Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:49 AM
Number of posts: 36,292
Number of posts: 36,292
The following has also been posted in the Helping Bernie Sanders Win forum of JackpineRadicals, under the title, Please thank Rachel Maddow for speaking truth literally to power.
The Clinton campaign and supporters of Clinton have, almost from the beginning, been running, not only against Senator Sanders' but against supporters of Senator Sanders. The attacks on supporters of Bernie keep escalating and, now, Bill and Hillary have begun attacking themselves, and not only through surrogates and stories planted with media.
AFAIK, running against the supporters of a candidate, especially a candidate of one's own party, is unprecedented in US Presidential politics. (Disclaimer: I have not been following politics closely for very long.)
Tonight, Ms. Rachel Maddow interviewed Secretary Hillary Clinton, who was going on about how the supporters of US Senator Bernie's Sanders are so bad to supporters of Hillary online. Maddow also played a clip in which Bubba was shocked, shocked, by profanity allegedly used by Bernie's supporters.
At the end of the rants of both Clintons about Bernie's supporters, Maddow said calmly that her mail is divided about 50-50 between people who think she it totally in the tank for Hillary and people who think she is totally in the tank for Bernie. Maddow further said that she sees absolutely no difference in the comments she gets from Hillary's supporters and the comments she gets from Bernie's supporters. This happened minutes ago on MSNBC.
Although I have become unenamored of Ms. Maddow since she and her fellow MSNBC anchors crossed a picket line, I really appreciated her saying that. She did not have to, but she did, and right to Hillary's face on national television. So, thank you very much, Ms. Rachel Maddow.
It would be very good, I think, if Bernie's supporters, at least, gave Maddow a shout out for truth telling. Tweet, facebook, email, post, snail mail, whatever.
Posted by merrily | Mon Feb 8, 2016, 09:39 PM (23 replies)
That is the full genealogy chart. I've read that before Nixon was Truman, but I have not researched across that yet.
Posted by merrily | Sat Feb 6, 2016, 02:54 AM (0 replies)
They have nothing to do with Sanders and centrist Clinton.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778873 (What About Mondale, Indeed: 1976 to 1980)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778872 (What About Mondale, Indeed: Candidate Reagan)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12779277 (What About Mondale, Indeed: Walter Mondale)
And Mondale never promised his tax increase would lower the taxpayer's over all costs. That is what Sanders is promising.
And, before you wave McGovern around: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778825 (This ain't 1972) Be sure to read the replies.
Obama raised taxes to pay for health care and to address some of the Bush tax cuts. Worked fine for him. He got re-elected. Obama 2009 is far more comparable to what Sanders is saying in 2016 than Carter Mondale in 1976-1984.
It's past time to give a rest to the center right memes about McGovern's loss, Kennedy's primary challenge to Carter, and Mondale loss to Reagan.
They are simplistic, played out, false, and self-serving centrist propaganda.
Besides, facts beat center right spin and memes about past elections every time.
Then again, as Colbert's character was so fond of saying, "Facts have a liberal bias."
And, btw, tone deaf, ever-evolving hundreds millionaire Romney lost.
Posted by merrily | Fri Feb 5, 2016, 08:24 PM (0 replies)
Contributions to Political Campaigns
If legislators are really opposed to Citizens United or corporate donations, why is the limit for individual donations so low?
Just as examples, Hillary and Bernie both announced formally about seven months ago and primary season still has several months to go. You don't have to be a billionaire to donate $300 a month throughout primary season, if it means a lot to you, either from income or savings. That would put you over the limit of $2700 per candidate per election.
Why is the political contribution limit for humans only $2,700 per candidate per election, especially since we profess to hate Citizens United so much?
If our votes are so important, why can't we get at least three hours off from work to vote, if we provide proof of having voted? For example, a man who works in my building has two full time jobs, from 7 am to 3 pm in my building and from 3 pm to 11 pm in a building nearby (both buildings managed by the same company, so they cut him a little slack running from one building to the other around 3 pm). His commute to Boston is about 40 minutes. There is no way he can vote where he lives without taking off from work. Also, until this year, the very blue town of Boston had only day on which people could vote, which was a Tuesday, a work day for him.
