Bernie Sanders simply isn’t ready to be president

Bernie Sanders had a disastrous, to quote the Washington Post, meeting with the New York Daily News editorial board yesterday (Monday).

In that interview, Sanders showed that he doesn’t have a deep grasp of the issues he’s made a mainstay of his campaign, such as banking reform. Faced with detailed questions about his own proposals, Sanders repeatedly told the editorial board “I don’t know” or he referred to the fact that he didn’t have his notes with him.

Sanders was excoriated today by Washington Post political analyst Chris Cillizza. First Cillizza, then a discussion about the larger problem this poses for a future Sanders presidency:

This New York Daily News interview was pretty close to a disaster for Bernie Sanders

For Sanders’s critics — including Hillary Clinton — the Daily News interview is the “ah ha!” moment that they have been insisting will come for Sanders, a time when his pie-in-the-sky proposals are closely examined and found wanting. Sure, free college tuition sounds good, but how, exactly, do you pay for it? And, yes, breaking up the biggest banks seems appealing — particularly if you saw “The Big Short” — but (a) can you actually do it? and (b) what does it mean for all the people those banks employ?

A large part of Sanders’s appeal to the throngs who back him is his insistence that we are in need of a political revolution. And, for those people, the Daily News interview will be much ado about nothing. But what the interview exposes is that once the revolution happens there will be lots of loose ends to tie up. Loose ends that Sanders either hasn’t — or doesn’t want to — grappled with….

The Daily News interview amounts to a moment of reckoning for Sanders. Okay, let’s say you get elected — now what? And have you thought through what it might mean to the American worker and the American economy if all of the things you insist have to happen actually did happen? Judging by Sanders’s responses, he hasn’t.

I’m reminded of another interview that Sanders had in February with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. Sanders’ notion of how his “revolution” will play out after the election, how he’s going to get Republicans on board, is simply naive. I’ll quote at length from the interview:

MATTHEWS: And Mitch McConnell looks at you the way he looked at President Obama and says, “Forget about it”.

SANDERS: And then you know what I say? I’d say, “Hey, Mitch, take a look out the window. There’s a million young people out there who don`t want to be in debt for half their life for the crime of going to college. If you
want to antagonize those million people and lose your job, Mitch, if you don’t want to lose your job, you better start listening to what we have to say.” That’s the point. That’s how change takes place.

MATTHEWS: But how do you squeeze a guy like him?

SANDERS: It’s not him. Mitch is –

MATTHEWS: All the Republicans.

SANDERS: I know Mitch McConnell. These are smart –

MATTHEWS: How do you squeeze 60 senators? You need 60 senators.  You need 60 senators.

SANDERS: All right. Let me tell you this. Absolutely, positively, 100 percent, if we rally young people in this country to say, you know what, Germany, Scandinavia, other countries, they have free tuition in public college and universities. I have been all over this country, Chris. I talked to kids $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $100,000 in debt paying a huge percentage of their income, OK?

Young people stand up and say we are sick and tired of it. We don’t want to go in debt for our whole lives because we got a college education. You know what? We’ll win that fight immediately.

But the trick is not to appeal to Mitch McConnell. It’s to say, Mitch, take a look at your e-mails.

MATTHEWS: OK. What evidence do you have this has worked for you? Have you increased the turnout in these elections?


MATTHEWS: You know, have you as a senator been able to get 60 votes for anything? Have you ever been able to do this, what you`re talking about doing? When you say I can get 60 senators –


SANDERS: Well, I am not the president of –


SANDERS: What I am saying to you, Chris –

MATTHEWS: What evidence do you have you can do it?

SANDERS: What evidence do I have?

MATTHEWS: That you can do it.

SANDERS: The evidence that I have is that’s the only way change is about…

Bernie Sanders actually believes that Mitch McConnell is going to be swayed by the emails from a million young liberals. Ain’t gonna happen. (Though those million young libs will raise quite a bit of money for Sanders. But that’s not the definition of politically effective.)

There’s also the undercurrent in all of this that Sanders really believes the public wants to do what he wants to do, and it’s only our corporate overlords in Congress who are stopping the proletariat from getting what it wants. So if we can just let the people’s voices be heard, Congress will follow.

But what if the people aren’t with Bernie Sanders? What if people don’t want to see their taxes raised? What if the public starts to have concerns about implementing policies that even President Sanders himself doesn’t fully understand? Then what happens?

Not only does Sanders not fully understand his own proposals, but he doesn’t appear to know how to get them enacted into law.

For all appearances, Sanders is a decent, if angry, guy. But I don’t vote for “decent guys.” I vote for candidates who I think can accomplish an agenda I agree with, and at the very least thwart an agenda I disagree with. Bernie Sanders, recently ranked the most partisan member of the Senate, simply doesn’t have what it takes to get things done in Washington, especially as president.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis  — Win a pony! (not really)

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

242 Responses to “Bernie Sanders simply isn’t ready to be president”

  1. strato man says:

    What would have happened to that interview if Sanders said, OK Chris when you finish talking I will try to answer a question, and then Sanders just waited? I watch MSNBC but Mathews can be extremely rude and anouing. It’s as if he is only interested in what he has to say and everyone else is just there to be window dressing.

    If you get the chance to interview someone as significant as Sanders then let them answer your questions. It’s fine if he wants to critically analyse their answers but get the answer first.

  2. pbr90 says:

    Sanders isn’t the only drama queen lingering to feed his ego; so is Cruz & Kasich!
    None of these are willing to see the forest for the trees, self appointed winners as they imagine themselves to be.

