Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Bernie has had little influence on the DNC platform, as far as I can tell

Bernie traded what influence he had for nothing

Poor Bernie, he lost his spine somewhere along the way.

---

Quote:

---

New Democrats, also called Centrist Democrats, Clinton Democrats or Moderate Democrats, is an ideologically "centrist" faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are an economically conservative and "Third Way" faction which dominated the party for around 20 years starting in the late 1980s after the US populace turned much further to the political right. They are represented by organizations such as the New Democrat Network and the New Democrat Coalition.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

All we'll get is a thin layer of goo on an unchanging policy, cosmetics that some people will point to as being an "improvement" even as things slip from bad to worse. That's what happened under Obama, right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, according to you, Congress . . . Should that go into the predictions thread?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Bernie has had little influence on the DNC platform, as far as I can tell, and the platform will have 5% effect on what the Dems will actually accomplish. SO Bernie traded what influence he had for nothing, because the DNC won't accomplish anything positive and outside of the DNC nobody will even believe in his "revolution", they'll figure he's just another shill for the establishment.

With Hillary at the helm, I predict

Signing on to the TPP
War with Russia or China (or maybe both)
Another destroyed nation or two
Netanyahu going full-on grabbing more Palestinian land for Jewish settlements, and Another Palestinian/ Israeli "war" in which Jews get to shoot Muslim women and children like fish in a barrel, and either
Another bank failure or out-of-control-inflation ... or both.

All of that fancy domestic stuff that they promise will be 5% accomplished, maybe.

Poor Bernie, he lost his spine somewhere along the way.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I'm putting this in a few threads to make it ABUNDANTLY clear that the refusal to even entertain the idea that Clinton is flawed is a problem both Second and SGG have. I guarantee, they won't discuss any of her shortcomings. Ever. No matter how evident those flaws are to reasonable people.

It is increasingly harder to acknowledge that Clinton has been a target of unfair attacks while also asking fair questions about her record. ... First of all, there is ample evidence she simply lied. A lot. We know that she originally stated she used a private server to allow her to email from one device. That has been proven false. We know that despite apologizing for poor judgment, she has consistently passed the blame onto others, suggesting that her colleagues were the ones who should have known the rules. We also know that she has really refused to take seriously the idea that sensitive and classified information was mishandled and that that information may have actually been leaked. Most importantly we have clear evidence that she has handled this mess with spin and rhetoric more than actual leadership.

Taken together those behaviors might not make her a criminal–although there is some real doubt on that point — but I believe it is fairly clear that they suggest serious flaws in a future president.


The point is that it is time to revise Bernie Sanders’ statement that “we are sick and tired of hearing about her damn emails.” Even if the whole investigation was politically motivated,
it turns out that there are some legitimate things to worry about. As Lee Camp explains on Redacted Tonight, the actual content of the emails is real cause for concern. That’s not even mentioning the whole host of other Clinton practices—her hawkishness, pro-Wall Street record, cronyism, etc. — that are worth critiquing.

http://www.salon.com/2016/07/12/the_blowback_from_hillary_bashing_righ
t_wing_attacks_thwart_reasonable_criticism_of_clintons_campaign/

The blowback from Hillary bashing: Right-wing attacks thwart reasonable criticism of Clinton’s campaign

Last week brought two tales of an email scandal. In one version the former secretary of state and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, committed a crime by using a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. She sloppily handled classified information, left our nation vulnerable to terrorist hacks, and lied repeatedly to the public and the authorities when asked about it. She was crooked and careless and acted as though she was above the law because she is a scheming she-devil. In another version of the story, there is no story — no crime, no carelessness, no lies worth paying attention to. The case is closed and we should all move on and get ready for to root for Hillary at the upcoming Democratic convention.

For some of us, both of those versions of the story are completely idiotic. They make no sense at all. But they aren’t equal in their nonsense. One of the versions is far more delirious and far more vicious. And that is the problem.

