but he's got precious few friends, certainly not enough to make his rhetoric come to fruition. But I'm not afraid of that. He's not going to be the Democratic Party nom unless PoC suddenly abandon their support for Hillary Clinton, en masse. And that's just wishful thinking.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)she DID ask questions of substance, that needed to be asked. I think that HRC acquitted herself well ... including, not reacting on the (arguably, hyperbolic)"not a single enemy" comment.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)the "not a single enemy" comment was a gotcha. How did Rachel expect Hillary Clinton to respond to that? There were others, but I'll need to watch the video again.
But you're correct, HRC handled herself very well. I don't know if I'd use the word "acquitted" (since that has a negative connotation as if she's been charged with something - although I know which definition you're using which is simply how well someone conducts themselves), but she sure did show she is more than ready to be president of the United States. Bar none currently running.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Acquitted is music to a (former) member of the defense bar's ears!
And, weren't you talking about gotcha questions?
(Sorry ... Just giving you a hard time)
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)In the court of public opinion, she has been. Her defense team is faltering badly.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Well, that's a-ok with me, 1SBM. I've learned to grow a thicker skin during my hiatus.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I mean, with all due respect to my esteemed colleague "across the aisle," you must be joking.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Gotcha, Attack, Hating ... pretty much hair triggers on the political gun.
it was an impromptu interview without weeks of preparation. Rachel Maddow says that herself in the lead-in. Watch the video:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
Hillary Clinton was in the building to do the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, and they asked her to "swing by" and she said yes.
So with all due respect to my esteemed colleague across the aisle, I wasn't joking.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)God forbid we depend on her for that "3:00 AM" phone call.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Give credit where it's due. That's the mature thing to do.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Uncle Joe
(59,913 posts)An excellent man; he has no enemies; and none of his friends like him.
Oscar Wilde
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/oscarwilde397093.html#QmafiFdVKGGlJdeV.99
That's what Oscar Wilde said of George Bernard Shaw
George Bernard Shaw (26 July 1856 2 November 1950) was a Nobel Prize and Oscar-winning Irish playwright, critic and socialist whose influence on Western theatre, culture and politics stretched from the 1880s to his death in 1950. Originally earning his way as an influential London music and theatre critic, Shaw's greatest gift was for the modern drama. Strongly influenced by Henrik Ibsen, he successfully introduced a new realism into English-language drama. He wrote more than 60 plays, among them Man and Superman, Mrs. Warren's Profession, Major Barbara, Saint Joan, Caesar and Cleopatra, and Pygmalion. With his range from biting contemporary satire to historical allegory, Shaw became the leading comedy dramatist of his generation and one of the most important playwrights in the English language since the 17th century.
"Shaw was also the most trenchant pamphleteer since Swift, the most readable music critic in English, the best theatre critic of his generation, a prodigious lecturer and essayist on politics, economics, and sociological subjects, and one of the most prolific letter writers in literature," sums up Stanley Weintraub in the Encyclopædia Britannica.[1] He won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1925.
As a young man raised in poverty, Shaw embraced socialism and became an early and lifelong force in the Fabian Society, a highly influential British organisation, founded in 1884, to promote a gradual, as opposed to revolutionary, socialism, that was the foundation for the British Labour Party in 1900. He tirelessly wrote and spoke on behalf of its wide-ranging vision to transform British society, advocating a minimum wage for the working-class, universal healthcare, women's right to vote, and the abolition of hereditary privilege. Not quite a pacifist because he justified war when a necessary evil (as in fighting the Nazis in WWII), he worked for a peaceable world and supported the establishment of the League of Nations. He edited the classic text "Fabian Essays in Socialism" (1889), and helped co-founders Sidney and Beatrice Webb create the London School of Economics and Political Science from a bequest by an early Fabian in 1895. He publicly opposed Britain's entry into both World Wars.
He is the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize (Literature, 1925) and an Academy Award (Best Adapted Screenplay, 1938), the first for his contributions to literature and the second for his film adaptation of his most popular play, Pygmalion. The story of a pedantic British linguist who turns a Cockney flower girl into a lady was immortalised after his death in the 1953 Broadway musical My Fair Lady.[n 1]
Shaw refused all other awards and honours, including the offer of a knighthood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw
Samantha
(9,314 posts)And thank you for posting it on my thread. I am kind of tired tonight, and I keep looking for a place to recommend this post!
