Emails From Reasonable Bernie Supporters Pour Into My Inbox


This city is afraid of me. I have seen it's true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"...

...and I'll look down, and whisper "no."

Anyways, the impediment to progressive legislation is not insufficient leftiness on the left. It is excessive rightiness on the right. And any political analysis that is not founded in this truth isn't worth a hill of beans.
Bernie Babies. They're quite collectible!
Whore. Yup tell me again how Bernie supporters are respectful.
What I'm worried about is your support of the next war. Please don't support Hillary's next offensive, planned for early 2018, like you did with Iraq.
@4: where's this war going to be? you already know when, you've got to know where.

The lesson here is that unless they get 100% of what they want they won't help. Since no one gets 100% there no point in taking their wishes into account what so ever. Also, let's face it, this demographic is terrible at showing up to vote.
@5 I'm guessing Iran. Maybe Syria? How about Russia?

Hillary never shies away from a conflict.
and Gore lost that election because people didnt like him at all (people dont like trump or hillary). Nader only won 3% of the vote - bernie will get much higher.
Hillary should be in a prison/trump in a grave
Proof that no changes are coming in our lifetimes.
@1, It's being outnumbered and outgunned by a democratic majority and it leads into what @6 says which is I want a replacement for DWS as head of the DNC since the dems have losing seats hand over fist the last few election cycles under her (lack of) leadership. A new DNC head that will implement some sort of 50 state strategy to find and elect populist democrats to congress, e.g. Howard Dean, and get a majority back so that a democratic president can actually govern instead of making excuses that he/she can't do anything because of the republican majority. Or maybe, just maybe, a neoliberal democrat like HRC wants the present status quo because it gets her off the hook for implementing progressive policies and resisting bad ones like signing off on TPP.
How about we tally up the rate at which words like "whore," "bitch," and "cunt" are used in Bernout screeds, and then sit down and have a little talk about whether misogyny is really just a card being played by the Hillary camp?
@8: Was "trollymctrollface" already taken as a user name when you signed up?
@8 Props for the sig. Otherwise, no.

@7 Well, first let's hope she can handle this conflict with The Donald and his fascist supporters. Seriously, you're looking to THAT madman to be some dove of peace??

@2 Brilliant! I LOL'ed. So, will they grow up, or end up on a dusty shelf in the back of a closet?

@1 Sage words. On top of that, the reactionaries are more viscerally driven by their lizard-brain emotions: fear, greed, hate. Which makes them rather impervious to reason and higher aspirations.
Calling one woman (Hillary) a "whore," "bitch," or "cunt" is not misogyny. Calling ALL women by those names (hating women in general, not one is specific) would be misogyny. But its not misogynistic to hate Hillary for being who she is.

Not only are they ideological purists (a position that is anathema in the arena of politics where compromise is the name of the game), but they suffer from the political neophyte's delusion that they wield far more power than is actually the case. Mr. Singiser, like most of his ilk, has absolutely no understanding of how political parties operate, presumably because they've never engaged with one, nor participated in the day-to-day workings of one, since this election cycle, and assume their moral indignation and vociferous sense of righteousness is sufficient to sweep away decades, nay, centuries, of political practice. They say they WANT a revolution, but they're nowhere near willing to do the messy, bloody work required to actually foment one, because they have no idea what REAL revolution entails.
Apocalyptic leftie morons. Like homeopaths, they WANT to make everything worse, so they can:
a) preen in the moral superiority.
b) gloat over the fantasy 'revolution' that will never come.

And they just keep hitting the repeat button with all the tinfoil hat tropes they've rotted their brains with all this year.

Hillary Clinton eats meat for gosh-sakes! And wears leather shoes! Owe Knows!

Don't they know, that if Bernie had to function as the Chief Executive, in REAL LIFE, they would be howling for his blood in the first week?
*eyeroll* I can't decide what makes me less excited about this election cycle. The fact that a handful of loud turds send letters like this, or the way a handful of Clinton supporters relish rubbing our noses in it.

Actually, yes, it is...
@14 Is calling one African-American a n**ger, not racism? Is calling one gay man a f**got not hate speech?
#14 Hate Hilliary all you want. But using the word "whore" derisively IS misogynistic.
If this is THE Scott behind this email I'm not surprised by his warped POV:…
Corporate Whore Gore. That's a campaign slogan if I every heard one.
I'm trying to figure out how this is supposed to work in a long game. Say, Bernie runs a 3rd party ticket that spoils the race (a la 2000.) What happens next? People suffer from Trump's policies: minorities are persecuted, we get into new wars, the economy goes south, etc. Guess who gets blamed (besides Republicans.) Bernie does. Even if he doesn't, Trump gets to load up the Supreme Court, so if somehow, the left succeeds Trump, they're hamstrung every inch of the way by a recalcitrant judiciary. It just doesn't freakin' work.