The right-wing attacks on Clinton are so excessive, so misogynistic, so mean-spirited and so often absent of any connection to reality, that it has become almost impossible to criticize her at all.

It’s no news that Hillary Clinton may well be the most lambasted politician in recent history. And, given the trouncing Barack Obama has endured, that is really saying something.

The shrill, vitriolic, and often hysterical attacks on Clinton have been constant. As Clinton supporter David Brock of Media Matters points out in his book on media coverage of her: There is ample evidence of a sustained right-wing plot to derail her as a candidate. Gene Lyons, another pro-Clinton commentator, has also amassed significant evidence of a “covert and often concerted effort” to take down Bill and Hillary. If you are skeptical that a Clinton supporter could give an accurate accounting of the many ways she has been attacked, don’t forget that the GOP itself admitted that the Benghazi Committee was solely designed to attack Hillary and hurt her campaign.

Hillary hasn’t only had to deal with the covert and often-overt efforts to discredit her and her husband; she has also suffered a litany of misogynistic attacks. Recall that Tucker Carlson once said, “There’s just something about her that feels castrating,“ on his MSNBC show “Tucker.” Of course, Clinton has often had to endure the bile of Rush Limbaugh, who claimed she has gotten every job she’s ever had because of her husband. In true Limbaugh loony contradiction, he has also repeatedly suggested that she has a “testicle lockbox” that she uses to force men to her bidding. And then there was the time that Ted Cruz suggested on the campaign trial that Clinton deserved a “spanking” for not telling the truth. We’re never getting that horrific image from our heads.

Whether you support Clinton or not, it is hard for a reasonable person to ignore the realities of how she has been bashed by public discourse. It is also hard to ignore the fact that that very same media bashing has led to a vicious social narrative—buttressed by a pack of social media trolls– that perpetuates deep hatred for Clinton.

But here’s the problem. It is increasingly harder to acknowledge that Clinton has been a target of unfair attacks while also asking fair questions about her record. The brutal and over-the-top attacks on Clinton have shut down calm and reasonable debate about her actual flaws. Any criticism at all seems to ratify the wingnuts. If you don’t want to be associated with those loons, then you might feel obliged to keep quiet.

The fact that Clinton has managed to wage a successful campaign in the midst of these continuous jabs is truly stunning. But it is also disturbing, because it has converted her supporters into her defenders. Rather than argue for her positive qualities, the dominant narrative of Clinton supporters is that she has been unfairly attacked. Her supporters have often displayed the exact same lack of nuance and critical thinking that we have come to associate with right-wing political rhetoric.

The right-wing logic of “us vs. them” is not just seeping into every aspect of political discourse; it may well be defining the makeup of the two-party system. Much in the same way that we have heard arguments that the Tea Party lunacy of the GOP has led directly to Donald Trump’s success, we could argue that the extreme right has actually enabled Clinton’s campaign. The more they ganged up on her like angry toddlers, the harder it was for there to be any real discussion of whether or not she would be a good leader of our nation.

If one were a conspiracy theorist, you might even imagine that the power elite on the right assumed that they couldn’t take the White House in 2016 so they angled for a Hillary success so that they could bind up the next four years (or more) with endless scandals and –if they are lucky—impeachment trials. What better antidote for a lost GOP presidency then to elect a Democratic candidate who could be ceaselessly attacked?

Because the media has constantly pilloried Clinton and because the right has repeatedly manufactured scandals, she now plays the role of victim. Even better she uses those transgressions to skirt valid questions about her record. When asked by Jake Tapper how she would respond to Trump calling her “corrupt” she replied: “I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get off the reservation in the way they behave and how they speak. I’m not going to deal with their temper tantrums or their bullying or their efforts to try to provoke me.”

While it makes sense that Clinton would blow off Trump’s attacks, her role as victim allows her to avoid answering any questions. As the right has become more obstinate, so have Clinton and her camp.

