Now that the Massachusetts primary contest is over, I’m calling on all true liberals in the Bay State to stop attacking each other and focus on defeating the presumptive Republican nominee — Trump.
We are nit-picking each other either as not being pro feminist enough — Hillary — OR not being purist enough —Bernie — ALL while ignoring the 800 pound Fascist gorilla that will destroy this country and all that we hold dear.
In order to unite our party I pledge NOT to attack Senator Sanders or Secretary Clinton and will actively campaign to elect Democrats up and down the ballot in November.
” Liberty and Union, Now and Forever, One and Inseperable. ” DANIEL WEBSTER
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Please share widely!
…but since it has become a bit of theme with you I can’t resist fixing your final quote. I believe it was, “Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!”:)
I agree and thank you for the correction, Christopher.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I think this sort of debate is healthy, at least when it says focused on issues, temperament, and the like. In terms of Bernie and Hillary themselves, there have been some heated moments, but it’s been pretty civil all along.
If it’s October and Hillary supporters are refusing to support Bernie, or Bernie supporters not supporting Hillary against Trump, then that will be a different conversation. But now it’s still a long way to the conventions in July, so there’s still productive conversations to be had focused just on the Democratic side.
my greatest fear is that we are going to say or do something stupid now that will make it impossible for us to unite at the convention in July.
I say this because I have been having a heated ongoing debate with my best friend who is a Bernie supporter for over a year now and it’s gotten to be counter productive.
Kind of like feel good mental masturbation.
We know Bernie and Hillary’s platforms and can give their stump speeches. The conversations stopped being productive long ago and we now shed more heat than light
on the issues.
So my mantra now is : ADOT — Any Democrat Over Trump!
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Hillary is not going to defeat Trump. Bernie will not either.
Both will get slaughtered in debates with Trump.
Fred, if you are serious about uniting than Dems have to look at facts. Such as, Hillary’s negatives, the voters’ anger towards the establishment, the independent voter, the county’s deep seeded want for a change and more.
If you by uniting you mean support one wing of Dem party (candidate) v. another Dem candidate then this is a self-serving post for the candidate you support.
But if the Dems want to capture the moment and move this counttry forward then they have to capture many of the angry voters who want a change. Elizabeth Warren is the only one I see who can do that.
Tine for Dems to Inite
“Tine for Dems to Inite”
Fraught with meaning.
First, as pragmatic progressives let us at least agree on certain facts :
1. Under NO circumstances will Senator Warren be our nominee this year.
2. Our top priority MUST be to keep a progressive in the White House for the next eight years.
3. Either Hillary OR Bernie WILL beat ANY candidate the Republicans nominate if we unite behind him or her.
If we can’t agree on these basic objectives then I can see no useful purpose in running in circles while wasting precious time, energy and resources. At some point this internecine feel good pissing contest has got to end. I say end it now.
KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE PRIZE !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Is there anything in the rules from having a brokered convention? Isn’t that what the super-delegats are there for? They are not contractually committed to Hillary, isn’t that correct?
Could you help us with the rules.?
…but it won’t matter if one candidate comes in with a majority consisting of only pledged delegates. Unlike 2008 given she is likely to come in ahead in pledged delegates they will probably mostly confirm the people’s choice and put her over the top. There will not be a brokered convention in the sense of cutting deals on subsequent ballots because with only two candidates one of them is guaranteed a first ballot nomination.
Is pointing out flaws in opponent records when explaining why one supports one candidate over another?
I don’t get it. Are you trying to suppress free speech by telling people not mention Bernie’s socialism and Hillary’s long list of problems. Are you trying to prevent people from knowing about certain things?
The party is not a family. Ronald Regan said what he said because it benefitted Ronald at the time he said it.
I am a Dem and I feel it is my duty as a Dem to complain loudly about the party spending the last eight years making sure Hillary gets the nomination.
The very few at the top ambushed the rank and file to satisfy their personal and professional needs far beyond acceptable levels.
I submit the we right now the party needs more bickering.
Especially the kind who would vote for someone that when I first “met” you here you would have decried as socialist.
it comes at a high cost if it only serves to undermine constructive dialogue toward reaching a unified party and nation around commonly shared progressive principles.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
That’s scary stuff Fred.
Party unification means keep your mouth shout and do what the higher ups tell you to do. That seem to be what you are saying Fred.
