GUEST POST: Please, Don’t Get Bern(t)

by Secret Squirrel, a regular contributor of guest posts to the Cowgirl Blog

The dynamics of the Democratic primary are shaping up much as expected, with Hillary Clinton all but assured of becoming the party’s nominee for president. With most other candidates dropping out, it will shape up to be a primary between her and Bernie Sanders for at least the next several months. There are probably many Sanders fans amongst the Cowgirl readership so I am writing this as an open letter to them to warn of the potential consequences for their fandom.

Sanders in many ways represents a similar candidacy to Ralph Nader, who ran as an independent, Green Party candidate in 2000 against a slightly more distant member of the Clinton inner circle, Al Gore. I was young and impressionable at the time and turned off by the scandal-rich Clinton presidency. After a brief flirtation with war hero, party-bucking, and not-so-openly-conservative-at-the-time John McCain, I settled on Nader because I could not stomach another Clintonesque presidency.

I lived in a safe state to be a Nader supporter at the time so I knew my support would not throw the local elections. There was an internal debate but in the end I felt like Nader was the better candidate. I voted for him then he got like 2% of the national vote and you know the rest of the story.

If I had to it over again, I’d vote for Gore. Especially this New Fangled Al Gore. I wish he would run again.

And so here we are again. A Clinton running for president and another renegade running to the extreme left. I dabbled with Sanders a bit over the summer as Clinton went silent and the scandal noise machine got louder and louder. Then she came out swinging. Not just swinging but also spreading a message just a shade to the side of what Sanders is saying.

Biden is not going to run. There really is no one else in the wings who would run and even if Gore did I think I would still side with Clinton. So it is between her and Sanders, who represents a strong side of this great party who have true and well-held beliefs. Plus Larry David would play him on SNL for the next five year. But Sanders will not last. It may take until South Carolina or Super Tuesday, or when he loses New Hampshire, but at some point during the next several months he will bow out.

At that point, many of the Sanders fans (young and old) will have a to make a decision. Many of you will be angry or upset about the nature of Party Politics much like many of us were in 2000. Don’t be. The stakes were shadowy but so high in 2000 and they are even higher now.

Imagine a Trump candidacy where Clinton has lost the support of millions from her base that are overtaken in numbers by a base who turnout for his xenophobia. Imagine a Rubio (Jeb Bush is toast in the next month or two) candidacy where he runs as the new “compassionate conservative” that can reach out to Hispanics because of his heritage (Cuban, so not wholly Hispanic). With money and a hidden record, he would win easily if Sanders supporters stay home.

Before you withdraw your support for Clinton just because she is a far better candidate than Sanders,. look at what she has gained. The support of nearly everyone inside the party’s bureaucracy. The support of people like Paul Krugman, who called her economic plan for battling the banks better than Sanders’. If there is anyone in economics I trust over anyone else, it is Krugman. And former Biden economic adviser Jared Bernstein. who called the economic team around Clinton as a group he trusts and among the best in the country.

This is not the same Clinton that ran against Obama. She took his trusted advisers and brought them on board. They are still there and they are fighting tooth and nail against a woman who campaigned actively and ruthlessly against them two cycles ago.

Watch the Benghazi hearings or just the highlights. Tell me that is not a president who would stand up against the far right. Imagine Sanders in the same chair, what would he be doing and saying? Maybe he would not have taken action in Libya. Maybe Qadaffi would have wiped out the eastern half of Libya’s population. Imagine that hearing.

Could she turn in the general election to the triangulating Clinton we all fear? Sure. The passion for Sanders is real and understandable for just that reason. But he will not sustain it. Clinton has made so many promises short of what Sanders has said, and in some cases to his left, that she would have a hard time turning back on them, I trust her, I trust the team around her. As president, I cannot think of anyone more qualified to take on the risks of running an imperial presidency against Congress to do the right things despite the risks. I think she, more than anyone else, would love the challenge and risks associated with doing whatever is good and necessary to spite the right.

In a short time, many of you will have to choose between your passions and the future of this country to be able to sustain itself. In 2000, many of us, myself included, made the wrong decision. Please learn from our mistake. Support Sanders, but when he removes himself do not take it personally. Just ensure it gets translated over in some way. I think we will all be fine if we can do that.