Sam
Peace to you Sam and get a good night of sleep.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)You mean he's not a shmoozer like Hillary, playing games and trading promises for money, to be in the popular clique and gain power?
You are right about that. He has no pretensions about wanting to be one of the popular kids. Popularity and celebrity and power are not what he's fighting for. He's fighting for us, and for changing how the system works, not because he just really wants to be President.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the point still stands: In a political world, your success, or more, your ability to succeed, is less about your enemies; and, all about your friends.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Bernie is here to change all that. That is why there is so much enthusiasm behind him.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)they are called "quid pro quo" friends. We need honesty in government and not Big Money.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Hillary Clinton 1/8/16 Frank Pallone Jr. Rep. (D-N.J.) 1
1/7 G.K. Butterfield Rep. (D-N.C.) 1
12/16/15 Linda Sánchez Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
12/15 Brad Ashford Rep. (D-Neb.) 1
12/7 Michael E. Capuano Rep. (D-Mass.) 1
11/30 Maxine Waters Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
11/30 Jackie Speier Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
11/30 Anna G. Eshoo Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
11/30 Pete Aguilar Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
11/30 Jerry McNerney Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
11/19 John A. Yarmuth Rep. (D-Ky.) 1
11/17 Alan Grayson Rep. (D-Fla.) 1
11/17 Jack Reed Sen. (D-R.I.) 5
11/17 John P. Sarbanes Rep. (D-Md.) 1
11/17 Donna F. Edwards Rep. (D-Md.) 1
11/17 C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger Rep. (D-Md.) 1
11/16 Ruben Gallego Rep. (D-Ariz.) 1
11/14 Jay Inslee Gov. (D-Wash.) 10
11/14 Denny Heck Rep. (D-Wash.) 1
11/14 Suzan DelBene Rep. (D-Wash.) 1
11/13 Joe Donnelly Sen. (D-Ind.) 5
11/13 Ann Kirkpatrick Rep. (D-Ariz.) 1
11/13 Eleanor Holmes Norton Del. (D-D.C.) 1
11/11 Tony Cárdenas Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
11/11 Corrine Brown Rep. (D-Fla.) 1
11/11 Gwen Moore Rep. (D-Wis.) 1
11/10 Christopher A. Coons Sen. (D-Del.) 5
11/9 Bennie G. Thompson Rep. (D-Miss.) 1
11/8 Seth Moulton Rep. (D-Mass.) 1
11/5 Maria Cantwell Sen. (D-Wash.) 5
11/4 Jay Nixon Gov. (D-Mo.) 10
10/28 Heidi Heitkamp Sen. (D-N.D.) 5
10/28 Jared Huffman Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
10/27 Sherrod Brown Sen. (D-Ohio) 5
10/26 Thomas R. Carper Sen. (D-Del.) 5
10/26 John Carney Rep. (D-Del.) 1
10/23 Paul D. Tonko Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
10/21 Jack Markell Gov. (D-Del.) 10
10/20 Eliot Engel Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
10/19 Joe Courtney Rep. (D-Conn.) 1
10/16 William Keating Rep. (D-Mass.) 1
10/14 Edward J. Markey Sen. (D-Mass.) 5
10/13 Yvette D. Clarke Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
10/13 Hakeem Jeffries Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
10/5 Robert C. Scott Rep. (D-Va.) 1
10/5 John Hickenlooper Gov. (D-Colo.) 10
9/17 Maggie Hassan Gov. (D-N.H.) 10
9/13 Ann Kuster Rep. (D-N.H.) 1
9/7 David Loebsack Rep. (D-Iowa) 1
9/7 Cheri Bustos Rep. (D-Ill.) 1
