With Hillary Clinton’s Lead Growing, Now Bernie Sanders Cares About Her Damn Emails

bernie-sanders-clinton-debateI would be lying if I said I wasn’t a little disappointed right now, but I’m a realist so I’m not exactly shocked. The problem for Bernie Sanders as it relates to his chances of beating Hillary Clinton has always been that he isn’t just an underdog, he’s a huge underdog. The only way he was ever going to have a chance to supplant Clinton was if she self-imploded or he went negative. While it’s nice to talk about a positive campaign based “on the issues,” no substantial underdog is going to overtake an overwhelming favorite without eventually going after them.


That seems to be what Sanders is starting to do… though he’s very cleverly trying to act like he’s not.

Just a couple of weeks ago he started by going after Clinton’s past defense of DOMA. I thought that move was a little tasteless; there are a lot of Democrats/liberals/progressives who support same-sex marriage today who didn’t 15 or 20 years ago. Hell, I’m one of them. Not only that, but as Clinton pointed out, DOMA was partially driven by her husband trying to fend off even more anti-gay legislation at the time. Furthermore, the vast majority of Americans did not support legalizing same-sex marriage during the 90’s.

Let’s also not forget that Bill Clinton was probably the most “pro-gay” president we had ever seen up until that point. He enacted Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell which opened a door for gay Americans to serve in the military. While DADT seems discriminatory by today’s standards, it was a huge step (and highly controversial) for the time. To go after Hillary Clinton on DOMA just seemed like a cheap shot, though he was clearly trying to paint her as someone who isn’t a “true progressive” – you know, like he is.

Look, we all get that Sanders has been a life-long “true” progressive. No rational person I know will ever say that Clinton is more liberal than he is, but this nonsense that she’s no better than a Republican has got to stop. In the early 90’s, as First Lady, she was fighting for universal health care when Sanders was serving his first term as a member of the House of Representatives. Even as a senator she was ranked as the 11th most liberal member of the Senate.

(For the record, Joe Biden was ranked 33rd… and Obama 23rd. Just to throw that out there.)

As most know, coming off the first Democratic debate, easily the most memorable moment of that night came when Sanders sternly professed that he (like most Americans) was sick and tired of hearing about her “damn emails.” The audience erupted into applause, the two candidates shared an embrace and it was a great moment in politics.

My, how times have changed.

During an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Sanders seemed to strike a different tone.


“You get 12 seconds to say these things,” Sanders said. “There’s an investigation going on right now. I did not say, ‘End the investigation.’ That’s silly. Let the investigation proceed unimpeded.”

He also went on to state that the American people have the right to know whether or not she sent classified information on her private server.

In just a matter of a few polling results weeks Bernie Sanders has gone from “we’re sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails” to basically using a talking point straight out of the Fox News playbook by suggesting that the investigation is valid because Clinton might have something to hide.

Now I knew going into this that I was going to get hammered by Sanders supporters. Any time I write anything remotely pro-Clinton I get called a paid campaign shill (still waiting on my check, by the way), a hack and told I’m not a real progressive for supporting her. While I admire the passion of Sanders supporters, I wish some of them were less emotional and irrational.

It’s like I’ve said plenty of times before, I like Bernie Sanders and would support him wholeheartedly if he did end up defeating Clinton in the primary. I just feel his chances of winning in the general election are extremely slim – based on actual statistics and numbers – and I think he’s someone who’s best suited for the Senate. I don’t believe that’s bashing him, I consider it being realistic. His supporters can ignore facts all they want – or become conspiracy theorists – but that’s not going to change reality.

Not only that, but he’s already admitted that his payroll tax plan would “hit everyone.” Being a self-described socialist is a big enough hurdle for him to overcome without handing Republicans the factual talking point of Sanders literally saying that his payroll tax plan would raise taxes on everyone.

And while some people will call me a Clinton shill, or a Bernie hater – I’m neither. What I am is someone who, above all else, wants to make damn sure a Republican doesn’t win the White House next year. If by some chance Sanders wins the nomination, I’ll be one of the people cheering him on the loudest. I’ll proudly fight for his campaign practically every day.

