fbpx

Type to search

Most Of The “Most Valuable Progressives” Named By ‘The Nation’ Have Endorsed…Hillary?

Editor's Blog Featured Post Memo Pad Politics

Most Of The “Most Valuable Progressives” Named By ‘The Nation’ Have Endorsed…Hillary?

Share

If like me you’re a longtime and faithful reader of The Nation — a venerable publication celebrating its 150th anniversary — then you probably saw its recent cover editorial endorsing Bernie Sanders for president. That lengthy essay, along with many other Nation articles over the past several months, leaves the unmistakable impression that Sanders is the only truly progressive choice for Democratic voters.

Yet just a month ago, The Nation published its 2015 Progressive Honor Roll, an annual feature written by John Nichols, who happens to be a highly enthusiastic Sanders supporter — which named several strong supporters of Hillary Clinton among America’s “most valuable” progressives. In fact, of the individuals named on Nichols’ list, nearly every single one is backing Clinton (one exception is Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell, “most valuable Cabinet member,” who must observe administration neutrality in the primary but — as a former top Clinton administration official — would very likely endorse her).

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), named “most valuable Senator,” officially endorsed Clinton back in January 2014. Rosa DeLauro, “most valuable House member,” endorsed her last April. Pam Jochum, the Dubuque Democrat who presides over the Iowa State Senate — chosen from hundreds of local pols across the country as “most valuable state legislator” — announced her support for Clinton last October. Cecile Richards, the Planned Parenthood president named “most valuable activist,” led her organization to back Clinton earlier this month (and earned a sour-grapes dismissal by Sanders as “the establishment”). Newark’s Ras Baraka, the “most valuable mayor,” hasn’t officially endorsed a presidential candidate yet, but his political organization has shown every sign of backing Clinton since last summer. And “most valuable memoir” author Gloria Steinem, the great feminist leader and thinker, will campaign for Clinton in New Hampshire tomorrow.

As voting approaches, primary rhetoric gets super-hot, and partisans inevitably utter silly, uninformed, and even offensive remarks about the opposing candidate. But it is worth remembering that progressives can differ honestly over which of these two candidates will represent the nation’s real interests most effectively.

Photo: Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, is getting most of the high-profile progressive endorsements.

 

 

 

 

 

Tags:
Joe Conason

A highly experienced journalist, author and editor, Joe Conason is the editor-in-chief of The National Memo, founded in July 2011. He was formerly the executive editor of the New York Observer, where he wrote a popular political column for many years. His columns are distributed by Creators Syndicate and his reporting and writing have appeared in many publications around the world, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Yorker, The New Republic, The Nation, and Harpers. Since November 2006, he has served as editor of The Investigative Fund, a nonprofit journalism center, where he has assigned and edited dozens of award-winning articles and broadcasts. He is also the author of two New York Times bestselling books, The Hunting of the President (St. Martins Press, 2000) and Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth (St. Martins Press, 2003). Currently he is working on a new book about former President Bill Clinton's life and work since leaving the White House in 2001. He is a frequent guest on radio and television, including MSNBC's Morning Joe, and lives in New York City with his wife and two children.

  • 1

90 Comments

  1. Dominick Vila January 28, 2016

    The real question we should ask ourselves is not how many “Most Valuable” progressives are endorsing Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, but how many Democrats are Independents plan to vote for her. Fairly or not, the barrage of attacks directed at her throughout the last year have inflicted tremendous damage on both her character and judgment. It really does not matter whether or not the exaggerated claims of wrongdoing concerning her use of a private server warrant the level of attention and concern they have, or whether or not her performance as SoS, especially during the Benghazi tragedy, was questionable. The fact is that people believe it is, and that her chances to win the 2016 election are not as predictable as they were 6 months ago.
    Large numbers of Democrats and Independents like Bernie Sanders because he is addressing relevant issues, because he has demonstrated that he is not afraid to stand up against conventional wisdom, and because he has managed to connect with the average voter in a way Hillary has failed to do.

    Reply
    1. Otto Greif January 28, 2016

      Good to see you back on your feet Dominck Vila.

      Reply
    2. Paragryne January 28, 2016

      All true, but perhaps the ‘most valuable progressives’ recognize the probability of Bernie accomplishing anything is near zero. Bernie represents the best chance of the White House reverting to Republican control, if not this November, should he be the nominee, but in 2020 for sure. Progressivism cannot afford a Bernie in the White House just yet.

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila January 28, 2016

        That is the dilemma many of us have. I still support Hillary, mostly because I believe she is the most qualified, experienced, and pragmatic candidate running, but I fear she is extremely vulnerable, not because she has done anything horrible, but because elections are often decided by perceptions rather than facts, accomplishments, or personal attributes. If Bernie is our nominee, and he wins the election, he will be a one-term President by choice. Needless to say, I will vote for whomever our nominee is. There is simply too much at stake to let one party control all branches of government. The latter is almost a certainty considering the age and health of some Supreme Court Justices.

        Reply
        1. itsfun January 30, 2016

          I don’t remember you complaining about one party control when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Presidency.

          Reply
          1. Dominick Vila January 30, 2016

            No, I didn’t. The reason for that is that I don’t have a problem with the policies and values of a party determined to protect our country and improve the standard of living of the populace, as opposed to one that is determined to advance the interests of a few at the expense of many.

            Reply
          2. itsfun January 30, 2016

            You stated (There is simply too much at stake to let one party control all branches of government). Now you are saying its okay if you agree with the party in charge.

            Reply
          3. CrankyToo January 30, 2016

            Never engage in a battle of wits unarmed.

            Reply
        2. Joan January 30, 2016

          I too plan to vote the “anyone but” ticket in Nov. This election cycle the stakes are high and the contrast between ideologies and values even clearer.

          Reply
        3. plc97477 January 30, 2016

          The thing with Hillary is; I don’t know if you saw any of her appearance at the senate but she handled it like a pro. They were throwing everything but the kitchen sink at her and she came out way ahead. If she can do the same thing in the debates with whoever makes it to the general she will do the same there. She is quite honestly the best we got.

