completely but he is our only chance to slow if not stop the corporate take over of this country. Any other option is business as usual I'm afraid.

....think positive folks.

Elizabeth Warren in 2020 or 2024. Or at least most Sanders supporters will be.

And although I don't support Bernie, I'll will fight hard to elect Warren.

If you support Elizabeth Warren, how in the world do you rationalize supporting a coroporate shill like Hillary?

want to pick. I guess the problem with "Bernie now" is that, for better or worse, Bernie doesn't appear to have the votes to win the nomination.

I disagree that Hillary is a corporate shill.

I do agree that there are differences between Hillary and Warren, but there are also differences between Warren and Sanders. I can support Clinton and Warren in a primary, but not Sanders.

Of course, I will support any one of the three, along with Obama, in a general election.

Their views are far closer than Hillary's and either one of them.

I don't think I can support Hillary. Voted Democrat without exception since I was first eligible to vote (1969), but my conscience given the urgency today just will not let me.

We can keep piddling away the middle classes future in microscopic steps, but not for long. The middle class and America is darned near broken. Hillary can't and won't fix it. If you can't see that, then you are either blind or out of touch.

Sorry, thems my views.

I don't agree that Warren is much closer to Bernie. I think she is right in between Clinton and Sanders.

It's not nice to call people who disagree with you blind or out of touch.

I think Hillary will do several things that I want done, at least if we can take back the Congress, which I admit is tough given the gerrymandering. But she can at least start building support.

She will prioritize day care funding. She is a long-time champion of pre-K education. She supports a higher federal minimum wage. And most importantly, she will appoint justices who uphold Roe vs. Wade, and roll back the assault on abortion rights.

You can vote, or not vote, for whomever you like. But let's suppose that Hillary wins. Garland gets confirmed at the end of the year, and then Clinton replaces Ginsberg and Breyer in her first couple of years. Can you honestly say that you wouldn't be saying to yourself "I'm so glad that a Democrat won" and being hugely relieved that we didn't miss an opportunity to secure the court for the next 20 years?

The numbers look dismal for him. He doesn't have enough delegates to win the nomination. It is going to be Hillary and I am moving forward to working on getting a Democrat in office.

of your choice. Your rational reading of political reality as it stands now is most welcome.

Although she may support the other programs if it suits her in the moment, abortion rights is the one thing she is willing to trade repuvlicans "to build consensus". I don't think you are blind in your vote. I simply think you have too much faith in her. History will tell!

Bernie will do too. So you haven't convinced me there. I just think Bernie is the stronger candidate when it comes to eliminating the stranglehold corporations now have on federal governance.

The SCOTUS argument makes the assumption that Bernie can't win the GE. In my mind, he's a stronger GE candidate than Hillary, not just because some Bernie supporters won't support her. There's plenty of polling evidence showing this. Bernie has the best favorability ratings of any candidate. He is and has been consistent over his entire political career and people trust him. So I don't buy the SCOTUS argument. If Hillary loses the GE, it will be because of her low favorability ratings on both sides of the aisle. Those ratings are not misinterpretations of Hillary -- they are what people assign to her based on her record so they really can't be oainted as unfair. So SCOTUS going conservative under Rs will be the resault of Hillary herself failing, not Bernie supporters "not showing up". It's on her, just as its on Bernie.

Finally, you are right: "It's not nice to call people who disagree with you blind or out of touch". I actually almost got up out of bed last night after having posted that to edit/delete that sentence. Was reading a book and fell asleep though. Anyway, I do apologize for that -- it wasn't nice. I was just being grumpy because of what happened in Wyoming.

Warren has been a Democrat for more than a year, and didn't join just so she could ride the party coat tails in a primary at the 11th hour.

She's proven to work with the machine of politics, rather than against it. I understand how the rebellious attitude of Sanders can be appealing, but when it come to practicality and actually getting things done.. not so much. I prefer someone who can get things done.. Sanders doesn't display that capability, Warren does.

I don't know your particular position on this, but many here have stated a large part of their reason for not supporting Clinton is because, back in the 60's she was a "goldwater girl". I always chuckle to myself when some of those same ones tout Warren, who was a Republican supporter through to the mid 90's (just to be clear, I personally, don't have an issue with that... people change). I fully expect that to all of a sudden become an "issue" for Sanders supporters should she end up endorsing Hillary. I've no doubt that will be the reason that she goes under the Sanders bus.