The same people who beg us to GOTV for them every two to four years never passed laws enabling this hard-working man to get to the polls. Why?
What are our real priorities? Should we be pushing for change in these two areas that are so pivotal and foundational to our system?
Posted by merrily | Thu Feb 4, 2016, 09:40 PM (2 replies)
1. Thanks to United States Senator Bernie Sanders, Americans learned that a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States can run a campaign solely on contributions from individuals, to a maximum of $2,700 per individual, without donations from PACs and corporations or so-called "dark money." In your face, Citizens' United!
2. Thanks to donors of Senator Sanders, we learned that small donors to a political campaign can provide at least a million dollars in ninety minutes, at least three million dollars in twenty-four hours, at least twenty million dollars in one month and at least 3.5 million individual donations in seven months. In your face, Citizens' United!
3. The only two candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination are vying to be the more progressive--and one of them is DLC founding member, Secretary Hillary Clinton!
4. The only two candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination are promising help for students seeking formal education beyond high school--and one of them is DLC founding member, Secretary Clinton!
5. Neither candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination is mentioning cutting "entitlements"--and one of them is DLC founding member, Secretary Clinton!
6. A candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination cancelled a fund-raising trip to Bain Capitol this week, ahead of the New Hampshire primary--and that candidate is DLC founding member, Secretary Clinton!
7. Instead of running from terms like "left" and "liberal," down ticket federal candidates and state candidates are now bragging about challenging incumbents from the left, not taking campaign contributions from corporations, etc.
That is an impressive list of sea changes (so far) for only one Presidential run, especially given an uphill battle against the DNC, almost all of the Democratic Party, the msm and big money donors.
THANK YOU, Senator Sanders.
As for the no good, no account supporters of Senator Sanders, every dollar and every hour you have spent so far has changed United States Presidential politics and the story of the modern Democratic Party going forward for some time to come.
THANK YOU, supporters of Senator Sanders.
You/We are not finished, so PLEASE do not stop now, but double down.
And now, because you've been so very very good and sea change-y:
Posted by merrily | Thu Feb 4, 2016, 09:53 AM (15 replies)
September 10, 2015 news story out of Ohio about a talk she gave in Ohio at a Women for Hillary event in Ohio:
You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center. I plead guilty.
October 13, 2015 news story about the Democratic debate:
Cooper asked Clinton if she changed her political stance based on who she was talking to and mentioned a comment that she made last month in New Hampshire in which she said that she pleaded "guilty" to "being kind of moderate and center."
I'm a progressive, who likes to gets things done.
February 1, 2016 news story about Hillary's self-declared victory speech during the Iowa caucuses
As the Iowa caucuses were winding down, Hillary described herself as a progressive and a change agent.
I am a progressive who get things done for people. I am honored to stand in the long line of American reformers who make up our minds that the status quo is not good enough, that standing still is not an option, and that brings people together to find ways forward that will improve the lives of Americans.
Except when she announces that she is a proud moderate, and then I guess she is not a progressive.
Hillary described Sanders' comment as a low blow!
Posted by merrily | Wed Feb 3, 2016, 06:42 PM (141 replies)
And what was up with the 90 precincts? http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511117888
FYI: In Sanders shoes, I would never have trusted the Democratic Party with the counting after the way the DNC has been behaving, but that's me.
Posted by merrily | Tue Feb 2, 2016, 05:49 AM (54 replies)
I've never seen supporters of any political candidate attacked like this in my life. It's bizarre and it reeks, like any dishonest tactic.
The effort to discredit Bernie's supporters began early. It was blatant, bold and ugly and it has escalated since. It seems quite concerted and highly fishy. I am not buying it. I recommend that no one else buy it either.
From what I've seen from Hillary supporters here, at some other sites formed by people here, on social media, I am not buying it.
