Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


WhaTHellsgoingonhere's Journal
WhaTHellsgoingonhere's Journal
April 29, 2016

No. And what makes you think he didn't start it? Or maybe you're point is, it had already begun.

Occupy started it, then it got moved along until Bernie said, "If no one else steps forward, then I will." And when no one else stepped forward (I think we were holding out for Warren), Bernie put it on PEDs. But the establishment, including MSM, has marginalized the revolution since Day 1. And Bernie, an old, obscure socialist from an overlooked state was their, i.e. the establishment and media, dream candidate. A target too easy to mock and ridicule they couldn't have cast a better character. But they underestimated the Revolution. They thought the kids had just showed up but the revolution had been underway for years.

April 27, 2016

If Trump wins the GE, it would be consistent with this trend

Carter - pensive, gloomy, honest, weak, caring ---> Reagan - superficial, vibrant, pitchman, strong

Bush 41 - elder, nerdy, weak -----> Clinton - young, virile, charismatic

Bush 43 - buddy, goofy, unintelligible, loose cannon ------> Obama - measured, thoughtful, measured, orator, measured, classy

45 has to be Trump!

April 24, 2016

That's because Bernie's ability to excite and engage people who haven't been so in years flies in

the face of the Party's and media's meme: Democrats lose because they don't show up.

In order to prepetuate this meme, they have to ignore the fact that people with Democratic values are numerous and had been dormant until Bernie came around.

The most unliked candidate in history towing the establishment line doesn't inspire people to turnout.

April 24, 2016

^People don't understand how things work in their own states, and playing it out will help expose


In California, almost 3/4 of people registered in the ultra-right wing Independece Party, did so mistakenly. They thought they were registering Independent. That means more than 300,000 Californians will be shut out. They didn't know any better, I'm not convinced you know any better, either. Play it out. People need to learn the mechanics. And if you're uncertain, this gives Hillary a gigantic advantage. I'm sure she's kind of anxious about how it will play out when people find out they can't participate.


April 24, 2016

That's not even the complete story. The status quo half,

the half that's had control of the Party for a generation now, is hemorrhaging individuals with FDR Democratic values, turning others off to the political process, and inspiring others to register Independent. This is a big deal in that, in practice, it works like voter suppression. As opposition outside the Party continues to grow, so too does the relative strength of the establishment. It's winning by losing. Following NY, Joan Walsh was so proud of herself, and lauded by her colleagues, after writing what this generation of New Democrats does best: shame people for not showing up. She wrote, Bernie supporters love to rally but they don't like to vote. She, and the rest of the media that's been fueling this meme for years, totally missed the real story. Bernie's engaged people the Democratic establishment has happily ignored for years. Unfortunately, they've rejected the Democratic Party and registered Independent. Joan will get to pat herself on the back again come California's closed election, as 300,000 Californians, likely mistakenly, registered with the Independence Party. People don't understand the machine, especially people who vote in states where their vote never matters.

April 23, 2016

Yes. One is a status quo income inequality candidate and the other wants to see income redistributed

to the bottom 90%.

You might be asking, "Will either candidate get anything accomplished in the next 4 years?"

No. Supporters of each candidate who think their favorite will face LESS obstruction than Obama is deluded.

This election is to validate the status quo or to define a new direction for the party. Too bad one candidate is a man. I'd love to know how this would go if you controlled for gender.

April 22, 2016

Is anyone in MSM urging Bernie to stay in? I've only heard "it's hopeless" "it's over"

"he has to get out now" "there is no revolution" "young people like to rally but don't like to vote" and my favorite of all "if he stays in any longer he'll weaken Hillary for the GE, she needs to turn her attention to the GE now!"

Good messaging MSM!

April 22, 2016

Lame. Her wins are distorted in closed primary states. In fact, she's so weak,

people don't want to be Democrats anymore. You guys look at an empty glass and say, "It's not empty, it's FULL of air!"

April 21, 2016

Holy crap criers! This is EXACTLY what Bubba did to Obama. Sat him down and this happened.

It happened in 2008, it can happen again!

"That was the day the jubilant Obama campaign announced its transition team. Though many of the names were familiar - former Bill Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, long-time Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett - the list was most notable for who was not on it, especially on the economic side. Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist who had served as one of Obama's chief advisers during the campaign, didn't make the cut. Neither did Karen Kornbluh, who had served as Obama's policy director and was instrumental in crafting the Democratic Party's platform. Both had emphasized populist themes during the campaign: Kornbluh was known for pushing Democrats to focus on the plight of the poor and middle class, while Goolsbee was an aggressive critic of Wall Street, declaring that AIG executives should receive "a Nobel Prize - for evil."