9/1 Zoe Lofgren Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
8/31 Tammy Baldwin Sen. (D-Wis.) 5
8/28 Timothy J. Walz Rep. (D-Minn.) 1
8/24 Bill Pascrell Jr. Rep. (D-N.J.) 1
8/24 Bonnie Watson Coleman Rep. (D-N.J.) 1
8/24 Donald Payne Jr. Rep. (D-N.J.) 1
8/24 John Garamendi Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
8/18 Jim Himes Rep. (D-Conn.) 1
8/6 Xavier Becerra Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
8/5 Scott Peters Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
7/15 Marcia L. Fudge Rep. (D-Ohio) 1
7/15 Lois Capps Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
7/14 André Carson Rep. (D-Ind.) 1
7/13 Suzanne Bonamici Rep. (D-Ore.) 1
6/27 Niki Tsongas Rep. (D-Mass.) 1
6/26 Don Beyer Rep. (D-Va.) 1
6/26 Brenda Lawrence Rep. (D-Mich.) 1
6/23 William "Lacy" Clay Jr. Rep. (D-Mo.) 1
6/23 Matthew Cartwright Rep. (D-Pa.) 1
6/13 Tom Wolf Gov. (D-Pa.) 10
6/13 Elizabeth Esty Rep. (D-Conn.) 1
6/13 John B. Larson Rep. (D-Conn.) 1
6/7 Dannel P. Malloy Gov. (D-Conn.) 10
6/5 Steve Cohen Rep. (D-Tenn.) 1
6/4 Christopher Murphy Sen. (D-Conn.) 5
5/27 Katherine Clark Rep. (D-Mass.) 1
5/20 Peter Shumlin Gov. (D-Vt.) 10
5/14 Joseph P. Kennedy III Rep. (D-Mass.) 1
5/12 James McGovern Rep. (D-Mass.) 1
5/5 Gary Peters Sen. (D-Mich.) 5
5/5 Michael F. Bennet Sen. (D-Colo.) 5
5/4 Henry Cuellar Rep. (D-Texas) 1
5/4 Filemon Vela Rep. (D-Texas) 1
5/4 Joyce Beatty Rep. (D-Ohio) 1
5/4 Adam Smith Rep. (D-Wash.) 1
5/4 Jim Cooper Rep. (D-Tenn.) 1
5/4 Patrick Murphy Rep. (D-Fla.) 1
5/4 Derek Kilmer Rep. (D-Wash.) 1
5/4 Kurt Schrader Rep. (D-Ore.) 1
5/4 Kathy Castor Rep. (D-Fla.) 1
5/4 Brad Sherman Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
5/4 Sean Patrick Maloney Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
5/4 Julia Brownley Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
5/4 Adam Schiff Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
5/4 Daniel Kildee Rep. (D-Mich.) 1
5/4 Rubén Hinojosa Rep. (D-Texas) 1
5/4 Mike Thompson Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
5/4 Eddie Bernice Johnson Rep. (D-Texas) 1
5/4 Ed Perlmutter Rep. (D-Colo.) 1
5/4 Jared Polis Rep. (D-Colo.) 1
5/4 Marc Veasey Rep. (D-Texas) 1
5/4 Kathleen Rice Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
5/4 José E. Serrano Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
5/4 Gerald E. "Gerry" Connolly Rep. (D-Va.) 1
4/29 Emanuel Cleaver Rep. (D-Mo.) 1
4/24 Robert P. Casey, Jr. Sen. (D-Pa.) 5
4/23 Steve Israel Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
4/23 Cory A. Booker Sen. (D-N.J.) 5
4/22 John Conyers Jr. Rep. (D-Mich.) 1
4/16 Gina M. Raimondo Gov. (D-R.I.) 10
4/15 Jim McDermott Rep. (D-Wash.) 1
4/14 Rosa L. DeLauro Rep. (D-Conn.) 1
4/13 Tom Udall Sen. (D-N.M.) 5
4/12 Andrew M. Cuomo Gov. (D-N.Y.) 10
4/12 Karen Bass Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
4/12 Rick Larsen Rep. (D-Wash.) 1
4/12 Diana DeGette Rep. (D-Colo.) 1
4/12 Jeanne Shaheen Sen. (D-N.H.) 5
4/12 Debbie Dingell Rep. (D-Mich.) 1
4/11 Nydia M. Velázquez Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
4/11 Jerrold Nadler Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
2/2 Brian Schatz Sen. (D-Hawaii) 5
1/29 Alcee L. Hastings Rep. (D-Fla.) 1
1/27 Ted Lieu Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
1/27 Mark Takano Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