He is every bit as capable as Hillary at getting things done. Working with the machine of politics is fine in Warren's case - I agree with you there and I as well don't hold her past against her. Nor do I hold Hillary's youth against her. I would support Warren in a heart beat had she run, but she didn't.

So I'm really left with a choice between Hillary and Bernie. I trust Bernie to be true to democratic as well as the principles he is running on. He has been exceedingly cosistent in his values throughout his long career. The same is not true in my view for Hillary and I don't feel I can trust her to aggressively pursue the national interests that I believe are most vital for our nation today: a balanced economic playing field and avoidance of military conflict morass.

I no longer accept the philosophy that one must play along to get along, e.g., work within the party as you say. That philosophy has served individuals well, but it has clearly failed the masses. Working within the system is only as good as the system's ethical and moral integrity. The parties today fail badly in measuring up to that standard. Those who cannot see that perplex me. Left to assumptions I can only reason that they are relatively privileged and somewhat detached from the life challenges of common people, they are and enjoy being part of the establishment, or they just aren't looking.

Bernie is a good, strong, smart and capable man. I give him credit for running as a Democrat and not an Independent, while others denigrate him for doing the opposite of what they also denigrate Nader for. I struggle to see any objectivity in that. Had Bernie run as an Independent, the likelihood of a Democratic presidency in 2017 would have been marginal at best.

What she shouldn't be elected for is her gender if we won't have a woman president by then. What is up with all this sexist crap? Hillary doesn't need to be president because she's a woman. She shouldn't be president because she's the wrong person for the job. So sick and tired of the fake rah rah crap over Hillary. She doesn't need our support because she's a woman. She needs our support if her expertise and values are what we need right now, and unfortunately they aren't.

The energy or interest to take on such a grueling job at that age.
Also, if Hillary is elected and DOESN'T satisfy the waning middle classes, there's often a backlash against the governing party and Republicans may organize themselves better around a fascist Ted Cruz type (but with more personality).

damage will be done and how much will be lost in those years ?

I think she will be a good president.

will win. I am not.

Unfortunately, the candidate turned out to be another center right politician.

If Bernie wins the nomination, we will have a chance.. if he doesn't, we will likely get another chance in 2020... after 4 years of GOP rule, we will have another opportunity for real change.

I think we elected a very good president in 2008 and have done well under Barack Obama. I think Hillary will be a good president for eight years, especially if we can take back the congress. And I think that Elizabeth Warren will make a great president if we elect her in 2024.

It amazes me how many people dismiss all the good that President Obama has done for this country.

He passed Obamacare

He raised taxes on the wealthy.

He dramatically lowered the budget deficit.

He greatly improved the economy.

He appointed two good Justices to the Supreme Court.

He began regulating carbon as a pollutant and providing emissions guidelines for power plants.

He made valuable investments in renewable energy research.

I think we are much better off for Barack Obama having been elected.

The best republican president of my lifetime.

Barack.. much like Clinton, had the luck to be following a complete disaster. 12 years of reaganeomics left this country in a steep recession. Between that and .com boom, he had some fabulous economic times. However, he also did a TON of damage. Free trade agreements, continuing interference in the middle east, deregulation, welfare reform, telecommunications act of 1996 (I could go on and on).

He lobbed bush a softball and unfortunately, bush hit it right out of the park.. continued the deregulation, ignored the housing bubble (Just like Clinton ignored the .com bubble) and BOOM.. 8 years of bush leads to the worst recession in modern history.

Hard for Obama NOT to do well after that. However, despite being handled a dream scenario, we get the weak as water ACA without a public option. (which he could have pushed through via reconciliation). We get the bush tax cuts made permanent b/c he blinked in negotiations with the GOP. We get MORE bad trade agreements. Insurance companies, private hospitals and drug companies are stronger than ever.. and oh yeah.. "Dodd-Frank" the weak as water financial legislation that has "tools" that by the time you use them, it is far too late. The entities that caused the crash are as big as ever and we are in just as much danger of another crash as we were in 2007.

So yeah, Obama carried the ball further down the field and has made it more difficult for us to undo the damage that started under Nixon, continued under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, bush and now Obama... Corporations are bigger and more powerful than ever and the people who run them richer and more powerful than ever.. and Hillary Clinton will not do a damn thing to change that... you know it.

Obama had a chance in 2008 to turn this around. If he pushed for the public option and had BALLS in 2010, we wouldn't have lost the 2010 election, b/c the base would have had his back. But.. that isn't who he is... he is just another republican.. "One of the good ones", a little right of Eisenhower, but left of Nixon and Reagan.