  3. eze60 says:

    Obama was a fresh 45 year old new face and very well supported by the democratic base candidate. Sanders would be a watery eye 75 year old who thinks that he can go in Washington and turn it into European socialism as though such European countries have identical socio-economic-historical-psychological make up as the USA.
    Obama was backed by very similar Bernie supporters. He tried his best to implement many of the ideas that Bernie has been barking about. He was only able to implement a fraction of his policies.
    Democrats don’t love Bernie as he is a self-proclaimed socialist. Republicans are foaming at the mouth to get a chance to tear his flawed policies apart.
    So while Hillary is not a passionate and inspiring candidate with a bold and seductive and yet unrealistic message, she’s the most qualified candidate from either party.

  4. eze60 says:

    Passion and a longing for something fresh has to be tempered by intelligence and wisdom. That’s the conclusion that my in depth research on Bernie and his policies left me with.
    So yes wanting to believe in something new and knowing that something will genuinely be new and effective are two different things.
    Romance for Bernie is not a real relationship. He’s a glossy 1959 Chevy with a great paint job.
    The technology in that car isn’t up to date.
    When I look beneath the surface and am convinced that a truly new idea is there I will go for it.
    Sorry, I agree to disagree.

  5. Webster says:

    That’s your take, darling — I disagree (as do many others, if you’ll do your research instead of swallowing the party line wholesale). You seem to want to settle for political-business-as-usual, the status quo, and the same-old, same-old. I’m sorry, but I want more out of this election than a Republican in a pantsuit. We’ll simply have to agree to disagree. I’ll go my way–you go yours. And, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go now, I’m phone-banking for Bernie and I have a lot more calls to make.

  6. eze60 says:

    After watching and following what Obama went through in order to only implement a fraction of his big ideas (that included some of what Bernie is proposing BTW), reality struct.
    You see Bernie is a much older and a bit more radical version of Obama. Not only will he not be largely backed by the democratic base, the Republicans will begin to shred his policies to pieces. And as you probably are aware of, the Republicans will not pull any punches.
    If Bernie gets in, he will realize that the money he thinks he can raise isn’t even half the money that he’d need. Then he’ll get very heavy handed with the taxes on all of us.
    The big Banks have a huge employment base that supports a massive amount of people in the work force. What happens when Bernie’s punishments on them forces the layoffs of these working families?
    I agree with some degree of socialism here to balance the system. Obama agrees with that as well. And he has tried to implement some policies to ease them in. But even with his Democratic backing, he was still hamstrung and was only able to get a little bit done in two terms.
    With Bernie at 75 if he gets in, what do you realistic see after the first term? Do you project a second term for Bernie? He’ll need two terms to make a dent if he can.
    I don’t think Hillary is great either. But she is more qualify to move forward what Obama started; That’s continuity and incremental steps(small steps as it happens in American politics). I disagree with those who thinks she’d stagnate.
    Bernie will have to learn to walk in a very unfriendly political atmosphere where neither side will fully back him.
    Foreign policy and wars, Politicians always campaign for peace until they get into office and then realize the cat and mouse games necessary to keep the country respected and relevant to the rest of the world.
    Anyone with a conscience wants to avoid the trauma and carnage of Warfare. But as President, these calls aren’t to be as easy as Politicians make it sound. Bernie seems completely clueless about such matters.
    Hillary was the Secretary of State for 4 years. So Bernie isn’t even close to that kind of international experience.
    I’d back Bernie if he gets past Hillary. But between the two, he’s too green and does not have the balance to move forward and hit the ground running as Hillary does in my opinion.

  7. Webster says:

    I do. I started out as a Hillary supporter and I have been convinced, through much study, that Bernie has the not only the best vision for a greater America, but the best plan as well. True, it won’t be easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is.

  8. eze60 says:

    Are you sure you’re balanced and objective enough to look at both sides of the argument and scrutinize Bernie’s plans as to how it would work? Based on your responses and the tone of most of the pro-Bernie responders here, I don’t think so. You see, I am. I do agree with some of what Bernie is pointing out. But he tailored the bright side to sell you guys his belief and does not show you guys the down sides of his argument.
    So the honest analytics is missing.
    Bernie is a Protester, Orator and salesman. However passionate his salesmanship may be, it does not qualify him to be the leading politician in DC.

  9. eze60 says:

    Sorry, but I do. I only comment when I look at the totality of the situation and all sides as opposed to just defending what I like and am set on defending. I hope you do the same.

  10. Webster says:

    Then you’re not paying close enough attention…

  11. eze60 says:

    I am a big proponent of the Tao Te Ching. So I’m all for the words of Lao Tzu.
    But those who understand the journey and where Bernie wants to be, might tell you that Bernie may not understand the terrain and may not be wise and resourceful enough to step into it. Others who well understand the terrain may even tell you that his lack of understanding and contextual wisdom may signal a step backwards.
    I accept Bernie as a protest vote. But protesters do not make good Presidents
    because their views are typically too myopic to navigate in a Washington culture that requires flexibility and an awareness of a very crafty opposition.
    I do not hear, feel nor sense these qualities coming from Bernie.

  12. Webster says:

    Sorry, but in the words of Lao Tzu, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step,” and Bernie is that beginning. Hillary will only continue to march in place.

  13. eze60 says:

    Very well stated.

