Despite the calls for Bernie Sanders to step aside so that the presidential "mudslinging contest" between party frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump can proceed, Sanders' top aide explained Tuesday that the reason his candidate is staying in the fight is simple: The issues.
Since the FBI is presently conducting an investigation on Hillary it is strange that the media avoids pointing out that as long as Sanders is in the race, the Dems have a very popular candidate who could beat Trump if Hillary falls under an indictment. Sanders should indeed stay in the race otherwise Trump would be handed the presidency.
" Sanders no longer belongs in the race and that his continued presence could cost Hillary the election." Bill Scher/ Politico.
No, Bill you have it backwards! Because in almost every nationwide poll Bernie beats Hillary vs. Trump. And even if she does not pull out and Bernie is the nominee, it will make little or no difference, because Bernie will bury Trump.
No Bill, Hillary is the one that needs to pull out again, just like she did in 2008.
Bernie or bust!
Or fighting climate change, or campaign finance reform, or the rigged economy, or anything except mud-slinging and polls, polls, polls...
Scher's comment about Sanders' continued candidacy hurting Clinton is one of many examples of the Democratic Party setting up Sanders to be the fall guy if Trump beats Clinton in November, just like the Party made Nader the fall guy in 2000.
As others have repeatedly said, its Clinton that should drop-out! As far as I am concerned, I will never vote for either so-called "front runner" Clinton or Trump! Its Sanders all the way!
If the Democratic DNC, Clinton and corrupt party hacks are intent on losing and Dem voters are so blind and shackled to the "party" rather than a candidate of integrity, moral compass, courage, and astonishing vigor - Bernie Sanders!
All you "super delegates" that are or will be running, you had better take another think on who is the better more sure candidate and pressure Clinton to drop-out - for the good of the party, America and the world!
I'm perpetually amazed at the way Hillary supporters seem to equate getting the nomination with winning the election! The way polls seem to be going, by the time of the convention the objections to Bernie will have become irrelevant and obsolete: Hillary will be the sure loser! Bernie all the way!
It is hard to predict exactly what issues are going to be big in a general election. Who could have predicted Will Horton in 1988. Or the Vietnam war in 2004. Or two tiny islands off China all the the way back in 1960, It would seem like a safe prediction that terrorism will be a big issue in the general election since this seems to be the number one issue for Republican voters. But if Trump is running certainly the Democrats are likely to try to make his fitness for the office of president as a top issue. This would seem to be most like the 1964 election when the fitness of Barry Goldwater to be in charge of our nuclear weapons was a big issue. Given one record setting month after another with regard to warm temperature the top issue should be climate change as the more we know the more dire the situation seems. But likely climate change will be way down the list even though the contest will be between a climate hawk whomever the Democratic nominee is and a climate change denier.
" Sanders no longer belongs in the race and that his continued presence could cost Hillary the election." Bill Scher/ Politico." Sounds like something the head of Goldman might say.
If, say, 150 million voters were to write in Bernie's name if he is not on their ballot, it would be pretty difficult for the Powers that Be to just disregard all of that due to procedural error or some such nonsense.
* If the People have spoken and the government tries to set that aside to ensure that their own puppet is "elected," that could blow the lid off the cesspool right there!
* Up the People! Off the Oligarchy!
We stand with Bernie till the end. In spite of all the road blocks they have thrown up Bernie is still amazing crowds and getting votes. While Hillary trudges on with lack luster canned speeches and corruption all around her.
Hillary needs to step aside cause her life will be played out on national t.v. if she runs against Trump. He won't be kind.
Bernie all the wayt!!!
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I agree. Politico an enemy of the Sanders people?
So if Hillary got indicted there would be a need to use those write ins for Bernie! I still think it is not too late to make the superdelegates afraid to go against the will of the people and risk seeing the untrusted Hillary lose to Trump which is seeming more and more likely as the Repubs coalesce around Trump. The Dems are fools and are risking everything to foist Hillary on us when they could beat Trump without risk by naming Sanders the nominee,
WARNING: Any progressive reading the referenced article written by Scher in Politico needs to down some Maalox first.
For starters Scher calls the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia "her convention".
On the positive side Scher does remind us of two candidates, each of whom are far better qualified than Clinton and Trump combined: Jill Stein representing the Green Party and Gary Johnson representing the Libertarian Party.
If Weaver realizes that it is vital for Bernie to stay in the race to the convention because in his absence, the corporate media will impose a complete blackout on his issues, why does the Sanders campaign seem blind to what will happen after the convention if HRC gets the nomination. Namely, a complete blackout on Bernie's issues from July until, at least, Inauguration Day. How can he possibly expect his movement to continue under such conditions. For the movement Bernie wants to have any hope of continuing after July, he must run in the General Election as a Green.
I'm going to put this here, but it's hard work, because not giving Clinton far more credit than she's due is an extraordinarily tedious task. At this point, since Hillary is a ridiculous candidate to support in just about any other respect, we're probably meant to believe that she should be supported on the basis of her supposed strength when it comes things like economics, practical sense, or law. On the surface, these would seem like reasonable positions to take.