Share

66 Comments on "GUEST POST: Please, Don’t Get Bern(t)"

  1. “In a short time, many of you will have to choose between your passions and the future of this country to be able to sustain itself.” Translation: patriots support Hillary, fools and dupes of the enemy support Sanders, who is to Clinton what Nader was to Gore.

    Believe this and you will believe anything. I find the argument not just specious, but patronizing and deeply offensive.

  2. Sanders is no Ralph Nader. If you look at his election results in Vermont, it becomes clear that his appeal cuts across party lines: he gets many votes from rural Republicans because it is clear to them that he is on the side of regular working people.
    Clinton, much like Obama, represents everything that is wrong with the corrupt political system: big money, bad trade deals, & a complete lack of moral compass.
    This clip of Professor Elizabeth Warren (years before she became a senator) talking about Hillary Clinton’s betrayal of working families (with her vote on the insidious 2001 bankruptcy bill) is a perfect illustration of why she does not deserve my vote: http://youtu.be/12mJ-U76nfg

  3. Please mention date of the CBS Poll!
    (reminds me of CBS 10/11 Poll)

  4. A much better comparison to Bernie is Paul Wellstone. Nader ran an an independent, Bernie will not this election. Bernie has explicitly said what is asked for – that his supporters coalesce around the Democratic nominee. If Hillary loses, her supporters should do likewise – and if they do not, then it will show the true threat that Bernie poses to the corporate power structure.

    Ultimately this is going to be a test of money versus people. And my bet is the people win.

  5. I have to agree with Secret Squirrel. If Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee, start getting used to “President Cruz” on the news.

    • Look at the general polling on Sec. Clinton v. Sen. Sanders, particularly the negatives like trustworthiness. The fact that Clinton is rewriting her platform to parallel Sanders only reinforces the perception of political triangulation. It seems to me that Sanders is actually a better bet in the general election than Clinton because Sanders is expanding the voter base, while Clinton has to contend with a large and passionate group of haters, deserved or not. They’ve had 20 years to make up their minds and they won’t be changing over night. As we heard last week, if Republicans keep the house, expect impeachment hearings on day one of a Clinton administration. Sanders, on the other hand, is a new face nationally and can actually pull in some conservative segments.

  6. One of Montana’s better political minds told me awhile ago to never read the comments. But it can be a good gauge of some opinion. And I just want to step in and defend a few things.

    This is not satire nor was it meant to be patronizing. The support for Sanders is real and amazing considering his underlying beliefs and statements. I think it says a lot about where this party is that he remains a credible option yet Webb and other “moderates” are out while they would have strong support 10 years ago. But if you look at policies and positions (yes, primary positions for now for the Triangulator-In-Chief) there really isn’t a whole of space between Clinton and Sanders on some of the important issues. Again, testimony to where the party is.

    But this isn’t the Clinton of the past. It seems like she is free to be who she was at the outset of when the Clintons first entered politics. She also has a lot of scars and distaste from her history against the other side.

    I wish people would stop thinking about her, and other politicians, in terms of where they were years ago. Positions change, American public opinion changes.

    If you mock and abuse the “teabaggers” (or whatever diminutive terms shows up in these comments) for their ideological purity then look in the mirror. There was just a mini-coup (and there may be another pre emotive one) over just these sorts of issues. Let’s not do that to ourselves.

    There is deep support for Sanders. When he is out of the race there will be anger and vitriol for losing. He will be a gentleman about bowing out knowing he has shaped the race. Sanders supporters need to start thinking now about how they are going to handle that moment. Keep the movement alive by all means but please, please, please don’t pack your collective bags.

    Right now the Democrats can plausibly win two federal branches: the executive office and the senate. We can start laying the path to the House state-by-state (*cough* Denise Juneau *cough*). But we need to clean up in the states to take back a chance for the House.

    That demands having an honest discussion about that path. It demands cooperation and mediation. At my core I want to get things done. I am sick of legislative logjams at such a precarious moment in time.

    • “Sanders supporters need to start thinking now about how they are going to handle that moment. Keep the movement alive by all means but please, please, please don’t pack your collective bags.”

      Sanders supporters will vote for the Democratic nominee. That might be Sanders, it might be HRC, or it might be someone else. Yet months before even the Iowa caucuses you’re assuming the nominee will be HRC, and assuming that Sanders’ supporters will be disgruntled and mutinous. So instead of making an argument that HRC should be the nominee, you’re attacking the people who support Sanders. That’s wrong. That’s patronizing. That’s deeply, deeply offensive. And it’s divisive. Strongly and gratuitously divisive.

