HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Segami » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AM
Number of posts: 14,923

Journal Archives

Bernie Sanders Gives 6 HUGE REASONS To Pick Him Over Hillary

"....Bernie Sanders is a simple guy and always has been. Instead, of eating his meals in the formal Senate dining room, he chooses to hang out in the basement cafeteria and discuss politics with lower-level interns. That really says a lot about him. He enjoys talking to and meeting new people and doesn’t have an ego, unlike so many other people in power..."

Bernie Sanders is gaining some tremendous momentum with his poll numbers, and picking up a lot of ground on Hillary Clinton. A new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll has the Senator only seven points behind Hillary Clinton leading up to the Iowa caucus, and there’s still a lot of time left to pick up more ground. Support has practically been dropping for Clinton like flies. In the last eight months, Hillary has lost nearly 20% of her support. People are starting to realize that not only is there not just one default candidate, but there are some major stark differences between the two leading Democratic candidates running for President.

Bernie Sanders is doing his best to identify those differences. He spoke to CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday and listed six that everyone needs to be aware of:

1. “I believe that, when you have so few banks with so much power, you have to not only reestablish Glass-Steagall, but you have got to break them up. That is not Hillary Clinton’s position.

2. “I believe that our trade policies, NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, have been a disaster. I am helping to lead the effort against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That is not Hillary Clinton’s position.

3. “We have to be aggressive in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel, and defeat the Keystone pipeline. That is not Hillary Clinton’s position.

4. “I believe that, as opposed to my Republican colleagues who want to cut Social Security, I believe we should expand Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income. That’s not Hillary Clinton’s position.

5. “I believe that we have got to raise the minimum wage over a period of several years to $15 an hour – not Hillary Clinton’s position.

6. “I voted against the war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton voted for it.”

Bernie Sanders is not your big establishment candidate. He doesn’t hang out with the “rich crowd.” In fact, he is one of the least wealthy candidates running for office. According to his latest tax filings, he has an average net worth of $330,507 as compared to that of Hillary Clinton, who along with her husband, earned $30 million over the last 16 months alone.



Hillary Clinton 'CAN BE BEATEN' as Sanders Shows New Surge in Iowa

Clinton's favorables drop to lowest point yet in key state as populist message of the U.S. senator from Vermont continues to attract new supporters

Matching trends previously seen in New Hampshire, a new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll released Saturday shows that Sen. Bernie Sanders is trending upwards in the key early primary state as he closes the gap with Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

As the Register reports:

Liberal revolutionary Bernie Sanders, riding an updraft of insurgent passion in Iowa, has closed to within 7 points of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential race.

She's the first choice of 37 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers; he's the pick for 30 percent, according to a new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll.

But Clinton has lost a third of her supporters since May, a trajectory that if sustained puts her at risk of losing again in Iowa, the initial crucible in the presidential nominating contest.


CNN adds:

Sanders' support owes more to voters' enthusiasm for his candidacy than opposition to Clinton, the poll found. A whopping 96% of his backers say they support him and his ideas, with just 2% saying their vote is motivated by a desire to stop a Clinton candidacy. As for the controversy surrounding Clinton's use of email while leading the State Department, 61% of likely Democratic caucusgoers say the issue is not important to them.

Sanders has a deeper reservoir of support, the poll found. Thirty-nine percent of likely caucusgoers say their feelings about Sanders are very favorable, with just 8% having a negative view of him. That's a sharp contrast to Clinton: 27% view her very favorably, but 19% view her negatively.

Saturday's poll marks a remarkable eight-month climb for the self-proclaimed Democratic socialist from Vermont, who is garnering support in part from his anti-establishment rhetoric. Back in January, half of likely Democratic caucusgoers were unfamiliar with Sanders, and he was pulling in just 5% of support.

"What this new poll shows is that the more Iowans get to know Bernie, the better they like him and what he stands for. We've seen the same thing in New Hampshire and across the country," Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs said in a statement.