He did raise taxes on the wealthy, restoring the top tax bracket of 39.6 percent.

And the president did support a public option. The votes for it just weren't there.

I agree that they should have strongly considered going through budget reconciliation, but I think the threat to do so was what got Joe Lieberman's vote. I also think that the Supreme Court might used that as an excuse to strike it down.

The VAST majority of the bush tax cuts are permanent and plz dont try to sell me on a 39.6% top tax rate.... that is insanely low.


And sorry.. but Obama HAD the votes to get the public option via reconciliation... he only needed 50 votes and they had them.. SANDERS was leading that coalition... but the White House dropped the public option from ita plan and sold us out.

They didnt NEED lieberman at that point.

And IF the democrats hold power in 2010... as they would have if Obama kept the public option you REALLY think the Supreme Court would strike it down??? They would be handing the democrats 2012 and beyond if they pulled that... the only reason it was close is bc the aca remains unpopular. If they struck it down... they poke the beast and we can go after single payer again.. like MOST PEOPLE WANT. The ACA survived bc it is a republican plan... its the plan bob dole ran on... its the plan the heritage foundation came up with... it was never in REAL danger from the supreme court. Its the plan THEY want... they win either way... they get to use its unpopularity against democrats.. but if it stays.. so what.. insurance companies, hospitals, drug companies.. they ate all seeing record profits.

Wake up and smell the cat food.

Obama is the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

That is just a laughable token raise that barely qualifies as a tax hike. We NEED to go back to the tax schedules of JFK (top bracket 70%, or even Dwight Eisenhower 91%) in order for it to make a difference.

Candidate Obama
"borrowed" the National Public Option from John Edwards because it was polling so well.
Obama's Public Option hit the trash can on day one after it serves its purpose, though he did spend about a month walking it back before actually abandoning it.
Can you point to ANYTIME he ever used the Bully Pulpit to speak out passionately for the necessity of a Public Option "to keep them honest" like he did to ridicule Hillary in 2008 for NOT having one?
Did he EVER hit the TV shows passionately marketing a national Public Option directly to America?

No.

shows us all the harms that will come if we keep up the status quo by electing Hillary. For example, the ACA will just get more and more unfair to the working class. It's un-affordable now as it is.

when people realize the horrific impact. Much as we now realize (although I did at the time) the horrific consequences of so many of Bill Clinton's laws.

And what we need now are two different things. Stepping out of the godawful bush years to Obama was the right transition. Most of us knew we were essentially electing an economic centrist. Maybe that was a good thing if he pulled us back from the edge without scaring Wall Street? I don't know; I wish there'd been prosecutions and stricter laws. Electing Bernie would be electing an economic progressive. Which is so obviously needed, unless we are satisfied becoming a sharply stratified, democracy in name only society.

Every day we live. Think globally. Act locally. Everything we do. Get rid of all big bank credit cards. Get rid of all debts if at all possible. Talk with others in a friendly & positive manner. Go to their local events. Share their local events. Participate in things offline if at all possible. Love nature. Help preserve it. Give confidence and assistance and friendship to the most liberal people you know. Encourage them to run for local or state or city or county or school board or congressional elections. Help get them elected. It's much easier at local levels. Encourage and support artists, musicians, independent film makers, local coops and help get others to support them too. We can shock the world. We will. Peace.

The truth is our government is not a dictatorship. There are thousands of elected positions among all levels of government. By focusing only on the top office you are letting others decide every other level. Have a problem with gerrymandering? Pay attention to the state level. Want better schools? Pay attention to the local level.

every day is a new opportunity and I don't think you can ever say there "shall not be another."

What I do think is that if we don't do all we can to take advantage of the opportunities we have now to push this movement, this Bernie political revolution, as hard and as far as we can, it will be harder next time to get back the ground we will lose when the reactionary forces really push back. I think it also means keeping up as much pressure as we can regardless of who is leading and showing the way. There are people rising up now all over the place, inspired by Bernie's example, and they're going to keep getting stronger if we can keep pushing and looking for allies and opportunities whenever and wherever they show up.

Thanks for the observation Joey.

He said that this political revolution is only the start. He has said that we all have to be involved AFTER the election, no matter who wins.

