fbpx

Type to search

Bernie Sanders Rally Draws 27,000 To The Heart Of Manhattan

Campaign 2016 Featured Post National News Politics Top News US

Bernie Sanders Rally Draws 27,000 To The Heart Of Manhattan

Share
Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders reacts to the primary election results in the states of Florida, Ohio and Illinois during a campaign rally in Phoenix, Arizona, March 15, 2016. REUTERS/Nancy Wiechec

Campaigning in New York City less than a week before the New York primaries, Bernie Sanders held a massive rally in Washington Square Park yesterday evening. A reported 27,000 people filled the park to hear Sanders’s message of economic and political inclusion.

“When I look out at an unbelievable crowd like this, I believe we’re going to win here in New York next Tuesday,” he told the crowd. “I don’t think that there is any doubt today that our campaign has the momentum.”

The rally was the culmination of Sanders’s campaigning around the state thus far. He touched on the central themes of his campaign and recalled moments in history when decisive political mobilization yielded tangible results:

“This campaign remembers that over the last hundreds of years, African Americans and their allies stood up, fought back and said, ‘America will not be built on segregation, racism and bigotry.’ And millions of Americans stood together and made monumental change in this country. And this campaign remembers, that 100 years ago, not a long time ago, women in America did not have the right to vote, could not get the education they wanted or the jobs they wanted. But women and their male allies stood up. They fought back. And they said, ‘women in America will be second class citizens.’ And this campaign remembers, interestingly enough, something that happened two or three blocks away from here, and that is that 47 years ago, the gay community said that in this country, right over here in the Stone Wall Inn, that in this country, people will have the right to love each other no matter what their gender is. And this campaign understands the change that is taking place right now, this moment, in American society.”

During the rally, the crowd repeatedly broke into impromptu chants of “Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!”

“Despite what others may tell you, yes we can change the status quo, and that is what is happening all across this country today and that is what the political revolution is about,” he said.

Sanders also called out Verizon, whose employees he joined on the picket line yesterday to protest the company’s poor labor record. “Verizon is just a poster child for what so many of our corporations are doing today,” he told the crowd. “This campaign is sending a message to corporate America: you cannot have it all.”

The Vermont senator has been busy since the end of March, when presidential candidates set their sights on New York state. For both Democrats, the stakes are very high. The state has 247 delegates at stake, second only to California, and a victory here for either candidate is likely to cement the future of their campaigns. New Yorkers will go to the polls next Tuesday in the state’s closed primaries.

Photo: Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders reacts to the primary election results in the states of Florida, Ohio and Illinois during a campaign rally in Phoenix, Arizona, March 15, 2016. REUTERS/Nancy Wiechec

Tags:

38 Comments

  1. Dominick Vila April 15, 2016

    The enthusiasm that Sen. Sanders elicits whenever he speaks may be tempered by his performance during last night’s Democratic debate in Brooklyn. Especially, by his failure to cite a single example to substantiate his claim of wrongdoing or a quid pro quo by Hillary Clinton in exchange for the fees she received for the speeches she has delivered to the banking industry and corporate America. That is likely to be a defining moment in the 2016 nomination primaries, and one that Bernie may not be able to overcome.
    Many Democrats, including myself, like what Bernie says, and agree with many of his proposals. His political problems involve his inability to offer solutions to the problems he mentions, and provide evidence to prove the validity of the accusations he has made against Hillary Clinton.
    Bernie had good moments last night, and remained steadfast in his enthusiastic support to meaningful change to end political corruption, reduce the financial schism that exists between those who have it all and the majority of our population, end corporate abuses, end judicial excesses, and other issues that ought to be important to all Americans, but he must limit his political attacks, and his efforts to establish a contrast between him and Hillary, to issues that he can substantiate with evidence.

    Reply
    1. dtgraham April 15, 2016

      Bernie simply doesn’t have the aggressiveness and attack-dog mentality that politicians sometimes need, especially in a debate. Her weak platform on the banks, and the money they’ve paid her in exchange for it, are all the examples that anyone needs.

