Bernie's In

I saw an interview from NBC done a couple months ago. Matt Lauer and a woman whose name escapes me were giving Bernie the once-over. One question (and Bernie's answer to it) that Lauer asked encapsulated the whole explanation of why I don't feel confident about Bernie in the White House.

The question was (paraphrased to my recollection) "Senator Sanders, you've witnessed the unprecedented obstructionism that President Obama has experienced - having his every effort met with fierce resistance from the Republicans. You are TO THE LEFT of Obama. Why should the American people believe you would have better, or even equal success getting things done?"

Bernie's answer in a nutshell was "Because I will rally the people to fight for and support the causes that they feel strongly about"
When Matt followed up with "But President Obama tried to rally public support", Bernie's response was something to the effect of "I will do it differently."

And there you have it. I swear to you people, I would LOVE to be a part of a "revolutionary political movement" (as Bernie and the Bern-ites like to call it) that had methodology someone could explain. I GET the excitement about being on this mission to change the way Washington works and throw the bums out and a chicken in every pot even, but I don't understand why they think Bernie can do all that.

I'm listening, if someone wants to explain it to me.

If Sanders gets in it will be because there is enthusiasm for his causes. People support is what makes the difference. Obama was his own worse enemy. He actually held himself back, particularly in the first four years. He kept himself from any momentum. What Bernie wants to do is radically different from Hillary and Barak. They are essentially Republicans in most endeavors. People who don't like Sanders say it will be too hard to do what he wants. All I can say is, now is the moment. Wait another four to eight years and Brave New World will be firmly entrenched.

For Mr. Sanders to get through the changes he wants, something drastic will have to happen in the midterm elections. The problem is ... he's not a Democrat, so even if the Democrats come on strong in the midterms, they're still not his party. He's going to be in an even more isolated position, politically, than Mr. Obama is currently.

Hard call.

That old saying, "follow the money" applies here. That's not 'free' money by any means.

.

If I didn't think you'd say I've made a personal attack, I might say that's a childish characterization of people who just have a different opinion than yours. I mean seriously? If I have any doubts about Bernie's ability to make paradigm-shattering change in Washington DC, I don't "like" him?

The real problem is, Hillary's supporters have blinders on.

Robert Reich
6 hrs ·
Some thoughts on tonight’s Democratic debate:
1. Once again I was struck by the intelligence and public spiritedness of all of the Democratic candidates relative to what we’ve heard from the Republican hopefuls. Any Democratic candidate on that stage tonight would make a far superior president to Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or any of the other blowhards and xenophobes now seeking the Republican nomination.
2. I wasn’t surprised but was disappointed that Hillary Clinton went into such a fierce attack against Bernie Sanders. His traditional position on guns is understandable given the rural state he represents in the Senate, and he’s modified it considerably as a presidential candidate who will be representing all of America. I thought her attack on his health care plan misleading, given that American families and businesses will save far more from it in lower health costs than any additional taxes they’ll be paying. Nor is it fair to characterize it as a threat to the Affordable Care Act because Bernie's plan simply takes that Act to the next logical step. Finally, I thought it inappropriate for her to attack Bernie for his differences with President Obama; they are principled differences on specific policies, which hardly makes him “hostile” to the President.
3. Hillary presented herself as an experienced politician who is prepared to assume the presidency, while Bernie presented himself as the leader of a political revolution. Both characterizations seem fair. If you assume Washington is not changeable and that the vicious cycle of wealth and power dominating our politics and economics is unalterable, Hillary's experience is relevant; she will make a first-class president for the system we now have. But if you believe Washington must be changed, and that system can be altered for the benefit of the many and not the few, Bernie’s leadership is more relevant; he is heading up a political movement.

Judge his ability to press this revolution based on the miracle of what you have already seen him accomplish.

Don't forget what you have witnessed since his announcement last year.

Exactly why are people surrounding him, organizing for him and sending him money?

Obama never vowed to break up the banks, improve infrastructure and get money out of politics. Obama wasn't Sanders by any stretch. No one has been.

Obama was so in love with the system he managed to penetrate that he wouldn't try and change it much. He never was aggressive enough, spoke highly of bi-partisanship, etc... That's comfortable but outdated, pre-neocon thinking. The repukes need to be fought tooths and nails, using the full extent of the powers of the POTUS, and let the chips fall where they may.

Obama was running against Republicans; Sanders is running against what has become of our entire system and the forces that perverted it. The core of Independents, progressives, Republicans, and disaffected people who are with him know what's required after the election.

This is not your average campaign.

What lash just said.

I'm grinning like a Cheshire Cat.