Here, we've been being told how awful we are if we so much as post a news story that Hillary likely would rather had not been written. The same thing happens if we dare defend Bernie from some scurrilous attack. Those are not awful things to do on a political message board. Those are standard operating procedure for a political message board. In fact, if you really want to see some low attacks, look at (1) what they've posted about Bernie and us here and elsewhere on the net and (2) what some of them posted here about Hillary eight years ago.
As far as other venues, some months I praised a politician on facebook. I included a single brief, polite sentence expressing regret that he or she had endorsed Hillary, rather than Bernie because I thought Bernie was the better candidate for a majority of people. The vile attacks I got from Hillary supporters in response were unreal--maybe literally. All nasty ad homs--and these people had no idea who I was. I didn't bother to respond. But I was the bad one? Posters, please.
The idea seems to be to make being a Bernie supporter something to be ashamed of, something no one wants to be, something we are ashamed to talk about to others. And of course the people we want to talk to about Bernie are not going to want to hear from us if they've heard this nonsense about us. So, it could interfere with the ground game.
As far as people in public life, be they politicians, television commentators, celebrities, or whatever give me a damn break. They've been getting criticism and complaints from all kinds of people all the time. It goes with putting yourself out in public, whether you're Justin Beiber or Miley Cyrus, or Klein or Krugman. It's part of being a public figure.
Those people put up with criticism (and praise) from the public because they like the fame, money and other perqs that come with being a public figure. But, now, we're going to pretend that Bernie supporters are so much worse than the rest of the population that has been criticizing them all along? Please. Moreover, given how media, pundits, etc. have treated Bernie since he announced, why are they surprised they're getting complaints from his supporters? Rather than do a more fair job, they attack us for pointing out they are being unfair? Please.
And, of course, pushing back against it is a Catch 22 of the kind I see on this board almost daily. Someone claims you're vile in some way other. If you ignore the comment, they post you're showing it must be true. If you disagree, they also post you are showing it must be true. Well, fsck Catch 22.
I am calling bs on this nonsense. It's concerted. It's unprecedented. It's bizarre. It's dishonest. It's fake. Whether it's here or elsewhere on the net or in real life, don't let the trolling get to you or bait you. However, don't get silenced, shamed or discouraged, either. You chose a good candidate for the right reasons. Hold your head up high and keep working for Bernie, the best and most honorable candidate to run in decades.
Posted by merrily | Sat Jan 30, 2016, 04:01 AM (111 replies)
During the 2008 primary, it was that Obama might be a Muslim--and an African Muslim at that.
Failing that, Obama was most definitely (sarcasm) the acolyte (figuratively) of Black Liberation theologist Jeremiah Wright, who was portrayed as hating America.
Oh, and, btw, have you noticed Obama is not white? And hates the bible and guns?
Really, my fellow Ammurricans, he's nothing like you and me, nothing to which us WASPs can relate.
Another primary, another batch of scurrilous attacks.
Democratic primary voters, don't be fooled by that WASP sounding surname and his perfectly Anglo Saxon features (sarcasm): Bernie is (whispering) a Jew.
Yes, dear readers, a man whose family members died in the Holocaust has to face anti-Semitism as he runs for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.
And, oh, gee, is he really, truly completely sure he isn't a citizen of Israel? It was, after all, posted on somewhere on the Internet, yet the so and so denies it! Typical!
And now, my dear fellow Democrats, a man who said that he believes in God is being falsely portrayed as an atheist because polling indicates that a number of Americans do not want an atheist as President and his belief in God does not match the concept of God in the Middle Ages. Oh, and his concept of religion is not one that several dictionaries label archaic.
News flash: many Americans don't want to see Hillary Clinton as President, and for reasons that are considerably less slimy than her genetic make up.
*ETA: For the easily confused: Including Senator Sanders' name in the subject line indicates that this post is about him, not that he is the author of this post or anything said in this post. That would be me and only me. I hope that clears it up.
Posted by merrily | Thu Jan 28, 2016, 09:20 PM (134 replies)
they are proliferating. Hillary's surrogates have been on TV with this stuff
Having religion = being religious
Some definitions of religion:
re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj′ən) n.
Posted by merrily | Thu Jan 28, 2016, 08:57 AM (1 replies)