The truth is, I like both Clinton and Sanders, even though some liberals believe that’s impossible for someone to do.

It’s clear that Bernie Sanders has realized that he’s going to have to go negative, at least somewhat, if he wants any shot at overtaking Clinton. Sure, it was easy to avoid doing so when her campaign hit a few rough patches and his was surging, but that’s no longer the case. She’s hitting her stride and his “surge” ended about two months ago. And like a true politician, he knows that the only way he’s going to stand any shot at winning is by trying to bring down the frontrunner.

While I’m sure he’ll use the argument that mentioning her past (or even the damn emails) is relevant, that’s not really keeping to his promise of wanting an “issue-based” campaign. An issue-based campaign is one that centers around what a candidate is running on now, not what they’ve done in their past. And certainly not by feeding into the nonsense the right-wing media has been pushing against Clinton.

If Sanders wants to talk about his record as a progressive, that’s great; when he tries to compare his record with Clinton’s, clearly suggesting she’s not “up to his standards” as a true progressive, that’s a negative attack. Spin it as “issue-oriented” all you want, but that’s a personal attack.

But at the end of the day, we must come together to support whoever the candidate is. The main goal of every single person on the left has to be to keep Republicans from winning the White House in 2016. Not only is the White House up for grabs, but Democrats have a real shot at reclaiming a majority in the Senate. And with the power of the Supreme Court for the next 20-30 years, the future of the Affordable Care Act, the progress on gay rights and all the other strides we’ve made in this country hanging in the balance, we cannot afford to let petty apathy or any other childish bullshit allow the GOP to come in and set this country back decades.

The only way Republicans accomplish that is if liberals let them.



Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • cruisersailor

    Bernie’s not doing so well in the polls lately.

    • rebeccagavin

      Yeah, when you can’t get all your social media friends to vote multiple times on line, it gets harder to get those good poll numbers.

      • BobJThompson

        Those land line phone polls are great indicators too. Ultimately polls are useless. I’ll have cast my vote for Bernie in under 3 months. Hopefully he wins.

      • Warren Lauzon

        He won’t even still be in the race in 3 months.

      • rebeccagavin

        Land line polls are a thing of the past. If you read the methodology of each poll, you will see that. You are running on outdated info. You are in denial if you think polls don’t mean much. Polling companies don’t stay in business if they aren’t reasonably accurate and the reason so many polls are done is to see if they continue to get the same data. Polling is scientific, the process for designing them is very complex, and Bernie is not going to win. I can tell you that right now. Hillary already has the delegates, she has the endorsements, and Bernie may not even still be in the race in 3 months. As one human being to another, I would caution you against giving him your money…it is going to waste. Give it to a food pantry and let it do some good.

      • BobJThompson

        He’s going to quit before Iowa. After all of the time and effort he spent?
        BTW that highly scientific poll linked in the article is from June and is a polling of political terms. Not actual names nor policies.

        I can’t wait to hear Clinton’s concession speech next summer. And have a president who isn’t owned by big money. Who wants to overturn citizens united. Who is willing to do what it takes to make sure that when I retire that it’s not in a significantly warmed planet. And who will stop the TPP.

        You can root for the status quo. I refuse to.

      • rebeccagavin

        When did I say he was going to quit before Iowa? You’re talking in your sleep, boy.

      • BobJThompson

        Not going to be in the race in 3 months = quitting around iowa caucus time.

      • Madeline Victorino

        .❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the lap-top❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
        ts……
        ➤➤
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalWorldEmploymentVacanciesReportSource/GetPaid/$97hourly… ❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

  • John Paul Cabrera

    In 2007 Hillary led Obama by over 20 points in most polls. So, poll numbers at this point are not valid.

    • rebeccagavin

      They sure are when you consider the number of endorsements she has, and pledged superdelegates. Quit dreamin’. Obama had the support of the Democratic Party, lined up the delegates before the election, and had the minority vote sewed up early on. There is no comparison.

