Tulsi condemns election interference by the intelligence agencies
Presidential candidates must also condemn election interference by US intelligence agencies
Reckless claims by anonymous intelligence officials that Russia is "helping" Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are deeply irresponsible. So was former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's calculated decision Tuesday to repeat this unsubstantiated accusation on the debate stage in South Carolina. Enough is enough. I am calling on all presidential candidates to stop playing these dangerous political games and immediately condemn any interference in our elections by out-of-control intelligence agencies.
A "news article" published last week in the Washington Post, which set off yet another manufactured media firestorm, alleges that the goal of Russia is to trick people into criticizing establishment Democrats. This is a laughably obvious ploy to stifle legitimate criticism and cast aspersions on Americans who are rightly skeptical of the powerful forces exerting control over the primary election process. We are told the aim of Russia is to "sow division," but the aim of corporate media and self-serving politicians pushing this narrative is clearly to sow division of their own - by generating baseless suspicion against the Sanders campaign.
It's extremely disingenuous for "journalists" and rival candidates to publicize a news article that merely asserts, without presenting any evidence, that Russia is "helping" Bernie Sanders - but provides no information as to what that "help" allegedly consists of.
The American people have the right to know this information, in order to put Russia's alleged "interference" into proper perspective. It is a mystery why the Intelligence Community would want to hide these details from us. Instead they are relying on highly dubious and vague insinuations filtered through their preferred media outlets, which seem designed to create a panic rather than actually inform the public about a genuine threat.
All this does is undermine voters' trust in our elections, which is what we are constantly told is the goal of Russia.
If the CIA, FBI or any other intelligence agency is going to tell voters that "Russians" are interfering in this election to help certain candidates - or simply "sow discord" - then they need to immediately provide us with the details of what exactly they're alleging. Otherwise, all they are doing is fomenting a sense of powerlessness and paranoia in the voting public, which could suppress engagement in the electoral process. And, at least according to the anonymous officials speaking menacingly to the media, that is precisely what Russia wants.
Any attempts to keep the American people quiet - with the threat that if they dare criticize the Democratic Party establishment, they will be labeled hostile foreign agents - are unacceptable and disgraceful.
It is now clear that the mainstream corporate media and the warmongering political establishment are seeking to do two things:
Create enough suspicion around Sanders, by falsely tarnishing him as a puppet of Russia, that he loses the election.
Or, at the very least, if Bernie wins the Democratic nomination, force him to engage in inflammatory anti-Russia rhetoric and perpetuate the New Cold War and nuclear arms race, which are existential threats to our country and the world.
Huge kudos to Tulsi for calling out this bullshit. She knows that it has real life consequences for many people and that it's creating dangerous situations.
The problem with President Trump is that he talks tough against the media and the intelligence agencies, but he was not strong enough to stand up to their pressure. He was cowed into trying to prove that he's not a puppet of Russia, and as a consequence has brought us closer and closer to nuclear war. The Democratic nominee cannot make the same mistake; our country and the world are depending on it.
Im very disappointed that Bernie has been playing along with the democrats and the intelligence agencies and telling people that the accusations against Russia are real. He called out Trump today for suing the NYT for what they wrote about him and his ties to Russia. But he has been very weak on defending Julian Assange for being persecuted for exposing our war crimes. It's time for Bernie to make a stand. He's either with us or he is with the intelligence agencies and the democrats that have pushed this crap since Herheinous lost the easiest election in history to a reality TV host.
Comments
OT
But what the hell IS Neera saying? Just because people who watch Fox News thinks democrats should be allowed to pick their candidate it's okay?
F'ck this, Neera.
Of course the Fox viewers
would say that the Democratic Party poobahs should select the Democratic Party nominee because, unlike Tanden, they recognize that the Democratic Party poobahs are very good at choosing a loser DP nominee. Those DP poobahs also have a good track record of cheering on the GOP primary candidate that they assess as the stone-cold loser but is in fact the strongest in the GOP line-up.
The DP fears having to run again against their 2016 designated GOP loser that they took the extraordinary step of impeaching him and hoping and praying for a conviction and removal from office. Since they always get that assessment wrong ...
Well, the DP "track record"
predates the current crop of dull thinkers and goes back to at least 1966, when Gov Pat Brown eagerly hoped for and maybe assisted in getting a Reagan opponent in the fall campaign. Carter made the same mistake in 1980.
Some current DP power brokers, and hopefully the Trump team, will also make a mistake in underestimating the appeal of Bernie with the wider public.
I just hope Bernie picks his VP wisely. Woman, of color preferably, but not Tulsi, despite the many good things she stands for in the FP area.
I also wish Bernie had chosen to call himself a New Deal Democrat, rather than the more troublesome, vague and hard to explain "democratic socialist", but ultimately it won't prevent him from winning.
In porn lingo, "DP" stands for
"double penetration", which seems nauseatingly appropriate.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
i didn'tneed to know that
and hopefully can now forget it.
I did pause before saving, but the urge
to share such valuable knowledge overwhelmed me.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Did it add to the discussion in any way?
Not that I saw. BTW do you have anything to say about this subject? For the life of me I don't understand why people feel the need to derail essays.
Even the wise cannot see all ends.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
My first reaction was that, though off-color,
the comment was quite appropriate to the situation--and then I reflected that comparing U.S. politics to any kind of consensual sexuality was way off base. Even consensual sexuality done as a business venture.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Neera is saying
democracy is for the little people, using statistics.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Yes, Snoopy, Tulsi has her head above the clouds
and thinks in clean air. She has my vote. And Bernie better understand that.
https://www.euronews.com/live
It's a quandary for me.
Tulsi would IMO be the best choice, but I find myself drawn toward the "strategic voting" swamp, especially with the 15% limit on delegates. I'm in Florida, so that 15% threshold is looking like a serious consideration when it comes to Bernie. Polls currently show Bernie being slaughtered here; only one polling company, but showing him at 13% and 11%. If that poll is anywhere near accurate (an always questionable assumption), he'll need to overperform to get any delegates at all.
If only we had ranked-choice voting.