We need a revolution, and this is our last chance for a peaceful revolution, as far as I'm concerned.
November shall tell us which direction this country goes in.

nominate the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices. If they do you can expect more laws designed to disenfranchise students, minorities and the elderly to be passed, challenged and then upheld by a partisan Conservative court.

I talk to a lot of young Bernie supporters. So many of them tell me that they were not at all interested in politics until Bernie. I seriously doubt that they will vote for Hillary because she is a Democrat. They want Bernie, and I don't think that a substitute is going to get them out to the polls. I wish the Democratic Party could understand that. This demographic will not show up in the official polls because they are the cell phone, I-phone generation. They don't seem to be polled.

So it is utterly essential that the Democratic Party nominate Bernie. No way Hillary can win. Not if the young people I talk to have anything to say about it.

And some of the shenanigans that Hillary or her supporters have pulled in the primaries and caucuses will backfire in November if she is the candidate. Sorry to say that, but there is a lot of disillusionment in Hillary among young Bernie supporters.

Check it out for yourselves if you don't believe me.

I've encouraged them over the years to engage in our governance through voting at leat. None of the 3 have ever voted despite my best efforts to impress on them that elections have consequences. --- We'll you know what? All three of my kids are amped by Bernie right now. My daughter, the youngest of the three even talked me into driving 200 miles to meet her and attend a Bernie rally. I was flabbergasted and, at the same time, thrilled by that.

Here's my point. All three of my kids and all of their friends that I have met have said that THEY WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY if she is the nominee.

I ask them why? Without exception they all say that everyone but Bernie is part of a rigged system. They say they have no faith in the elections process in America. What do they mean? I've asked that and theirds answer is that NATIONAL ELECTIONS ILLUSION THAT WE HAVE A ROLE.

You know what? We (both parties frankly) are proving them right in 2016.

If she wins the nomination, she may ultimately win the White House, but the Democratic Party will have lost these young people possibly for decades or forever.

I know all the Hillary supporters think this is all just a boatload of fear-mongering, sky-is-falling bullshit. But from what I see, it's real.

And it's not just young people. Bernie attracts people from all age groups, genders and races. Many of them, as I increasingly do, will have strong reservations about voting for Hillary if it comes to that.

I guess I would just ask Hillary supporters and those who haven't yet weighed in during their State's primary to have an open mind and think about this. I could go on and on but I'll leave it here by just saying I sincerely hope they do. Young Americans and Bernie supporters are not all just whacky and unrealistic.

whether the very real possibility of having a Conservative Supreme Court over most, if not all of their working lives is less damaging than a Hillary presidency. If they truly believe Hillary would be worse then they should either sit out the election or vote Republican.

But I can pretty much promise them one thing, a solid liberal Supreme Court will outlast a Hillary Administration, even one of two terms.

If we lose the Supreme Court now to a 6-3 or 7-2 Conservative majority when we are so close to moving it left, the setback could take many decades to recover from.

This should be of major concern to progressives. Should Republicans control all three branches of government beginning with this election, I believe there is a very strong chance McConnell will eliminate the filibuster as a means to pack the SC with highly partisan and politicized justices. Even as much as I might dislike Hillary, that is a chance I am not willing to take.

But from what I can gather from talking with them, they don't seem to be held hostage by it. One of the things I hear from them is basically that things sometimes have to get worse before they get better. In effect. more pain will only make the revolution grow.

Not sure I buy that, but they seem pretty set with it. And I can't say that any of us have real life experience in times like these to draw from. We shall see I guess.

What strikes me though is the DNC has done everything it can to stomp Bernie people, including young folks, down as opposed to bring them into the tent. For all the talk of being able to get things done by being able to make deals, I've seen absolutely nothing from the DNC, especially in the way the State Dem parties have administered the primaries. They've done nothing to mitigate a fundamental distrust of the establishment. I'm pretty sure the Party platform is not a satisfactory means of achieving party unity.

I think we are seeing a battle for the soul of the party. It's future is in young people, not old, and the Party is basically at war with them. That doesn't bode well.

Me? I'm with the young folks if you can't tell. I don't feel I owe the Party anything if it isn't representing the interests that I feel are most urgently important -- and it has been falling far short of doing that for a long while now. The SCOTUS? I guess I may need to decide whether I'm okay with being held hostage as well. Right now I'm frankly not sure.

Here's what I don't get at all. Bernie polls better than Hillary against all Republican candidates, yet a gazillion people get hung up on him not being, well, part of the party establishment. I cannot for the life of me understand that.

about that exact thing.

