About that "Sanders campaign operative" who suggested Bernie to the Vatican -- Jeffrey Sachs

[senz]

94. Why are so many Hill fans hung up on title, position, status, and power?

Why is it so important to them to try to prove that Bernie did not receive a personal invitation from the Pope himself, even if he did receive an invitation from someone else at the Vatican? This is the type of thing that would be of prime importance to Republicans but not Democrats. When I read some comments on this issue and also on the subject of endorsements, it feels like suddenly I'm looking at a conservative website -- all that matters is the power, position, title and status of the one doing the inviting, not the invitation itself. I presume the only aspect of Bernie's invitation that interests them is the "honor" factor, not the content and purpose of the invitation. It's merely a matter of appearances, who you're seen hobnobbing with, not what you're actually doing.

This might explain why photos of Hill being chummy with wealthy Republicans and Wall Street CEOs do not bother her supporters at all -- while for the rest of us, they raise red flags.

No wonder they don't like Bernie -- they don't share his values! If FDR hadn't have been fabulously wealthy, they probably wouldn't have liked him either.

How can we all be Democrats? When I joined the Democratic Party several decades ago as soon as I was old enough to vote, it stood for the values and principles that Bernie represents. I have a feeling most Democrats think the Party still stands for these values and are unaware that the current power structure does not.

I strongly suspect Third Wayers are a minority within the party -- a powerful minority, but a minority nonetheless. I'm pretty sure they are heavily represented among Hill supporters who frequent political websites for the purpose of getting her elected.

Maybe we should inform our less tuned-in fellow Democrats what has happened to the party.