Maddow (aka Mrs. Selective Outrage) is a LIAR

[Skwmom]

She said that Bernie is such a politician. That he has changed his strategy, showing the clip from the last town hall where he talked about where he disagreed with Obama (e.g., TPP) and he did not need to make that any part of his answer. Though I'm not sure if they showed everything he listed (e.g., Bernie disagreeing w/tax cuts for the wealthy) OR where he gave Obama CREDIT (but hey this definitely doesn't fit into what she's selling). She also showed a clip of how Bernie said Clinton is hugging Obama tight (she is but has she criticized Obama in the past and will she in the future - bet money on it).

Well Mrs. Selective Outrage, when Bernie came out from his visit to the Whitehouse he spoke about Obama, giving him and Biden CREDIT for what they had done but saying they did have disagreements (e.g., trade and tax). Plus, he has hardly just decided to be against the TPP or against tax cuts for the wealthy.

What's become clear is there is no amount of water you won't carry for camp Clinton.

A man like Bernie must really bother a sell out like you.

[cantbeserious]

1. We Us Together - Vs - No Can't And Impossible -- The Choice Is Clear

eom

[Chico Man]

102. All those that abandoned Obama for failing to magically implement their policy wishes

Will be in for a disappointment of a much greater scale if they actually believe free tuition, single payer, and other rainbows and unicorns are coming their way....

By the way, free tuition is a reality already for many today. FWIW, I just finished paying my student loan and no, I don't feel victimized.

[GoneFishin]

121. No magic involved. We wanted to see him actually try, not shrug his shoulders and draw lines in

the dirt with the points of his shoes. We know he can fight if he wants to, because he rammed that piece of shit TPP down the throats of American workers and will throw millions of them out of work. He fought like hell to send American manufacturing jobs overseas and give big corporations veto authority over our legislative process.

But he gave away the public option and used Pelosi as a mouth piece to announce that it was off the table. He never wanted it, never intended to fight for it, and it showed.

All we want is for Bernie to try sincerely and vigorously, and he will. Freebie give-aways for billionaires and lame-ass lip service and excuses for average Americans won't fly anymore.

[SammyWinstonJack]

123. +1000000

[TIME TO PANIC]

134. Thank You!

Couldn't have said it better.

[Chico Man]

135. To think Obama hasn't tried..

That's really completely outrageous.

I don't pretend to understand what is going on behind closed doors when global economic decisions are being made. I do trust Obama has the best interest of the United States in his mind.

To pretend Obama is actively scheming against the American worker is utterly disingenuous and frankly paranoid.

[cleopotrick]

141. Feel you. But he was somewhat disingenuous on climate change.. allowing SoS HRC to push fracking

globally. & it's not paranoia to state that his "all of the above" energy policy served to set us back by decades

[geek tragedy]

150. what a bizarre understanding of President Obama's tenure in office

the public option was killed in the Senate. It needed 60 votes. Those votes were not there.

You also ignore the fact that he fought very hard for the rest of the ACA (Medicaid expansion, etc), the Iran nuclear deal, Dodd-Frank, the nuclear treaty with Russia, ..

[TIME TO PANIC]

127. Yes, many of us were naive to think Obama wasn't a corporatist.

None of us believe Sanders will get those policies implemented over night, but we need the fight to start NOW!

[Chico Man]

132. The real work is at the state and local level

We are losing badly to our true enemy, the republicans, on that front.

It is naive to think that presidential election can have such a monumental impact.

Bernie is being setup for a massive failure that could put the Republican's current national standing to shame.

[AlbertCat]

152. It is naive to think that presidential election can have such a monumental impact.

Dubya's had a monumental impact.

[TIME TO PANIC]

159. I agree and disagree.

Real change definitely starts at the local level.

Presidential elections CAN have a monumental impact. Lincoln, FDR, and even Reagan (although negative) were very consequential. We need a progressive voice in the White House to deprogram the brain washed masses, who have bought into the notion that incremental change is all we can hope for.

No republican stands a chance against Sanders and all the polls show it.

[CorporatistNation]

192. The Difference Between BO And Bernie Is That Bernie Actually Means What He Says...

BO... not/NEVER so much!

[Chico Man]

193. How did you feel about BO in 2008?

Do you remember?

[AlbertCat]

148. free tuition, single payer, and other rainbows and unicorns are coming their way....

Since every other civilized nation on the planet has some form of free tuition and single payer, why can't we?

Because of defeatists and that weird Conservative notion that everybody can do what they did. That their anecdotal evidence is somehow valid.

[Chico Man]

164. We do

Scholarships exist - both need and merit based. You can also join the military (not that that is advised, but it is a form of free tuition from the federal govt).

My company pays certain employees masters' degrees tuition. Not because they are privileged, but because they have gone above and beyond the normal call of duty..

Many countries' tuition programs funnel students into specific programs based on their perceived strengths (via standardized testing) - not their desires, and will only pay for degrees they approve.

The devil is always in the details.

[AlbertCat]

165. We do

Good.... then we can extend it for everyone.



(Jesus, you're disingenuous.... and ridiculous.)

[anotherproletariat]

206. This is the truth. Nothing in the world is free...

...and anyone who promises such should be looked at with caution. My family can afford to pay for college, and it would not feel right for people in our position to be receiving free tuition. A more realistic approach would be to supplement the financial aid programs that already exist, so that all kids who are eligible for college can afford to attend.

[DRI]

104. The Democratic Party wants Hillary.

The establishment of the Democratic Party, the big business, hedge fund interests, union leadership, and those in leadership positions tied to the party bureaucracy want Hillary. Those of us who want a progressive direction for the country and want to open up the process to help everyone want Bernie. All we have are our voices, feet and small donations. They have the party apparatus, money, and most media.

We have to keep fighting until the old order is overturned.

[Chico Man]

112. How?

Maybe Bernie will threaten to shut down the government if he doesn't get his way?

All this Bernie energy would be much better spent at the state and local level. We are still getting buried by the republicans there - because we get all energized by the populist flavor of the year. Real change happens beyond the spotlight of the presidential election cycle.

[SCantiGOP]

137. This place reminds me of 1960s China

During the Cultural Revolution. People calling out their neighbors for not being philosophically pure and 100% dedicated to the revolution.
Rachel Maddow is now a sell-out and a puppet of her corporate masters? Really? That is how far over the edge this movement has gone?

[boston bean]

2. It's a conspiracy! I can't tell you the amount of people involved in this... you just

wouldn't believe it! But it's true! Really it is true!

What's true, you ask??

THE CONSPIRACY against Bernie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Skwmom]

4. The corporations own the media and the hacks dance to their tune to keep their jobs. Why do you

think they fired Ed Schultz? To send a message to get in line or you would be fired next. Chris Matthews was practically have a fit trying to support Clinton shortly thereafter.