      She has no automatic mechanism to downsize financial institutions. They can get as large as they want in relation to the economy, so long as they show that they can properly manage themselves, in her “plan”. What does that even mean exactly, and how easy would that be to roll regulators? She really only talks of a risk-fee beyond a certain size and she doesn’t want anything to do with re-establishing a firewall between commercial and investment banking. She loves to take the heat off the major players and focus in on bad mouthing insurance companies instead. Her shadow people. Gotta divert and cover for sweet daddy you know. She lied flat out in that section of the debate and if Bernie doesn’t call her on that in a debate, then he’ll deserve whatever he gets.

      You didn’t seem to notice that Hillary is the master of answering a question without answering the question. No matter how many times she was asked about raising the cap on incomes for the purposes of the SS tax, she would not give a clear answer to an exasperated Sanders. No matter how many times she was asked whether she would release her Goldman Sachs speeches, she would not give a clear answer and wanted to talk about other things to an exasperated Dana Bash. She also kept wanting to leave the impression that she would support a $15.00 per hour minimum wage from local governments, when her actual proposal is for $12.00 federally. She talked about all of these local jurisdictions that would surely raise her $12.00 to $15.00, conveniently forgetting about all of the midwestern and southern states that wouldn’t do that in a million years. If she doesn’t get it done federally, it won’t get done in those places ever and she knows that. Again, why didn’t Bernie point out that obvious flaw in her crap talk?

      The one thing that she always keeps repeating is that she won’t make promises she can’t keep. That’s code language for, “I’m not even going to try to do many of the things that Bernie talks about because I don’t believe in them and I don’t want to do them.”

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila April 15, 2016

        She did answer the question about making the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street public. She said she would, if all the other candidates that have delivered speeches are held to the same standard.
        I believe a federally mandated $12 an hour minimum wage, that leaves states the option of establishing a higher standard, makes perfect sense. There large differences in cost of living between states must be considered.

        Reply
        1. dtgraham April 15, 2016

          I said “whether.” Dana Bash also asked her ‘why’ she wouldn’t be releasing them, given that large parts of her party want her to. Dana Bash then referenced her lame excuse of waiting until all other speech givers release their transcripts, which obviously is never going to happen. She wanted to know why Hillary wouldn’t just put the issue to bed. She never got a different answer other than a repetition of the same lame excuse.

          Reply
          1. Dominick Vila April 16, 2016

            The best thing she could do, from a political perspective, is to release the speech transcripts, but I don’t blame her for resisting to be held to a different standard.

            Reply
          2. dtgraham April 17, 2016

            I do.

            Reply
          3. Irishgrammy April 18, 2016

            I completely agree. Hillary has always been held to a different standard in great part due to the Republican obsession of creating faux conspiracies to be “investigated” when they are in power to insure this ambitious woman “stays” in her place as her mere existence is an affront to the Republican Party………It simply does not matter that nothing the GOP has pontificated about has ever is proven factually, all that matters is the stink they throw at her and the GOP hope it sticks….they have done it for 25 years and will continue until she meets her maker, it really is sick and demented…… If elected and the GOP is still in control in the House, I guarantee starting on the day of the inauguration they will start investigating something, anything and so it will go for 4 years, nothing will get done for the country at all. The Republicans care nothing for a functioning government, or the welfare of the American people. So unless the Republicans lose control, which is what I pray for everyday, this obsession by Republicans will continue unabated and probably at a fevered pitch…..God help us.

            Reply
    2. RED April 15, 2016

      Good morning Dominick!!! Shall we continue our disagreement over what constitutes “wrongdoing?” I don’t recall you ever explaining to me why Citizens United is bad for the country, if we can prove no quid pro quo? Also, I don’t remember how you explained the Republicans position on climate change? Is it just their nature and completely unrelated to their donors? I mean, I can’t think of any quid pro quo evidence against Cons that has come out? I’ll even go a step further. Even if you cannot prove quid pro quo, Clinton’s views are still colored by the people who have access and her donors. So the view she gets from her circle is not what you and I experience, it’s the view of multi-millionaire bankers and such. The point is that if you think it takes a quid pro quo instance and evidence that Clinton was bribed for me and others like me to question her commitment to the people and Progressive policies, you’re not getting it at all

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila April 15, 2016

        From my perspective, the basic difference between the SCOTUS Citizens United decision, and individuals delivering paid speeches, is that the former legitimizes and encourages the influence of money in our political process, and the latter involves a decision to provide an intellectual opinion on matters of interest in exchange for a fee.
        Voters are not influenced by what a person told an audience during a speech on a specific issue, but they may be swayed one way or another when they are bombarded by political propaganda 24×7.

