“Medicare-for-all will never happen if we continue to elect corporate Democratic whores who are beholden to big pharma and the private insurance industry instead of us,” Paul Song, a health care activist, told the crowd of around 27,000 people.
Strange that he threw the “Democratic” modifier in, given that the GOP is entirely composed of corporate whores. I get the acute sense of betrayal felt by some on my side of the divide about the Democratic party’s inability to address the issue of affordable health care coverage, but their resulting invective often seems to let the GOP off the hook. Which we should never, ever do. Something like,
“We know the entire GOP are devoted corporate whores, but even some Democrats are. Let’s make sure when we elect Democrats, we elect people who are for the people, not for the corporations and the wealthy alone.”
Oh come on, the party IS led by corporate whores, and while of course maybe some guy I’ve never heard of shouldn’t say it, and of course he should apologize for saying it, he need not apologize for thinking it. His error was one of social graces and politeness… not of fact or metaphor. And just because almost everyone does it, that doesn’t mean it’s not prostitution - selling that which should be sacred to the highest bidder. Yes, that would be whoredom, and that would be the financing model of modern American politics, Democratic politicians included. You got a problem with that? Well I’ve got a problem with the political system that runs that way.
The other problem with the apology is he claimed he was not referring to Cliinton when he spoke about her in the very same part of the speech (want to say paragraph but that’s hard with speech) where he made the corporate whore remark. Of course he was referring to her. And that’s what the audience understood. It was an applause line. So I wouldn’t really call it an “actual” apology. It was more a “I am sorry you misunderstood me”.
So you say you want a revolution…?? How about determining and targeting your enemy. Who is it? Republicans, Democrats, blacks, Mexicans, muslims, the last Survivor winner or space aliens? Noooooo! You hear it everyday…it’s money in politics. So let’s get money out of politics. Now that will be a challenging revolution because the people you need to target don’t intend to let their control go. As long as they keep all citizens at each others throats, the longer they will remain safe and unchallenged.
This country needs constitutional amendments to establish that money is not speech, companies are not people, all elections are to be publicly funded and election day is a national holiday. The only candidate I have heard say anything about that is Hillary. As far as obligation for contributions …haven’t any of you heard of scruples and personal ethics?
As far as those "evil contributions are concerned, that is the system we have and without a lot of money a politician is doomed. So change the system and stop with the “political yo’ mama” crap.
Bernie Sanders and his minions would be the perfect entity to go after them. He has the money to do it and that would be a great legacy for him. If he were to get the nomination, the Repubs would absolutely destroy him and the Democratic Party hopes as a Communist and possibly the “Manchurian Candidate”.
People with money are not necessarily our enemy BUT the people with money that use it as a weapon against us are. Those people are cold and heartless and we citizens need to take our country back from THEM. Our enemies also include the lackeys, including elected officials, of those who use money as a weapon against us. They will not go down easy so we all need to start playing this “politics game” very seriously because the future of our families depends on it.
[quote=“sniffit, post:173, topic:36313, full:true”] At the same time, there are cracks in that, which Bernie failed to really exploit or do a good job on…such as the crime legislation Bubba signed and which Hillary stumped for…there’s resentment there and Bernie’s so Wall-Street-minded he failed to recognize the opportunity and exploit it.
[/quote]
There’s also the little problem that Bernie actually voted in support of that bill and campaigned for the Senate in 2006 boasting that he was tough on crime because he voted for the 1994 crime bill.
This is what happens, Ron, when people sit out the elections in which Congressional, State, and local politicians are elected. Some of that is that a lot of people are too damn lazy to bother, some of that is ideological purists sit out elections in their Scarlett O’Hara hissy fits, and some of that is done through voter suppression.
On thing you can say about Republicans, when they get mad they go to the polls. The NRA and ALEC and the GOP rely on that. But when liberals and the left get mad, they quit voting altogether. And sit around on comment threads complaining about the actions of people they didn’t vote for.
i’m ready. let’s start now. with this election. not just the white house and senate, but getting a bunch of seats back in the house. gerrymandering needs to be fixed asap.
I know I know. I thought twice about putting him on the list. But on the other hand, he was a registered Dem. And he got his ideas out there, which nobody much liked, and provided a great contrast to better candidates. So I left him in, fully aware of his many shortcomings as a Democrat.