I disagree, however, so let's break it down.
Her husband led the last big economic surge in the country, and her campaign does not alienate the bankers, who like it or not are likely to have far more economic sense than the typical person. Sanders would equalize the economic landscape, which would certainly benefit many if he can, but is it rational to think he could? And what kind of bearing would that have on the nation's overall economic prosperity? After all, giving the ball to Michael Jordan may not have always been fair to his teammates, but it usually meant good things for the team.
(Bill) Clinton was in the business of pushing bubbles created by past and present deregulation efforts. It's an exercise which makes people feel wonderful, but doesn't take much effort and doesn't give people an accurate sense of how ephemeral their success is. It does not prove that a person is an effective or reasonable economist, or that their economic practices are good for the long-term interest of the country, especially when the economy collapses eight years down the line. With respect to bankers, one concern is profits, but another concern which factors into the same spectrum is fairness. Because if economic inequalities are too high, then someone who is both capable or ambitious may be excluded from the possibility of economic success. This is a concern to bankers, because without the existence of that possibility, they would not have their raison d'etre. This is something which Sanders would support, but Clinton does not seem inclined to (at least not without performing her now routine chameleon act to match Sanders's positions). If Sanders is the one who has something to offer to bankers, then he's the one with the most opportunity to make a positive difference.
While we may mock many of Clinton's practices, the fact is she's been able to follow through a number of agendas when she sets her mind to it. After finishing a top school, she had a law career, and then managed to kick her worthless husband's behind into the Presidency. She served in senate for a number of years, and then landed herself a spot as Secretary of State, where she managed to off a couple of thorns in the US's side, Bin Laden and Gaddafi. Now, for all her flaws and all the assertions of corruption, she is nevertheless in position to secure the 2016 nomination, which would still leave her as the favorite to win the Presidency. And let's not make light of this - she'd be the first woman ever in America to come close to doing this. She's been accused of switching her position, but in doing so shown that she has the sense to change for what's appropriate in the moment. Sanders, in practical terms, still endorses free college, single-payer health, and overall equality in terms of wealth and freedoms. But who are we kidding, this is still America we're talking about.
Now let's get this part out of the way - Sanders himself is a lesson of practical success, with a remarkable story of starting with very little and establishing great success, to a much greater degree than Clinton can claim. Clinton, meanwhile, has piggybacked her success on an impressive regime of human and civil rights abuse, in some ways unprecedented in history due to the capabilities of technology. Who's to say she'd have the same success without it. Her campaign has shifted it's focus to attacking Sanders based on vote numbers, but hasn't shown the strength to go against his message. The role of a campaign includes being able to put forth a message, and practical success isn't practical success if she isn't able to fulfill her role. Maybe her supporters may disagree, and consider it enough to be a good role model. But if she's just a role model, I'd happily pass on one who thinks that "we came, we saw, he died" is a valid message. For as long as I'm unsure about whether she's a typical beneficiary of other people's efforts - and I do think that the possibility of women in power is something that should be considered normal rather than an extraordinary effort - I'll hesitate to give her credit for her practical sense. But I do value the long-term practical benefits of setting our sights on solving real problems, which I see Sanders as doing.
Legally speaking, Clinton's background includes Yale Law and a law career, while Sanders considers himself a mediocre student of political studies, who's background is in civil rights advocacy. It seems that they're in whole different worlds, legally speaking.
However, if her attitudes towards any of her numerous international targets can be taken as an indication of her legal philosophy, then I'm inclined to dismiss her legal sense out of hand. She's the master of a particular set of rules and procedures which are gamed in her favor, revolving around minimizing the chance that the innocent may assert themselves. She would find herself lost in a fair legal system, and would perpetuate an unjust one out of self-preservation. I certainly wouldn't want to see her in the business of helping to decide which kids are incompetent or not.
In conclusion, I consider Clinton's penchant for corruption and superficiality to be through-and-through, and that it affects even those aspects of her persona which people would like think they can take for granted. Whatever her conceivable upsides, I don't expect that we'll see a positive from them.
Ever since Trump all but won the GOP nomination, a series of sleazy attacks have appeared, directed at her (for example, "Bill was a frequent flier on the lolita express," "Hillary helped a child rapist who she knew was guilty get off with a slap on the wrist," "Chelsea isn't Bill's biological daughter," etc). The GOP attack machine will probably help her in a way, by burying many of the more legitimate concerns about her record. What bothers me about her is that the legitimate concerns completely level her even before getting to the sleaze. As Ralph Nader pointed out, she's basically winning by dictatorship.
Disclaimer: I still think that Clinton should be put on trial for war crimes, along with other Bush and Obama cronies, negating her right to a Presidential campaign. I also don't disagree with an indictment being appropriate for her, over her email handling.
Feel the Bern. Because if I'm supposed to be happy not giving a damn who's President, then why not Trump?
I liked this poster from your link: