It's a Hard Row to Hoe

Despite staging the largest pre-primaries' rally this past Saturday, Bernie was blacked out over all the MSM Sunday news shows.

Meanwhile, Clinton's former neolibcon staffers, now aligned with HerHeinous proxies Warren and Harris, are amping up their attacks on Bernie by comparing him unfavorably to Paul Wellstone as well as other employing other grotesque charades to split the left.

More to read -->

The lies against Bernie's fight for M4A are amping up:

Meanwhile, Clintons Inc. having set the trap are just waiting for Bernie to play their game to drive their wedge in further to split the left. Eyes on the Prize, people!

Tags: 
Share
up
30 users have voted.

Comments

here at c99 don't start finger wagging the Tulsi supporters, and vice versa.

So yeah, don't fall for the trap as that would make us no different than the vote shaming sites folks like to rant and rave about.

Not leveled at you Wally, my statement is a preemptive attempt to thwart a potentially chaotic situation.

up
27 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@JtC

Ima poet 'n I knowit:

up
14 users have voted.
thanatokephaloides's picture

@JtC

I sincerely hope that Bernie supporters...here at c99 don't start finger wagging the Tulsi supporters, and vice versa.

Molto grazie indeed from a c99er whose dream 2020 Presidential ticket is Sanders/Gabbard!

So yeah, don't fall for the trap as that would make us no different than the vote shaming sites folks like to rant and rave about.

Not leveled at you Wally, my statement is a preemptive attempt to thwart a potentially chaotic situation.

A chaotic situation which would prove painful indeed for the likes of me hereabouts. So thank you, again.

Besides which, we c99ers have a calling to rise to a higher standard. Indeed, any c99er would be perfectly justified in telling the inmates of Certain Other Sites:

"At Caucus99percent.com, we're continually upping our standards. We ask, therefore, that you follow suit, and up yours!"

Biggrin -- paraphrase of Pat Paulsen's joke

up
11 users have voted.

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."
-- snoopydawg

smiley7's picture

are in line with what the majority of Americans want, not what the political parties want. This fight will be brutal, not because of Bernie, but because of the combined influence of money, religion and selfish power-brokers.

In this, as we go forward, it's best we follow Bernie's good words:

"Are you willing to fight for your neighbor" on a number of different topics ... "even if you yourself aren't' suffering right now?".

up
30 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@smiley7

I agree with Bernie's question, but the more important question is: are you willing to fight for your neighbor when you yourself are suffering terribly--instead of blaming your innocent neighbor for your suffering?

up
27 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Wally's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

I'm blaming Clinton's Inc.

up
4 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Wally

But there are plenty of people blaming their innocent neighbors. In fact, most of American politics right now is an effort to convince us to blame our innocent neighbors. Except for the anti-Trump resistance stuff, which is an attempt to convince us to blame one bad guy--who showed up in 2017--for a forty-year-long coordinated attack on our democracy.

up
19 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

thanatokephaloides's picture

@Wally

Who's blaming our innocent neighbor?

I'm blaming Clinton's Inc.

Which crime family has milked "divide et impera" (divide and conquer) again and again.

Had Americans a healthy sense of solidarity, none of this would be happening, Bernie would be President, and no Clinton would have ever been elected to the office.

But we don't. And that fact opens the door to many plethorae of evils.

Bad

up
7 users have voted.

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."
-- snoopydawg

thanatokephaloides's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

the more important question is: are you willing to fight for your neighbor when you yourself are suffering terribly--instead of blaming your innocent neighbor for your suffering?

Since one is the other -- to fight for your suffering neighbor is to fight for your own rightful relief -- blocking the oligarchs' and conservas' "divide et impera" strategies is definitely the thing to do.

up
7 users have voted.

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."
-- snoopydawg

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@thanatokephaloides

up
3 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

thanatokephaloides's picture

up
3 users have voted.

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."
-- snoopydawg

Watch for fast acting cancer next. No one believes "lone gunman" anymore.

