Bernie's In

George,

I know quite well you have serious disagreements with many/most of Bernie's economic ideas, but I'm so gratified to have a person I respect that won't hide from the facts, but addresses them head on - damn the torpedoes. I think I can still see from your viewpoint. Maybe it's partly cloudy from where I'm standing now

I'd rather have one friend like you that twenty sycophants who preen and approve, signifying nothing.

I'm excited about following this nutty cycle with you.

You'll have to give me a tip off on who you might be hoping for.

In recent Bernie news: Muthafucka!

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/25/lawyer-for-walter-scott-family-switches-sides-to-endorse-bernie-sanders/
South Carolina, baby! Smell that napalm.

I know what you mean. At least he draws you out instead of trying to shut you up.

Yes. He's not afraid of a debate of ideas.

When she’s out of facts, Clinton throws dirt
January 28, 2016 2:00AM ET
by Raina Lipsitz @RainaLips
A few months ago, the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination were getting along swimmingly.

It was nice while it lasted.

I have always admired Hillary Clinton’s ambition. What’s distressing is how far she’s willing to go to fulfill it. As we learned in 2008, Clinton plays nice when an unlikely rival first appears out of nowhere, steadily gaining in popularity and momentum. But as soon as it’s clear that her challenger poses a real threat, she panics and whips off the gloves.

In 2008 she assured “60 Minutes” that then-Sen. Barack Obama was not a Muslim, “as far as I know.” Many interpreted the qualifying phrase as insinuating that Obama could be a Muslim. Others insisted that members of the media were reading too much into that final clause.

That remark was open to interpretation; other tactics were unambiguously dirty. It was reported in 2008 that Clinton staffers circulated a photo of Obama in African dress to fuel rumors that he was a Muslim. Her campaign’s New Hampshire co-chairman, Bill Shaheen, resigned in 2008 after raising questions about Obama’s teenage drug use, and two Iowa volunteer coordinators resigned after forwarding emails about Obama’s nonexistent Muslim identity. Mark Penn, Clinton’s chief campaign strategist early in her 2008 run, advised the campaign in a 2007 memo to emphasize Obama’s “lack of American roots.” Penn, too, ultimately resigned.

By contrast, the most notable resignation from the Obama campaign was that of Samantha Power, now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who resigned after calling Clinton a “monster” who would stoop to anything to get elected.

It is possible neither Clinton nor her senior advisers, aside from Penn, knew of or condoned these dirty tactics. But she certainly has a high tolerance for slimy operatives who specialize in sewing doubt and fear. During this year’s campaign, she has accused her top rival, Bernie Sanders, of wanting to “tear up” the Affordable Care Act and dispatched her daughter to frighten voters with the specter of a Sanders health care plan that would strip low-income people of Medicaid. Both claims are patently false. He favors a single-payer health care system that would extend coverage to all Americans, not take it away. Clinton knows this, and it is disingenuous to say otherwise.

Now her campaign is telling voters that Sanders would lose in the general election and damage the prospects of Democrats in congressional and gubernatorial races around the country because America hates socialists. There is nothing to support this claim. Nearly all polls to date indicate that Sanders would do better than Clinton in the general election if his opponent is Donald Trump, and recent polls indicate that he would outperform her against Sen. Ted Cruz as well. She is too young to have many memories of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, but she is surely conversant with his legacy. Evidently she hears no ugly echoes in comments like this gem from Clinton ally and Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon: “Here in the heartland, we like our politicians in the mainstream, and [Sanders] is not. He’s a socialist.”

What’s alarming about Clinton’s shady tactics is that she seems to believe her ends always justify her means.
Never mind that Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist and his views place him squarely in the mainstream. If Clinton is as eager as she claims to attract millennials to her campaign, she might want to consider the fact that 18-to-29-year-olds have a more favorable view of socialism than of capitalism. She can trot out as many TV showrunners and 23-year-old Disney escapees as she can scare up, but it’s not going to help her much. Lena Dunham’s millennial-bait interview with Clinton revealed little about the candidate’s convictions, aside from an affirmation that Clinton is a feminist who believes student loans should have lower interest rates. (Sanders thinks college should be free.) Even young people care more about policy positions than pop stars.

The Clinton campaign hit a new low in 2016 when Clinton ally and confirmed liar David Brock told The Associated Press that Sanders’ latest ad makes it seem as if “black lives don’t matter much to Bernie Sanders.” It’s not surprising that Brock — who is best known for, back in his archconservative days, viciously smearing Anita Hill during the 1991 Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings — doesn’t know the difference between advocacy and pandering. But let’s pretend for a moment that counting the number of black faces in a political ad is a fair and reasonable way of assessing a candidate’s commitment to defending black lives.

Even by this dubious standard, Clinton fares no better than Sanders. By the more rational standard of taking candidates at their word, both Clinton and Sanders believe that black lives matter. But unlike Clinton — who came late to her critique of private prisons, has made no pledge to reform unjust marijuana laws and supports the death penalty — Sanders has consistently put forth policies that reflect that belief.

The Clinton campaign has launched exactly one legitimate attack on Sanders: that his legislative record on guns conflicts with the views of many Democratic primary voters (while arguably improving his chances in a general election). He voted against the Brady Bill, which mandates background checks for gun purchases from licensed dealers; for allowing passengers to carry guns on Amtrak; and for shielding gun manufacturers from civil lawsuits filed by the families of victims of gun violence.

Sanders may have gotten some things wrong, but as Clinton pointed out in the first Democratic debate, he did so consistently, voting against the Brady Bill five times. Where does Clinton stand on guns? Now she hates them, but in 2008 she moved to the right of Obama, reversing her earlier calls for a national gun registry, defending the rights of states to pass their own gun laws and, as Obama put it, “talking like she’s Annie Oakley.”

It is possible Clinton has a set of core principles from which she would never deviate, even in a tight race for a position she really wanted. But aside from a belief that women should not be limited by gender — a view Sanders shares — it’s not at all clear what those are. So far, the worst the Sanders campaign has said about Clinton is that she has accepted obscenely high speaking fees from Goldman Sachs (she has) and should be ashamed of her affiliation with Brock (she should be).

Plenty of politicians will do or say anything to get elected. What’s alarming about Clinton’s shady tactics is that she seems to believe her ends always justify her means. Back in ’08, angered by her transparent triangulation on guns, Obama chided Clinton in absentia, saying, “She knows better.”

That’s precisely what makes her campaign behavior — deliberately misrepresenting her opponents’ beliefs and biographies when she feels threatened, altering her own positions whenever it’s expedient and stoking voters’ fears when she can’t win on substance — so appalling.

Raina Lipsitz writes about feminism, politics and pop culture. Her work has appeared in TheAtlantic.com, Kirkus Reviews, McSweeney’s, Nerve.com, Ploughshares, Salon.com and xoJane, among others.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera America's editorial policy.

Do you think if it stays a close election and Hillary starts running super negative ads regarding Sanders in an effort to try to make some headway in the remaining states that Bernie will stay as he has been or do you think he might eventually let the dogs out in an attempt to win?

Ugh, that is a terrible sentence.

I don't think Bernie will ever go tabloid on HRC, but I DO think he'll tell the truth about her - who pays her, her dirty business - and that will be more damning than any tabloid pablum.

Bernie will not avoid the truth about her, but I don't believe he will fight dirt with dirt.

so, it's down to Super Tuesday, Hillary is throwing every bit of dirt she has on Bernie on the national channels and has Bill out stumping and is just relentless in her attacks. You don't see Bernie fighting back with Benghazi or emails or any of the "scandals" plaguing Hillary?

As an aside, I've loved Bernie's clean campaign. It should be a model for future campaigns.

I think the truth about Hillary is worse than the possible "scandals."

The actual truth is bad enough. It's murdering her with millennials. The other stuff dilutes the actual shite she's bona fide done.

I cannot wait til the votes start coming in. Argh!

Under Congressional rules, no member of Congress can accept any money for speaking. They may accept up to $2000 to be contributed to charity that does not benefit them.

http://www.ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/manual.pdf

The law was passed in 1992.

Bernie is contributing payment for speeches to charity because that is the only payment he can accept under the law.

Thank you very much Lash . I learned a long time ago to value friends who disagree with me. There are two ways to learn lessons from life (1) By listening to those who disagree and to those who point out your errors or (2) by screwing up and dealing with the consequences. The advice isn't always right, but rethinking the situation, based on it, does no harm and may save you. The second method ia always harder.

I have repeatedly found that the last thing I need by my side while undertaking anything new or difficult is a clone of myself.

Don't worry, George. You're one of a kind, and I enjoy you as a freind, and look forward to seeing you again soon.

Ah. That's her loophole - she, Bill and the kid are "speaking" for the "Foundation."

Lovely.

Btw, dear bud. I get a vibe from you that you prefer to go against Bernie rather than Hillary.

Hammer and sickle, taxes, or age? What do you consider to be the lightening rod?

This is just in, not sure it is as big an issue as it is being made out.

Sanders staffers posed as union members in Vegas



It seems like he should get a handle on his young staffers.

I'm not sure where to plunk this, but the discussion under the chart is more about Bernie than the others so I'll put it here. We've all seen this chart before. Many of us have taken the test and posted our results. It's a little different when someone else assesses where one lands on the grid, but what this shows is something ebeth has been saying for years. America's political spectrum is much further right than much of the rest of the world. Most of the front-runners on the right are barely on the grid, Hillary is more right than center, and Bernie is barely center-left.

If I remember right I ended up somewhere in the purple quadrant, which explains why no one running in the 2016 except Gary Johnson speak to/for me at all.

Interesting

Hammer and sickle plus $$$. Otherwise, I just can't stand Hillary.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Lash?

Senate ethics rules apply to sitting Senators. Bernie is a sitting Senator. Hillary is not currently a Senator nor is she employed by the government. She is not subject to Senate ethics rules.

When Hillary was a Senator she was never personally paid for a speaking engagement. She never donated honoraria to the Clinton foundation for a speaking engagement while she was a Senator.

To claim Bernie is somehow a saint for not accepting payment for speeches ignores the reality of the rules he is subject to. He is only following the law. Hillary is allowed to be paid for speeches so she too is following the law. It doesn't make one of them more moral since their circumstances are not the same.