    • A couple of Squirrel’s quotes caught my eye: ” … another renegade running to the extreme left.” The “extreme left” being someone who takes on the banks, corporations and billionaires? A la FDR? The other quote, ” … when he loses New Hampshire … ” It’s still early, I know, but:
      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html

    • “At my core I want to get things done.” I hope you mean that when the Revolution that Bernie is advocating comes to fruition. Then you will need to get behind the nominee. I know that is unimaginable, but think…

      …we’ve had over a decade of war and the corporate power brokers want us to jump on board their bought-and-paid for candidate?

      You are right about one thing — American public opinion has changed, and is changing, and the unchanging Bernie Sanders is now in sync with the electorate. I hope you can honestly accept the consequences of your argument when the Bern becomes unstoppable.

    • “One of Montana’s better political minds told me awhile ago to never read the comments.”

      That “better political mind” was most likely Pogie? He cannot read comments because when people disagree with him and call him out, he cannot control his anger. This is a sign of brainwashing – the inability to even hear the voices of those who disagree.

      If you want you earn your chops, which you’ve yet to do with a lightweight post like this, I suggest you not only read the comments, but pay special attention to those who call you to task. You will then be Pogie.2, someone unafraid to face critics, rather than a faded copy of a faded original.

  7. “Sanders in many ways represents a similar candidacy to Ralph Nader, who ran as an independent”!?!?….It appears to me that author is attempting to create a false dichotomy in which if we vote for Sanders in the Democratic Primary Hillary somehow loses the General Election. This is in no way like Ralph running as a independent in a General Election. This is the Democratic Primary!…it should be very competitive, vigorous and give us a clear choice of who Democrats want to represents them in the General election. We get to vote our hearts, our ideals and morals as Democrats during the primaries without injury to the Party. I am slightly offended by the author using passive scare tactics to assist her/his favorite candidate. My advice to all Democrats….vote your conscience! Don’t be strong-armed into voting any other way. In the end we will all come together to accept and support whoever wins (it is a contest after all!), that’s how primaries and our Democracy works. If Hillary does happen to win the primary I want to know that she had to work her butt off to do it…..I would be very bitter if the primary win was just handed to her as some keep demanding.

  8. Despite his inability to write coherently, Secret Squirrel seems to be trying to make three main points. First, Sanders supporters, whom he disparages as “fans,” must sooner or later abandon their “fandom” and support Hillary Clinton because she is “all but assured of becoming the party’s nominee for president.”

    Second, Sanders is, as Nader once was, a “renegade running to the extreme left” who “represents a strong side of this great party who have true and well-held beliefs.” So, in the tangled recesses of Secret Squirrel’s mind, Sanders is somehow an extremist who attracts members of the Democratic Party whose beliefs are “true and well-held.” Huh?

    Third, Clinton deserves our support because she “is not the same Clinton who ran against Obama. She took his trusted advisers and brought them on board. They are still there and they are fighting tooth and nail against a woman (huh?) who campaigned actively and ruthlessly against them two cycles ago.”

    The incoherency continues as he pleads: “Before you withdraw your support for Clinton just because she is a far better candidate than Sanders (huh?), look at what she has gained. The support of nearly everyone inside the party’s bureaucracy.” Secret Squirrel thus betrays his underlying bias. What ordinary voters want is unimportant. It’s what the party’s bureaucracy (his friends maybe?) want that really matters.

    For some reason, he asks us to imagine Bernie Sanders testifying in front of the Benghazi Committee and asks, “What would he be doing and saying”? Gosh, Secret Squirrel, I don’t know. Just as I don’t know what he would be doing and saying if he were coaching the Griz football team.

    Finally, in a triumphant crescendo of nonsense, Secret Squirrel offers his fall-throated endorsement of Clinton: “As president, I (sic) cannot think of anyone more qualified to take on the risks of running an imperial presidency against Congress to do the right things despite the risks.”

    Yes, vote for Clinton, the risk taker, if you want someone capable of running an imperial presidency against Congress.