It's rather disturbing to think that. Oh, there's Elizabeth Warren, but she doesn't have the consistent history that Bernie has. I guess we can always hope.

I am personally very discouraged by what I see going on in the DNC and this primary. It's as if the values and principles are irrelevant -- only Party longevity and loyalty count. Bernie didn't play their game and they seem to be doing everything they can to make him (and his followers) pay for that -- regardless of values/principles. Even more incomprehensible is how so many Democrats who really have not been any more actively involved in the Party than the average person share that attitude. I have never once seen any meaningful defense of favoring Hillary over Bernie in light of core democratic principles.

She does not have near the experience that Bernie has, and has actually accomplished very little -- certainly not as much as Bernie has.

Bernie was on the Budget Committee for years. And he is, by virtue of his upbringing and his life which is humble compared to the lives of the billionaires and millionaires that are so many in congress. Thus, he knows how to manage on little money. If and when he becomes president, the grassroots Republicans will love his frugality.

It's interesting to me that nobody says much about his frugal ways. They are so much a part of who he is, and we could really use a dose of frugality in our government.

Whatever happens, Berners and Bernie need to keep this movement going. I'd hate to see it die on the vine as Occupy Wall Street did once the establishment built enough public support to squash it.

She hasn't been a congresscritter for very long, but so far, since entering the national stage, she has been consistent. She just hasn't been at it for a quarter century like Bernie has.

This is coming from a Bernie supporter, btw. I fear the damage that a Hillary presidency will cause to "one person, one vote." A Hillary presidency will move the country even closer to "one dollar, one vote" IMO.

And yes, I fear that the damage done in the meantime if we do not elect Bernie will be extensive. But that does not necessarily preclude Elizabeth Warren (or for that matter, anyone else) from taking up that mantle in the future.

Note: I do, however, fear the Republicans more than I do Hillary.

There's a good chance Obama will get his nominee appointed I think. Then the SCOTUS issue moves to how much longer will Ruth be around. Absent that, I would not hesitate to write in Bernie if necessary in the GE.

Not absent that -- I'm just not sure what I will do. I have no doubts that Hillary will continue to allow the slide to corporate governance.

Hillary won't be throwing the proles any NEW crumbs, but she won't be fighting to CUT food stamps either. The Rs will. Paul Ryan has already tried it in his capacity of Speaker of the House.

As much as there is to fear under a Hillary presidency (and yes, there is), craziness like that is the tiebreaker.

that is the urgent problem requiring Hillary's coronation, it's that the RS will cut taxes for the rich and subsidies for the poor. Hillary doesn't even come close to Bernie in regard to that ball game. .... So tell me why again you support Hillary over Bernie?

that her family does not want her to. This came out early on. I can understand that. It is immense pressure on candidates And Their Family...especially during the politically charged GE. The scrutiny, the lies, the drama.

She is a policy work and that doesn't typically make for a good president. Besides, we'd have Mass all in our faces for taking their Senator. Can't say I'd blame them.

and the future of this country the youth hold in their dreams & hands will definitely backfire on the billaryites.

what did barney frank call our youth the other day? "idiots"

i'm from the older peace and love and organic holistic health and open heart generation and yes, there ain't no goin' back no more. not for me. i want the dream of better times for my loved ones and my planet and all that lives upon her.

But to surrender Republicans control of all three branches of government and a solid Conservative Supreme Court because people don't like Hillary?

People with this attitude might want to think this thing through some more.

Like I posted downthread, a Liberal Supreme Court will long outlast a Hillary presidency.

represents to a lot of people, especially young people.

That is simply the reality.

Go out and talk to some young Bernie supporters. I am a Bernie supporter, but I am older.

Just this morning I was at a meeting and a young Bernie supporter told me what I wrote in my post. And the fact is that some of the young people who worked for Bernie in the primaries and caucuses that have taken place and who observed what they believed was sleazy, underhanded stuff are very, very disillusioned with her.

She is kicking herself by trying too hard to win. She is giving the impression to young Bernie supporters that she is corrupt and that she sort of cheats. And I must say that I am very impressed by the young Bernie supporters that I am meeting. They are very capable, very motivated, hard-working and sincere.

It will be a real shame if we do not listen to your young people during this election.

