Robert Reich on Bernie Sanders's Candidacy

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Like most liberal Dems, Reich has (to my knowledge) totally ignored Bernie, even while urging Elizabeth Warren to run. Now that Bernie has announced, Reich's reaction partly makes up for that omission. This is from facebook.

Bernie Sanders is officially in -- which is good for Hillary Clinton and good for America. I know Bernie as a principled populist who not only understands the big-money takeover of America but also has the ideas and courage to do take on the privileged and powerful. Because he'll be a strong voice to the left of Hillary Clinton, he'll give her room to be tougher on Wall Street and big corporations than she might otherwise be. More importantly, he'll allow a national conversation about the savage inequalities that are destroying the fabric of American life, our economy, and our democracy - in contrast to the Republican clown car whose conversation for the next year and a half will be about the virtues of "trickle-down economics" and the "free market." Thank you, Bernie, for taking this on.

 

[LuteHawk]

Robert Reich is a midget both mentally and physically.
As a former Cabinet officer for Bill Clinton, he did nothing
but pander to unions. What did he accomplish as Sec.
of Labor? At 4' 11" he should get back in his baby
highchair.

 

[naturalmwa]

I wonder if the notion that changing the discussion in the campaign helps get actual results really holds water? Say Bernie moves the discussion more to the left now. Say Hillary now pledges to implement more liberal economic policy. Now say that energizes the liberal base and they turn out and vote for her in the general and she is President. Well now you just elected a Wall Street neocon who in one speech will reject her campaign pledges and simply do what she was always going to do. Unless Bernie (or another lib) actually wins, I don't see how him just changing the conversation actually does anything good for liberals. And given Hillary's age, its not clear she would even have the promise of a 2nd term to keep her honest. Hill scares me and while I love much of what Bernie has to say, he's not Presidential, thats just fact, which means he isn't in this to actually win it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Robert Reich is a midget both mentally and physically.
As a former Cabinet officer for Bill Clinton, he did nothing
but pander to unions. What did he accomplish as Sec.
of Labor? At 4' 11" he should get back in his baby
highchair.

Wow. Gets my vote for the most embarrassing post of the month.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I wonder if the notion that changing the discussion in the campaign helps get actual results really holds water? Say Bernie moves the discussion more to the left now. Say Hillary now pledges to implement more liberal economic policy. Now say that energizes the liberal base and they turn out and vote for her in the general and she is President. Well now you just elected a Wall Street neocon who in one speech will reject her campaign pledges and simply do what she was always going to do. Unless Bernie (or another lib) actually wins, I don't see how him just changing the conversation actually does anything good for liberals. And given Hillary's age, its not clear she would even have the promise of a 2nd term to keep her honest. Hill scares me and while I love much of what Bernie has to say, he's not Presidential, thats just fact, which means he isn't in this to actually win it.

Not presidential?

So . . . your fear is that Bernie will push her to the left - which you like - but it won't be an honest move to the left.

Does that mean you won't be voting for Hillary? Since you're all about pragmatic voting, that leaves the GOP candidate. With the possible exception of Rand Paul - who, let's remember, supports both the TPP and massive deregulation - is there any GOP hopeful that is less pro-corporate or pro-Wall Street than Hillary?

 

[naturalmwa]

Not presidential?

So . . . your fear is that Bernie will push her to the left - which you like - but it won't be an honest move to the left.

Does that mean you won't be voting for Hillary? Since you're all about pragmatic voting, that leaves the GOP candidate. With the possible exception of Rand Paul - who, let's remember, supports both the TPP and massive deregulation - is there any GOP hopeful that is less pro-corporate or pro-Wall Street than Hillary?

I know, I'm really in a pickle. My current plan is to caucus against her and hope the other 49 states do similarly. Hillary supports the TPP and deregulation too. Her saving grace may be that she will owe some allegiance to people who don't (she would probably also give us the better SCOTUS justices). I'm not sure if that will slow her down or just give her cover when she moves to the right like Bill. I personally see her as Bill's 3rd term, but with more likelihood of a neocon foreign policy. Hillary likes to be thought of as a hawk and I feel in my bones she will want to flex her muscles. Paul's big advantage is he and Bernie are the only two pro peace candidates. But Paul isn't presidential either, the Rs aren't going to nominate an elf.