, you want us to unite behind a candidate that most party members feel is being shoved down their throat. You have to many “ifs”.
By uniting you mean everyone vote for one person and pretend they don’t have negatives.
Fred, your suggestion is like a suggesting a new employee be chosen among a committee who can only discuss and consider the positives of applicants and not look for or consider the negatives of each candidate.
Fred, as a Kennedy guy what do you think of Paul Kirk and Phil Johntson endorsing Bernie? It’s really an anti-Hillary announcement from MA Kennedy people.
When Democrats stop fighting each other, that’s when you should worry.
We have our own form of unity.
By the way Cruz is scarier: smarter than Trump, and just as tough to beat in the general.
Agreed with your first statement, but I think the best case scenario for Democrats would be if Cruz somehow got the nomination — especially if it came after reversing a strong Trump plurality at the convention. Cruz would get destroyed in most swing states. Unlike I could see with Trump, I’m not sure how Cruz would ever win Ohio in the general election. That would be game over right there.
This is kind of funny given the attack from Clinton today. “I don’t know where he was when I was trying to get health care in ’93 and ’94.”
Sanders was literally standing right behind her.
LOL.
You won’t find an anti-Sanders diary from me, for example, but we can’t control what the candidates do.
What counts as an “attack”?
If someone points out a policy difference, is that an attack? If someone responds to an attack by a candidate or supporter, is that an attack? Or party has been strengthened by policy discussions among supporters and candidates, and I don’t see why that should suddenly change. There has been some unhealthy discussion on this board, sure, but some good exploration by people on different sides of this debate.
I say, let us continue vigorous debates. We united after Clinton-Obama and Kerry-Dean. We will again.
…I don’t think drawing contrasts constitutes an attack, but I do prefer diaries that are primarily, “I support candidate X because…” rather than “I oppose candidate Y because…” or “Look at that stupid thing candidate Y said or did today.” Basically Reagan’s 11th commandment applied to Dems.
I agree with Fred. Looking at history, October is far too late to unite.
Bernie is down but not out. If he pulls out a win in Ohio, this is not completely over. But I do not think this what Fred is talking about.
I have certain friends and acquaintances who unleash an endless barrage of emails and Facebook posts on a daily basis tearing Bernie down, ridiculing him, and now – a new low – red-baiting him: it was a little startling to me that a Democratic activist friend, whom I like personally very much, and who shall remain nameless here, beat Trump to the punch and was mercilessly criticizing Sanders yesterday for statements Bernie made about Fidel Castro literally decades ago. I was not surprised today to hear Donald Trump call Bernie a Communist – in fact, I have been waiting for it. I have assumed that Hillary supporters were right that Republicans were simply holding their fire hoping to tear Bernie apart later should he unexpectedly win the nomination.
So it was an odd sensation today when Trump’s “Communist” epithet sounded old after a Hillary Democrat had already used it yesterday.
This is what I, at least, am talking about. It is one thing to challenge Bernie’s policies and his electability, it is another to join – or in this case START – a chorus of denigration that will clearly be in the upcoming Republican playbook and that can destroy a candidate for the general election over time.
(Hillary’s recent misstep on AIDS and Reagan is another example. I agree that what she said was incredibly mistaken and even offensive. But since she might be my candidate in November, I think I owe it to those very same persons with AIDS the intelligence and judgment not to trash her and, say, pledge such outrage that I could never, ever, vote for her, and then throw them to the wolves with a roll of the dice with someone like Cruz or Trump.)
I do not claim to know exactly where that line is. I do know that average voters sometimes just follow the bandwagon. Let’s try to pay attention to that line and not give the Republican assault a head start against either Hillary or Bernie.
How any of these harsh intraparty partisans can justify their obsessive disparaging of either Hillary or Bernie when all they have to do is turn on their television today and see genuine latter-day brown shirts beating up protesters against Trump ignorance and bigotry is beyond me. Wake up and smell the rising ignorant, self-righteous, anti-immigrant, anti-cosmopolitan, nativist, anti-intellectual rage.
Keep your “Eyes on the ‘GIZE’ ” – the GUYS with the closed fists and the closed minds, standing in front of the Inciter in Chief with the orange weave. Bring your eyes there, or we are all going to be in trouble.
Hillary said it better than Bernie today. To paraphrase her: ‘Sometimes when you light a match you start a fire that cannot be taken back.’