        Reply
        1. RED April 15, 2016

          I hear what you are saying and I certainly agree that constant propaganda makes a difference in the minds of the voters and people in general. But you’re glossing over who the influence is actually over and ignoring a long established tradition of re-classifying what transactions actually are. First, we are not worried that Hillary paid speeches are influencing voters. We believe it influences HER!!! Let me also remind you of an example right here today in my State, Alabama. Right now our Governor is being investigated for among other things amounts paid to his “consultant” who also happened to be his mistress. So nobody is really buying that these were consulting fees. Seriously, let’s ask ourselves what knowledge does Hillary Clinton possess that is not only worth a couple hundred thousand dollars but also that no one else has the same level expertise for a lot less money? You can say she was Secretary of State but there are no others with the same level of expertise? And again, why would someone pay Clinton $250,000 for a speech? And not just anyone but people who value money more than anything else. Let me ask you if I was an attorney and you wanted to sue say Nabisco for some damage they caused you. Would you hire me if you knew that I had formerly worked for Nabisco and that company had made me a millionaire? Now, I will promise you that I only have your best interest at heart and that no one has ever proven that I have ever done anything wrong?

          Reply
          1. dtgraham April 15, 2016

            Excellent.

            Reply
          2. King of America April 15, 2016

            “And again, why would someone pay Clinton $250,000 for a speech?”
            People pay Clinton $250K for a speech because she is a popular former first lady. Bill Clinton – the most popular living ex-President – gets paid even more. How is this difficult?

            My question is what on Earth do you think is wrong with getting paid to give speeches?

            Reply
          3. dtgraham April 16, 2016

            $250,000.00 per speech to, “a popular former first lady?” Do you honestly believe this is common place?

            Pay attention to RED’s last 3 sentences. If you can’t figure any of this impropriety out for yourself, you’re even more of a fuc*ing idiot than I thought you were.

            Nancy Reagan, Rosalynn Carter, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, and Michelle Obama never got regular invitations to speak to Wall St banks for a quarter of a million dollars. Hillary, in contrast, became a Senator who everyone knew would be running for President. She also had a high expectation of winning when she did. She and her husband also had a history of going easy on the big banks.

            Is any of this making sense to you now?

            Reply
          4. King of America April 16, 2016

            I do believe this is commonplace, yes. Can you actually cite any example of how this was in any way unethical? Of course you can’t – you’re literally arguing that a woman should not be allowed to make lots of money.

            Reply
          5. King of America April 16, 2016

            *crickets*

            Reply
          6. dtgraham April 17, 2016

            Crickets? I’m not on line on the National Memo all the time.

            From RED:

            “Let me ask you if I was an attorney and you wanted to sue say Nabisco for some damage they caused you. Would you hire me if you knew that I had formerly worked for Nabisco and that company had made me a millionaire? Now, I will promise you that I only have your best interest at heart and that no one has ever proven that I have ever done anything wrong?”

            Let it sink in, King of Stupid.

            Reply
          7. King of America April 17, 2016

            I see; you can’t actually answer the question and have to resort to personal attacks.

            Sorry you hate women!

            Reply
          8. dtgraham April 17, 2016

            Just respond to what RED was saying. That’s all. Just do that.

            Reply
          9. King of America April 17, 2016

            I already did.

            Reply
          10. dtgraham April 17, 2016

            No you didn’t.

            Reply
          11. King of America April 17, 2016

            I did; you’re just functionally illiterate and super mad.

            Reply
          12. King of America April 17, 2016

            Also, your claim that you weren’t on National Memo is – naturally – a lie; I could see you upvoting fellow dishonest paranoiac Tater nearly every time he posted.