          Reply
          1. Dominick Vila January 30, 2016

            I agree. I think she demonstrated poor judgment when she decided to use the family’s private server for official business, but if we disqualify every candidate who has made a mistake throughout their life from becoming president, I am afraid the Office of the Presidency will be vacant in perpetuity.
            Let’s not forget that what is going on with the 22 e-mails in question is a disagreement between the Inspector General Office and the State Department, and that most of the 22 e-mails were sent to Hillary, rather than being originated by her. To give you an example of what is being questioned, one involves an excerpt from an issue broadcast on FOX News, and published in a local newspaper, sent by a State Department to Hillary. I have no problem with re-classifying the information if it was found to be sensitive when it was analyzed at a later time, but insinuating wrongdoing and a threat to our national security after something was broadcast to the entire nation, and by default the world, is beyond ridiculous. What we are seeing is a desperate witch haunt to derail the candidacy of a woman who is more qualified and prepared to be President than any of her opponents.
            The concern is not over the attacks against her, or her performance, but the damage done to her reputation and character, and how many Americans are buying into it.

            Reply
          2. FT66 January 31, 2016

            She will prevail. That much I know.

            Reply
    3. Theodora30 January 29, 2016

      Right wing operatives have been leading the charge against Hillary. In fact some of their superpacs like Rove’s American Crossroads are attacking her from the left and leaving Bernie alone because they want him to win. If he does win the attacks against him will be every bit as vicious. And dishonest. If the past is any guide these attacks will work.

      Democrats need to wise up and realize no matter who they nominate the right will use any dirty tactic they can to defeat him or her and the mainstream “liberal” media will likely join in. At best the media will play faux balance and blame the Democrat for not ignoring the attacks/waiting too long/being too tepid in their response/being too strident and aggressive in their response/wearing the wrong colors (remember the flap over Gore’s wardrobe colors?)……… And if history repeats itself a lot of Democrats will join in the complaints instead of fighting back. a lot of them did this when Al Gore ran. For example I knew a lot of Dems who bought into the right wing lie that Gore had claimed to have invented the Internet. This was SOP for Rove and Co. – turn a candidate’s strength into a weakness. The media knew better (I once heard Chris Matthews openly admit Gore had never made that claim though Matthews continued referring to it as if it were true.) Worse they also knew Gore played a key role in getting Congress to pony up the money to get the Internet created and available to everyone. He was a visionary (yes, boring ol’ Al) recognizing the tremendous impact the Internet would have. He was the one who coined the term “Information Superhighway). Here is an article by two of men considered to be the “fathers of the Internet” praising Gore’s role. Too bad most Americans have never heard about it.
      http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0009/msg00311.html

      And we should never forget the despicable attacks on Kerry’s war heroism. Remember the media outrage? Me neither. But I do remember the relentless criticism of how Kerry handled the attacks. Apparently lying about an opponents heroism when you walked out on your own military obligation does not disqualify you to be president but being slow to react to lies does. Now Bush is home painting himself in the bath while Kerry is trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East. No wonder the media preferred Bush. Much less work to cover and better jokes.

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila January 29, 2016

        I agree. We should also remember Trump’s vicious attack against Sen. McCain’s military record. Incredibly, or perhaps not, he held a rally yesterday to help veterans, and got high praise from millions of Americans for doing that.
        The duplicity of most of the republican candidates running for president is ignored, largely, because of the complacency or greed of the media, and the ignorance of a segment of our population that is more likely to react to a cute retort, immature remarks, and bombast than substance and a vision. We have to go no further than consider that more people viewed Trump’s rally last night than those who viewed the last Democratic town hall event, and that Trump’s rally was only watched by about one fourth of the audience that viewed the GOP debate on FOX to understand the dangers we are facing. I realize that we are talking about, mostly, about a Republican audience, but I can’t help wonder how many Democrats and Independents are impressed by the likes of Trump, Cruz, and Rubio. It will be interesting to see what happens when half of the large pool of GOP candidates running throw in the towel after the Iowa caucuses, and express their support for some of the GOP front runners.

        Reply
      2. itsfun January 30, 2016

        At least the left won’t accuse Republicans of “throwing granny over the cliff” or how much Republicans hate women and are racist and hate all foreigners.

        Reply
      3. nana4gj January 30, 2016

        Therein is where Rove was the Master of influencing public opinion through the use of character defamation and he has made his money off of “The Clintons” and, I might add, is instrumental in helping the Clintons become so wealthy through the notoriety he manufactured that commanded so many published books, fees, and speaking engagements around the world and here at home.

        “The Clintons” have been scrutinized, investigated, picked apart by so many committees, investigators, journalists, special interest politicos, and the Republican machinery, that, had there been anything to the many allegations from murder to emails that if there were anything but Rovearian character assassination as political strategy, it would have been proven evidence and not rumor.

        This political strategy adopted by Republicans is why she is “still standing”, as she said, and they have nothing to offer when they are in the Congressional Majority and nothing but Trump and Cruz as viable candidates for the Presidency. Their ineffective and shady politics is surpassed only by their incompetence and their shallow policies.

        However, even with absence of evidence, the court of public opinion, which Rove counts on, has significance. We need only look at the success of such an individual as Trump, with all of his pathological symptomatic behaviors, and his success, so far, and the emotional attraction to Bernie Sanders, who is a good man but whose candidacy has no potential of success in a general or in the office of President.

        For that matter, we need only to look at the public adoration of the Kardashians for no other reason than their sensationalism, or other “heroes” in our society, to see how we often choose with something other than our intellect, often to the detriment of our best interests.

        Mud that is thrown at someone is bound to stick, but, more of it ends up on the one who throws it, and that is what has happened with the Republican Party in their Clinton obsession, their Obama Derangement. One should ask why they are so silent re Bernie Sanders, an avowed Socialist, and are so focused on Hillary…..where do they perceive their greatest threat….again. It’s in that woman who has never known her place; who has always made too much noise and who has been able to make that noise concrete achievement and even legislation, one way or another, often in helping men get the kudos for it, as she prodded, probed, and pushed them and even wrote it for them, and who, secretly, admire and respect her for it.

