Bernie's In

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/two-big-obstacles-to-a-sanders-win-in-iowa.html

the young voters need to turn out and keep on turning out at all levels (and those midterms are going to count massively)

Voters should be grateful for the government transparency laws that required Senator Bernie Sanders, a rival to Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, to reveal how much he made last year in speaking engagement fees. The total is $1,867.42 for three appearances, a grand sum that is chump change in presidential politicking but enough for the senator to respectably donate the money to charity.
Thats right, Bernie has been bought too. He is “owned” by Bill Maher to the tune of $850.

Top dollar for Senator Sanders was a not so hefty $850 paid for a combative exchange with Republican sympathizers on “Real Time With Bill Maher,” the HBO show where the comedian regularly invites politicians to march to a different drummer.
So both Clinton and Sanders have used their positions as elected leaders to receive money for speaking publicly. HRC has made millions and Sanders made thousands which he then gave away. I guess the Clintons really are better capitalists then Bernie, maybe thats why they have the support of so many rich and powerful corporations and people (but then I repeat myself cause corporations and people are apparently the same in modern America

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/01/27/1475811/-Bernie-Sanders-comes-clean-about-his-paid-speaking-fees?detail=facebook

Just proves that the Clintons are already bought and paid for. What chance does the regular Joes and Janes have?

Pardon while I puke.

the flipside is that people can charge more if they're popular speakers

do we ding people for being popular? I'm not convinced that's a meaningful argument

__

there are enough things to ding all the candidates on without considering general popularity (also can't forget that popularity often translates to votes and beyond all else, I'm part of the global community that doesn't want to see all parts of the US government held by Republicans)

joefromchicago:
I won't vote for Clinton because, when she had the opportunity to vote against a criminal enterprise, a war that violated both international law and common sense, she chose instead expediency and pandering to the perceived popular opinion. That vote revealed a character flaw so profound that it disqualified her from ever holding the office of president - her belated, half-hearted, and thoroughly inadequate apology notwithstanding.

As a sitting Senator, Sanders is also restricted in what he can make in speaking fees. When Hillary was a Senator and when she was Sec of State she didn't rake in large speaking fees.


http://conginst.org/2007/09/18/how-much-outside-income-can-a-member-earn-in-a-year/

The Iowa caucuses could be an interesting result. Because of the way caucuses work it isn't a one man one vote situation. Rather it is a delegates per precinct result while reaching viability.

If one precinct gets 8 delegates and only 15 people show up and 13 of them are for Hillary then she will get 8 delegates. If another precinct gets 8 delegates and 100 people show up with 75 of them for Bernie then Bernie will only get 6 delegates and Hillary will get 2. That means that Bernie could have more people coming out for him but if they are in only a few precincts he still won't get the majority of the delegates. This isn't a conspiracy. It's the way the system works.


http://www.iowacaucus.biz/ia_caucus_howitworks.html

The most radical aspect of Sanders' candidacy is not that he is a socialist. It is that he is a poor, lower middle class guy WHO NEVER WANTED TO MAKE MONEY. That's pretty scary for some.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/takingnote/2015/05/26/bernie-sanders-comes-clean/?_r=0&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2F

Most people consider her to be parlaying her government ties in a grossly calculated and morally bankrupt way, openly selling influence, to enrich herself. ...which is why she's losing the election.

Who will win it, or who will steal it successfully? Sigh. I guess I'm more accustomed to the dirty underbelly of politics (not sure about you, but my visual on this lately has been the ugly honking face of Debbie Wasserman Schultz) to be under a rock. This stuff is in plain view.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-campaign-suspicious-corporate-influence-iowa-caucus

Bernie actually benefited nothing from speaking, as it went to charity.

The facts seem damn uninvited around here.

People see Hillary as another Bill or Barak and seem willing to settle for the incremental loss of democracy.

Bill Moyers
44 mins ·
"For a long time, as he campaigned for president, a wide spectrum of establishment media insisted that Bernie Sanders couldn’t win. Now they’re sounding the alarm that he might.
And, just in case you haven’t gotten the media message yet — Sanders is “angry,” kind of like Donald Trump.
Elite media often blur distinctions between right-wing populism and progressive populism — as though there’s not all that much difference between appealing to xenophobia and racism on the one hand and appealing for social justice and humanistic solidarity on the other.
Many journalists can’t resist lumping Trump and Sanders together as rabble-rousing outliers. But in the real world, the differences are vast.
Donald Trump is to Bernie Sanders as Archie Bunker is to Jon Stewart." - Norman Solomon, via CommonDreams.org
Read more: http://billmoyers.com/…/the-escalating-media-assault-on-ber…

Those trying to compare Trump and Sanders are pretty stupid.

For Bernie supporters: a Bernie money bomb is afoot on social media. He's only down 2 points in Iowa (says his email to supporters), and we are sending some cash to help him get over the hump.

Sent $10. for you, edgar I think about you every time I send a bit.

Friends on facebook and Twitter are bombing, too.

Anyone here who likes the Bern and wants to help, feel free to be a part of our solution.

Here's the link. <3 https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/thanks/AB22109587?k=e2caafe1&success=true

Thank you, lash. I would like to donate, but just don't have the bread.

It makes me happy to partner with you every time. You are such an encourager for me.

I am beside myself about this week in Iowa. i mean - we're entering some weeks that tell the story. How far do we hope? How far past South Carolina do you hold hope?

Ugh!

Anything is possible here. Who would have contemplated the stunning impact Sanders has had on this primary campaign as recently as six months ago?

As a minimum, Sanders has injected a much needed spirit of competition and debate over policy that otherwise would not have occurred at all in the Democrat Party primary. In that respect he has done everyone a service.

As you know I don't think much of the programs and solutions he offers. However the topics he addresses and the debate about issues he has stimulated are real, pertinent and important to us all. I sympathize with his goals, applaud his committment, but believe that his solutions are incompatible with the realities of human nature, and note that in application they generally yield bad results for all. That said, I also recognize the authenticity he has brought to a needed debate. We need more of that and less of the euphamistic and vague platitudes that normally infest political speech here.

The 17th century British poet, Rpbert Herrick nailed it in his verse titled "A delight in disorder"