You want the Democratic Party to take your voice seriously? You work with them to accomplish mutual goals. There is not another way in the American two-party system.
@1: The parallels to the Tea Party keep flying. Their whole thesis was that the GOP lost elections because it wasn't conservative enough, and if only they went full-on batshit fringe, they'd inspire Real Conservative Americans to turn out and elect them. Naturally, all they accomplished was to drive away the moderates and undecideds and to hamstring their party.
Now the Bernie fanatics are telling us that we'll usher in a glorious progressive revolution if only we nominate the furthest-left candidates we can and demonize the moderate Democrats and Blue Dogs. No thank you, I believe I've seen this movie before.

@7: Are you aware that Clinton was one of the strongest proponents of the nuclear deal with Iran? Why would she push for such a daring diplomatic solution to an issue she wanted to go to war over? Your wild assertions are entirely detached from the evidence.

@14: When you call a woman a "cunt", "whore", or "bitch" BECAUSE she's a woman, it's misogyny. If you're tempted to use words like that to describe a woman, take a moment and think "would I say the same thing to her if she were a dude?"
You, of course, are a cunt. I don't care if you're man, woman, neuter, or special-snowflake-tumblr-sexual; you're a cunt.

@15: To have a revolution, you simply must have big protests in the streets until things get better. If they don't get better, it's because of the oligarchs and the military-industrial complex. Basically, it's Snowball's fault if things don't go the way you want them too.
Wow, Dan Savage is really consumed with hatred for progressives these days. That's all he seems to talk about anymore: the evil of Bernie Sanders; the evil of anyone who likes Bernie Sanders; the evil of anyone who has qualms about voting for someone who actually cheered on the mass-murder of Palestinain children... I guess that's what happens when you let the DNC do your "thinking" for you. Don't worry, Dan: no matter who wins in November, it won't be a progressive. You have nothing to worrry about.
@24 since 2008, the Republicans also won majorities in the house and the senate. It's not like they weren't successful at what they did.

I'm proud to be a founding member of the Left's version of the Tea Party.
@25 That's because Dan Savage, like most gay men and other minorities, understand all too well how a lot of white, straight progressives are more than willing to toss minority concerns under the bus in order to get what they want.
Wait.... Hillary's not a dude???
@24 She could also flip flop and say the nuclear deal was bad and go to war. It's not like she hasnt flip flop flipped on deals she helped broker before (TPP/TPIP, anyone?).
@27 See also: Super Predators
I hope Dan continues to calmly and factually support the one and only person in the race who can (a) win and (b) pass progressive policies.

The LGBTQ issues, let's please just consider the candidates' positions. If you care about LGBTQ issues, at all, you have to support Hillary. Conversely, it's hard to believe anyone supporting Trump, or saying there is no difference between Trump and Hillary cares about LGBTQ issues.

Hillary: "I am a 100 percent supporter and I am absolutely adamant about protecting marriage equality. And I think it’s significant that the Human Rights Campaign, the leading organization in our country to ensure that the LGBT community has the rights they deserve, have endorsed me. "

Trump: supports for the so-called First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) which would expose LGBT people to more discrimination and has been a consistent opponent of marriage equality and civil unions. He has committed to appointing judges to overturn the Supreme Court’s landmark decision that struck down state bans on same-sex marriage nationwide.

If there's one thing I know will help me to decide whether to vote for Hillary Clinton in November, it is people explaining to me that I only dislike her because of my deep-seated sexism. Nothing energizes me more to vote for Hillary Clinton than being associated with the lunatic fringe of Bernie Sanders' base. I am totes fired up to vote for Hillary Clinton because if I am not, then I am to blame for a Trump presidency.
Man, these pea-brained fools best not be sullying the dignified contents of the Savage Love inbox.
Just a hint, Bernie's supporters; you'd be taken more seriously if you stop throwing around insults that make you sound like misogynistic creeps/Orange Dumpster's men.
@7, 26, 29, 30: thanks, Misanthrope, for the trip back in time, to March 2016. what a crazy time that was!

the thing about the Tea Party is: they are simply wrong about everything they believe. we're not 'Taxed Enough Already', to start with. but, if you want to work to get Berner Lefties elected in the Midterms, godspeed.

and NO ONE IS GOING TO WAR WITH IRAN. not even Israel.
I wish Scott Singiser and people like him would be FUCKING SPECIFIC. Because when they complain about Clinton's corporate ties (I won't use the term he did), most of the time their accusations are flat-out wrong.

Hiring someone who is the #1 expert in the area to win the Iowa caucuses who also works as a lobbyists and has dozens of clients, one of whom is a very EVIL CORPORATION, is not the same as personally being in supportive of that evil corporation's agenda.

Don't just point to campaign contribution from a particular industry. Show me that the campaign contributions actually came from the corporation, not thousands of low-level employees who work for the corporation. Because those individuals may be contributing based on nothing to do with their employer. The contributions I have made to politicians are based on my personal beliefs, but by federal law record my employer's name and industry, and those contributions will get aggregated and summed up. If I happened to work as a file clerk for an oil company (I don't), my donations will be included as Oil Industry donations as well. Which is why Bernie also got nearly as much from the "Oil Industry" as Clinton, yet neither actually got a corporate contribution from an oil company.

So better yet, show me how those contributions translated into awful votes or policy positions. And if your summation of why her policy position is bad can be printed on a bumper sticker when her actual nuanced position is detailed and is ten pages long, then your explanation is probably too naive and simplistic.