[Bangbangdem]

19. So murky

It pains me when she does this. I can sense the good in her. I forgot that I had to swear off Maddow in election years. Such a drag.

[jpb33]

68. Of course

Rachel Maddow is about Rachel Maddow. Her career comes 1st then issues come a distant 2nd. Just like when Olbermann got fired she did not stand up for him even though he is the reason why she has a show on MSNBC. She did not have the guts to speak up and say what the network did to Olbermann, Schultz, or Cenk Uygur was wrong.

She always claims she is a big liberal, but Sander's who is a liberals idea of a dream candidate, she does not have the guts to stand up for him when he is getting attacked with pure lies by the MSM. She could of done a piece about the Bernie photo, telling the truth but she has done nothing. She gets her millions every year and that is all she cares about.

Just like when Occupy WS was going on. She went down there spoke for a few minutes and left. Why did she not stay and have the courage of her convictions tested? Because she only speaks up when there is nothing at risk to her personally.

[brush]

142. Sorry to say her hole card was peeped when she stay on at MSNBC . . .

when they ditched most of the progressive anchors and went Trump 24/7.

A real progressive with those kind of credentials and resume would have left and easily landed on her feet somewhere else.

Guess lifestyle is more important.

[72DejaVu]

59. Because nobody watched his show?

[SCantiGOP]

107. And he was boring?

Even to a liberal like me?

[oasis]

124. You got that right. It was hard to watch.

Schultz had the fire in his belly, but as productions go, his show lacked pizzazz.

[TheBlackAdder]

69. There are a shitload of Neville Chamberlains in this world.

.



My mother would tell me of all the people protesting about not getting into WWII to help Europe.

Then, on December 7th, she said they all disappeared!



Hopefully, those who appease the current corporate oligarchic structure will awaken before it's too late.

But, I feel many won't because they themselves are plugged into the system.



.

[zeemike]

89. Exactly right.

And Ed is not the only one they ditched because they would not play ball.
And the big money they are paid is the handcuff they wear...they don't want to lose it and don't have the courage to chance losing it.

[appalachiablue]

128. Exactly, and handcuff is the word for it. That juicy corp. media salary

in the millions is hard to beat, even for a Stanford, Rhodes scholar it seems.

[cannabis_flower]

108. And Keith Olbermann!

[redstateblues]

109. Ed was a one note Johnny. Good guy. Boring TV show

The truth is that the media loves a horse race. They don't care who wins. It's been All Bernie for the last few months

[Chasstev365]

30. Mock Away,but....

Last edited Sat Feb 20, 2016, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)

because Bernie Sanders is not wholly owned by the Republican Lite, corporate-wing of the Democratic Party, there are many who are threatened by his popularity and so they need to smear him.

The latest illustration of this can be seen when a self-proclaimed suburban "Goldwater Girl" in 1963 can have her surrogates insinuate that Bernie Sanders was not really a Civil Rights Activists even when photos shown him being arrested, and therefore blacks should support her. So much like the swift-boating of a war hero in John Kerry by a spoiled, daddy protected, champagne unit, AWOL loser in George W. Bush. If the media would do their fucking jobs, these bull shit stories would never be allowed to fly in the first place, but yes; THEY ARE ON BOARD FOR HILLARY BEING THE NOMINEE SO SHE CAN LOSE TO THE REPUBLICAN IN NOVEMBER!

[SusanCalvin]

57. Well, against anyone who threatens to rock the corporate boat, yes.

You think organizations that big and powerful don't try very hard to protect themselves?

[RoccoR5955]

66. Glad to see

that you are admitting it. So there actually IS a conspiracy against Bernie. All the more reason to vote for him!

[Ed Suspicious]

87. Might be.

[lark]

100. It's called politics and it happens all the time.

Hello, didn't anyone notice that he's running against an institution in Democratic politics? Did anyone think that Clinton would roll over, that she wouldn't fight this as hard as humanly possible, bringing in every gunner she could find to attack Bernie? It's not a conspiracy, it's just plain old American bare knuckled politics. I love Bernie, but I certainly always expected that he would get shredded through this process, or at least that's what his opponents would try to do. This is nothing compared to what the Repugs would level against him if we are so lucky to have him as the general candidate. Communism, red scare, Russia, China, Europe (oh my) will be much of what we hear, and who knows what other total lies they will bring to bear, but we know it will be something and something really fierce.

Politics is a sickening blood sport in this country.

[AlbertCat]

160. This is nothing compared to what the Repugs would level against him

So?

It is just politics.... and Obama over came it. So did Bill Clinton.

[islandmkl]

219. don't forget that Bill didn't have to get the most votes as in 50+%...

just the most votes...thanks, Ross Perot!

[Logical]

118. You sound more and more desperate every day. I love it!!! nt

[GoneFishin]

125. The gravy train is long and meandering. But all the riders are making money and don't want it to

stop.

[JohnnyRingo]

143. Such is life in the Bernie Bubble

As they strike off pundit after pundit and pol after pol as being sell outs and corporate plants, they retreat further into a world where Bernie is unassailable and universally loved. A private universe where Sanders sits high atop every poll and cannot possibly fail.

In the eventuality that Clinton wins, they'll call a conspiracy that stole the election because no one they talked to supported her. That's when some questionable posters here will suggest democrats stay home in November to protest.

[Bobbie Jo]

166. Your post was alerted.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Sat Feb 20, 2016, 10:33 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

It's a conspiracy! I can't tell you the amount of people involved in this... you just
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1281068

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Ignorant, rude and over the top mockery.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Feb 20, 2016, 10:45 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is annoying but it is just noise from a very partisan poster
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ridiculous alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Obvious alert stalking is obvious.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Inability to detect sarcasm without the emoticon and the subsequent unfounded offense taken, seemingly on behalf of a third party is not grounds for an alert.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Obviously sarcastic but hardly over the top.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: LOL. Seriously???

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

yeah.

[ChiciB1]

184. I've KNOWN It For A Very, Very Long Time... I Even Said Quite

some time ago that RACHEL MADDOW was a Hillary supporter and everyone thought I was nuts!

So, I feel those of us who support Bernie are fighting for MUCH MORE than just Wall Street, Corporatists, Politicians, the usable bunch... BUT ADD MSM!

Lots and lots of mountains and it MAKES ME want to retch! How have "we the people" LET THEM do this to us?? They lie, cheat and pull dirty tricks and hide the evidence, we KNOW THIS and yet people still WANT THEIR sparkly blinders!

The mere fact that he's this close is nothing less than a miracle! It's us against ALL THE REST!

[MaeScott]

3. We really are an oligarchy. Bought and sold....

Big money corrupts absolutely

[Akamai]

16. Listen to President Jimmy Carter agree with you!

This is from a June 28, 2015 radio interview with Thom Hartmann.


https://m.