1/27 Tammy Duckworth Rep. (D-Ill.) 1
1/27 Madeleine Bordallo Del. (D-Guam) 1
1/27 Ami Bera Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
1/27 Mazie K. Hirono Sen. (D-Hawaii) 5
1/27 Judy Chu Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
1/22 Grace Napolitano Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
1/22 Loretta Sanchez Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
1/22 Lucille Roybal-Allard Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
12/18/14 Bill Nelson Sen. (D-Fla.) 5
12/16 Al Franken Sen. (D-Minn.) 5
12/1 Barbara A. Mikulski Sen. (D-Md.) 5
12/1 Benjamin L. Cardin Sen. (D-Md.) 5
11/14 Terry McAuliffe Gov. (D-Va.) 10
11/10 Charles B. Rangel Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
10/14 Nita Lowey Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
8/5 Mark R. Warner Sen. (D-Va.) 5
7/12 Michelle Lujan Grisham Rep. (D-N.M.) 1
7/12 Martin Heinrich Sen. (D-N.M.) 5
6/21 Patrick J. Leahy Sen. (D-Vt.) 5
6/18 Rick Nolan Rep. (D-Minn.) 1
6/18 Betty McCollum Rep. (D-Minn.) 1
6/7 Richard Blumenthal Sen. (D-Conn.) 5
6/6 Bill Foster Rep. (D-Ill.) 1
6/6 Robin Kelly Rep. (D-Ill.) 1
6/5 Richard J. Durbin Sen. (D-Ill.) 5
6/4 Amy Klobuchar Sen. (D-Minn.) 5
5/22 Debbie Stabenow Sen. (D-Mich.) 5
5/4 Mark Takai Rep. (D-Hawaii) 1
5/3 Tim Kaine Sen. (D-Va.) 5
2/7 Ted Deutch Rep. (D-Fla.) 1
1/31 Joseph Crowley Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
1/29 Joe Manchin III Sen. (D-W.Va.) 5
1/28 David Cicilline Rep. (D-R.I.) 1
1/28 Grace Meng Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
1/28 Gregory W. Meeks Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
1/28 David Scott Rep. (D-Ga.) 1
1/28 John Lewis Rep. (D-Ga.) 1
1/28 Henry C. "Hank" Jr. Johnson Rep. (D-Ga.) 1
1/28 Joaquin Castro Rep. (D-Texas) 1
1/28 Richard E. Neal Rep. (D-Mass.) 1
1/28 Sheldon Whitehouse Sen. (D-R.I.) 5
1/28 Brian Higgins Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
1/28 Luis Gutierrez Rep. (D-Ill.) 1
1/28 Stephen F. Lynch Rep. (D-Mass.) 1
1/28 Lois Frankel Rep. (D-Fla.) 1
1/28 Steny H. Hoyer Rep. (D-Md.) 1
1/28 Janice Hahn Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
1/28 Doris O. Matsui Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
1/28 Jan Schakowsky Rep. (D-Ill.) 1
1/28 Jim Langevin Rep. (D-R.I.) 1
1/28 Louise Slaughter Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
1/28 Terri A. Sewell Rep. (D-Ala.) 1
1/28 John Delaney Rep. (D-Md.) 1
1/28 Gene Green Rep. (D-Texas) 1
1/28 Cedric Richmond Rep. (D-La.) 1
1/28 Danny K. Davis Rep. (D-Ill.) 1
1/28 Mike Honda Rep. (D-Calif.) 1
1/28 Chellie Pingree Rep. (D-Maine) 1
1/28 Sheila Jackson Lee Rep. (D-Texas) 1
1/28 Frederica Wilson Rep. (D-Fla.) 1
1/28 Sander Levin Rep. (D-Mich.) 1
1/13 Chris Van Hollen Rep. (D-Md.) 1
12/12/13 Dianne Feinstein Sen. (D-Calif.) 5
11/17 Kirsten E. Gillibrand Sen. (D-N.Y.) 5
11/11 Carolyn Maloney Rep. (D-N.Y.) 1
11/8 Patty Murray Sen. (D-Wash.) 5
11/7 Mark Dayton Gov. (D-Minn.) 10
11/5 Tim Ryan Rep. (D-Ohio) 1
11/2 Charles E. Schumer Sen. (D-N.Y.) 5
10/30 Barbara Boxer Sen. (D-Calif.) 5
8/18 Dina Titus Rep. (D-Nev.) 1
6/18 Claire McCaskill Sen. (D-Mo.) 5
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)H. Clinton managed to amass a fortune of $50,000,000. Now some may worship the wealthy but wealth is essentially zero-sum. That means the greater the wealth gain for the super wealthy, the more poverty.