I hate all this vagueness. Be specific so we can actually discuss whether it's based in reality or not. Or whether Clinton is being held to a standard that neither Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, nor any other male nominee for the Democratic Party have ever been held to.

And FYI, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is already all but gone as head of the DNC. Brandon Davis is the new DNC Chief of Staff. Amy Dacey, the DNC CEO, will expand her role to take on more general election responsibilities. DWS has essentially been sidelined, mostly handling DNC fundraising. Pretty standard operation -- the exact same thing happened in 2008 when Obama got the nomination and Howard Dean was pushed aside, keeping the title of Chair of the DNC in name only. Dean has explained this process extensively in recent interviews. You can Google these people's names for more.

Clinton has already begin implementing the 50 state strategy. Here are two links if they work (if not, Google "Hillary Clinton 50 state strategy")……
It really is too bad the Democratic Party learned nothing form Gore's loss and Obama's win (the first one). A strong progressive with a bold platform motivates voters. Gore ran and Hillary is running towards the "middle" (which has moved ever-rightward since 1979.) Nader didn't cost the Democrats an election, Al Gore (and Bill Clinton) did.
Grow up Dan. Seriously.

You know what's worse than a sore loser? A sore winner. No one would care about a few impotent cranks if you weren't obsessively giving them attention. I've heard way more of your whining about Bernie Bros than I have actual Bernie Bro whining, and most of the latter is thanks to you anyway.

If Clinton is in danger of losing Washington state — if the Bernie or Bust crowd you're so concerned about is actually a threat (and bitching about them is just guaranteed to win them over)— then she's already lost the country. People in purple states should seriously consider the lesser evil, but anyone in a staunchly red or blue state can safely vote their conscience. And they should, because in the long run the lesser evil strategy is still a losing strategy.

In the meantime, leave the political posts to someone who actually understands this stuff. Oh, wait, this is The Stranger— do you actually have anyone who understand politics?
As for the Nader dead horse: at lot more Florida Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader. Gore lost because he ran a shitty campaign (and had an even shittier VP). Here's the funny thing about democracy that so many Democrats don't seem to understand: you have to earn people's votes. You're not entitled to them.
@34 I didn't say I agreed with the Tea Party. But their tactics, their spine, and their willingness to throw candidates under the bus for not supporting their positions? Yeah, I can get behind that.

How about going to war with Canada?
The letter is ridiculous. I hope Dan is posting it because it is actually an example of the vast majority of Bernie Baby letters he gets. I have no real way of knowing though.

To say that HRC == Trump is pure delusion.

"Scott Singiser
PS. You should be worried!!!"

Ooo. Scary. I'm scared. :>P
Yeah, worried that purist ideologues like Scott S. here will contribute to a Trump Presidency (god, my fingers hurt just typing that), and the bizarre havoc that will render unto the People. We'll have emboldened racists and misogynists ramping up their violence, just like the UK has seen in the wake of the #Brexit referendum.

Look Scott, I would vote for Bernie, were he the Dem nominee. But he's not. Is that "fair", I don't know & there's nothing i can do about it. I'm not even a 'Democrat' anyway, but I'm holding my nose & voting HRC because it's that or Hell. And America is racist & violent enough w/o electing an Actual Racist to the High Tower. At least HRC isn't racist or sexist. She's just a neocon & hawk.
Drumpf on the other hand is a sociopathetic[sic] capitalist, war hawk, AND a racist and misogynist. And a narcissist. Is that what you want? President Narcissist?

Yes the game is rigged, yes politics sucks, yes corporate influence is real, and yes the "two party system" is pile of donkey droppings.
But none of that will change between now & November.
What will change between November and January is the amount of violence the Enraged & Entitled Populists will dish out on innocent people if HRC isn't the president-elect.

"Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth." -- Mohandas K. Gandhi

@29 - HRC is not going to wage war on Iran. That's stupid. Expect more war in Africa or Yemen, or Syria. It's not like we're not already at war and have been for, oh, 25 years. We aren't super likely to start another war.

@24 - I have to take issue with using 'cunt' as derogatory. Just the USE of that word as a pejorative term is rooted in sexist and arguably misogynist culture. Cunts, in actual fact, are super amazing, can take a serious pounding, AND can birth a whole human.

I believe the demeaning word you are looking for is "ballsack".
I'm kinda hoping Trump wins so the BoB whingers will find out just how much worse things can get, especially after he makes a few SCOTUS appointments.
@41: A Trump presidency would make W's tenure look like a return to the Camelot era by comparison. And in a Trump America, any sort of news would become much harder to come by.
News flash, Dan: Politics brings out both idealism and douchebaggery. And the fringe is going to write you some emails.

The stereotypes are clearly alienating on both sides: shill vs bro.

I'm not happy with Hillary as a candidate. I wasn't in 2008 either. I didn't identify as Democrat before and think she is far from progressive enough on the environment among other things. I doubt I will vote for her, but I live in her bluest state. I'm a woman with a minor in gender studies and older than most your readers. I worked on the Sanders campaign and never met anyone resembling a "bro."

