Anyone else see Hillary's tweet today?

"Some folks may have the luxury to hold out for “the perfect.” But a lot of Americans are hurting right now and they can’t wait for that."

Sorry poors, you are just going to have to keep voting for people like Clinton who admittedly do not represent your interests, because you are not wealthy enough for honest representation. #Clinton2016
Many are willing to deny there was ever any Nader-effect, i suppose?
OK, so a woman who helped Nader with his 2000 campaign is now saying that Bernie is more electable. Uh, right. For those of you too young to remember, the only reason Bush was elected President was because Nader was too stupid to realize (or too arrogant to care) that he was going to split the vote. What was the result? Eight years of Bush. Was it better for the long term -- do we now have a progressive majority in Congress? No -- in fact quite the opposite. The House is about as right wing as its been in 100 years. Is there wide spread support for progressive policies? No (again, the House).

Bernie supporters point to polls, but they neglect to point out that most of the country doesn't know jack shit about him. They really don't. People forget that Dukakis was 20 points ahead when he came out of the convention, until the Republicans accused him of being too liberal (from Taxachusetts). But apparently calling him a liberal is great for a Democrat. Oh, and he lost to a Bush as well (by a wide margin).

The last time someone as far to the left as Bernie was nominated, he was a war veteran (who served with distinction) -- a 50 year old Methodist Democrat from North Dakota. Now people want to nominate a conscientious objector -- a 74 year old socialist Jew from Brooklyn. Man oh man, the Republicans are just dreaming of that matchup (they would bug Democratic headquarters if they thought they could get away with it).

It cracks me up if it wasn't so fucking insane. For most of my life I've seen women rejected, one by one, for various positions. Why aren't there more female CEOs, or Senators? Just the vestiges of sexism, folks say. Give it time. Once more women graduate and go through the work force, they will have more opportunity to climb the ladder of success. What about the President? Just wait. This candidate is too far to the left, or that candidate doesn't have the right amount of experience. So now, when the most qualified candidate is female, and all the other Democratic women decided to defer to her, we are supposed to just go with a guy that is a draft dodging socialist. You gotta be fucking kidding me!

Good job getting this posted less than 48 hours after other sites have reported this.
@2 -- How the fuck did you interpret a tweet that way? Jesus, some of the Bernie supporters are so fucking stupid. OK, not all of them (obviously) but the ones that think he is a fucking saint, and Hillary doesn't give a shit about the poor. Absolute nonsense. Do any of you guys know that candidates talk shit about their opponent? Of course they do. Do you think there is anything to be gained by Bernie talking up his opponent's liberal record? Of course not. Did it occur to anyone that Hillary is a liberal, and has been liberal, but doesn't want to emphasize this because it is harder to get elected in this fucked up country as a liberal? Apparently not.
@ 7 Her actual record reveals the lie that she's a liberal. My gawd, read some of her quotes. She simply has no decency.…
"Your lives are already ruined--vote Hillary! It's her turn!"
For those of you too young to remember, the only reason Bush was elected President was because Nader

Nader fucked the country because he ran as a Green in the general election, peeling critical votes away from Al Gore.

Good ol' Bernie is competing in the primary for the Democratic nomination so as not to repeat that mistake.
I'll bet more Bernie supporters would vote for Hillary than Hillary supporters would vote for Bernie.
Blah, blah, blah. Sanders needs to win 56.5 percent of the vote from here on out, and the likelihood of his doing so in states like Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and California is minuscule. Recent polling and voting to date indicate that Sanders is likely to lose the nomination by 400 to 500 delegates. Sanders and his supports have made their case to the public and are losing; this primary contest is just not that close. Democrats are, by a wide margin, choosing Hillary Clinton.
Why would anyone want an actress's endorsement?
Thank you, @4. This "Clinton is THE DEVIL!!" shit has to stop.
@12, as a supporter of either against the far politically distant horrors presented by the GOP, i'd accept that wager. but how would it ever be proved? should we start the tally with @8?
@Ross: Did it occur to anyone that Hillary is a liberal, and has been liberal, but doesn't want to emphasize this because it is harder to get elected in this fucked up country as a liberal?