It's amazing that those that think she will help with social justice issues, don't realize that she is part of the Aristocracy that is interested in amassing huge personal fortunes. She puts on a good front but she is one of the 1% that believe that wealth gain is paramount.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)I'm kidding guys, calm down
senz
(11,945 posts)Trust is a rare quality in the higher rungs of government. When you do not dislike someone, you're far more willing to cooperate with them.
Cosmocat
(14,897 posts)Parr of why I supported him over hillary then was I thought republicans would not be as big of jackasses to him as they would with her.
I learned a sad lesson from that.
I am voting bernie, but have no delusions they wont be the same as they have been for bho or would be for hillary.
He aint getting shit done through congress ....
livetohike
(22,812 posts)doubt right wing members of the GOP are best buds with him.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Either Rachel is acting as if she's in the tank for Bernie in order to stave off the deluge of angry Bernie supporters (who aren't necessarily Democrats, btw), or she really is. Either way, Hillary Clinton came out like a leader, a person I can trust will keep the country safe and who is qualified to be the successor of the best president of my lifetime.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2016, 06:09 PM - Edit history (1)
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)In a political world, your success, or more, your ability to succeed, is less about your enemies; and, all about your friends.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I'm just kidding around -- I think you forgot a "not" in your first post. Sorry for the joke at your expense..
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The OLD fingers just don't go where I tell them to these days.
Not a problem.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)It is a part of the inside-the-Beltway mentality. Additionally, Rachel is a reputable commentator and they make it their job to unearth information about people. She would have never made a statement like that if she had not been extremely confident of its veracity.
Sam
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)We all better be ready for that.
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)with the ppl in congress. Their PuppetMasters on the other hand...
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 16, 2016, 01:18 AM - Edit history (1)
Additionally, I think we the people have learned a lot from Election 2000 (stolen in plain sight) and 2004 (purloined and later investigated, See the Conyers report for more information). The estimate was 25% of the votes in Ohio were "dropped" the night of the election. I believe people have been hardened enough to realize that if we really want a change in our government, we not only have to work for it, we probably will have to fight for it too.
It ain't going to be pretty, Agschmid, but you already know that, don't you?
Sam
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)scottie55
(1,400 posts)All politicians should strive to achieve.
Has something to do with telling the truth.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)those same Republicans will tell you they vote for him even though they don't agree with all of his policies, but because they know he tells them the truth about the issues. That is a rare commodity in politics.
Sam
Duval
(4,280 posts)I had seen it. I especially like and agree with your last paragraph, and I'd like to add the Congress in with the Oval Office.
Segami
(14,923 posts)You can watch it here at 3:20 of video:
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I watched to 1:30 and that was enough to make me retch. How many lies can one tell in so little time.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)I don't have much money to donate, but I do what I can by writing threads here to burnish the Bern! And we need the fresh air of positivism to flow through here sometimes.
Sam
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Close though.
Not an enemy in Washington In The Democratic Party.
I posted a link to the video up thread a ways.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)rejected his requests for endorsements.
And what kind of politician has NO enemies? Just being effective guarantees many will put you on their enemies list. Just look at this forum.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Rah, rah!
modestybl
(458 posts)It is stunning how HRC went from never mentioning Sanders by name to swift-boating him on his integrity and commitment to universal health care. Sign of major turnaround in the primary for Sanders.
Rachel has to "behave" to remain on a major network, so her questions and tone have to be friendly and polite, but she is sly with the follow-up questions.
HRC was clearly thrown off guard, and responded to RM's observation of Sanders being very well liked by his home-state constituents with essentially name dropping: "the current and former governors and the current senior senator support me..." How. Lame.
HRC's attempt to smear Sanders with an accusation of going negative (A. thou doth protest too loudly B. He is talking about money corrupting politics, didn't single out, or even mention HRC) isn't going to work. It's that believability thing.
And HRC ain't got it...
And even tho Dems still like Obama personally, there is a very deep stream of "is that all there is?" to his accomplishments. There was also a feeling that he didn't fight nearly as hard as he could have on healthcare, the budget, further stimulus, etc. He was always starting from midway between a moderate Dem position and the extreme Right... then negotiating even further to the Right.
