Steve Leser for VP!

[DanTex]

I've noticed a pretty strong correlation between the amount that DU hates a person, and how effective that person is in promoting progressive policies and moving the nation in the right direction. For example, as of now the two most hated people on DU are Obama and Hillary Clinton, both great Democratic leaders, one a transformative president, and the other likely to be the next president to protect and extend on Obama's legacy of progressive accomplishments.

But who should be VP? Well, based on the DU hate-o-meter, for some reason a journalist named Steve Leser is getting pounded almost as hard as Clinton and Obama. I don't know if he'd consider a run for office, but in my mind there isn't a much better endorsement that a person can receive than being detested by the same group that has spent the last 7 years attacking Obama.

Steve for VP!

[aikoaiko]

1. I don't think hate means what you think it means.

[Scuba]

28. I don't think "progressive" means what he thinks, either.

[BainsBane]

107. I think he may be trying to redeem the word

from the sort of conduct its been sullied with in recent months.
#redefineprogressive

[muriel_volestrangler]

135. I'm not too sure he's that clear on what 'DU' mean either (nt)

[wyldwolf]

2. damn it! Leser is outpolling me!!!

[leftofcool]

4. He's a guy, what'd ya expect?

[wyldwolf]

11. So am I last I checked.. I mean...

... the wife has done a great job of... oh, nevermind.

[leftofcool]

16. ROFLMAO!

[leftofcool]

3. I like that. Come on, Steve, throw your hat into the ring!

Steve for VP!

[JaneyVee]

5. The hate and vitriol on DU has made me question liberalism and

Liberals in general. Luckily, I know real liberals who keep me tethered to reality and actually practice what they preach.

[DFW]

54. Take heart

Due to a set of extraordinary circumstances, when I'm in the States, I get to hang with many of the party prominent, and not just politicians. Media, activists (eg Cecile Richards) and the like. They are NOTHING like some of the angry defensive posters (no matter who they support) you see on here. They are mostly dedicated, intelligent and REASONABLE people. Same passion, just better channeling. Just as well. I like people like Cecile Richards up there keeping her cool before Congress or Katrina vanden Heuvel on the Sunday talk shows, doing us proud without the screaming bile.

Don't question liberalism. Question some of those who profess to adhere to it.

[zalinda]

78. Fortunately for you

those people are NOT living hand to mouth. I would say that the majority of Bernie supporters have their future survival in doubt. We knot just how hard it is to survive, I'm guessing you don't.

While many here quote social justice as their main concern, those of us who are hanging on by our fingernails are more concerned about economic justice. With Bernie we get both, social AND economic justice. With Hillary, we get only one, social justice, and that's only because it is now law. We will not get economic justice with her, just as we didn't get it with Obama. The closest we got with Obama is the ACA.

When you have worked all your life and the company steals your pension and the government let's them get away with it, and you are forced to work at Walmart, to make ends meet, then tell me how angry you should be. Or when you are "promised" by the government that if you play by the rules, get a good education, you can get a good job and live a good life. Only they changed the rules, and you end up $50,000 or more in debt and there are no jobs available, because they have been off shored.

Your reply is the very definition of Limousine Liberal.

Z

[99th_Monkey]

82. +10 - well put. nt

[Marty McGraw]

83. .

[DanTex]

88. Bernie supporters are on average wealthier than Hillary supporters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251542288

[Hortensis]

121. Might that change once Vermonters are only a small portion?

[DFW]

94. Right, beware the limousine liberals, they're everywhere

Like my brother in law who just lost his job last month at 52 and my sister who never got a regular one in the first place. I've had a steady job since I got out of college, lucky me. I still work for a living, so no, I don't get to join the ranks of the hand-to mouth. Plus my wife is German and we live in Germany, so no, we don't starve. It sucks to be poor and live paycheck to paycheck, but you're making it sound like some kind of noble status to aspire to so you can post about it, and you can't be in your club if you can't produce the proper credentials. I've worked since I was 23, same outfit, sometimes I even get a weekend off, maybe every second one. Excuse me if I don't whine. I made my own job security by learning 9 languages (most NOT in school) and convincing my employer to let me structure my job so that no one else could replace me. When I married a German, my job came to Germany with me. I off-shored it myself, to my own financial detriment (but gained a fabulous wife, so to my way of thinking, I still come out ahead). I pay my dues, plus a lot higher taxes than you people back in the States. I haven't been promised anything by either government except Social Security, which with the cost of living in Germany, should get me through at least the first ten days of each month.

As for Bernie supporters, why in the world do they automatically all have to have their future survival in doubt? Jim Dean doesn't. Katrina and John Nichols sure don't. Thom Hartmann doesn't. Membership in that club isn't as exclusive as you make it out to be. As for Hillary supporters, hell if I know. I don't know many of them outside of Howard Dean.