Terry McGinty
Very thoughtful comment Terry
Adults can disagree. It may be even more important to do so in the face of the thug (Trump) who can neither tolerate dissent nor provide a coherent message besides intolerance…
Our candidates are better than theirs, and putting them out there is good for our party, not bad.
This primary isn’t over, and isn’t going to be over anytime soon.
So, no thanks. I’ll continue to discuss the primary as much as I would like, and I think our party benefits from this debate.
I think the Bernie Sanders campaign has transformed the electorate, energized the process, and kept the most important issues of our time front and center. I enthusiastically agree with you that continuing this is GREAT for our party and for America.
I would like to see Ms. Clinton more explicitly celebrating this energy brought to the campaign by Mr. Sanders. I would like to see Mr. Sanders begin to emphasize to his supporters that this is a PEOPLE’S revolution, larger than any one person.
In my view, the IDEAS that Mr. Sanders articulates are too important to be tied to the success or failure of Mr. Sanders as a candidate. I believe that it is those ideas that energize his grassroots political revolution, and I believe that that energized revolution is THE “secret sauce” required to make Ms. Clinton successful if she is our next president.
I think a fundamental difference between the supporters of Donald Trump and we Democrats is that Donald Trump is explicitly leading a personality cult. That entire campaign is focused on Donald Trump, to the explicit exclusion of reason, logic, decency, common sense, or the rule of law. We are different. Bernie Sanders is different. Hillary Clinton is different.
Successful revolution is built on a successful and solid intellectual foundation. Bernie Sanders has done that. I want to see Mr. Sanders continue his vigorous primary campaign.
As he does so, I hope he will increasingly focus on helping his supporters see that their vision is MUCH larger than “Sanders for President”. If he does this now, then when the time comes the needed transition in the movement will be seen as a natural and even expected process of growth and revitalization.
Donald Trump is about Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are about America.
I really don’t think he has ran the campaign in a way to win the nomination. Rather, to educate the public and push his ideas into the mainstream. And his young supporters will go on to be state senators and DNC Chairs and members of Congress who will be committed to his agenda. I strongly feel
any politician in any party should embrace this agenda and channel it towards more specific and enactable policy goals.
He asked us not to attack the other candidate – big difference.
One person’s debate is another’s “attack.”
As a Sanders supporter you can either write a diary about all the reasons he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread or one about all the reasons Hillary is the devil incarnate. I could walk you through examples on BMG of which ones I prefer.
Hillary Clinton is terrible on, all the times she’s lied like a rug, and do so using facts and compelling arguments on issues that are real, fair and not smears.
And I could explain how Bernie has been on the right side of these issues for decades.
I don’t support smearing. I don’t support lies. I don’t support bending the truth. But I support vigorous debates on the issues and past records, if they follow the truth.
…I much prefer you elaborate on the second paragraph above than the first. Guess I was just raised on the idea that if you can’t say something nice…
…part of me would be interested in Clinton’s “lies”. I am not aware of instances of that. It seems to be a meme that’s just kind of out there.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/13/1500556/-1-Week-6-Hillary-Clinton-Lies
She is a lying liar, Christopher. That’s just a fact. Whether you’re aware of it or not is immaterial. But your seeming unawareness of it almost rises to the level of some new form of political negligence I have not come across yet.
It calls the credibility of the rest into question. I do think HRC had a bad couple of days of her mouth getting ahead of her brain. The legislative knocks on Sanders can be chalked up the byzantine process that leads to the Kerry curse of having “voted for the $87B in Iraq before I voted against it” (and being completely accurate in saying so). Besides, that diary was clearly written by a partisan like yourself. Politifact only comes up with a couple of Pants on Fire ratings from 2008 (though even I’m surprised the Reagan comment wasn’t on that list).
The problem with that rhetoric is that it is essentially preaching to the choir. It might make you feel good to write that, but it isn’t going to drive any new voters to Bernie or even remotely help elect Democrats (Progressive or otherwise) in the Fall.
do tend to “much prefer” people not elaborate on that truth.
You certainly can continue to fill the pages here with continued attacks on our likely nominee. I note with interest the source of the single uprate on your comment.
I’m weary of being harangued about “truth” from the likes of you and TBD.