Also, research the Nader myth. 2000 was on Gore.
@43, The margin in Florida was only a few hundred votes, so it's impossible to hang Gore's loss on any single factor -- Nader, voter suppression, the fucking butterfly ballots that made a bunch of people in Miami accidentally vote for Pat fucking Buchanan -- but it's a weird trick to blame it all on the "terrible" candidate who lost with a half-million more votes than the guy who won.
@27 but what if Dan is well known to be a racist, misogynist?
Dan is right.
Other commenters supporting HRC also correct.
Crazy to think HRC = Trump
Vote HRC!
Nothing like a good old fashioned circular firing squad. It is what we progressives do best!
Who has been putting idiot pills into the water? Please, they not going to start on about their Independence Day, are they. Cause sorry, the twits in Great Britain have already used that one.
Yes, email writer, there is no difference between Hillary and trump. Tell that to the Latinos, the Blacks, Women and Muslims.
Another clueless moron.
Lazy as well. This mob don't really want to put the effort into real change.
Total Bernie supporter, gave money, only time in over 2 decades of adulthood to give money to a presidential candidate. And will be delighted to vote for Hilary. People who think she's a crook, or bad, or untrustworthy, puhlease. She's a neoliberal which is more evil than a democratic socialist, but wayyyy less evil than any Republican or 3rd party no-chance-in-hell candidate. And, frankly, I'm not sure Bernie would have been that effective, although I'm hoping that Bernie can push the Dems to getting behind a living wage, single payer, national legal marijuana, gun control, and free college tuition agenda. We need a progressive Contract for America that will give people a reason to vote Dem for House and Senate and will ensure follow through if we do get a Dem majority again. Democratic party lost a golden opportunity to make American great in 2008.
@26: "the Republicans also won majorities in the house and the senate. It's not like they weren't successful at what they did."
That's a piss-poor measure of success. What signature legislation have they enacted? What influence have they wielded to make new laws more favorable to their agenda? Nothing, that's what. They've impeded a good chunk of the President's agenda, but they've produced nothing. All they've done is make Congress historically unproductive and ruined the reputation of their party thanks to their hard turn to the right. YOU may see that as a success, but the goal of the game is not to win elections but rather to run a country.
Do you also advocate blatant gerrymandering as a means of hanging on to congressional majorities gained in an election year?

@29: So because she's changed course on an issue before, that means she secretly wants to have a war with Iran? By that standard, because President Obama went back on his decision to take the public funding option for his campaign, it means he's secretly pro-life. We can play this game all day, using your fuckwitted logic of "they changed their mind on something, therefore they're absolutely going to change their mind on this entirely unrelated issue".

@35: Word.

@40: Do you also have a problem with the use of "dick" as a pejorative? If not, you really need to reevaluate your existence.

@50: I feel you.
How old are you?
Never mind that
There has already been enormous change in your lifetime, except if you are 6 weeks old.
@51 You do realize @50 just advocated for a Tea Party signature move with the Contract for America, a non-binding piece of paper that they used to hold politicians feet to the fire for fear of abandonment. And you tell him "I feel you" while you go around insulting other people for actually holding our politicians feet to the fire. Are you being ironic, spineless, or just dumb?

And, no, I wasn't super serious about Iran, or Russia, or Canada. I mean, I kind of expect her to go guns blazing if any of the TPP countries back down once she's in office, and I think the only countries completely off limits are Saudi Arabia and the EU. Although, if she did go to war with any of those you'd totally back her, wouldn't you? Would you be willing to take responsibility for Hillary's next foreign quagmire like Libya or Iraq? And, be serious, you are totally thinking Iran is actually a possibility, however slight, otherwise you wouldn't think I was being deadly serious.

Besides, Hillary changes her mind on a lot of things. Dan calls it evolving. I call it pandering unless I see actionable items come off her desk. Because, lord knows, she's got nothing to lose by lying...just like every campaigning politician.
Change every "Hillary" to "Gore," every "Trump" to "Bush," and every "Bernie" to "Nader"....

o On May 29 1953, Sir Edmund Percival Gore and Nepalese Sherpa mountaineer Tenzing Norgay were the first climbers to reach the summit of Mount Everest.

o Weekend at Nader's is a 1989 American black comedy starring Andrew McCarthy and Jonathan Silverman as young insurance corporation employees who discover their boss, Nader, driving a 1963 Corvair.

o As they kissed, and Nicole started to writhe, Jordan bit his lip and slipped his hand inside her jeans for the first time, his fingertips touching her soft trump.

@40: Do you also have a problem with the use of "dick" as a pejorative? If not, you really need to reevaluate your existence.