We need a third party with Bernie's message, and Bernie himself, if possible, plus a genuine peace and anti-imperial message. A party which has:

an upper limit on donations accepted, for example, no more than $X,000 per year per person OR organization paid to the local chapter. Local chapters would fund state organizations.

people on the ground in every neighborhood, not harassing folks but doing useful things. Organize trash pickups, followed by a potluck get together, for example. Put the hoard of "coordinators" to work doing things that need doing, instead of fancy "events".

up
20 users have voted.

Nastarana

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

a so-called "centrist" or "moderate" or "New Democrat" has to say about Paul Wellstone.

These are the people who obstructed him every way possible while he lived. Most of them probably had a quiet drink to celebrate when he died. Especially those "centrists" who wholeheartedly supported the Iraq War.

Little-known fact: Wellstone voted against the Iraq War believing that that vote would end his career. He said as much. He voted against the Iraq War while he was campaigning for re-election.

Then the opposite happened. His polls went up, not down, after voting against the Iraq War. Apparently Minnesotans weren't appalled at his choice. Had he lived, that might have provided political courage to Democrats badly in need of it.

However, shortly after his poll bump, he, his wife, and his daughter died together in a small plane accident.

After that, neoconservatives used his memorial service as a chance to promote themselves as wounded victims and portray Wellstone's friends and family as unfeeling shitheads who didn't really understand him. The neocons, of course, understood him perfectly and knew that his memorial service would have offended him.

These are the same neocons that the Democratic "centrists" are embracing in the pro-Trump era.

up
30 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Creosote.'s picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
I read the reemergence of his name in the news as a not very well hidden threat and feel sickened by that, and for what it revealed.

up
6 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Creosote.

Disgusting, if so.

up
3 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

this past Saturday, he and the rally were blacked out on all corporate media news shows on Sunday."

Fixed that for ya, Wally.

If the rally had been a bust with twenty-five people attending, it would have been all over every news show. The problem was that it was more like twenty-five thousand.

up
26 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Anja Geitz's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

But instead of Hillary we have Warren. A "softer" neo-liberal war monger running for President.

up
15 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Anja Geitz

up
13 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal I immediately thought of Niel Young when I read your comment title.

up
5 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@tle

up
6 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@tle

Here's another

Just switch the pronouns.

up
3 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Wally's picture

She writes in the above essay:

The people who think Warren would make a good president are the same people who think Obama made a good president. The people who think Obama made a good president are the same people who are now beginning to say that Bush was a good president.

I notice that Caitlyn doesn't aim at Biden in the essay. I'm not so sure if she does in her other essays.

I've also noticed that Tulsi has limited her attacks (which I welcome) to Harris and Warren. She had a golden opportunity to zap Biden at the first debate re. his Iraq vote and she let it go. When queried why afterwards, she seemed to even defend him.

I really don't know what to make of such a focus but it's something to think about.

Edit/add (I just figured out a formatting problem coz I previously put wavy line in between instead of - and - which eliminated "Tulsi".... arrrgh)

I still think there's three major factions in the Democratic Party: Obama/Biden, Clinton/the Flavor of the Month, and Bernie --wavy line--Tulsi.

up
9 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@Wally

For some reason, I haven't been able to edit the above comment, so I'm adding the continuation here in a separate comment . . . .

Y'know how some of us waited in anticipation of whether AOC and Ilran Omar would endorse Bernie, even though it was a pretty sure bet they would? Well, I think the Obama/Biden scenario is shaping up the same way. Why endorse and stump way in advance? My guess is that Obama will be endorsing Joe soon enough before the primaries. If not, Obama will still be working behind the scenes, making sure local operatives support him. My guess is he's already doing that which explains why Joe is still leading the aggregate polls.

Harris was initially Clinton's proxy but that flamed out right quick, largely thanks to Tulsi, another big strike against her in Clinton's eyes, aside from Tulsi previously in 2016 betraying Her for Bernie.

Now, istm that Warren really stuck her foot in her mouth with the "no troops in the middle east" gaffe which Biden and other centrists are attacking her on in just about every stump speech. And we know that Trump will be twittering that gaffe on a loop over and over and over again if Lizzy somehow gets the nomination. Biden probably will be too earlier on if it seems close enough that he has to go after her more forcefully. The next debate will srely be brutal for Warren.