I know a little bit about “truth” myself. I know about the “truth” of the Ralph Nader campaign. I know about the “truth” of those who squandered millions of taxpayer dollars on a groundless and flagrantly partisan witch-hunt against Ms. Clinton during her husband’s administration and who squandered more millions of taxpayer dollars on another groundless and flagrantly partisan witch-hunt against Ms. Clinton during the current administration. You now join Ken Starr, Richard Mellon Scaife, and the rest of the right-wing extremists who have spent the two decades spreading “the truth” about Hillary Clinton.
History is filled with those who assert a unique hold on “the truth”. It is not kind to them.
Shame on you.
join the ranks of those who believe that because there were dishonest attacks on HRC, anyone who ever questions her veracity must be dishonest. Did you conclude that W actually fulfilled his National Guard obligation, because the document Dan Rather relied on was bogus?
I remind you that George W. Bush was a GOP President who ordered torture from the Oval Office after launched an illegal invasion based on lies he told the congress and the American public.
The accusations against Ms. Clinton do not rise to that level, and the effect of spreading them is provide more ammunition to those will do their best to destroy her after she receives the nomination (which she almost certainly will). There is nothing new in the material cited above. What is there is instead hyperventilated commentary about exchanges made during a hard-fought primary.
I stand by my posture that these attacks against Ms. Clinton have crossed the line from legitimate debate regarding two excellent candidates into Trumpist name-calling.
that you bring up the Iraq war and neglect to mention Hillary Clinton, who’s support of the war was so critical.
She owns that illegal invasion with her vote, so yes… whether she is more or less dishonest than GWB, her failures as a politician are absolutely “at that level.”
Did you oppose John Kerry as passionately after his similar vote?
Are you now calling Hillary Clinton and John Kerry war criminals?
Get real. Get a grip. Seriously.
You realize I was 19 or 20 when I voted for John Kerry, right?
I wouldn’t have made the same primary vote today.
And, yes, I think if you’re going to criticize GWB for the illegal invasion, you should criticize one of the key proponents of the war, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
That’s getting real. That’s maintaining a grip. That’s being serious.
I’m not criticizing your vote for John Kerry in the Massachusetts 2004 primary, I’m criticizing your hyperbole now.
In 2004, GWB used the full power and authority of his office to lie about his proposed invasion — at a time when Americans were still hypersensitive about the “terrorist threat”. There was ZERO evidence at the time that this propaganda was fraudulent and dishonest. A vote against the requested authorization would have been correctly seen as calling the sitting president a liar. We did not know, at the time of those votes, that “evidence” was ALL forged. The war crimes had not, at that time, been committed.
Your attempt to conflate Hillary Clinton and John Kerry with George W. Bush is both incorrect and misguided.
The international press was all over this. There was no evidence of WMDs and certainly not of a nuclear program. The intelligence report that was available to any Senator to read was absolutely devastating… for the Bush administration. Many of those who voted no cited that report as a chief part of their reasoning in voting no.
Hillary Clinton, and many, many others (including John Kerry) voted for Iraq because of the political climate. It was cowardice. Those two had enormous clout on this issue and with the broader public, and their opposition could have gone a long way toward having kept this country out of that war. Tens of thousands of American soldiers have paid for that cowardice with their lives or lifelong physical or mental disabilities. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis were killed, and millions no doubt lost their homes or were forced to flee. We could have dumped trillions of dollars in a huge parking lot, poured lighting fluid on it and lit it up and it would have been less wasteful and damaging to our economy and the world.
Congress is a coequal branch of government, at least when it wants to be. Its vote enabled GWB, and therefore all those who voted for that war are accomplices in everything that happened, and therefore should be held as responsible as the GWB administration. Everything that happened after they voted to authorize that war is their fault for authorizing it in the first place.
I listed a daily kos diary link with 6 lies Hillary’s told this past week.
Which one of those lies was unfair from that diary? Which one was like “Ken Starr… and the rest of the right wing extremists?”
Was is those right wing extremists that made Hillary Clinton lie about Nancy Reagan or Bernie’s involvement in 90’s health care reform, or was it Hillary Clinton?
Now, I think Hillary has been unfairly demonized by the right wing for large parts of her career, but most of what has been raised by Bernie’s campaign or his supporters during this race has been fair. I’d be happy for you to demonstrate examples otherwise.