That’s where we have to pause for a moment and assess how Clinton has actually responded to the email scandal. First of all, there is ample evidence she simply lied. A lot. We know that she originally stated she used a private server to allow her to email from one device. That has been proven false. We know that despite apologizing for poor judgment, she has consistently passed the blame onto others, suggesting that her colleagues were the ones who should have known the rules. We also know that she has really refused to take seriously the idea that sensitive and classified information was mishandled and that that information may have actually been leaked. Most importantly we have clear evidence that she has handled this mess with spin and rhetoric more than actual leadership.

Taken together those behaviors might not make her a criminal–although there is some real doubt on that point — but I believe it is fairly clear that they suggest serious flaws in a future president.


The point is that it is time to revise Bernie Sanders’ statement that “we are sick and tired of hearing about her damn emails.” Even if the whole investigation was politically motivated,
it turns out that there are some legitimate things to worry about. As Lee Camp explains on Redacted Tonight, the actual content of the emails is real cause for concern. That’s not even mentioning the whole host of other Clinton practices—her hawkishness, pro-Wall Street record, cronyism, etc. — that are worth critiquing.


There is one additional disturbing consequence to the Hillary bashing blowback, though. It is not just the fact that the anti-Hillary and pro-Hillary sides have become completely incapable of nuance or reason; it is the fact that those of us advocating for critical thinking are increasingly stuck in defensive positions that lead us to become more and more intransigent, more and more angry, and more and more inclined to bully back. In one example, Trevor Noah attempted to cover the story with some nuance, but he still ended up calling Hillary “Grandma Nixon.” The Nixon analogy might be apt, but calling her Grandma smacks of Limbaugh.

Whether fair or not, the Clinton campaign may get credit for finally driving the nation fully into sectarian opposition and away from anything resembling healthy democratic debate. The real question is whether we will find any productive way to talk about it.

Sophia A. McClennen is Professor of International Affairs and Comparative Literature at the Pennsylvania State University. She writes on the intersections between culture, politics, and society. Her latest book, co-authored with Remy M. Maisel, is, Is Satire Saving Our Nation? Mockery and American Politics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I'm putting this in a few threads to make it ABUNDANTLY clear that the refusal to even entertain the idea that Clinton is flawed is a problem both Second and SGG have. I guarantee, they won't discuss any of her shortcomings. Ever. No matter how evident those flaws are to reasonable people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
"At this point there was no other political and electoral solution" [for Bernie, other than to endorse Clinton.]

You can't offer people a "political revolution" and then weenie out like that. That feels too much like "business as usual".

---

Quote:

---

I'm putting this in a few threads to make it ABUNDANTLY clear that the refusal to even entertain the idea that Clinton is flawed is a problem both Second and SGG have. I guarantee, they won't discuss any of her shortcomings. Ever. No matter how evident those flaws are to reasonable people. - KIKI
Max Weber explained Hillary.- SECOND

---

Quote:

---

Hillary even quoted Weber, so she knows who he is and she knows herself.

---

Quote:

---

She is not a beautiful soul like Bernie.

---

Quote:

---

I'll quote a little from
www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12053146/max-weber-hillary-clinton

The ethic of responsibility

The same [Max Weber] essay also offers an implicit response to many of the criticisms leveled against Clinton by Bernie Sanders over the course of the campaign. Politics, says Weber, requires a particular mode of ethical conduct suited to its unique demands — what he calls an ethic of responsibility.

The ethic of responsibility is first and foremost focused on the practical impact of the political leader’s stances. He contrasts this with an ethic of ultimate ends that focuses more on the righteousness of the positions taken. Weber writes that you could show a left-winger who adheres to an ethic of ultimate ends "that his action will result in increasing the opportunities of reaction, in increasing the oppression of his class, and obstructing its ascent — and you will not make the slightest impression upon him."

---

Quote:

---

By contrast, says Weber, "a man who believes in an ethic of responsibility takes account of precisely the average deficiencies of people."

---

Quote:

---

Weber clearly did not have this specific example in mind, but the ethic of responsibility is the sort of ethic that might lead a person to embrace the Defense of Marriage Act in order to keep a broadly pro-LGBTQ political regime in office and then flip-flop on the issue only once public opinion had evolved.