  14. eze60 says:

    I don’t think Bernie’s ideas are specially new. Using the European Socialist model and pondering how it would fit in the American system has been speculated about by independents and would-be politicians forever.
    Many who are beating the Bernie drums don’t seem to have a balance knowledge of how the American political system works. It seems to be more so about romancing the beauty and glossiness of Bernie’s delivery and passion. I get the symbolism for change.
    But once the romance ends, the reality and nuances of his regurgitated socialist ideas will not go through. Do any of you realize you will not pay a little bit, but a lot more taxes for Bernie’s ideas to make a dent? No, everyone, not just the very wealthy will be very heavily taxed under Bernie’s system. That’s what he meant by he’ll need your help.

    So Bernie isn’t dreaming of things that never were as your borrowed quote from JFK suggests. These Socialist ideas are pretty old actually. You guys just don’t know that others have been incrementally trying to use aspects of it that works within the American system.
    European socialism does not have the extreme socio-cultural and economic complexities that America presents. It’s very shallow to assume it does.

    The American Political system of checks and balances only allow for incremental changes. Words of revolution brings out the love from the young and disenfranchised who have romantic views of what the world aught to be. But unless these views are balanced, clever, and truly original, they are just well articulated political regurgitations of the problems that have always been there presented not with a realistic resolutions, but simply a cry against the problem that some are dying to hear.
    Bernie is right to call out some of the ills of the system.
    Obama already went through the same ride that many think Bernie is worthy of. He also had many similar ideas. But Obama was one working with the Democratic system to try to implement his ideas. His base was very strong; and he was about 30 years younger than Bernie. Still, he went through extreme dissent from the opposition. He was only able to implement reduced versions of his original plans.
    From everything that I’ve read of Bernie’s policies, he’s no Obama. He certainly is not the next better and more progressive version to follow.

  15. eze60 says:

    I don’t know what resumes you’ve been reviewing. Bernie wants in as the leading politician in Washington. But if you’re not completely subjective, it’s clear who has the most political experience and know-how in terms of how to navigate in DC politics in this election. Bernie isn’t even close to Hillary’s resume.

  16. quax says:

    If the alternative is Bernie versus anything the GOP has to offer than I don’t think it is naivete.

    Obama was just a first term senator, Bernie knows the institutions and is no dummy, which is all I wanted to indicate by bringing up GWB43.

    Frankly, I have not much of a dog in this race. Both candidates will do in my book. But I like Bernie for being less of a hawk. Although in some circumstances you may want to have a hawk. Will depend of the challenges the next president faces. Could cut both ways. Anyhow, I really don’t care, I just want Obama to be followed by another Democrat.

  17. Butch1 says:

    Did you go to free elementary and secondary schools growing up or private schools? Actually we all paid for those schools as well and you know how we figured out how to do it by taxes. It could be done then and Sanders’ program has already figured out how to do it with colleges. This time he is going after the banking system who created our economic situation today.

    They played with our money and lost it, then came to us with hat in hand whining about how they would crash our economy into a depression if we didn’t give them money to bail them out of the mess they caused. It was a threat, an ultimatum. So, we bailed them out without any provisions to break up their huge banks or to put Glass-Seagal back in place so this would never happen again. They are free to do it over and over again and our government WILL continue to play this game with our dwindling money supply unless we stop them. Sanders says we CAN pay for continuing education by making these banks that WE bailed out start RETURNING THE FAVOR by paying for the education of the students in the form of taxes. That is how it will be paid. It’s very simple. We have “free” education in the lower grades and we can have it in the higher education as well.

    Just because you think it builds good character, because you did it when you went to school is irrelevant to today’s times when the banks are gouging the students in ridiculous loans that will take them decades to pay off when there isn’t a job market for them to even go to.

  18. Kezaiah Starbuck says:

    It would only be a coronation in the sense that this entire atrocity exhibition, called the 2016 Presidential Election cycle, has become the laughing stock and embarrassment of the universe.

    Naturally the Republican court has been the primary source of most fun and games, the degree to which the Democratic court has been arguably somewhat uninspired—despite the grumpy old Jewish grandpa calling for a revolution but cannot articulate aany policy related nuance—and the ONLY qualified candidate in either house has somehow become the defacto postergirl for corporate and political corruption. WTF?

    What an absurd joke. If there had ever been a legitimate selection of alternate candidates in the Democrat court, perhaps even vaguely relevant and somewhat NOT BIZARRE, Bernie will simply become relegated to a punctuation after all is said and done.

  19. Kezaiah Starbuck says:

    See, that’s a very narrow view. When regarding foreign relations and the extremely precarious image our POTUS must be compared to, there is really very little room for such silly indiscretions as behaviors that in most cultures are considered bad manners, disrespectful and rude.

    Remember, we are talking about the most powerful position in the universe. People expect a certain posture, package and behavior and Sanders is unfortunately far from meeting minimal expectations.

    I really don’t think this issue is something to worry about with Clinton, afterall she spent four years as Secretary of State, arguably the most politically sensitive position in the world… perhaps even moreso than the POTUS. She’s proven her ability when it comes to cultural respect and acceptable. She’s also proven herself in terms of competently managing numerous incredibly sensitive foreign affairs issues.

  20. Kezaiah Starbuck says:

    Let’s imagine a Bernie POTUS for a (very) brief moment. Okay, he wants to really support for free tuition at state colleges and universities. Yet he underestimated the actual critical mass associated with the industry that exists in each state surrounding these educational establishments. I don’t mean to suggest parasitical business model supporting an industry tired to education tuition, at all.