In any event, right now Warren is still Clinton Inc's best proxy going forward, even as other candidates like Buttigieg and even Klobuchar are getting more attention in case Warren flames out. But never underestimate the ability of the MSM to keep a candidate alive, even though Warren's gaffe should disqualify her as being able to have any chance of beating Trump.

So here we are, with HerHeinous throwing a McCarthyite smear at Tulsi, hoping Bernie will take the bait so she and her coterie of Brockian cohorts will "justifiably" (Nazi Germany had to invade Poland, right?) launch into a media blitz featuring a shirtless schvitzing Bernie singing Russian commie songs (sic). PROOF!!!!

My guess is that Bernie will eventually say something in defense of Tulsi. I imagine that MSM is chomping on the bit to ask him about it. I'm sure his staff and he are seriously considering exactly what to do when that eventuality comes. Let's not forget that HerHeionous created this situation. And let's not forget that nobody in the MSM is going to hound Warren and/or Biden on this issue. The other candidates aren't even in the running. I don't know why anybody even talks about those muppets any more (sorry if I offended any Sesame Street fans).

Maybe Bernie should have dropped out and immediately endorsed Tulsi as soon as he got admitted into the hospital.

I kid, I kid.

up
6 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Wally

Clinton's McCarthyite attack on Tulsi Gabbard, I've talked to none that want Bernie to drop out.

The people who want Bernie to drop out are the same people who support the attack on Gabbard.

The Tulsi v Bernie thing is not, in my experience, much of a thing.

up
11 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Wally's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

And I don't mind if folks disagree if they don't try to back Bernie into a corner. And I have a feeling that's what some centrists want to do. And I guess the media is at least a bit torn between hounding Bernie on it or ignoring him. Seems they're going with the ignoring strategy for now.

I would like him to say something, at least demand proof. But if he doesn't, that's not the hill I'm gonna fight over.

up
7 users have voted.

@Wally @Wally Sometime this evening (byline on USA Today article was 7:17 PM), he tweeted

"Tulsi Gabbard has put her life on the line to defend this country, People can disagree on issues, but it is outrageous for anyone to suggest that Tulsi is a foreign asset."

up
9 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Wally

because it's the same exact political strategy being used to promote Warren that was used to promote Obama. Here's the nice, rational intelligent person who feels authentic who makes lots of nice speeches and is kind of a wonky intellectual. But it doesn't matter what they say. What matters is who they take money from and who their political allies are. That's what will determine what they do, not their perceived positions.

The difference is, as you point out, Warren is coming straight out of the Clinton wing of the party. That's where her political connections are. So she might be Obama 2.0, but that doesn't make her Obama's chosen candidate.

It seems to me that Obama is more or less staying out of this race, though maybe others have heard more/know more than I do. I don't think he's actively backing his former VP. I'd expect to see a lot more speeches, rallies and fundraisers from the Obamas and maybe their surrogates, if that were the case. Obama seems to be sitting back and watching the show.

up
13 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal On Obama and Warren, it's not so much the strategy as the fact they both overlap mostly on ideological/personal grounds with a large demographic -- the white middle-class educated group, in Obama's case they were more in it for IdPol reasons, a very attractive black candidate they could enthusiastically embrace, plus his stated anti-Iraq War position, and in Warren's case her perfesser background and smart progressive positions in favor of consumers, regulating banks and corporations, her wealth tax, and similar.

In both cases, Obama and Warren were/are able to naturally bridge the two centrist and progressive wings of the party, which is a major reason why Warren is getting a good look from Dems. Hillary not so much with the progressive wing, obviously, which hurt her GOTV with this group in the fall. Something which could have been overcome with a Bernie VP pick, or even a Warren, instead of the lackluster centrist Tim Kaine who added nothing, only a sop to moderate Rs, who failed to show up in the numbers that HRC and Schumer expected.

Bernie: real question marks re to what extent he can bring with him, should he get the nom, the Clinton/Establishment wing in the fall. He would, after all, be the most left wing Dem nominee in history, to the left of McGovern even.