We are done with half measures. This interview more than anything else has convinced me that HRC has Lost this...
MADem
(135,425 posts)As evidenced by his super delegate list.
Just sayin'.....
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It's Sesame Street, and here comes The Count..
Let's count those super delegates, shall we?
Beacool
(30,279 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)That is part of the problem that caused Hillary to lose to Obama.
Sam
MADem
(135,425 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And the super delegates supporting Obama chose him early on. They didn't suddenly switch at the last moment.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Shades of Obama.
MADem
(135,425 posts)time in 2007 as a relative unknown, and Clinton didn't have anywhere NEAR the percentage of super delegates that she has this time around--if she had a third of what she has now, that would be a lot. There were more candidates in that race, and THEY had super delegates pledged to them, too.
So, sorry--shades of Obama (NOT), Not even close.
This is fairly recent history and easy to check, you know.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Are you suggesting that the too early declared super delegates will oppose the will of the people?
I'm suggesting that would be a mistake of major proportion.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The people PICK their delegates, with their votes.
The PARTY also has a cadre of (super) delegates, and THEY pick the candidate(s) they want to support.
One group of delegates has nothing to do with the other.
The supers do not "owe" allegiance to the voters--in fact, the reason they are there is to prevent a crowd of overly enthusiastic voters from taking the party in a direction the party doesn't want to go.
The "super delegates" owe their allegiance to the party, not to you, not to me--they take a macro view. Their decisions are based on how THEY feel "the party" should proceed.
Not only do they not "owe" the voters, the voters do NOT control them in any way. Disabuse yourself of this viewpoint. They have nothing to DO with "the will of the people." Where you got that idea, I can't begin to imagine.
You completely misunderstand their role.
You do realize--speaking of history--WHY we have super delegates? Separate from delegates chosen by the voting public? Why the party feels that sometimes, the voting public fucks up and doesn't know best?
Let me paint you a picture:
THAT's why. "Don't blame ME...I'm from Massachusetts!" (I actually had that bumper sticker.)
No shooting the messenger, now. That IS how it works. Super Delegates do not answer to your "will of the people." They determine which candidate they believe a) Best reflects the party's goals, and b) Can BEAT the Republicans. Because we don't play in the Big Show if we don't win the election.
You have some homework to do.
Before you complain that "the people" are left out of the equation, keep in mind that they weren't even participants in the process years ago, in the days of smoked filled rooms. The fifty state primary process is a relatively new thing in electoral politics. Voters today have more 'say' in picking their candidates than they ever did in decades and centuries past.
More homework, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary
History is a funny thing, indeed.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)b) Assure yourself that I wasn't talking out my ass.
And for my trouble, that's how you respond.
I said "Don't shoot the messenger," and you did.
smh.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)that you proclaim polite right after you were far from.
MADem
(135,425 posts)left in a muddle.
I think the only thing that would have satisfied you is if I agreed with your completely erroneous view of how the conventions are conducted, and what the roles of pledged v. super delegates are.
You're blaming me because you didn't know something. That's not my fault, either.
smh.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Could you be more condescending?
Go ahead MADem, play the superior intellect. It is you who don't know.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Just DETERMINED.
So go on, then--take it.
Thing is, when it comes to the convention process, I DO know. And I thought you were interested in knowing, too.
How foolish of me.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I know far more than you understand I know.
I'm just tired from attitudes such as yours.
I do agree that you are foolish.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Your first sentence is cryptic. Snatch the pebble from your hand?
Your second sentence is accusatory--I have no "attitude." I simply don't support the same candidate you support--that's my "crime."
Your third sentence is yet another insult.
smh.
Thanks for laying it all out there, for all to see. Let there be no question.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Now your not so smart.
Let it go.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Now your not so smart.
Let it go.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)malfunction of the first order. It would result in an electoral disaster in November.
121xGigawatts
(12 posts)If the candidate is chosen by the party establishment instead of the people, it would be used to show dysfunction in the party and voters would not turn out. If that happens, I think there is little doubt there we will lose the election.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)a bunch of nonsense?