So go create epithets for me. When I get a ride in a limo, I'll let you what it's like to be a limousine liberal. You can tell me what it's like to diss people for being one without having the faintest idea who you're yelling at.

Come November, 2016, I'll gladly be casting my vote for the Democratic nominee, and if it's Bernie Sanders, I have no problem with it. He won't be spitting on me. He'll send me a mass mailing thanking me for my support (like the ones I already gotten from him, by the way). All you do when you shoot at allies is have less allies. Fire away if it makes you feel better. Me? I don't own a gun.

[Hortensis]

122. And, IMO, yours sounds like classic "where's mine" belated populism.

I don't know your personal political history, of course, but this general school of thought whiffs of that. That's why I really dislike talking heads characterizing principled liberal positions as populist.

Populist movements always arise after large portions of the electorate, right, middle and left, ignore their duty as citizens for decades, ignore the problems of others, even ignore being screwed over themselves, explaining that no one can do anything anyway -- right up until one day when they realize things haven't gotten better on their own and they're not likely to get more than they have. THEN they finally get mad and start blaming everyone but themselves.

This is happening on both the right and left, with a special soupcon of realization that the screwing over is much deeper than previously admitted. Especially for the right, who invested their entire political philosophy in trusting those who systematically betrayed them.

All this angry, "where's mine" noise from right and left is irritating, even disgusting, but no surprise to those of us who have been trying to effect change on our own and waiting for decades for the next "populist" movement to finally occur.

[sabrina 1]

131. Very well said. I have 'hung out' also with the elite of the Dem party (it was a summer job

for nine years) and it was remarkable how out of touch they were with the average American. THEY of course, were all more than 'comfortable', they 'talked' a lot about us lesser beings and how they might 'help' us.

Once in a while during their 'intelligent discussions of the issues' one of them would go into the kitchen where the working class was preparing their meals and ask questions like 'how many people here have Health coverage', then back to the luxurious dinner table to discuss how this issue could be addressed and how it could benefit their party in the next election.

Some of them actually meant well, but they were so removed from the average worker, no one expected them to 'get it'. And these were Dems, those worked the Repub events told us how much worse they were.

[Scuba]

137. + another

[Scootaloo]

61. Suuuuure. It's DU that's caused that.

[Hortensis]

119. Whatever this is, JaneyVee, it's NOT liberalism. Liberals are

characterized by an openness to different people and different ideas. Not intolerance and hostility toward everyone who disagrees with them -- or disappoints by not being extreme enough, like Obama. If you see someone's who's been beaten literally almost to death by a mob and says he doesn't hate them because he understood something of what was behind their behavior, you know that's a liberal.

I've noticed that on the right extremist conservatives can seem like more moderate conservatives taken to extreme versions, like a moderate's dislike of their neighborhood changing to the vicious hatred of right-wing extremists, but that isn't the case on the left. Extremists always seem to lose most of what makes liberals liberal, if they ever had it. Many who think they are liberals may just be confused by a preference for left-wing types of government, not personality.

[zalinda]

145. Really?

" If you see someone's who's been beaten literally almost to death by a mob and says he doesn't hate them because he understood something of what was behind their behavior, you know that's a liberal. " That's a saint, not a liberal.

A liberal is someone who wants equality for all, not just some. They want good schools, whether it's in poor neighborhoods or rich neighborhoods. They want their road and bridges to be safe, not just look safe. They want justice to be given out equally, not one rule for the rich and another rule for the poor. They want someone who is working a full time job to be able to live on the pay from that full time job.

Oh, why even bother, you won't get it. You don't live it. You probably don't even drive past it.

Intolerance and hostility? Not even close!!!! We have more tolerance in our little fingers than most Limousine Liberals, how do you think Democrats get elected? They promise help, but don't give it. Nobody is looking for free handouts, they are looking for a more even playing field. They aren't even looking to move into your neighborhood, just that they can earn enough to put a roof over their families head and food on the table.

Hostility from Bernie supporters? Don't make me laugh. If you can't take criticism about Hillary's words and actions, you might as well go live in a cave. Hillary has brought it on herself, her words, her actions.

Z

[Hortensis]

146. Good night, Zalinda.

[DJ13]

157. Great post

[whatchamacallit]

6. Just when I think you've reached the summit of Mount Inanity...

[Warren Stupidity]

143. Didn't Obama rename Mt Inanity recently to Denial?

[morningfog]

7. You don't understand, and misuse, the word "hate." You insult those who have been victims of

true hate. You should be ashamed.

[William769]

13. Oy vey

Talk about not understanding the use of a word.