As for Obama and Biden: agree. O is sitting back, as he did with his non-endorsement in 2016. I think he personally likes Joe and appreciates his loyalty, but probably isn't unaware of some of his numerous shortcomings, and also is cognizant of JB's recent slipping in the polls. Given the latter, it would be a good time, now, for Obama to endorse and get out there on the stump with Joe, before the slipping and sliding downward becomes unstoppable. It would be an early endorsement for sure, but needed at this time. See, e.g., AOC & Co's timely endorsement of Bernie now when he was slightly stagnating or down sliding in some polls relative to Warren -- not too late to not matter, and maybe even a boost to Bernie's candidacy.

But I don't think O's endorsement is in the works. Which is a good thing for the rest of us, as Biden would get a major boost and would end up being a disaster as a nominee.

up
5 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

Bernie: real question marks re to what extent he can bring with him, should he get the nom, the Clinton/Establishment wing in the fall. He would, after all, be the most left wing Dem nominee in history, to the left of McGovern even.

There are some who argue that Bernie doesn't need this constituency, that he just needs to go totally anti-establishment, and he'll gain followers who typically don't vote.

It's a tightrope that has to be walked very carefully. I'm glad I'm not him.

up
7 users have voted.

@Wally @Wally that Bernie dismiss a major portion of the Dem party, half or even a majority of the party base who self-identify as moderately-lib to conservative (I saw one poll in recent weeks showing precisely that the majority of Ds identify in the moderate range as noted).

Second, it's always highly risky to rely heavily on traditional non-voters to suddenly come out to vote and put your candidate over the top. Especially if a lot of younger voters are involved in this non-voting group.

If that would be Bernie's strategy -- and it's far harder for me to imagine such a high-risk/screw the rest strategy being implemented by the Bernie camp than it is for me to imagine him managing to get the nom -- then I would conclude his chances of success in the general are about nil.

Not so much tightrope act as political suicide, in my humble. He would need to have a united party plus an enthusiastic turnout of D-Indies to win against a grifter who would have his party of bots united plus the usual chunk of (expletive deleted) R-Indies.

(edit: Forgot to note above: if dim memory serves, it was the McGovern camp's strategy -- esp after a disastrous Dem convention that split the party in two --) to get all those young people and others who didn't normally vote out for George to overcome the influential LBJ anti-antiwar wing of the party in 1972. Didn't quite work out so well.

up
1 user has voted.
Creosote.'s picture

@wokkamile

up
3 users have voted.

@Creosote. is going to cause millions of youth and previous non-voters to suddenly show up for Bernie and overcome the loss of the millions from the D party?

I think you might be overstating her influence and Bernie's.

up
3 users have voted.
Creosote.'s picture

@wokkamile
to be thirty or forty before you died?

up
1 user has voted.
Jen's picture

@wokkamile I read your comments. Then I'm reminded why I usually scroll past anything you say. It is comments like this that make us "non-voters" feel like there's no reason to do so. Bernie is the only candidate that CAN beat the orange turd. No one else inspires like him, no one else motivates like him. The world and the country has changed a lot in the 47 years since McGovern ran - that was before I was even born.

the party base who self-identify as moderately-lib to conservative

Isn't it those people that are the ones to tell people to "vote blue, no matter who"? Are these vote shamers actually going to stay home if the choice is between Bernie and Trump? What are they, the ones that blamed Trump on the non-voters and third-party voters, going to do if Bernie wins the nom? Vote Green? Vote for Trump? Stay home? Now I have another reason why I hope Bernie does get the nom. I want to watch their heads explode while trying to decide what to do.

up
8 users have voted.

They get people debating whether they should elect a crook in a red hat or a crook in a blue hat, rather than whether or not they should be forced to elect crooks. -Caitlin Johnstone

@Jen messenger. I've been seeing a lot of that lately.

Don't blame me for the DemPty not being 100% progressive. I merely describe the political situation as I see it. That wing of the party, whether it's 45% or 55% of the party, represents a huge chunk of votes that cannot be swept aside.