        Reply
      4. nana4gj January 30, 2016

        And how many non-alcoholic beers did they manage to have with this very likable kid? None, since they had to be cleared on their opinions before any contact or presence with him.

        Reply
    4. itsfun January 30, 2016

      After reading the latest results of her emails and the administration admitting that some of the emails are even higher than “Top Secret” how can anyone trust her with sensitive materials. I get a kick out of her saying she wants all of the documents made public, when she damn well knows that Top Secret documents cannot be released to the public. Anyone that has held the position of SOS and can’t tell that a document should be top secret or higher cannot be qualified to be the Commander in Chief.

      Reply
      1. CrankyToo January 30, 2016

        1. There is no classification level higher than Top Secret.

        2. Mrs. Clinton doesn’t want “all of the documents made public”; just those which are releasable (i.e. unclassified).

        3. As usual, you’re far abeam of reality.

        Reply
        1. nana4gj January 30, 2016

          I would guess, throughout history, that many a communique not determined to be classified info was later determined to have been classified, with retrospection.

          Reply
          1. CrankyToo January 30, 2016

            Yeah. I’m sure circumstances could conspire to cause that to happen, but probably not as often as you might think, for two reasons:

            First, we tend to over-classify (not under-classify) as it is. Our bureaucracies classify way too much for far too long.

            Second, not just anyone can make a classified determination and stamp a document. Materials are classified at fairly high echelons of authority, by people appointed as Original Classification Authorities (OCRs). The exception to this being what are called “derivative classifications”, which are new materials created from existing classified materials. So, for example, notes I take while reading a classified document would be derivatively classified to the same level as the document I made the notes from. Makes sense, right? In that case, I’m making a classification determination – despite the fact that I’m not an OCR – but I’m doing it on the basis of an OCR’s determination.

            Still, you can have a scenario where, let’s say, a number of small bits of information which are of no intelligence value individually, are assembled into a document. which divulges classified information. In that case, the document would properly be kicked up to the nearest OCR for classification.

            Reply
          2. nana4gj January 30, 2016

            Well, thank you very, very much for this information and I appreciate your knowledge of the subject. I have held to the belief that the former SOS would never knowingly jeopardize any information that could have been classified at the time she sent or received it via email. I have wondered about all of the various “contingencies”, if you will, or scenarios that may be involved with this. I remain open to the final determination by appropriate authorities and, if there is determined not to be any infraction or negligence on her part, I am not one who will believe the rumors, narrative, or another “scandal”.

            Again, thank you for your reasoned and informed response.

            Reply
          3. CrankyToo January 31, 2016

            Nothing to thank. I’m happy to enlighten where I can. And here’s one last thought on the subject: SecState breathes some pretty rare air. People that high up the bureaucratic food chain don’t give much thought to security markings on documents because they’ve got much bigger fish to fry. These folks make and keep and break secrets every day, as a matter of routine. They’re smart enough to know what can and can’t be written or said, and they rely on security staffers to handle the statutory minutiae with respect to (for example) document handling and storage. All that to say, this must be one giant pain in the a$$ tempest in a teapot for Mrs. Clinton.

            Reply
        2. itsfun January 30, 2016

          I heard her say she wanted ALL of her documents made public. She knows damn well that can’t happen. All of the news outlets are reporting that documents beyond Top Secret were found on her server. I don’t know what that is, never heard of it before. As usual you are trying to protect a liar.

          Reply
          1. CrankyToo January 30, 2016

            I’m not trying to protect anyone; merely stating facts. And the fact is, there is no classification level higher than TS. There are, however, what are called “caveats” or “carveouts”. These terms refer to Special Access Programs – “Crypto”, for example. Any Government employee or contractor who has access to Crypto must have a TS clearance. But not all people who have TS clearances will be authorized access to Crypto. But, I say again, there is no classification level higher than TS.

            Reply
    5. BillP January 30, 2016

      Glad to see you back on this site. Sorry to hear about your son.

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila January 30, 2016

        Thanks!

        Reply
    6. FT66 January 31, 2016

      Dominick, you may think republicans are as clean as rain water. No they are not. What was done during Bush Admin. is beyond beliefs. Why did Karl Rove set fire to all emails related to their work? Wasn’t any necessity to keep records as required? Where was the outrage? They burnt all emails containing lies which they used to take the country to the war in Iraq. Lives, treasure were lost. They hide their mistakes under the rag and jump onto Hillary. My head gets almost explored to see they even dare campaigning to sit in the White House again. To me thats unforgivable mistakes comparing to Hillary use of private server. Infact she served the country from important emails got hacked.

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila January 31, 2016

        I can think of many ways to refer to far right Republicans. Being as clean as rain water is not one of them.
        Hillary should have known better than use a personal server, but that whole charade about the e-mails she received or sent via that server constituting a threat to our national security, or being a dis-qualifier for her electability is pure, unadulterated, hogwash. Even John Bolton, a man who is anything but a a liberal, said as much.
        The e-mail saga, and Benghazi, are being used because to attack Hillary’s credibility and judgment because the GOP knows that she is the most qualified candidate running for President, and because they can’t defeat her based on relevant issues. It does not help that the media does not challenge the ridiculous claims made by her detractors, or that our strategists don’t know how to fight back, and rely on the goo judgment of the American people , to reach a logical conclusion and “look presidential”.
        Like I said yesterday, if every candidate running for president, past and present, had been disqualified as a result of an irrelevant mistake, we would not have had a President since the USA became a nation, and none of those running today would be eligible for office.
        As for Benghazi, the come back, in addition to revealing the truth, like Hillary did during the 11-hour grilling in Congress, is 9/11/01, the 11 U.S. embassies and consulates attacked during W’s tenure, crusades carried out on false pretenses, the de-stabilization of the Persian Gulf when W replaced the Sunni Baathists with Shias aligned to Iran and the purge that followed that action, and the destruction of a former ally that had served as an impediment to prevent the ideological expansionism promoted by both Iran and Saudi Arabia. That decision paved the way for the emergence of ISIS in 2006, and the proxy wars that are taking place today in Syria and Yemen, and the turmoil in parts of the Islamic world.
        We need an experienced leader to address the consequences of W’s policies and actions, not inexperienced demagogues like Trump and company.