---

Quote:

---

But it can work in the other ideological direction as well. The ethic of responsibility could lead a former secretary of state to somewhat implausibly disavow a Trans-Pacific Partnership she was involved in negotiating, if that’s the best way to keep anti-globalization backlash from getting entirely out of control.

Steadfastness of heart
Perhaps most surprisingly, the very end of Weber’s essay — the part Clinton quoted directly — can be read as in some respects a mild rebuke of Barack Obama. ...To succeed, one must arm oneself "with that steadfastness of heart which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes."

Clinton tells Klein that times of great peril and opportunity arise in politics and "you have to seize those moments, and I think President Obama did that" at the beginning of his administration. But she gently suggests that after the initial rush wore off, Obama may have become excessively daunted by the partisan onslaught:
But I think you’ve got to try to push forward as many different issues as you can all at the same time, because you never know what’s going to turn the tide. So I just think it’s that getting up every day and working on it. It is not flashy, and you don’t telegraph everything you’re doing because that would be breaching the relationship and the negotiation you may be involved in.

---

Quote:

---

I certainly saw my husband do that, and he did it with people who were trying to destroy him every single day. He’d meet with him at night; they’d hammer out deals; they would negotiate over very difficult things; they’d shut the government down; he’d veto them; they’d come back.
You just keep going.

This is considerably less appealing — but perhaps more realistic — than a standard political promise to "bring people together" and transcend polarization. Clinton offers not a post-partisan reverie but the dawning of a new era of hypocrisy that will recall the days when congressional Republicans could denounce the president as a criminal worthy of impeachment by day and hammer out a children’s health insurance expansion with him by night.

Weber writes that "only he" — or, perhaps, she — "who in the face of all this can say 'In spite of all!' has the calling for politics."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I can point to Obama's many other betrayals of his constituency, and Hillary's, and - at this point- Bernie's. And yup- Max Weber excuses them all.

---

Quote:

---

I can point to Obama's many other betrayals of his constituency, and Hillary's, and - at this point- Bernie's. And yup- Max Weber excuses them all.- SIGNY

Weber knows you are self-righteous.

---

Quote:

---

You would rather Republicans win (remember oh so excellent leaders Bush II, Nixon?) than you get your precious soul dirtied by voting for evil Vice-Presidents Hubert Humphrey and Al Gore.

---

Quote:

---

I keep forgetting to hammer the point hard: everybody smart enough to get to a voting machine or request a ballot by mail will know that their one vote out of millions will not decide the Presidential election. In a large number of people that totally frees them in their minds of any responsibility for what happens next. Some people will vote despite the insignificance of what they do. Many will vote for the candidate that makes them feel most self-righteous about their own moral superiority. When it goes sadly wrong, as it did with Nixon and Bush II

---

Quote:

---

they will feel betrayed rather than feel it is their fault for voting for a Trump. This way they can always feel good about themselves even when they helped elect in their own tiny insignificant way the worst of the candidates for President.

---

Quote:

---

I see that Johnson has 8.1% of the forecast vote. For the irresponsible who want that self-righteous feeling without a guilty conscience for a bad choice AND permission to freely bitch endlessly about the next President, Johnson could be the perfect candidate. Clue: Johnson will not be the next President. That is why he is perfect. The other strategy for the self-righteous is to not vote, since your vote is only 1 out of 150 million. If you don't vote, you're not to blame for what a President does, at least inside the brain of the self-righteous, but not outside in the real world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

If more people held their politicians to objective measures of performance instead of some comparative scale (presumed "lesser of two evils") we wouldn't be in the situation we are today.

