Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Knockout Blow Bernie Refuses to Deliver:
From Huffington Post:
It is confounding, in watching .......why (Bernie) has not gone in for the kill. He enjoys the same populist tailwinds fueling the more successful, and equally unprecedented, Republican campaign of Donald J. Trump. His voters are just as angry at Establishment politics, donors, and economics.
Though Sanders' voters .......equally tired of the global trade deals that benefit multinational corporations at the expense of American workers.
Rust Belt union members, in particular, have been economically decimated by the globalization bonanza launched by Mrs. Clinton's husband - and backed by Mrs. Clinton, who called the TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership) the "gold standard in trade agreements" - while Mr. Sanders has long stormed the barricades against NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), TPP, and other free trade deals.
snip
However, for reasons that seem perversely self-defeating in an election year that is known for unfiltered candor, Mr. Sanders has held his fire. And for what reason? The former Secretary of State is not the fearsome Lady Macbeth of Republican stereotype. Barack Obama proved that conclusively. The often shrill, impersonal Mrs. Clinton has no Eva-Peron-like hold on the Democratic electorate, and no ability to engineer George-Wallace-like shenanigans to suppress voter turnout. Sanders has no worries of Clinton payback, nor should he be playing it safe in order to secure a VP slot, where he, like white working class hero Joe Biden before him, will be sent out to pasture: defanged, caricatured and emasculated.
Instead, Bernie has a real chance to make Mrs. Clinton yearn to be his VP. To get there, however, he has to stop pulling punches and go for the knockout blow. Wednesday night in the Univision debate, moderator Jorge Ramos - an otherwise shameful and unruly apologist for open borders and the horrors they engender - pointedly asked Mrs. Clinton, "If you get indicted, will you drop out?"
snip
First, Sanders needs to break with DNC groupthink, and make a stink about Mrs. Clinton's lies after the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. As revealed in the last House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing, Mrs. Clinton emailed the truth about what happened at the Benghazi Consulate to the Libyan president and to her daughter Chelsea on the night of the attacks and to the Egyptian president the next day (it was, in fact, "a planned attack" by "an Al-Qaida-like group" that "had nothing to do with the film"
, and then subsequently lied to the families of the Benghazi victims (saying it was a protest about an anti-Muslim You Tube video clip).
Sanders has made no noise about this. Why? Bernie needs to link Mrs. Clinton's fully documented lies on Benghazi to her recent lies about him (e.g., accusing Senator Sanders of opposing the auto bailout, which is patently false, and then linking him to border militia "known as Minutemen," which is patently absurd). There is with Mrs. Clinton a grotesque and recurring habit of bold-faced chicanery and deception. Sanders could effectively end her campaign by exposing it. Why won't he do it? Has someone gotten through to him? Does he think playing nice is a way to defeat her? Has he gone batty in his dotage?
Secondly, Sanders needs to get personal, by linking Mrs. Clinton's wealthy donor contributions to the lavish lifestyle that she and Mr. Clinton enjoy in bucolic Chappaqua, in New York's upper crust Westchester County. He needs to paint Mrs. Clinton as the radical chic poster pol that she clearly is. A candidate who will tilt far left during an election to capture populist thunder, but who has no real intention of deeply upsetting her status quo corporate backers. There is no better evidence of this than Federal Election Commission data, which reveals that tens of millions of dollars have been donated to Mrs. Clinton's campaign by some of the world's wealthiest hedge fund titans.
Sanders needs to stop focusing on the content of Mrs. Clinton's speeches at Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs - ...... The point is that it was a wink-wink quid pro quo arrangement. He is on point when he says that it stretches the bounds of credulity that Goldman paid Mrs. Clinton $650,000 in speaking fees out of the goodness of their hearts. They wanted something in return. The bigger the give, the bigger the get.
Then Sanders lets up, and fails to close the deal. He needs to extend from Mrs. Cliinton's "market-rate" (read: exhorbitant) speaking fees to her husband's equally sizable speaking fees as head of the Clinton Foundation. And then Sanders needs to wrap it all up with a nice tidy bow, showing how the speaking fees of the Clintons and the sizable donations made to the Clinton Foundation ultimately affected Mrs. Clinton's policy decisions as Secretary of State. There is a mine field of possible transgressions here, but Sanders lays off. Why?
...... Sanders could dig deeper......Lobbyists and donors pay not only for political access, but also for tiny changes in legislative bills that go right over the heads of most voters and under the radar of most watchdogs, but have profound effects on the corporate bottom line. What were those compromises that Mrs. Clinton tacitly supported not just for Wall Street financial firms, but also for those firms' top clients?
If you know anything about the Wall-Street-to-DC power nexus, you know that those conversations occur, however obliquely, all the time. Huge lobbyist salaries depend on those conversations occurring.
snip
In Mrs. Clinton's case, such corruption might have involved enacting window dressing reform in the form of Dodd-Frank Act, but not actually sending any bankers to jail. As one lobbyist told the Boston Globe in summing up Mrs. Clinton's attitudes towards Wall Street: "not helpful, but also not harmful." It's that "not harmful" part that Mr. Sanders needs to sink his dentures into.
snip
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-marshall-crotty/the-knockout-blow-bernie-_b_9435952.html
Though Sanders' voters .......equally tired of the global trade deals that benefit multinational corporations at the expense of American workers.
Rust Belt union members, in particular, have been economically decimated by the globalization bonanza launched by Mrs. Clinton's husband - and backed by Mrs. Clinton, who called the TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership) the "gold standard in trade agreements" - while Mr. Sanders has long stormed the barricades against NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), TPP, and other free trade deals.
snip
However, for reasons that seem perversely self-defeating in an election year that is known for unfiltered candor, Mr. Sanders has held his fire. And for what reason? The former Secretary of State is not the fearsome Lady Macbeth of Republican stereotype. Barack Obama proved that conclusively. The often shrill, impersonal Mrs. Clinton has no Eva-Peron-like hold on the Democratic electorate, and no ability to engineer George-Wallace-like shenanigans to suppress voter turnout. Sanders has no worries of Clinton payback, nor should he be playing it safe in order to secure a VP slot, where he, like white working class hero Joe Biden before him, will be sent out to pasture: defanged, caricatured and emasculated.
Instead, Bernie has a real chance to make Mrs. Clinton yearn to be his VP. To get there, however, he has to stop pulling punches and go for the knockout blow. Wednesday night in the Univision debate, moderator Jorge Ramos - an otherwise shameful and unruly apologist for open borders and the horrors they engender - pointedly asked Mrs. Clinton, "If you get indicted, will you drop out?"
snip
First, Sanders needs to break with DNC groupthink, and make a stink about Mrs. Clinton's lies after the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. As revealed in the last House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing, Mrs. Clinton emailed the truth about what happened at the Benghazi Consulate to the Libyan president and to her daughter Chelsea on the night of the attacks and to the Egyptian president the next day (it was, in fact, "a planned attack" by "an Al-Qaida-like group" that "had nothing to do with the film"
, and then subsequently lied to the families of the Benghazi victims (saying it was a protest about an anti-Muslim You Tube video clip).
Sanders has made no noise about this. Why? Bernie needs to link Mrs. Clinton's fully documented lies on Benghazi to her recent lies about him (e.g., accusing Senator Sanders of opposing the auto bailout, which is patently false, and then linking him to border militia "known as Minutemen," which is patently absurd). There is with Mrs. Clinton a grotesque and recurring habit of bold-faced chicanery and deception. Sanders could effectively end her campaign by exposing it. Why won't he do it? Has someone gotten through to him? Does he think playing nice is a way to defeat her? Has he gone batty in his dotage?
Secondly, Sanders needs to get personal, by linking Mrs. Clinton's wealthy donor contributions to the lavish lifestyle that she and Mr. Clinton enjoy in bucolic Chappaqua, in New York's upper crust Westchester County. He needs to paint Mrs. Clinton as the radical chic poster pol that she clearly is. A candidate who will tilt far left during an election to capture populist thunder, but who has no real intention of deeply upsetting her status quo corporate backers. There is no better evidence of this than Federal Election Commission data, which reveals that tens of millions of dollars have been donated to Mrs. Clinton's campaign by some of the world's wealthiest hedge fund titans.
Sanders needs to stop focusing on the content of Mrs. Clinton's speeches at Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs - ...... The point is that it was a wink-wink quid pro quo arrangement. He is on point when he says that it stretches the bounds of credulity that Goldman paid Mrs. Clinton $650,000 in speaking fees out of the goodness of their hearts. They wanted something in return. The bigger the give, the bigger the get.
Then Sanders lets up, and fails to close the deal. He needs to extend from Mrs. Cliinton's "market-rate" (read: exhorbitant) speaking fees to her husband's equally sizable speaking fees as head of the Clinton Foundation. And then Sanders needs to wrap it all up with a nice tidy bow, showing how the speaking fees of the Clintons and the sizable donations made to the Clinton Foundation ultimately affected Mrs. Clinton's policy decisions as Secretary of State. There is a mine field of possible transgressions here, but Sanders lays off. Why?
...... Sanders could dig deeper......Lobbyists and donors pay not only for political access, but also for tiny changes in legislative bills that go right over the heads of most voters and under the radar of most watchdogs, but have profound effects on the corporate bottom line. What were those compromises that Mrs. Clinton tacitly supported not just for Wall Street financial firms, but also for those firms' top clients?
If you know anything about the Wall-Street-to-DC power nexus, you know that those conversations occur, however obliquely, all the time. Huge lobbyist salaries depend on those conversations occurring.
snip
In Mrs. Clinton's case, such corruption might have involved enacting window dressing reform in the form of Dodd-Frank Act, but not actually sending any bankers to jail. As one lobbyist told the Boston Globe in summing up Mrs. Clinton's attitudes towards Wall Street: "not helpful, but also not harmful." It's that "not harmful" part that Mr. Sanders needs to sink his dentures into.
snip
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-marshall-crotty/the-knockout-blow-bernie-_b_9435952.html
60 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
The rules change just in time.
And you said it to me, someone who supports Bernie.
You cant even imagine how progressive I am, you should be ashamed of yourself with that garbage
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
Really ? have you looked at her record ?
Response to amborin (Original post)
While Clinton (and those supporters) seem to imagine they can do it alone.
Lady Macbeth, Eva Peron, lies about Benghazi?
Screw him!!!
They're so fucking transparent. 