Two recent polls out of New Hampshire showed that Sanders is now the presumed frontrunner in that state. Responding to the latest survey in Iowa, Steve McMahon, a Virginia-based Democratic strategist who has worked on presidential campaigns dating to 1980, said the latest numbers "suggest that she can be beaten." On Friday, both Sanders and Clinton spoke at the Summer gathering of the Democratic National Committee, a summit for party insiders and delegates where Sanders warned attendees that unless Democrats can arouse genuine enthusiasm among voters based on serious policy solutions they will have no chance of winning elections in 2016.

"Let me be very clear," Sanders said. "Democrats will not retain the White House, will not regain the Senate, will not gain the House and will not be successful in dozens of governor’s races unless we run a campaign which generates excitement and momentum and which produces a huge voter turnout." He added, "With all due respect, and I do not mean to insult anyone here, that will not happen with politics as usual. The same old, same old will not be successful."



Time To REMOVE Debbie Wasserman Schultz As DNC Chair? WAY PAST TIME!

There are far too many self-serving careerist Democrats in politics to be able to say Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the worst. But people do say it. And she is certainly one of the worst. When she was a state senator in Florida she cut a gerrymandering deal with the Republicans that gave her an unassailably Jewish congressional district made for her forever. In return the GOP got far more narrowly safe congressional seats than their share of the statewide vote would make reasonable. And in the state legislature, as in Congress, she was and has been a deal-maker with all the worst crooks with special interests they needed taken care of-- from the private prison industry to the Fanjul brothers and their sugar empire.

Politically, her conservatism has been a catastrophe for Florida Democrats. As the head of the DCCC's Red to Blue program, she endorsed three corrupt conservative Republicans instead of their Democratic challengers! She has been disrespectful-- and downright evil-- towards Democratic candidates who were not conservative self-funders. A New Dem sleazebag, she is constantly pushing the Democratic Party to the economic right from within. And she's been rewarded for her efforts with the chairmanship of the DNC.

As chair of the DNC she has raised immense sums of money for herself and has undermined Democratic Party values and principles and pushed her own reactionary agenda, giving credence to right-wing nonsense from the "dangers" of medical marijuana to the "dangers" of opening up to Cuba. Yesterday Dan Balz and Philip Rucker reported in the Washington Post that Wasserman Schultz used her position as party chair to block a resolution at the DNC conclave in Minneapolis backing Obama on the Iran deal.

Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz prevented consideration of a resolution at the party’s summer meeting here that praised President Obama and offered backing for the nuclear agreement with Iran, according to knowledgeable Democrats.

The resolution was drafted with the intention of putting the national committee on record in support of the agreement as Congress prepares to take up the issue when members return from their August recess.

As a fallback, James Zogby, the co-chair of the Resolutions Committee, led a move to prepare a letter of support for the president and the Iran agreement that eventually gained signatures from a sizable majority of the members of the national committee. Zogby said Saturday that, in the end, this produced a satisfactory outcome.

“We wanted to show support for the president,” he said. “We found that the best way to show support was a letter that members would sign on to, and the overwhelming majority of DNC members signed onto the letter. This is the President Obama we elected in 2008 who said, ‘I choose diplomacy over conflict,’ and he did it.”

...Some Democrats on the national committee who were unhappy that the resolution did not come up for consideration said that, as DNC chair, Wasserman Schultz owed her allegiance in this instance to the president, regardless of her own local political considerations.


MoveOn.org had a petition up within hours to remove her as DNC chair. You can read it and sign it here.

Isn't one Republican Party enough?


Sen. Schumer Opposes Iran Deal, DISQUALIFYING HIM From Any Leadership Position

Just as Steve Israel will go, so too will go Chuck Schumer, who was widely expected to be the Democrats' choice as Harry Reid's replacement -- a choice this Democrat now openly opposes after his stated opposition to the Iran deal.

Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed. This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.


The truth is, he may have "carefully considered" the deal through the lens of AIPAC, but he didn't think about what it means to the ordinary Americans who will end up fighting another meaningless war with truly frightening consequences in that region. Schumer is in the top 10 when it comes to Senators receiving support from AIPAC. But interestingly, his counterpart from New York -- Kirsten Gillibrand -- has actually received more than he has, and has decided to support the deal. One can only assume that Schumer waited until he had the space or knew the veto wouldn't be overridden before declaring his intention to oppose the deal. It doesn't really matter whether it was donations or paranoia that drove his decision. What does matter is simple enough: He has chosen to actively oppose the leader of his party and support Israel rather than the foreign policy of the country in which he serves as an elected official.