    Millions of dollars, jobs, taxes and various other ancillary supporting mechanisms that are connected to the tuition revenue model in place in every state.

    Students do not need free tuition to state colleges and universities, they need support and protection regarding the terms of their student loans. They need to not have their education tied into a for profit lending industry. Getting a job to help pay for your education is a right of passage, a character-building distinction than getting a free ride. I did it, my wife did it and so did the three of my kids.

  21. Kezaiah Starbuck says:

    Interesting that “being less worried” about a candidate over GWB43, is all the qualification you need to cast your vote. Naivete much?

  22. UCF_Engineer says:

    Right, and trying to brainwash voters into thinking she’s unqualified or corrupt because she has a Super Pac is substantive? I was undecided in the beginning when they first started debating b/c they both seemed like they were only going to talk about their policies and ideas for the future. But Bernie has been very sneakily attacking Clinton’s character and painting her as if she was some Oil Drilling Republican from Texas and tricking people into thinking she’s one of them. I am extremely disappointed by this and I thought higher of Sanders before this race.
    His supporters have become nutty and I honestly can’t tell if they Republican trolls or real liberals at this point with some of the things I’m seeing from them (calling her a criminal and things of that nature). Now they call and threaten super delegates for not supporting their candidate? How is that any less corrupt than what they claim Hillary to be? The super delegates are there to prevent people like Trump from taking over the party, not people like Bernie from winning. Obama basically had the same message as Bernie in 2008 and he beat Hillary when she was the front runner then. I’m glad we have them or we could be in the shit storm that is taking place on the other side, but now we have Bernie supporters acting just as juvenile as Trump supporters.

  23. mark_in_toronto says:

    I lived most of my life in the USA. I’m an American citizen and vote in every election.
    Wildly back-and-forth? What country are you talking about?
    Obama started a sensible direction towards sanity and now you want to do what . . . stop there?
    Bernie is the next step . . . but don’t worry . . . people like you will probably fight him on several issues and keep your precious centrist course anyway.
    Gee . . . thanks for that.
    In the meantime, I’ll enjoy living in a civilized country.

  24. Voodoo Chile says:

    You sound like a 2000s era Republican concern-trolling over Al Gore’s beard, the color palette of his suits, and his tone of voice. For that matter, you sound like a 2000s era Republican trashing Hillary for her pant suits, laugh, or tone of voice.

    Frankly, some of us don’t care about Bernie’s fingers or Hillary’s laugh or Al Gore’s beard. We care about substance.

  25. Butch1 says:

    That’s not what I’ve seen, but she’d had better hurry if you think she can because I do not see any Republicans or Independents scurrying to vote for her yet, though I do see a few of the Republicans who cannot stand any of their candidates who are running and many of the Independents saying they will vote for Bernie Sanders, though not for her. Interesting, don’t you think?

    I agree that we will need a Democratic Congress to back any Democratic President if we are going to have any success in Washington DC. We have seen how the Republicans run Washington, which is strictly obstructionism if there is a Democratic president in the White House. The have to be voted out of office straightway. We’ve had nothing but racism for eight years and obstructionism and we need to get rid of these people. I also think we need to go a step further and get rid of the DINOs who have helped them.

  26. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    We? How many people are sitting at your keyboard?

  27. conium says:

    Mrs. Clinton not only can, she does and will draw supporters from all genres of Americans. We want Hillary Clinton to be President. She sets realistic goals, then gets them done, building on past victories. We also want to send with her, a Democratic Congress to work with her. Hillary comes across as the sanest candidate, from any party, in the looniest race yet. Sometimes we have to vote for the best candidate.

  28. Butch1 says:

    He and McCain worked on the Veteran’s Bill. That’s not small potatoes. He has always been able to work across the aisle just like Clinton, though he’s been doing it much longer than she.

    He began as a Mayor, House of Representatives and presently a Senator. That’s a lot of working across the aisles with those who she has had more problems with than he’s had. She will continue Obama’s programs in the Middle East and most likely escalate them into wars in my opinion since she’s more of a hawk than even he is. We would see a completely different approach from a Sanders’ administration. That’s what I want to see. Less thoughts of war and a different approach at stopping the War Industrial Complex for once.

  29. Butch1 says:

    That’s your opinion. He stayed out until no one else stepped up to the plate that was liberal enough to challenge the Establishment. Many begged him to enter the race. (I included.) I’m glad he entered it and so are many others. As people hear him speak he draws supporters from ALL the parties. Ms. Clinton cannot do that.

  30. Butch1 says:

    Losing? The DNC started out last year setting in place the super-delegates in Clinton’s camp before Sanders even entered the race. He’s proven himself that he’s had to do a lot of catching up to even be where he is today. I think it’s heroic what he’s done and if he does gain the popular vote, there are going to be many embarrassed super-delegates that had committed themselves too early who will have to reconsider their vote. It has happened before and it can happen again. All I can say is get out the popcorn and fasten your seat-belt; it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

  31. Butch1 says:

    Has anyone ever tried to complete a sentence with Chris Matthews without him constantly interrupting them? Of course, he does it on purpose to rattle them and throw them off their game, but it is also very rude to not let a person finish their thoughts or even an answer you’ve just asked.

    Everyone knows Chris is in Clinton’s camp and that he’s out to destroy Sanders when he has him on his show. But, this is just plain rude and the older he gets the worse he becomes.

  32. poobah69 says:

    And this is how corrupt Sanders is harassing and stalking delegates? Pitiful. No wonder Sanders is losing.