  9. flatheadprogressive | October 26, 2015 1:07 PM at 1:07 PM |

    If Hillary gets the nomination I will support her, but I can see no path to her winning the general election. She has managed to alienate two thirds of white males, she only polls at 44% of white females, only 40% of independents will vote for her and last, after she stated that she would be in favor of a mandatory gun buyback plan like the one Australia put into effect she will lose a large number of moderate Democrats. I do not think that these people will vote republican I just do not think they will vote. Sanders has popularity among all of these groups and if he were to get the nomination he would win. Somehow I think most of these national polls are being manipulated to show Hillary ahead, by contrast most Democrats I know are very favorable of Bernie.

    • There’s no evidence the polls are being manipulated. And no pollster has any incentive for cooking a poll. Whether the polls are accurate enough to be useful is another matter. I think they are, especially when aggregated.

  10. Such propaganda. The stale polling data used for this diatribe is from August 4th.

    The rest of the post is just a way to justify the dem party using Bernie Sanders as a stalking horse to guilt disgruntled voters back into the dem party. And a place to place blame (like dems continuing to blame Nader supporters for Gore’s loss) if Clinton is nominated and loses.

    “this as an open letter to them to warn of the potential consequences for their fandom.”

    Sure… potential consequences. Threaten Sanders’ supporters. Really makes me feel good about Clinton boosters and Clinton’s campaign. I imagine the consequences might also include getting blacklisted by the dem party in many, many ways down the road.

  11. The bottom line is, how do you win a campaign? You get your voters to the polls. This time, Bernie is going to energize a whole new set of voters and pull the Democrats and America with him.

    Check out http://www.berniesanders.com…there you will find incredible organizing tools that are being freely provided to volunteer organizers, including Event planning, RSVP tracking, and organizing tools.

    A Missoula group has emulated the National Campaign efforts and created a local Nationbuilder page — http://www.missoula4bernie.com.

    A Slack channel is coming online for Montana and will allow a comprehensive conduit of information between organizers and the National campaign: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1vhitNGlbHJOENp-e1c8Yl1Qveb94VPWu2KwYqGDrrOA/viewform?usp=send_form

    In short, while Hillary is raising money from her pals on Wall Street — the people are getting organized. Feeling the Bern? Sign up today!

  12. Another example how a single Ballot, winner take all election,
    serves to polarize some of the minority Party,imo.

  13. This is Montana. Vote for whoever the hell you want, a Republican will carry the State.

    The only chance at changing that Dynamic is to vote for Saunders if he is the Candidate.

    I shudder at the thought of any of the GOP assholes being elected but I will not vote for HRC.

    • Mr. Fenske is absolutely right. If you insist on casting a strategic vote instead of voting your conscience, then swap votes with someone in a swing state (a swing state Sanders supporter votes HRC and you get to vote for Sanders) and watch the GOP carry the state.

  14. Hillary is WAY TOO CORPORATE…and she’s a ZIONIST!! Even tho Bernie is Jewish, he is no Zionist.
    And I just freaking like his attitude…!!

    WE WILL VOTE FOR BERNIE. And if Hillary were to get the nomination, we would vote for her.

  15. This piece and all other Bernie bashing opinions are a desperate effort of the moneyed interests to make us believe candidates like Sanders, and those who support him, have no right to participate in the electoral process, unless they are willing to cow tow to their bidding in the end. Sanders is no Ralph Nader. He does not represent some fringe. In truth, he is the only candidate in either party who is calling out the moneyed special interests and genuinely standing for the common man.

    HRC in addition to all the Republican candidates pretend to care just long enough to get elected, nothing more. You only have to look at the last three Administrations for examples of that strategy. Win or lose, Bernie deserves the support he is getting, and those who support definitely do not owe anything to candidates who only pretend to support them. This election offers an opportunity to reject the big money special interests and their puppets, not reward them by once again giving in.

    • Agreed. So just who does agree with this secret squirrel post? And why is it even here? I don’t get it. It’s bizarre. Is bizarre the new normal on this site? Apparently so.

      • Unfortunately there are probably far too many who agree. Hopefully those who would disagree will eventually prevail and show their support for candidates like Bernie.