MADem
(135,425 posts)What's with the "So" game? I can play it, too. And what's with the aggressive "bunch of nonsense" crap? If you don't want to discuss this, don't. If you want a fight, look closer to home. I'm too old for that "bunch of nonsense."
There exists a possibility, howsoever remote in this instance, that both candidates will not reach the minimum threshold to put them over the top, and lack sufficient delegates to win the nomination. This is where the supers become key.
Some light reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)even if Sanders has a delegate lead from the primaries without the super delegates he can't win the nomination.
And 'round and 'round we go.
If the DNC/DLC/New Democrats/Third Way/Goldman Sachs Democrats use the super delegates to override the primary result it will be an unmitigated disaster for the party.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's a highly unlikely occurrence.
There--happy now? Feeling on top of the world?
And 'round and 'round we go.
Speak for yourself, Warren Stupidity! You can go round all you want, I've better things to do.
Everyone here who so readily praises FDR as the "savior of the universe" would do well to realize that he was the product of a brokered convention.
The world didn't end back then, either....
fbc
(1,668 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)Thank you very much, fbc.
Sam
Lucky Luciano
(11,390 posts)Faux pas
(15,155 posts)MoonchildCA
(1,337 posts)Uh, yeah he does: me! But she stopped herself from saying it out loud, figuring it might not go over very well.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)When questioned about her character assassination of Sanders over an ad that questions politicians accepting large amounts of money from Wall Street seriously regulating them. Her response is to name the Democratic party establishment's endorsements she's gotten. She's clueless as to the anger people are feeling about the current system and the people in charge and their desire to change it...
Also it's obvious she wants to start running attack ads and lying about Bernie's proposals so she trying to make it look like Bernie fired the first shot...
INdemo
(7,014 posts)Hillary is pissed I mean she is really pissed because she nor her campaign thought Bernie would be around long.
She thought that her millions from her corporate friends would squash Bernie's campaign in a few weeks following his announcement,
And now Bernie Sanders is about to take the first two primaries away from Hillary and Bernie Sanders is also taking away her dream of 25 years.She will do or say anything to accomplish her 25 year old goal but her prospects are dimming.
She is using Karl Rove and Dick Cheney style tactics and its going to back fire.
So You go Girl and keep it up while the Sanders campaign keeps hauling in those contributions.
Go Bernie !!!
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)and so are her supporters. They have no clue as to the flame they are igniting.
Beacool
(30,279 posts)It's disingenuous to assume that because someone doesn't have any apparent enemies while he's battling the perceived front runner that he will still have no enemies if he were to become the nominee. During the Republican debate last night, other than being the usual circular firing squad, the two people who were attacked the most were Obama and Hillary. Why? Because Obama is president and Republicans think that Hillary will be the nominee. In the unlikely event that Sanders were to become the Democratic nominee, it'll be non-stop name calling. He'll be called a Socialist, a Marxist, etc. His age will also come into play. After all, he will be 75 years old on election day.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)They are sharp enough to pick up on these maneuvers and disregard them. After all, their education came at a huge price and now they are going to put it to good use.
Sam
uponit7771
(91,317 posts)... they are about as stupid as they were 80 years ago
Samantha
(9,314 posts)just like the other many forms we sometimes see. I would like to suggest you take a look at Jerry Brown, the Governor of California. He has done a stupendous job and he is older than Bernie, something like nearing 78, I believe. I would vote for that man regardless.
I used the present tense of the verb "has" and made no references to what will happen in the future.
As far as the name-calling, who exactly do you think does not consider this standard fare in our politics today? It is not going to change anyone's mind to hear some of the mischaracterizations that will be made by players who want to defeat him.
Thanks for posting on my thread, Beacool. I guess we have no choice but to wait and see what happens.
Sam
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)What you say and more.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Bernie had no enemies because in the senate he was that nutty guy who no one took seriously.
For someone to be considered an enemy you have to take them seriously in some way.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)She'll never be the President.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The election to Trump or Cruz.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Justice
(7,197 posts)I am not sure I even understand the point. Nor do I agree with it - I think Bernie has plenty of people in Washington who disagree with him and by definition today, that makes them Bernie's enemy.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)and to disagree with someone does not necessary mean you create an enemy. I disagree with your post, but you are not my enemy.