  33. poobah69 says:

    this is how corrupt Sanders and his supporters are. Harassing and bulling delegates and posting online their personal data including home addresses.

  34. Cassie says:

    I just returned to this site after 7 years. Very surprised that John Aravosis is now a Hillary Clinton supporter. I remember what he said about Hillary Clinton’s candidacy then. She hasn’t changed and I wonder what made him a supporter.

  35. Virginiaetesch3 says:

    “my room mate Maria Is getting paid 98$/h on the internet.”….two days ago new Silver McLaren P2 bought after earning 18,512 Dollars,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k Dollars Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with. extra open doors &. weekly. paychecks… it’s realy the simplest. work. I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. 87 Dollars, p/h.Learn. More right Here!oi3334➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsBasic/GetPaidHourly98$…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::!oi3334….

  36. quax says:

    Bush the second wasn’t ready to be president. Far less worried about Bernie, he’ll do just fine. He didn’t misplace his frontal lobe.

  37. SteveinMississippi says:

    “It shows you are in the bag with the Clinton Campaign”?

    That statement implies that someone cannot express their opinion because of whom they support. That is a ridiculous assertion. You are obviously a Sanders’ supporter (Judging by your avi that says “Bernie”) – so does that mean we must dismiss what you have to say?

    Why don’t you attack the arguments that you disagree with instead of dismissing the guy as a Clinton supporter. This is exactly what president Obama meant when he said we have gotten to a point where we only listen to people who agree with us and dismiss the ones that don’t

    Regarding “That hatchet job” the tabloid did: If Bernie had answered the questions it wouldn’t have been a hatchet job. He should have been prepared.

  38. JS says:

    So, investing in public education from pre-K to high school isn’t investing in the future? So I’m not a progressive because I think that we should put resources where every single child in America would benefit, rather than a far more limited group that graduates from HS and enters college?

    You can’t define “progressive” based on a tactic. I am sure that many progressives disagree on the best tactic for investing in the future. And you can’t argue that the tactic I propose isn’t an investment in the future – it’s in an investment in children.

  39. Rita Forsyth says:

    lol this post is really funny 30 years of questions and investigations use THE GOOGLE lol

  40. Steve says:

    He explained how it would be done, It isn’t his responsibility to keep correcting an idiot who is trying to make it seem like he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Obviously you only read the article not the transcripts, and you don’t know Bernie’s talking points, or how he has proposed he would break up the big banks. Hillary has also used the same words Bernie has on how the big banks would be broken up but no one is saying she doesn’t know what she is talking about are they?

  41. Steve says:

    If you think that the Daily news tripped up Sanders you don’t know what you are talking about. Bernie answered all the questions correctly. The Fed has 0 to do with breaking up banks and the Daily acted like they do. Also that headline should be a big enough red flag to know this was nothing but a hit piece. The Daily looked like they were the ones that didn’t know what they were talking about, not the other way around.

  42. Steve says:

    Because you don’t know anything about Bernie’s accomplishments he has none? LMAO just another ignorant Hillary supporter or campaign worker.

  43. Steve says:

    Bernie has gotten more done than Clinton so you can drop that already.

  44. Steve says:

    Then you are not a progressive. Progressives would invest in our future, that is what it means to be a progressive, to be on the side of progress.

  45. Steve says:

    It shows you are in the bag with the Clinton campaign if you are quoting the hatchet job that Tabloid did on Sanders. This article was debunked by the New York Times and many other publications. You are a joke.

  46. JustaGurlinseattle says:


    Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I’m a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order…

    Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.

    Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I’m not quite…

    *********Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.

    Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?

    *********Sanders: It’s something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.


  47. JustaGurlinseattle says:

    You ask a question, using the wrong word for something, waiting for the
    OTHER person to correct them.
    It was Bernie’s job to CORRECT them.

    here… Bernie Sanders – Interview troubled areas marked. ****


    Daily News: Okay. Well, let’s assume that you’re correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?

    Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

    Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?

    *****Sanders: Well, I don’t know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

    Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, “Now you must do X, Y and Z?”

    Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.

    Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?

    *******Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do.


    I THINK?
    I believe?

  48. Jimbo2K7 says:

    How could I top your fifth grader response.
    I surrender.

  49. Aqualad33 says:

    He should consider it. And when President Trump pushes the button, he’ll join Ralph Nader in the Hall of Sanctimonious Assholes Who’s Egos Were More Important Than Actually Serving The People He Claims To Love.

  50. Aqualad33 says:

    You’re like the hundredth AND FIRST person I’ve seen today to flash that Peter Eavis piece thinking it TOTALLY makes up for Bernie’s shitty Daily News interview. That’s not how this works. I’m not being asked to vote for Peter Eavis or his “here’s what Bernie should have said” crap. I’m being asked to vote for Bernie Sanders, the same Bernie Sanders who shit the bed when asked to explain how he would accomplish his #1 reason for running. A guy saying “Mr. Sanders is mostly cogent here” isn’t quite the mic drop you’re looking for…

  51. Aqualad33 says:

    You’re like the hundredth person I’ve seen today to flash that Peter Eavis piece thinking it TOTALLY makes up for Bernie’s shitty Daily News interview. That’s not how this works. I’m not being asked to vote for Peter Eavis or his “here’s what Bernie should have said” crap. I’m being asked to vote for Bernie Sanders, the same Bernie Sanders who shit the bed when asked to explain how he would accomplish his #1 reason for running. A guy saying “Mr. Sanders is mostly cogent here” isn’t quite the mic drop you’re looking for…

  52. orygoon says:

    I know–have known for some time– that the mandatory plan for unwinding exists in Dodd-Frank. And if I know it, I’m willing to bet my firstborn that Hillary knows it also.