 

[bagdropper]

That is easily the strongest opinionated post Lute has ever made on this board. I'm curious who stole his password.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Matt Taibbi on Sen. Sanders:

"He is the rarest of Washington animals, a completely honest person. If he's motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who can't protect themselves, I've never seen it. Bernie Sanders is the kind of person who goes to bed at night thinking about how to increase the heating-oil aid program for the poor.

"This is why his entrance into the 2016 presidential race is a great thing and not a mere footnote to the inevitable coronation of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. If the press is smart enough to grasp it, his entrance into the race makes for a profound storyline that could force all of us to ask some very uncomfortable questions.

"Here's the thing: Sanders is a politician whose power base is derived almost entirely from the people of the state of Vermont, where he is personally known to a surprisingly enormous percentage of voters.

"His chief opponents in the race to the White House, meanwhile, derive their power primarily from corporate and financial interests. That doesn't make them bad people or even bad candidates necessarily, but it's a fact that the Beltway-media cognoscenti who decide these things make access to money the primary factor in determining whether or not a presidential aspirant is 'viable' or 'credible.'"

LINK

 

[hawkeye54545]

Wow. Gets my vote for the most embarrassing post of the month.

You should read some of the stuff you post.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I know, I'm really in a pickle. My current plan is to caucus against her and hope the other 49 states do similarly. Hillary supports the TPP and deregulation too. Her saving grace may be that she will owe some allegiance to people who don't (she would probably also give us the better SCOTUS justices). I'm not sure if that will slow her down or just give her cover when she moves to the right like Bill. I personally see her as Bill's 3rd term, but with more likelihood of a neocon foreign policy. Hillary likes to be thought of as a hawk and I feel in my bones she will want to flex her muscles. Paul's big advantage is he and Bernie are the only two pro peace candidates. But Paul isn't presidential either, the Rs aren't going to nominate an elf.

So . . . if you are caucusing against her, who are you caucusing FOR?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You should read some of the stuff you post.

From some people, that would be a friendly dig.

 

[naturalmwa]

So . . . if you are caucusing against her, who are you caucusing FOR?

Bernie if held today. I like Bernie, I think he would be a great President. I just don't think enough people are smart enough to see that and question the theory that says his run will actually produce anything for liberal causes. It's a minor quibble really.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Bernie if held today. I like Bernie, I think he would be a great President. I just don't think enough people are smart enough to see that and question the theory that says his run will actually produce anything for liberal causes. It's a minor quibble really.

Another Tiabbi quote: "we reporters could successfully sell Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or any other populist candidate as a serious contender for the White House if we wanted to."

I'd be interested in hearing your pragmatic view on that. Why should "good" journalists abandon the field to Fox, et al.?

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Bernie if held today. I like Bernie, I think he would be a great President. I just don't think enough people are smart enough to see that and question the theory that says his run will actually produce anything for liberal causes. It's a minor quibble really.

I like Bernie. But not sure if the world is ready for a president with the voice of a cartoon character.

 

[bagdropper]

For some reason, I think dem party leaders cringed when this guy announced. He's exactly the type of wild card type I bet they fear most.

I don't know why...but this smacks of George McGovern and Edmund Muskie. In 1971, everybody knew the dem candidate would be Muskie.

 

[naturalmwa]

Another Tiabbi quote: "we reporters could successfully sell Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or any other populist candidate as a serious contender for the White House if we wanted to."

I'd be interested in hearing your pragmatic view on that. Why should "good" journalists abandon the field to Fox, et al.?

I don't think they should, but I'm about as skeptical of the mainstream media as most cons. Where they see them as liberal however, I see them as corporate drones doing the bidding of Wall Street. The media bosses will never prop up Sanders, he wants to eliminate their power.

 

[LuteHawk]

In 1968, it was the upset of Senator Eugene McCarthy
who defeated Lyndon Johnson in the New Hampshire
that caused LBJ to get out.

Some gunslinger like Bernie or Martin might do the
same thing to Hillary in 2016. New Hampshire likes
to vote for the underdog in their primary.