The thread was created to celebrate what a tremendously wonderful candidate we have in Senator Sanders. He is not just a man who has been in public service for decades. He started out as a candid person sympathetic to the needs of the under-served by our government, for instance, soldiers being sent out to fight in wars and risks their lives for the wrong reasons and people suffering from poverty.
He is a man who believes the government should work for ALL OF THE PEOPLE not just corporations and the uber-wealthy.
Sam
INdemo
(7,014 posts)Beacool
(30,279 posts)The Daily Mail is a RW rag (read their comment section). As for a list, every campaign has lists of those who support them and those who don't.
Please............
INdemo
(7,014 posts)Did you ever think Hillary would use Right Wing Campaign tactics?
Samantha
(9,314 posts)I just do not have that much time to waste these days.
I think though some people here might enjoy looking it over.
Thanks for posting on my thread.
Sam
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)...then nobody there takes you very seriously.
I mean, not a single person has dared to challenge me for the title of heavyweight boxing champion. It must be because they all agree I'm the best, right?
Samantha
(9,314 posts)do you wear that belt in public?
Sam
uponit7771
(91,317 posts)... rec'd
randys1
(16,286 posts)Bernie.
Bernie stands for fairness, honesty, decency, civil rights, etc.
They dont.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)they only dislike him if they have to run against him. LOL
Samantha
(9,314 posts)I am sure you are familiar with that saying, "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog."
After President Obama was in the White House, he was given a beautiful Portugese Water Dog by Ted Kennedy. After giving the matter some more thought, Kennedy gave Obama a second dog. I guess he thought Obama might really need two.
The "First Dog" but not the last....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29
Sam
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I love dogs. I've had a few in my life time. Wondrous they are.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Petting dogs can be a source of stress relief. I believe I will be petting my dog Cheyenne a lot when the political dog days of summer get really truly heated up. It has started already and it is only January. Looks like a climate change in the political world is going to test the animal in us all. I am ready because I have seen this coming. I hope you are as well.
Sam
Mike Nelson
(10,241 posts)...many of those "non-enemies" will be sharpening their blades.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Bernie becomes the nominee. And it would be devastating. They're hoping they get the chance to use it.
They know they can beat him easily. They can't believe we would be stupid enough to nominate him.
lobodons
(1,290 posts)No Washington enemies OR Washington Friends.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Many of those Senators who do like him would never go on record for endorsing him while believing Hillary will win. It would not be to their personal future political well-being to be on record as not supporting Hillary should she win the White House. A great example of that is Elizabeth Warren, who is indeed his friend.
Sam
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)In another thread they claim he doesn't have enemies because he doesn't fight hard for what he wants. They forget a couple of things. The claim is he has no enemies within the ranks of Democrats and that most certainly was true up til June of this year. And that even Republicans that think he is insane for what he wants to do tend to respect him for being an honest person and he even has a lot of respect in their ranks.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)what exactly is he doing now? Ask them that!
Sam
uponit7771
(91,317 posts)... whatever.
That's for damn sure, I don't see how Maddows statement helps Sanders
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He is a wonderful, amazing human being. Humility, along with honesty, ironically, are his strong cards.
uponit7771
(91,317 posts)... the way people have rec'd this thread
Samantha
(9,314 posts)The virtue of being an honest politician has no value when competing against the Republicans? Being an honest broker in a political arena impairs one's ability to effectively deal with his or her opponent?
Perhaps you could clarify?
Sam
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)If they could, it would be hanging form her neck, bright and shining.
It actually works tremendously well when none of the others candidates have much themselves. When they come into contact with the real thing though? There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)I just finished reading it.
It is very surprising to me the number of people who have commented on this thread. I would not have thought that one's reputation in politics, when the subject is how does one comport oneself both in political and private life, would be picked up and celebrated as a characteristic overwhelmingly important to voters. We have heard so little on this subject in past elections.
But it is extremely refreshing to know that many, many people have singled out this trait as being super important. That is probably because they have enough sense to realize that if a candidate cannot be honest and trustworthy in the performance of his or her walk down the road of political life, there is no reason to assume that an election to the highest office in the land will change that approach.
One of the reasons Bernie says he receives 25 percent of the Republican votes in Vermont when he runs is because those Republicans say while they do not agree with Sanders on every issue, they know he always tells them the truth. That is very impressive to me.
Thank you for posting on my thread.
Sam