  53. Draa says:

    It’s written into the Dodd-Frank legislation and it’s called a “Living Will.” The blueprint is already laid out and been mentioned many times. Basically, each bank that’s been labeled “too big to fail” will have to lay out measures for dissolution in case of failure in the form of a living will. It details how they will be broken up in case of failure.

    This thought that Sanders should know how that will work, when the Federal Government itself doesn’t know, is the most insincere attack possible. They made banks produce Living Wills that will be the guidelines for breaking them up. That’s how it would be done and as far as I know not even Hillary has seen those so why expect that from Sanders. smh

  54. Silver_Witch says:

    And how will Hillary Clinton accomplish anything she promises on the campaign. Oh that right’s she says we have to stay as fucked up as we are now and screw the middle class.

  55. Draa says:

    Except VA reform that helped my friends. Sanders and John McCain were instrumental in passing VA reform. This thought that he hasn’t accomplished anything is non sense and makes me wonder why you folks feel the need to lie like that.
    He’s called the Amendment King for a reason and it’s not because he hasn’t accomplished anything. But consider I’ve heard the same lie you’ve told a number of times it’s certain you folks have a motive. Oh, and if not for Sanders (and McCain many of my friends would still be waiting for care so just stop with the lying.

  56. conium says:

    I don’t believe Bernie really wants the job. Sure, he gives it his all, but life is short. Being President would be a real headache at times. Being an immensely popular statesman and advocate is much more fun.

  57. ComradeRutherford says:

    No shit! I am so saddened that AmericaBlog is nothing more now that hatred for Liberalism. Hillary is NO Liberal. She’s always been a right-of-center Neo-Liberal.

  58. Finn says:

    You realize that’s a different set of Wisconsonites, right? And mostly due to low voter turnout, not because all the democrats who voted in the primary voted for Walker in the general? I really hope you do, for your sake…

  59. dcinsider says:

    Well, let’s just hope you’re wrong.

  60. 2karmanot says:

    My loyalty goes far back to Vermont, when I was advocating for dental care to be included in the State’s (universal) health plan. Vermont is a poor state and the legislature was constantly chipping away at costs. I wrote Bernie a half dozen times. Each time I received a careful and considerate reply. He’s the real New Deal. I am an FDR socialist and simply will not go forward with the corporate putsch representative of the neo-liberal Clinton’s and apparatchik fixers like Wassermann-Schultz. And as you know I have great respect for you too. At my age I expect to see, if historical precedent is any reliable indicator, a considerable decline in America from it’s classical Democracy phase to an entrenched oligarchy that will ultimately destroy the quality of living we have come to enjoy as the Golden Age following post war progressiveness. To me Bernie is more than just a Casandra railing against the decline, but a true voice of our civil past. Thank you for your reply.

  61. orygoon says:

    I am not “afraid of” progressive change. But I realize that I, unlike you, actually LIVE IN AMERICA, where everyone is not as liberal as I am–in fact, a lot of them are conservative enough to support a pretty damned successful Republican party. Bernie isn’t going to magic that away. And as a friend of mine said decades ago, and I realized that I totally agreed with him, I’d rather have the country steer a relatively centrist course than tack wildly back and forth.

  62. orygoon says:

    So the NYDN asked Bernie these super-gotcha questions, like, you’ve talked about breaking up the big banks 2/47 for a year, why not tell us how you would do it? What horrible Hillbots, how could they.

  63. dcinsider says:

    Great respect for you, but I think you and others are taking your loyalty to Sanders a little far. The differences between Hillary and Bernie are minimal compared to the differences between the Democrat nominee and whatever clown the GOP ends up with.

    Democrats fight hard because we care.

    Republicans fight hard because they hate.

    Our motivations are different than theirs, and that may cause hurt feelings, or tempers may flare within the family, but ultimately we are all a lot closer to each other than we are to them.

    Everyone needs to to take a deep breath. We will survive our differences and we don’t need to throw ultimatums at each other to do so.

  64. dcinsider says:

    But that’s not the point, is it?

  65. dcinsider says:

    Hillary is not promising the moon like Bernie. This discussion requires at least a 10th grade reading level. Come back when you’ve achieved that.

  66. dcinsider says:

    I’m quite familiar with Bernie’s background.

    His accomplishments, not so much, since he has none.

    This man has not passed a single piece of legislation of importance in his entire time in Congress, and that’s OK, given his role as gadfly and liberal conscience, but it does not make him qualified to serve as President.

  67. Badgerite says:


  68. A little to the left. That’s it!

    Thanks, kitten.

  69. devans00 says:

    I have no problems giving the Republicans their props for focusing on the long game and big picture. My main complaint is that their focus on acquiring power overrules doing anything productive or helpful for America as a whole. They use the system they built up to support the rich and powerful but oppress humans as a whole, especially those without power.

    The morality is so twisted.

  70. Badgerite says:

    Consider yourself “bitten”.

  71. devans00 says:

    I’d bet my last dollar that Hillary Clinton can be more productive getting things out of Congress than Bernie Sanders can. Just look at her time as a member of Congress. Plus add in her personal contacts with world leaders.

    She’s already starting way ahead.

  72. devans00 says:

    In my mind, Bernie Sanders was disqualified from my vote for President by his temperament. Disrespectfully wagging his hands in the wrong world leader’s face would get us into a war.