    • “he is the only candidate in either party who is calling out the moneyed special interests”

      Not the only one. Lessig’s main platform is reforming campaign finance (along with ending gerrymandering, having elections on a national holiday, and a few other things). Campaign finance isn’t our most important problem, it’s just the FIRST one. It’s the lynchpin for fixing all the others. With the current system a President Sanders or a President Clinton (or a President Any Other Democrat) will face the same kind of congressional gridlock that we see now. The sane answers to pressing problems will continue to be blocked by a dysfunctional congress.

      We need to fix democracy. First.

      More info at:
      https://lessig2016.us/

  16. An astonishingly wretched piece on so many levels. Here is the squirrel’s reason for “trusting” Hillary: “Clinton has made so many promises short of what Sanders has said, and in some cases to his left, that she would have a hard time turning back on them, I trust her, I trust the team around her.” WHAT?! … because she has recently abandoned her actual corporate toady beliefs to be a cheap mimic of Bernie … yeah, that’s sincerity for you! No wonder the Squirrel wants to remain secret and maintain her rather impressive cache of nuts.

  17. I don’t agree with your assessment. I believe that the electorate will take a positive attitude towards a candidate that makes and stands by principled opinions rather than Clinton who changes her opinions depending on the wind direction.

  18. Ir’s SCOTUS being picked by POTUS that makes us vote for whoever they float us…

  19. Dear Secret Squirrel, might be time to put down the crack pipe, get into rehab.

  20. Sarah Silverman, “Bernie is the only politician not for sale,” she said. “Look, I love Hillary too, but Goldman-Sachs owns her. She might as well be wearing race car driver (logos). … Everybody’s for sale, and here’s this guy who’s been a senator for a million years from Vermont who is just simply not for sale.”

  21. “But this isn’t the Clinton of the past. It seems like she is free to be who she was at the outset of when the Clintons first entered politics.”
    I agree Hillary may have always had her heart in the right place, but her political calculations have not always followed. The whole reason she is now “free to be who she was at the outset” is because Bernie and Elizabeth Warren have bravely, intelligently broken through the mindset that kept our country closed to actually dreaming big and working for a better way. She is only able to lean into it because Bernie always has! The time has come to listen to him as the reasonable, honest, smart person he is, and ditch the “fringe” label we have too often given people who dare to fight for US, the actual people, not the fake people, aka corporations.

  22. If you’re going to use ethnocentric terms in an attempt to sound politically educated, use them correctly.

    “Cuban, so not wholly Hispanic,” is an ignorant and insulting bit of casual racism. In Cuba, they speak Spanish. That makes them Hispanic. You lack an understanding of the important distinction between ‘Hispanic’ (a designation which includes Mexico, Puerto Rico, and *Spain* but not, say, Brazil) and ‘Latin@’ (which refers specifically to those of *Latin American* heritage. If you don’t understand why the difference matters, especially as a self-appointed political theorist, then start Googling, because there are plenty of resources out there that you can use to educate yourself about other people’s cultures.

    If we lose support in *either* the Hispanic *or* Latin@ demographics, we can place far more blame on our own thoughtless casual racism and ignorance than on the dismissive “well, he’s ‘ one of them’ so they listen to him,” rhetoric I see rising on our side.

    It is no less racist to say that Hispanics only support Cruz or Rubio because they want a Hispanic President than it was in 2008 to say blacks only voted Obama to “get one of their own into the Presidency.”

    I also think you and I recall 2000 differently. If Gore hadn’t made the disastrous decision to run far and fast from Clinton’s popularity to ‘be his own man’ without the substance to back it up, if he hadn’t tried to run a ‘campaign of ideas’ while subtly (no, wait, not subtly at all) implying that anyone who didn’t agree with those ideas was incapable of understanding his brilliance, if he hadn’t met W’s ‘everyman’ approach with the ‘well then everyman is ignorant and has no idea what’s good for him’ attitude, and if he hadn’t, much as Clinton has TWICE now, treated the nomination as fait accompli owed to an heir apparent who had ‘done his time’ and earned it, then Ralph Nader would never have mattered because the Dems would have won by a landslide. I held my nose and voted for him in 2000, and Kerry four years later, and I vowed that NEVER again will I spit my precious vote away on someone like that, because the party threatens me with blame for right-wing ideologues instead of taking responsibility for grinding up good candidates and giving me more machine politics.

