Trump and Clinton have won decisive victories in conservative South Carolina. It’s all over! And both sides are making the wrong decision!
Or maybe it is not over. Most of the country hasn’t weighed in yet.
Some, like Vermont, will get their say on Tuesday. Others will be told on Wednesday that again, it’s all over! And everyone’s making a mistake!
I think it's far from over -
I think it’s far from over – at least on the Democratic side. I get a kick out of the media and Hilary’s people declaring she’s too far ahead for Bernie to catch up. 90% of the country hasn’t even weighed in yet. And while the more Southern states may not be the best landscape for Bernie to win there are many more states that will be in his favor. It’s a long journey to the White House – I hardly think the winner can be declared after 4 states. As far as that other side…who could even begin to guess what will be the end result there- if Trump wins the nomination and brings Christie on board as VP choice it will be the Buffoon and the Bully- quite a pair to lead this country straight to hell.
I admit that I do spend a fair amount of time trying to imagine Trump and his ex cheerleader/ bathing suit model wife hosting dignitaries from other countries without sending us immediately into war. Can you imagine the decorating that would take place in the White House…Good Lord!
...why the media exerts undo influence
“…the media and Hilary’s people declaring she’s too far ahead for Bernie to catch up.
This is why the media exerts undo influence on campaigns, especially presidential campaigns.
The media ( at least
The media ( at least mainstream media) and the DNC decided right out of the gate that Hilary was the shining star and Bernie could be ignored- even when he wins big as in NH and comes close like Nevada he is still considered the “loser”.
The fact that he has raised millions of dollars from small donations from actual people and not corporations, banks, billionaires with special interests should be worthy of more than the passing comment that has been scarcely seen in the media. While I certainly recognize that the deck is stacked in her favor by the enormous support she gets from the Democratic Party and her billionaire sleazy friends there is still ample time and support for Bernie and his message to ring loudly and for him to give her a real run for her money.The media is deceitful and manipulative and disgusting and they wield way too much power.
Wondering . . .
Any thoughts about 1. the fact that Bernie has never identified with the DNC and remained “Independent” until he decided to run for President. Then he signs on as a Democrat. Isn’t it logical that the DNC would be more likely to side a bit more with the candidate that has worked within the party and identified as a Democrat for years. Why would you consider that as unfair? Isn’t this sort of the way life works? If you are with a group for a long time and have formed connections, then they are more likely to support you than someone who has been around but not joined until the last minute. It sort of seems like human nature to me so I’m wondering why this is seen as unfair…….and 2. Does anyone have any thoughts about why only 1 Vermont state politician, retired or otherwise has signed up to support Sanders. I find this perplexing. Even national picture aside, it appears that everyone even in his home state is lining up behind Hillary including Dean, Kunin, Leahy and pretty much everyone but our local guy. I’m curious as to what anyone’s thoughts would be outside of conspiracy theories or comments about corporate influence. If these people have worked with him for years, why are they not more supportive? This really puzzles me.
usual suspects
The “people lining up” behind him are a handful of pretty much centrist, career Democrats. They like the status quo and fear losing it. It has helped them.
Leahy is a corporate democrat, often siding with big money (movie studios, for one). No one likes Shumlin. Dean ran to the center after his loss and stayed there. And Kunin is Clinton’s demographic.
Leahy said he promised Clinton his vote long ago, and nothing will change that. If 100% of the state votes for Sanders, Leahy says his vote is still for Clinton. (While tweeting daily that Republicans don’t respect the process! of the Supreme Court nominations)
So, in some cases it is old favors and political promises, and probably with Shumlin a hope for a new job and kissing up to the establishment for his future.
As for the DNC being welcoming of an Independent or left leaning Democrat, well, it their actions say a lot about how much they think of independent voters. I could see them rejecting someone who has never run before, or someone who has worked against the party for their lifetime.
I think the truth is the DNC hates the message of getting big money out of politics, and will do anything to wipe that notion out of our pretty little heads. The vice chair of the DNC resigned and endorsed Sanders this weekend. I think the DNC has some serious problems, and their own center isn’t holding.