[kristopher]

31. Backed up by empirical data

APRIL 18, 2014
Is America an Oligarchy?
BY JOHN CASSIDY
From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy

You can read the original study from the Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics" at the link below.

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page

ABSTRACT
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

Take a look at the last paragraph of their findings:

... our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a wide-spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

[Akamai]

153. Thom Hartmann has been discussing this research for well over

six months. Maddening.

Go Bernie!!!

[corkhead]

50. I heard that live. It blew me away. I never imagined I would hear words of truth like that

coming from a former President.

[monmouth4]

5. Rachel has a mortgage and other bills, the boss speaks you do whatever..n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Meh, I'd say Rachel has 15, 20 million bucks and thus any financial pressure she feels is imaginary.

nt

[Nyan]

74. I say it's not a pressure, but she likes the way things are.

Toe the line, Keep earning millions of dollars, stay on MSNBC vs Do not toe the line, get canned (like Ed Schultz, Cenk Uygur, Phil Donahue)

She has seen those guys come and go and knows for what reason they were canned. She knows what to say and what not to say. It looks to me like she'd like to stay on national TV than go on the internet.

[restorefreedom]

76. sadly, that about sums it up. nt

[Skwmom]

106. Exactly. I think she craves being close to power. n/t

[snagglepuss]

146. Yes and it's very heady to be in a clique, especially one with some of the most powerful

powerful people on this planet. And as with any clique, the Us versus Them mindset colors everything.

[Tab]

6. I don't mind her opinion

and she's sometime's right, but she always sounds like she's yelling at me. Opinion or not, I just have trouble watching her. I don't like my news to be yelling at me.

[BigBearJohn]

7. I agree with you 100% I feel like I am being scolded.

[Tab]

11. Yes, that's the exact term

Jon Stewart could pull off cricitism without me feeling scolded, but that's exactly what I feel with Rachel. It's very off-putting.

[MissDeeds]

41. That's how I feel

She's yelling and lecturing her viewers. I can't watch her anymore either.

[Nonhlanhla]

8. It's funny how EVERYONE else is now a liar.

So many progressive icons, now all liars, together under the bus...

Has it ever occurred to Bernie supporters that if you have to argue that progressive icons like Lewis, Maddow, Krugman et al, are all liars, sell-outs, whatever, that maybe, just maybe, the problem does not lie with them?

How can you have a progressive revolution if you throw most of the progressives in the country under the bus?

Or is your revolution going to depend on cooperation with Trump supporters?

[mhatrw]

12. Not liars. Just water carriers for those who butter their bread. nt

[Nonhlanhla]

18. Sell outs then.

Got it.

[kristopher]

34. Why do you think the people are - and this is fact - powerless?

Please explain how this state of policy-making is preserved in an open democracy?

Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page

ABSTRACTEach of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

The last paragraph of their findings:

...our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a wide-spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

[Nonhlanhla]

44. So there is undue influence of money

because of people like Maddow, Lewis, or Krugman.

Oh dear...

[kristopher]

64. They are playing a part.

And since you obviously have no substance behind your denial, the weight of your snide opinion is, to say the least, minimal.

Now about Paul Krugman

Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs
The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712
February 18, 2016

To:
The Honorable Alan Krueger
The Honorable Austan Goolbee
The Honorable Christina Romer
The Honorable Laura D'Andrea Tyson

Dear Alan, Austan, Christina and Laura,

I was highly interested to see your letter of yesterday's date to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman. I respond here as a former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee – the congressional counterpart to the CEA.

You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans. On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman's study. I found nothing there.

You go on to state that Professor Friedman makes “extreme claims” that “cannot be supported by the economic evidence.” You object to the projection of “huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.”

Matthew Yglesias makes an important point about your letter:

“It's noteworthy that the former CEA chairs criticizing Friedman didn't bother to run through a detailed explanation of their problems with the paper. To them, the 5.3 percent figure was simply absurd on its face, and it was good enough for them to say so, relying on their authority to generate media coverage.”

So, let's first ask whether an economic growth rate, as projected, of 5.3 percent per year is, as you claim, “grandiose.” There are not many ambitious experiments in economic policy with which to compare it, so let's go back to the Reagan years. What was the actual average real growth rate in 1983, 1984, and 1985, following the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts in 1981? Just under 5.4 percent. That's a point of history, like it or not.

You write that “no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes.” But how did Professor Friedman make his estimates? The answer is in his paper. What Professor Friedman did, was to use the standard impact assumptions and forecasting methods of the mainstream economists and institutions. For example, Professor Friedman starts with a fiscal multiplier of 1.25, and shades it down to the range of 0.8 by the mid 2020s. Is this “not credible”? If that's your claim, it's an indictment of the methods of (for instance) the CBO, the OMB, and the CEA.

To be sure, skepticism about standard forecasting methods is perfectly reasonable. I'm a skeptic myself. My 2014 book The End of Normal is all about problems with mainstream forecasting.

In the specific case of this paper, one can quibble with the out-year multipliers, or with the productivity assumptions, or with the presumed impact of a higher minimum wage. One can invoke the trade deficit or the exchange rate. Professor Friedman makes all of these points himself. But those issues are well within mainstream norms.

There is no “magic asterisk,” no strange theory involved here. And the main effect of adjusting the assumptions, which would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, would be to curtail the growth rate after a few years – not at the beginning, when it would matter most.

It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman's methods are extreme. On the contrary, with respect to forecasting method, they are largely mainstream. Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman's paper a rigorous review. You have not.

What you have done, is to light a fire under Paul Krugman, who is now using his high perch to airily dismiss the Friedman paper as “nonsense.” Paul is an immensely powerful figure, and many people rely on him for careful assessments. It seems clear that he has made no such assessment in this case.

Instead, Paul relies on you to impugn an economist with far less reach, whose work is far more careful, in point of fact, than your casual dismissal of it. He and you also imply that Professor Friedman did his work for an unprofessional motive. But let me point out, in case you missed it, that Professor Friedman is a political supporter of Secretary Clinton. His motives are, on the face of it, not political. (Emphasis added - K)

For the record, in case you're curious, I'm not tied to Professor Friedman in any way. But the powerful – such as Paul and yourselves – should be careful where you step.

Let's turn, finally, to the serious question. What does the Friedman paper really show? The answer is quite simple, and the exercise is – while not perfect – almost entirely ordinary.

What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders' proposals stems from their scale and ambition. When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result.

That, by the way, is the lesson of the Reagan era – like it or not. It is a lesson that, among today's political leaders, only Senator Sanders has learned.

Yours, (Jamie)
James K. Galbraith
Executive Director, Joint Economic Committee, 1981-2

Integrity - what a concept, eh?