Feel the Bern! It's very likely your children do.

i don't know exactly how hillary's world view became so skewed - that's not my job to figure out.

but, i can see our country being railroaded by the 1%, the greedy, the warmongers, and the bigots of classicism, ageism, race, the poor, sexism, etc. let it stop NOW.

it is not a matter of whether i like or dislike hillary. but, i do know this: though i may extend respect to her as a person, she would have no qualms disrespecting me and what i represent - she may represent herself as being respectful, she will act against what i represent with her next breath with no problem or conscience.

and I don't like the shenanigans that Hillary's campaign is pulling. But if Hillary wins the nomination then hopefully I'll appreciate these shenanigans to ensure that we don't have any of the insane Republican candidates in the White House.

No matter who wins, we can't abandon the ideals that the Sanders campaign has brought forth. There's Congress that we have to consider and it's important that we turn it to more progressive members. This is just the beginning, and while I want Bernie to win so badly (ask my husband!) I'm not willing to give up the fight if he doesn't prevail in the long run.

In other words, I will not take my marbles and go home.

would rule on the corporate side also, so a win for her is a loss for us.

More foxes guarding the henhouses. No accountability for white collar crime. More business as usual, more grand bargains, more compromises from the middle rightward.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayer, Elena Kagan or Merick Garland.

Why would you think that Clinton's nominees would be any different than those 4 justices and Garland?

Hillary's appointments to the court, if she wins, will be very similar to the appointments of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

with Sotomayer or Kagan and definitely not with Garland!

in the last 60 years, since William Brennan was placed on the court.

need progressives on the court. Even those on the court that are socially progressive are fiscally conservative. H. Clinton if extremely fiscally conservative.

TBYG

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006VOK8NS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1

if America is to survive...I am happy that people do not want to be screwed over and over again...
Bernie is the choice of the people who are tired of crumbs off the 1% table...

You have only one choice and only one chance. There are no lesser of evils just degrees of the unacceptable. Join it or tear the whole thing apart. Choose carefully.

We'll have to watch it on the internet.

The Revolution will not be televised.

read reference to democracy spring 2016. the revolution will not be televised

While Bernie CAN'T do it alone - and keeps saying so - I wouldn't hold my breath for ANYTHING revolutionary to develop if Hillary wins. She represents the repressers and has taken SO MUCH money from them that she'll have NO CHOICE but to do what THEY want her to do - not what the common folk want.
If Bernie loses - NOTHING of a progressive nature will advance. We'll just get a continuation of the Obama administration. Jobs that pay nothing and lending "services" that prey on those working those hopeless jobs.

she does deserve it, after all.....

And it ain't a term in the Oval Office.

It is up to us, not someone at the top.

went nowhere. Why? Because there was no "point man". (or woman) The point person is important - even if only for inspiration and a sense of direction. Thinking you can achieve the same goals with just any ol' point person is fooling yourself.

because it had no "point man". Those who claimed that Occupy needed a leader the loudest were simply the ones who wanted an easy target the most.

But even those who were the moving force behind it were later heard to say that it didn't go further because of their determined aim of keeping it anonymous. If it's aim was to draw attention, it did that. And having done so, no one would answer any media's questions other than to repeat that there was no one person or group to do so.

This latest version of Occupy (Occupy DC!) has a truly righteous standard bearer to lead the assault against the establishment. What's more, they've had the very unique (and essential) gestation period RIGHT IN THE WOMB of the establishment WITHOUT attaining their genes! There's no rarer beast than that.
His contender on the other hand...... it's hard to argue that anyone who's shared a "gestation period" in the establishment womb could come away MORE imbued with the genetics of that critter than she has. And if she's the nominee and manages to squeak by Trump, there's no way in Hades that she's gonna pick up the banner for progressives (LOL - Hillary probably thinks Progressives are a brand of canned soups!). We'll find ourselves on a list - and it won't be a nice one. If we're not amongst the guest lists to those $25K-a-plate devotionals, we can kiss our asspirations adios!

with the political revolution to counter obstructionists & to push the progressive agenda:

by electing progressive leadership across the board;
by attacking the corruption and ripping it out of our local communities, at our state level, and at the federal level;
by appealing to the corportracracy where they will be forced to listen because they cannot force us to buy their products;
by blocking the continued pillaging of our natural resources - whether it be water, air, or soil with drilling, fracking, and outright intentional poisoning because the greedy pigs do not care;
if we cannot outlaw megalopolies, we will form co-ops and give them the competition they fear;

we CAN do this - but it is going to take ALL of us.

but you're right! It takes more than one old man to have a revolution. In the words of Fred Hampton, I am a revolutionary!