So you think it's just
So you think it’s just because they are all centrist career Dems. Does this mean you agree with my assertion that it’s human nature to side with someone who has been a member of the party and worked hard within the party as opposed to someone who steps in at the last moment because they want to “play” too after refusing to join for years? Here’s what I find odd. Super Delegates have always fallen in step with the candidate that gets the most votes. For Leahy to say he won’t switch his vote, especially considering that Sanders is a fellow Vermonter makes me wonder if there’s something beyond just party loyalty going on here. Is Sanders seen as hard to work with, are there personality issues involved here (but with almost ALL of them?) or is he just seen as an outsider even after years of caucusing with the Dems. It’s just so unusual that it makes me curious. But then his campaign is unusual also since he really hasn’t been a party member ever and is now running as a Dem. This whole situation in both parties is fascinating. When you say the DNC’s center isn’t holding do you think they are moving left or right, liberal or more conservative. You did use the word corporate, couldn’t not use it huh? LOL.
I don't think I used the word
I don’t think I used the word “unfair” in my posts. I don’t think the DNC’s shunning of Sanders goes far beyond being unfair. But, if you’re a sitting Democrat whose career has depended – at least in part- on pandering to big corporations and the money guys- of course you aren’t going to throw your support to someone who has stood against those kind of politics for decades. You’re going to go for the one who has promised that basically nothing will change; that the current messed up status quo will remain the way the country is run and your romances with big money and corporations is safe. We have a government that is terrified of change; of anything that might rattle life as they know – regardless of whether or not change could make a huge difference in the lives of the very populace that they pretend to work for. I think all the statements that Chris has made in answer to your post are right on target.
It takes some big cojones to stand up against a powerful political machine. Especially one that is as firmly entrenched and corrupt as Hilary’s. She is happy to stand up and talk about how she wants to follow in Obama’s footsteps – to not alter the things he’s done in his presidency. I like Obama a lot – I think he’s been a decent President and certainly immeasurably better than his predecessor. But. Clinton should be bringing in her own ideas; she should be looking at whether or not some of Obama’s decisions were not in the best interest of the country and be willing to make changes- even radical changes if that’s what’s needed get this country going in a forward direction. Instead, she admits she’ll “carry on” Obama’s work.
If she gets the Democratic nomination ( and I’m willing to believe that it’s still a big “if”) then I will reluctantly go to the polls and cast my vote for the nominee. But it will not be a vote for her as much as a vote against whatever Republican is nominated. I have watched her time and time again take no responsibility for decisions she made or statements she said publically. She touts herself as a leader in civil rights when her opponent has spent decades actually fighting for civil rights. Just because her husband opened up an office in Harlem does not make her a civil rights champion. She has backtracked on equal rights for marriage; declares that she will be “hard” on Wall Street and banks but one only needs to take a look at where her campaign donations are coming from to know that’s not going to happen. She’s dishonest and is way too cozy with many of the things that are wrong with this country.
If she is elected we’ll have another 4 years of people losing their homes; of struggling to care for and educate their children; of people of color fighting every day of their lives for an equal playing field and I have no doubt that she could lead us right into yet another war. We need significant changes and Hilary Clinton will not bring that about.
Well I didn't say you said
Well I didn’t say you said unfair, but what you did say implied that it was somehow unfair. While I don’t want to get into a back and forth about which candidate is better, I personally like them each for different reasons, yet I must respond to your comment about Hillary only having civil rights creds because Bill opened the office in Harlem. This indicates to me that you aren’t familiar at all with her background. And it really is a cheap and sexist shot in my opinion. I suggest you expand your on line reading sources. From her very early years she worked with the Children’s Defense Fund and Marian Edelman Wright. She is known and well regarded for her work with that organization, she is admired and well liked in the South for a reason. You continually fall into this attack mode that denies a lot of her history. Someone could easily direct similar charges towards Sanders, not the same charges but in a similar vein. It does nothing towards moving towards discourse and only becomes ranting when you just go on and on with negative charges. No one is as saintly as some seem to think Bernie is and it’s not likely that Hillary is as hellishly tied to the evil ways of the devil as you seem to think. So one question, You say “it takes some big cojones to stand up against a powerful political machine” but it doesn’t look to me like Bernie standing up against any machine, it looks like he wants to join in on the party….so to speak.
I'm not sure when I
I’m not sure when I “continually fall into attack mode” since this thread is the first time I’ve commented on this site about the campaigns. Despite your belief that I haven’t read enough about Hilary or am not familiar with her history. I’ve read an enormous amount of articles about her and sadly, am quite familiar with her history. She is admired and well liked in the South in large part because of her husband. Despite the fact that he was investing heavily in more prisons in which the majority of prisoners were black men. I don’t for one second think Bernie is saintly- there are many stands he has taken that I don’t agree with. But, I think he is by far a more honest person than his opponent.