But come November 5th, both were banished from Obama's inner circle - and replaced with a group of Wall Street bankers. Leading the search for the president's new economic team was his close friend and Harvard Law classmate Michael Froman, a high-ranking executive at Citigroup. During the campaign, Froman had emerged as one of Obama's biggest fundraisers, bundling $200,000 in contributions and introducing the candidate to a host of heavy hitters - chief among them his mentor Bob Rubin, the former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs who served as Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton.
Froman had served as chief of staff to Rubin at Treasury, and had followed his boss when Rubin left the Clinton administration to serve as a senior counselor to Citigroup (a massive new financial conglomerate created by deregulatory moves pushed through by Rubin himself).

Incredibly, Froman did not resign from the bank when he went to work for Obama: He remained in the employ of Citigroup for two more months, even as he helped appoint the very people who would shape the future of his own firm. And to help him pick Obama's economic team, Froman brought in none other than Jamie Rubin who happens to be Bob Rubin's son. At the time, Jamie's dad was still earning roughly $15 million a year working for Citigroup, which was in the midst of a collapse brought on in part because Rubin had pushed the bank to invest heavily in mortgage-backed CDOs and other risky instruments.

Now here's where it gets really interesting. It's three weeks after the election. You have a lame-duck president in George W. Bush - still nominally in charge, but in reality already halfway to the golf-and-O'Doul's portion of his career and more than happy to vacate the scene. Left to deal with the still-reeling economy are lame-duck Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a former head of Goldman Sachs, and New York Fed chief Timothy Geithner, who served under Bob Rubin in the Clinton White House. Running Obama's economic team are a still-employed Citigroup executive and the son of another Citigroup executive, who himself joined Obama's transition team that same month.


Hillary was part of the DLC Third-Way Clinton 42 Admin. So that puts her in the company of:

Robert Rubin

Larry Summers

Rahm Emanuel

Alan Greenspan (oh yes, nominated by Clinton)

Bill Daley

John Podesta (In 1988, he and his brother Tony co-founded Podesta Associates, Inc., a Washington, D.C., "government relations and public affairs" lobbying firm. Now known as the Podesta Group, the firm "has close ties to the Democratic Party and the Obama administration has been retained by some of the biggest corporations in the country, including Wal-Mart, BP and Lockheed Martin.&quot

Tim Geithner (Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs)

Do these names look familiar to you, too? Add Wall Street's top defense attorney, Eric Holder, and it is idendical to the people with whom Obama surrounded himself, and there's even a Clinton touting shitty trade deals (Hillary sold as TPP "the gold standard" until Bernie said it's another Clintonian crap trade policy).

Which brings us to today. John Podesta is Chairman of Hillary's Presidential campaign. Why would we expect anyone different. Politically, ihis is the bubble she grew up in. These are the people she knows and trusts. When you attack her about her Wall Street ties, she doesn't take responsibility. What does she do? She shames her detractors by (1) saying they're attacking President Obama (who, obviously, was way too close to Wall Street and arguably closer to WS than Clinton 42 when you consider Clinton's AG was Janet Reno) or (2) applying a sexist double standard to her, e.g. demanding her Goldman Sachs speech transcripts (her lack of transparency here could also be used against her as avoidant behavior).

Based on these facts, the "reasonable man" would expect more of the same too-close- for-comfort relationship with Wall Street. Further, she's promising more of the same at every opportunity.
April 21, 2016

I posted this yesterday and it's apropos here.

Funny how it works...
People tell you over and over what the problem is: you're the same as Rs. You continue to ignore them. They stop voting, drop out of the process all together, or register as Independent because the Democratic Party is serving its masters not "We the People." In short, as a Party, EPIC FAIL of colossal proportions. And yet, all this Fail makes your continue-the-Fail-candidate stronger against outsiders (because the rules leave Independents in the cold). It's almost like the Democratic Party is daring an outsider to make a Third Party run.

God forbid the Democratic Party serves "We the People."

So how will the Democratic Party react to a Third Party run? Here's how I think it should play out. Bernie and Hillary get together behind closed doors. Bernie says, "I'm going to make a Third Party run UNLESS you do many things differently beginning right now. You replace your advisers with these people, and these people you will appoint to cabinet positions. Further, you adopt this platform to run on in the GE."

She gets to be president, we get his platform, advisers, and cabinet. It will be a coup, but no one will be the wiser. If she... after she laughs in his face, he gives her 24 hours to think on it. If she tells him to Eff off, he runs as a Third Party candidate.

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 22, 2005, 09:00 AM
Number of posts: 5,252

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»WhaTHellsgoingonhere's Journal