You know it, I know it and Bernie knows it, too.
[center]

[/center][font size="1"]Don Quixote et Sancho Panza by Gustave Doré from on_Quijote_and_Sancho_Panza.jpg" target="_blank">Wikimedia Commons
(Public Domain)
[/font]

He is a man whose Creator did not understand His own Creation. His Creator thought him a mad fool, but yet his Creator endowed him with more courage than Hector. To Sancho Panza, the monsters were but windmills, but Don Quixote knew what they were, mounted Rocinante and rode forth into combat with the mighty beasts without knowing or without regard to how the day would end, because he knew the cosmos would be better if he took on and vanquished the monsters.

That's who that guy is.

Don't let any barber or priest in Camp Weathervane tell you that those monsters are but windmills, for we know they are banksters and polluters and war profiteers who must be vanquished.

happened to Don Quixote?

Remember, Don Quixote's Creator misunderstood him.

Don Quixote's Creator wasn't an infallible God, but a mere mortal named Cervantes.

Upon returning to his village, Don Quixote announces his plan to retire to the countryside as a shepherd, but his housekeeper urges him to stay home. Soon after, he retires to his bed with a deathly illness, and later awakes from a dream, having fully recovered his sanity. Sancho tries to restore his faith, but Quixano (his proper name) only renounces his previous ambition and apologizes for the harm he has caused. He dictates his will, which includes a provision that his niece will be disinherited if she marries a man who reads books of chivalry. After Alonso Quixano dies, the author emphasizes that there are no more adventures to relate, and that any further books about Don Quixote would be spurious.

And your narrative continues . . . .

*Sancho tries to restore his faith, but Quixano (his proper name) only renounces his previous ambition and apologizes for the harm he has caused. He dictates his will, which includes a provision that his niece will be disinherited if she marries a man who reads books of chivalry."

His delusions were were far more wondrous than the dull reality of his death. Dying in bed is such a waste of a man who had the courage to take on giants. So what if they were actually windmills?

I rest my case.

Cervantes continues his own narrative:

My desire has been no other than to deliver over to the detestation of mankind the false and foolish tales of the books of chivalry, which, thanks to that of my true Don Quixote, are even now tottering, and doubtless doomed to fall for ever.

Perhaps those false and foolish tales of the books of chivalry might well have been forgotten, had Cervantes' contemporary, Shakespeare, not used two or three of them as the bases for his comedies. Cervantes himself also inadvertently immortalized those tales by writing Don Quixote, a work of satire that is indeed superior to most of the literary genre it lampooned.

As I said, Cervantes himself did not understand his own creation. How would most people feel riding forth to take on a few giants? I'd be terrified. Yet Don Quixote had the balls to do it such a thing. Contemplating that helps us understand better what courage really means. A bully goes into a fight, even one that is unnecessary, knowing he is going to win; a fool goes into an unnecessary fight knowing he is going to die; Don Quixote, a brave man, goes into a fight that must be fought not knowing whether he will be victorious or dead at the end..

That brings us to the nobly quixotic run for president of Bernie Sanders.

It is that time.

Because the question is always framed to the advantage of the rich and powerful. That way socalled answers are aways fixed to make the powerful appear to be doing good things for the people.

and best practices quarterly reports.

I once had an argument with my boss about reducing inventories. Ever quarter it had to be reduced. I asked, "What happens when we reach zero. Do we go into minus inventory?" I was in a meeting with others on the office team. He pulled me aside later and said. "You're supposed to be on MY side!" That told me immediately that the average worker was being fed baloney and not facts.

And thus, the end of the policy of the United States to promote Capitalism.

We have elevated it to a religion and tried to make it synonymous with patriotism.

For me, the first step was learning, and then taking action in many ways. I am learning what my role is (for myself) and how I can be part of the solution in the most impactful way. I know getting inside the Dem party is important. Plus, I have been learning many ways to make my voice and views heard.

Because of Bernie, I have woken up to the necessity of being an active participant in democracy. I may never know how my actions affect the whole, but I know for sure they won't, if I don't participate.

Thanks to Bernie, one more person is now participating in democracy.
His work matters. So does mine.

Thanks Bernie!!!

of the usage of the words "I" and "we" in the speeches delivered by Clinton and Sanders.
I am just a blue data point, labor unit and consumer in flyover country, yet this is a telling difference that I have found very revealing.

So where does that leave us?

we deserve.

Unless we stand up all at once and say, "Enough!"