And, as far as people directing similar charges against Bernie- do you honestly think they aren’t? The vitriol against him is widespread and he goes up against it without the protection of the DNC or the Democratic party. I don’t believe that Bernie wants to join any party that thinks Hilary is a valid choice for President. I think he sees a better way to structure the party- one that includes everyone- not just the money makers or the ones who are oh so willing to take their money.
You often put forth the attitude that you are the only one who knows anything about politics. You seem to know a lot- I’ll give you that. But, I’ve been involved in local and national political campaigns my entire adult life. My kids grew up going to strategy meetings for candidates and participating in demonstrations and marches for causes that were – and still are – important.
So, don’t accuse me of not knowing the “history” of Hilary Clinton. I know the history. I just don’t want it to continue.
Really?
You claim: “She is admired and well liked in the South in large part because of her husband.” I think more highly of the voters in the South than to think they would vote for a candidate “because of her husband.” I certainly think more highly of people like John Lewis who have come out in support of her candidacy.
Her husband paved the way -
Her husband paved the way – he was and still is popular with black voters. And, if women are being told that they should vote for Hilary just because she’s a woman then it’s a small leap to vote for her because you liked her husband as President. I have had friends who are supporting her say that a big plus in getting Hilary as President is that Bill will have some influence with her decisions and she will no doubt consult with him around certain issues.
I don’t believe for one second that she would have the enormous support from black voters if she was not Bill Clinton’s wife.
John Lewis is a fine man but even fine men make errors in judgement.
Nice Comments
Well gee you’ve managed to be both sexist and racist in your comments. Not to mention inaccurate. First your assumption that women will vote for her because she is female, second your dismissive comment about the blacks voting for her because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife. John Lewis, by the way, is not simply a fine man, he is a true American hero. Nice job, sexist and racist. Way to go. Glad you speak your mind.
a few observations
Old women are voting for her. Older black women voted for her in SC.
As for being Mrs. Clinton vs Mrs. Smith, I think her name recognition goes a long way with previous Clinton supporters, and if she was anyone else, she would not being seeing the same level of support. I think to choose to ignore this connection, too, is dangerous in the long run as the GOP will make the most of it.
As for SC voters, they are really conservative, so Clinton and Trump make sense as their preferences. No surprise there.
John Lewis is a fine man, except when he slandered Sanders by implying he had no civil rights credentials. He had to apologize, but the damage was done. Clinton didn’t take him to task for implying Sanders had no civil rights experience, either. Circular shooting is OK if aimed correctly, right?
(Let’s tone down the accusations, please, too. No need for anyone to judge others.)
If she was anyone else,
If she was anyone else, meaning anyone else who was a 2 term Senator for NY State and Secretary of State?
I don’t think John Lewis’s name and experience can be damaged by a misstatement about Bernie Sanders that was taken out of context. I heard the entire statement, it wasn’t quite what it’s purported to have been. But no, circular shooting is not okay no matter where it’s coming from.
Anyone who makes statements that say that women are voting for a female candidate only because she is a woman or that blacks are only voting for someone because of their husbands name (this someone who has worked with leading civil rights leaders in the South since college days (Wright, et al) and has been a State Senator and Secretary of State) should be called out for disparaging other voters. No judgment intended, just pointing out that these statements are actually exactly what I said they were.
" Maybe you'll learn something"
Just one example of Hilary’s exemplary work for civil rights. If you watched this video you saw the look of arrogance and annoyance as she spoke to this young black woman. Her response to being asked a legitimate question was:
“Why don’t you let me talk and maybe you’ll learn something.” And she has yet to explain why she labeled young black men “super predators”. She gave a half assed “apology” and seemed to be annoyed that she had to do that.That’s our girl…paving the way for equal rights across the country.
KING: Hillary Clinton explains ‘superpredators’ comment …
http://www.nydailynews.com/…/king-hillary-clinton-explai...
Or Perhaps You Will
Ah but you see she never labeled “young black men” super predators. She never mentioned young….black….or men for that matter. Instead of watching the edited clip why don’t you see what she really said and was talking about. Scroll to 20:07 and watch the speech in it’s entirety. I thought she seemed perplexed. Let me know if you see any mention whatsoever anywhere of young black men or black youth. http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4582435/full-speech-keene-state
This is another example of
This is another example of the dangers of believing everything you see on-line. Do a little research if something seems a bit off.
Not off at all
Hillary Clinton on ‘superpredator’ remarks: ‘I shouldn’t have …
https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/hillary-clinton-res…The Washington Post
4 days ago – Hillary Clinton on ‘superpredator’ remarks: ‘I shouldn’t have used those words’ … to “explain for the record” why she “called black youth ‘superpredators’. … They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘superpredators.Hillary Clinton on ‘superpredator’ remarks: ‘I shouldn’t have
So, okay – she didn’t discriminate by gender- she called black youth super predators. This inclusion, of course, makes her comment perfectly acceptable.
