CommunityThe Bullpen

Team Clinton Worried Sanders Will Make Hillary ‘Look Like A Corporatist’

With the official entry of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont into the 2016 presidential race comes an atypical challenger for Hillary Clinton. Unlike traditional presidential aspirants, Sanders opened his campaign by sharpening his rhetoric rather than trying to dull it down. While this may mean Clinton will not have to worry about being outflanked by Sanders for the so-called (and largely illusory) “center,” it certainly means that Clinton’s alignment with Wall Street and Corporate America is going to prove problematic in the Democratic primary given her record.

This is something, reportedly, that Team Clinton is well aware of. It would not be at all surprising that Hillary Clinton and her supporters fear a contest of ideas – the neoliberal ideology she and her husband are closely associated with is very unpopular both with the general public and most members of the Democratic Party in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

Hillary Clinton knows this all too well and has been trying to distance herself from her own recent past including her husband’s presidency. Unfortunately for her, the shift looks too opportunistic and does little to neutralize the clear contrasts a Senator Sanders candidacy draws.

Insiders familiar with the Clinton campaign’s thinking described it as “frightened” of Sanders — not that he would win the nomination, but that he could damage her with the activist base by challenging her on core progressive positions in debates and make her look like a centrist or corporatist. The source described the campaign as “pleased,” at least, that O’Malley and Sanders will split the anti-Clinton vote. A Clinton spokesman declined to comment.

At his kickoff rally in Burlington, Vermont, on Tuesday, where thousands turned out to support him, Sanders vowed to “break up the largest financial institutions in the country” and provided the kinds of specifics Clinton has yet to color in. Sanders called for raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. (Clinton has said she supports raising the minimum wage but has yet to say by how much.) Sanders also supports a single-payer health insurance system, expanding Social Security benefits, free tuition at public universities and universal pre-kindergarten.

Hillary Clinton is not only not illuminating her 2016 campaign platform, she is avoiding the press as best she can. Part of that is due to a few ongoing scandals concerning deleted emails and the corruption at the Clinton Foundation, but another aspect is surely due to worries over exactly what her positions should be. Crafting a poll-driven message is difficult in a country with such volatile politics, especially given that Clinton is going to be raising money from the very millionaires and billionaires her party’s base wants taxed and regulated.

Those donors, of course, will want something in return should Clinton become president. So maybe the real issue is not whether Sanders will make Hillary Clinton look like a corporatist, but whether she will govern like one if elected.

Previous post

Federal Appeals Court Affirms Persons Threatening Suicide Have Right to Not Be 'Shot on Sight' By Police

Next post

Late Night FDL: Heartbreaker/ Ring of Fire

Dan Wright

Dan Wright

Daniel Wright is a longtime blogger and currently writes for Shadowproof. He lives in New Jersey, by choice.

  • ThingsComeUndone

    Her helping oil companies frack in eastern Europe won’t do that? Her daughter married to a hedge fund guy won’t do that? Note Chelsea’s wiki does not link to her husband at all “MARCH 22, 2015 When Mr. Mezvinsky and his partners began raising money in 2011 for a new hedge fund firm, Eaglevale Partners” “Mr. Mezvinsky worked at Goldman Sachs for eight years before moving to a private equity firm. He is widely credited with spearheading Eaglevale’s big bullish bet on Greek bank stocks and Greek debt. Unfortunately for investors in Eaglevale ” “Eaglevale’s flagship fund, with about $380 million in assets, is up about 10 percent this year, but that follows a poor performance in 2014. Last year that fund lost 3.6 percent largely because its bets on an economic recovery in Greece failed to pay off. By comparison, hedge funds using the same kinds of macro strategies as Eaglevale on average rose 5.62 percent in 2014, according to Hedge Fund Research, an industry performance tracking firm.

    Eaglevale had worse luck with a fund that raised $25 million solely to bet on a recovery in Greece. Its 40 percent plunge last year was previously reported by The Wall Street Journal.

    Some investors in Eaglevale have withdrawn from or reduced their investments. The investment linked to the Rothschild fund, for example, withdrew about half of its allotment.” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/business/dealbook/for-clintons-a-hedge-fund-in-the-family.html?_r=0

    Maybe Hilary thinks she can’t be a corporate tool if she lost money on the market?