        Reply
  2. Newfirelock January 29, 2016

    Emotional About Hillary

    JAMES ROGERS BUSH·WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2016

    There is a lot of talk about how Hillary Clinton does not move some people emotionally.

    I don’t really understand this, because it has always been easy for me to feel emotional about Hillary.

    I guess this first started when I met her at a garden party, thrown by a local Democratic committee chairman, at his home on the ocean, in Santa Cruz, Ca.

    It was 1992, Hillary was stumping for Bill, and due to my previous political activism, I was invited to this party in the local committee chairman’s yard.

    Leon Panetta, our local congressman at the time, and many other party notaries were there to meet Hillary Clinton, who showed up with her entourage and secret service detachment in dark colored vans, and, after being greeted and shaking hands with the Democratic committee chairman, moved to the center of the yard and began to speak about her husband and what he could do for the country.

    As I listened, and when her eyes met mine, I was invaded by a thought that I have carried with me ever since that day. I heard myself, saying to myself that this woman was not just stumping for Bill’s run to the White House, she was stumping for the both of them. She was not just a wife, she was a partner, and what is more, I realized, then and there, that one day she would run for the White House herself. I remember saying to myself that I was looking into the eyes of the first woman President of the United States.

    In the many years that followed, I watched the Clinton’s trajectory (one that we all know so well) and I have been, by turns, excited, inspired, disappointed, angered, re-inspired, and excited again. Through it all, I have never ceased to be amazed at how Hillary Clinton has weathered ‘the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,’ continued to work for the causes she is committed to, and how she has never given up keeping her eye on the prize: The White House.

    For me, Hillary’s story is a very emotional one, and I wonder why this emotion is not shared by many others. Perhaps it is the ‘right wing conspiracy’ that Hillary complained about early on, and took flak for, even though we all know by now, that, in fact, a conspiracy does exist. Perhaps there has been so much in the press, that has implied that there is something inherently dishonest about Hillary’s manner, machinations and motives, that now many folks believe all of it, regardless of wether it’s true or not.

    Or perhaps we are witnessing, just as we did with President Obama, that sexism, like racism, is a deep seated problem in our culture, and Hillary, as a strong, intelligent woman, is on the receiving end of that sexism, which is not only limited to men, but is also prevalent among many women.

    All through history, those folks who have strived to break the barriers and glass ceilings that bigotry has placed in their way, have been on the receiving end of accusations that they are too uppity, too arrogant, too strident, too sneaky, too manipulative, too cold, too… whatever. Every adjective that could be used against them, was used, to block their progress, belittle their efforts, and dissuade their spirits from carrying on their fight for equality.

    I think that if Hillary was a man, no one, except Republicans, would have a problem with who she is, how she has behaved, or how she is running for the White House. And frankly, I don’t think the Republicans who know her and have worked with her, really feel the things they say about her. I think they all respect, admire, and even think she would be a good president. They just can’t say so at the moment.

    We are at a crossroads in history, and, as Americans, we have a very serious choice to make. Do we choose the old Socialist, the Capitalist demagogue, or the first woman president?

    There will always be someone from the far left and far right, telling us that they have the answers to America’s problems, but we may never see the likes of a Hillary Clinton again. Even an Elizabeth Warren has a long way to go, to match the experience, knowledge and talent of a Hillary Clinton, or her ability to work with all sides on any given issue.

    When I consider the chance that we Democrats now have, to elect the first woman president, not just because she is a woman, but also because she is the most qualified for the job, I get emotional. And when I see that this race for the White House is one for us to lose, and that if we lose, we will lose much more than just the presidency, I get emotional

    But I get even more emotional when I think of what Hillary has gone through to get to this place. I get incredibly emotional when I think of the pain she has suffered and the abuse she has taken. And I get very emotional when I think of how hard she has worked, on her sometimes very lonely path, to get where she is now.

    In the end, I think of Hillary Clinton, the dedicated American public servant, who has struggled and strived throughout her life to make things better for all Americans, and I think of the Hillary Clinton that is dedicated to fighting for equality for all Americans, especially American women, and I get very, very emotional indeed.

    JRB

    Reply
  3. yabbed January 30, 2016

    It is nonsensical to expect the Democratic Leadership to support Bernie Sanders. He is not a Democrat and he does not support Democratic goals or principles. He has opposed Democratic legislation on guns and defended NRA positions, his chauvinistic and misogynist attitude toward women is not in keeping with Democratic principles, and his long tern and juvenile infatuation with the USSR does not align with Democratic Party values. I appreciate his push for income inequality but mindless pie in the sky scenarios for a Unicorn Universe are ridiculous. For a man who wants Democrats to elect him as POTUS to tell Republicans that he is going to hand over the demolition of the ACA to them is infuriating. His tax schemes predetermine his defeat by Middle America voters. He’s a fraud and a joke and a patently ridiculous figure to be on the Democratic Party ticket.

    Reply
    1. FT66 January 30, 2016

      Exactly. I always ask myself why has Sanders resisted to become a democrat. What has hold him back all these years? Why he refuse to sail with us in one boat? and why he is running holding our ticket?

      Reply
      1. A_Real_Einstein January 30, 2016

        He does not take money from special interests. Therefore he is not a democrat.

        Reply
        1. yabbed January 30, 2016

          He is a known lackey for the NRA and AIPAC. He votes their way. He was elected the first time (which took him off unemployment and onto a different government payroll) with NRA support, hence, his consistent votes for them and against Democratic Party gun control legislation. His votes to support AIPAC bills are legendary. He actually proposed that the American taxpayer repay Israel with our tax dollars for every bomb, every missile, every depleted uranium and white phosphorus shell, and every bullet the IDF used on their last savage attack on the defenseless Palestinians in Gaza. He had two AIPAC paid staffers in his Congressional office until the press found out and they moved back into their AIPAC offices down the street.

