Bernie's In

One can always count on Parados to pick the nits carefully, particularly when he is defending the indefensable.

I'm not a fan of Senator Sander's politics, but I note that in his career he has been both modest and scrupulous in following the rules and in avoiding any taint of undue profiting from his public service.

One cannot say that of the Clintons. In spite of the "vast right wing conspiracy" Hillary believes confronts them, they have accumulated a substantial fortune mostly as a sideline directly related to their public service. From the payoff following the Marc Rich pardon, to Bill's unsavory connections with the Haitian restoration program, to speaking fees paid by countries and investors with concurrent pending State Department approvals at stake, to the use of the Clinton foundation to pay the salaries of a coterie of political aides and functionaries , the Clinton story is a classic of personal enrichment through the abuse of public power.

The contrast with Senator Sanders is rather stark.

Retreating Clinton Campaign Torches Iowa Town To Slow Advance Of Sanders Volunteers

This from the Onion (and it's so true)
http://www.theonion.com/article/retreating-clinton-campaign-torches-iowa-town-slow-52261?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

1) The issue is that Hillary is receiving money from the very industries that will benefit from her policies should she be elected. This is a problem. The fact that Bernie doesn't have the opportunity to be swayed from being well-payed by the insurance industry doesn't make it any less problematic that Hillary has profited from this opportunity.

Hillary has taken money from the insurance industry. She is now opposing any single payer health care plan. This is a problem that she has that has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders.

2) Bernie and Hillary both have the choice to use super-PACs or forgoe them. Bernie has chosen not to have any super-PACs. Clinton is making use of super-PACs. This is another significant difference between the two.

With just a few days to go until the Iowa caucus, Bernie Sanders spoke to an evening rally in Burlington, Iowa on Thursday and made some of his boldest statements yet criticizing Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's political track record and Wall Street ties.

Sanders, who has faced an escalation of establishment ire in recent weeks, made a sharp contrast between his principles and his rival's—such as his early and consistent opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Keystone XL pipeline, the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.

"Check the record, find out where my opponent was on all of these issues," Sanders said. "It is great to be against the war after you vote for the war. It is great to be for gay rights after you insult the entire gay community by supporting DOMA."

In recent months, Clinton has come out against the TPP and the Keystone XL pipeline, despite her previous support for both projects. Sanders depicted her evolution as calculated—responding to public opinion rather than taking a principled stance.

"It's great to finally, kicking and screaming, come out against the TPP, but where were you on all of the other trade agreements?" he said. "It is great to come out against the Keystone pipeline after supporting the Keystone pipeline."

"So what all of this is about—what it's about—is that what leadership means is not simply following the majority. It means having the guts in certain moments to say, you know what? I don't care what the Washington Post editorial board has to say," Sanders continued, referring to the Post's controversial critique of his campaign on Wednesday. "And I don't care what Fox television may be saying. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong."

As the days count down, recent polling indicates that Sanders has a four-point advantage among likely caucus-goers and continues to gain public favor nationally. In fact, as Brent Budowsky writes for The Hill, it is Sanders' growing popularity that seems to have ignited the corporate backlash against him—exposing the establishment's back-door "bedlam."

"Virtually the entire Washington and Wall Street establishments are now in a state of panic about the possibility of a [Sanders] victory in the Iowa Democratic caucus next Monday," Budowsky writes. "What the insider Washington Democratic establishment fails to understand is that the issues Sanders raises have great appeal to the broad nation."

In a speech earlier in the week, Sanders criticized Clinton for attending a private fundraiser with an investment firm in Philadelphia, while he stayed put with the voters. "Frankly," he told a crowd in Mason City, "I would rather be here with you."
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/01/29/seizing-establishment-panic-sanders-sharpens-contrast-clinton?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

Got a nice laugh! Thanks for sharing

" Retreating Clinton campaign ....."
I got a laugh out of that one too.

Any little excuse true or false that can be used to put her down is all right in Lashes mind.

Good info to know. Thanks for sharing it.

I'm gonna jump on this bandwagon. That is very funny and made me laugh quietly to myself.

Hey. I wanted to share some fun with you. I joined a handful of Pro-Bernie groups on facebook, and I'm hearing, daily, messages that deeply hearten me about our tribe across the country.

One Bernie for President page conversation centered around sending Bernie a money bomb, and the page sponsor remarked about how she wished she could do more. A buzzing ensued and members gofunded her to spend the week in Iowa. Haha. She's freezing her ass off in Iowa right now knocking on doors. $10 from a lot of people is some money. She's going to be messaging us with reports about what she's doing and how things seem on the ground. That moment we got together and changed something big - and the feeling behind it - this overwhelming sense of love and like-mindedness that threads through us - is potent. I think no matter what happens in this election, there is no going back to the status quo for most of us. Change will come.