In 1972 a good number of the moderate wing did either stay home, not register a vote for the D nominee, or they actually voted Nixon. One of the several lessons learned from that election was that it's foolish to rely heavily on habitual non-voters and the youth to bail out your candidate. And you have to keep your party united to have a chance at victory.

It's an obvious, legitimate question to ask how Bernie, if nominated, would go about uniting the divided wings of the party while still standing strong for progressive policies. You can shoot the messenger and earn brownie points from some here for doing so, but the problem for Bernie will still remain.

As for the rest, and your personal attack, I will refrain from responding in kind except to note that I don't come in here seeking to amplify any echo chamber on preferred candidates (and what a crushing bore that is to see on some boards) nor win popularity contests by always posting in favor of the majority view here, which would obviously put me in a better position to be shielded from others constantly launching personal attacks. Feel free to scroll past -- no one is compelled to read my posts nor I yours.

up
0 users have voted.
Jen's picture

@wokkamile If anyone wants to hear the message that Bernie can't win, all they have to do is watch any MSM channel.

If you think that was a personal attack, I'm sorry. But, believe me, if I wanted to attack I could do a much better job than that.

up
6 users have voted.

They get people debating whether they should elect a crook in a red hat or a crook in a blue hat, rather than whether or not they should be forced to elect crooks. -Caitlin Johnstone

@Jen more carefully. I didn't say Bernie couldn't win. I said he couldn't win with the strategy of dismissing half of his party, the moderate wing, in the hopes of making up for the loss with votes elsewhere.. Big difference.

Uniting the party is an obvious concern to be considered with any candidate in any reasonable calculation. The fact that the MSM brings it up is not surprising therefore -- they aren't completely clueless. Do they also get a two-for as the question is addressed about Bernie -- of course. It's no secret the MSM is not exactly on the Bernie bandwagon.

up
0 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

Did you see the new Emerson results?

New Emerson national poll a statistical tie:
Biden 27% (frontrunner?) down from previous poll
Bernie 25% (time to drop out?) up from previous poll
Warren 21% (surging!) down from previous poll
Buttigieg 6% (has surpassed Bernie)
Harris 5% (top tier)
Yang 4% (yawn)
Gabbard 3% (best showing in this poll yet)

up
4 users have voted.

@Jen @wokkamile was a whining, passive aggressive Methodist pastor who thought he could win the presidency by delivering sermons across the country. His campaign suffered numerous failures of leadership, first was allowing the convention in Chicago to degenerate into a riot and the second was replacing a good VP nominee with a faux Kennedy who had not even been nominated in the appropriate manner. The memory of his well deserved defeat haunts the Democratic Party to this day. Senator Sanders is the first Democratic candidate in living memory who has been willing to stand against corporate domination of our country.

up
7 users have voted.

Nastarana

@Nastarana the 1972 chaotic confab in Miami Beach with the Dick Daley-LBJ-run one in Chicago in 1968, which did end up with a riot, of the police-instigated type. The '72 get together was just a highly disorganized loosely-run open-ended operation, the convention disorganizers bending over mightily to ensure inclusion, that allowed the nominee to finally be able to give his acceptance speech to a national tv audience at about 3:00 in the morning. Probably hundreds were watching at that hour.

If memory serves, this happened b/c the convention allowed delegates to nominate dozens and dozens of alternatives to McG's VP pick Eagleton, taking hours in prime time and beyond. I'd have to check, but so many people were nominated for VP, I think I might have been one of those names put forward.

As to "faux Kennedy" Shriver, more properly a "next best thing to a Kennedy" type, nothing faux about his liberal politics nor his independence from the actual Kennedy clan. In fact, numerous adult Kennedys were supposedly not happy with his decision to go on the McG ticket, and it was typical independent Sarge that he didn't check first for a Kennedy family vote of confidence before accepting. But by the time he was selected (the convention having ended days before), it was already clearly in the cards that this would be a losing ticket, the only question being by a landslide or a more palatable margin of defeat.

Finally, McG had his personal flaws like most of the rest of us, including Bernie, but it didn't deter millions of liberals in his day from passionately supporting him, similar to progressives fervency today for Bernie.

up
1 user has voted.