  • strayaway

    In the most recent NBC/WSJ poll, “Sanders leads Trump by nine points, 50 percent to 41 percent (versus Clinton’s eight-point advantage), and he’s ahead of Rubio by five points, 46 percent to 41 percent (versus Clinton’s three-point lead).”

    • rebeccagavin

      According to the site from which you got those names, or maybe from the meme that was debunked by Politifact.

      “This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.”

      When an individual donates, they must give the name of their employer, and so donations are tracked by employer. Which is basically what Politifact said. Is there anything you all don’t take as gospel about your boy, and actually bother to fact check?

      https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

      • strayaway

        Yes, that is how it is done (duh). The fact remains that Open Secrets was correct. Hillary’s largest lifetime campaign contributors, in order, are Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, DLA Piper, JP Morgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley.

        Bernie is correct when he said, “People should be suspect of candidates who receive large sums of money from Wall Street and then go out and say, ‘Trust me, I’m going to really regulate Wall Street”.

        Going back to Open Secrets, Hillary’s top five contributors so far in the 2016 presidential campaign are Morgan and Morgan, Corning, EMILY’S list, Dish Network, and JP Morgan. Bernie’s are four labor unions and the NEA. What was surprising was that although Hillary had received $78M of contributions , 81% of which were ‘large contributions”, Bernie pulled in a respectable $41M of contributions of which only 22% were ‘large contributions’.

      • rebeccagavin

        So what? Do you not care at all for accuracy? Those companies did not give her the money. Their employees did. You obviously do not know how it works, Duh. I am disabled, and when I donate money to a campaign I have to declare that because they want the name of your employer. If you did a search to see how much Big Disability has contributed to Hillary, you would probably get a reasonably big sum, even though most disabled folks are poor. You can vote for Bernie until you turn blue, there is no way he is going to win. Depending on what State you are in, he might not still even be in the race by then.

      • strayaway

        I never claimed those companies wrote a company check. But when the employees of Goldman Sachs give Hilary $760,000 it means something entirely different than when Teamsters give Bernie $96,000 because, among other reasons, Teamsters are mostly working people with much lower incomes than Goldman Sachs executives and they have a different agenda. You can vote for Hillary all you want and what you will get is a criminal warmonger lapdog of the 1%. Hillary’s biggest lifetime achievement was marrying an alpha male.

        “I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors.” Hillary Clinton

        ‘It is important to see which candidates have the courage to cast tough votes, to take on very, very powerful interests,’ -Bernie Sanders

      • rebeccagavin

        You sound like a parrot. Squawk “war monger”. Squawk “in bed with Wall Street”. Your lack of political sophistication is very obvious. Whatever. He will not win. If he is still in the race by the convention, it will be through sheer will. Once the primaries get going, he will lose one after the other. And I don’t think it shows much integrity at all to take money from the working and middle class for a vanity campaign. And this is a vanity campaign. If you have never seen one before, this is what they look like.

      • strayaway

        Off hand, John McCain is the only Republican I can think of who is more of a war monger then Hillary. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria…Hillary supported them all. “In bed with Wall Street” is Bernie’s take on Hillary. As Secretary of State, she helped Obama rekindle the cold war. If Bernie doesn’t get in, you will have to vote for a war mongering crook, because party label means so much to you sort of like the kids who need to wear the right sneakers and jeans. Same mentality.

      • rebeccagavin

        Jeez, are you the energizer bunny. Spewing your opinions as though they were facts. No one cares. Bernie will not get in. No knowledgable political observer thinks he will. It ain’t gonna happen. For all your prattle about Bernie’s union support, only one union has endorsed him so far. You just need to keep fapping and don’t let it build up too long. You have a lot to learn about politics…but learn you will…except you will probably have a conspiracy theory or two to explain everything. After all, your “feels” cannot be wrong. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-bernie-sanders-labor-20151106-story.html

      • BobJThompson

        That the SEIU hasn’t endorsed anyone yet is a testament to Bernie’s appeal. Hillary has been pushing hard to avoid a repeat of ’08. Also your 75% number comes from a survey in September.
        http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-seiu-unions-213221

      • rebeccagavin

        SEIU is expected to endorse Hillary soon. Sorry. AFSCME already has.