I still think Tulsi as VP would be an acceptable compromise.
As someone else said,
send Tulsi some money and vote for Sanders.
I send money to Tulsi, give Bernie hell and money, but vote
for none of the above, because over the years I became too scared to accept US citizenship.
Now I am in a so-called more fair democratic parliamentary system of Germany with good health care programs for all at reasonable prices, but now the new Nazi-types in Germany shoot nilly willy at those they seem not to like.
What a frigging world. No matter what, one gets roasted.
https://www.euronews.com/live
I've been sending Tulsi about half what I send to Sanders.
Time to do it again.
This week I mailed in my ballot
I am a Florida voter and I marked my ballot for Tulsi which I mailed earlier this week. Strategic voting is what I did for years and never felt quite right about it. But since 2016, I have decided to vote my conscience as to whom I believe is the best choice for the people. I have been vote shamed for doing so and have even lost friendships as a result, but for me, it has been very liberating personally. I do not expect for anyone else to feel the same way and will not judge anyone who may not agree. I am just stating my own rationale for why I choose to vote the way I do.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I'm not going to be a scold
but I will point out that if Biden wins the majority of the vote in Fla., most of your vote and the votes of other Tulsi voters will be proportionately redistributed to him and probably even Bloomberg (and Bernie if he rises to the 15% threshold) towards their delegate allocation.
And I hope that if Bernie pulls off the miracle, that he will find an appropriate high level position in his administration for Tulsi.
Inculcating powerlessness in the electorate.
It’s a manufactured tidal wave of helplessness and hopelessness that is designed to suppress the proletariat’s growing global awareness of their subjugation by a small cabal of elites. It’s what the IC does best.
We are concurrently being threatened by:
-A widely populist presidential candidate facing the prospect of being denied the nomination at the hands of a small group of deeply corrupt and self serving party insiders
-A free fall of unprecedented proportions in the stock market
-A burgeoning global viral pandemic
-An inept president governing via Twitter fanning international tensions
-A global warming trajectory which threatens the future habitability of the entire planet being denied or ignored
A fearful population is far easier to control than one that is awaking to its subjugation and asserting itself. We are being manipulated, from the top down. This impressive collection of threats of is not simply a product of happenstance.
“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024
Great Comment!
There is so much meat in this comment. Great comment.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I could be wrong
but it seems Tulsi is Bernie's mouthpiece. Maybe they have something going on collaboratively.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
"Speak for yourself, Bernie."
She is saying what Bernie should have said.
That he didn't bothers me.
But good for Tulsi!
edit- If Sanders wins the nomination, I hope he gives Tulsi VP slot.
She deserves it.
Bingo
Jimmy and friends cover this and they are scratching their heads on why the hell Bernie is playing along with the fake Russian, McCarthyism crap. Bernie isn't dumb enough to believe that Russia did anything that kept Her from winning last time. And exactly what did they do when she won over Trump by 3 million votes? Seems if they interfered they did a lousy job.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNpe_8uLZJs&list=TLPQMjgwMjIwMjA0xOfYRh5...
In 3 short years since Hillary's campaign told people that Russia hacked the DNC computers that showed how the primary was rigged against Bernie we have seen increased censorship. Alternative media sites have seen their traffic cut up to 90%. Democrats are calling for more censorship on social media. But the person who was most affected by this is Julian Assange. It was a brilliant move to tie him to the Russian government for over a year before he was hauled out of the Ecuadorian embassy. Most people who buy into RG thinks that he deserves because it's his fault we have Trump. Grrr.... I will stop here.
I am disgusted that Bernie is doing this. This might give a preview to his foreign policies because if he can't stand up to the intelligence communities now then how will he if he becomes president. Or does he even want to stop the new Cold War with Russia. And CHina?
OK, now here's where
we unfortunately need to think about just what our chances really are to change things. Do you honestly think Bernie can go out there and start truly debunking Russiagate and get ANYWHERE near a nomination? All one really need do is look at the Orange Beast himself and the Shampeachment mess to see that there is indeed a bright, shining red line for our owners of just what will be tolerated. All Rump did was supposedly withhold military aid, military aid that would be used to go up against Russia ultimately. Of course the pathetic attempt to Impeach him over that was an utter sham, but I believe it taught Trump and his minions a lesson that ANY POTUS has extremely limited latitude to even so much as question the New Cold War against Russia. To go full bore CT or whatever one wishes to call it, just look back at JFK and what happened to him when he truly questioned the power of the MIC.
I am disgusted with Bernie as well for going along with it, but I do indeed see just how tenuous his getting anywhere near nominated really is. While we would all love to have a candidate who will buck this system, how on earth is that going to happen in this country today? The media is already calling him a Commie who is being "helped" by Russia, do you think they'll even cover any substantive and fact based utterance he might make against Russiagate?
While Tulsi can get up there and say these things there is a very good reason she can - she will NOT make 15%, there is little chance she will get anywhere near a nomination, so there really is a lot less for her to lose in doing it. And quite frankly, maybe she really should start talking about just how the DNC itself will "undermine confidence in the electoral process" when they tell all of us that the people will NOT choose the nominee but the party will. Why in hell should anyone vote then? What IS the point when your own party tells you your vote counts for NOTHING?
Bernie may very well be our last shot at even attempting to rein in the psychopaths who OWN us, and while I think that is an extremely long shot, I for one will support him because he is the best we can do today in this country. IF we could even get the American people to pay attention to the war mongering and the obscene amount of money we spend on them we just might even get to have a national conversation about it, but then again, I hold out very little hope that will EVER happen. Whatever else Bernie has done he DID indeed start a conversation, and that, to me, is a good thing, however too little, too late, it is in Idiot America.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
My take
Tulsi has stood up time and again to defend Bernie, but no one from his campaign has reciprocated. He has complimented the snake Warren over and over but has never mentioned anything about how badly the DNC and the media has treated Tulsi.
