It was a direct attack on her ethics. How is that not a character attack? He directly says he has a problem with the CGI taking money from Saudi Arabia. Unless you think he has a problem with taking Saudi money to help alleviate poverty and disease in Africa (or whatever other charitable things the CGI does), then it's safe to assume he's saying that taking that money is unethical because it influences Hillary. That's the standard GOP character assassination, given that there's no accusation that it actually ever did influence her in any specific way. It's just an attack designed to bring her down, not pull him up. Again, perfectly legitimate line of attack in a campaign, and I'm sure the GOP will use it against her. But it doesn't show ANY interest in having a Democrat win the White House, and it's a much harder line to backtrack from than issue-based attacks. I think anyone paying attention can see the change in tone of the campaign from "no one wants to hear about her emails" to what it is now. He's in burn-it-down mode at this point. The CGI was just an example from yesterday, but his campaign has been increasingly about things unrelated to his primary issues for the last several weeks. Not sure if he actually thinks he can win or he's just angry at the party or what it is, but even advisors in his own campaign are getting concerned with his tone and the deligitimizing of the process - his latest line is that the millions of primary votes and the entire process over the last 6 months shouldn't matter at all, and that he deserves the nomination because he polls better against Trump.
I think the issue of people taking money from less-than-desirable sources is legitimate. Worth bringing up, debating, and examining. If it intersects with character, at least in your eyes, so be it. I'd buy into your argument more if he said "she's evil! nobody with morals would take money from them!" That's character assassination. He said he has a problem with it. Yeah well, so do many people. You can spin pretty much any attack as a "character" attack if you try hard enough. Hillary is for TPP? She HATES American workers! Bernie isn't for stricter gun laws? He SH1TS on children's graves! And so on. It just strikes me as petty whining. Sack up and defend/justify your record.
Bernie isn't a Democrat... why would he have interest in one winning the White House? Same with Trump... he is in no way a Republican. I think it is the primary reason for the success of both. People hate the GOP and the DNC with good reason.
His own FEC filings. You can see relevant screenshots here: http://www.politicade.com/confirmed...d-campaign-funds-for-overnight-trip-to-italy/ The way I see it, he's collecting people's money and spending it for self-aggrandizement. Every argument he's making these days is all about painting a picture of a world where everything is corrupt unless he wins. But yeah, it really doesn't matter anymore. He just need to fade away into history.
People talk about how divided the Republican party is, the Democratic party might actually be more divided.
A truly bizarre statement. Not that Senator Sanders is a Democrat, I agree that he isn't, and never has been, to my knowledge, not being old enough to have supported FDR (but old enough to have supported Jack Kennedy, if not to vote for him, and old enough to have voted for McGovern - hell, I did - so did he?), but to say, "why would he have interest in one winning the White House?" is what I find truly bizarre. He is running for the Democratic nomination. He is campaigning for the votes of Democrats in the Democratic primaries. He isn't running in the Republican primaries for the Republican nomination. That's perfectly obvious, and it is perfectly obvious why he isn't - the Democratic Party, now and historically, most conforms to his own political beliefs. He isn't going to win the nomination. Hillary Clinton is, so why on earth wouldn't he support the nominee of the Democratic Party? If he had won the nomination, he would have expected the full party apparatus, and it is very substantial, to back him to the hilt. Yet besides attacking Ms. Clinton's character, he has attacked the character of the Chairperson of the party and raised $250,000 for her primary opponent. He claims to want to "reform" the party. At this point in the primary season, Mr. Sanders actions and his statements are beginning to look and sound like he's becoming detached from reality, with all due respect to Senator Sanders. At the same point in Ms. Clinton's campaign in 2008, she had come closer to defeating President Obama than Senator Sanders has come to defeating Secretary Clinton, yet she was beginning the process of toning down her campaign's rhetoric towards then Senator Obama, and would shortly concede and then strongly support his campaign in the general election. It would be nice to see some evidence of that happening from the Sanders campaign. Democrats fighting as much between themselves as they are fighting the Republicans is nothing new. Heck, glynch would agree with that. We're used to fighting among ourselves. If we didn't, we'd feel like something is out of wack. Senator Sanders may be breaking new ground, however. I'm hoping that in a couple of days, he'll concede and end the Don Quixote effort his campaign has been reduced to, and instead begin to work to bring his ideas, and he has many good ones, into the party and work for the reform he says matters to him, and matters to many of the rest of us, Clinton supporters included.