          Reply
      2. A_Real_Einstein January 30, 2016

        He votes against wars that we should not be in. Therefore he is not a democrat.

        Reply
      3. A_Real_Einstein January 30, 2016

        He is for single payer health care. Therefore he is not a democrat

        Reply
      4. A_Real_Einstein January 30, 2016

        He does not favor Wall Street Therefore he is not a democrat.

        Reply
      5. A_Real_Einstein January 30, 2016

        He hates Superpacs. Therefore he is not a democrat.

        Reply
        1. yabbed January 30, 2016

          Don’t kid yourself. Bernie Sanders is loaded with dirty money from SuperPacs. He just looks bewildered and stammers when asked about the Super Pac reps traveling with him on the campaign and shuffling millions of dollars to his coffers.

          Reply
          1. A_Real_Einstein January 30, 2016

            You are a complete liar and are the reason Hillary is going to lose. Bernie refuses to be associated with any Superpacs and literally hates them. He does not want or take special interest money. Feel the Bern

            Reply
          2. yabbed January 30, 2016

            You need to do some research on your candidate. He’s got you fooled. 🙂

            Reply
          3. Lyle52 January 30, 2016

            Getting nervous yabbed?

            Reply
          4. Lyle52 January 30, 2016

            Yabbed is getting nervous. Because he’s clueless about Bernie, he thinks everyone else is. He can’t figure out why Bernie gets 70% of the vote in Vermont.

            Reply
          5. Dan Bahr February 1, 2016

            The National Nurses United have funneled money to Bernie via their PAC and the president of the Communications Workers of America has publicly said they will also use their PAC to send money to Bernie’s campaign. I’m waiting for him to reject those offers.

            Reply
          6. A_Real_Einstein February 1, 2016

            He already has on several occasions. If these organizations insist on supporting him and are required not to coordinate with him there is not a lot he can do. Clearly we know where Bernie stands on corporate and dark money. I have no issue with labor unions who want to support the candidate that clearly closely represents their best interest. This is much much different than asking for money from Wall Street and the Banks.

            Reply
    2. Shava Nerad January 30, 2016

      I was raised as a Vermont Democrat, and I would like you to kindly stuff that rhetoric regarding Bernie and the NRA.

      Vermont is a bit sparse on NRA membership, and her Democrats have voted for Bernie consistently. He has always caucused with the Dems. If you remember, our people are not quite as stupidly partisan as the rest of the country. When the GOP started going off the rails, our Senator Jeffords parted company with them.

      We judge our delegation by the content of their character, not the color of their lapel pins.

      Over the course of my own life I have lived in a number of parts of this country, and I understand not every state feels the same about gun ownership. But may I remind you that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, a civil liberty? In general, the Democrats support civil liberties, do we not? Well, in Vermont, the Democrats still do, and Bernie Sanders knows his constituents.

      So stand down. You are out of line to say he is with the NRA. He is with the liberal people of the State of Vermont, whom he has sworn to represent first in the House, and then in the Senate, for many consecutive terms from a blue state.

      What are you thinking? Wash your mouth out, and take it back to Arkansas, or wherever Hillary found you. You are not serving the party by spreading this kind of distortion and propaganda in our ranks.

      It’s not worth a dishonest win. I am voting for Clinton, but I am disgusted with the Clinton camp.

      Shava Nerad
      Former State Democratic Committee Woman

      Reply
    3. jabber1 January 30, 2016

      You must be smoking something funny. Sanders is more of a democrat than Hillary. He is a man who wants to help all the people not just the rich ones. He is for promoting the economic good of all of us. Hillary is a corporatist who will do what the rich want. I am sorry to say that but it is true. She is uninspirational and unenthusiastic. Sadly the electing of a president is a popularity contest and Hillary is not popular.

      Reply
  4. greenlantern1 January 30, 2016

    Some REAL interesting e-mail is going to be demanded!
    Ever hear of Ahmed Abu Khattala?
    He is an ACTUAL, Benghazi, murder defendant!
    Ever hear of Judge Christopher Cooper?
    He was nominated by President Obama!
    He was confirmed by the unanimous vote of the senate!
    He has already denied a motion, by Khattala, to quash his extradition.
    He will be tried here.
    Not Libya.
    He will be tried by constitutional law.
    Not Sharia law.
    As Hillary pointed out; the attack was carefully planned.
    In particular the movie, THE INNOCENCE OF THE MUSLIMS, had already been made.
    Pastor [?] Terry Jones was deeply involved in that.
    Will the e-mail, between Khattala and Terry Jones, be demanded?
    YOU BETCHA!!

    Reply
    1. CrankyToo January 30, 2016

      Ever hear of paragraphs (stringing two or more sentences together to form a rational thought)?
      APPARENTLY NOT!

      Reply
      1. greenlantern1 January 30, 2016

        My browser shows paragraphs.
        Doesn’t yours?

        Reply
  5. jabber1 January 30, 2016

    Anyone who supports Hillary cannot call themselves a progressive. She has stated she will preserve exactly what we have now. Progressive means move forward not stay the same. Hillary may have started out as a progressive many years ago but has gone over to the dark side. She is a corporate shill and a tool of the banksters and wall st. Just look at all the harm done by Bill Clinton to the middle class. Now we have no manufacturing jobs, no tariffs, and no brakes on the financiers who have managed to create a closed system that rewards them and no one else. Just read some of the many books out on our economic crash and the financialization of our economy. Hillary thinks everything is just hunky dory. She’s dead wrong.

    I think it is laughable that people say you can’t want to change the establishment! You can’t want revolution! How do you think we became a country separate from England? Not by accepting the status quo.

    Bernie is our only chance to create a democracy and end our current plutocracy. If not voting for Hillary gets us Trump then so be it.

    Reply
    1. nana4gj January 30, 2016

      I am not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. I am not willing to accept a Trump President who will destroy a democracy, who actually is a plutocrat, because the candidate I believed who could “create” a democracy and was not a plutocrat for whom I voted, lost the election.

      That is not progressive thinking.