      • strayaway

        I even provided sources for my numbers which brings me back to the vapidity of your posts that were number free. Do you want some names and numbers relating to who gave how much to the Clinton foundation and what coincidental beneficial rulings they received from the Department of Sate when Hillary was the Secretary of State? I could provide some of that too.

      • rebeccagavin

        Trigger warning! I am having flashbacks to conversations with anti-vaxxers and Anti-GMOers. It’s called Post Traumatic Exposure to Irrational Fanatics Disorder. Go Bernangelist, and preacheth your good news elsewhere.

      • strayaway

        You will obviously be more comfortable with the establishment candidate in this primary. Bankers need bailouts, wars are good if Hillary makes them, foundation donations to the Clinton Foundation make the world a better place for investors, women who claimed Bill wasn’t nice to them should be ridiculed, etc.. Go, Hillary!!

      • rebeccagavin

        Remember, you should be getting rid of any sharp objects well in advance of his dropping out of the race.

      • strayaway

        I’m an optimist. If we’ve survived W. Bush and Obama, Hillary probably won’t be much worse. Besides, the Country has righted itself in the past. It will just be another 4-8 years of national slippage in terms of median earnings, civic liberties, expanded corporatism, and the encroaching police state as long as Hillary’s propensities to war don’t do us in.

        Hillary voted for the Iraq war.“I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt.
        Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people …[I]ntelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his
        chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists
        including Al Qaeda members.” -Senator
        Hillary Clinton (iDiot-NY), October 10, 2002.

      • strayaway

        I’m an optimist. If we’ve survived W. Bush and Obama, Hillary probably won’t be much worse. Besides, the Country has righted itself in the past. It will just be another 4-8 years of national slippage in terms of median earnings, civic liberties, expanded corporatism, and the encroaching police state as long as Hillary’s propensities to war don’t do us in.

        Hillary voted for the Iraq war.“I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt.
        Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people …[I]ntelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his
        chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists
        including Al Qaeda members.” -Senator
        Hillary Clinton (iDiot-NY), October 10, 2002.

      • strayaway

        Bernie Sanders’ top donors (since 1989):
        Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union (union)
        Teamsters Union (union)
        National Education Association (union)
        United Auto Workers (union)
        United Food & Commercial Workers Union (union)
        Communications Workers of America (union)
        Laborers Union (union)
        Carpenters & Joiners Union (union)
        National Association of Letter Carriers (union)

        Hillary Clinton’s top donors (since 1999):
        Citigroup (bank)
        Goldman Sachs (bank)
        DLA Piper (corporate law firm)
        JPMorgan Chase (bank)
        EMILY’s List (Democrat political action committee
        Morgan Stanley (bank)
        Time Warner (corporation)
        Skadden, Arps et al. (corporate law firm)
        Lehman Brothers (bank)
        Cablevision Systems (corporation)

        As you previously pointed out, “”This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.” This primary choice is like voting for the Banksters’ candidate vs. the labor unions’ candidate however the union bosses decide to go with their endorsements.

      • rebeccagavin

        Oh yeah yeah yeah. Who hasn’t seen that? Why aren’t they endorsing him? Those are career, not campaign figures, BTW.

      • strayaway

        As I just wrote, “This primary choice is like voting for the Banksters’ candidate vs. the labor unions’ candidate however the union bosses decide to go with their endorsements.” There might indeed be a difference between who the people want ant who the bosses want for their own reasons. You obviously are lining up with the bosses and 1%.

      • rebeccagavin

        Pack yourself an emergency kit, preferably with some sedatives, and the phone number to a good psychiatric nurse that can keep you together at least until after the primaries.