That disqualifies him from all consideration for leadership. Dan Pfeiffer, former aide to President Obama, said it well.

Dan Pfeiffer @danpfeiffer Dan Pfeiffer retweeted Sam Stein

The base won't support a leader who thought Obamacare was a mistake and wants War with Iran Dan Pfeiffer added,

That's the bottom line here. Chuck Schumer made his decision; now I make mine. I will be making as much noise as I possibly can and will actively oppose any attempt he makes to become Harry Reid's replacement. If he cannot be bothered to consider the safety of our country and our military, and cannot be bothered to support our President, that's his choice. Mine is to use whatever voice I have to actively oppose any hopes he has for ascendance to a higher position of leadership, and argue that he should step down from the position he has now. We don't need another Joe Lieberman leading Democrats.



Hillary Has Some Serious Explaining To Do

In one of the most spineless news dumps ever, Chuck Schumer announced his plans during the GOP debate to join the Republicans in undermining the President and pushing us towards war towards Iran. At the exact same time, an billionaire named Haim Saban also released a statement saying he opposed the deal and would fight it. What do these people have in common? They are top-tier Hillary Clinton surrogates. Chuck Schumer endorsed Hillary's 2008 run in 2006, and her 2016 run in 2013, the first senator to do so in both cases. Saban is a top donor to Clinton's Super PAC, having given $2m thus far.

Hillary was quite responsible for our first foray into the Middle East, duly joining George W. Bush and the neocons in a yes vote for an irresponsible and pointless war. Now, it appears she is sitting idly by as her highest level surrogates are ready to lock arms with Republicans and fight the President in favor of yet another war. She herself has given the most tepid possible backing to the deal, and has shown zero inclination toward fighting for votes to support the president. Here's the thing - Republicans really, really want a war with Iran. John McCain sang his cute little "bomb Iran" song 7 years ago, and nothing has really changed. Jeb Bush has surrounded himself with all the neocons who trumped up the circumstances for the Iraq war in 2003, and if you don't think they've already got the next war planned, you're delusional.

In 2003 we learned a lesson the hard way that if one party is really itching for war, and the other is split and/or muted in response, then we're getting war. Hillary herself claims to have learned her lesson from her disastrous vote to enable Bush's war. So why is it starting to look like the same story all over again? There is zero chance that Chuck Schumer, who is about to ascend to Democratic leadership of the Senate and is the Senate's most staunch Hillary supporter, did not consult with Clinton about what he was about to do. Same goes with one of her most prolific funding sources. So where is her leadership? How did she not learn from her previous mistake that giving the Republicans the Middle East war they crave is not going to end well?

There is no place for a Democratic presidential candidate who surrounds herself (or himself) at the highest levels with warmongers who look to undermine a Democratic president, as well as 5 other countries, in keeping peace while denying Iran nuclear weapons. Hillary Clinton needs to forcefully declare that she supports the President and the Democratic party in preserving peace. Inaction and/or more muddled statements while her surrogates beat the war drums will serve to show that she has learned absolutely nothing since 2003.

The ball is in your court, Hillary. It's time to see if you have really changed.


TRUMP: Clinton 'HAD NO CHOICE' But To Come To My Wedding Because I Gave Her Donations

Donald Trump with one of the more bizarre comments of the evening during the Fox "news" debate. After first trying to defend and twisting himself in knots over his previous support of single-payer, the topic turned to campaign donations and the fact that Trump has given money to both Republicans and Democrats. Here's how he responded when asked what he got from Hillary Clinton in return: Trump ‘Paid’ Hillary to Be Wedding Guest:

If we are to believe him, Donald Trump paid Hillary Clinton to attend his wedding.

Fox News host Chris Wallace pressed the former reality television star on what kind of goodies he got from the politicians he donated money to.

“What did you get from Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?” Wallace asked.

“I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said, ‘Be at my wedding,’ and she came to my wedding,” Trump replied. “You know why? She had no choice, because I gave.”

He added that he gave money to the Clinton Global Foundation without understanding how his funds would be used.

“I didn’t know the money would be used on private jets going all over the world,” he said. “It was.”


Go to Page: 1