    The antics of Sander’s staff and words out of his own mouth this past month have been appalling. I’m so disappointed about the low level sexism coming out of his campaign. Saying that former Secretary of State and Senator Clinton isn’t qualified to be President is mind boggling. Especially coming from someone who has been relatively ineffective during his decades in Congress.

    Make no mistake. I’d still vote for Sanders over Trump, Cruz or whoever the Republicans dig up, but I’m still disappointed.

  73. Bite me.

    I asked a question.

    IIf that offends your delicate sensibilities, you are “unfit for a campaign season.”

  74. Badgerite says:

    Uh huh. I don’t care that he is between gigs. You are basically accusing him of writing something that is untrue for money. And where your comments are concerned, for me, “that settles that”. And that is precisely what is wrong with the Sanders campaign, the Sanders supporters and as far as I’m concerned, Sanders himself. If you can’t answer valid questions with anything other than a smear, were Sanders to be the nominee in November, the Democratic party would go down in flames and we could say hello to the “short fingered vulgarian” ( see country club racist) and all that that would mean for people everywhere. I, personally, can’t see anything wrong with a nuclear arms race between China. Japan, and the Koreas or maybe one between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Can you? If Saudi Arabia were to seek a nuclear arms capability, there is nothing on God’s green earth that would prevent Iran from developing one. Nothing. The Donald is an idiot. A rich idiot.
    And Sanders supporters slime anyone who doesn’t “feel the Bern” and then infer they will support Trump. Your children and children don’t belong at the political table.

  75. Mary Lang says:

    “my room mate Is getting paid HOURLY. ninety-eight$ on the internet.”….two days ago new McLaren P2 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!635➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsPhase/GetPaidHourly98$…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!635……..,.

  76. Mary Lang says:

    “my room mate Is getting paid HOURLY. ninety-eight$ on the internet.”….two days ago new McLaren P2 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!635➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsPhase/GetPaidHourly98$…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!635……….

  77. heimaey says:

    That’s the DNC’s fault they keep blaming us for their inadequecies.

  78. heimaey says:

    The bad part is Hillary is the Repbulican running. Trump and Cruz are so far right that I don’t think we have a name for that party yet.

  79. michael says:

    I’d love to see a reporter ask Hillary a real question. Not holding my breath.

  80. Voodoo Chile says:

    It’s a new day and I’m anxiously awaiting John’s next hit piece. I predict that he’ll be jumping on the “Bernie Sanders is personally responsible for Sandy Hook” bandwagon.

  81. Houndentenor says:

    I don’t know how I’m part of any “we”. I’m just one voter. If Bernie is the nominee I will vote for him. The same with Hillary. I have reservations about both of them but either would be vastly better than any of the Republicans.

  82. Don Chandler says:

    One of the measures of being qualified is winning the primaries. So far, Bernie’s team has strung together 6 straight wins…. He’s also been able to raise a lot of money in grassroots. I think he is proving to be formidable.

  83. Parque_Hundido says:

    So desperate! Now that the Hillary bots know that it’s going to be a race and not a coronation.

    LOL. Keep those pom-poms in the air John!

  84. cleos_mom says:

    That’s the buzzword of choice this season. Nothing matters other than having one’s e-spot tickled.

  85. cleos_mom says:

    Of course, participating Wisconsinites also re-elected Scott Walker.

    “Just sayin’. “

  86. heimaey says:

    That’s the same excuse we keep getting “get real” and “that’s how things work” and “we’re not as bad as them” – getting old.

  87. JS says:

    I’m a progressive who does not support free college education. The best place to invest is in pre-K up to high school. That’s where we are loosing kids. Paying for college doesn’t help the poor kids who can’t make it through high school. I don’t think Sanders has doable, well-thought out plans. And the more he speaks, the more convinced I am that he would be a terrible president.

  88. brel1 says:

    It’s interesting that there are accusations that you are being paid. They would think that because they are being paid. I totally agree with you that Sanders is not up to the task. Thank you for this post. Our country is in a fragile state due to the hate that Sanders and Trump have stirred up. I don’t think either could handle Domestic policy or Foreign policy emergencies. What kind of revolution is Sanders thinking would go over and not cause chaos? Maybe someone should remind him there are guns out there. We need a realist not someone who is delusional.

  89. Houndentenor says:

    I don’t understand the mindset of people who prefer empty promises over realistic goals.

  90. Houndentenor says:

    Yes, pushing things way too slowly through a Republican controlled Congress. Learn how things work. Yes, the Democratic leadership is out of touch with voters. I’d love to replace Debbie Wasserman Schulz, but I notice the Hillary is out raising money to elect Democrats to Congress, something Bernie is not doing. A Democrat in the White House with a GOP-controlled Congress can’t do a whole hell of a lot, something those of us paying attention the last five years know all too well.

  91. I stand corrected! I did not know that, and will keep that in mind.

  92. TiberiusB says:

    Aaand again the anti-Bernie nonsense starts to crumble under the slightest scrutiny:

  93. Moderator4 says:

    If you would scroll down the main page to the bottom, you will note that John Aravosis is a bit more than a guest poster. He is the Executive Editor of this blog, and Jon Green is the Editor.

  94. blue says:

    lol. Atleast she will compromise and get shit done! look at bernie, same shit for 35 years and no results! and you think they will elect a socialist? haaa thats cute, he sucks and you know it. Forget the socialist part!

  95. blue says:

    start vetting this guy more. These berbots are delusional idiots! Taxes will go up on everbody! not just the ones who makes over $250k… Read! your guy is no hero.