  • ThingsComeUndone

    “make her look like a centrist or corporatist. ” But but the Clintons created the Third Way they helped found the Blue Dog Dems!….are there any Blue Dog Dems left in Congress or did it get to unpopular to be a Blue Dog?

  • ThingsComeUndone

    Hilary could return to the Lake for another talk to brush up her Lefty Cred…who knows maybe this time she will actually take questions. I bet Sanders would.

  • ThingsComeUndone

    Will Hilary give FDL access to her campaign, access Obama shut off a while ago because we would not play ball. Hilary we are your base an educated, tech savvy more females than most political blogs and opinionated we have been described as ” a Foul Mouthed Fem blog ” in the past. ( note I’m not female). If you can’t win us over go home.

  • sihlkee

    Clinton does a better job of that than Sanders ever could. He will eventually endorse her and ask his supporters to vote for her, so he’ll work tirelessly to keep her from looking like what she is.

    His answers when questioned about her have already been distastefully reticent and calculated.

  • Ford Prefect

    LOL. Hillary’s campaign is hilarious! A bunch of corporatist hacks don’t want to be seen as corporatist hacks? This is better than I could have hoped for.

    The best oppo against Hillary is Hills herself. Her speeches going back 25 years (or more). Her being a director on the board of Wal-Mart. Her being a Goldwater Girl back in the day. Her being president of her college Republican chapter. Her touting black children as “super predators” along with her husband… while in the WH. Mass incarceration. NAFTA. Welfare Deform. Influence peddling. Holy crap, their foundation is an unending cavalcade of corruption! Bigotry, corruption, reactionary politics, war profiteering… basically, all the things the Democratic Party wants to be known for, eh?

    For all her money, running against her wouldn’t be all that difficult. It wouldn’t be fun at all, but not exactly a tough nut to crack. The ads are largely already in the can, they just need some editing:

    “As a shareholder and director of our company, I’m always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else,” current Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said in a speech in 1990, when she was first lady of Arkansas.

    http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_hillary_clinton_in_1990_im_proud_of_walmart_20150525#.VWOiWcfovGk.facebook

  • Alice X

    So much better a foul mouth (something I’ve never exhibited myself /s) than the moral stench of Hillary.

  • mulp

    What is Sander’s plan for a military dictatorship? Is he going to limit his coup to just the Federal government, or will he do a military takeover of red states or all states?

    Surely he’s not running to be a McGovern to reelect Nixon-Bush for a fourth term, is he?

    After all, the power is in Congress and the State legislatures, not the White House.

    Bernie is running to reduce the progressive votes in Congress by one in trade for a veto that can not implement a single progressive agenda item.

  • Andy_Lewis

    Hillary, is that you?

  • Alice X

    What a hairball is the Senate amendment (courtesy of Robert Menedez D-NJ who was just indicted by Zero’s DoJ – note to ZERO, corrupt Chicago pols have nothing on corrupt NJ pols) to the fast track bill. It effectively excludes countries that operate in human trafficking, Malaysia being the most specific example. You know, as in
    …………
    SLAVERY!

    Let Hillary grab hold of that one.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/americas-first-black-president-throwing-slaves-under-the-bus-on-tpp.html

  • Andy_Lewis

    Defeatist rubbish.

  • osage

    The ONLY things that CAN make Mrs. Clinton “look like a corporatist” are HER POLICY POSITIONS, HER STAFFERS, HER CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS and HER PROSPECTIVE PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEES. Mr. Sanders CAN’T DO THAT “TO” Mrs. Clinton. ONLY Mrs. Clinton can do that “TO” Mrs. Clinton.

  • sihlkee

    I’d like to see him win the primary even if I disagree with some of his pathetic stances on war and civil liberties, but I don’t think he can beat the machine (he enables).

  • mulp

    In 1980, WalMart was delivering jobs and goods to rural America primarily by building a store in an empty area at a cross roads providing access to a big department store to millions who had never seen one.

    Sam Walton was the Ben and Jerry’s of retail – they created jobs in rural Vermont and exported Vermont farm production to ever larger parts of the region, or Stonyfield yogurt of NH.

    Sam Walton got old and died and his enterprise taken over by MBA answering to Wall Street.

    He started with one store in nowhere America. He did not have the backing of Wall Street just the backing of loyal workers – associates – and customers.

    So, if you think you could build a better retail enterprise, do what Sam Walton did, start with one store and win the loyalty of workers, supplier, customer and deliver your superior solution of high wages, no imports, and low prices because you are so smart.