Yes, but since she doesn't even govern like a liberal, she is for all intents and purposes not a liberal.

Did it occur to you that Bernie's successful run as a socialist shows that it's OK for liberals to come out of the closet and be themselves again? It's no longer 2003. The conservatives are fucking imploding, we have a huge opportunity to move the country to the left, yet our presumptive nominee is a step to the right of Obama.

The fact is, Bernie's authenticity makes Hillary's phoniness way too obvious. Maybe she'll seem better in comparison with Trump, although say what you want about him, Trump is authentic, that's why his supporters love him, and her victory over him is anything but assured.
@theophrastus: Alas, our wager will have to remain hypothetical, but I'll say this - I think you are underestimating the number of Hillary supporters who cast their first votes back in the day for Reagan and Bush Sr and simply couldn't bring themselves to vote for a socialist.

@7: First, you need to stop going into a incoherent rage whenever someone does not support the divine right of Hillary Clinton to be president.

Second, what does this have to do with Bernie Sanders? Maybe you should look into why you need to attack Sanders rather than defend Clinton. It is probably because Clinton's "efforts" to help the poor and middle class are pretty nonexistent, especially when placed next to her disastrous record (NAFTA, Welfare Reform, opposition to the re enactment of Glass-Steagall, her unwavering support of increased incarceration/private prisons...) It just goes on and on.
American politics remain a solid binary choice. Our system just doesn't support any viability for 3rd party candidates on a national scale. I would love to have a parliamentary system with proportional representation for all parties, and a President who was elected by whichever legislative coalition prevailed, but we'd need a Constitutional Convention to get that, and between the Talibangelists and RWNJs, we'd end up losing most of our civil rights in the process.

So, the choice is either vote for the Democrat or Republican candidate. You can vote for one because you like them, or because you hate the other one more, but you should definitely vote for one of those two. We can vote for ideology and purity in the primaries, but once those are over, you damned well vote for your party's nominee, period.
Does Sarandon live in California? Then her vote in the General Election doesn't really matter.
@13 Actually, as of yesterday the latest NBC national poll shows that Sanders has halved his deficit since last week (from 12 to 6 points). This contest is far from over despite continued attempts by the establishment to marginalize Sanders.
Well, of course she would make that statement. She's a privileged, rich, white person whose life and whose children's lives wouldn't be affected if her non-vote caused a Republican to be elected. Just like her children weren't the ones sent to war when her vote for an unelectable candidate may have contributed to Bush being elected.

I don't understand how these so-called progressives who claim to care about class, race, and gender can be so callous about putting the lives of those groups at risk by risking a Trump or Cruz presidency.

Regardless of how you feel about Hillary, you can't deny that she will be better for the poor and lower class than any of the Republican candidates. You can't deny her record on healthcare for women, children, people with disabilities, gender equity pay, or abortion (which IS an economics issue directly impacting the poor). None of the Republican candidates support any of these things.

the only reason Bush was elected President was because Nader

Nader was a very small factor in an election that had one of the smallest voter turnout since ww2. The major reason is because Democrats keep running right wing candidates that do not appeal to the demographics they are supposed to represent so people don't vote. The very same thing could happen again this time around given Clinton has the lowest favorability rating since pollster started asking the question in 1984.
@24 "Just like her children weren't the ones sent to war when her vote for an unelectable candidate may have contributed to Bush being elected. "

Do you mean the war your candidate voted for in spite of millions in her constituency demonstrating in the streets? You've got to be kidding.
@13 I will never get the "shut the fuck up and stop caring because of the inevitable" stance. Should more than 2/5 of the remaining Democrats not get a voice because the candidate you seem to prefer is ahead? Every delegate that Sanders wins is another piece of evidence that the Democratic party should take its liberal wing seriously. Are you really concerned about the general, or just trying to stifle conversation about the future of the party?
#26, So you're saying that Cruz and Trump would be better for the country than Hillary? Because that was my argument.