            Reply
          13. dtgraham April 17, 2016

            “Crickets? I’m not on line on the National Memo all the time.”

            All the time! That was yesterday, I think. I’m not here waiting to respond to your comments every day. I may respond to David Cay Johnston tomorrow, and then (if I do) that’s going to be it until next weekend. That was the case last week.

            Reply
          14. King of America April 17, 2016

            So you were here for four or five hours after I posted that, then. Just like I said.

            Reply
    3. elw April 15, 2016

      I am voting for Bernie in the primary here in California. I am hoping he pulls off a big surprise for the media and actually wins the nomination. If he doesn’t, he still wins because he will be holding in the palm of his hand those millions upon millions of people who have been sending him donations 27 dollars at a time (and yes, I am one of them), which is a lot of power. However, if he does not win, I will give my vote to Hillary – even through I do not support her now. Personally, I like her; I do not like all the baggage that comes with her (30 years of personal attacks from Right), nor do I thinks she is nearly the bad person as her distractors try and make her out to be. However no matter how competent, she has made some bad decisions over the years that have made it easier for the Right to target her. And, honestly I would rather have Bernie’s focus in the White House when it comes to political corruption and the financial schism. To me, there is no reason to accuse either one of political attacks or fight over who is better with follow democrats, because in the end the winner will be our only valid choice against the unacceptable one that will be offered by the GOP. Neither one is the perfect candidate. And, let be truthful, Hillary has been just as guilty of political attacks as Bernie.

      Reply
      1. King of America April 15, 2016

        “Just as guilty”? Strongly disagree.

        Reply
        1. elw April 16, 2016

          Just because she chooses to be passive-aggressive with her political attacks does not change their meanings. We all knew what it meant when Anderson Cooper directly asked her if she felt Bernie Sanders was qualified to be President and she refused to respond with a yes or a no! It was that lack of response that started the whole thing.

          Reply
          1. King of America April 16, 2016

            What attacks? She has been mild as milk compared to the Sanders campaign.

            Reply
          2. elw April 16, 2016

            Some people do consider passive/aggressive mild, I consider it cowardly. I really do not think the 27,000 people that came to his rally in NY or the people in the last State 8 caucuses and primaries would agree with you assessment of his qualifications.

            Reply
          3. King of America April 16, 2016

            Good news! There were only 6,500 people at his rally.

            Reply
          4. elw April 16, 2016

            Nonsense, why would you lie about something that was televised, has hundred of video of it on the internet and was shown and talked about on dozens of mainstream news reports?

            Reply
          5. King of America April 16, 2016

            I’m not lying. Literally nobody but the Sanders campaign buys that 27K figure. The NYPD estimated there were 6,500 people in the park and around 5,000 nearby (but not actually in the park and hence not at the rally). The highest I’ve seen anyone not employed by Sanders say the combined crowds come to was 15K.

            Not that it makes any difference; he’s behind by double digits in NY, as he always has been.

            Reply
          6. elw April 16, 2016

            The King is not wearing clothes.

            Reply
          7. King of America April 16, 2016

            That sure proves something or other.

            Reply
          8. King of America April 16, 2016

            Also Sanders clearly ISN’T qualified to be President, as his slipshod interviews, his refusal to reign in his supporters, and the poor management of his campaign have amply shown.

            Reply
          9. dtgraham April 17, 2016

            Yeah but you’re fuc*ed in the head, so what do you know?

            Reply
          10. King of America April 17, 2016

            I know that Sanders – the deeply unpopular and inept candidate who has lost the primary in a landslide – is not qualified to be President.

            I hope that helps!

            Reply
  2. King of America April 15, 2016

    It’s worth pointing out that 27,000 is more than twice the NYPD estimate of 11,500 (which itself includes 5K people not actually in the park but simply nearby). I know that campaigns always exaggerate, but I haven’t seen any source claiming a figure remotely as high as this who doesn’t work for the Sanders campaign itself. At best, 15K – a substantial number of whom weren’t actually in the park.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.