And, if I had to take my pick of Democratic campaigns that seemed more or less like what the Ken Starrs of the world have done… Hillary’s has been the one that’s played fast and hard with the truth.
It’s the hyperbole and relentless hostility that reminds me of Ken Starr. It’s the tacky and overblown rhetoric that reminds me of Ken Starr (or The Herald, for that matter).
We’ve already talked at length about “Nancy Reagan and AIDS”. The fact that Bernie Sanders was at a photo op does not in any way mean that he was participating in the effort to get Ms. Clinton’s health care plan passed. On that issue, I frankly put more credence in her recollection than his. The “Clean Power Plan” item sounds like the Sanders campaign has genuine beef.
The immigration and auto bailout items are, frankly, standard primary-campaign differences of characterization. The plain truth is that when the vote that MATTERED about the auto bailout happened, Mr. Sander’s voted “NO”. It is not a lie to say so.
The email stuff has been beaten to death. On this item, this source does in fact cross over into Benghazi-land. There is NO new information here, just more repetition of material that has been asked and answered over and over. Mr. Sander’s himself says he wants to move on — so let’s please move on.
I think it’s time for deep breaths. I think it’s time to follow the lead of our respective candidates and speak with the respect and courtesy.
I think it’s time to STOP calling either of these candidates liars.
I guess you’re not talking about this photo, with the handwritten inscription:
How about them apples?
where never is heard a discouraging word.
I think Fred is not arguing that Bernie should quit and endorse Hillary for the good of the party, simply that supporters of either candidate recognize that what we have is far better than what they have and whomever wins will have to save the republic from the likes of Donald Trump.
And the way I see it, he will be a surprisingly formidable foe, more so than Romney was at this point four years ago and more so than any of his primary opponents at this point. Hillary has to learn from Bernie’s populism and the chord he has struck taking on the political and economic establishment, which is almost universally loathed right now.
Independent voters are the ones who are making the division, not mainstream Democrats.
Bernie has won over these non aligned voters, and young voters by 2 to 3 to 1 over Hillary Clinton. That includes men and women. This is where the coming together has to be done. They are Democratic leaning independents and, moderate GOP leaning independents who are drawn to Bernie’s message.
Hillary has gotten the lion’s share of registered Democrats. Dealing with disagreements between her and Bernie is the easy part in making the transition to a single candidate. Convincing the Independents is where the rubber meets the road.
Secretary Clinton has liberalized her message as time has gone on, but perhaps with Bernie’s help she will go a bit further if she wins the nomination. That’s where the unification of the party has the best chance of success.
Older folks vote in larger percentages, but they have to understand that the coming future belongs more to the next generations than it does to theirs. It is a hard truth to swallow for this Democratic voting block. Both sides in this nomination process will have important work to do to make an appealing message for all voters, no matter who wins the nomination.
I am running for delegate to the National Convention for Bernie in CD6. That caucus takes place on April 9th in Newburyport. Those for Hillary will convene in Peabody on the same day at the same time(1 pm). More details are at masssdems.org under “Your Party”.
My name is Don Green, and if you will be at the Bernie caucus, I would appreciate your vote. For whomever wins I will do my part to support their candidacy as a delegate, and urge them to bring a unifying message to all voters whatever lever they usually pull at voting time.
The political revolution is not the militancy that Mr. Trump is trying to hang around Bernie’s neck. The Times editorial this am also has incorrectly characterized a “political revolution” as some overnight event. It is a hastened transition where all citizens understand that the power of representative government is being jeopardized. If the direction of the country is to be changed, the vote must be in super majority numbers. However that does not finish their citizenship responsibilities. Elected officials must be held accountable for what won them the election. Incumbency should not be an automatic as it is now in so many elections.
If nothing else Bernie has set the mold for future elections, and hopefully the mantle will be passed on. We will need more politicians like him to set this country is a direction that gets majority approval. That is not the case at present. I think the VP pick and SC nominees are good place to start.
The two remaining candidates are attacking each others record. That’s a part of campaigning, eh? Their supporters are doing the same. Maybe it’s my imagination or my bias, but there does seem to be a lot of “can’t we all just get along” from the Clinton supporters. Stop the bickering, the discussion of each others past, in other words, run a dull campaign that gets no news coverage? A campaign that keeps things as they are? How does that work, in the end, with regard to voter turnout?