  • Alice X

    ONLY Mrs. Clinton can do that “TO” Mrs. Clinton

    Mission accomplished.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

  • sihlkee

    You are the champion oligarchs deserve.

  • mulp

    How do you show lefty cred when asked “what was your role it killing Foster? Why did you order terrorists to attack in Benghazi? How much cash do you pocket from funding vaccinations for polio in Asia? …”

    What I have seen over and over is the press has zero interest in policy and negative interest in telling voters about any candidate’s policy nor analyzing the policies for reality.

    Instead is about gotcha questions, rumors, and character assassination.

    Thus we have the claim of voting for the lesser of two evils.

    I can’t think of any press conference when the questions dealt with actual policy issues honestly.

  • Ford Prefect

    LMAO. I love the smell of RW trolls in the morning .

    Yes, they made Americans poorer, off-shored more American jobs than any other company… they made wages lower too. They systematically abuse people, even physically. 1/3 of their workers are on public assistance. Yes, they are the paragons of American success!

    Does the HRC campaign pay you by the post?

  • Coach Bill

    “.. and make her look like a centrist or corporatist.”

    If the shoe fits………… How can she not look like that which she has repeatedly demonstrated that she is.

  • Pluto

    That’s corporatist, with a side of psychopath.

  • tjbs

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck is it a duck ?

    It all depends what the definition of is is , isn’t it ?

  • Hugh

    The problem with all this horse race analysis is that after a while it starts to take the horses seriously. Sanders is a waste of time and energy for progressives. He’s already told us that after stringing a lot of us along and keeping any real progressive alternatives from taking hold, he’s going to throw his support to Hillary. What part of this is hard for progressives to understand?

    Sanders’ candidacy isn’t for real. Hillary and her camp know it isn’t for real. Why should any of us treat it as real? As others have said here, Clinton looks like a corporatist because she is a corporatist. She is neoliberal on economic policy and neocon in foreign affairs. She’s called the “free” trade, job destroying TPP, the Gold Standard. She has refused to join the Fight for $15. She has taken a couple hundred thousand a pop to give “speeches” to execs at Goldman Sachs. She wants us all to think that she is just one of us and not remember the hundred million she and Bill have amassed from their rich benefactors or the even bigger bucks their vanity foundation the Clinton Initiative has raked in from them. She doesn’t want us to look at her ties to Wall Street as Senator from New York.

    No, we are supposed to forget all that. The trick for Team Clinton is to get us not to believe our lying eyes. Reality becomes perception, perception that they can blame on Sanders, a fake candidate in his own right.

  • stella blue

    Say what you will about Hillary, nobody panders better. I love her fake accents. I’ve missed the Clinton’s. They’re always good for a laugh.

  • Alice X

    As much as Sanders is shown in the M$M then there may be a benefit for the bewildered propagandized and exploited multitude. There of course will be no benefit for them from the election of either wing’s candidate of the corporate war party.

    Except the illusive feel good glittering generalities that Madison Avenue brings to all of the trinkets and poisons they help sell.

    If Sanders genuinely comes out swinging as he should he will at best be marginalized.

    If he says he will not necessarily endorse the Democrats nominee, as he should but didn’t, he would at best be marginalized.

    If he had run as an independent he would have experienced what Nader did.

    Sterling credibility among those who were paying attention. A huge fight for ballot access.

    I sometimes think I have a thorough grip on what the problems are, I am rarely certain that I know what the solution is.

    Even Nader was not talking about the over turning of Capitalism, though putting a large number of white collar criminals in jail would be a good start.

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/05/hillary-clinton-president-walmart-business-feminist/

    http://socialistworker.org/2015/05/20/what-should-the-left-say-about-sanders

    http://socialistworker.org/2015/05/27/an-faq-on-sanders-and-the-left

    http://socialistworker.org/2015/05/26/bernie-sanders-is-no-eugene-debs

  • pelham

    There was a debate the other day on TRNN about whether Sanders should run as a third-party candidate. But if — as noted here — neoliberal policies are unpopular with a majority of Democrats, why should such a question even be raised?

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to suggest that the minority neoliberals consider splitting off — thereby leaving the Democratic Party to the majority of its members?

  • Jim Eaton

    Hate to say it but HRC does not need anyone’s help to look like a corporatist!