Has Bernie or anyone ever said what this Revolution is about? Cause I have no idea.
Disingenuity is unbecoming a thoughtful progressive.
I have no idea how they think they will purge the Corporate Whores from America.
A legitimate question if you’ve not really been paying attention, and it is hard to hear messages you’ve decided to tune out. He’s never said, “Elect me and you can sit back and relax. I’ve got it taken care of.” He has said, repeatedly, that he’s trying to start a revolution but that it’s not enough just to vote for him; that we have to work at the local and state levels to elect councilpersons, mayors, representatives, and senators that agree with progressive positions. That’s how you make a revolution.
As much as I hate the GOP, I have to admit that they’ve created a revolution to the right over the last four decades. I watched it happen, helplessly, because there were too few progressive politicians (well, after Wellstone died, anyway) standing up and saying we need our own revolution and we don’t need stinking Koch money to do it. Obama said it. Bernie’s saying that. To some extent Hillary’s saying it too, but it’s muted, because of her particular political strategy. But, without a doubt, electing Hillary would be revolutionary in its own way: she would be the first woman to be POTUS. Bernie would be our first Jewish POTUS. Historically, we can’t lose with either one. But the most important task is to keep those troglodytes from the GOP out of the White House. Agreed?
Her presentation in St. Paul was loaded up with slightly oblique remarks that translate to: Bernie is a dreamer, but he can’t deliver. I’m a pragmatist who can. Bernie is a radical, but America is not open to radical change. I’m a pragmatic liberal who will find ways to make practical, achievable progress toward the goals that all liberals share.
This message takes various forms, and it’s impressive how many ways there are to phrase that message without mentioning Sanders by name. For example, here are two from her St. Paul remarks:
“I’m a progressive who actually likes to make progress.
These statements and others like them are part of her standard speech nowadays. I don’t suppose you need my help in decoding them, but they amount to: Bernie is promising things he can’t deliver. Bernie will swing for the fences, but he will strike out. I will hit singles that keep the progressive rally (that Barack Obama started) going.
I don’t have time to hunt down her words but I think this quote pretty much sums up Hillary’s pitch to her supporters. She thinks achievable and promises little.
His name often pops up in my Newsstand feed, and his article titles are already so nasty and ridiculous it takes .0000002 second for me to decide to scroll.
It’s funny because every time I try to make some Bernie supporters understand you can’t get anything done without getting more democrats elected, all I get back is who needs those establishment sell outs anyway. I don’t think they understand how congress works. In their minds all they have to do is get Bernie elected and then magically everything changes.
You just now discovering Goodman? He’s the internet’s foremost fictionist when it comes to Bernie and Clinton. Goodman insists that even if Hillary gets more delegates, Bernie will get the nomination.
I can’t wait to see Goodman’s head explode when it doesn’t happen
You have just provided a textbook example of a large part of what is driving Sanders supporters away from the Clinton campaign.
You’re making it clear as day that our concerns mean absolutely nothing to you, that if we support Clinton the ONLY thing we’ll get out of it is knowing that fewer (but not a lot fewer) marginalized people will die. We won’t get any of the things we’re working for to make everyone’s lives better (despite the fact that they would benefit you too), and you’ll continue to do everything you can to block our work, because Party means more to you than your nation, or even just common human decency.
When I attended my state Democratic caucus–and, BTW, I’ve been a Democrat for over 30 years–I was a little surprised that one person’s argument for why Sanders supporters should support Clinton instead was that, under a Clinton administration, we might get a little of what we’re working for.
But you, and a whole lot of people like you (including Clinton herself) have made it very very plain that getting a little of what we’re working for, for EVERYONE, is the absolute best we can hope for, and that anything we DO get will come with a heartfelt “screw you!” attached to it.
Congratulations on a job well done, and on making sure everyone knows that no, that smell isn’t something you stepped in.
Possibly, however, I believe there is some truth to Song’s bombast. I’m thinking that Clinton has the brass balls large enough to tell people to get bent and follow through. On the other hand, I think the majority of Senators, such as Chuckie Schumer, are carrying around raisins and would more likely cater to the wishes of corporations just for the money they would throw their way.