      • strayaway

        Pack yourself a little uniform for Hillary’s coronation. I wasn’t thinking nazi so much as something along the lines of whatever (Eva) Peronists might wear.

        “We need to stop worrying about the rights of the individual and start worrying about what is best for society.” — Hillary Clinton

        “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, June 28, 2004.

        Goodbye Argentina, goodbye USA.

      • rebeccagavin

        That’s a lovely quote and it is very true. The Ayn Randian approach of allowing people to sink or swim, according to their merits and productivity, to hell with everybody else. The more that we, as a country, care about all of our citizens, and make them a priority, the better we as a society, will be doing.

      • strayaway

        “The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans.” “If classical liberalism spells individualism,Fascism spells government.” -Benito Mussolini

        “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” -Ayn Rand

        “Society’s needs come before the individual’s needs.” -Adolph Hitler

        “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities” -Ayn Rand

        “It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own pride is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole; that pride and conceitedness, the feeling that the individual … is superior, so far from being merely laughable, involve great dangers for the existence of the community that is a nation; that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and the will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of interests of the individual. … By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.” -Adolph Hitler

        You’re right. Hillary is more in line with Mussolini and Hitler than Ayn Rand. It sounds like you’ve found your comfort zone.

      • rebeccagavin

        Now you’re back to gibberish.

      • strayaway

        “The U.S. postal workers union announced on Thursday it was endorsing Bernie Sanders for president in 2016, in a boost to the Vermont senator’s campaign against Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

        The American Postal Workers Union, which represents more than 200,000 postal service workers and retirees, praised Sanders as a champion for workers. The endorsement comes days before the second Democratic presidential debate in which Sanders and Clinton will face off against one another.” – Yahoo Canada News

      • rebeccagavin

        OK, what about all the other unions that you are so proud have given him money over the years?

      • strayaway

        Your argument continues to unravel. First, I pointed out that union members gave more to Bernie than Hillary. Now another major union sided with Bernie. My guess is that big money will guarantee Hillary a primary victory and that some unions will then decide it prudent to go with the corporatist winner. But, for now, there are still choices besides those of the 1%.

      • rebeccagavin

        Um, you did not point out that union members gave more to Bernie. You did not indicate how much, over all, union members gave to Hillary. I bet you do not know that amount. All you know is that Hillary’s career top 10 has different groups at the top. However, you do not know the total amount that unions or their members have given Hillary. This is my point. You engage in sloppy thinking and frequently fall victim to confirmation bias. Right now, it could be a toss up between them who has the most individual union member’s support. Without knowing Hillary career long union donations, you can’t possibly know that they are overall less than Bernie’s. Individual numbers right now….Hillary probably still has more, although the postal union is a big union, so is AFCMSE. You are desperate to try to prove that your Boy is the savior of the universe and that the bad guys are holding him down. He has limited appeal. he has probably already reached the limits of that appeal. He is losing to Hillary in some states by as much as 70%. The reality is that you are part of a vociferous minority that is, no matter how you look at it, a minority.

      • strayaway

        You are partly correct. I presented a listing of Hillary and Bernie’s top lifetime contributors. Sanders were unions. Hillary’s were largely banks. It is interesting to note that banks on those lists gave Hillary more money than unions gave to Bernie. I do not know the details of what was, for instance, donated to the Clinton Foundation in the name of Arab sheiks, Russians with mineral interests, and, yes, donations made from union officials – all of course to be used for the betterment of mankind or at least line the pockets of Clinton cronies. It is not sloppy, however, to list the ten largest lifetime contributors to both candidates. But I though you were making such a big point about how only one major union had abandoned the dark side and given to Bernie instead. No sooner had you made that pronouncement then the postal union seconded the nurses union motion. The reality is that you are part of a vociferous minority buoyed with corporatist funding. I see about eight Bernie stickers and lawn signs for every Hillary sticker where I live. I realize that’s anecdotal but my observation is that much of the rank and file, who know about Bernie support him while Hillary’s best supporters are on Wall Street.Fore heaven’s sakes, as Secretary of State, Hillary supported the TPP. Now she claims to be against it. Sorry, but I don’t believe her about nearly everything.