  • Coach Bill

    You presume that the “majority of its members” can articulate a clear ideology and hold a firm grasp of issues.

    It is my observation that a majority of card carrying democrats are mired in a cult of personality and that their devotion to HRC is rooted solely in the belief that she can win. A few are in the it’s a woman’s turn camp. I never hear anyone say “I”m for Hillary because “; insert vision, policy or principle here.

  • Alice X

    Youtube is not always loading for me today.

    search for

    John Pilger – The New Rulers of the World

    on youtube

  • Bluedot

    I really don’t get you. Hillary is certainly problematic. But do you have some secret progressive candidate in your pocket? If so who?

  • dick_c

    What Sam Walton did and what his kids do are two different things. initially, Walton was bringing something new to rural communities–and the stores were a lot smaller. Many of communities we see now rejecting new Walmarts are doing the right thing.

  • dick_c

    “What was your role it killing Foster?” Sounds like, “Do you still beat your wife?” Besides, that’s not a left/right issue.

  • Bluetoe2

    But Hillary Clinton is a Corporatist in good standing. Anyone that doesn’t know that is an ignorant fool but then the Clinton “Team” is counting on the ignorance of the Merican public and they have never failed to confirm their ignorance.

  • Bluedot

    There is at least one reason to vote for her, warts and all. There will be four Supreme Court justices over 80 years olds and a few by a bunch. The next Preisdent will likely get to appoint all the replacements in 8 years. Think that is not important at your own peril or your children.

  • Bluetoe2

    More likely the GOP. MULP is nothing more than a capitalist agent provocateur.

  • Me Who

    I think there is a memory of freedom and liberty, from the foundation of these as they were intended and before they were corrupted, that Sanders is capable of realizing for the US. It seems that he knows lifting up everyone will bring prosperity in a way that depending on a small, inclusive group cannot or will not.

  • ThingsComeUndone

    I should have used the Snark Tag. But Killing Vince Foster? Ordering terrorists to attack Benghazi there are real policy issues to disagree with Hilary on and use to mobilize voters. Issues like these just cost the GOP independent votes. Are you a Agent Provocateur for Hilary???

  • bloozguy

    Well duh….

  • Me Who

    REPUBLICANS are not happy either with their choices. It seems like a refusal to vote or some kind of write in is needed. For example, many people, regardless of party affiliation, would vote SNOWDEN, I’d bet.

  • Bluedot

    I don’t think we can sit this one out. I noted below that four Supreme Court justices are over 80 years old. The next President could appoint all of them in 8 years. We don’t need a packed conservative court for the next thirty years. Think your worst neoliberal or fundamentalist nightmare and you get the idea.

  • Alice X

    Then they have you exactly where they want you.

    You can detest nearly every policy they stand for, but there is the Supreme Court.

    I might vote for Bernie. I will never vote for Hillary.

  • Ford Prefect

    Hillary’s Supreme choices won’t be any better than Obama’s. Corporate, right-wing, probably corrupt. She won’t be any great shakes in that department and if we end up with TPP, it won’t matter much, since corporations will be able to rewrite the constitution to suit their interests.

  • Bluedot

    And you will vote for who?? Jeb!! Much better than Hllary I suppose. And you will live with the consequence. I think they have you where they want you—- defeated.

  • Alice X

    Please no Republicans need apply. I will vote for a socialist as I have done for a long time.

    If Bernie turns out to be the real deal I could vote for him.

    The American people will accept socialism they just won’t accept the label. Upton Sinclair

    I only vote for people I believe will represent my interests.

    It is the tribalism of the Dbots and Rbots that defeats us all.

    I listen to Chomsky, Hedges, Nader and anyone else who makes sense.

  • Bluedot

    Geez You want another Scalia or Alito?? And your children will thank you.

  • Bluedot

    Then you have already lost. As you have in the past.

  • Alice X

    It seems to me that only the top 10% has been winning much of anything for the last forty years.

    If you are in that group then maybe I see why you are happy.

    Every administration has been worse than the last.

    Clinton was worse than Bush I, Bush II was worse than Clinton, Obama has been worse than Bush. Clinton II will be worse than him.

  • Ford Prefect

    No I don’t, which I why I won’t support a RW Dem like Hillary. I love this lesser evilism crap, as if it means anything at all at this point. If hollow “arguments” are all you’ve got, you don’t have much.