Very true, but being divided, at this stage of the election cycle (although right about now is when they typically start coming together, although not always - see 1968), when a sitting president is not running for reelection, is pretty much business as usual, the difference being that one half of the divide is led by someone who isn't actually a Democrat (not that there's anything wrong with that, more or less), but the Republican Party in utter disarray and beset by chaos? That's highly unusual. Though smaller that the Democratic Party, their success has always, in my opinion, been due in large part to their unity. That unity no longer exists, and one has to wonder when it will return. It could be a long time. A long time.
Unity will return when the social media hugbox driven manchildren grow up and pick up a few responsibilities here and there. So, just in time for Hillary's reelection, probably.
So now what does Sanders do - turn around and support Clinton to the dismay of his hardcore supporters?
It's a dance. Bernie and Hillary, assuming Bernie means it when he says he'll support the Democratic nominee, will get out on the floor, hopping around to an old Stones tune, and before the convention is over, they'll be waltzing around watched by everyone else, grinning at each other. In this case, we're talking about a victory dance. There's a big "if" there, but I'm cautiously optimistic. His supporters will initially be dismayed that their guy lost, but the vast majority will support the ticket. They have no real choice, unless they don't care if Mr. Trump is elected. In my opinion, of course.
People underestimate the attention span of themselves. In 2 months no one will likely even remember who Bernie Sanders is. And that's kind of the problem with these hyped movements. Lots of rah rah and not much substance. Compare this to the Tea Party movement. Much less flair yet so much more results. In November I bet the talk will once again be that young people don't ever vote.
The platform fight at the convention is still important. Ms. Clinton will shift right after clinching. Progressives will want to be in every committee discussion they can get in to. Bernie will go back to being a bully pulpit independent after the election. He will speak out for Progressives against Ms. Clinton's inevitable deals with war hawks and regressives. He can take opposing positions Ms. Warren cannot as a party member. Progressivism has it's best toehold in 50 years and it is popular with youth. True they won't bother to vote in an election with Politics As Usual vs. Batshait Insane Fascism of Personality but they will age into power. It's a long up hill slog against the folks that can buy all media, but the recognition corporate control and the skepticism of it are building. It's just the continual politics of power...carry on.
Going along with what some people have said, I believe Bernie is still staying in for a few reasons. 1. He believes even the people at the end of the primaries should have their votes mean something. 2. If he concedes now, Hillary will have no pressure to keep trumpeting some of the issues Bernie brought into this election 3. The more momentum and possible state wins that he has come the election, the more effective he will be at convincing party leadership that his views on policy have a valid place in the platform and will be good to keep focus on in the more long term future as well. 4. He wants to change the primary process, and has to try and make a case in order to do that. I can get behind those ideas, but number 4 is his weakest point, at least the way he's going about it. As far as pledged delegates goes, Hillary has the majority of those too.
Deckard, proudly carrying the flag for the Democratic Party right or wrong. What is so bad about raising money for a Dem challengers Sanders' believes is better than DWS on issues like frequent regime change wars in the Middle East, campaign finance reform, payday loans (I know last week she backed off on them a bit) etc.
After tonight's primary Hillary will now have a certain majority of pledged delegates. No matter what the super delegates do... even if they all changed to vote for Bernie, Hillary would still have a majority of the pledged delegates. It is impossible for Bernie to now get the majority of pledged delegates. I think Bernie's best shot now is to negotiate the way he comes out in favor of Hillary. He should try and make it something that supports his anti-coronate power agenda, and puts Hillary on the record for supporting some of his pet issues. That's what I see as Bernie's best card in his hand.