Also, I always find it interesting that this vote on the Iraq War, which Kerry, Biden, and Edwards also voted for, and which was based on deliberate misinformation that they were all fed by the Bush Administration, is pointed out every single time Hillary's name comes up, but Bernie's own hawkish history (not to mention his relationship to the NRA, another issue that disproportionately affects the poor, like his vote against the Brady Bill) is conveniently overlooked. His supporters don't seem to take issue with his support of funding for both the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan, his support of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, his support for Israel's assault on Gaza. Yet, you continue to view him as this peacenik candidate.
@13, @27 Win or lose, Sanders is serving an immensely useful purpose for the progressive movement. For decades, Republicans have been slowly dragging the center point of political discourse further and further rightward. Also, demonizing anything they don't like with a floridly hysterical !SOCIALIST! label.

Meanwhile, there is nothing whatsoever in Bernie's platform that is the least bit socialist. If anything, the proposed tax policies, stimulus ideas, middle-class-bolstering, and health plans are EXACTLY THE FUCK IN THE CENTER of where the discourse was from FDR to Nixon.
@29 (continued...)

The point is, the more votes Sanders gets, the more clear it is that his proposals/views are NOT radical left-wing nonsense. Even if he doesn't win, people will take notice of how much support these positions have. And, THAT can have the effect of clawing the "center" back at least a little ways from the RWNJs who have gradually dragged it over to their side.
I'm really starting to hate the Hillary and Bernie supporters more and more. Staying home sounds like a better idea. I'd hate to piss either side off so not voting seems to be the only mature thing to do.
@10 -- Thanks. I got my Dakotas mixed up. For what its worth I don't think he would have won had he been from the other Dakota (but he wouldn't have done any worse).
@17 -- Who cares if socialists are out of the closet or not. They are going to lose. In the last national election, more people voted for Republicans than Democrats. They voted for a Republican House, and an extremely right wing Republican House. I really don't give a shit if Bernie is a fucking God and can heal the sick and house all the poor -- he can't get elected and if he could, he wouldn't be able to do shit. He is a horrible candidate. whose only strength is that he is the alternative to someone who isn't especially strong herself. But she sure as hell is stronger than Bernie. He makes Kucinich look like a pretty good bet, and he makes Tom Harkin look like a dream candidate. Again, the Republicans win race after race by calling the other guys liberals, even when they aren't. They destroyed Dukakis, simply because he came from Massachusetts (as a moderate). How do think they will do with Bernie Sanders, a socialist from Brooklyn?

Of course if the Republicans self destruct then it won't matter. But if you think Ted Cruz can't win, you are deceiving yourself. He may be a prick, but Nixon was a bigger prick, and he was elected twice. I see a lot similarities. The Republican race isn't over, and they may just rally around the asshole.

@29 and @30 -- I agree, as long as Bernie rallies around the nominee when the time comes (the way Kucinich did). Dennis is a great guy and helped move this country forward (or at the very least, kept it from sinking further into the abyss). The jury is still out with Bernie (as parts of this article make clear).
I still want to hear from Tim Curry and Barry Bostwick.
Can't say Nader cost Gore the election more than Lieberman did, or Gore's unwillingness to use Bill Clinton. Florida, Katherine Harris, Jeb, and Scalia wouldn't have mattered if Gore could have managed to win any of NH, TN, or AR

I will take that bet. (How much, by the way?) I've been volunteering for Clinton for the past month and have thus met many, many staunch Hillary supporters. Every single one said they will enthusiastically vote for Bernie in the general if it comes to that, because electing a Republican is simply unthinkable.

In contrast, all of my Bernie-loving friends (both IRL and in my FB feed) are the ones pouting and saying they'll stay home if Hillary wins the nomination. They seem much more concerned with their "movement," and Hillary people are pragmatists who want to see a Dem elected, dammit!