  • Bluedot

    I agree inequality has continued since the 70s. And the Democratic Party, in an ill advised pursuit of winning, has taken up another path. The FDR New Deal coalition collapsed in 1968. The elites now rule our world. But I am not at all interested in calling it all quits. And in giving up anymore to the thieves or by fiat to Samuel Alito or his kin.

  • http://Smilejamaicakrcl.com Bobbylon

    The rumor is Hillary will not participate in any debates in the primaries

    Disagree with the premise of DS’s story. Bernie Sanders’ role is to deliver Progs to Hillary when his little road show runs out of cash

  • Bluedot

    The choice is not nearly so neat and tidy, as between two lesser evils. But a lesser evil and a Great evil. I guess you don’t care very much. It makes me wonder what you really want?

  • bsbafflesbrains

    When the .1% give you a choice between Clinton or Bush (fill in the appropriate first name) and your only goal is making sure you vote for the “winner” then you are already a loser. Vote your conscience not your fear. I challenge anyone to read the entire Green Party platform and consider voting for progressive ideas rather than continuing with this status quo (which is heading to disaster and feudalism) The status quo isn’t static so if you have a good status of living now you won’t soon unless you live in the 1%. Protesting with your wallet, vote and actions is what progressives should be doing not tactical voting in hopes of a change in the MOTU.

  • Bluedot

    Someday we will need to talk about your Green Party. For now I will only note they appear every so many years and accomplish …..zero.

  • bsbafflesbrains

    You don’t know history and your scorecard is tainted because of it. Your precious FDR got most of his progressive ideas and policy from third parties. Look into it before you disparage the “minor” parties. BTW FDR’s progressive coalition started dissolving in 1940 when oil barons like Pauley and foreign MOTU made FDR drop Wallace for Truman.

  • Bluedot

    Oh come on. FDR may have dreamt it all up or John Keynes whispered it to him, but he got elected and he got it all passed.

  • bsbafflesbrains

    Third parties are and have always been the incubators of the progressive planks of any major party. So voting for the non winning party is still an important vote. Keep voting for the LOTE but I suggest you quit complaining then cuz Hillary, Barack, Jeb, and Ted don’t listen to you(unless you recently sent in a check for $500k).

  • Alice X

    I meant to post this earlier but youtube has been a problem.

    From Down With Tyranny (via Digby)

    http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2015/05/why-isnt-corruption-illegal-in-american.html

  • Bluedot

    I don’t know about that. If you want a guaranteed loss vote Green. Sanders, in the event you haven’t noticed has every bit a progressive agenda. And he even has a chance. And he is not running as a third party.

  • Alice X

    He won’t deliver me.

  • Bluedot

    And for forty years…….

  • fredcdobbs

    Do you remember the Democrat filibuster of the Alito nomination?

    Neither do I.

  • Ford Prefect

    What I want is a future that isn’t a bipartisan dystopia. More specifically, we have problems that aren’t being solved because elites in both parties ARE a part of the problem. They created them and offer no solutions to them.

    In 2008, I voted for the Obama, understanding he would be disappointingly conservative/Neo-Liberal. But the breadth and depth of his various betrayals were so complete that I–like millions of others–decided I would no longer support Neo-Liberal Democrats in 2010. I voted mostly Green in 2012 (Stein, not Obama), not because I was expecting some sort of revolution, but rather just because I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I DON’T want and get it. I will not, under any circumstances, support another Neo-Liberal. Period. I will canvass or do whatever I can to defeat Neo-Liberals. So if Bernie proves a stalking horse–as some suggest–I’ll still not vote for Hillary.

    We can’t afford Hillary or Jeb. But since I’m not a Republican, I have no say in who they select (as if that would make any difference in any case). I’m sick of the wars, the climate change, the corruption and the continued looting of this country by Wall Street (who is Hillary’s real constituency). I’m done with all of it. I don’t expect the POTUS election to change much, so I’m not devoting much time or energy to it. But I will take most any opportunity to help sink Hillary’s oligarchic campaign.

    She’s no good and her being president offers nothing good. Just more whistling past the graveyard, while they wheel and deal their way into billionaire status–which is undoubtedly the only real reason they want back into the WH.