 

[strummingram]

I think Sanders is very much in it to win it. However, his measure of "winning" may differ from conventional standards. That would be one reason I would trust his intentions and convictions. I don't agree with a great deal of his heavily-socialistic views and policies, but I do trust the guy to be true to his principles. Trust, typically, throws everything off in American politics and government. It's built and run on deceit and corruption. A few trustworthy statesmen slip through the cracks.

I'd love to see REAL "liberals" get fervently behind Sanders and shake-up the status quo as much as is humanly possible. Will he "win" the office of President? I doubt it. Will he, and his message and platform, make a huge impact on the entire field of American political governance? Only if he can get supporters who will back him to the very end. He could be a Ron Paul-type candidate that brings immense change through ideas that make sense to those who are forced to listen due to the stage of being a candidate. It's up to him and his supporters on how much of a "win" he can manage.

 

[strummingram]

For some reason, I think dem party leaders cringed when this guy announced. He's exactly the type of wild card type I bet they fear most.

I don't know why...but this smacks of George McGovern and Edmund Muskie. In 1971, everybody knew the dem candidate would be Muskie.

I hope they cringe and sh*t their pants. Demopublicans are not representing Americans.

 

[73chief]

Bernie is little more than a party joke. He will not even make it to the caucuses. He simply won't be able to raise enough money to be any factor what so ever. Won't shock me if he withdrawals from the campaign by the end of the summer.

 

[Lone Clone]

Wow. Gets my vote for the most embarrassing post of the month.

You have yourself on ignore?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You have yourself on ignore?

Heck, I forgot about you. It's just that I don't expect that level of nastiness from Lute. It seemed like an aberration and, frankly, I expect that Lute was (or will be) embarrassed by it, in time.

 

[Nat Algren]

How the Establishment Is Trying to Deep-Six Sanders’s Campaign
Posted on May 2, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.


Eric Zuesse

The Hillary Clinton campaign is now focusing its public pitch at liberal fools to get them to ignore her record and believe her words. Here are examples:

The NBC ‘News’ political analyst (and perhaps a future President Clinton’s Press Secretary) Chuck Todd posted, on May 1st, the following item, under the heading “Why Bernie Sanders Likely Helps Hillary Clinton”:

“*** Why Bernie Sanders likely helps Hillary: Bernie Sanders’ official entrance into the 2016 presidential race is most likely a good outcome for Hillary Clinton. Why? He will elevate many of the issues that Clinton and the entire Democratic Party want to discuss during the primary season (income inequality, curtailing the role of big money in presidential politics, climate change). And he’ll do so as someone who isn’t interested in scoring political points – especially in the form of negative attacks – against Hillary. Hillary’s Harlem (err Brooklyn) Globetrotters now has its Washington (err Vermont) Generals. The question we have is whether it’s enough competition to up Hillary’s game.”

The major ‘news’ media are pressing hard this line, that Hillary needs only to speak her mind truthfully, and Democratic voters will then know that she supports their interests and not the interests of the billionaires who are pouring enormous cash into her campaign coffers, such as:



Robert L. Borosage (who is paid by the ‘Institute for America’s Future,’ and by the ‘Campaign for America’s Future,’ and by ‘Progressive Majority,’ and by The Nation, and by other aristocratic liberal front organizations) headlined at (one such front) Huffington Post, similarly on April 30th, “Hillary: Time to Step Up on the Trade Deal,” and he opened:

“It’s time for Hillary Clinton to take a position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement and the fast track authority designed to ramrod it through the Congress. Hillary has been non-committal to date, with many assuming she will eventually support the president whom she served as Secretary of State. But now the pressure to take a stand is growing.”

Borosage then said that Hillary is needed by the Party now in order to help defeat what he calls (this time with real, not fake, honesty) “The President’s Corporate Offensive.” In other words, he’s actually saying: the pro-Wall-Street ‘Democrat’ Hillary is needed in order to help defeat the pro-Wall-Street ‘Democratic’ President’s trade deals.

How stupid and faithful (to Hillary) do these people think Democratic voters are?

Click link for balance. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015...-is-trying-to-deep-six-sanderss-campaign.html

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Hillary & Bill figure out how to literally bury bodies, in the dirt, they don't need no wall st. allegedly