[morningfog]

77. Yes yes, Hillary supporters are victims of hate crimes by DUers.

[William769]

81. Hate and hate crimes are two different things.

And you trying to associate the two is very disingenuous.

Hate:

feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone).
"the boys hate each other"


synonyms: loathe, detest, despise, dislike, abhor, execrate; More
be repelled by, be unable to bear/stand, find intolerable, recoil from, shrink from;

•have a strong aversion to (something).
"he hates flying"

•used politely to express one's regret or embarrassment at doing something.
"I hate to bother you"

noun: hate

intense or passionate dislike.
"feelings of hate and revenge"

Hate crime:

noun

noun: hate crime; plural noun: hate crimes

a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence.

There is your lesson for today.

EDIT: Now what happened to Bravenak, that would be a hate crime.

[sufrommich]

8. I predict the misplaced bitterness will get worse

before it gets better.

[whatchamacallit]

9. Who better to be her VP than someone who savaged her in 2008

for exactly what she's doing now?

[djean111]

10. Really. It is like there is no awareness of irony or hypocrisy. n/t

[Fumesucker]

15. Performance art I'm starting to suspect

Impersonating a piñata..

[Scuba]

30. He is consistent in that regard, I must admit.

[NanceGreggs]

96. You want irony and hypocrisy?

Read my sig line:


"It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party." - Bernie Sanders

[djean111]

104. Here's the thing - I consider that Bernie represents what Democrats SHOULD represent.

The party has been doing the triangulation cha-cha to the right for some time now. I am voting for what Bernie stands for, not a "D" on a jersey. Here in Florida, what with Debbie Wasserman-DINO actually campaigning for GOP buddies, and not supporting Democrats running against her GOP buddies, it is easier to see the lurch to the right.
Issues. That is what I care about.

If the Democratic Party did not want Bernie to run for the nomination, they should have said so up front, not try and jettison his campaign now with "but he is not a Democrat!!!!!" whinging. (I love that word - it rolls whining and wheezing into one very descriptive verb.) It seems to me that Bernie was supposed to have dropped out by now, and that his candidacy is inconvenient.

Hillary still has all the negatives she had when she ran against Obama. The party affiliation means squat to the party - Hillary gushing over the same Patrick Murphy who voted to establish the Benghazi committee, and who was a republican until 2012, and only switched over to run against another republican. So why should it mean so much to me that I would support a candidate I do not like, on the issues and past record, over a candidate I DO like, on the issues and past record. Will not do that.

[NanceGreggs]

105. Here's the thing ...

Bernie is a hypocrite - by his own words.

He is a political opportunist who wants the support and votes of members of a Party he has spent his political career disparaging. He wants the Party he has repeatedly disrespected to now further his ambitions - while still refusing to BE a member of that Party.

In the end, it matters little. BS's poll numbers have stagnated - he's not going anywhere. And all the HRC-bashing on DU isn't going to change that fact.

[djean111]

106. As if Hillary is not a political opportunist.

If this all matters so little, why all the angst about Bernie and his supporters? That really puzzles me. Maybe it is some sort of frustrated authoritarianism, who knows. But is it useless.

Anyway, no point in furthering this conversation. I am going to be thrilled to vote for Bernie, and I cannot imagine why I would care what you think of him. Ta!

[senz]

111. I'll bet you're really good at picking the fleas off cats.

Hey, it's valuable talent. And the cats appreciate it!

[NanceGreggs]

112. Sometimes those "fleas" ...

... are the size of German shepherds - and impossible for most people not to notice.

[senz]

113. Oohhh...yeah...

sort of like Hillary's neoliberal leanings. Sure, makes sense...

But she does a pretty good job of trying to cover it up!

[PotatoChip]

114. He respected our party enough to run as a D and took plenty of grief from the far left for doing so.

If you are a member of the D party, none of us within the establishment should have to explain why.

[NanceGreggs]

116. He respected our party enough to run as a D?

Democrats should feel "respected" because the Great Bernie deigned to use them to further his own political ambitions?

Yeah, my gratitude knows no bounds. I feel downright honoured that someone who has disrespected my Party throughout his career has decided to "respect" us by asking for our support and votes - now that it's convenient for him to do so.

[PotatoChip]

123. I appreciate the fact that he's respecting our wishes to not run as an Independent.

If he ran as an Indy (as I know he would prefer), he'd be splitting the D vote. He does not want to do that to our party, which is why no one within the establishment is fighting him on this decision. The only criticism I've seen over this issue is coming from far left purists who worry about him lending legitimacy to our party. Well them, and you guys...