@wokkamile The '72 convention was a chaotic mess, but that could have been overcome. Far more serious was the VP debacle after the convention. "Sarge" may have been a good guy but he was never chosen by the approved process, and was offered the nomination only after other family members turned it down. Please remind me, how many states did Sarge carry?

Sure everyone has their weaknesses, but lack of courage, such as that conspicuously displayed by McGovern when he refused to stand behind his VP nominee, a sitting US senator, is something no one wants to see in a president.

The 1972 election was one of the most consequential of my lifetime and the Dems blew it, enabling Nixon to continue to unleash war criminal Kissinger on the world.

up
1 user has voted.

Nastarana

@Nastarana @Nastarana Sarge -- he was about as good as anyone McG could find at that point. I forget how many others flat out turned him down, post-Eagleton, but it was more than a handful. And it didn't matter at that point how Sarge was going to help the ticket -- it was enough that he wasn't Eagleton and was a liberal in good standing. He was never going to carry states b/c at that point in McG's selection process it was about Just Getting Someone for Appearances Sake.

But how would you have done the VP selection post-Eagleton? Re-convened the convention somewhere? Gone through another endless process of delegates nominating from their own wish list? The P nominee picks his VP and the convention ratifies his choice, and the fact that delegates didn't get to ratify this time was no biggie at all. At least I don't recall ANY major grumbling about McG picking Shriver. And people liked the Kennedy connection aspect.

As for McG bailing on TE, 2 thoughts: 1) there was a fierce media firestorm, of epic proportions, once the medical news came out, and 98% was that McG had to dump him, so George was under a great deal of public pressure, and 2) he may have felt personally betrayed by Eagleton not disclosing to his people when asked about skeletons in his closet.

This is not to say ultimately he made a wise choice -- there were 3-4 political pundits, and not many more, publicly calling on him to stand by his man and ride it out, it would show good character. But even that wouldn't have made the ultimate determination -- by the time news of Eagleton hit the media, it was all over whether he kept him on or not. Arguably McG could have lost by slightly less had he kept him.

(edit: arguably it was over when Muskie, the early favorite and an opponent Nixon did not welcome, felt it necessary to drop out, due in no small part to the Nixon campaign's dirty tricks)

up
2 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@wokkamile

31% of the electorate is Democratic. If you believe Gallup.

So how much of that 31% is the Clinton side of the Democratic party?

I'm going to guess 2/3 of registered Democrats support the Clinton wing. That's 21% of the electorate.

Now ask yourselves how many of the 21% would sit out if it were a choice between Sanders and Trump. I'm not talking the political consultants, the politicians, the media talking heads--I'm talking ordinary Democrats. After 3 years of screaming that Trump is the ultimate evil, would all of them sit out because they don't like Bernie? Probably not. So let's knock 5% off that 21%. I think that's a fair guess. Let's say 5% of the Clintonites vote for Bernie rather than Trump.

Now you're down to 16% of the electorate. And if you draw strongly from the indies, which Bernie usually does, you won't have any trouble beating Trump--especially since Bernie actually peels votes away from Donald Trump, unlike any other Democratic candidate I know of. (I think Tulsi might have a shot at doing that too, but have no evidence to prove it one way or another yet.)

I don't think Bernie would have any problem winning a general election against Trump.

If you're talking about the primary, well, the party has already told us they don't have to consider our wishes.

Later in the hearing, attorneys representing the DNC claim that the Democratic National Committee would be well within their rights to “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.” By pushing the argument throughout the proceedings of this class action lawsuit, the Democratic National Committee is telling voters in a court of law that they see no enforceable obligation in having to run a fair and impartial primary election.

So I see no political reason for Bernie to knuckle under to anybody from the centrist wing. If we're going to go down swinging, let's go down swinging.

up
7 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Wally's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

The pollsters certainly don't.

And the trick is that they can vote in some primaries, not others. And there are sooo many shades of grey in between those that lean left and right. And there are many that simply defy any kind of political categorization. All that contibutes mightily to the national polls being so skewed although I imagine the pollsters still claim they take that and that into account.