  • fredcdobbs

    Climb off it. The SCOTUS argument is pure unadulterated bullshit promulgated by tribal Dem loyalists. The SCOTUS is gone and has been since the Democrats did not filibuster the Roberts or Alito nominations. 22 Democrats voted for Roberts and 4 for Alito.

    If you seriously think that Hillary Clinton, a thoroughly corrupt, cynical corporatist, militarist and war monger is going to stop genuflecting before Goldman Sachs (at $200 K/pop) or WalMart long enough to appoint justices who will threaten the interests of the elites you’re seriously deluded.

  • Bluedot

    I feel that. For now I am in Sanders corner. And I hope he can drag Hillary left. I am also very interested in ending wars and in really improving the economy and protecting the Supreme Court. Gotta wait and see. But one other thing I will leave you with. I will not vote R.

  • http://mosquitocloud.net/ aprescoup

    Scalia clocked in 98 Senatorial ayes, Bluedot.

    Can you guarantee that Killary would not advance establishment corporatist neocons for the position?

    I can guarantee you that no economic-justice prioritizing individual will be considered for the position.

  • http://mosquitocloud.net/ aprescoup

    “And for forty years…….” we’ve been getting screwed exclusively by the cohort which purportedly represents and champions “our” interests.

    From this perspective the Dems represent “the more effective evil.”

  • Bluedot

    No guarantees. But Obama did better than the other guys would have.

  • Bluedot

    got it all figured out? So who you voting for?

  • Bluedot

    Well at least I don’t have your sweet line of bullshit.

  • bsbafflesbrains

    “The worst thing about betrayal is it always comes from your friends” Bukowski The more effective evil IS the greater evil.

  • http://mosquitocloud.net/ aprescoup

    Right. And since the mid 60s – hell, since Truman – the Dems have been reliable partners of the 1%’s intent to destroy union power and the working class.

    If they were a sport team their losing track record would be a record in itself. And considering their ivy formed brainpower; their skill set, one can only make sense of their lackluster performance by concluding that they are charlatans.

  • bsbafflesbrains

    You have no argument except fallacious ones.

  • http://mosquitocloud.net/ aprescoup

    WTF are you on about?!

    We don’t have an adversarial party system representing opposing interests; labor v capital owners!

    When both parties represent the same interests the end result is predetermined, fer shit’s sake!

  • bsbafflesbrains

    Another fallacious argument.

  • Andy_Lewis

    Learned helplessness is such an easy and willfully destructive game to play.

  • http://mosquitocloud.net/ aprescoup

    Are you expecting positive outcomes from piling smaller negatives onto larger negatives? How does that work?!

  • bsbafflesbrains

    #JillStein2016 Green Party

  • http://mosquitocloud.net/ aprescoup

    Nobody!

    Vote for Nobody!

  • psalongo

    Wash, rinse, repeat. So bored with getting played. This includes Bernie.
    Ted Cruz or Green Party. In the meantime I’ll catch a nap.

  • http://mosquitocloud.net/ aprescoup

    Nobody will keep election promises

    Nobody will tear down our empire state of mind

    Nobody will end the wars and jail the banksters

    Nobody will help the working class and the poor

    Nobody tells the truth

    Nobody cares!

    Vote for Nobody!

    If Voting Changed Anything…The Sham and the Shame of Ithttp://mosquitocloud.net/if-voting-changed-anything-the-sham-and-the-shame-of-it

  • Bluedot

    You are behaving childishly. If you don’t want to talk about it, the I suggest you got nothing.

  • fredcdobbs

    Oh and you have it all figured out? More capitulation to the corrupt, Wall St., MIC dominated Uniparty passed off as “lesser evilism”? How’s that been working out for you – and us?

    I’ll vote my conscience – not for some con job masquerading as a “populist”.

  • fredcdobbs

    Hillary Clinton will not be “dragged left” by Sanders or any one else. Sanders has already declared that he will support her when he inevitably loses in the primaries. Clinton will pander to fools like you who will buy into her fake populism but, just like with Obama, it will all be discarded after she’s gotten your vote.

  • fredcdobbs

    They’re mostly the same evil and the degree of difference is much less than you claim. By voting for continued neoliberalism, trickle-down economics, increasing inequality (worse under Obama than under GWB). more undeclared, perpetual wars you’re showing that you’re the one that doesn’t care.

  • Alice X

    Bluedot – I do not doubt your good intentions. I try never to cast aspersions.

    But the road that we are on is the same road that Rome was on after Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. We crossed the river sometime ago.