Haven't you ever noticed? He doesn't say me, I or my. He says we!

If a government makes the people suffer too much, then the people may change it at the ballot box. I keep hoping that the change will remain peaceful.

Bernie's not just another senator because he's not on the take like almost all of the rest of them.

will this country tolerate? I don't think people are going to let these crimes go this time.

and all of the people in other countries where corruption and cartels are persecuting and oppressing the common people.

Oh yeah, I'm all for wanting to take our country back.

Yet, the Republicans also say they want to take our country back, too . . . back to the 1950s!!

The problem is they are too stupid to realize that when they say government, they mean the 1% that runs the government, not just the actual politicians, who they hate. They haven't figured that one out yet. They probably never will. Rush will never mention it, or Fox News. Being a zombie means you never have to think, and that is comfortable for most Republicans.

the people chose fascism, in the USofA they chose Democratic Socialism. Now we are faced with the same choice. Democratic-Socialism with Sanders or corporatism with Clinton.

and run with it to te Whitehouse even if Bernie loses.

Is so often used in the wrong way for the wrong reasons, it's truth lies in your preceding eloquent text. Thank you scottie55!

He always knew he was just only part of the answer. I haven't been involved in the back and forth much in this primary, but I'm betting his ego has not grown much from the decade of listening to him on Fridays on Thom Hartmann.

Thanks for the thread, scottie.

many great posts in this thread for the political revolution.

I posted a tweet with a graphic of the book, "The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations," noting that Bernie's campaign supports the thesis of the book. We have organized around Bernie without much direction from Bernie. Thus, we can continue with or without Bernie. It would be better with Bernie, but we have successfully organized around big ideas and a vision of the country that we want. If Bernie become president, we can use our passion and self-creating organizations to hold elected officials' feet to the fire. All the money in the world can not overcome self-organizing activists. If Hillary (God forbid) we can hold her feet to the fire and then get a real progressive, such as Liz Warren elected in 2020.

This is the revolution. We have seen the cheating, the media blackouts, the deluge of money and we are better prepared to overcome these next time when we can get real liberals elected to local, state, and federal offices. We have worked against our own Party thus far and we have found that we can win and win big. We will need to get our people elected to local and state Democratic Party offices so we have better control intwo and then four years.

The party is over. We have long memories. And we will win in the end because we jave had enough!

The other thing that Bernie's campaign has shown is that there are other MILLIONS of people that feel the same way. That is important, because the mainstream tries to make us think we are isolated. Surprise.

If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I won't vote. If Bernie doesn't get the nom, my friends are pretty well split between not voting at all or protest voting with Trump if he gets the nomination for GOP.

It's not that I don't care. But if Hillary gets the nomination, she's as bad as any GOP nominee.

I don't trust her. C'mon her and Bill made more than $28mil gross income (reported) in 2014. She's bought. Her track record shows consistency in siding with money.

Clinton Foundation supporters? Hello anyone? See no problem with that?

She continually flip flops on positions. I try and find ONE thing of significance she's done right - and for the people - and see nothing. It's all rhetoric.

Even on women's issues. She's already stated she's willing to compromise on abortion rights. Something that the fight has already been won for.

Right now she is saying what she needs to in order to get elected. I don't trust her one bit to stick with it.

The email issue makes me genuinely concerned. I work in IT and have worked on several government projects. There is no way she should have set up a private server.

On one hand she says she wants to disband Citizens United. On the other she continues to have Super Pacs and says that accepting contributions from lobbyists has no influence on her. Heck, if the FTC requires bloggers to say when they get a free sample of something to review it because of the bias, why should she be any different when it comes to millions of dollars?

Aside from that, I don't agree with her proposals. At best, it will simply be term 3 of Obama. And sure, Obama did do some good but the reality is the wealthiest people are making a larger and larger percentage of income earned. That sure isn't right.

I could go on but these are the primary issues I have.

another vote against the Rethug's candidate will be lost. That should do wonders for your expectations of what government looks like.

No, those who blocked everything good he tried to do, more power help anything?

As American citizens with an enormous task in front of us, one that may determine the survival of our planet, we must be asking the right questions, and listening closely to answers.
American expansionism or not?
Cleaner energy or not?
Money out of our political system or not?
Regulate the banking industry or not?
Take down the DEA and free thousands of innocent people from the private prison gulag or not?
Support a pathway to citizenship for hard working immigrants or not?
The questions seem easy, but the answers come hard.