Tulsi is speaking her conscience as well as defending Bernie. But she is also warning Bernie that by his going along with their previous Russiagate nonsense he has opened himself up to them using it against him. It is a trap that the establishment is using against anyone who does not toe the establishment line.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I'll vote for Tulsi on Tuesday
...and in my usual tradition won't win. I just want TPTB to know there are anti-war voices out here.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Maybe you could write to a buncha TPTB
. . . give 'em hell and then vote for Bernie? And still send Tulsi money?
And Bernie will still give her a high level spot in his administration.
Better than nothing, I'd say.
Figured I'd try.
Have a good day.
Tulsi may not have much of a platform,
but she's not going to squander the little one she has speaking in empty platitudes, throwing out another crap "plan" like the other candidates to fix whatever, or doing some version of "let's just get along." She's getting down to the core matters of why we don't have universal healthcare, high income/wealth inequality, and violence in response to conflicts (familial, affiliation, work, community, and national).
So far, she's a bit like Bernie in taking advantage of any small opening on a national stage to get my eyes and hears to see and hear the real problems this country faces. Issues that she's passionate about. In 2016 Bernie jumped onto that primary stage because it had been cleared in advance of all the other DP pols that have presidential aspirations to give HER the only spotlight from day one. He didn't run with any expectation of winning or even coming close to the delegates she would amass. Occupy and internet fundraising were the two preconditions that those like him in the past didn't have. The most modest and achievable goal was merely to make it onto that debate stage two or three times and get some MSM coverage. The DP was masterful in limiting even that little bit of public attention.
Money, money, money -- little bits from lots and lots of little people -- is what kept his campaign going. Broadened the reach of his voice and agenda. He's less alone among elected politicians and the general public than he was four years ago, but the former remains tiny and the latter isn't yet robust enough.
Too soon for me to tell if Tulsi would be his best electoral VP pick. As a team they would be rather perfect.
As a governing team,
yes. But getting elected? Highly problematic. She would bring added controversy to the ticket, and Bernie already has plenty of "democratic socialist"/Castro-coddling controversy on his plate. Why would he invite more grief? Why bring on someone who would unavoidably make it a campaign about Assad rather than M4A and economic inequality?
Tulsi for head of Veterans Affairs. Or chair of the DNC. She could really be a positive force in cleaning up and reforming a party stuck in the 1990s with its big-donor, corporate-friendly, timid centrism mindset.
She's probably considered too unreliable and unpredictable to become, like the pleasant courteous Yang, another talking head on the major cables. Maybe only Fox would offer.
As a team in governing
and campaigning. Doubt that more than a small minority of the electorate has even heard of Tulsi, much less seen her. Among those that have, the MSM and her opponents have done an effective job with Republicans and conservadems (HER included) in casting her as some sort traitor. But her introduction to at least 60% of the electorate would be after being named as a VP candidate. Remember the huge buzz Palin got in '08? Why? Because the first impression was "wow." Took a few weeks to fade when her ignorance, incompetence, resume, and inarticulateness became painfully obvious.
Presidential nominees prefer to choose a seemingly uncontroversial VP. Not that the record of someone like Cheney, Biden, and Pence wasn't controversial; only that they didn't have a pre-existing and solid reputation as such and the MSM and opposition wasn't going to dig and in dwell on it during the campaign. Some, such as Eagleton and Ferraro became controversial after being named -- in both cases the nominee's vetting team fell short.
Being mindful of the existing controversy about Tulsi is why I said it's too soon to make a determination on this. If nothing changes between now and the first of July and Bernie with only a plurality of delegates gets the nomination, it wouldn't be the best choice. OTOH, if Bernie begin racking up primary wins with 50%+, enters the convention with majority of pledged delegates, his ge polling numbers increase to 50%+ and Trump's poll numbers drop down to 40%, Tulsi will look good. Controversial gets a lot of free TV and she is adept in the medium even when it's negative and hostile.
Eh, no.
Palin doesn't seem a good comparison -- she hadn't been vetted or scrutinized on the national stage as Tulsi has. She came in as an unknown, a blank slate, supposedly a fresh populist Main St. face speaking for the people not D.C. Eventually, after a few months, she was exposed as a lightweight. Tulsi would be announced and in one second the MSM and IC would be all over her and Bernie. An unnecessarily high risk pick.
I am NOT making an argument for always choosing based on what the MSM would do with the pick. I'm saying Tulsi as VP comes with a lot of heavy baggage, of the MSM's own doing, and would create quite a bit of heavy lifting for the Bernie team to combat it. So Bernie's team would know the risks going in.
But I appreciate your input, and iirc you are the only one here so far to attempt to rebut my argument, so credit for the effort.
First impressions
Are powerful and informed mostly physical appearance. Attractiveness is a major factor in forming a good first impression. That's where the comparison is quite apt. Most people, if they bother to tune into TV or internet political news at all, tune out the talking-head chatter and don't read. A VP nominee gets more attention from them but it's still only a few minutes at most. They look, listen to a few words from the nominee and form an opinion. Palin was completely unknown outside AK, but Tulsi is only familiar to the minority that pays attention.
It didn't take months for Palin to begin to fade but only a couple of weeks. Swing voters wanted nothing to do with her long before election day. However, that first impression was so strong among many that she commanded attention on the national stage for years. Technically, the public interest and attention faded faster and became much smaller than the MSM attention.
What did those outside CA (and oddly for most within CA) know about Kamala Harris before she began her presidential campaign? Loosely paraphrasing Obama, "She's a babe." That combined with pictures was all many needed to support her. She was polling in double digits in many polls and very high double digits in CA. Her wider exposure on the debate stage changed that. Her voice likely drove men away from her and when she closed her campaign, her support had dwindled down the AA women even that was less solid than it had been.
Bernie comes with "heavy baggage." Trump didn't?
Listen, I'm not arguing in favor of Tulsi for VP. As I've said, for me she's the best 2020 candidate in the race. That, however, doesn't mean that by July I would view her as a good VP choice. Too many factors are in play and many of those can't be known this far in advance.
No, I said Tulsi
as VP would bring heavy baggage as the media firestorm would quickly begin. Bernie himself already has to deal with the incoming over d-socialist and the rest. She would be a riskier pick than at least several other women pols. On just personal appeal, she does have winning qualities.
