Are you basing that conclusion on an observation of the one who’s actually in fact making up her own exclusive rules, namely, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz?
Your observation cuts both ways. When Hillary’s peeps insulted Sanders supporters on this board and others, they lost me. Insulting others is a sign there’s really no compelling case to be made, other than “but she’s not on the Republican short bus.”
That said, I think booing Clinton is inappropriate. But so is calling Sanders a 79,000 year old muppet character.
Evidently as the race heats up, those prone to act out on both sides will be more and more belligerent. I think it’s probably wise to not attribute their behavior to the respective candidates.
I keep seeing people who believe “Hillary will have an easier time in the general election”
On what basis? The Boomers are no longer the most eligible voters. Any Millennial who is engaged in politics can see a history of Hillary’s past, and I don’t think they’re going to see a ‘strong woman’. They’re going to see a woman who has said and done just about anything to be elected. I saw a YouTube clip of her outright lying, over and over again in front of the camera. She didn’t galvanize voters in 2008, and frankly, Independents remember her baggage and the scandals of the last time a Clinton was in office. Independents who carry elections, may not wish to vote for her at all.
Partly on the basis that those with insight know that this email kerfuffle is meaningless. What they’re missing is that those who operate in the margins, the people who actually decide elections, may not share in those conclusions once the smear machine goes into high gear.
In a way, that sums up why I was left totally cold by his, “America” ad. It just seemed to me to harken back to an ideal of what America was and should be - for certain people. Please don’t misunderstand me - I know that a candidate can’t win unless they instill some sense of belief in the voters that “tomorrow will be better.” But with Sanders, it’s more like “yesterday was really good and we should aspire to that again.” Except, it wasn’t particularly good for many of us. That seems to be lost in his campaign. There were no “halcyon” days for many of us and seeing as he doesn’t get that, much of the campaign seems flat.
In Nevada, one of my favorite stomping grounds, Harry Reid hosted an event for the party nominees in January in Las Vegas, and while Clinton and Sanders exchanged a few barbs, the event was quite genial and focused on the Republicans:
Clinton: “In January of 2017, a new president is going to walk into the Oval Office and America can’t afford it to be a Republican who will rip away all the progress we have made.”
Sanders: “I’d like to say that Donald Trump is the most outrageous candidate to run for president, but then there’s Ted Cruz."
Sec. Clinton has been on the ground in Nevada for much longer than Sanders and the state has been touted as Clinton’s firewall against the Vermont senator (as it was supposed to be against Obama in 2008: Clinton won the popular vote but ended up with fewer delegates.), but, quite notably, the state’s largest and very powerful Culinary Union has stated this time it will not endorse a candidate in the upcoming primary. Their endorsement of Obama last time devolved into a donnybrook with the Clintons. So Nevada could be a very intriguing event again.
There are, however, a lot of hurt feelings over the recent flap created when some Sanders operatives posed as hotel workers and lobbied Culinary Union workers. Sen. Sanders has reportedly worked hard to quell the anger of the union. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/01/28/3743961/sanders-nevada-union/
The Sanders supporters particularly seem to be painting themselves into a corner. What will they do if Bernie happens to lose the primary, and being a responsible man who cares about the future of this country, endorses Clinton in the general election? For Sanders, and most rational Democrats, once the primary is over, the important thing is to prevent a Ted Cruz or Donald Trump from winning. I know if the reverse happens, and Sanders is the nominee, I will be working hard to get him elected. Will the Sanders supporters do the same?
Here’s the thing, the person, Van Jones, who made the statement calling Sanders a 79,000 year old Muppet is a proud Socialist and Bernie supporter who was clearly joking and making a statement about the strength of Sanders’ message. But too many Sanders’ supporters refuse to acknowledge that it was a joke in which Jones was praising Sanders by saying that despite his age and appearance, he’s more than holding his own, particularly with young people, against the Clinton machine.
A lot of us won’t vote for her. It’s not a corner. It’s where we’ve been for a long time. If the candidate wasn’t Bernie, we’d be voting third party. Dems lost a lot of us a long time ago. That’s what your missing.
Lack of diversity in Iowa and New Hampshire is a legitimate issue. But Bernie’s campaign should at least note that as Hillary is a recent Senator for New York, the distance to Manchester from Albany is about the same as from Burlington.
Get a grip, Democrats! First, come out and vote. Second, vote for Hillary who can do the job now. The GOP has hassled her for years and she is still standing. They haven’t even started on Bernie, but when they do, watch out! They will absolutely destroy him on their way to the White House.
So, you’re going to give away three Supreme Court seats, the ACA, and god knows what else just because you aren’t getting your way? Are you a Republican plant?
After watching the full video (not just the soundbite) and reading in the comments (including yours) that Van Jones is a Bernie supporter, it quickly became clear to me that yes, it was a playful remark, not at all intended as a slam. But in the article, Jones is only referred to as “liberal commentator,” no mention that he is a Bernie supporter (or a proud socialist). Meanwhile, the video they supplied cut Jones off just as he was in the process of “attempting to clarify his statement.”
It was another clickbait headline followed by a story that lacked necessary information – in this case information that would have put the colorful remark in greater context.
So, my thanks to you and others for supplying that context in the comments. It’s now to the point where I generally avoid making any comments until I have at least scanned the first 30 or 40 comments, because often these will contain information that really should have been in the story in the first place.
Yes, that’s exactly the assumption, and yes, it’s racist as hell. It means that Democrats will not welcome disaffected moderate Republicans, they don’t want more white people in the party because it dilutes the influence of “people of color”.
It really was a shitty thing for TPM to do, and I’m not one to often criticize TPM and what they choose to publish. But cutting Jones off was a blatant attempt to make it seem like he was making fun of Sanders when he was clearly praising him. That’s the kind of thing Republicans do, and then build their entire convention around it.