      • rebeccagavin

        Again, people who live and/or work in NY probably donated a fair sum to her during her Senate elections. Those large sums are mostly from smaller, independent, employee contributions. As for the unions, I would be really surprised if they didn’t donate to both. And some of the unions on that list of donors…have already endorsed HRC.

      • strayaway

        That’s it! Goldman Sachs employees must all want to donate to Hillary because they’re her neighbors. Good point! …and funny

      • rebeccagavin

        No, dipshit. Because she represented them in the Senate. My goodness, we are a bit slow.

      • strayaway

        Almost everything I’ve posted on this thread have been facts; Hillary’s donations from banksters, names of the banks, percentages of contributions from “large contributors”, a quote by Hillary, and a short list of wars Hillary has had a hand in creating or expanding. Your posts, on the other hand are devoid of numbers and full of resignation. From your LATimes article regarding unions’ hesitancy to support Sanders at this point, “Sanders is not the first labor absolutist to confront this kind of betrayal.” However, this isn’t over yet and unions are not exactly flocking to Hillary either. It will be over though if Democrats, like you, resign themselves to accepting this”betrayal” by passing over Bernie in the primary.

      • rebeccagavin

        Numbers without context are meaningless. If you had ever taken Statistics 101, you would know that.

      • rebeccagavin

        And again, the donations for the union are not bundled individual donations…they are flat amounts given by the union itself…who’s money ultimately comes from members, but those sums do not represent a totaling of thousands of individual donations. Apples and oranges. And, are you trying to say that Goldman Sachs only hires millionaires and has no administrative or support staff? Hillary represented NY for 8 years in the Senate. Most employees of Goldman Sachs either live, or work, in NY. I know this is a little complex and doesn’t fit with your confirmation narrative, but you are really grasping at straws because you are going by “the feels”. Use your “feels” to decide who to marry…not who to vote for.

      • strayaway

        You are again wrong. I wrote, “As you previously pointed out, “”This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.” This primary choice is like voting for the Banksters’ candidate vs. the labor unions’ candidate however the union bosses decide to go with their endorsements.”

        I’m pretty much saying that Goldman Sachs employees are, on average, much higher paid than average union workers. Thank you for partially making that point. To make my point and decimate yours:

        “According to its earnings statement released today, the company set aside $4.34 billion to pay employees in the first three months of 2013. As Bloomberg’s Michael J. Moore reports, that sum amounts to an average of $135,594 per person in salaries, bonuses, and benefits in a firm with 32,000 employees. Multiply that quarterly amount by four and you get better than half a million dollars in annual compensation, per worker. A figure, by the way, that’s dragged down by the secretaries, clerks, and other support staff who make far less.” -Bloomberg Business

        Goldman-Sachs has so much money to buy off politicians that you should apply for some of it for fronting for GS and its candidate.

      • rebeccagavin

        My god, please tell us you and your OCD are safely locked up somewhere. Some of the poorest people in the country vote Republican. Quit trying to find a rational argument where there isn’t one. Really, they have meds for that now.

      • strayaway

        Remember in your previous post when you wrote “And, are you trying to say that Goldman Sachs only hires millionaires and has no administrative or support staff? I put statistics in front of you that showed you were wrong; very wrong. Twist and turn as you will, Hillary is the face of the 1% in the Democratic party. Now you are a street psychologist pointing out that Republicans represent some poor people too. I like that. GS employees endow Hillary while poor whites shun her. It has a consistency.

      • rebeccagavin

        You did not offer any statistics about how many employees Goldman Sachs has, and how many of them are actual brokers compared to administrative staff. You didn’t, that I recall, provide a source for your numbers, and you are a dumbshit, which is really overstating the obvious. Bernie Sanders in on the decline…he reached his peak and he will be out of the race, probably after super Tuesday, which is March 1.