    I’ve fiscally supported two Presidential campaigns in my adult life: Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Both came from *outside* the ‘expected field of approved winners,’ and toppled an established hierarchical regime in which the Party uses nihilist hack-pieces like this to pull everyone ‘back on message’. That message is ‘take whomever we give you and don’t try to guide or challenge the direction in which the Party or its dialogue move.’

    And well, after 20+ years of pro-choice rallies, Take Back The Night marches, and social justice protests, it turns out I’ve gotten damn fine at saying ‘no’ to people who’d like me to shut up and let them tell me what my best interest is and work in it for me no matter what *I* want.

    • You are right. Hispanic was the wrong term. I should have broadened that to better get across the point as a Cuban-American that Rubio does not necessarily represent the interests of everyone with Latin American or Spanish-speaking heritage or ties. Regardless, he would be a formidable candidate in part because of his backstory and heritage.

  23. Dial it back a bit. Bernie is accomplishing what no one else in the political spectrum could accomplish. When was the last time we heard serious, cogent discussion among viable political candidates at any level concerning wealth and income inequality, too-big-to-fail banks, the criminal cult among our hallowed global financial concerns, man-made climate change, expanding Social Security and Medicaide, debt-free college education, among others? Would we be hearing it this time around were it not for Bernie bringing his demo-socialist banner into the fray? Doubt it. Given that unregulated capitalism, the nonsensical aim of the Republican Party, is anathema to true democracy, it is an added benefit of Bernie that the country is receiving an unabashed look at real socialism, and American socialism, at that. Thanks to Bernie, the traditional red scare idea of socialism is fast fading and more Americans are beginning to understand the natural relationship between our traditional democratic political system, now thoroughly corrupted by, (what else?) money, money, money, and socialist policies and programs that will give the middle class a voice in the system. The Democratic Party primary process is moving along just fine. Take a breath and save your analysis for when it really counts, when the Republican nominee comes in full blast with a load of demeaning and often baseless comments and accusations against the Democratic nominee and is answered with a platform of substantive ideas to address real problems and the rebuilding of the middle class.

  24. It is insulting that a party cheerleader would have us concede and throw our support behind corporate-owned Hillary a year before the general election, with not a vote cast in the primary. Lots of people are supporting Bernie Sanders, not the democrats, and asking that we play along so we don’t mess up the precious plans of the less disdainful party is undemocratic. Aren’t we all supposed to make an informed decision after seeing the candidates discourse and debates?

    Ron Paul supporters were marginalized and ignored during the last election, and their treatment by their party’s leadership is very reminiscent of the vibes I’m getting from the HRC robots now. I wonder where all those supporters went after that? It wasn’t to Romney.
    http://www.thenation.com/article/his-supporters-treated-atrociously-ron-paul-refuses-back-romney/
    https://www.rt.com/usa/gop-paul-supporters-convention-323/

    Instead of challenging us to graciously accept defeat before a primary vote has been cast, I challenge YOU, Secret Squirrel and party leadership, to not alienate a large bloc of your most energized voters because you want to get a jump on the general election by a year. We are sick of having to choose the lesser of two evils in the GE, and candidates that have given us plebs even the slightest hope of positive change should not be ignored.

  25. Grassroots for Bernie! :)

  26. 6,387 supporters

  27. Montanans for Hillary, 27 members… :(

  28. When I saw Bernie say to hell with her damned emails, I realized he was working for her. I’d suspected that before, but that sealed it.

    In politics, his is called a “stalking horse” candidacy, someone running for the benefit of someone else, as when Ross Perot ran to benefit Clinton and defeat Bush. Bernie, a warmonger just like the rest, probably ran to get the left-leaning voters turned off by Obama back into the fold, get registered and all that. He then turns it all over to Hillary at the convention, and says support your party.

    Nader may have been the only honest candidate ever to grace the political scene in the post-war era, which is why Democrats hate him.

    • Bernie’s response to the fake email scandal is not in support of HRC’s candidacy. It is an expression of his general disgust with the petty distractions perpetrated by corporate media and mainstream operatives in both Parties. Check out his interview with Charlie Rose where he points out the nonsense is even directed at Republican candidates. And he surely doesn’t support them. His point is the discussion needs to elevated above all the pettiness and redirected to the real issues that face average Americans.

      • Bernie wanting to elevate the discussion is also my take on it. He followed that comment with a list of what he thought we should be talking about: the middle class is collapsing, wealth and income inequality, trade policies that cost jobs, and Citizens United.