On substance, she brings her solid and courageous FP stance. But how many voters out there give a flip about FP. And there doesn't appear to be a major FP issue that will get voters attention. In that sense, I'm not sure how Tulsi would strengthen the ticket or make sense.
I hold her in high regard, and wish her courage on FP would rub off on more D pols, including Bernie. I did just send in my CA mail=in ballot, and it was for Bernie. Not sure if Tulsi will get even 5% out here, but low numbers wouldn't surprise as she's rather fallen off the campaign radar of late.
On strengthening a ticket
it's become somewhat of a mystery. Some pundits have thrown up their hands and claimed the VP nomination is irrelevant. They could be right, but I think they're missing the better strategy, logic, and art of the winning tickets versus the losers.
I'm going to stop here because I've just realized why Tulsi shouldn't be on my list of potential VP nominees and it's not specifically about her and what she would or wouldn't bring to the ticket. It's simply that a sitting member of the House at the bottom of a ticket is a loser.
Yes, I'm aware of
the rather poor history of House members on the ticket. But those are the old rules, which are rapidly being made irrelevant these days.
I think Tulsi would bring a lot of strengths -- age, courage, personal profile, ethnicity and gender -- but also at least as many negatives in terms of her outspokenness and "dangerously wrong" thinking on FP. And Bernie himself hasn't exactly made it safer to put someone like Tulsi on his ticket as he's generally echoed, to a moderate degree, the MIC neocon FP mindset. Bernie alone is already one of the riskier nominee picks for the Ds. I wouldn't think it smart to add still more risk with Tulsi.
Re strategy for VP picks this cycle: Dems need to acknowledge that the VP is not irrelevant and could potentially enhance the chances of a ticket. Bernie has already indicated he would lean towards picking a woman. I think that would be smart. He also probably should try for a two-fer with a POC, given that the last ticket was lily-white and AA turnout was disappointing. A woman of color as VP would help drive up turnout among AAs and Latinos, which will be badly needed to help overcome or neutralize what will probably be another round of GOP election theft in some key states in the voting and counting.
At the very least it should not be a lazy throwaway pick, that assumes the election is in the bag, based mainly on who Bernie would feel most comfortable working with in the WH (eg, Hillary-Kaine). First priority should always be who could help him get elected. An old rule which hasn't yet been discarded.
There is no magic formula
2012 is rather recent in terms of presidential elections, imo. And like 2020, all those House VP nominations were made by opponents attempting to oust a current president. (It's a less woo-woo observation than number of children. Since FDR, only four winners have had more than two. Of those four, one was reelected, two lost their reelections and one currently unknown, and only one of the four faced a candidate with fewer than three children.)
Playing identity politics (religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation) with the VP is a terrible idea. It's what has led nominees to choose a weak running mate in order to get a person that fits the imagined correct identity that will pull in more voters sharing that identity. Tried many times, and hasn't worked so far. Who is the singular woman of color that would boost for AA and Latino turnout? Currently she doesn't exist.
Primary considerations imo are at least two statewide election wins (governor and/or senator)), at least ten years in public office and as of 2020 completed at least six years as a governor and/or senator, preferably age 55 +/-10, very good on the stump, and realistically can be expected to out debate Pence.
There are all sorts
of ways other than IdPol to choose a lousy candidate. Hillary showed one way last time. So it's not just a question of Dems cynically ringing the IdPol bell. It's about evaluating, among the numerous strategies available, what is the best path to election victory.
I calculate it would ideally involve a woman of color. But standard IdPol says Any POC Will Do, you just need to check that box. I disagree. It can't just be an obvious token pick. And it can't be a calculation from an opposite jaded pov which says we can't go POC because that by definition is IdPol.
And I strongly disagree with the now outdated, and rather quaint, notion that the pick must be someone with the usual extensive political office experience in the usual narrow range of jobs. Some good, unique or interesting political experience will suffice, or similar strong business or political organizing or charity background or other compelling successful career.
I just think we're in a new era now that has opened possibilities for more types to plausibly seek higher office, and generally, if the new rules are not abused in ridiculous Joe the Plumber ways, this is probably a good thing.
So, a former GA state senator woman of color who narrowly lost a race for governor (which might have been stolen by her opponents) and who has also started up a badly needed org to combat GOP voter suppression has my attention. It's enough political experience to meet the basic threshold, imo, and so moves her into contention. Bernie could make far worse picks. And it would really energize the AA base.
Tulsi's platform
can be found here: https://www.tulsi2020.com/issues and each item has a "read more" link where you can learn more. It's well-organized and concise. You may already be familiar with it, in which case anyone else who wants to can read it there. Btw, I like what you write.
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl
After I read this
I sent money to Tulsi last night. She is by far the most courageous candidate and the candidate that cares most about peace. Plus she surfs and snow boards pretty well, which makes her way cool.
Yes, she is cool
Authentically so in her case. The perception of cool as mediated by TV is a quality every presidential candidate would like to have. In part because as McLuhan described, TV is a "cool medium." Not cool as hip, but is so up close that faces, gestures, posture, vocal quality gets magnified, and therefore, what's effective in a large packed arena or even in person is too broad to be effective on TV. IOW candidates need to master all three mediums. Most particularly TV because most people form their impressions of candidates from TV.
Warren in particular hasn't learned that; too hot for TV. Coaching to cool it down is neither quick nor easy and carries a risk that dialing it back becomes flat and cold which is worse than too hot.
A component of cool is a sense of humor about oneself and the world and the ability to publicly display it light-heartedly. On that measure, JFK, Bill Clinton, and Obama score high. Bernie has it as well but doesn't use it nearly often enough. FDR (pre-TV) and Reagan also had that quality. GWB had a variant but too juvenile and caustic bordering on bullying.
This all leads to my conclusion that the coolest 2020 ticket would be Gabbard/Sanders. But somehow DP voters looking for cool gravitated to Yang and Mayo Pete. Well, those two had a lot more money, but it's quite a reach to see Pete as cool.