[immoderate]

191. To this, add the notion that all presidents since late 70s have been Reaganites.

Supply-siders, to which Hillary would be glad to join. This stuff is economically and ecologically, wildly unsustainable.

--imm

[onecaliberal]

204. Money = political influence and power. No money = no influence and no power.

If you have no influence and no power and your voice is never heard by your reps in my book is taxation without representation. We the people are done with that crap.

[kristopher]

207. I think a lot of people think that being a citizen means more than indentured servitude. nt

[onecaliberal]

210. It damn well should be

[Fearless]

28. The poutrage is strong in this one.

[Nonhlanhla]

43. Yes, I'm pouting while I write

Women can't be outraged. We can only pout. So we can only be poutraged, or have poutrage. It's poutrageous.

To pout: "push one's lips or one's bottom lip forward as an expression of petulant annoyance or in order to make oneself look sexually attractive."

[ms liberty]

79. Maybe the commenter did not know you are a woman?

Your profile doesn't say, and you didn't denote yourself as a woman in the post. You do realize that word has been used here for many years, by and to members of both sexes? Not every comment boils down to a sexist/not sexist POV, and when you look at it as if it does, you trivialize the real issues of sexism women face every day.

[Nonhlanhla]

99. Indeed

But I was having a bit of fun with the OP's silly response.

[ms liberty]

175. So you knowingly and deliberately trivialized sexism

Just for fun? That leaves me completely unimpressed with your maturity, intelligence, and any commitment to equality for women. But thanks, it's always good when someone identifies themself as all snark and no substance.

[Nonhlanhla]

176. Oh dear

Take a chill pill.

No, not trivializing sexism at all. The term "poutrage" is actually quite annoying, and yes, to me, it DOES have some sexist undertones. Thus the PP's description of my post as "poutrage" did strike me as somewhat sexist. But I did not really get too upset, just annoyed enough at the word to poke a bit of fun with it.

[Snotcicles]

105. +1.nt

[artislife]

163. ^^^This.

[jtuck004]

37. "progressives" - LOL Only one of those ever did much beyond run their mouth. Look

behind their bumper stickers.

Even an "icon" can piss away the trust they've earned over the years, it seems.

[Nonhlanhla]

45. The wheels of the bus go round and round... nt.

[jtuck004]

48. And liars do too. n/t

[peace13]

70. Well being progressive is a rough road for all of us.

I know for myself I will have to dodge sniper fire on the way to the polls. Probably be snipers in the parking lot when I try to get back to my car too.

[cheapdate]

83. After Chris Hayes' show yesterday, add Luis Gutierrez

to the list of liars and sellouts. Once he was one of the most progressive leaders in the House. Now he's a sellout.

</sarcasm off>

[Nyan]

91. This post is about journalists. So I'll ask you these questions.

Why do you think Ed Schultz got fired?
Why do we not see a single host on MSNBC who is openly pro-Bernie?
Go back in time.
Why do you think Cenk Uygur got fired? And why did Phil Donahue get fired?
Why are they either unemployed or on the internet or on non-American news network now? Why is it that their voice were not allowed to be heard on national TV? Why was American public blocked from their views? And what do you think Rachel Maddow has learned while she has watched her colleagues get canned for not knowing what to say and what not to say?

If you think those "progressive" journalists you see on TV have unfettered freedom of speech, I'm afraid you're mistaken.
And on another note, we have our own mind, and we should be able to think for ourselves rather than relying on "progressive icons" to tell us what to think. I can and will question anyone who doesn't tell the truth, or only tells half-truth.

[Nonhlanhla]

103. I don't really give a damn about the MSM

I do know that Rachel Maddow has long been a voice of reason and progressive values in the MSM, and has been regarded as such here on DU as well.

I do know that Paul Krugman has long been seen as one for he most respected and progressive public intellectual in this country, and has been regarded as such here on DU.

I do know that John Lewis is an icon of the Civil Rights movement and has long ben considered a revered figure here at DU.

I also know that since Bernie entered the presidential race and suddenly joined the Democratic Party after decades of criticizing it, all these people have been thrown under the bus here on DU, described as liars, sell-outs, etc. for the simple sin of not fawning over Bernie.

A revolution that discards most of the nation's progressives and brags about cozying up to Trump supporters, is a revolution I, for one, distrust.

[Nyan]

129. So that's your answer to questions that I laid out? "I don't give a damn" about it?

Just like many Hillary supporters "don't give a damn" about her ties to Wall Street?

This was the gist of my questions: Why do you think certain people are kept on that network while others are not?
Because those people who got canned? They were the progressive voice that was actually challenging the status quo.
And you do realize people can disagree on Maddow, Krugman, or Lewis, right? IMO, Maddow has never really questioned the status quo. That's why she's still on that network.

[Nonhlanhla]

173. The "it" here is the MSM

There's a reason why it's called the MAINstream media. That is also why I mostly ignore it. Within the MSM, though Rachel Maddow has long been considered a truly thoughtful and progressive voice. I am simply not comfortable to write her off as some stooge because she is not fawning over Bernie.

You folks need to get a bit of perspective. It's quite possible to be progressive and yet not be a Bernie supporter.

[Nyan]

188. Okay...First of all, chill a little bit.

I don't appreciate character assassination about Maddow either. I like her.
What I was trying to say is that I have no illusion about her or any other talking heads. They all toe the line.
And, it's up to each person to decide who's progressive or not. No one is above criticism. I don't have to agree with everything she says. That's all.
And there are millions of Bernie supporters. Just like there are millions of Hillary supporters. Things get very heated here because we tend to be all political junkies. It's best not to generalize one group of people as being or doing XYZ.
Have a good night.

[stevenleser]

194. Shultz' numbers were horrible. I like him but his numbers were really bad.

Not sure about the rest.

It's not easy as a host to get good numbers on national news. Few people are up to it, particularly on the Democratic side.

[bettyellen]

212. Cenk's show was unwatchable.

[LuvLoogie]

110. The Revolution is highly invested in its serendipitous proxy war.

[Snotcicles]

116. We have a disagreement on who is throwing whom under the bus here. nt

[uponit7771]

200. Sanders doesn't even pass thier litmus for a progressive

[Dem2]

211. Well said

It's funny how the left throws all of it's best spokespeople under the bus, then complains that they have no voice.

[mythology]

9. Is there no end to the conspiracies people will invent against Sanders?

Just because Rachel Maddow said something you believe to be unfair to Sanders doesn't make her a liar, a sell out or any other insult you want to hurl at her because you don't actually have a real argument.

I do like how you are so certain that she's carrying water for the Clinton campaign, but admit that you aren't sure what was shown. Apparently it's enough that she's not fawning over Sanders to make it clear to you that she's being a lackey.