        In another interview, the reporter asked a question about Bernie’s hair and his response was basically “Don’t you have any serious questions?”

        And, no, I don’t work for the Democratic party. If I did, I’d shut up about Lessig and getting money out of politics (https://lessig2016.us/).

  29. Man, you goobers at Democratic headquarters are not even trying. “Sal?” What, was “Vinnie” taken?

    Of course Bernie is a stalking horse, but if you utterly corrupt bastards admit it even for a second, you lose your low-paying jobs and go into student loans limbo.

    • The late Ron Paul Libertarians, the Dinos or people who are sick of the GOP, are the small Percentage of culprits who cling to Bernie Now. they mistake truth about corporations to witch burnings. Bernie isn’t against capitalism… he is against corporate greed and militarism. These Bernie Bots are not who he is at all.

      This kind of the above mentioned Verbal Push and take, is pretty much Latent madness from the right… People who do not wish to be on the right anymore. The Corporate revolution that ALEC, and the Kochs paid for to undermine the president of our Country…. it didn’t work, but some of the ideologies did with these Americans

      This was the kind of attack style that started with Dick Armey’s false Organizations who attacked Town Hall Meetings in 2010. These kind of people don’t know any better, because they were trained that way from the politicals they wanted to follow…. ROn Paul’s garbage was Isolationism of the 50’s in the twenty first century, the Kochs plan was capitalists overtaking the world.

      Idiots too dumb to know better. They were educated by Lies. People with money steering them to their agenda with fear like Sharia Law, Muslims Gays bashing… They don’t want to be Called Liberals because they are adversary’s of the rule of law and equality. they don’t want Compromise between all Parties, they don’t want to share America with anything but white America.

      They act like more like Pavlov’s dogs conditioned response, who snap at the first morsel of fear. Trained by The False corporate organizations of the right, they need edification of how the world really works.

      Liberals need to Humanize these idiots(Get tuff Liberals, these people are not who we are yet), Or push them out into the light, if the refuse and let Social Media’s Karma kick their butts.

    • That was an interesting read. Conner says that there is a pledge out somewhere to vote for Bernie, even if he isn’t the Democratic nominee, and he wonders if that’s what prompted this post from Secret Squirrel. The post does make a bit more sense from that perspective, but if that’s what prompted it, the post should have included that context. Not everyone has heard about the pledge. Secret Squirrel, if you’re reading the comments, I suggest that you consider working with a good editor. A good editor can save you from yourself (and not just you, that’s part of what they do).

  30. What’s Hillary’s age? 68? It seems incredible that she keeps saying she doesn’t know enough about pot to take a stand one way or the other. She must know that she can only lose votes if she comes out against it, so the fact that she won’t take a stand tells me she is against it but won’t say so for political reasons. But I guess in Montana it doesn’t matter because the one who will get it’s delegates will be decided by religious extremists, skinheads and Honey Boo Boo types.

  31. What a cowardly piece from a corporate shill. HRC is in the back pocket of the big banks and will do everything she can to destroy them middle class. This attack piece is the same hooey that the Teaparty spews and it is shameful to even see it on Cowgirl. You’ve lost my bookmark, I will go somewhere else. I can see exactly who owns this blog.

    • Google “third way democrats” for a clus as to how scared the corporatists are of Bernie. I got my Bernie sticker on my car and I’m going to vote my conscience. Hillary represents wall street and the banksters.

  32. Sen Sanders is nothing like Ralph Nader. The candidacies are not equivalent.

    1) Sen. Sanders has a long career holding political office and working inside of government to effect change (and to block noxious change). Ralph Nader has spent his entire career litigating.

    2) Sen Sanders treats his staff fairly and well. Mr. Nader runs “churn and burn” shops, paying staff very little, burning them out, then grabbing a new crop of idealists fresh out of school. Having worked with both staffs in the (distant) paths, I could clearly tell who acted on their words vs. who was in it for the spotlight. Mr. Nader has difficulty sharing the stage with anyone.

    3) Sen Sanders consistently, throughout his career, has operated with an open mind. Mr. Nader, not so much. I worked with his staff on the break up of AT&T in the 80s and through the 80s and 90s. Just as an example: Mr. Nader considered computers (and the internet) as nothing more than glorified typewriters: TV, paper media and radio were his chosen media until well into the 2000’s. Consequently he felt that discussions allowing Bell companies to operate “enhanced services” and build internet companies was not that important an issue, a problem whose repercussions are felt and are being dealt with today in “net neutrality” discussions.