Warren too hot?
Nah. Just too issue-and detail-oriented in her focus. People don't actually want all the details of their plans -- they want someone who speaks to their issues (but doesn't bore them with all the details) in a way they find compelling.
Donald Trump for the GOP for instance. And wouldn't he be considered too "hot" in the McLuhan sense?
Warren isn't so much too hot as too wrapped up in her plans. And clearly too eager to please the group she happens to be speaking to -- it's cringeworthy at times. And too obviously trying to bridge the moderate and progressive wings, in clunky, clumsy ways that please neither side entirely and detract from her authenticity.
Doesn't matter now -- she might get some MA delegates and some slender pickings from a few other states, enough to have modest sway at the convention if she takes it that far. And I think Bernie can find a better VP pick -- non-white, and not from the NE.
Sense of humor is definitely something Bernie has shown once or twice but has shown far too infrequently so far. One clever humorous put down is worth a thousand routine attacks on the issues. M Moore pointed out, why is it that the DP has so much of the entertainment industry on its side, yet the party candidates seem so dull and unclever in their messaging? Where is all the creative talent in the campaigns? Why does the GOP have Frank Luntz while the Dems have zilch? Their messaging is pathetic.
Other than my use of "cool" and "hot"
, we seem to be in agreement.
Warren's voice and gestures are too "hot." The former is too high pitched, loud, poorly modulated and her gestures are too broad. Effective in a classroom. She doesn't focus on policy any more than Hillary did or Sanders does. It's just not as straight-forward and as easily comprehensible to the average person as Sanders is. Similar to Hillary's and for the same reason, not offending big biz and TPTB.
In the classical sense, Trump is too hot for TV. But entering the race with near 100% name recognition gave him a bit of a break. In part because for years he'd already been selling his WWE style on TV and in the age of "reality TV," interpersonal brawls have become popular with viewers and it doesn't differ much from the Fox and now MSNBC "news" style. However, Trump has developed the skill to tone it way down when that will be more effective. So, he does mix it up, and as long as he doesn't have to go up against an authentic voice or a very highly skilled actor, he can get away with fairly mediocre TV skills.
"Hollywood" isn't particularly creative or innovative; it's a business first, hence sequel after sequel and "reality" TV. They succeed when they give the general public the most pedestrian, familiar, and non-threatening entertainment possible. Emotionally stimulating stuff that requires no thought. The sort of clever and packaging that seems deficient to you in the DP is the domain of "Madison Avenue." If the DP were still selling what the majority of people want -- as FDR did -- that would be easy enough for "Mad Ave" to package, but it's difficult to package out-dated, fuzzy, warmed over 1980s Republicanism when Republicans have never stopped selling the same thing. (Bernie can't afford the best or most experienced marketing talent; so, he has to depend on younger and untested talent, and they've been doing a pretty good job.)
Finally, 80% of the electorate (those that vote regardless) require no more information than "D" or "R." And are easily excited by whatever wet noodle stands for "D" or "R," and they don't view themselves as mindless robots but as thinking adults.
A few comments
First this
Isn't that how to reach the voters? More emotion-based appeals rather than 10-point programs on issues X, Y and Z? Ds and lefties always think voters want to be wooed with well thought out programs, like they are sitting at the kitchen table devoting hours to pouring over and comparing the candidates' different 10-point programs. Voters may well let on to pollsters that they are very issue-oriented. But what really gets them engaged are positive and negative emotional appeals (tell voters what you stand for, tell them why the guy you want to replace sucks, and bring some style and charisma to that effort).
Finally on Liz, her style, whether hot or cold, is far less relevant (anyone can always nitpick a given candidate's style) than that she has muddled her brand of acceptable, electable nonsocialist progressive by trying to prematurely market herself as the bridge between two feuding intraparty factions. She should have saved the unity stuff for when she got the nomination. That's a GE stance, a bridge too far at this stage. Will she drop out after losing to Bernie in her home state?
Further
Isn't that how to reach the voters?
Yes and no. Different target markets for the products. Take away the violence, gee-whiz special effects, and the gratuitous sex, the sci-fi/action movies flop with that teen male target market. Having the candidates engaging in actual mud-wrestling live on TV would reach a larger audience than the debates, but probably increase voter turnout by an iota.
Most politicians stand primarily for themselves. Other than "draining the swamp," opposing NAFTA (reprising a sore spot with votes that were around in 1992) and its 2016 proposed expansion, and killing off Obamacare and the Iran nuclear deal, Trump addressed policy questions with "we're going to look into that." What does Mayo Pete stand for? Nothing. Biden -- I've done it all before; so, I can do it again. If he'd done it, it would be done. Politically, Warren is a 1969-1973 Nixon Republican, but she can't use that in a condensed version for the Democratic nomination. Plus, she has no political breadth because she only recently and late in life became active in politics; therefore, she doesn't have informed and developed positions outside her area of expertise and attempts to approach those new to her issues the same way she did bankruptcy but doesn't have the time and leisure to do so. Amy stands for more of the same.
All of them have endlessly repeated that Trump sucks. Usually short on the whys. With good reason because on policies DC Democrats have gone along with him.
No shortage of "style" in presidential campaigns. The problem is that those styles aren't all the familiar and appealing to the majority of the electorate. Some remind voters of a nasty boss, teacher, the worst date ever, or worse a horrible ex. As co-worker (an attorney) pointed out that GWB is like the guy you went on one date with.
Tough to display "charisma" to the big stage when you have none or way too little for the venue. Even on that, "charisma" with one audience or group doesn't have the same power with another group.
Couldn't resist
Tulsi is no Sarah Palin
I support her for these main characteristics: Intelligence, Leadership skills, Courage, and Integrity. She is the most courageous candidate I have seen in my lifetime and I am 72 years old. Beyond her personal attributes, be assured that Tulsi is not a one trick pony or a shallow Sarah Palin type of candidate. Please go to Tulsi Gabbard's web site to find out not only where she stands on the issues, but also what she has tried to do in Congress to address these issues.