Do you seriously think that's the same? The Texas air is getting into your system.
@53: Okay, you ignoramus, you're dead wrong on several counts. In fact, let me count these counts:
1. The "Contract with America" was not a Tea Party "signature move". It predated the Tea Party by about 20 years.
2. The "Contract with America" was not used for whip purposes. Rather, it was a formal declaration of legislative priorities for the GOP, stating specifically what they would work to enact should they gain a Congressional majority (as opposed to vaguer and more general language without many priorities listed in the party platform).
3. If you actually read what I wrote, I'm not going after people who advocate for liberal causes. I'm attacking people who want to enforce ideological lockstep and strict purity tests on the Democratic Party, forcing all members to adhere to a far-left party line and demonizing moderates. It sounds good to the left fringe, but it's no way to actually accomplish, well, anything.
4. You're embarrassingly naive if you think Clinton's response to being jilted on trade agreements is going to be military in nature. There's literally nothing in her record, her stated positions, or modern American foreign policy precedent to suggest such an approach.
5. I believe there is a zero probability of America under a Clinton administration starting a war with Iran. Do not mistake my willingness to take you at your word for any credence lent to your imbecilic notions; I have encountered far too many people on this Internet with earnestly and fervently held beliefs entirely divorced from reality.

Ah ah ah!
@55: Using a slang term for genitals as a pejorative is either inherently offensive to the sex pertaining to those genitals, or it isn't.
We can agree that "cunt" is more commonly used in a sexist fashion than is "dick", but it's hypocritical and inconsistent to say that pejorative use of one is inherently offensive but the pejorative use of the other is not.
And we all know how effective an insult "honky" is.
@56 Venomlash, I go along with most of what you say, but your point #3 is a bit silly. "Purity tests"? Really. Listen, the Democrats aren't liberal. They haven't been liberal since the early 90's when they re-took the white house by.... moving to the center. HRC (the latest version) is certainly center-right. She is only able to appear "liberal" because the R's have gone so bat-shit crazy, Mussolini would appear soft to them.

It's not about "purity," it's about wanting a real progressive/liberal agenda. And what Sanders' campaign has shown is that there are quite a lot of us. We've been ignored and dismissed as not even existing. Well, no, it's not true. And not only that, but we're far more politically motivated than any other segment in America. No other group could have financed a major presidential campaign without corporate or personal money.

I find Dan to be very blind to contemporary attitudes. He's still fighting something that's long over, much like some people still want to fight the Civil War. Nader had never been elected to any office, had no experience in getting legislation done, no experience working closely with politicians in DC, no ass-long resume on fighting (really fighting, not just lip service, Nader, darling) for progressive causes. And winning quite a lot of them. And Sanders has yet to declare a third party run. Any comparison between the two is simplistic and stupid, and listening Dan go on about it is like listening to your grand-uncle discuss "teh gays" at Thanksgiving.
@56 The contract @50 mentions is the "Contract For America"...which I believed was the Tea Party-originated "Contract From America" from 2010 and not the Republican Party-originated "Contract With America" from the 1990s. The Contract From America led to the September 2010 Pledge to America, followed by the landslide victory in the House. Though, admittedly, that pledge resulted in no final legislation over 4 years.

You're embarrassingly naive if you believe Hillary isn't going to land is in a foreign military quagmire; those are her specialty. Maybe not because of dropping out of TPP (that's called being flip), but look at the shit she pulled in Libya. Or, maybe you don't want to acknowledge her actual hawkishness (and like avoiding the idea that she voted for the Iraq War either because she supported it or because she was duped by the expert con artist George W. Bush.

Of course, I think you're being hilariously naively optimistic of Clinton's actual political stances, and have been for months. I would love to live in your world where politicians followed through on their campaign promises and Democrats handed out flowers to every voter in their birthday. But, of course, I live in a reality where Hillary landed us in Libya, fucked up Syria, and greased arms deals for the Saudis.
Ok first off thank you Dan for your post, I seriously mean that.

Second off all of us please do continue we need to bleed off all of this bile. So have at it.

Come November hold your nose, shut up and vote for Hillary. Then go hose off your boots and go back to bitch whining and moaning.
Anyone who seriously can't see any meaningful difference between Trump and Hillary has a serious case of dementia.
You could also replace every mention of Trump with Bernie and vice versa
@51: I'm not sure why you believe Sanders would do anything to advance gun control. His record doesn't suggest he's in favor if it. He even voted against the Brady Bill.
@59. Is Dan not hearing the Bernie message, or is it that the Bernie ego has become problematic?
I don't believe Dan or others on the left can't see the benefits of what Bernie has been saying. Yes, it's great his supporters got money together for him. It's just he hasn't got the flaming numbers to be the contender and by playing messy he's not using his power to steer people to keep trump
Do people really need to go the whole hog, as Brittain has just done, to understand consequences.
It is amazing how angry Clinton supporters like Dan get that Sanders actually put a small bump in the road to Hillary's inevitable coronation. God forbid she have to work for the nomination, maybe earn a vote or two.

I mean, she won, just be happy. You got your way. You don't have to go out of your way to make the other side seem insane because you got one angry email and are pretending it applies to thousands of other people.