---

Quote:

---

Take the hint that your "objective measures of performance instead of some comparative scale" will not keep the USA out of the situation it is in

---

Quote:

---

Boy, do you have a HUGE chip on your shoulder and a Walmart-sized laundry list of Obama crimes and misdemeanors.- SGG

Yes, Obama did a lot of bad things. IF he hadn't, then my list wouldn't be so friggin' long! -SIGNY

Just so you know, I am one of the few people on this site that repeatedly talks about the economic crisis, that began in early 2008, and reached critical mass in October/November 2008. SGG

And I think I'm the only one on this site who actually predicted it™. And I will tell you right now that Obama's "fix" for the crisis is just leading to another one™.


I'm going to respond to just 2 items on your laundry list:
1- Senator Max Baucus: a supporter of the ACA, once called the ACA a "train wreck"............. The AP reports that Baucus, "who helped write President Barack Obama's health care law," "stunned administration officials Wednesday, saying openly he thinks it's headed for a 'train wreck' because of bumbling implementation." "'I just see a huge train wreck coming down." He went so far as to tell Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, that "The administration's public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade." "You need to fix this," he said. Baucus also said "You and I have discussed this many times, and I don't see any results yet," meaning he has addressed the problem with Secretary Sebelius before.- SGG

Obamacare's problem is much more fundamental than it's implementation. The problem goes right back to what Max Baucus designed, which has led to one of the greatest collective butt-fuckings the population has ever experienced (aside from our relentless expensive "wars"). Because when all is said and done, the portion of GDP spent on healthcare will go UP from its already extraordinarily high expenditure (relative to other industrialized nations) and the health insurances and healthcare industries will rake in even more dough. I'm not going to give an inch on this. I was following the debate VERY closely because our daughter has had a preexisting condition ever since she was born (brain injury @ birth) making her ineligible for any insurance aside from Medicaid. I saw how the discussion went from single-payer to public option, and how Obama's support for a government-backed plan diminished as time went on, and was last mentioned as a goal in his second State of the Union speech, and then he told its supporters ... and that was the vast majority of the nation ... that it was a non-starter [with whom?] and that he was taking it off the table.

---

Quote:

---

Do you remember the Harvard research paper that I brought up which found that America is an oligarchy?
Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy
http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oli
garchy-2014-4
What the authors found is that "the people" mostly get what they want, because their goals mostly correspond to what the rich want. But when the goals and desires of the American people conflict with the goals and desires of the wealthy, the wealthy almost always get their way. Now, this can't possibly happen without the connivance of politicians, who are tied to their donors' apron strings.- SIGNY

Timothy Geithner: Was never a Wall Street banker.
"The most blatantly false example is Geithner, who is pictured along with the words “Goldman Sachs” and “$1.7 million estimate of assets.” Despite a popular myth circulated on the Internet, Geithner never worked for Goldman Sachs. The New York Times wrote an article about how often this rumor has been misstated as fact, including in the venerable Washington Post.- SGG

I never said that Timothy Geithner was a Wall Street banker, or that he worked for Goldman Sachs. I said he was a Wall Street protégé. Now, who or what is a protégé? A protégé is one who is mentored by someone richer, wealthier, and more powerful; it means "protected one" and is derived from the word "protection".

Geithner was Rubin's protégé, and Rubin worked for 26 years at Goldman Sachs, who (by the way) was influential in getting Bill Clinton to repeal Glass Steagal. And Geithner followed the Wall Street mantra of protecting the banks in response to the crisis. Geithner himself is still defending his actions- SIGNY

“To oversimplify it, and I think this was Jon Stewart’s framing,” Geithner told the students, “why would you give a dollar to a bank when you can give it to an American? Why not give them a dollar to help them pay their mortgage?”- SGG
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/11/magazine/what-timothy-geithner-reall
y-thinks.html