    Where does it lead? To destruction.

  • Bluedot

    You mean I am more,negative than you?

  • Bluedot

    Too bad they couldn’t see how he voted in the future. Risky business.

  • http://mosquitocloud.net/ aprescoup

    I’m saying that you are enabling the outcomes which you purport to decry.

    I think that there is a good number of socialists on these boards who understand that the capitalist system is socially, economically, ecologically and humanely untenable and that pretending that it can be successfully reigned in is – given the success of the bipartisan political establishment’s dismantling of the New Deal – perfidious and self harming, utterly naive if not outright authoritarianism submissive, nonsense.

    The Dem party’s record of championing the working class is incontrovertably stark:

    https://aneconomicsense.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/piketty-saez-1945-to-2012.png

    and,

    http://tnr.com/sites/default/files/u179189/wages_remain_flat.png

  • http://mosquitocloud.net/ aprescoup

    That’s a baseless assumption. It’s far more likely that they knew exactly that he would vote with the interests of their own fundraisers.

  • http://mosquitocloud.net/ aprescoup

    She won’t even pander to populism. She will dangle a corporatist brand of feminism: you too can belong to the 100 women in hedge funds ( major donor to the CGI) – http://www.100womeninhedgefunds.org/pages/index.php – ladies, and the very self absorbed and consumerism crazed LGBT community – who appears to not give much of a fuck about anything and anyone other than themselves…

  • Me Who

    I think the green party is possibly BS too. I used to think a third party could solve alot of problems. But I don’t believe in their authenticity anymore. Like this, some environmental protection groups are set up to waste time and energy of real advocates, distract and mislead, so that solid work with real results rarely gets done, and only then for show to keep the facade up. I read something about greens talking at a college a while back and it seems like something isn’t quite right. I hope I’m wrong, but just be cautious.

  • Me Who

    I honestly am having a difficult time seeing much difference between Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz.

  • jcaunter

    Is that right? That’s like getting to ride in a Bentley on the way to your new 1971 Ford Pinto. Admittedly there’s some explosive potential there, but who’s going to get in?

  • dick_c

    That’s Bernie’s role!? In Hilary’s dreams.

  • Hugh

    The Supreme Court argument is specious. The Supreme Court throughout its history has been on the side of the rich and ruling classes with the exception of the brief period of the Warren Court and its aftermath, or from Brown in 1954 to Roe in 1973. Even with Democrats in the minority in the Senate and no filibuster on judicial nominees, they could still block an unacceptable Supreme Court nominee by shutting down the Senate or engaging in a real filibuster instead of a cloture vote.

    There are three problems with lesser evilism. First, you don’t know that the lesser evil you voted for isn’t, in fact, a greater evil. Obama, for example, has institutionalized and expanded virtually all the excesses of the Bush years. Second, lesser evilism is indispensable to what is known as the ratchet effect. By drawing no bright lines, progressives accept a string of lesser evils which end up as the greater evil they thought to avoid. Clinton was to the right of Ronald Reagan. Obama is far to the right of Richard Nixon. Third, voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil. No one owns your vote but you. You don’t owe your vote to anyone, period. If a candidate can’t give you good, positive reasons for voting for them, the failure is theirs, not yours. Vote for someone else who does represent your views. If there is no one, stay at home or vote for yourself.

    Finally, I remember back in 2008 (I was at fdl at the time and thoroughly disgusted with Obama) I said we needed to start work on organizing a progressive party. I was told two things. First, I should hang fire because defeating McCain, i.e. 4 more years of Bush was more important. How did that work out for you? We got 8 more years of Bush in the form of Obama. Second, I was told not to expect any support from sites like this one until such a progressive party was not only formed but winning elections. It was a Catch-22. Don’t expect any organizational help until you are already organized at which point you don’t need any organizational help. Until progressives stop talking about organizing and start organizing we are going nowhere. Seven years down the drain and nothing to show for it.

  • Thurb

    Nor me. I vowed to never vote for Hillary again during her first senate term and I have not broken that vow yet, nor will I.