It is that same crap TV networks do where they get one angry letter from an old person and assume it means 500,000 other people MUST feel the same way. It is transparent, complete bullshit.
@57: Forget it Jake, its Chinatown.
WTF. This is not some game.
That's it with you Americans. Your extreme capitalism has made you all so competitive.
I don't get why the excitment. If you guys had been studying politics at uni, these ideas of Bernie's would already have jumped out at you. Like Dur.
And I don't want to join this stupid game.
You either want to keep moving away from the corruption and inequality of your social and political system or you fucking don't.
No room here, a serious threat to America's democracy, flawed as it is, is on your god damn door step.
Do not let that maniac trump in.
@60: We can argue about which Republican Contract was being referred to, but let me tell you this: the Contract From America contained 10 proposals, and the Teabaggers were able to accomplish exactly 1 (getting rid of earmarks) over the course of six years. You are again confusing winning elections with actually being able to govern.
"You're embarrassingly naive if you believe Hillary isn't going to land is in a foreign military quagmire; those are her specialty."
Bernie is a socialist.
This two second culture you youngens, are used to.. Politics demands a lot more than that.
The silly tantrums, what is that about.
If you guys are serious about deep social change in your country, there are millions of us around the world who have applauded Bernie's straight socialist talking. Hey, look at that?
This cluey guy is going for the White house.
Grab these ideas, read and read more about them. see the mistakes others made, as they tried to follow them. Become what you guys are so talented at, when you cooperate, powerful and intelligent agents of change.
Y'all been trolled.
@70: Jesus tap dancing Christ, stop telling "us Americans" what to do. Shut the fuck up for five minutes, and stop lecturing.

You are not nearly as smart or wise as you think yourself to be, nor are you as interesting as you see yourself. No one could care less about your choice for the president of a nation you are not a part of, and your "insight" is just mealy-mouthed word salad with zero meaning and says absolutely nothing but how awesome you think you are. Your repetitive scolding is getting old as hell, and you know nothing about American politics.
@20) So if we call a female (not a male, mind you) "whore" in a non-derisive manner, then it's not sexist, right? "Sally, you are dumb fucking whore! Congrats!"

Oh thank goodness we have guardians of verbal semantics to parse out the legitimate bigotry. How could we ever be sure otherwise?
Of course Savage would rather talk about a couple of Bernie or bust people rather than the masses that won't turn out because they don't trust Clinton. Shame on you Savage.

In regards to the Bernie supporters.

In many cases this is their first time throwing this much energy behind a candidate and having him/her come up short. Honestly, I'd be more amazed if there weren't people freaking out.

In regards to Hillary/Trump/Bernie.

I agree that Hillary is pretty awful. Under her presidency I am pretty sure that all of the states that legalized cannabis will be shut down pretty quickly and that we will get a gigantic backlash of DEA enforcement.

I don't think we'll actually get involved in a full scale war(I think Hillary learned that lesson from watching what GWB went through) but I do think we'll be doing more meddling than we would under Bernie.

I don't think she will do anything really to reign in Wall Street or address our underemployment problem in any realistic way.

Now, what would happen if Trump won.

I don't think that he will end up causing WWIII. Even if he gets really super mad at country X, it takes a lot of people to launch nukes and the smart money is on the people that see the "launch the nukes and destroy civilization as we know it" button pushed basically saying, "Nope."

I do think that he will appoint Supreme Court Justices that make Scalia look like Cornel West.

Overall, though, I think that Trump is going to put super conservative types into all of his positions and run things like a corporation, meaning that the ones beneath him will do the digging, work, and interpretation and he will make the big level decisions when they are needed.

In other words, I think Trump will be almost exactly like W.

Regardless, if Hillary wins, I think that she will basically kick the can down the road until 2020 which will most likely be even more crazy as more and more people get more and more desperate. And if Trump wins, things will get actively worse and we might not make it till 2020 before things come to a head in some way.

As for me, I'll vote for Hillary and hope we don't have full blown riots by the time her term is up.
I too am old enough to remember 2000 and the minority president that 3-way race bequeathed to us. And that's a history I do not want to see repeated. And neither does Bernie. Vote Hillary in 2016.
@ 68 Lava Girl ~ you are right on!
What about those votes Clinton is losing by flopping back to supporting TPP (or doing nothing about it)? They votes don't matter or is it that Savage would much rather revel in his fantasy world peopled by Bernie Bros and Naderites.
@75 - "I don't think that he will end up causing WWIII. Even if he gets really super mad at country X, it takes a lot of people to launch nukes and the smart money is on the people that see the "launch the nukes and destroy civilization as we know it" button pushed basically saying, "Nope.""

Actually, there was an article recently about this that was very frightening. Basically said that with most of what Trump's saying, like with waterboarding and torturing suspected terrorists, there are built-in checks and balances and people who can legally step up and say "No." With nukes, nope. I think it was "The Atlantic." Let me see if I can Google it.

Found it (Politico Magazine). An excerpt:

"With a single phone call, the commander in chief has virtually unlimited power to rain down nuclear weapons on any adversarial regime and country at any time. You might imagine this awesome executive power would be hamstrung with checks and balances, but by law, custom and congressional deference there may be no responsibility where the president has more absolute control. There is no advice and consent by the Senate. There is no second-guessing by the Supreme Court. Even ordering the use of torture—which Trump infamously once said he would do, insisting the military “won’t refuse. They’re not gonna refuse me”—imposes more legal constraints on a president than ordering a nuclear attack."