As a lifelong member of the Democratic party, I've seen the consequences of dealing with left leaning 3rd party candidates far too many times. That is how we ended up with Gov LePage here in Maine. I'm grateful that Bernie will not be doing that to us.

[NanceGreggs]

125. Well, I don't share your "appreciation".

Nor do I pretend that he didn't choose to run as a D because having the Party's resources at his disposal would be beneficial to himself, above and beyond all other considerations.

Bernie said: "It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party."

So in traditional DU style, the question is: Was he lying then, or is he lying now?

[PotatoChip]

129. I'm well aware of what he said, since you guys keep parroting that one line over and over.

I guess it's supposed to be some kind of "gotcha" or something. I'm not familiar with the context from which it originates, but it matters little to me anyway, which is why I have not bothered looking into it.

My point still stands. The Democratic Party wanted him to run as a Dem, and he obliged. I'm thankful to him for that.

[Scuba]

136. Nance, is it painful to be so wrong so often?

[NanceGreggs]

144. Wrong about what?

Wrong about the fact that BS has spent decades disparaging the party he now wants to support him?

Wrong about the fact that he said he'd be a hypocrite to run for that party's nomination - and now he is?

Wrong about the fact that Bernie knew he had a much better shot at the nomination by using the Democratic Party to further his political ambitions than to run as an Independent?

Wrong about the fact that Bernie has ONE endorsement from his congressional colleagues, the people who know him far better than anyone?

Wrong about the fact that Bernie is a self-serving opportunist who reversed his "I would be a hypocrite" stance when he thought it politically expedient to do so?

[Scuba]

148. Hey, if a pro-war, pro-Wall Street, pro-fracking, pro-H1B Visas woman can be a Democrat ...

... so can Bernie Sanders.

[NanceGreggs]

151. Except he isn't a Democrat.

And he refuses to be one. And he has said so repeatedly.

And all the disparaging remarks about HRC won't change that fact - or the fact that BS is more than happy to use the Party he refuses to be identified with when politically convenient.

When your response to what BS is doing is "but what about her", you've already lost the argument.

[Scuba]

154. In case you've not noticed, Bernie is running as a Democrat.

[NanceGreggs]

158. In case you've not noticed ...

... running as a "Democrat" while refusing to actually BE a Democrat stinks of political convenience, and speaks volumes about one's lack of integrity.

I don't want to BE one of you - I just want your support and votes to further my political ambitions does not sound like a Democrat to me.

Your mileage may vary - and obviously does.

It's amusing to watch people complain about HRC flip-flopping - while they support a candidate who once said he'd be a hypocrite if he ran as a Democrat, and is now doing so.

I'll stick with supporting the candidate who isn't refusing to be a member of the party she wants to support her.

[Scuba]

159. A Hillary fan complaining about "political convenience." Hilarious.

[NanceGreggs]

160. As I said upthread ...

... the minute your defense of Bernie is "but what about her", you've lost the argument.

Either your candidate stands on his own merits (or lack thereof) or he doesn't.

[Scuba]

166. Sorry Nance, but in my opinion it's about principles, not party. You apparently disagree.

[NanceGreggs]

169. I fail to see what is "principled" ...

... about disparaging a party for one's entire career, stating that running for that Party would be "hypocritical" - and then running for that Party anyway, while asking its members to support you and vote for you.

It seems that BS's "principles" are a moving target, and "evolve" when convenient to his political ambitions.

[Scuba]

170. So Bernie's principles are a moving target but Hillary has been consistent. Got it.

[NanceGreggs]

171. Yet again ...

... ... the minute your defense of Bernie is "but what about her", you've lost the argument.

Either your candidate stands on his own merits (or lack thereof) or he doesn't.

[okasha]

163. He plays one on TV.

[NealK]

164. Oh, after all this time being wrong I guess that she's used to the pain, it's just a mild annoyance.

Bernie hates the Democratic party so much that he votes with the Democrats 98% of the time. With "enemies" like that who needs allies?

[okasha]

152. And our money,

Nance. He can't fund a national campaign on his own.

[Scuba]

165. You're right, except for the part about the DNC using Bernie to raise money.

[stone space]

32. Well, to be fair, the OP does not specify which presidential candidate...

...that his preferred candidate for VP should serve under.

Who better to be her VP than someone who savaged her in 2008

[DisgustipatedinCA]

12. Kicked and recommended!!!

There may be uncomfortable conversations where he has to tell his running mate why he hated her and called her a liar and so many other things, but people evolve--suddenly and dramatically.

(I was kidding about the recommended part, but I'm gladly adding a kick)

[William769]

17. Kind of like this?

"It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party." Bernie Sanders

[DisgustipatedinCA]

18. Yeah, I asked you for a citation on that. You ignored the request.

I asked for original source material, since Google can't find any mention of this phrase prior to calendar year 2015.