      That is a gambol far too risky for me.

      Reply
      1. Eleanore Whitaker January 30, 2016

        Right now the only progressive movement forward is to vote for a candidate that offers the most continuity of President Obama’s policies…that is Hillary…not SAnders. Sanders can make all the idealistic promises he wants NOW…but who will pay for all those freebies?

        Reply
        1. jabber1 January 30, 2016

          Obama’s policies are not progressive so to continue them is to not be progressive. The status quo is not progressive.

          Reply
          1. nana4gj January 30, 2016

            They have been as progressive as could be accomplished with an opposition party bent on obstruction before he ever offered one policy. Sometimes, when I look at what he has managed to accomplish, I am astounded.

            Reply
          2. Eleanore Whitaker January 31, 2016

            Do you want to tell us what was progressive about healthcare for the past 25 years? 11 million people in the US had NO healthcare insurance. Now, 16 million do. What is progressive about Texas stealing our tax dollars to fund a dirty industry that cost taxpayers at the pump, to clean up spills and then help these polluters pay their spill fines? Greedy men ALWAYS hate anything that doesn’t allow them to steal more of our tax dollars. Try aging CON man.

            Reply
          3. susanthe January 31, 2016

            Tell us, Eleanore – how is it progressive to keep shoveling money at insurance and drug companies? Was it progressive to refuse to allow single payer advocates to even be part of the discussion? Was it progressive of Max Baucus to have doctors and nurses arrested at the Senate committee hearings on healthcare?

            Max Baucus, btw, now says single payer should have been considered. Max Baucus, who no one would call progressive.

            Reply
          4. Eleanore Whitaker February 1, 2016

            Tell us Susan…Why you really want Sanders to win…we all know how clanny you suck ups are. It was HILLARY who back in 1993 had the temerity and courage to try to reform healthcare…where the hell was Sanders? And by the way, Sanders does use lobbyists…try Googling Heather Podesta and all the rest of Sanders lobbyists he tries to call “individual” campaign donors..Individual? When most are his biggest donors smart enough to make small donations in the millions?

            You have yet to give us a single reason Sanders is more effective than Hillary. You have yet to admit that even former President Carter stated that it takes nearly $2 billion to run in any presidential campaign..so what makes you think you can hide Sanders under the halo?

            You are about as naive politically as any perimenopausal middle aged woman .and you are supposed to be intelligent? Yet, you can’t see through Sanders BS? Wow…do keep up the rah rah Ms. Wannabee Cheerleader..You are cheering to an empty stadium. So is Sanders.

            Reply
          5. susanthe February 1, 2016

            Your inability to answer my questions is telling.

            Reply
          6. Eleanore Whitaker February 1, 2016

            You attempts at proving you are the KNow it All of the Century is successfull…I answer your questions…you hate the answers Ms.Smartazz…Wrong time of the month for you honey?

            Reply
          7. susanthe February 1, 2016

            Here’s the thing, Eleanore. You didn’t answer any of my questions, you just spouted hysterical nonsense and silly ad hominem. Also, you’re only pretending to be a woman, but aside from all of that, let’s try the questions again, after you’ve taken your meds.

            Here you go:

            How is it progressive to keep shoveling money at insurance and drug companies? Was it progressive to refuse to allow single payer advocates to even be part of the discussion? Was it progressive of Max Baucus to have doctors and nurses arrested at the Senate committee hearings on healthcare?

            You claim to be a “progressive centrist” – so I’m counting on you to tell me all about it.

            Reply
          8. David February 3, 2016

            Don’t hold your breath.

            Reply
          9. David February 3, 2016

            Eleanore!!! Why can’t you answer susanthe’s questions?

            Reply
        2. susanthe January 31, 2016

          It’s depressing how often the Clintonistas use right wing talking points to bash Sanders.

          Reply
          1. Eleanore Whitaker January 31, 2016

            You obviously have not felt the vicious bite of the Sanders Saint Bernard attack dogs as I have on FB. Dare to say you do not intend to vote for Sanders and you may as well be dogfood.

            As a progressive centrist, I am also scrupulously pragmatic. I know fanaticism when I see and hear it. I also know that Sanders, while deserving of respect, cannot deliver ALL of his promises without elucidating down to the last penny how he plans to accomplish these miracles.

            I resent the Saint Bernard attack dogs all labeling anyone who dares not vote for the candidate they believe will be best for the country as Clintonistas. Does that make YOU a Sandernista?

            Reply
          2. susanthe January 31, 2016

            Your grievances with Sanders supporters on FB have nothing to do with anything, Eleanore. You’re doing a bait and switch.

            You use the term FREEBIES – which is a right wing talking point. The OBAMAPHONE. Obamacare, food stamps, etc – I feel certain you didn’t slumber through all those “freebie” attacks by the right wing over the last 8 years.

            I don’t care what your resentments are. Using right wing talking points to attack Sanders makes you and your candidate look weak and desperate.

            Reply
          3. Eleanore Whitaker February 1, 2016

            I don’t have grievances honey..You do. Sanders is not going to win for one reason..he doesn’t have the electoral college votes…Hillary does. People like you are fanatics who get on a bandwagon and hang on long long long after the bandwagon has been stopped dead in its own tracks.

            Obamacare isn’t free..Again you Sanders Saint Bernard attack dogs make up lies.

            I don’t care who you think you are..but your fanaticism is the reason a lot of AMericans WON’T vote for Sanders. I’m a progressive centrist..You are a right wing Sanderista….grow up.

            You can’t force your will on others. What on earth is with you perimenopausal women these days? YOu go on and on rabble rousing trying to make Sanders look like the Pope. Sorry if I am not as naive as you are Tootsie…But when, not if, Hillary wins…I am sure you will be the first in line to kiss Sanders butt. He had 40 years and no one knew he even existed. Now suddenly you and your right wing Sanderistas are all jumping on his band wagon? You will pardon me if I don’t fall for the Sanderistas BS.

            Reply
          4. susanthe February 1, 2016

            Can you point out to where it was I said I was a Sanders supporter?

