Last edited Fri Dec 9, 2016, 08:12 PM - Edit history (1)

thrashed and repudiated by Sanders in the primary cycle, and even called upon to resign for his horrible job as mayor of Chicago and his cover-up of criminal police activity, and he thinks he can ride a message of the people out of this? I guess he has to pick his poison. Since he looks so bad on social issues, why not try to pretend he's all for the economic ones?

I'm sure his decision has nothing to do with the possibility that it was indicated to him he would not have support in seeking that position.

As far as democrats go, he is one of our more politically damaged, and unlike a lot of Clinton's baggage, he has earned all of his.

Get the fuck out.

...he means MORE trade deals and MORE tax cuts for the rich(and, if he really had his way, a REDUCTION in the minimum wage).

On economics, they want all the Dems on board to counter Trump and his missteps filling the cabinet w cronies. Schumer is using Sanders just as Bernie used the party to elevate himself. It's politics.

...there was a massive demand for a candidate who fought for the issues Bernie has helped raise. The party wasn't hurt by Bernie's candidacy(the issues that did the most damage to Hillary in the Upper Midwest had nothing to do with him, as has been repeatedly proved). The results in the fall would have been exactly the same if Bernie had never run or had betrayed his supporters by withdrawing on Super Tuesday. Trump's demagogy was going to work at exactly the same level of effectiveness no matter when Hillary clinched the nomination. It would have worked in exactly the same way if no one had run against her in the primaries at all. The 2000 and 2004 results prove that it doesn't strengthen us to have a nomination be decided early in the primaries.

I'm not saying this to refight anything...I proved my loyalty by campaigning for Hillary all fall...it's just that I'm obligated to defend a good person against an unwarranted charge.

And "populism" doesn't have to mean selling out historically oppressed groups. Those groups can be strong components in a populist coalition and a populist program can easily be devised that takes into account the need to redress historic oppression. Why don't you try to be part of shaping something like that, why not try playing a positive role in shaping the party for the better, rather than just constantly accusing people of wanting to throw you under the bus?

The only groups in the party that ever pushed actively to diminish Democratic support of civil rights and anti-oppression politics were the DLC (one of whose founders was our nominee this year) and their successor group, the Third Way-not the left wing of the party. Why is it only people on the left you treat as untrustworthy? Why do you never call out the people who actually DID throw you under the bus?

And I'm not obligated to support the groups that made the Democratic Party stop BEING the Democratic party in the Eighties and Nineties just to prove I'm loyal to the party.

Bernie stumped for Hillary all fall and called on his supporters to support the ticket over and over again. He did everything he could to help the party

What was he supposed to do...endorse her without asking for ANYTHING at all? Apologize for ever running? NOT run(which would have been the same thing as giving up on fighting for what he cared about)?

Bernie didn't owe it to the party to stay out of the primaries, and none of the issues that cost Hillary votes in the fall had anything to do with what his campaign was about.

We aren't obligated to treat Democratic public figures as if they are infallible.

I'm not obligated to support the DLC and the Third Way to prove I'm not "bashing".

From
What I can tell you're supporting What Rham says and trashing Hillary here.

I don't support Rahm(he's a reactionary scumbag and I never liked him) and my comments have been about campaign strategy, not attacks on Hillary as a person.

I despise the right-wing attacks on her since the Nineties. Always have.

Why is it so important to you to try to prove that I'm working against the party and against you? And why does it sound like you are bound and determined to get me kicked off of this board?

I'm a Democrat. I'm an anti-oppression, pro-social AND economic justice progressive. I'm on YOUR side. And I campaigned for the ticket all fall.

All I'm trying to do is help us find a way to get the votes we need next time-and to do so without selling anyone out. There's no way to do that by moving further right on anything.

The reason I mentioned the DLC and the Third Way is that, unlike the Sanders campaign, those groups actually DID throw historically oppressed communities under the bus. It was THOSE groups that pushed a totally unnecessary "law and order" agenda that specifically targeted people of color as a group, that called on the party to accept the Republican myth that drug use, welfare fraud and out-of-wedlock childbirth were largely "black things&quot in reality, they were always mostly white things), and that sought the votes of working-class whites by pandering to the worst prejudices of that group, unlike the Sanders supporters who haven't called for the party to validate white male delusions at all. Yet, as far as I know, you always gave THOSE groups a total pass.

If you didn't give those groups a pass while at the same time demonizing Sanders supporters as closet white supremacists, I stand corrected.

Played a big part in the election we just had? Otherwise why would you keep bringing them up?

Unlike the people you have relentlessly accused of doing so.

That's the only reason I referenced those groups.

You seem to want to throw stones everywhere and play innocent. Either this shit is relevant to the last election or not. It doesn't seem to be.

Got it?

the patience of a goddamn saint.

I have long since given up trying to communicate with the faction that have their fingers firmly lodged in their ears. Not even losing gets through to them.

Kudos to you, Sir.

n/t.

is tax cuts for the rich and more NAFTAs and TPPs.

Rahm is being a total ingrate in attacking Hillary...she and Bill gave the guy his big break in showbiz by appointing him to the White House staff. I don't credit him with any sincerity at all.

. . .near the DNC.

If you so much as imply that Democrats lost loyal voters to Trump because not enough was done to address economic needs of those voters you get all kinds of people hurling out accusations that all those Democrats are just racists and who the hell needs them and not to cater to their economic concerns because it will somehow hurt minorities to care about hungry and nearly homeless families in the rust belt. It's the most stupid and ignorant nonsense I've ever seen. I am about at the point where I say the hell with it...if Democrats can't get their shit together and be HONEST with their flaws then they deserve to lose and suffer the orange asshole.