[William769]

21. Steve gave you an answer.

You probably didn't like it though.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

36. I responded to it. Did you not see that, Bill?

In the case of this particular OP, I have TONS of source material to draw from. You have bloggers making claims in 2015 about something that was allegedly said 25 years ago. And you have no source material from which to draw.

[DanTex]

31. Google.

From Politico:

At the Socialist Scholars Conference in New York City in April 1990, he asked, “Why should we work within the Democratic Party … ?” He said at the gathering he was running for Congress that year again as an independent because it would be “hypocritical” of him to run as a Democrat considering the kinds of things he had said about the party. Also, he pointed out, his self-confidence bordering on braggadocio, “in Vermont now, when you talk about third-party politics, we have a very, very strong third party—it’s called the Democratic Party.” Not that strong—he predicted that his Democratic opponent, Dolores Sandoval, might not get even 5 percent come November.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/bernie-sanders-2016-democrats-121181

From Seven Days VT:

And Sanders is no more Dem than Prog, even though he's running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Having long lambasted the Democratic establishment as a tool of Wall Street, Sanders is now vulnerable to charges of opportunism. Pundits are dredging up his declaration at the 1990 Socialist Scholars conference in New York: "It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party."

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/party-pooper-bernie-sanders-rides-political-independence-to-new-heights/Content?oid=2868873

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. Google

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=658404

[pangaia]

132. TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO !! :>)))))))))))

And he was,,,,, he... he was running...
for.... Sorry I just,, i just can't get it out..

[leftofcool]

33. Here ya go!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/15/1409803/-Introducing-Bernie-Sanders-the-Hypocrite#


Socialist Scholars Conference in New York City, April 1990. You can check their archives.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

39. Thanks, but...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=658404

[George II]

80. Or this:

“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”

Or this:

"You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”

Now back to the subject, Steve would make a great VP, maybe rival the candor of our current VP.

[NuclearDem]

40. Now I'm off to rec a thread by someone who voted for Reagan!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

42. Awesome. Tell Manny I said hello.

In Manny's case, he's explained his arc, his progression over the last 30 years.

[NuclearDem]

46. Dearest me! People can change their minds? MOST UNORTHODOX

[DisgustipatedinCA]

47. The arc of progress is a far cry from starkly opposite binary states. Have a good weekend.

[Ed Suspicious]

52. yes!

[Lisa D]

45. You mean Elizabeth Warren?

Elizabeth was a devoted Republican well into her adulthood, right? And then, happily, she evolved.

BUT WAIT, evolving is a BAD thing according to some folks on DU. I mean, why would anyone ever take in new information or weigh ideas and then change their mind?

[NuclearDem]

49. Bullshit gotcha games are bullshit gotcha games, no matter the target.

I personally don't care that Warren was a Republican, or that Manny voted for Reagan, or that MineralMan was a FR member, or that Steve opposed Clinton in 2008. I was a rabid homophobic and misogynistic rightwinger ten years ago, and I know that people can make serious and drastic changes over a short period of time, and they don't owe anyone an explanation.

[Lisa D]

50. I absolutely agree!

I'm thrilled Warren is a Democrat and would vote for her in an instant. Just like I'll vote for Hillary in the primary and check the Dem box for President in November 2016.

[sibelian]

93. Perhaps you haven't changed as much as you think.

I have to say your debating tactics have always reminded me uncannily of those of Republicans.

Whether or not any explanation is "owed", the explanation's absence leaves us with questions regarding it's content.

Nobody has to explain anything. But "what people should do" and "what can be expected of other people if they don't" are usually two seperate issues.

[NuclearDem]

97. Well, you know what they say about staring into the abyss...

[Hortensis]

128. I disagree that people are not responsible for prior actions just because

they stopped doing those things. The voting booth isn't a confessional and does not confer absolution. We are all responsible for the consequences of our actions, in politics particularly noting those who actively dug our nation into this hole.

That said, Elizabeth Warren did a splendid job of filling in, tamping down, and moving on to build anew.

[William769]

14. Steve would be a great addition to the team!

All we need now is to get her cabinet picked then she'll be ready when she takes the oath of office.

[Skidmore]

22. Dan needs to be on the cabinet.

[William769]

23. Press Secretary!

Although not a cabinet post.

[JI7]

100. press sec is actually a realistic position in his case

[ismnotwasm]

19. Already the weeping and knashing of teeth ..

[opiate69]

58. Gnashing.

[dorkzilla]

64. knashing is noshing on a knish!

gotta use your teeth!!!

[opiate69]

65. I admit...

I'm a spelling/grammar knazi!