GOOD QUESTION, TIMMY!
Banks sell EACH OTHER their crappy financial products which they use as "assets" to justify more loans. So bank "A" sells assets to bank "B", which in turn repackages those assets and sells them to bank "C" etc. When the underlying value of those crappy mortgage-backed started imploding, that chain of asset sales starting working in reverse: instead of being a money multiplier it became a money divider. The billion dollars of bad loans that might have impacted only one bank suddenly impacted ten. If you were committed by PAYING THE BANKS, you would have to pay EACH ONE a billion dollars (=$10 billion). On the other hand, Geithner could have simply bought up the troublesome mortgages directly. That would have made the underlying mortgages whole, and ALL of the follow-on assets would have ALSO been made whole. Timmy not only went the vastly more expensive route, he also cause in GREATER wealth inequality: he gave money to the rich. That's why our economy is still limping along.- SIGNY

P.S. It is widely known that President Bush and Congress cut a deal with the Wall Street Banking Industry, lead by US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (who was once a Wall Street Banker with Goldman Sachs) who pressured both the President and Congress into passing the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the Too Big to Fail crisis). It involved the "toxic housing assets" known as derivatives that nearly collapsed the world banking system (all because of a handful of greedy bastards), and allowed 10 banking concerns to merge with other banks and take over 77% of the industry, making them too big to fail. Both Paulson and Bernanke fiddled while the country burned.

All this took place under Bush's watch. Obama inherited the worse banking fiasco since the Great Depression (also man made) and you make it seem as though he orchestrated this unholy mess. I may be wrong but, only one Wall Street banker went to jail...... SGG


If Bush has WANTED to create a financial crisis, he couldn't have engineered it more perfectly: reduced taxes and spent on pointless foreign wars, handcuffing the government from being able to take fiscal action by strapping it with a vast amount of debt. Created an escalator of money upwards, reducing the purchasing power of the vast majority of Americans and making them more reliant on debt. Prohibiting the States Attorney General from prosecuting banks and other lenders for fraudulent mortgages.

But don't forget, this would not have imploded so badly if CLINTON had not set the stage by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and by signing the Commodities Futures Modernization Act which allowed Credit Default Swaps and certain accounting practices like "mark to market" valuation of assets. And OBAMA went right along with Bush's Rx, and expanded it into the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) which allowed the Fed to buy up the banks' bad assets .... once again, buying the same asset multiple times, which the banks had propagated from one to the other. THANKS TIMMY!- SIGNY

Obama has made some mistakes in his presidency- SGG

MISTAKES???? That's like saying that BUSH made "mistakes", or than CLINTON made "mistakes"!

... and, as a consequence, has been subjected to ridicule and constant negative verbal bombardment by conservatives and the far right. There are a handful of critics within the left that are not as abusive as some, but nonetheless vocal. But the innuendo and outright lies, well, I'm not impressed. You and all the naysayers have every right to believe as you do. Obama is a card-carrying anti-American Muslim who was born in Kenya, and is out to destroy America.- SGG

What did I say specifically at the very beginning of my post? Oh yes, it was ...

Quote:

---

Obama should be impeached, just like Bush should have been impeached before him. It's not because Obama is a half-black Kenyan Muslim Marxist socialist who is ineligible for the Presidency (as rightwing nutters claim) but because he - like President Cheney .... er, I mean Bush ... before him- violated the Constitution over and over and over again.

---

I highlighted, underlined, and italicized the important word so that it can't be missed.

Obama is a corrupt sumbitch, just like Bush before him, and Clinton before him, and Bush before him, all the way back to ... probably Nixon, who was also a corrupt sumbitch but also a realist.

There's only ONE THING that Obama is doing that's good, and that's creating some distance between us and the Saudis and us and the Israelis. And that's because he's been dissed and backstabbed by the neconons during his terms in office (looking at YOU, Hillary!) so often, that right now, with no more elections to lose, he's probably getting back at them.- SIGNY

I suggest that many don't even know the reason why they hate the president so much. From Day One, Congress has had it out for the president, why?.... because he's a democrat. Let's hope that's the reason.-SGG

No, they hate him because he's a half-black Democrat. I, on the other hand, hate Obama for what he's done, not for his skin color. As far as honesty is concerned, the only reason why a President has to be dishonest is when he's either protecting important state secrets, or he's stabbing the American people in the back.-SIGNY

---