[Skwmom]

10. It is not a conspiracy and her represetation is not supported by the FACTS.

I stand by my assertion. She is a sell out pushing Clinton.

[kristopher]

53. Here are some examples.

1) She misrepresented the right wing Beacon poll in Nevada that was the first to show a tie by describing it as a "push poll". She knows polling and she knows, without doubt, that it was not a push poll but was instead based on a much larger sample size than most news polling.
See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1240812

2) Here is a case where she lied using a chart to misrepresent that fact that Hillary's lead over Sanders has steadily decreased over the past year: Clinton ethics claim another victim as Rachel Maddow plays chart game
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511257526

I'll limit the sample size to 3).

Here is Hartmann taking Rachel to task for misrepresenting turnout data in New Hampshire:

Bernie’s 'Political Revolution' Is Actually Happening, Although the Corporate Media Won’t Tell You That
Don't rely on the media to tell you what's going on.

Bernie Sanders has made voter-turnout history, getting about a third more votes than any other primary candidate in the history of New Hampshire primaries, but much of our media is reporting the opposite; that it’s no big deal what he’s accomplishing.

Rachel Maddow rolled out the latest confused bit of reporting on the evening of Friday, February 12th. Whether this ended up on the air as a Maddow-producer “brilliant idea” or was suggested by the Clinton campaign is unknown, but the entire piece was confounding.

Rachel started by saying that the rationale for Bernie’s becoming president and actually getting something done (when Obama had such difficulty) is that Bernie’s mobilizing huge numbers of new and energized voters. She showed a bunch of examples of his talking about his “political revolution” and how he’s bringing new people into politics.

Then she dropped the anvil, as she does so well.

It turns out that fewer people showed up to vote Democratic in New Hampshire and Iowa this year than they did in Obama’s 2008! If that’s the case – and it is – then how could Bernie possibly claim that he’s “energizing” “new” people? He must be running a con on us, or he’s just a deluded old man who dreams of revolution but nobody’s really showing up.

Time to doubt both Bernie and his ideas, right?

After all, as Rachel points out, “40,000 fewer people voted in this year’s New Hampshire Democratic primary than did in 2008,” she said. Adding, for emphasis, the three-word sentence: “Forty thousand less!”

“And it was the same story in Iowa last week,” Rachel continued. “Voter turnout was a record for Republicans in Iowa, but on the Democratic side it was down. Iowa voter turnout on the Democratic side was DOWN from 2008!”

Clearly Bernie’s campaign is running a scam, right? The entire rationale for his candidacy is built on sand. His “revolution” isn’t happening so far, so why might it happen later? Time to doubt that Bernie’s claims of political change are even possible, much less reasonable.

However…

Rachel missed a few facts – something unusual for her usually brilliant political analysis...

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-political-revolution-actually-happening-although-corporate-media-wont-tell-you

Want more? I have recommended a lot of right leaning friends and relatives to Rachel's show with the claim that she is excruciatingly honest. Her betrayal of that standard has really pissed me off and I'm just about ready to sit down and make a project of her duplicitous reporting.

[Merryland]

58. It's pretty disappointing...

but I recall how careful she was NOT to defend Keith Olbermann

[Snotcicles]

126. Randi Rhodes has felt that way about Rachel Maddow since the Air America days.

Just maybe she was onto something. Just a thought.

[stevenleser]

213. And pretty much every word you wrote is correct. Nt

[msanthrope]

13. Damn ......thinking a white, male Senator from a racially homogenous state who voted to protect

gun manufacturers from lawsuits is a politician?

Burn the witch!!!!!!

[paleotn]

32. Iraq War vote, NAFTA, TPP,

...Keystone XL Pipeline, fracking industry, Libya intervention, support for the Honduran coup.

[msanthrope]

33. You forgot Vincent Foster and the Mena airport. nt

[paleotn]

39. Put down the strawman and please respond to the positions I listed.

[msanthrope]

40. Lighten up, Francis. nt

[paleotn]

47. So let me get this straight...

....You bash Bernie on his gun votes, yet completely ignore many of Hillary's rather right wing stances on other important issues? There's a word for that...ummm...let me think.....oh yea, hypocrite. That is unless you actually agree with her on those issues.

[msanthrope]

52. I didn't say if agreed or disagreed. I merely noted that a white, male Senator who voted to

protect gun manufacturers is correctly called a politician.

So is HRC, if that soothes you.

[paleotn]

61. But you critisize Bernie....

...yet gloss over Hillary's dubious stands. That H word is coming to mind again.

And 'm not sure what the white male bit is all about. Are you suggesting only white males are politicians? Are we to hold it against Bernie because he has different equipment than Hillary? Now THAT'S a fantastic reason to vote for Hillary. Do you love you some Maggie Thatcher or Niki Haley as well?

[msanthrope]

72. No......I merely note that Maddow is accurate. He's a politician. nt

[paleotn]

71. In honesty, I got your point from the start....

...I'm just twisting your tail a bit. Tis the season every 4 years or so.

[msanthrope]

73. I know...that's why I went all Sargeant Hulka on you.....nt

[Lucinda]

185. And a member of one of the worlds most exclusive clubs for 25 years

The US Congress

[betsuni]

14. Mrs.?

[FailureToCommunicate]

62. That was my first thought. Pretty sure she's not married, though in a long term relationship.

(I'm ignoring the point of the posting of course)

[randome]

15. You really have to go deeper and deeper to find something to be outraged about, don't you?

Calling someone a liar because her interpretation is different from yours does not give me confidence in the 'revolution'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Thinkingabout]

20. Have you ever heard about him wanting to have Obama primaried?

[Vinca]

22. He said it. He thought it might drag the POTUS back to the left a little.

[A Simple Game]

60. No, why don't you tell us about it? n/t

[Thinkingabout]

80. Better than me telling you I will let Sanders tell you.

[Le Taz Hot]

21. This election season has shown me many things and one of those things

is the so-called Fourth Estate is so deeply compromised, it has become necessary for We the People to be the media. Social Media. And the MSM cannot, in any way, compete. Researching these talking heads' bullshit is thorough and instant.

[NCTraveler]

23. This is unreal.

Anyone or any organization that is progressive and talking about things I care about are under attack by Sanders and his supporters.

Sanders is the only career politician running on the dem side and it's no secret he has changed tactics multiple times. Seattle flat out uprooted his campaign. His policies are poorly put together and don't even come close to adding up. As a good politician, he knows his base.

[Cali_Democrat]

24. Maddow, Krugman, Clyburn, Lewis, Planned Parenthood, and on and on....

Is there anyone left who hasn't been thrown under the bus?

[betsuni]

26. Don't forget The Onion.

[Gothmog]

46. This list is growing

[cheapdate]

77. After Chris Hayes' show yesterday, add Luis Guitierrez.

Yep. He used to one of the most progressive leaders in the House. Now he's a sellout too.