Personally, I was behaving myself on this issue until one candidate sent her daughter out to lie about the others position on health care reform.
After that low blow, why should I just sit at the sidelines and remain silent?
Clinton hasn’t framed it in that way for 2 months now. It’s been discussed and debated daily since that time and Clinton has compared their positions as moving forward and building off the 90% coverage. You know that. Why post this?
She has not “framed it that way” for the past 60 days. Nope, now she is “wondering where Bernie was” when she was fighting for health care reform, as if to say he was out of the picture. Woops, another failed attack from her campaign.
Here’s my advice to the Clinton campaign: Always tell the truth, it’s easier to remember.
By the way, 90% coverage is an empty achievement when one looks at that “coverage”.
Why do I post this? I want Democrats like Ted Kennedy who believed that health care is a human right. I do not believe, as Hillary and others believe, that health care ought to be a commodity bought and sold in markets.
That’s why I post this.
You need to be honest in your comments.
about your pretend view of ACA and what it means.
How did Ted Kennedy react when Jimmy Carter went from an advocate of health care as a human right to a president who wanted to hold back, wait and delay?
He wrote this:
“The Jimmy Carter who had declared that he wanted mandatory and universal coverage and had a plan that was nearly identical to mine had now been replaced by the President Carter who wanted to approach health insurance in incremental steps, over time, if certain cost containment benchmarks were met–and after the 1978 midterm elections.”
That does not sound like a glowing endorsement to me.
How has my argument changed?
…that where you link her the word “lie” above, politifact itself uses the term “mischaracterizes”, right? The former is much worse (provable fact) than the latter (subject to interpretation).
Does it really matter? It was a deliberate attack on Sanders and it set out to characterize his position in a false way, a way that would frighten people.
It’s a low blow, especially using ones daughter to deliver it.
Or, as she has said, “Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care?”
Since when? Since she decided that Bernie was getting too close in the polls.
Lying is IMO indicative of a character flaw, whereas again mischaracterizes leaves some wiggle room for benefit of the doubt. If I am going to accuse you of lying I have to prove to myself beyond a reasonable doubt that I have ruled out all other possibilities: that there is a differing interpretation, that the person misspoke, that the person was unaware the statement is inaccurate, that the person is forgetful, etc. Usually this includes being able to demonstrate a malicious or selfish motive.
What was the purpose of sending her daughter to announce a “mischaracterized” comment? You, she, and her supporters can wiggle all you want, it still smacks of dirty politics. It was deliberate. You would accept this from a Republican. Hell, Hillary would not accept it from Obama. I simply cannot see how far people are willing to case aside their morality just to “win”. It saddens me that now, even Democrats are arguing against health care as a human right.
It means they’re a liar who’s had practice.
This endorsement of a candidate with deep ties to Wall Street and health insurance corporations by Democrats on the single notion that “she can win” reminds me of a time when I was a hockey fan.
There was a player on one of the rival teams who was dirty. He was a fighter, a master of the cheap shot, the enforcer of the team. We all hated him. Then, one season, our team traded for him. Suddenly he was okay, a good guy doing what had to be done to win. A lot of the fans admired him all of a sudden, but not me. What good is winning if you are ruining the game?
What’s the good of winning? Are you really asking that question? kay. Here’s one answer:
This is not about purity or a “game”. This is about preventing an admirer of Mussolini and other authoritarians from around the world from becoming President. The freedom, and perhaps even the lives of vulnerable minorities depend on it.
thinks Bernie’s chances of defeating Trump are considerably higher than Hillary’s. The polls, fundraising numbers and their relative appeal to independent voters bear that out, as well.
What good is Hillary winning the primary, if all she does is go down in defeat the neo-fascist Donald Trump?
I agree 100% with what you posted. That’s why I am supporting Bernie Sanders.
whether it is Bernie or Hillary and regardless of who ends up as the Republican nominee.
That went well, Fred!
I am a Bernie supporter, I have been since long before he was the nominee. He does what he says to the best of his ability, and has, for 40 years. He is also the only candidate who has any interest in making this Country a Democracy. We are an Oligarchy, a plutocracy, thanks to Citizens United and McCutcheon. He has actively tried to repeal it. Hill loves it, because she benefits directly, with all the money she gets from the 1%. I want to live in a Democracy, and we don’t, our only chance of getting that back is Bernie.