When we get particularly pissed about some baseless accusation against Bernie, we start a money bomb for him. It's amazing to start a conversation about it one day, and read the results the next day in rivulets of news commentary.

Another cool thing is to hear a grandmother from Bismarck ask a millennial how single-payer would work; to hear a healthcare worker ask a retired college professor about the future of her job, and though she's worried about where her job fits after the fallout of structural changes in our "healthcare delivery system," she says she can't imagine voting for anyone else. I've met many people like me who'd given up on the system and seethe out the word politican who are sending their 3rd and 4th campaign contributions - gleefully. Amazing. The world is on its ear.

But even among the Bernies, not everyone is sold on every aspect of what Bernie plans to do. I'm not. We explain to each other and research what we're weak on - and sigh about a few things, exult in others and talk about working after the election, calling out obstructionists and getting rid of them. Run of the mill people are considering politics under the Dem Soc ticket - young people who are still as idealistic as we were when we believed people can make a difference. Cause, um, we are.

I get a second chance to elect Bobby Kennedy, it seems.

If I were Bernie I would personally pick some bodyguards. Not joking.

What? It's indefensible to follow the law? Or it's indefensible to make money of speeches? The list is rather long of people that make or have made quite a bit of money off speeches. I guess you are against capitalism when practiced by a "librul."

The Vampire Weekend play for Bernie in Iowa

1) Insurance doesn't even make the top 20 of the industries contributing to Hillary. Never mind that the argument is silly in some ways because only individuals can contribute either by pooling their money in a PAC or by listing their employer. If this is a valid argument then we have to worry about Bernie and the military because his list of industries in his top 20 include US Air force and the US Navy.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000528&cycle=2016&type=f&src=c

2) Actually they don't have the choice. Candidates can't talk to super PACs nor can they create them while candidates.
Before you say Bernie isn't supported by super Pacs you should read this...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/bernie-sanders-super-pac/420930/

You are free to argue that Bernie is less likely to be influenced but you can't argue he isn't in the same position Hillary is when it comes to donors and super-Pacs. He just isn't getting as much money from them.

You narrative is rejected. People can tease out the real meaning of "is," along with Bill Clinton, but a rapidly growing number of voters are sending that tired style of obfuscation (let's call it what it is: lying) straight to hell. It doesn't work anymore.

Here's who she is.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/257234-clinton-brings-in-most-big-pharma-money-of-2016-field

I'll tell you what's "rejected". Your constant haranguing invective. It doesn't further Bernie's cause; it isn't convincing anyone to vote for Bernie; all it is doing is souring the whole discourse and causing a bunch of rancor where it isn't even necessary. It certainly isn't some twisted way of serving Bernie's candidacy - everyone who's honest knows that Bernie himself wouldn't sign off on the kind of endless bile toward Hillary you keep up. It doesn't serve anything except some unknown depth of bitterness in you. I know this might earn me a spew, but I resent having to slog through rant after rant after obscure conspiracy after craftily worded slam of Hillary. It's less than useless. It should be below you.

(And don't give me any bullshit this just being the defense of an acolyte in Hillary's camp. I've long since decided Bernie was my vote of conscience in the primaries and whoever the Dem is in the general).

And while I'm at it - you said in explaining why you wouldn't vote for the Dem candidate if it's Hillary that she doesn't "deserve" your vote. Well if you're so into meting out what people "deserve", do the rest of us "deserve" a Trump or Cruz presidency and all the misery that will bring? Having delivered a gift to the Republicans in the form of a bunch of pouting "revolutionaries" staying home on election day, will the Hillary haters just absolve themselves and begin a four year long campaign of continuing to bitch and whine about how stupid the rest of the world is for not electing Saint Bernie?

Well said.

It has nothing to do with liking, as I like and respect the a2k dems or indies who are refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton: it has to do with the massive punishing destruction that would follow after an easily possible loss of both the presidency and the supreme court and the mess that congress is already.

I'm speaking my opinion just like everyone else.

Wow, Snood, well said. Lash thinks she's just stating her opinion yet she attacks anyone here who she perceives is not a Bernie worshiper, or doesn't worship Bernie enough. Bernie's running a decent campaign and she's behaving like a Dick Cheney or just a dick badmouthing and trash talking. I doubt Bernie would be impressed or even welcome her brand of support.

You say that like it is a good thing. If your point is that Hillary's money received from insurance companies is dwarfed by the money she receives from Goldman Sach's, I won't argue.

The difference between the corporate backed Clinton campaign, and the people backed Sander's campaign is pretty striking.




Bernie is absolutely not in the same position as Hillary when it comes to donor and super-Pacs. Most of Bernie's money is coming from small donations made by individual Americans.