(Oh, and fuck Susan Sarandon. Easy to sit back and watch the carnage when you're rich, white, don't have to worry about health insurance or student loans, and are old enough to no longer need birth control or abortion.)
#31, Actually, she does:
1. She played a leading role in the development of State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides state support for children whose parents cannot afford to provide them with adequate healthcare coverage.
2. She was instrumental in the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act
3. Proposed a revival of the New Deal-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to help homeowners refinance their mortgages in the wake of the 2008 financial disaster.
4. She introduced the Heroes at Home Act in 2006 and 2007 to help family members care for Veterans with Traumatic Brain Injury.
5. As Senator, she fought to pass the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform, helping to cultivate awareness of the issues in Congress. She introduced the Legal Immigrant Children’s Health Improvement Act to give states the option to provide federally funded Medicaid and SCHIP benefits to low-income legal immigrant children and pregnant women. She also wrote the Access to Employment and English Acquisition Act to meet the growing demand for English language courses and other job skills.
6. She wrote a law as Senator providing grants to state and local governments to pay for respite care services for family caregivers, which allows expanded funding for temporary breaks for caregivers of sick or disabled people.
7. She introduced eight pieces of legislation with the clear purpose of expanding and protecting women’s access to reproductive health care — more than any other presidential candidate.
8. She introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act ​in 2005, 2007 and 2009. No other presidential candidate has introduced equal pay legislation.
9. She waged a multi-year effort​ with Sen. Patty Murray — and even blocked the nomination of an FDA head — to pass the law that made emergency contraception available over-the-counter.
10. She plans to build on the Affordable Care Act, which has helped nearly 8.2 million adult women gain health coverage. This has been especially important for women of color, who accounted for 53.2 percent of uninsured women before the law went into effect.

But, you know, you keep reading those Bernie blogs claiming she hasn't done shit for the poor.
Uh, #39, Nader took enough votes in Florida to allow the Supreme Court to give the election to Shrub. You remember what happened in Florida, right? Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida, which easily could have swung the election to give Gore the state’s 25 electoral votes, and there would have been no need for a recount.
@ 40, Interesting. Didn't she have to sponsor that legislation as a direct result of destructive laws signed by Bill Clinton in the 90s or her own votes in the early 2000s? I suggest that you read the link @8 and get back to us. Her comments about people living in poverty are especially appalling.
I'm not voting for Hillary because I think she's a perfect candidate. I am voting for her because I think that Bernie's most appealing promises, universal healthcare and free education, will never pass through Congress. We aren't Sweden, Denmark, or even Canada, for that matter. To convince Americans that his socialist policies would work would require dismantling so many of our distinctly American ideologies. It seems crazy that anyone would actually expect our country to be receptive to a radical change in our government. I'm referring to our Protestant work ethic (religion is a huge problem for us, unlike in any other Western nation), American Individualism, distrust in government, anti-statism, entrepreneurialism, imperialism, etc...These things are so ingrained in our culture that we truly would need a revolution before society as a whole will come around far enough to Bernie's side.

So he will end up making a number of compromises in order to not find his proposals blocked at every turn (if they're doing it to Obama the moderate, they'll be even worse to Bern). The guy's whole campaign is based on the fact that he doesn't compromise. While that's admirable, it doesn't work. And of course, his supporters will see any compromises he does make as "moving things forward," while Hillary's will be called giving in to special interests and flip flopping.

I am also voting for her because women's health issues are a serious concern right now. There is now a Utah bill that would force women to pay for funerals for their fucking fetuses, for christ's sake. Of course, that one is batshit, but so were the others that are somehow managing to be passed. I believe, based on Hillary's track record regarding these issues, that she will be the only candidate who will truly fight successfully to protect Planned Parenthood and contraceptive access.

And while young women claim that gender doesn't matter, that's not what the research shows. Women tend to go into fields that they see other women in. When a woman heads a company, it makes it seem possible for other women to do so. So we may end up with a moderate in office, but maybe that means in eight years, we see more liberal women in the race.