[ismnotwasm]

108. Thank you!

Do you think I should correct it--or is it too late?

[Skidmore]

20. I'd vote for Steve

in a heartbeat and his cute litte baby girl.

[Fumesucker]

24. K&R

[BooScout]

25. Should I do a new poll?

[leftofcool]

35. I think a new poll is in order.

[BooScout]

69. Your wish is my pleasure!

[Bobbie Jo]

26. Nailed it.

Every word.

K&R

[MineralMan]

27. Steven Leser is a pundit, of sorts.

Like all pundits, his view of things is what it is, but may well not reflect actual reality very well. He's one person, looking at politics from a particular, individual viewpoint.

I'm not a fan of punditry, in general. It's far too often conflated with actual information. It's not. It's opinion. One person's opinion. I prefer to arrive at my own opinion, which is often different from any of the various pundits who inhabit traditional and new media venues.

[1StrongBlackMan]

70. What'd you say?!? ...

punditry, in general. (is) far too often conflated with actual information

Mannn ... I'm gonna have to retool my belief system!

[Hortensis]

124. LOL.

[1StrongBlackMan]

130. I once remarked ...

If you find yourself AGREEING with everything the news source of your choosing airs ... you are not listening to/watching a NEWS source; you are listening to/watching a source of opinion/commentary, as news reports facts and facts cannot be agreed with or disagreed with, they can only be proven or disproven.

And if you find yourself agreeing with everything your choice of source of opinion/commentary airs, you probably should change the channel, as your world is shrinking.

[Hortensis]

133. Wise man. I think I'd choose to undergo a "paradigm shift"

cold-drench truth immersion if I could, like that little bird, but I'd want to be alone, without witnesses, and have a good stiff drink in hand. Maybe two, or three.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Laughing at is "pounding"?

[sufrommich]

34. Do you think calling a DUer a "bullet headed goon" is funny? nt

[Ed Suspicious]

53. That got hidden, so a jury of his peers at "Bernie Underground" told him in no uncertain terms that

'bullet-headed goon' is unacceptable. What more do you want?

[JackInGreen]

37. Anything

That isn't a blow-job is a "pounding", laughter, critisism, facts...

[stupidicus]

48. it's the rightwing debating tactics I"ve noticed and noted from DU thirdwayers

since I got here.

They get to redefine whatever is necessary to make whatever into a non-point in the process.

And laughing at the poor guy can only mean that you hate him with every fiber of your being....

[MisterP]

161. they also say we're the "loony left" and back GOP policies if it's a Dem doing it

I just don't get why they squeal when they're called conservatives

of course Leser's a perfect case, just a roving ball of viciousness willing to attach itself to anything at the moment, without a single smidge of consistency or awareness of contradiction: principle-free "bigmouth politics" didn't just take over one of the parties back in the 90s

[stupidicus]

173. you know it

I've only had one interaction with the fella, and as I recall he ran off and left me with the "last word"...lol

And indeed Mr.P, I don't get it either. I usually refer to them as cousins to the cons/rightwing outta consideration for the lefty things they generally support.

Being principled can cost online relationships, and of that I doubt there are few doubters. I'd love to know where that wide and bright line is between being principled and pragmatic, since it seems there comes a point where too much pragmatism can lead to guilt of a lack of principles or a meaningful amount of value placed on them. That's the origin of the "loony" designation and the reason why it fails -- we're merely guilty of sticking to or placing more value on adherence to "principles" in more cases than they are. That's not the stuff ego problems or integrity indictments are made of, but rather the first step up to the moral highground.

[stupidicus]

41. that's the kinda illogic or dishonesty about any chummaster might deploy

in their questionable quest for attention.

Following that "LOGIC" just a wee bit, the BS supporters around here should really hate him given the way he's leading HC around by the nose right now, and compelling her to be more "progressive".

[frylock]

43. Oh, wait... You're serious?

[OnyxCollie]

44. With Steven on Fox News, the Murdoch connection is complete.

[IMG][/IMG]

[bullwinkle428]

51. Seriously, Dan - we're defining "hate" as illustrating hypocrisy by recalling one's own

previous words? We do this all the time at DU when it comes to Republicans/right-wingers/conservatives from all walks of life, and I believe the general consensus at DU is that it happens to be a particuarly effective strategy.

PLEASE FEEL FREE to dredge up all of my posts from the 2008 campaign. I will completely admit to drinking the John Edwards Kool-Aid, and was "all in" for him through the early part of the primary season, including me caucasing for him in Iowa (where he knocked Hillary into 3rd place, BTW). Couldn't have been more relieved months later, when he completely flamed out due to his personal indiscretions.