Here are just a few examples of where Tulsi stands on various issues and how she has tried to get Congress to act upon them. She wrote a bill called the OFF Act (Off Fossil Fuels Act) which was more wide reaching than the Green New Deal which is at this point, only a resolution. Tulsi also submitted a bill to ensure greater transparency and security in our elections. She submitted a bill that would prevent the use of tax dollars in new wars without the specific authorization from Congress.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Imho
I think to some degree Bernie has to "play ball", ie Russia-gate crap. Personally, I would much rather see Tulsi as someone with oversight of the military, like Sec. of Def. or Nat. Sec. Adviser, where her military experience will have real credibility, with other military types and the MIC.
Personally, if anyone can't tell the Russia-gate is crap, well, they have lost their fucking minds and shouldn't be allowed to vote (snark / but not snark).
Hillary should be rotting in jail, not Julian Assange.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Did you listen to what he said in the video I posted?
Maybe to a small degree Bernie has to play along so he doesn't alienate people from voting for him, but not to the extent of what he is saying. He keeps saying that Trump is Putin's puppet which is false. Trump has been far more aggressive towards Russia than Obama was and which Tulsi points out in her op ed.
This really goes down to what Bernie will do with our foreign policy. He calls Maduro a dictator when he knows damn well that he was elected in an election that was far more fair than ours have been recently. This should be a litmus test for Bernie. You either push back against the propaganda or you push to further it. For me it is that black and white.
It is a bitter pill to swallow
but I think you are right.
Dore is obviously puzzled and distressed. I feel the same.
We deserve better. There I said it.
Thanks for bringing this up front.
Not easy to do,even here among friends.
Here's Jimmy talking about the new RG crap
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlIIqJnH-_k&list=TLPQMjgwMjIwMjA0xOfYRh5...
He is absolutely ticked off about how this was brought up again this cycle... it's really good. But then Bernie goes along with what was reported for ? some reason.
Many of us have been fighting against this since it started and put lots of time in effort disproving it and now Bernie just threw us all under the bus.
SMDH
Max and Aaron do a good job too.
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/02/24/the-russiagate-racket-targets-the-ber...
35 min video
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
@snoopydawg I don't disagree with
I don't disagree with anything you say.
Yes, it "berns" me up, (yes, cognitive dissonance inducing pun intended) as he is furthering it's continuation, rather than just blowing it all wide open, and pointing the finger, publicly, at the one who started this Russia-gate bullshit in the first place, Hillary. We have her emails to prove it. Right?
Heck, we could argue that Hillary wasn't even the legitimate democrat nominee in 2016, specifically because of the "rigging" carried out, and that Donald Trump is not actually the president.... In theory, we should have held a "do over" of the democrat primaries because of the illegal rigging. We certainly make other countries hold new elections when we deem then unfair...
Reality is, I don't know what is happening between Bernie and Tulsi. I have no insight into what strategy they might have concocted together, but I can't see how that would include Bernie keeping the Russia-gate narrative alive while Tulsi shoots it down. That's just more cognitive dissonance inducing bovine droppings.
I was pretty hard on Bernie on twitter about both Russuia-gate, and especially Julian Assange & Chelsea Manning, before the campaign really started. Since the campaign started I send DM / private messages to Bernie's staff and surrogates, so as to not give the "enemies" any ammo to use "publicly". (his enemies could just scan my tw tl and get all the ammo they need...)
Then again, FDR challenged the "socialists & communists parties" here in the US, "make me", and they did. So, in my magical world of cognitive dissonance, Bernie get's elected, and the "left" makes him change US foreign policy for the better, or at least much less lethal and destructive than it is now.
Then again, it boils down to the super delegates and electoral college and what they will do this time as well, right? Heck, Washington state who had 4 faithless electors, had a one select Collin Powell for president in 2016.
Personally, I would love for both Bernie and Tulsi, to hold a joint "fireside chat" , moderated by Noam Chomsky, Dr. Cornell West, Chris Hedges, or even Arron Mate', someone who is in the "know" about all this shit, and together, they walk through the "bullshit" with the American people. Carried by every TV channel, with ZERO commercial interruptions. (But, I live in a dream world too...)
The American public wins if Bernie or Tulsi is elected president, and if each would have a prominent role in other's administration, imho.
While I'm a self confessed BernieOrBust Bro, if Tulsi is the nominee, I'm all in.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
[Correction] Regarding a Bernie/Tulsi 'collaboration'--
IMO, there is none. If anything, they are polar opposites in their approach to power and/or their relationship with the DP Leadership.
Remember, Bernie currently/still holds a prominent DP Leadership Position (Senate Outreach Coordinator, or some such title). OTOH, if anything, Tulsi (seemingly) has already cut any meaningful ties with the DNC, if not the entire Party.
Now, having said that, I fervently wish that Bernie would choose her as his VP running mate, since I think that she has the wherewithall to take the heat from Leadership, without capitulating to their demands or whims.
Of course, DP candidates signed a Party "loyalty pledge." Here's an excerpt from Bernie's pledge. Because of this, I'm not sure but what they've (all the DP candidates) already handed Leadership a cudgel to keep them toeing the line--or, face a possible impeachment (or, at the least, a major undermining of efforts/goals).
Folks can tell me - does this paper set them up to have to either be on the same page as DP Leadership, or, hit the road? The language is pretty strong, IMO.
Here you go,
Like Lookout, my vote doesn't count, since both our states are part of so-called Super Tuesday, and DT will likely win both states by a healthy margin, if not a flat-out landslide. Sorta a relief, since it allows us to easily vote their conscience. Obviously, it also sucks a bit, to have no 'real say' in an election of this significance.
[Edited: Deleted para break]
Mollie
I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.
~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne
Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others.
~~Cicero
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
the block-quoted pledge sounds similar to
the pledge the Hitler Youth was asked to make in the thirties to "the leader".
YMMV, but the first thing that comes to my mind is: why the heck would it be necessary to pledge that? And what happens if you break the pledge?
I am referring to the quote in Unabashed Liberal's comment.