There are so many things wrong with your comments it’s difficult to even narrow it down to which is the most ridiculous. If you believe for one instant that there are not women voting for Hilary simply because she is a woman then you have been drinking way too much of the kool-aid. I would very much like to see a woman president- I just don’t want to see a dishonest, corporate loving, corrupt woman president. I don’t ever believe things I see online without looking into them further. If you bothered to research the original remark made by her in 1996 – when her husband was pushing for his prison initiative and she was justifying it by citing all the roving gangs of “black youth” who were super predatory and needed to be “brought to heel” -as though they were so many feral dogs- then you would know that she was no great friend of the black community.I’m surprised that someone like John Lewis can overlook such a racist statement -all the while slamming Bernie despite his actual participation in the civil rights movement.. I may appear racist and sexist to you but you always appear nothing but condescending and arrogant – even when the facts are pointed out. I’m done with this “conversation”…
Did you bother to look at the
Did you bother to look at the video of her comments? The clip IS the original speech from which the remark has been misquoted. She never said anything about black youth. Watch the video. There was no mention of black youth or black anything. The clip I provided is the speech that was edited , it is the entirety of the speech where she referred to SuperPredators. Which she did in the context of criminals who show no remorse like, say Ted Bundy. She was not talking about black youth. If you want to be informed then watch from 20:07 on and you’ll see that the comment has been taken totally out of context in an attempt to make her appear racist. That’s why it didn’t bother John Lewis, because it is not what she said. It would be nice if you would watch the clip and see what was actually said. She was apologizing for using the words Super Predator, but I don’t think that even was necessary since Super Predator doesn’t necessarily mean “black” and she didn’t use the expression in any context other than referring to criminals who show no remorse. If you really want to know the truth watch the unedited video.
Just to clarify, I don't
Just to clarify, I don’t think you are racist or sexist but I think your comments were. I shouldn’t have put in the last two sentences on that comment. That was unfair. I don’t even think you intended your comments that way but was just trying to point out that you can’t assume that any woman who votes for Clinton does so because she is a woman, or that any black voting for her does so because of her husbands name. Give your fellow voters a little more credit. Sorry I didn’t make my intention clear. I make no judgment about anyone voting for Bernie, I assume they do so because of his stands on issues. But please do watch that video clip so you know what was really said.
Not With Me
I agree that Clinton won’t bring about any of the big changes I think we need. She seems very committing to not giving up what others fought for before, but not blazing any new paths or doing anything of substance for the non-wealthy. She’s pretty much come out and said it’s all too hard and we shouldn’t expect much.
One thing that really bugs me is her lack of understanding of technology. She’s lied about Snowden, said the government needs to break privacy and security, thought a server in her house for government business was a good idea, supports secretive trade deals and copyright restrictions… she’s basically against everything I work for.
But she smiles and says America is already great!
Hear Hear
I’m done voting for the lesser of 2 evils. If the DNC shoves Shillary into the spot, we’ll have a President Trump anyway, so I might as well vote my conscience and for the greater good. Bernie or Bust!
I respect all of your
I respect all of your opinions but I really must disagree. From personal experience, a third party candidate resulted in my neighborhood getting blown up. It’s my personal belief, others might not see the thread that lead to 9-11. Sanders seems to feel the same as I do. He stated when he announced that he had no intention of running 3rd party because the last thing he wanted to see was a Republican getting back in office. I admire and thank him for that.
Dave syndrome
It seems too reductionist, too easy to pin our post-terror reality all on Nader. The forces were long in play, certainly escalating since the end of the World Wars. Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, there’s extremism across the decades. The blame for Bush could be placed on the people, who caved. or Gore, who caved. All in the name of good behavior. Or the Supreme’s, who abet it.
It may have been bad poker on his part, but in larger sense Nader was just a historical placeholder. He did a lot of good with his life. A third party should be an option. The whole mess is a mess. That’s why were in this mess. Bernie too may as well be in the chum camp- that’s chum, as in shark food. Or chum, as in friend to the people. Not chump- as many would define him, or Nader. Two guys taking their best swings, however misguided, against Go-lie-eth. Not ready to fold for the sake of the house.