[Autumn]

55. Yes! He would be perfect for Hillary's VP. I think this will be a first for me when I rec this OP

[panader0]

87. A pair of flip flops!

[Gothmog]

56. If Julian Castro is not the VP nominee, then Steve Leser is a good second choice

[NealK]

57. I really doubt that she would want anything to do with the guy who wrote this:

Steven Leser, in 2008, concluded that Hillary lied about her stance on NAFTA

Hillary Clinton's Released White House Records show she Lied about Opposing NAFTA

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080320_hillary_clinton_s_re.htm

In fact, the documents released today show a meeting that Hillary chaired at the White House on November 10, 1993 where she promoted the passage of NAFTA to 120 people. Reports are coming out in every news agency pointing out the contradictions between her stated positions since announcing her bid for the Presidency and everything before that.

One of the things you would expect of someone who really has good experience and judgment is that they can articulate a basic set of principles and positions on issues that they can run on and defend and that stay relatively static. I'm not saying you have to stick to them in the face of overwhelming evidence that one of your positions has been proven to be wrong, like George W. Bush does, even someone who has good experience and judgment occasionally changes their mind. That is not what we have with Hillary. Hillary gives a different opinion on the same subjects every couple of weeks depending on her audience and what she thinks it will net her. As evidence of this is now coming out and is going to be presented to the American people in the starkest terms, how can one be expected to trust her to do anything that she says she is going to do? How can one really know what she believes or intends to do about anything? The only things Hillary's experience seems to be good for is perfecting how to talk out of both sides of her mouth, engaging in the politics of personal destruction and other aspects of her ruthless pursuit of power that remind one of what a Karl Rove might do. That kind of person ought not to be the Democratic nominee.

HT to Luminous Animal: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=657650

[senz]

110. He's a fellow flip-flopper, she'd LOVE him.

Convictions are so ... so ... Bernie Sanders.

[NealK]

162. Lol, so true.

He must be a distant relative and have some of her flip-flop genes.

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. LOL ...

For further refining, take that DU hate-o-meter, adjust the filter to select out for 7 years of wrongful speculation regarding President Obama, correlated with DU pounding, and the name Bravenak would also appear.

[Fumesucker]

66. What is it with people who were so virulently against one candidate in 2008 and now for in 2016?

A lot of us just don't get it, it feels bizarre to loathe someone to the point Leser clearly loathed HRC and then a mere eight years in the future you are absolutely convinced they should be President over all other possible candidates.

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. Perhaps you should be addressing your question to DanTex. n/t

[Fumesucker]

71. That poster is so far gone he doesn't even notice

Completely oblivious to cognitive dissonance, he wouldn't understand the question in the first place.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. I disagree. And don't appreciate your unnecessary, over the top, attack on him. n/t

[Fumesucker]

75. You brought him up and I never mentioned names...

This is either remarkably subtle or obvious satire or it's a straight up thread, I still haven't decided which team the OP is actually playing for, the truly amazing number of "own goals" he scores makes me wonder.

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. Okay. n/t

[ismnotwasm]

120. ....

[AlbertCat]

60. two most hated people on DU are Obama and Hillary Clinton

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


There you go again with that "hate" thing.

"Hate" does not mean the same thing as "disagree".


Here: this may be helpful:

Dictionary.com

[99th_Monkey]

84. +1000 nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

126. Saturn cat! I want one.

[AlbertCat]

138. Saturn cat! I want one.

There's more! So much more!

Go here:

http://www.omgcatsinspace.com


(I think I'll change mine)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

140. Thank you.

I never knew the world needed a cats in space website. After seeing it, I'm firmly convinced we do. Thanks, and I hope you have a good weekend.

[SoapBox]

62. A ridiculous posting.

Stirring the pot of division.

Disgraceful.

[retrowire]

76. ^this^

yeah, I don't hate Hillary DanTex.

here's some helpful alternative words that are more accurate.

distrust
dislike
disenchanted (she was my first choice before Bernie happened)

[kath]

95. Right up there as one of the most ridiculous OPs ever.

disgraceful and pathetic.

[NealK]

63. Hate.

[ffr]

67. Don't know who Steve is, but it sounds about right. n/t

[floriduck]

73. Does this thread have a beneficial or meaningful purpose?

I don't see one.

[DanTex]

74. Showing my support in a jovial manner for a long-time DUer who the hate squad has recently decided

to target.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=658816

[99th_Monkey]

85. Thanks for the link. Now I can give it my K&R

Hint - pointing out a candidate's (or their sarroguts) ever-changing positions or opinions
is NOT "hating" .. rather it is holding them to account for their words and actions. Why
do you insist voters can't do this, without being accused of being a "hater"? It is really
an abuse of language itself to do that.