(It goes into much more detail than I can excerpt here, but it's a fascinating and frightening read.)…
@ 72 - Considering the facts that the US as proclaimed itself the leader of the free world and that it bullies its "allies" into embarking on illegal and illegitimate wars, EVERYONE IN THE WORLD should be entitled to voice their opinion about who you choose for president.

And remember your very own first amendment before you try to shut people up again.
@35, the $60,000 question is will the DNC keep this 50 state strategy going for the down ticket races beyond the Clinton campaign, or will she dissolve it the way Obama kicked Dean to the sideline after he got elected so that, in my opinion, the left couldn't leverage policy and upset the President's donors.
@79 Agreed. I wasn't talking legally through checks and balances. I was saying that the people in the military would straight up tell him that he can't end civilization as we know it because Putin said something mean about him.

However, with that said, I would rather deal with someone who will keep her warfare conventional(and even then not take it too far). She will only do immense as opposed to catastrophic harm.

Still wish we could find someone who realizes that manufacturing jobs are never coming back and will do the work necessary to keep everyone "ok" until the "next big thing" comes along that will replace the jobs that have been lost due to technology improvement but that will happen when people stop being able to buy food.
This comment thread proves that while Democrats aren't the smartest kids on the playground, at least we're the most fun!

The important thing is that everyone can leave this thread with a smug sense of superiority. That's what makes the Internet great. Only 131 more days of this before we have to start prepping for 2020!
@81: Oh, the DLC led DNC will fuck that up.
#24: Actually you're wrong about the Iran deal. While it's true that Clinton publicly supported it, privately she didn't want to support the deal and tended to favor sanctions.…
@85: She was skeptical of it because she wasn't sure it was going to work. But she gave it a shot, threw her support behind it, and used her influence to give the negotiations the best chance of succeeding. And you know what? Using sanctions to pressure an adversarial nation is still diplomacy, not the gung-ho militarism that TheMisanthrope is dogmatically assigning to her.
Wow Theodore@72. Charming words.
If the moron brigade in your country could actually think for themselves..
" aw gee, this Hillary chick's a bit on the nose. And they won't let our Bernie in. I'll show em. I'll show em all. I'll sit on my hands on Election Day, sucking my thumb, and not vote for anyone,"
I wouldn't need to keep saying the same thing over and over, because the truth of their inaction and ego centred tantrum throwing, would be obvious to them.
Thanks Ricardo and midwestgirl.
That's how moronic they are, Theodore, they think they can sit on their hands and suck their thumb at the same time.
How do you know I know nothing about American politics. You think the rest of the world doesn't see you and the lunacy that goes on.
LavaGirl, you think Bernie is some Cult of Personality, when he's just the figurehead of something larger and angrier than just supporting Bernie.

Bernie wasn't the perfect candidate. Some thought he was spft on gun control. Others pointed out his hypocrisy on military spending when it came to that joke of a plane with a Vermont factory. But, by and large, his policies were much more in line with his rhetoric. And his rhetoric was much more in line with traditional lefty morality.

But, it's not about him. This is an ideological fight against the Democrats taking over the right wing of the government as the Republicans fall off the edge. The whole political left field is wide fucking open with few candidates even playing to that crowd. Instead, they fear bad press from Fox News and Limbaugh and are perfectly happy to sidle up to big moneyed interests. Hillary is, economically, to the Right of Trump's rhetoric. She sponsors bills supported by the fucking Chamber of Commerce. This is a Democrat who is supposed to align with workers not corporations.

Washington State Democrats have been doing this for decades with Microsoft and Boeing writing bills that get rubber stamped by Republicans and Democrats alike. Both of our Senators voted for the TPP fast track, like the good Boeing lapdogs they are.

The anger at Hillary has little to do with Bernie as a candidate but more to do with Bernie's platform as an ideal. He was shoving left, and people responded (not in the numbers needed, but in very large numbers).

It distresses me to see Democrats who claim to be liberal demonize the liberals who have standards for not lining up with the Queen of Free Trade (no, Senator Murray, you don't support those ideals either). Savage is angry because we're not lining up for HIS preferred candidate, despite her having MAJOR flaws. He sees this as a flaw of the left rather than a flaw of the candidate. Of course, this is a squish brain who supported the Iraq War, so what do we expect? Cogent political rhetoric?

Basically, if you don't understand that a Bernie isn't about Bernie, then you really don't understand what's happening here, Mrs Jones.
Ah, a Dylan quote.
What you don't seem to understand, TheMisanthorpe, is that while the moron brigade are sitting on their hands and sucking their thumbs, that they also would be living under a Trump Presidency, if he wins.
Yes. Hilliary is far from ideal. And whatever you guys have to do, legally and politically to keep moving the monoliths in the right direction, then do it. Keep confronting your party machine, make it a true workers' party.
I just don't see how letting Trump win the presidency, can help you achieve this. These changes are going to take time. Adult and intelligent effort.
Not what I'm seeing Mr M.
I'm not seeing wise political young people talking of their next move. Oh yes I have, they not going to vote for that stained and evil Hillary. Big plan, Eh?