</sarcasm off>

[Duppers]

25. Until recently, I was a big fan. "Sellout" is now..

unfortunately, the fitting term for her.
Cannot watch either Matthews or her.




Btw, Rachel and her partner are not married.

[newfie11]

27. This is why I quit watching her

She either has "been warned" by her owners or she's been hiding this side for years.

MSNBC has cleaned house except for Rachael. I'm done with her.

[randome]

29. Or she has a different opinion than you. I mean that's at least a possibility, right?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[stevenleser]

215. Not for them. They need a conspiracy because they want to save face and they want to create

a narrative where they were supposed to win because the majority really supports them but they are thwarted in their righteous goal by all these conspiracies of bad people.

Anyone and everyone is liable to be thrown under the bus to fulfill the need for these conspiracies, particularly, anyone who doesn't fawn over Bernie every sentence.

[newfie11]

221. Sorry that my opinion upsets you so

However I'm entitled to one.

[newfie11]

222. Do you watch Rachael and for how long

Yes people of course do have different opinions but to change as drastically has she has is unusual.

Look who owns her channel and the people that have been fired.

But believe what you want, I really don't care!

[MissDeeds]

51. Unfortunately, Rachel has "evolved"

into a DNC darling. I'm done with her too.

[quickesst]

35. Awww...

,... give it a day or two. You'll love her again. It shouldn't take her longer than that to come up with a slam on Hillary, or high praise for Bernie.

[paleotn]

36. How do you think she stays on MSNBC for so long....

after so many of her colleagues have been sacked? Tow the line.

[Got it]

38. Maddox is a HUGE dissapointment!

I live in the western MA area where she has a home. I was a regular listener to her on local radio program - admiring her intelligence and thrilled the left had such a great asset speaking for our ideology. I was proud as she made her way to greater fame.

Maddox was someone who would never compromise her values and sell her soul to anyone, let alone The Evil Empire. Or so I thought.

Over the years, her broadcast behavior has proved more and more questionable. She has now stepped firmly into the arena of corporate prostitution. Maddox is no longer the darling of the Western Massachusetts Left. Many have come to despise her transparently self-serving agenda - motivated by the very same ugliness that motivates HRC.

Hugely dissapointing...

[giftedgirl77]

82. Jesus Christ at least have the decency to spell her name right

if you're going to pretend you know who she is.

[Got it]

90. Are you calling me a liar?

I'll take ownership for the misspell, but accusing me of lying is a real stretch.

[giftedgirl77]

95. Just making an observation.

[Got it]

98. Yes...

one right out of the HRC/Karl Rove playbook.

Aren't you special.

[geek tragedy]

119. You're a regular listener who doesn't know her name is "Maddow?" nt

[Cheese Sandwich]

42. MSNBC is Fox for liberals

CNN is Fox for everyone!

[RiverLover]

49. In a little over an hour, this post has over 1300 views.

!

I wonder if Rachel saw it.

I hope so. We know she sold out, she should know we realize that now.

[RealAmericanDem]

54. Rachael is fine. Some people just can't handle the truth.

[Madmiddle]

55. The one commentator

most people thought was above this, has not been bought out by the Clinton hate machine,

[giftedgirl77]

56. Holy shit, Maddow is now under the bus.

[Got it]

93. With only herself to blame. Eom

[giftedgirl77]

94. HaHaHa, aren't you special.

[jehop61]

63. Guess

no one but the wise and glorious Bernie has the political purity sufficient for some. Do they know just how ridiculous they sound? Bless their hearts.

[peace13]

65. As pointed out upstream so many have turned.

It makes me wonder if it's money, fear, or power that cause people to tie their horse to Clinton. PP was the tipping point for me. Rachel is another sad case though we stopped watching a couple of years ago because she tends to repeat herself too much during a show.

When a candidate is tied to a huge foundation it is pretty impossible to know just what the arrangements are. If it's money Rachel agreed to, I hope it's a bundle because buying ones soul back is pretty impossible.

[NuclearDem]

67. ...

[MADem]

75. It's getting crowded under that bus....!!!!!!!!!!!! nt

[workinclasszero]

84. Its funny because if Bernie did win the nomination he would be depending on

all of the democratic liberals his followers have drug through the mud, insulted for months and threw under his damn bus to ensure his victory in the GE.

I'm willing to bet a large portion of them would tell him to go to hell.

[randome]

97. Building bridges all the way, isn't he?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[workinclasszero]

133. IKR?

Feel the Bern(ing) bridges?

[MADem]

157. He'd likely have to make some promises to bring them back to any measure of enthusiasm.

And those promises might negate his cred with the idealists.

And getting all those people out from under that darn bus! We'd need a very large crane!!!

[The Wizard]

78. Sell out stump speech

blah blah yak yakkity yak blah blah blah argle bargle I will fight for you, blah blah yak yak If you don't vote for me you hate women.
With the mic off: send all the "donations" to the off shore money laundry.

[betsuni]

81. Bernie Sanders is a politician.

[berningman]

85. its clear that camp weathervane has dangled an appt

for maddow. Press secretary maybe? Either way the people stopped caring what the establishment mouthpieces are saying. That is precisely why it's so interesting to watch the media drop any pretense of impartiality this election cycle. They know the old "fair and balanced" ain't getting the desired result anymore. People don't care about Bernies clothes or his hair or his finances, cuz they aren't voting for a brand like Obama anymore. They are voting for what Bernie represents, an end to the rigged American dream. The great unwashed masses are starting to wake from thier slumber and it isn't gonna be pretty for HRC, or maddow or any of the 1%.

[SCantiGOP]

115. And you figured that out

In the one week you've been on DU?

[brush]

167. Not fair. People can form opinions long before they join DU.

And it's pretty obvious to anyone with any observational skills that Maddow stayed on at MSNBC when they sacked the other progressive anchors and then went Trump 24/7.

That speaks for itself.

[SCantiGOP]

169. "Went Trump 24/7" ??

Do you read what you write? Have you actually watched the Maddow show recently? Are you actually saying the network has forced her to "go Trump?"

[brush]

170. Have you watched?

There were many nights on that network recently that they featured Trump stories incessantly.

And yeah, their coverage has lurched hard to the right but she's still there.

Like I said, that speaks for itself.

[SCantiGOP]

172. News flash:

Trump currently leading the GOP race. It surprises you that a news show talks about that?

[brush]

180. News flash yourself: I'm not the only perturbed that a formerly progressive network features Trump

so much. Read the rest of the post on this thread for God's sake.

Maddow? Guess she's decided to go with the rightward lurch.

I mean, didn't you wonder why she's still there after all the other progressive anchors were sacked?