[DanTex]

89. Gotta watch out for those sarroguts. Is that like some kind of fish or something?

Sounds like it belongs on a menu: "poached sarrogut with artichoke." Yum.

[99th_Monkey]

92. haa-haa.

I was going to spell check it, but decided I liked the "gut" part.

Glad you got a kick out of it, tho I suspect you liked it because
it provided a good distraction from my question.

[Doctor_J]

155. do any of this poster's?

[Comrade Grumpy]

86. So much fail packed into just two paragraphs. Way to go, Dan!

[Spirochete]

90. Then we'd be voting

for the Leser of two evils again...

[hrmjustin]

91. Love Steve!

[JI7]

98. primary campaigns can get really ugly

It's a good thing that people are able to get over the bitter feelings during those tough times.

I'm not surprised at those who think this is some big thing as many have come of as bitter and resentful for years. Many of them don't really understand politics.

[Live and Learn]

99. Would he and Clinton be able to keep their ever shifting positions in sync? nt

[kath]

115. Hmmm, now that would be quite a trick!

[Unknown Beatle]

101. Silly rabbit...

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” ― Theodore Roosevelt

Barack (TPP) Obama and Hillary (I was for the TPP before I was against it) Clinton are anything but progressive.

[Exilednight]

102. He's too busy cashing his checks from his Fux News appearances. Why would he give up

A cushy gig tearing down progressives like Bernie Samders on a right-wing news channel where Roger Ailes is happy too write him a check to do his dirty work of looking " fair and balanced"?

[WI_DEM]

103. I don't think many people on 'DU' hate President Obama

I don't even think a majority hate Hillary Clinton.

[senz]

109. I don't think Trump would have him. Rubio might, though.

Wouldn't hurt that he works for Faux News, either.

Go for it, Steve!

[Puzzledtraveller]

117. I like Steve just fine

have no idea how you conclude that being at odds with someones positions equates to not liking someone.

[Jamaal510]

118. Absolutely.

If there's one DUer I respect, it's Steve. He's one of the most well-spoken posters and is always armed with facts going into the gunfights both on here and at FOX. I also enjoyed listening to his weekly show.

[DanTex]

139. I agree. Go Steve. And I applaud him for being a serious national journalist and also

posting on DU under his real name. He is a true asset to DU.

[pangaia]

127. Feel better now?

[Agnosticsherbet]

134. Are you talking about Fox's pivot man and foil who

There to balance out everyone else at Fox?

[DanTex]

141. I think you mean Dennis Kucinich a.k.a. the last Bernie Sanders.

[Agnosticsherbet]

150. Kucinich I know. Terrible candidate.

Leser, don't know him.

[Autumn]

142. Steve Leser is a teller of truth.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080320_hillary_clinton_s_re.htm

In fact, the documents released today show a meeting that Hillary chaired at the White House on November 10, 1993 where she promoted the passage of NAFTA to 120 people. Reports are coming out in every news agency pointing out the contradictions between her stated positions since announcing her bid for the Presidency and everything before that.

One of the things you would expect of someone who really has good experience and judgment is that they can articulate a basic set of principles and positions on issues that they can run on and defend and that stay relatively static. I'm not saying you have to stick to them in the face of overwhelming evidence that one of your positions has been proven to be wrong, like George W. Bush does, even someone who has good experience and judgment occasionally changes their mind. That is not what we have with Hillary. Hillary gives a different opinion on the same subjects every couple of weeks depending on her audience and what she thinks it will net her. As evidence of this is now coming out and is going to be presented to the American people in the starkest terms, how can one be expected to trust her to do anything that she says she is going to do? How can one really know what she believes or intends to do about anything? The only things Hillary's experience seems to be good for is perfecting how to talk out of both sides of her mouth, engaging in the politics of personal destruction and other aspects of her ruthless pursuit of power that remind one of what a Karl Rove might do. That kind of person ought not to be the Democratic nominee.

[Exilednight]

147. He is going to have a hard time squaring that circle. They'll only people

who will be convinced are the same ones who believe in astrology and alchemy.

[treestar]

149. LOL I like your reasoning!

Steve Leser for VP!

[Doctor_J]

153. I think the republicans would have fun with that. he's already written their ads for them

But this post isn't any dumber than your others

[MannyGoldstein]

156. First-Way Steve? Or Third-Way Steve?

Or both could run on different tickets?

[pinebox]

167. I tweeted him & linked him to the thread here

Just so you know.
We follow one another on twitter XD Maybe he'll check in?

[RBInMaine]

168. Ridiculous. He's unknown and unqualified.

[stevenleser]

172. I will accept any position to which Democratic nominee Clinton or President Clinton calls on me

to serve.