With all due respect, I'm not
With all due respect, I’m not trying to pin our post-terror reality all on Nader. I’m well aware of the lead up to 9-11 historically. But I will never feel any differently, that if those who threw their support behind Nader had voted for Gore and the election hadn’t been thrown to the Court, there would have been a much higher alertness to the possibility of an attack and response to alarms raised. I can’t go with Gore should have run a stronger campaign.The reality is that this country is evenly divided politically and this year could lead to a similar situation. Would be nice if we had a strong enough third party to get a little more mix but we don’t. I agree with Bernie that the last thing we need is a Republican elected to office and he said this before the ugly rise of Trump. Talk of not voting or voting for third party candidates this year brings up some very bad memories for me. Sorry but it’s based on personal experience and I just will never be able to see it any differently. Just being honest.
Nicely put
I’m a NYer too, and felt as you do about Nader’s bid at the time. Though I lived up here during the second round of attacks on those buildings. I know it was a lot more than our neighborhood which was blasted. So if possible I try to look beyond the personal. I think someday, hopefully, we might get past the Tweedle Dee-Tweedle Dum show…Looking at it philosophically, it might take a generation or two, if we have that long. And it’d be impossible to say which piece of that shift was Nader’s, or Perot’s, or Bloomberg’s- if he tosses his hat, or Kanye’s.
I don't think Bloomberg's
I don’t think Bloomberg’s going to do it. But who knows the way this year is going. They’re really blasting Trump today, seems like the party just woke up and realized that he might actually get the nomination. Just saw a clip of his security attacking a photographer, it’s was really disturbing. I think I’m going to get a good murder mystery and crawl into a hole for a few weeks ….. with snacks …. until we’ve seen what a few more primaries bring our way.
My fault
Wow. I hadn’t realized that my vote for Nader in Massachusetts caused 9-11.
I am very sorry for doing that. That wasn’t my intention at all.
I should stop voting altogether.
The real truth of 911:
Saudi Hijackers, under orders by Saddam, crashed Malaysian Airliner 370 into WTC building 7 after burying Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Hijackers were later spotted giving out cookies, baked by Gaddafi, in Maidan Square, Kiev. Then they finally joined Bin Laden in Israel.
Yeah, nothing like a good
Yeah, nothing like a good 9-11 joke. Ha ha ha.
I stand by what I said.
I stand by what I said. And as I said it’s just my personal feeling, not intended to cast aspersions on anyone’s vote but I feel that those votes threw the election. You have the right to vote for anyone you want. But I also have the right to state my feelings about those third party votes in that election.
Super Predators
I have received about 15 links over the past week to the 13 second clip that caused a young Black Lives Matter member to protest at a speech Clinton was giving because she call “black youth” Super Predators who should be “brought to heel” in a speech in 1996 in Keene, NH. Something about the clip and shortness of it brought up red flags. It took some days to find the actual full video of her speech. Here is the full speech, the piece that she is being criticized for begins at 20:07. As you will see there was no mention of race except for to Mexican drug cartels. The discussion centered around a crime bill which had been passed in 1994 and which, by the way, Bernie Sanders voted for. http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4582435/full-speech-keene-state
A Caution
I think this clip which is being circulated is a caution to everyone. While you can criticize a candidate for policy issues, I think it is imperative that we all be careful about what we see on the internet, whether it is in regards to Sanders or Clinton. I do not know who is behind this edited 13 second clip which distorts to the point of a lie. I am positive that like many journalists who wrote about the BLM protest, this young woman had no idea, she was shown the 13 second clip and told Clinton was talking about “black youth.” And was rightly appalled. But it was a lie.
I do not know who is behind the reposting of this just before the primaries in the South. It could be supporters of Bernie but it could be also that if you dig deeper you might find a more surprising source. Some of the links I received were to on-line web journals that had only a few articles written and were very new to the web. My thought is these are Koch et al funded sources. Just a thought. But those of you who worked in the anti-war movement remember that really good friend, the one who dated your best friend, the one who was so involved in organizing marches and always came up with great new ideas, you know, the one who turned out to be an informant for the FBI. My gut feeling is that this is the new computer age version of that really good friend.
Thom Hartman said yesterday on his show that he has now been receiving a shocking amount of hate mail. Because he has been saying some supportive things about Hillary Clinton. As I said it’s one thing to criticize a candidate because of their votes or policy stands, it’s quite another to believe and embrace every negative thing that comes across your computer screen. And if Bernie gets the nomination they’ve got a whole bunch of this sort of stuff they are ready to throw at him. Just wait. Oh, and did I mention that Bernie voted for the 1994 crime bill, the one that included Bill Clinton’s prison initiative? The very same bill that is the center of this internet misrepresentation/lie about what Hillary said 2 years after it passed.