I disagree with you, Mr M.
Bernie has a lot to do with it for a lot of young people.
Everybody wants a good father, Lo and behold, here he is. And Bernie is playing on that power he has.
Trying to recapture his baby boomer revolution. The one when Dylan wrote that song and so many more.
Yes I remember we knew we had right on our side, and believed that truth would prevail. Great music.
Politically what? Nothing. The young got absorbed into the system, and the status quo remains.
Bernie has the ear of these young people, he can help this movement mature and grow. He doesn't though. He's grand standing , just before his age takes him out stage left.
He's the one who is showing his true colours.
"And whatever you guys have to do, legally and politically to keep moving the monoliths in the right direction, then do it."

What is there to do? The only way to make people listen is to deny them their cookie. The political left is an abused spouse when it comes to the Democratic Party. Keep getting punched in the face by pro-corporate business decisions, and come election time we're told to stick with them because the other candidates are even worse, pointing to their best friend breaking somebody's arm,

The only choice is to leave the whole situation behind and support a third party. Not voting is not an option. But neither is voting for a shitty abusive candidate who doesn't have our best interests at heart. If we could get 5% voting for a specific third party, a feat that hasn't happened yet, then a domino effect could happen. Seattle is trying to make a movement out of the Socialist Alternative party (Sawant) and a progressive infiltration of the Democratic Party (Pramila really irked Savage in the original post). Politics is a slow process but we need support to form even faster than it is.
Bernie or Buster: Loogit me now mommy - you thought I'd never amount to anything. But I'm important! I'm important! I'm kinda stupid. Nope, not great at critical thinking or evaluating sources. Or articulating specific arguments. But loogit me now mommy, I'm importanter than ever!!!
@92: Yes, because only giving a constituency half a loaf at times instead of dropping everything and catering exclusively to their agenda (ignoring the concerns of all the other groups under the big tent) is exactly the same as spousal abuse.
You're an embarrassment.
@92. Mr. M. A third party set up now, when the election is in a few months, you can't be serious.
Yes, put the yards into setting up a third party if enough of you are willing to make the commitment. For the future.
This extreme judgement about Hillary seems to have something to do with her being a woman, I believe. It is irrational. Many Americans point to much good this woman has done. As well as the offensive things.
Do the work politically to change your houses of government. In four years time trump will be toast.
This is a golden opportunity for the Democrats, because the Republicans are falling apart. Yet it's wasted with this bickering. Bernie is not the nominee. Accept that and keep moving forward with political plans to change things.

@94 Half a loaf at times? Honey, please. You're really displaying your ignorance now.

@95 Yes, all my extreme judgements are because Hillary is a woman. It has nothing to do with fundamental disagreements with her horrific economic policies. That's why a lot of women voted against her in the primaries. They're all misogynists, right? Get a life. No, really. Accept that you are ignorant of American politics and that there are some people who won't for a monster just to have a First Female President.

The reason the Democrats are falling apart is the same reason the Republicans are falling apart. There's a fundamental anger at modern economics and how quickly things got so fucked up with help on both sides of the aisle. The anti-establishment narrative of Trump is what pulled him through his primary, and it's the same fundamental frustration with the pro-corporate establishment candidate that created the Bern or Busters.

The Democrats rallying around Hillary is a tacit acceptance of those corporate friendly, anti-Union, anti-worker, deregulatory, pro-interventionist, free-trade, privacy-invading policies that have dominated the Democratic Party since Bill Clinton.

A vote for Hillary isn't JUST a vote against Trump, it's a vote for those bad politics. Hillary is nowhere near my preferred policies (half a loaf) nor near the policies of a not insignificant portion of the Bern or Busters.

But, it's all because she's a woman. You have no idea what's happening, Mrs. Jones.
@96: Yes, half a loaf. I know it doesn't fit with the narrative that the Democrats are controlled by the big bankers, but the party's legislative agenda actually has represented compromise between its various constituencies.
Again, you're thinking like a Tea Partier. You can't distinguish compromise from betrayal, and you're not interested in any facts that might shed some light on the difference.
@97 Hillary is being sponsored by a women's group from the Chamber of Commerce. The head of the CoC informed us of Hillary's planned flip flopping on TPP back in January (he said that she was against it because Sanders and would be for it by November).

I'm like a Tea Partier in that I have a backbone. She's compromising before she even gets to the table. That's betrayal.
@98: So, because the head of the CoC says he thinks Clinton will get on board with the TPP, that's your evidence that Clinton is betraying the Democratic party and its constituents?

You mustn't believe everything Big Business tells you, taking it all at face value. You're more like a Teabagger than you know, I'd say. You both claim to espouse lofty values and principles, but when the rubber meets the road you'll happily accept without question whatever your corporate overlords tell you, so long as it gives you something to feel superior about.
@96. Mr M. I know American politics enough and I read trump tweeted an obvious anti Semetic post, at the same time as bashing Hillary. The list gets longer and longer.
I wouldn't suggest electing Hillary because she is a woman. I'm saying elect Hillary because she isn't trump.
I also am not suggesting all the crazed hateful energy against Hillary is because she is a woman. I believe some of the intensity is.
Get involved on a real level, that is the option that will advance these ideas, if you really serious about these ideas.