Hard to read through all of this. Matter of factly, it turns me off or it makes me so angry that it becomes unhealthy to my mental state of my mind.
Pledge to no one, neither party, nor candidate. It's ok to vote your guts and if your guts tell you five minutes before you go the voting booth, to vote for something or someone else you thought you would, that is OK too. Pledges are just a soft ball tool of manipulation and indirectly a scare tactic if you happen to not agree with the content of the pledge.
https://www.euronews.com/live
"Small degree?"
As a community that is all too aware of the power of the IC and DP and fully understands the primary source and promulgation of Russiagate, shouldn't we be somewhat more sophisticated in evaluating Bernie's seeming acceptance of this? DC Republicans and Trump (heeding Schumer's warning?) have also accepted pieces of it; out of character for them considering that Trump was the original target, but completely in line with their long-standing anti-Russia, pro-Cold War, and warmongering positions.
I haven't a clue as to what Sanders really thinks about this. Has putting FP on the back-burner to survive in politics warped his brain so much that he can no longer see clearly or doesn't really care about it? Possible. Does he only occasionally throw out a small bone to leftie supporters to placate us? i.e. no votes on the IWR, military spending, etc, labeling it a coup in Bolivia, saying that Castro did some good for the people in Cuba, and speaking up for Assange and the Palestinians? Or is he counting on intelligence and thoughtfulness of his most loyal supporters to read his signals correctly? While also cognizant of the fact that the Russiagate insanity isn't resonating with the general public; the illness is localized in the government in DC and the IC.
It would be nice to have an election where voters never have to guess about where candidates really stand on issues and what they would follow through on if elected, but that's never the case. Usually it's all fake, lies, and empty promise with the best marketing team, most money, and most corporate, media, and MIC/IC support always winning. 2016 was an exception, but only because Trump tapped into low-info, angry, and generally emotional voters looking for a quick and easy solution to their problems (and they didn't get any of that with Hillary).
Are we entitled to absolute clarity on this point from Sanders even if for him to do so would be his very life in danger?
Why?
Bernie isn't afraid to rub against the grain when it comes to anything else. Nor does he seem to care about whatever labels they want to sling at him. So, why is that not so when it comes to Russiagate?
I'm asking because a lot of people feel this way, but I don't understand why. Is this the price of admission to running in the Dem's primary? (Even though he's "not a Democrat" as we are constantly reminded.) Is there some other reason that isn't obvious to me? I've been trying to understand since 2015 and I really can't see how pushing this, assuming he doesn't believe it, has helped him in anyway and selling a lie seems out of character.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Russiagate is an IC invention
Haven't we seen all of those "six ways" over the decades?
@Dr. John Carpenter honestly, I don't have
honestly, I don't have a good answer for you. I'm still fucked up over the SCOTUS handing the presidency to GWB, by stopping a vote recount, and everything that followed after that.
Another admission on my part, I'm scared to go after Bernie too hard, because then I shoot myself in the foot to help get him elected. Imho, no one else in the DP has a snowball's chance in hell of defeating Trump in the GE.
Do we risk suffering 4 more years of Cheato man, because Bernie won't disavow the Russia-Gate and Murado is a dictator narrative?
Which whistler blower do we demand Bernie call to be immediately released? (I say all of them) But do we withhold our support because he doesn't bow to our demands now, during a heated primary, prior to a general election that looks like it's going to be, metaphorically speaking, fucking bloody with Russia bating out the wazoo.
Do we call out the "color revolution" going on before our eyes in real time by the limo liberals and their cocktail party progressive operatives, funded by their country club contributors, here in the US, ie BlueNoMatterWho, except Bernie, because he's not really a Blue?
I feel like either way, I'm rather forced into one cognitive dissonance producing bullshit idea over another, if I'm going to participate in the "political" process and actually vote for someone.
I find rescue in Thomas Paine
Hence my shift in tactics from publicly going after Bernie on his weaknesses, to doing it more privately, where I can write out my case in more detail and provide supporting links / documentation, that 240 characters and a meme on twitter just can't accomplish.
My goal therefore in changing tactics is to "instruct" Bernie (and his campaign) the Russia-gate is BS, not to "destroy" him publicly, which makes his chances of even getting the DP nomination, much less defeating Trump in the GE, that much harder.
Does my pretzel logic make any sense?
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Thomas Paine --
that's a wonderful quote.
Must admit that I wasn't patient with those refusing to acknowledge within a few minutes of first hearing about same-sex marriage that it nothing more than a matter of equality under the law/civil rights. Domestic partnership laws and civil unions preceded that by a few years, but by 1993 same-sex marriage became a thing. I really dislike all those in Congress and the WH that pushed for and passed the Defense of Marriage Act. The courts, as usual, were slow to rule on these cases, but the public and elected representatives were much slower. (Hillary 2005 on the Senate floor -- "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman.") As a matter of principle this angered me; can't imagine the level of anger I would have had if I were gay.) Being generous, seven years was long enough for people to get used to it. More than that just makes this country look backward and ignorant and employing a bunch of yokels to run our government.
Makes a lotta sense to me
And I'd say about 4 out of 5 people I know have swallowed the Rahshah narrative hook, line and sinker.
Bernie will need the votes of those folks to win.
I look at Bernie's long history of opposing US imperialism to put what he's gotta be careful about saying in perspective.
Anybody notice that it's been working for him? He's the acknowledged front runner and will probably be even more so come Super Tuesday just a few days away.
I always encourage folks to send letters directly to Bernie's campaign officials. Matt Duss is his main foreign policy advisor.
While I'm very sympathetic to your goal--
and, have to consider that possibility every time I come from the MFA activist and Sanders supporter "Kip Sullivan school of thought" (so to speak) which is not in agreement with--meaning, sometimes critical of--some of the corporatist/technocratic managed care aspects of Bernie's proposed UMFA bill. IOW, I fully understand your conundrum. It can be a fine, and somewhat difficult line to walk. I know that all too well.
