Holder? Wall Street's top defense atty
Summers?
Rubin?
Bill Daley?
Emanuel?
Duncan? Head of charter school movement
Geithner?
Clinton? Bad trade policy and FA judgment (Iraq and Libya)
Ron Kirk? TPP

I called "Bullshit!" on the Obama admin shortly after he won the GE and started surrounding himself with Rubinites. But to your claim, "Obama is the most Progressive president since (FDR)," I say the bar is very, very low.

Prior to today, he's been calling them idiots. Now says a large portion of them (obviously, no one on DU) have not been engaged in politics until Bernie came along with his Progressive message.

Just started discussion now.

the Party. You refute all evidence. You take no responsibility for it. Your strategy, blame and shame others. You have a candidate who is being forced by an unknown outsider to move to the left. You guys are blind, supporting the most divisive figure in the history of the Party, and your only solution: ridicule, blame, and shame. Alienating others is a loser but obviously, your only resolve. As I said elsewhere tonight, the disconnect between "We've been in charge of the Party since 1992" and "Half of the Party is in complete revolt" is incredible.

Keep it up! You're really helping our cause.

Someone explain to her that the pre-DLC Democratic Party was very close to labor. Then a movement, led by monied interests and elites, the DLC, came along and ended welfare as we know it (whistle), got tough on crime (whistle), entered "Free" trade agreements (broke with labor), and put the final nail in the Glass-Stegall coffin. And yet, she's befuddled that Bernie wants to move the Party in a new direction. Or more accurately, he wants to return the Party to its pre-DLC roots. This shit escapes her.

movements like Bernie's and the ones that follow. But you DLCers continue what you're doing. You're turning people away and blaming them.

And that's good for the other half of the Democratic Party

incredible.

The other day, I looked into the "we must come together after the primary" meme.
It appears clear (see graph), after Obama defeated Clinton in 2008, the Democratic Party filed for divorce. That was a rough, bitter primary, but this primary seems even more so. The big difference being, Sanders joined the Democratic Party but the Democratic Party has rejected him, and in the case of her supporters, vitriolicly so. Not a good sign for the Party as people continue to leave and Hillary, and her mocking supporters, have managed to alienate young people.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

Seems after Obama defeated Clinton in 2008, the Democratic Party filed for divorce. That was a rough, bitter primary, but this primary seems even more so. The big difference being, Sanders joined the Democratic Party but the Democratic Party has rejected him. Not a good sign for the Party as people continue to leave and young voters have been alienated.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

...but when a Bernie supporter points out what a total ass the Hillary clown made of himself, now it's a problem?

I got your number, Ferret.

there's no way you can prove his/her admin is influenced by WS ties. And they'd be indignant when they said it. And in the meantime, they'll turn a blind eye to WS's white collar criminals and oversea the redistribution of wealth to the top. But, Oh no! They will defy you to prove any of this is happening. Then Rachel and the rest of the liberal network will defend them.