      • strayaway

        No I didn’t because it wasn’t relevant to your question “are you trying to say that Goldman Sachs only hires millionaires and has no administrative or support staff? What I wrote was, (and thank you for the opportunity to share it with readers here again) “”According to its earnings statement released today, the company set aside $4.34 billion to pay employees in the first three months of 2013. As Bloomberg’s Michael J. Moore reports, that sum amounts to an average of $135,594 per person in salaries, bonuses, and benefits in a firm with 32,000 employees. Multiply that quarterly amount by four and you get better than half a million dollars in annual compensation, per worker. A figure, by the way, that’s dragged down by the secretaries, clerks, and other support staff who make far less.” -Bloomberg Business

        So I included all GS workers per your concern. The last words are my source. I notice you give no sources for your beliefs and fancies by the way. Bernie did a better job last night and put Hitlery on the defensive.

      • rebeccagavin

        You are so full of poo it is not even interesting for me to remain engaged. Just please don’t have any sharp objects around on March 1. Seriously, my dumbshit/blowhard capacitor is shot. Can not take any more.

      • Warren Lauzon

        Since the NEA is the biggest impediment to better education in the US, one more reason not to vote for Bernie.

      • rebeccagavin

        The NEA may have given Bernie money, but they gave their endorsement to HRC. That comparative list of donors shows each candidates 10 ten, but obviously Hillary has more, and bigger donors. The same unions that have contributed to Bernie have also contributed to Hillary. Once again, the numbers listed under each company represent money donated by it’s employees. HRC represented NY in the Senate for 8 years. Is it that surprising that people who live and/or work in NY have donated a lot of money? Hillary also has approximately the same number of small donors that Bernie has. She simply has more donors, and more endorsements, over all. The 99% is not stupid. They want someone who can really get elected and look out for those issues near and dear to their heart. It doesn’t matter how lofty the noble ideals of a candidate, if they cannot win. That is why you see that Bernie has peaked and will probably not gain much more than he has already got.

  • istari

    “Let’s also not forget that Bill Clinton was probably the most “pro-gay” president we had ever seen up until that point.”

    And if we were being asked to choose between Bernie Sanders and Bill Clinton, this might matter. But Mrs. Clinton ain’t her husband.

  • fuddled

    I really appreciate Allen Clifton coming out as a former social conservative. Progressives have been fighting for equality since the 1960s, so it is nice that an author on Forward Progressives feels comfortable to support equality albeit after marriage equality became a majority opinion in our society.

    • rebeccagavin

      Give me a break. Progressives have NOT been fighting for gay rights since the 60’s. A very small fragment of progressives became aware of the gay rights issue in the late 70’s, and it continued to percolate and grow in the 80’s. You seem to have no sense of historical context, but your Bernie button obviously got pushed.

      • fuddled

        Give you a break? But, why? Check in your irascible nature and check out the gay movement’s history. There was no “big bang” moment in the late 70s. Actually, that is when the gay movement leaders became more conservative to gain wider appeal. Perhaps your definition of a progressive is Hillary Clinton.

      • rebeccagavin

        Yes, as a matter of fact, I do consider Hilllary Clinton progressive. The root of “progressive” is progress. It being more politic got that done, then that was, in fact, progressive. And there was a big bang moment, check your history. It was call The Stonewall Riots, in 1969.

  • BobJThompson

    And just like CNN you edit Bernie’s comments to make it sound like he absolved Hillary of her emails. The full context of his comment was that he was tired of the media beating the email drum over and over again. That there were other issues to discuss. Not that they were insignificant.

    I can’t speak for the man, but I do feel that Hillary should be investigated for this. It wasn’t that long ago that Democrats were howling for Bush blood over the same damned thing. The lack of promised transparency is part of why I voted Green instead of Obama in ’12 and why I’ll likely vote Green over Hillary next year. Excepting of course Bernie wins the nomination.

    I leave you with a quote.
    “Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts,” Clinton said. “It’s a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent.”
    -Hillary Clinton ’07