By the way, research also shows that the three major obstacles that have kept women from advancing in their quest for the presidency are lack of ability to fundraise, lack of power and clout within the establishment, and being seen as too weak to lead and unwilling to use force to protect the country. Hillary has successfully overcome all of these. And, of course, she is now being criticized for all three.
#43, Yes, she has said some major bullshit and I don't excuse her for that. But somehow, Bernie has also made some pretty offensive remarks about how whites don't know what it's like to live in the ghetto or face poverty, and how Steinem considers him an honorary woman (seriously, if he had claimed to have been called an honorary black person, he would have never lived it down). And somehow, these remarks have been all but forgotten, and they actually occurred this year! And then there was his rape fantasy article that his supporters were quick to excuse and then forget.
@28 I don't agree that Sarandon has any responsibility whatsoever for Bush being selected by the supreme court. Democrats on the other hand are responsible for a number of reasons: from running Gore, an unappealing establishment candidate for many who didn't see the point of voting, to surrendering to the Republican coup when everybody in the senate, including Clinton, refused to join the congressional black caucus in opposing the supreme court as allowed by law.

So yes, I find your attack of Sarandon causing Iraq totally outrageous. Everybody with an once of integrity had at the very minimum strong suspicion that the Bush admin was lying given that their claims were pretty much all debunked in real time so I am not swayed by Clinton's claim that she was fooled by Cheney and co.

As for Sanders, he doesn't have to be perfect considering all that is wrong with Clinton.

Perhaps it would be helpful to examine the positions taken in closing remarks by Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in the final debate on the Iraq AUMF. From the Congressional Record, compare this:
... Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, a murderer, and a man who has started two wars. ... the U.S. must work with the United Nations to make certain within clearly defined timelines that the U.N. inspectors are allowed to do their jobs. ... If Iraq resists inspection and elimination of stockpiled weapons, we should stand ready to assist the U.N. in forcing compliance ...
And this:
... it is imperative that we provide President Bush with the strongest hand possible to seek compliance with all applicable U.N. Security Council resolutions ... Today represents our best opportunity for peaceful disarmament ...
Which candidate is which ... and how did they vote?
Endorse Hillary or go drive your T-Bird off a cliff into the Grand Canyon.
Bernie is very likeable. Clinton is not terribly likeable. But I don't need to like my President.
@49...ain't that the truth...Dear Leader wasn't very lovable.
#46, People have the right to vote for whomever they want, obviously. It's the people who state that if their democrat doesn't win the primary, they just won't vote that infuriate me, because that only contributes to the increased likelihood of a Trump or Cruz. You may be choosing not to vote on principal because you hate Clinton so much, but the reality of a Trump or Cruz presidency will have far more tragic consequences for the poor, for women, and for immigrants than either of the Dems. As progressives, these are the groups you claim to be working to better the lives of, right? Or do you only care about the white working class? You should be voting with their lives in mind. So if that isn't Bernie, unfortunately for you, Clinton's the best viable candidate.

My Sarandon point is that people like her who chose to throw their vote away on an unelectable third party candidate did so knowing that they COULD have thrown the election to Bush by taking a vote from Gore. I know that there was no evidence that this was the reason he won. It does not change the fact that she knew a vote for Bush was one less vote for Gore. And that didn't matter to her because she had nothing real to lose, either way. That was my point.
Oops, I meant a vote for Nader, not Bush, obviously.
@51 First, Sarandon didn't say that she wouldn't vote for Clinton. She said that she didn't know, yet. When asked, she said there were indeed a number of Sanders' supporters who likely couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton. There is still a close race going on and Clinton has to earn progressive votes. If Sanders doesn't win, it may be attainable to force Clinton into a compromise with progressives. Progressives declaring "support" for Clinton now are politically stupid, i.e. suicidal

You are also taking leaps of faith in your reasoning. One vote less for Gore is not the same as being responsible for Bush, Iraq or any other calamity that Bush laid on us. In fact, the dynamics of elections cannot be explained by simple arithmetic. Gore had to account for Nader while campaigning which, in the end, may have made his campaign more palatable to working people and brought him more votes. There is also a lot more to political power struggles than just who won the presidency. Having a principled opposition that bears on the national discourse can be a lot more valuable than a fake democrat that would continue the steady drift rightward and implement neoliberal "reforms" that Republicans can only dream of.etc Obviously, it didn't work in 2000 but I don't have a crystal ball and as a matter of fact, nobody does.
#53, I actually agree with most of what you just wrote and hadn't thought of these threats as political strategy. That is really interesting and could work. And damn, you used the right spelling of principle, too.