    4) While both have operated as DC underdogs, Sen Sanders has done it in a way where people listen to his position, where Mr. Nader automatically alienates most of his audience due to his style of persuasion. Both are confrontational, but Sen Sanders does it in a way that doesn’t make you feel bad for the target of the confrontation.

    5) Nader never, ever had Sanders numbers, either in polling size, nor in the crowds that attended his events. And, the more he spoke, the more his numbers dropped. The opposite is true of Sen Sanders.

    I appreciate where this article is coming from, but Mr. Nader’s style/affect/history is much closer to that of Sen. Clinton’s than Sen. Sanders. He’s a narcissist, he is abusive to people who don’t agree with him (or work for him), and he has a very selective aim, overlooking abuses by his friends/supporters because they are his friends/supporters. Sen Sanders operates at a different level, eating his own dogfood, and is willing to let people in a position of better authenticity speak for him. In person, he is self aware and treats people with a kindness that you don’t often see in DC. So, I don’t think the analogy holds.

  33. In case anyone was too lazy to research this orchestrated hit job against Bernie, heres the straight dope.
    http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/why-bernie-sanders-has-centrist-democrats-freaking-out

  34. After reading the dishonest and disingenuous political hit piece by Secret Squirrel (Btw – really disappointed, MT Cowgirl), and all of the comments, the take-home message really does come down to one thing:

    The Primary is nothing more than voting for who we would LIKE to see as the Democratic nominee, and says nothing about whether or not that choice will affect the future 2016 turnout (and, for the record, I would foresee many more Hillary “fans” taking their ball and going home if she doesn’t win the primary than I would Sanders supporters).

    Also, as has been pointed out above: If the Democratic candidate winning at all costs is actually your goal, we would be far smarter to continue our support for Bernie Sanders as our nominee, as he is clearly winning the race to mobilise and turn out new voters – the very thing that swung the election for Obama.

    Lastly, the single largest reason that MORE people in these polls aren’t polling for HRC is that they “don’t trust her.” The single largest reason those polled aren’t voting for Sanders is that they “aren’t very familiar with him.”

    That, my friends, is a HUGE difference in the two candidates (and their credibility) – and a difference that is likely only to resolve in Bernie’s favor as more and more people DO find out more and more about him.

    So – vote your conscience in the Primary, knowing that EITHER Sanders OR Hillary would be better than any of the rightwing lunatics and charlatans the GOP is floating, but knowing that if you truly despise what the GOP has shoved down America’s throat in recent decades, that Bernie Sanders is, by far, the one who is furthest from the GOP’s corporate-whoring, 1%-er-fellating, same ‘ol, same ‘ol.

  35. Once again the National Dems are succeeding in manipulating the primary process, and most of you are falling for it.

    I read the tea leaves when Joe Biden was waiting to find out if the Justice Dept was going to indict Hillary for server-gate, Benghazi, or something else. As soon as he found out from The Great Leader that Hillary would not be indicted he officially declared he wasn’t running.

    If you remember, back in 2008 Obama, Biden, and Hillary were great ‘rivals’ and then at the very end the deal was made where Biden got the VP nod, and Hillary got Sec of State. This time is no different, and as soon as they get a firm price out of Bernie, he’ll drop out so Hillary can be coronated as the candidate.

    A seriously flawed candidate, that the Dems are going to be forced to watch go down in a 49-state-loss.

    It couldn’t be working out any better.

    • “A seriously flawed candidate, that the Dems are going to be forced to watch go down in a 49-state-loss.”

      Sorry, I’m confused about which candidate you’re referring to here.

  36. I am with you all the way
    We have to go with Hillary for the sake of the party and she will make a good president AND there is no alternative but ruin!

    • No we don’t. Bernie’s got chops, Hilary’s got Bill. (and her own, personal rightwing conspiracy backing her.) Think I’ll stick with Bernie. Bern, baby, Bern.

  37. I’m just so damn delighted about all the pro- Bernie comments and the BS calls on HRC corporate funded, corporate managed, and corporation preserving ways.

Comments are closed.