[SCantiGOP]

181. Oh yeah

Makes a lot of sense that Rachel has now become a right winger. Whatever facts support your narrative I guess.

[brush]

189. I didn't say right winger. You did. I said she stayed when the network shifted right . . .

where others were sacked.

Many have drawn their own conclusion from that.

The money must be very good, more important than principle could easily be concluded.

[Merryland]

155. The mainstream media is pretty unbearable at the moment.

one network is no better than the others.

[jalan48]

86. Rachael says what MSNBC wants her to say. She chooses to stay with the network. Sad really.

[INdemo]

88. What would be funny is the fact that after all this

with Comcast's overhaul of MSNBC,getting rid of any host that is even slightly liberal,is if Maddow would get fired after all.
Even though she is drinkin' their cool-aid now and reading Comcast scripts she could be replaced...Now that would be funny

[Dr Hobbitstein]

92. You're gonna need a bigger bus.

[NurseJackie]

96. I love this!

[FlatBaroque]

111. This not a complicated moral dilemma. COMCAST has endorsed Hillary

Rachel Maddow is paid by COMCAST. Is it really any more complicated than that?

[SCantiGOP]

117. Yes it is

Real life and politics is a lot more complicated than that.

[turbinetree]

113. Ethics.........................................

Now that MSNBC has been bought by US the all powerful right wing Comcast, (because our money was more important and we charge a lot of money for worthless shows and get paid lots of money for endless commercials by drug companies to tell the public what happens with there drugs to the population from diarrhea to death do to them , because we GE ?Universal also known as Comcast has research labs making this stuff, making more greed.



Because, we, Comcast defeated one Al Franken, because, he saw what we were going to do and tried but failed to block the "deal" the "sweet deal"


That puny U.S. Senator couldn't defeat this "deal" because we paid off the other senators and the FCC, you in the population do you not remember the Fairness Doctrine (gutted under Bill Clinton) see and read Comcast Business Ethics Code, do as we say -------------------------------or else--------------------its not about fairness--------------------its about greed, we only publish this Code of Conduct to just make it look good, because it is the only thing that is required to have a license plus it has to be there for the 10-K filing, if you don't believe look at what GE Capital does---------------its right there out in the open we get away with a lot



You, the gullible public don't see we are pulling the proverbial wool over your eyes..................its about the brand even if its not what you think or want to believe , because you want to believe, that its not true......................we make "our" News to what we want you to hear and see............................



http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/CMCSA/1194292264x0x428785/c435ed01-1856-4fed-9dc3-6a1572a4b479/COM271-Code_of_Conduct_R12_23s.pdf

Honk------------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[geek tragedy]

114. Bernie Sanders is a politician. That's his occupation. He happens to be very good at it

while maintaining high ethical standards (unlike another candidate ...) .

People need to stop losing their shit every time someone says he doesn't walk on water.

[stevenleser]

218. There are a handful of very smart, level headed and reasonable Sanders supporters here

And you are at the top of that list.

Too bad there are so few of you.

[greenman3610]

120. So now Rachel Maddow is a right wing sellout. See how toxic this has become?

"There's not a dimes worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush."
remember how that worked out?

[geek tragedy]

144. some people are fueled by hate. they don't represent a significant percentage of Bernie

supporters in the real world, but boy oh boy do they generate a lot of obnoxious noise online

[FSogol]

158. Is it hate or just an act? I can't imagine being hate-filled enough to

place 20 posts a day of spittle-flying nonsense.

[geek tragedy]

161. it's typically what they do during non-primary season too nt

[brush]

168. Why is she still on that network though, that has shifted hard to the right . . .

and has sacked their progressive voices?

[JohnnyRingo]

122. I never thought I'd see Maddow attacked here on DU

...and Sanders' supporters slide further and further into the bubble where an unassailable Bernie is sitting on top of the world.

Eventually, DU will be your only source for election news, and you'll end up crying foul if he loses the primary because as far as you know, no one at all supported Clinton.

[redstateblues]

136. The trashing of Our Democratic President on DU

By BSS is disgraceful. Some people won't know what they've got until it's gone. Considering the mess that was handed to him by Bush, he has done a good job.

[Cleita]

147. Why is it an attack when it's the truth?

I watch Rachel regularly. I have been a fan of hers since her Radio America days, but watched her gradually change her spots when Comcast took over MSNBC. I figured she would be part of the lefty purge if she didn't flip her opinion to the right. It does make her a sell out and all of us who have a brain have seen it unfold. Yesterday's show was an attack on Bernie and his supporters. Betcha if Hillary becomes the candidate in the general, she will be attacked in favor of the Republican candidate. That's how Rachel is swinging these days.

[JohnnyRingo]

162. I've never seen so much nonsense...

...crammed into one very long rambling paragraph.

The only problem you have with Maddow is that she isn't your ideological clone.

Saying Bernie supporters are the only ones "who have a brain" is a perfect example of Bernie's flawed campaign. His supporters are so insufferably snotty that it drives people to Hillary so as not to be associated with his "movement".

[uponit7771]

201. Sophistry usually has some truth in it

[Adrahil]

203. I dunno, as a Hillary supporter, she strikes me as...

Very sympathetic to Bernie. She has even said something like "so you feel the Bern?" more than once.

That isn't to say she is necessarily a Bernie supporter, and even if ahe is sympathetic to him, she can surely make observations about what she sees as his perceived strengths and weaknesses? How can sne be a decent analyst otherwise? Perhaps you just want an advocate for your positions?

[Zorra]

130. Wealthy "Democrats for Oligarchy", strategically placed.

Flies in the vaseline, we are.

[SoapBox]

131. I have lost all respect for Maddow...she has become a total shill.

And I'm sure she's getting panicked because of her millions in income...being a 1%er, she's gonna pay more taxes.

What a disappointment she has become but at least she, like all of the Elites, are showing their true colors.

[Cleita]

138. I agree that Bernie is an experienced politician. How else would an Independent social democrat

have a successful thirty years in politics? But he's an honest politician, a rarity. He also knows he is a servant of the people, not vice versa. It makes him very appealing to the majority of Americans. I guess Rachel missed that memo.

[redstateblues]

208. So honest that he only joined the Democratic Party

To run for POTUS and stuck Democratic in front of Socialist to make it sound better

[Cleita]

209. He did it not to be a spoiler like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader did running

for third party. But I guess you would have preferred that even though it would have ruined an election for Hillary should she had been the candidate.

With all the nastiness directed towards Bernie and his supporters from the Hillary camp, now I wish he had run third party.

[left-of-center2012]

139. I saw Maddow shilling for HRC

Sad.
Very sad.

[Ron Green]

140. 2016 is a big test for America. The fact that Rachel Maddow seems

clearly to be biased for Hillary shows how important it is to reject the "infotainment" system that's convinced so many people that they're well-informed.