            Yeah, I didn’t think, so. Your hysteria is unwarranted and really unappealing.

            Reply
          5. Eleanore Whitaker February 1, 2016

            Hey!@ Susie Q……Here is what YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU posted… “I don’t care what your resentments are. Using right wing talking points to attack Sanders makes you and your candidate look weak and desperate.” Me and my candidate? And so tell us big mouth Perimenopausal…if Hillary is MY candidate…yours can only be Sanders or a Republican. Duh

            Reply
          6. susanthe February 1, 2016

            I see logic isn’t your strong suit. Thanks dear.

            Reply
          7. Eleanore Whitaker February 2, 2016

            I see mentall illness is your biggest problem. Your pantyhose choking off the air to your brain? Your need to prove your superiority doesn’t impress highly educated people with more common sense than your so called “biased” logic.” Get an education before you try to make like Carly Fiorina…and let me guess…the reason you have such hot pants for another round of male politics is because you are a suckup who can’t earn a living all by yourself…without ANY man’s help..Now do go and have your perimenopausal hot flash in private…no one wants to see you break a sweat for the first time in your pathetic life.

            Logic…and this is the so so so superior BS artist who can’t prove a word in her posts in any US court of law…Nice that she interprets “logic” as “bias.”

            Reply
    2. Eleanore Whitaker January 30, 2016

      I have always called myself a Progressive. I am voting for Hillary. Progressive means to move forward…not backward to flying the Stars and Bars, women in hoop skirts bigger than a Zeppelin and men living in a MAN’s WORLD…making ALL the rules.

      Hillary is a corporate shill? So let’s see…the regressive Issa is the wealthiest of the GOP politicians…how did he get HIS wealth? Then, there’s the “ignernt” Cruz…A Canadian Oil boy bred in the bone…not a corporate shill either?

      Sanders is not going to win. If President Obama couldn’t get ANY cooperation from Republicans, will Sanders wave a magic wand?

      And I hate to make a liar of you, but Sanders IS a corporate shill…he just hides it under that bundling ALL politicians know how to do. Enough with the Saint Bernard dogs…looking for any excuse to suck up to the GOP..sorry it doesn’t work.

      Reply
      1. jabber1 January 30, 2016

        What makes you think Hillary can get any cooperation from the republican congress? She is despised and hated by republicans, many independents and many democrats. She can’t win. If by some chance she wins she will not have any more success against the evil republicans than Obama has. She won’t even try. She has not offered even one inspirational idea since her campaign began.

        Reply
        1. Gale Abernathy January 30, 2016

          Hillary managed to work with Republicans for the 8 years she was a New York Senator.

          Reply
          1. Eleanore Whitaker January 31, 2016

            The men in the US had 235+ years of supremacy in government and big business. They loathe the idea of an Alpha woman equal to them. It’s an affront to their gender to have to admit a woman brought them here and a woman can manage her life quite nicely without having a man validate our gender.

            Hillary has many accomplishments…Getting the Good Ole Boys Network to admit that is their problem not ours…we march forward, onward and upward…with or without them.

            Reply
        2. Eleanore Whitaker January 31, 2016

          A very good question that deserves an equally good answer. Hillary is still in politics long after many of her worst detractors in the GOP gave up. She is hated and despised by MEN who loathe the idea of an Alpha woman. Admit it. You can’t stand the idea that a woman has the same ability as any man when it comes to leadership. YOur gender bias is showing. Who in the Democratic party hates her? Certainly not the top Dems who have already endorsed her.

          It is time for men like you to do one of two things…get over your need to see all women as handmaidens of you and your bossy, overbearing, bullying “Lordships.” And secondly, face the reality that women with the level of accomplishment of Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are not now nor EVER going to allow your gender to be the only prerequisite to be the best leader.

          Hillary doesn’t have to TRY…been there, done that…She will follow the policies of President Obama as she has stated several times. Take the horse crap out of your male ears and pay attention when women speak. That convenient deafness only shows gross insecurity and the need to give women the scraps. Sorry…not anymore.

          Reply
    3. Gale Abernathy January 30, 2016

      Hillary has said she would build on President Obama’s successes. That doesn’t sound like things will be the same. I believe Bernie has had 26 years to try to create a “democracy”. Why hasn’t he??

      Reply
      1. susanthe January 31, 2016

        If Hillary is such a progressive, why wasn’t she working with him?

        Reply
  6. nana4gj January 30, 2016

    And so am I, precisely because she can more effectively keep the country moving forward, preserve the gains made by our present Administration and build upon them, and has more potential to seek reasonable participation from a Republican Majority Congress, until such time that can be changed, with continued fervor by all of these Progressives to move themselves to vote in “lesser” elections.

    Hillary was progressive long before there were “progressives”. Everything she has worked for; everyone she has worked on behalf of; every position she has ever taken, since she was an adult, before anyone knew her, has been progressive. She was so progressive that when she entered the WH as FLOTUS she was more feared by her husband’s opponents for being “radical”, an “activist”.

    She is not a “revolutionary activist”. She has taken the existing systems of democracy and made them work for “the invisible people” she has championed all of her life. She believes in capitalism but she believes they need to be regulated and overseen. She was the first and only individual to warn us of the looming mortgage loan crisis and she called it “greed”.

    She was not born into money. They were so without money on entering the WH that they were called “trailer trash”. They were not wealthy when they left the WH. They made their money with the record book sales and speaking fees when they left the WH because of the notoriety created by their Republican opponents, who now call them greedy, dishonest, and “out of touch” with “ordinary” Americans.

    It is interesting that jabber1 believes the economic crash was due to Bill Clinton’s presidency, since jabber1 is the only person who makes that claim. Everyone else knows Clinton left the US economy in good shape, with a surplus in the budget from the deficit he faced following another Republican Administration. Everyone knows that the Republican President who followed him crashed the economy with decisions made that would crash anyone’s personal economy if we spent more than we took in and spent it on wasteful endeavors while slashing income, not even in making investments.

    There has been no “status quo” for the past 7 years. The very fact that Republicans find the progress of this Administration so heinous that they want to repeal, destroy, all of the progress made, should be enough to help anyone identify who the true threat is and it is not Hillary; it is not Bernie.