  • Thurb

    First, Bernie won’t be delivering the Progressives to Hillary. Only they can betray their interests and ideals to do that. He does, however offer those who are not down with a corporate hack being anointed as the Democratic nominee for president a chance to say ‘NO’ in the primaries. If he loses, people who support him will have to decide for themselves whether to waste their vote on either of the two candidates the wealthy will have decided are our choice, chose to vote third party or write in, or stay home. I remember when many of us lefties wondered how the Republicans could vote against their interests so often – anyone who is not one of the 0.1% who votes for a Clinton or a Bush or a Walker or Kasich (depending on which clown makes it to the end) has voted against their interests, no excuse for it changes that. The only question is do you do it, or rebel.

    It will be interesting to see if the media can destroy him and his candidacy. They haven’t managed to marginalize him so far, so they will have to step up their game. But I appreciate the fact that policies and ideas that have been marginalized will at least get a shot at being mentioned. Because we sure as hell know not one of the Republicans or the Republican Lite Clinton would have done anything but use the working and middle class as an introduction to selling more of the same disastrous choices.

  • Zak Browne

    Anything that had a beginning will have an end. Loss of jobs is not inevitable, nor is it irreversible. All that needs to be done is to slap high duties on imported products. How did American economy developed in the 18th century? How did Chinese economy developed in the 20th century. Protectionism works. Let the prices jump where they may, most of the junk we buy we don’t need anyway. Economy will eventually re balance itself. Who needs trade anyway? Anything can be made anywhere, it is only a matter of cost. Our trading partners buy so little from us anyway, the only winners are multinationals. How much do we sell to China or Japan? We are running trade deficits with all our trading partners. They needs us more than we need them.

  • Zak Browne

    I believe the only way for Bernie to get any leverage over the Democratic platform is to precisely threaten to go independent if his demands are not included in the platform. If he does go independent, recriminations will start that because of him Democratic party lost. What nonsense. Democrats have no one but themselves to blame. They blew the midterm because they gave no reason for voters to come out and vote for them. As independent, Bernie has a lot of power to hurt Democrats. They can’t afford to lose the next election, keep in mind it is much more than just the presidency that is at stake. Think Supreme Court. People deep within the bowels of the system are also going to lose power. We need the reason to come out to vote, social issues are no longer the reason to vote, we need some red meat issues , not fluff.

  • AshenLight

    He’s already declared he won’t break from the Dems and run as an independent.

  • Zak Browne

    A mistake, but I am sure he can always fix it. With tears in his eyes, for the good of the country.

  • Zak Browne

    He has nothing to lose, look at this age. He can afford to go for broke. And really, for the good of the country. There is no legacy to protect, I believe for the most of his political career he has been a straight shooter.

  • Alan McLemore

    “Team Clinton Worried that Sanders Will Make Hillary ‘Look Like a Corporatist'”

    That’s about the easiest job in the universe. Hillary is a corporatist, and everyone needs to know it.

    BERNIE IN ’16

  • Alan McLemore

    Nice one, man [:-{D>

  • Hugh

    You are lost in hypotheticals. As Ashenlight and others have said, Sanders has been up front about running as a Democrat and supporting Hillary Clinton. He also has a long record of serial folding and avoiding fights with the powers that be. Wish fulfillment, making wishes and hoping they will be fulfilled, even against abundant evidence to the contrary is magical thinking and just not a viable strategy.

  • JediMj739

    Bernie Sanders is doing what the masters of the corporate parties want him to do. Bernie Sanders entire campaign is to keep and maintain the two corporate party system. the elites know that Hillary Clinton without Bernie Sanders in the mix, would result in another party that serves the people being develop! Yes Bernie is a sheep herder! Bernie will herd the sheep for Hillary Clinton, and once his job is done, he will tell the sheep to vote for the lesser of two evils? Hillary Clinton or a Republican. “the elites do not want Occupy Wall Street or some other grass root movement developing another political party to challenge their two corporate parties that serve the 1%.

  • http://Smilejamaicakrcl.com Bobbylon

    Fake campaign. Don’t smoke anymore Hopium

    When he attacks Shillary for her three card Monty pay for play 94% overhead “Foundation” then I’ll think he is the real deal

    Phony baloney until such time

  • http://Smilejamaicakrcl.com Bobbylon

    Bernie Sanders was not going to vote for any bill that didn’t include Medicare a For All. I saw him on MS-DNC bloviate that fact a dozen times

    Voted for Obamacare. Says he supports the President.

    Next…

    I will not let the perfect get in the way of kabuki

  • http://Smilejamaicakrcl.com Bobbylon

    sheep herder. effing brilliant