Bernie Sanders' election would be only a small step in the right direction, but a necessary one.

[itsrobert]

145. Rachel under the BernieBro bus

If you aren't with Bernie, you're a sellout. Gotcha.


But I will not forget that Bernie was looking for someone to primary one of our greatest Presidents, Barack Obama. Disgraceful.

The True selective outrage is Bernie Sanders. If it helps him sell books, he creates a selective outrage so he can get on the talk circuit to hawk his book.

[raindaddy]

149. The best response is to stop watching her show and let her know why...

she depends on a progressive audience.

If she's can't at least be fair to the most progressive candidate to run for President in years, stop buying her product...

[MohRokTah]

151. So many true progressives under that Sanders bus it can't drive no more. eom

[JCMach1]

154. Hope you brought a big bus to keep throwing people under...

jeesh...

[Flying Squirrel]

182. They're diving under it themselves. nt

[JCMach1]

183. For the record, I am truly undecided and comfortable with either candidate...

I am still looking for the point of distinction that will do it for me before the Florida primary.

Throwing people I like under the bus (good Progressives) isn't a good way to win my support.

[Flying Squirrel]

196. Well, for the record I haven't actually been one of those piling on the abuse...

I do take a lot of things I hear in GDP with a very large grain of salt. Some of the things I'm hearing about people I have liked and respected like Maddow and Krugman are concerning to me, but I have mostly given them the benefit of the doubt so far.

[JCMach1]

223. NP, mostly stay out of GDP during the Primary...

Remember from past years just how ugly things got...

Kind of a DU tradition...

[DirkGently]

156. I didn't see any "outrage" or lying in Maddow's piece.

Part of what's going on in this primary is the discussion between the progressive and "moderate" / conservative parts of the party. Sanders is more progressive than Obama in most ways; Clinton is more conservative.

I think Sanders has been pretty consistent in talking about where he agrees and disagrees with Obama, whereas Clinton has portrayed herself as Obama's perfect successor while glossing over her own disagreements, which is an argument Maddow's piece showed Sanders himself making.

I don't know that she made a point of Sanders doing anything wrong by deliberately spelling out the areas where he has disagreed with Obama unprompted of late -- he knows what he's doing, and it's perfectly reasonable to suppose Sanders is bringing out those areas to sharpen and define the discussion.

No reason he shouldn't do that; no reason Maddow shouldn't point it out.

[jillan]

171. Bernie has been calling out the corporate media lately - YES RACHEL that includes you. And why

does she treat her viewers like we are 5 years old?
She put on a play during primetime news! FFS!

I remember her when she was on Air America. She was fascinating to listen to. Her conversation was witty & educational, she engaged her listeners.

Now she is putting on plays, talking to us like we're kids, saying teeny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny, debunktion junction.....
Maybe she should have been a first grade teacher instead of a journalist

[lumberjack_jeff]

174. Everyone is corruptible by a paycheck. Comcast doesn't want Bernie. n/t

[stopbush]

177. The BSers are running out of Dems/progressives to throw under the bus.

Give it a week and all that will be left are the dog catchers.

[Politicalboi]

178. And I just saw that BSer's were throwing people under the bus

But it was protected in their cowardly HilLIARy Bubble. Rachel will see the light soon. She just hates to see HilLIARy lose twice in a lifetime.

[dubyadiprecession]

179. Rachel Maddow doesn't always say nice things about hilary, to my ears. Both sides can't win 100%..

of the time.

[jillan]

186. So if Hillary wins does that mean those republicans decided to vote for Hillary because she will be

easier to beat?

What say you Rachel after that rant last nite????

[joshcryer]

187. If you told me 6 months ago a Maddow trashing thread...

...would get over 100 recs here I would've laughed in your face.

Christ.

[stevenleser]

214. They've not only gone off the deep end, they're drilling new depths. nt

[RiverLover]

216. If you had told me 6 mos ago Maddow would be shilling for a third way centrist

and working actively against the liberal progressive (& this wasn't a first in the past month), I would have laughed in your face.

Christ.

[H2O Man]

190. In the best sense,

Bernie Sanders really is "such a politician." I can say that since Senator Robert F. Kennedy ran in 1968, this nation has not had any politician who is this honest a public servant.

Indeed, no politician has frightened the powers-that-be in America since RFK in '68, as Bernie is currently doing.

We are unlikely to see "such a politician" in a presidential primary for another 50 years, unless Sanders wins. Should he win -- and he should -- it will encourage honest men and women to run. If he loses, specimens like Debbie Wasserman Schultz will continue to dictate.

[book_worm]

195. So many thrown under the bus--do you have anybody left?

[dsharp88]

197. Rachel destroyed DWS over superdelegates today. Change your mind?

Honestly, I'm undecided between Bernie and Hillary, but I don't see Rachel as anti-Bernie. She's done fair one-on-one interviews with both. She's co-moderated a debate straightforwardly as well as a town hall thing with both of them separately treating each fairly.

If Rachel was truly carrying water for Clinton she wouldn't remind viewers of her Iraq vote so often, and her difference on supporting trade agreements Bernie opposes.

Perhaps she was uncharacteristically inarticulate on this subject in the way she illustrated a difficult question, but I truly don't think she has it out for Bernie.

[MrMickeysMom]

198. Perhaps job security, notoriety and living inside a bubble does that to you...

Rachel is equal in rising to the moment to gain what everybody else has been brainwashed to gain.

Whoo-hoo! Everybody's equal!! Except... ah... aaahhmmmm...

[uponit7771]

199. Two words... Cornell West... Any questions? tia

[merrily]

202. Yet, she keeps stating she is a liberal, to distinguish herself from supporters of Hillary.

So, it's not "only" that she is selling out. It's also that she is being dishonest about selling out--and I don't even have a term for that.

I grew tired of her schtick before this campaign started anyway. The breaking down of everything into minute detail as though her viewers are in third grad, the false glee as she explains things, the slanting, etc. She really needs to have more guests on. She shines more when she interviews. However, it's too late for me. She got very tiresome and lost me a couple of years ago.

[warrprayer]

205. Your last sentence

Puts it in a nutshell rather nicely.

[grossproffit]

217. We're going to need a bigger bus!

[islandmkl]

220. are we talking about Rachel Maddow, the entertainer?...because that is all

that any of the talking heads on TV are...

they all have parts to play to get viewers /ratings and fuck any kind of integrity on any of their parts...change directions, change message, change whatever the fuck to get the ratings...

and do not do ANYTHING to upset the goddam money machine...

there is basically only one on-air JOURNALIST that is instinsically honest, and even her access and exposure is extremely limited to the general mass population: Amy Goodman

there is no bus to throw such people under...they are TV actors and sometimes we just don't like their latest movie/show....