    The only question should be which of the two can secure the gains, improve upon them, and make more, and that requires winning the general election for President and every Congressional seat that is up for election, and that requires someone who can work with what is in that Congress to achieve what we need and want, not someone who will make the progress to date so vulnerable that it can be destroyed, which is what every Republican running for any office and those already in office, plan to do.

    Because she has a working relationship with the banking and financial industries does not mean she is a “corporate shill and tool of them”. Because she is invited to speak to them and is paid for it, does not mean anything other than they want to hear what she has to tell them and that they respect her.

    She has worked for everything she has achieved and those with whom she worked in the Senate will be the first to say that they expected a prima donna and got, instead, a hard working woman who studied, learned, and was a constructive influence to get things done. In fact, they have said that, both sides of the aisle.

    Hillary was not one of those “beloved” First Ladies. She was too different; too “involved” with policy, civil rights; too opinionated; too much an “activist”; she “didn’t know her place”. She was assigned healthcare reform by her husband because that was an important cause for her and she knew as much about every aspect of healthcare as did the experts, and they, too, said as much. “Hillarycare” went nowhere, for the same reasons “Obamacare” remains threatened…politics….but Children’s Health Insurance program was born, as were HMOs, PPOs, health savings accounts, because the health insurance industry knew they had to do something about healthcare affordability and the legislature knew children were in grave need of their own healthcare coverage for special needs.

    Everyone has the right and the duty to support the candidate of your choice, but, for Democrats, we are fortunate to have two pioneers in all things progressive and democratic from which to choose. Neither one should be denigrated and maligned and we, of all people, should learn enough about each one that we do not buy into the “notoriety”, the slander of all degrees, created by those who have always been so threatened by this “different woman”, who is no longer so “different” because of her advocacy on behalf of women and family. The choice we have is which one of the two can achieve our desired end; which one can make our expectations a reality.

    People who do nothing are seldom perceived as threats. People who put themselves in the arena, fight for causes they believe in, who do not conform to expectations of others, are the ones who are so feared, so threaten others, that all their opponents have with which to fight them, is slander, suspicion, pseudo scandals.

    Reply
    1. David January 30, 2016

      You are right! After all, “At this point, what difference does it make?”.

      Reply
    2. Phil Johnson January 30, 2016

      Well stated. I am a Bernie supporter for all the reasons that he advances, but I would not hesitate to advocate for Hillary if that turns out to be the final solution to save this country from itself.

      All these online missives are preaching to the choir, however. Until the anger out here gets translated into meaningful votes by the plurality of unmotivated, desiccated Americans who are being crushed by the dark oligarchical forces that they, and we, feel but cannot see, the status quo will remain the status quo.

      Even though all politics is local, that does not make it easier, like sausage-making, to digest. Bernie’s approach, like HRC’s, is an earnest attempt to GOTV and awaken the somnolent American voiing giant out there. Trump and Bernie are the polar ends of the anger spectrum caused by rampant arrogant oligarchical disdain for the average person in this country. That will not matter, however, if those angered people do not take the time and effort to educate themselves about the issues and then do something about it.

      Complacency will be the death of this country as we now know it. Republicans have nothing to replace FDR/(d)emocratic efforts to right the ship of state, they know it, and can only hope that the rest of us don’t care. Efforts to curtail the vote are vibrant proof of that. If the rest of the country are inspired to care about their own American selves, the splintered right will lick their wounds, and deservedly so.

      aures lupi

      Reply
    3. jabber1 January 30, 2016

      I didn’t say Clinton was responsible for the economic crash. The financialisation was facilitated by getting rid of Glass Stagall and that played a large role in the economic crash of 2007 – 2008. NAFTA was a big factor in the draining of our manufacturing and getting rid of tariffs which once funded about a third of our government. Reagan really began our downward spiral but Clinton didn’t stop it. Sadly, Clinton bought the neo liberal economic claptrap and so does Hillary. It is sad but it is the truth. Hillary’s fans want to create her but they are using rose colored glasses. I don’t hate Hillary but I am not enamored of her either and I don’t think she is electable given the baggage she brings with her. I know too many fellow democrats who say they cannot vote for her. I imagine there are even more independents who feel that way. Bernie is our only chance.

      Reply
    4. Mark Caponigro January 31, 2016

      OK, and the editors of the New York Times are with you.

      My suspicion is that Hillary comes across as not to be trusted, not because that is true, that she doesn’t deserve our trust, but just because of her own personality, her fears, and her awkward manner of dealing with them. If only we could get behind those famous tears of hers, in New Hampshire eight years ago, when she referred elliptically to all she had been trying to do for decades, I think we would know a great deal more about her than she herself has ever otherwise let on. And I suspect that if we knew all that, we would feel better about her.

      Reply
      1. Eleanore Whitaker February 1, 2016

        Wrong…The ones who call Hillary untrustworthy have a back room agenda. They know if Sanders wins, the Republican Cruz wins. They know their Big Oil investments are rock solid when they were about to be flushed down the toilet.

        As for Hillary being honest or trustworthy..more men in the US are using that as an excuse to insure their gender maintains supremacy for another 8 years. Enough of that BS.

        When you compare what Sanders DOESN’T say about himself is volumes..but I guess a woman must tell what size her pantyhose are…but a man? He can do the Madoffing for 17 years and don’t you dare ask him what size his Fruit of the Looms are or how he managed to buy them wihout spending a dime of his own money. Double standards…gotta face them some time boys.

        Reply
  7. Great article, great info.. thanks ! #ImWithHer !

    Reply
  8. I just want to say one more thing and remember she has more than one side..

    she has this side:

    Reply
    1. … and she has this side #Hillary2016

      Reply
  9. MichaelC February 9, 2016

    If they’ve endorsed Hillary, ipso facto they’re all tools of the Establishment, right? Bernie World turns on a dime. The rest of the world turns to a different tune and we’re about to see the fullness of the Clinton campaign embraced by a majority of voters in the upcoming states.

    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.