As far as the Clinton faithful go, I'm concerned there are enough of the likes of Tom Watson, David Brock, Adam Parchemenko and many more who will do everything they can do to sway their fold and any other Dems away from Bernie despite their professed hatred for Trump. To be honest, that whole gang in service to Clintons Inc. scares the shit out of me. Thing is, it's pretty obvious they hate Bernie AND Tulsi even more than they hate Trump. Trump won't take away their positions of privilege within the Democratic Party. Bernie and Tulsi, well, that's a whole 'nother story.

And they see that Tulsi is most definitely not going to win the nomination. So they will play every game imaginable to make damn sure Bernie doesn't get it, even puckstering around to get lefties either not to vote or to vote for Tulsi ala a Pied Piper deja vu tactics. They are duplicitous rotten scoundrels. It just works me up into a tizzy thinking about how cunning and vicious they can be and are. I'm not saying every one who refuses to vote or who will vote for Tulsi don't have a ratinonale for doing so, but the results should be obvious at least for 2020. I also understand how some folks are thinking up the road, but I honestly don't think we have that luxury given the short window of opportunity we have vis-a-vis beginning to tackle climate catastrophe.

up
2 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Wally

Bernie would have no problem winning the general against Trump. Apart from the danger of possible election fraud.

As far as the primary's concerned...

As I said, they've already shown us they won't tolerate Bernie winning the primary, and they've claimed in a court of law that they don't have to care what the voters think. They are "well within their rights" to pick whoever they want despite us.

That's what they say, anyway.

up
0 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

snoopydawg's picture

@Wally

The people who think Warren would make a good president are the same people who think Obama made a good president. The people who think Obama made a good president are the same people who are now beginning to say that Bush was a good president.

Many people think that Obama was a horrible president because he not only didn't fulfill his campaign promises, he had a grand opportunity to change the direction the country was moving and yet he opened the throttles up to full speed ahead to the catastrophe course it's on now. But his supporters don't see that. They have closed their eyes to his love affair with the banks, the oil companies and his disastrous foreign policies. I rarely see anyone connect the Syrian quagmire to Obama. Just Trump bad, Kurds being slaughtered and no mention of the 500,000 Syrians that were killed after Obama tried to overthrow Assad by arming AQ and ISIS. This is what people don't see. Obama was horrible. Caitlin has written many essays on how Trump is Obama's legacy.

Back when Bush was president people were having daily fits over what he did, just like they are now having with Trump. But after George said something mean to Trump people are saying that he wasn't as bad after all.

up
14 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

Wally's picture

@snoopydawg

. . . . who supported Bernie in 2016, but now they are supporting Warren.

I also try to keep track via twitter of what young lefty shakers and movers in my locale are doing (I'm sixty-something) and even though they are critical of Obama, I've noticed that they are either not as emphatically pro-Bernie as they were in 2016 or otherwise they are tepidly and warily but nonetheless supporting Warren. I attribute a lot of that to the influence of feminism amongst guys as well as women and wherever along the spectrum if it is a spectrum (sorry but I'm really not familiar enough with gender debates). Some are even outright committed to Warren. Local Greens lost a lot of "cadre" in 2016 and it doesn't seem they returned. Even a few of my fellow age cohort Bernie friends from 2016 are supporting Warren, too, including some who vote Green in November.

The main point I think I was trying to make in my two-part comment (these are befuddling daze) is that for a large portion of Democratic voters, it is just as, and probably more valid to substitute Clinton in that sentence, thus:

The people who think Warren would make a good president are the same people who thought HerHeinous would have made a good president. The people who think Clinton would have made a good president are the same people who are now beginning to say that Bush was a good president.

up
6 users have voted.

@Wally
Bernie waited to announce until after Elizabeth Warren made it clear that she wouldn't. Many of the enthusiastic Bernie supporters in 2016 would have preferred to be Warren supporters.

up
0 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

@snoopydawg  
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/12/19/this-isnt-news-this-is-war-crime...

https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/ellen-degeneres-defends-george-w-bush-f...

up
8 users have voted.