The only concern I have is that if Clinton is the nominee, progressives will follow through on their threats and actually not vote. While one less voter for Clinton would not be responsible for a Trump or Cruz presidency, a significant number of non-voters could be.
Although I can't say this to my Bernie supporter friends without making their heads explode, I think that your messiah is a false prophet, that your adulation is sophomoric and embarrassing, and that your holier than thou smugness is annoying and, like your savior himself, more about you than any deep, reasoned or analytical politically beliefs.

Did any of you see Sander's speech after winning the various caucuses this weekend? It was basically the exact same bug-eyed, flailing, bible thumper he always gives, with one telling exception. And that was when his wife stepped up next to him at the podium, looked at him adoringly, and instead of embracing her, like just about any other politician with any sense would do, he turned to her and rudely snapped "Don't stand next to me" and then physically pushed her out of the way.

This is not the stuff of Gandhi. It's the stuff of a self-righteous old egomaniac who has gotten so full of himself that he won't even share the spotlight with his own damn wife. But a bird? That's different. It's a sign from above. And that's why the adults in the room can't wait until he and his disciples just STFU and let us get on with the important task at hand, with or without you and Susan Sarandon. The end is near, my friends. As Randy Newman said in one of his songs "He's dead and he don't know it." RIP.
#55, I think comparing republicans not voting for Trump over democrats not voting for Clinton is a HUGE false equivalency. Honestly, I can't believe the shit I've had to explain to progressives.

If enough republicans were to refuse to vote for Trump that he lost the election to the democratic nominee, no one's livelihoods would be at stake. If enough people decide not to vote for Clinton that the vote goes to Trump or ANY of the republican nominees, then real human beings (not concepts) would be in serious danger. If you don't believe me, read it from a black woman. She was talking electability only because it was early in the race when Bernie wasn't doing as well, but her argument remains the same, in that choosing not to vote on principle is the ultimate form of privilege:…
#58, It's actually not a difficult argument to grasp, and I honestly don't understand the pushback. You vote for Sanders in the primary. If Sanders loses, you have to choose between Clinton, Trump, Cruz, refusing to vote, or voting 3rd party. Voting 3rd party or not voting means you threw away your vote for this election and have agreed to let the chips fall where they may. It's a very privileged person (I'm guessing white and male) who feels they can afford to take that risk. Women, especially liberals, are rightfully terrified of a Trump or Cruz presidency.

Or you can vote for Clinton, who we know for certain will at least be strong on women's health/abortion, keep and expand on Obama Care, and not try to strip away LGBTQ rights or ostracize/punish American muslims or immigrants.

Or you can vote for one of the other two who plan to terrorize the country by building walls, monitoring mosques, punishing women who have abortions, repealing Obama Care, deporting immigrants, jailing the families of terrorists, re-instating torture,and any other crazy racist, sexist bullshit they can come up with.
Wow, trying to explain privilege and reality to Sanders supporters is like banging your head against the wall.
#62, RE: Honduras - The Clinton ties to the Honduras coup were a lie:…

Re: Libya - Libyans & other muslims actually criticized the U.S. for not doing more and acting sooner:…

Liberal political scientists who are known for their many books about income inequality who support big government endorse Clinton's economic policies as being better for job growth, prosperity, and closing the gap than Sanders':…

You do realize that republicans have been feeding lies to the media about the Clintons to the press since the 90's, don't you? The latest being about the 147 FBI agents investigating her?…
@63 Clinton's state department recognized the Honduran elections that followed the military coup and that were essentially conducted under martial law with troops in the streets, pro-Zelaya (deposited president) media shuttered, protesters harassed and beaten, and the opposition boycotting the contest. Whether Clinton herself promoted the coup, I don't know, but that she enabled the follow up to the coup is just part of the record so please stop defending the indefensible.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.