One of the primary #BLM organizers endorsed my man.
As is fitting.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/01/16/Sanders-endorsed-by-Black-Lives-Matter-activist/7361452980696/

Shaun King is a serious, substantive get for Bernie.

I'm inclined to agree with you, and to doubt Edgarblythe's expressed optimism. Obama rode a tide of support in 2008 from a fairly broad spectrum of the electorate and, at least during his first term, enjoyed commanding majorities in both houses of Congress. That doesn't always occur with new Presidents in their first terms. Some say he wasn't forceful enough in pushing change during that time.. However, the fact that the balance of power in the Congress shifted significantly after his first term suggests that he paid a political price for the changes he did make.We'll never know what might have been the result had he pushed harder and faster for more during those first four years. Obamacare was a very contentious issue, and I'm not confident he could have achieved a lot more.

After the Republicans captured the House his maneuvering room was very limited. It would be hard to accuse him of not trying and not exercising all the discretion (and perhaps more) the Constitution gave him during the current term.

The intensity of Sander's appeal to a segment of Democrat voters is undeniable, and it is a safe bet he will get broader support among Democrats if he wins the primary (though I expect the Clintoins will not walk off the stage quietly). That said I don't see him getting a level of siupport in the new Congress even equal to what Obama enjoyed in his first term. The New World Bernie is promising contains many features that are much opposed among many voters, and the likelihood of a Democrat Majority in the House big enough to achieve that appears very dim to me. I believe Bernie's New World will be an even steeper hill to climb than Obama's.

I agree with that, Snood.

Not that all of us are always swell speakers in or out of being interviewed, but I'd be interested in his further thoughts. On the other hand, further thoughts would be flags to attack. It's a puzzlement, this campaign business.

A friend of mine wrote this today. I decided to drop it here.

I am a bit bothered by what I call the "Institutionalist Mindset"...the need to maintain self image by association. Let me see if I can shed a light on what I see as a struggle for control of the Democratic Party.
When Salk and Sabin (Jews, by the way) gave us a cure for polio the March of Dimes had fulfilled its purpose. Did it go away..? No, it changed its name and direction. When nuclear power proved to be not so lucrative and endeavor did Nucor go away...? No, they changed to making steel. These corporations remained useful when their original purpose went away.
For a long, long time the institution of the "church" regardless of religion, sect, denomination or any other descriptor has been way too much concerned with survival ahead of mission...unless the only mission is to prepare souls for an afterlife in Paradise.
I am beginning to think Mrs. Clinton is more concerned with the Institution of the Democratic Party than the mission. There are too many people whose self identity is hung up on the right to refer to themselves as a member of the board.
Tomatoes are fruit but they don't go into my fruit salad. I have to decide whether I am making spaghetti sauce beforehand. I need both.

Robert Reich
6 hrs · Richmond, CA ·
The Washington Post continues to pretend it’s running news stories about the election, which are only thinly-veiled opinion columns upholding the Washington establishment’s views against the likes of Bernie Sanders. See, for example, today's column by David Fahrenthold, below.
I’ve already rebutted one of David Fahrenthold’s Bernie bashes. Fahrenthold makes many of the same charges today but also claims (1) Bernie hasn’t indicated how his single-payer healthcare idea would be cheaper than the current system (Fahrenthold conveniently ignores the large number of studies showing single-payer to be cheaper); (2) Bernie’s other policies would give the federal government “a new level of control” over colleges, prescription drugs, and child care (Fahrenthold thereby equates any public benefit with government control – one of the oldest right-wing memes in the conservative playbook); (3) Bernie’s ideas would be dead-on-arrival in a Republican-controlled congress (probably so -- which is why we must end Republican control); and, more generally, (4) Bernie’s “political revolution” amounts to “vast new government-funded benefits.”
This last allegation reveals the obtuseness of the reporting by Fahrenthold, the Washington Post, and much of the mainstream media. They don’t understand what Bernie means by a “political revolution.” It doesn't mean more government-funded benefits. It means a government that works for the many rather than the few – a government that’s not in the pockets of Washington’s corporate and Wall Street patrons. It means an end to the vicious cycle of wealth and power that has rigged the market to the benefit of those who make giant campaign contributions, hire platoons of lobbyists and lawyers, create their own “think tanks” and other propaganda machines, and even buy the Washington Post.

If the American people prefer republican control of our government, that's their choice - for whatever their goals. Trump as a major candidate for the republicans tells me my time with US politics is over.

What do you believe is the likelihood of the election of a Democrat Congress in 2016 with Bernie as the Democrat candidate for President? My guess is about 5% max.