Heh, as someone who, along with their spouse, functioned, thrived in, and, retired from the federal CS system, I can vouch for the fact that, unfortunately, most folks--at all levels--"go along, to get along." IOW, they look the other way when they see corruption. For many, it's simply much easier to do. (Of course, as I've already related in past posts--regarding my own whistleblowing saga--that wasn't possible for me to do.
"To each, his own," I suppose.)
All things considered, the Russia Ruse is rather unimportant, since it failed to bring about the attempted soft coup that (I assume) was the impetus for it being dreamed up by FSC/'O'/IC, etc. But, the only lingering question for me is "where do individual lawmakers draw a line, when it comes to propaganda?"
SD made an excellent point, earlier - the Russia Ruse has been/is being used to shut down social media. And 'that' greatly concerns me.
(Had one of my accounts suspended. Later, it was unsuspended. Hadn't even tweeted in several months. No idea what it was about. Phew!)
Mollie
“This above all: to thine own self be true
And it must follow, as the night the day
Thou canst not then be false to any man . . ."
~~William Shakespeare
"I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive."
~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne
"Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others."
~~Cicero
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
The coup might have failed
but it forced Trump into doing things he might not have done if he hadn't had to prove he wasn't Vlad's puppet. We are still holding war games on Russia's borders and recently they did one where we used a mini nuke. Russia was not amused and neither should anyone. Europe is getting a bit nervous with our warmongering against Russia. They will be among the first to die if nukes are used. So we use one of our little nukes. I'm betting that Russia will send one of their big ones back.
From the article.
We've been itching for war with Russia since before WWII ended and as we lose our superpower status...well I'm hoping I'm dead before this happens.
As I said I'll give Bernie a pass for this if he calls out Israel for doing what Russia is accused of.
The censorship really bothers me too
especially as it is usually turned on progressives and Bernie’s own supporters. I’ve often wondered if this is a case of “going along to get along” but at the same time, it seems like this could directly impact Sanders movement if anyone has to do is claim “Russian bot” to shut their voices down.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
I like pretzels, beer and logic, all is well, don't worry. /nt
https://www.euronews.com/live
Thank you for your thoughtful answer
I think we’re probably more in agreement than not. Pretzel logic is about the only way to describe it. You pull one thread and others tighten.
My hope is Bernie is pulling on the right ones. So far, it seems so. I guess the Russia thing bothers me so much is we can look at history and see how exactly this was used to quench descent from the left. I keep hoping there will be some rope a dope coming on this but I fear he’s just giving it legitimacy.
Again, thanks for the comment. Sorry I didn’t respond earlier. Busy day.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Triumph over Russia
is apparently one of the IC/DNC/Neocon/globalist top long-range goals. They appear to be aiming for it and committed to keeping their eyes on that prize. They are not interested in us and our little lives in the homeland -- which means they're not interested in domestic affairs. This may sound horrible, but I think it's obvious. They really are globalists. Their corporations are transnational. Their homes and favorite getaways are all over the world. They've left us behind. Bernie wants to work on our situation, and Tulsi wants the military to protect us when we are actually threatened; she does not want to see it employed for globalist empiricist ends. (Hope I don't sound like I'm lecturing, am just too low-energy to write smoothly at present.) I'm pretty sure that's the main reason the establishment is so Russia-Russia. It is a planned military target, and they need to soften up the populace to the idea.
As for Bernie -- he has a ton of Russian baggage, all of it perfectly innocent, but it's circumstantially damning enough that it could seriously hurt his chances if they decide to use it against him. I think he's trying to divorce his image from all that. He won't dare appear to be anything but hostile toward Russia.
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl
Bernie got on board the Russia Gate train in 2016
when he was asked if Hillary won the primary fair and square. He enthusiastically said yes and then pivoted by himself that Russia hurt her by promoting Trump.
Maybe I will give him a pass on spouting Russian propaganda if he talks about Israel's election interference because Vlad can only dream of doing what Israel has since it became a country. AIPAC is going balls to the wall against Bernie, but I haven't heard him say anything about that.
I wonder if he’s inching that way
His Israel comments in the last election were something I never thought I’d hear a US Presidential candidate ever say.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
I'm thrilled that The Hill gave Tusi
even this much MSM coverage. If the corporate media allowed the public to hear Tulsi and get to know her, she'd likely be the front runner, or a very close second to Bernie. We got a little taste of her power when web searches for "Tulsi Gabbard" skyrocketed after each of her debate performances. She's different, and people pick up on it; they're intrigued, refreshed, curious. With those two appearing regularly in TV interviews, in debates and headlines, speaking straight-out truth to the American people, the content of our national dialogue would be much closer to our actual concerns, much less nasty, nutty and superficial than it is now. Bernie and Tulsi are the cool clear water the American people have been parched for, the sold ground we need for balance, for a sense of getting back to the real world. Bernie and Tulsi are REAL. And yes Tulsi speaks truth more clearly and thoroughly than Bernie, but Bernie unfortunately has to distance himself from all things Russia. Bernie is a clumsy, cringe-worthy liar -- because lying doesn't come naturally to him. The other candidates lie through their teeth constantly; it's easy for them (Warren stutters a bit on her lies, but that does not stop her from doing it continually.)
I'm not sure how to thank The Hill for allowing Tulsi a brief moment in the public eye, but when media do things like this, they should be rewarded.
As for voting, I want the candidate who feels the need to put the people back in control -- as our founders intended. I want a president who genuinely wants to push the moneyed interests, the purveyors of private power, the self-styled elite, aside. That is radical, down-to-the-root, change. It's what we need. As it stands now, Tulsi has been disappeared and Bernie is out in front. Sure he's not perfect, but he stands a chance of winning the presidency, and we know how he feels about the people vs. the moneyed interests. IMO, voting for Bernie should be a no-brainer. If he picks Tulsi as his VP, it's both stronger and riskier. Alternatively, if he gives her a high-visibility cabinet position, he'll be setting her, and us, up for a happier future.
If the bastards twist, finagle and cheat Bernie out of the nomination, then I hope the people will find a way to make our feelings, our voices, our reality heard -- loudly and unmistakably.
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl