by Robert Reich

[elleng]

'Instead of reporting on Bernie Sanders’s stunning primary victories – on the basis of small-donor contributions and a grass-roots organization, against a powerfully entrenched Democratic machine that includes the Democratic National Committee -- today’s New York Times focuses on Bernie’s failure to do better early on because he didn’t want to criticize Hillary Clinton over her $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs and for her use of private email as secretary of state, and insisted on devoting time to his job as a senator from Vermont rather than campaigning more in Iowa.

In other words, the Times wants you to believe that Bernie could have clinched the nomination by now if he had only campaigned more like a typical politician. What utter drivel.

What do you think?'

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/?fref=nf

[Punkingal]

1. Utter drivel is correct.

Or one could just call it BULLSHIT. I guess Mr. Reich is nicer than me.

[closeupready]

2. Does anyone REALLY make a voting decision on the basis of MSM endorsements?

I just find that impossible to believe.

[CentralCoaster]

3. Absent dirty tricks and MSM bias, Sander would be well ahead of Clinton at this point.

And I mean dirty tricks at the state level, by individuals and by party leadership.

Take out the super delegates and we'd even further ahead, IMHO.

I listened to the Democracy Now interview with Secretary Reich just a few minutes ago.

Good stuff.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511645086