  96. Voodoo Chile says:

    Another day, another hysterical anti-Sanders screed from John. At least this one isn’t about random internet trolls.

  97. Jimbo2K7 says:

    And how will Hilary accomplish this?

    Are you trying to make a serious argument? Keep trying.

  98. Jimbo2K7 says:

    You clearly have not taken the time to truly look at Sanders qualifications and accomplishments. Quit being so damned lazy and learn something.

  99. Bill_Perdue says:

    Personal attacks are not valid.

    HRH HRC, formerly the Senator from Wal-Mart, is a rabid warmonger, a racist and a union buster.

  100. Scott S. says:

    And you believe Clinton has a better shot at delivering anything with this obstinate congress. You’re delusional if you think so.

  101. doug dash says:

    I will vote for Sanders too. But if he losses I will be quite happy to vote for Clinton. If you can’t vote for Clinton you are just as bad as the Sanders haters. Pick up your fucking marbles and go home little boy you shouldn’t be on blogs like this.

  102. Seriously? This blog was a business. John accepted ad revenue and donations. Yes, he probably used savings, as would any business-person in a down period. He also went to Paris for at least a month every year.

    He also got a gig with Uncle Sam, based on his writing, advocacy, and consultant work. I’m sure most every job he’s had had been a “labor of love” to some extent. Most advocates feel similarly I bet.

    ” I know you’re great at what you do” isn’t a slam.

    As I told someone else, “When this was John’s blog I expected him to do as he wanted. He’s now a guest on Jon’s blog.” And, it’s well established all the way back to Joe and Chris and especially Cliff that affiliated, employed or paid consultants make that clear.

    I was told John has stated elsewhere he is between gigs. So, that settles that.

  103. TiberiusB says:

    There’s a good deal of evidence that she’s raising money for herself via other candidates:


    I missed the interview where Sanders said all he needs is a good email chain to get things done.

  104. JustaGurlinseattle says:

    MILLIONS of people wrote in wanting Gun Control…
    Republicans IGNORED them, and put forth more abortion laws.

  105. dcinsider says:

    :) That’s true!

  106. dcinsider says:

    He is not qualified because he cannot accomplish anything he promises, and does not have the first clue how to go about it.

    I’m not a child and don’t need people to promise me to make me feel good. I am looking at a person;s qualifications, their vision, their proposals, and how they expect to implement those proposals in the real world.

    This is not a movie.

  107. dcinsider says:

    And how will Bernie accomplish this?

    It’s fun to promise the moon, and easy, but it’s hard to actually explain how you intend to accomplish delivering the moon.

  108. 2karmanot says:


  109. Badgerite says:


  110. 2karmanot says:


  111. Badgerite says:

    John, at one point, kept this blog blogging out of his own personal savings because the issues he was writing about were so important to him as well as to others. It is, as Becca notes, a bit of a cheap shot based on nothing except you don’t like to hear that Sanders might not be all that his supporters claim him to be. And frankly, if Bernie Sanders were to go into a general election campaign with the kind of lack of attention to detail evidenced in that NY Daily article, his candidacy would be a disaster.
    The GOP would only have to sit back and let the press go after him.

  112. 2karmanot says:

    I’ve had it with America’s Blog’s increasingly hysterical Sander’s Slanders. What I expect from you John after all these years is reasoned, intellectually honest critiques of policy positions explaining why Hillary is your choice. I’ve been on these threads for at least a decade and quite frankly have never seen this level of propaganda coming from a source I have always held in great respect. It’s more than disappointing and I can tell you, only encourages those of us who mourn the neo-liberalism and right swing of the Democratic Party. Hillary is on the wrong side of history. Your approach has not only alienated many of this blogs most loyal followers, but convinced me to vote Sanders no matter what and write him in if possible. I will never, never vote for Hillary! It’s definitely time to put some distance between me and the affectionate past here.

  113. Silver_Witch says:

    And still crickets. Oh and a lecture about how candidates should not excite us cause they are not our sexual partner!

  114. Silver_Witch says:

    Beg your pardon for my choice of excite. We shall try a better word a policy that will make jobs, guarantee rights to woman to choose their way in birth control and stop bankers from ruining this country

  115. Pamela Cook says:

    Why Sanders should consider 3rd party run:

  116. Don Chandler says:

    In a million years, did you think the President of the United States of America would be named Barack Hussein Obama? The republicans said Obama wasn’t ready to be president. So did Hillary. The truth is, Obama has had trouble getting anything done and Hillary would have had trouble getting anything done and So will President Bern. When people elect a president, they don’t get everything they want. By the time anyone is inaugurated president, they are in a straight jacket. But what they can do is set a tone. Real change can happen if you have an inspiring leader. And it seems that only young people can be inspired…and maybe a few liberal relics of yesterday. You won’t ever get change if you keep saying “it won’t happen.” And if that is your best argument, move aside.

  117. Don Chandler says:

    You aren’t a republican, but you are an established insider ;)

  118. Don Chandler says:

    Washington post is doing what fox and company didn’t do but wished they had done: go cripple the non-establishment politician. In the beginning, Wapo hardly covered Bernie…that was actually an attack because Bernie was actually making political waves and rallying real progressives. Now that Bernie is making tidal waves, there will be lots of hit pieces. I mean, we all want to see the millions of dollars Bernie sends to offshore tax havens. Instead, we’re suppose to believe he’s laundering monies and let’s face it, Bernie has ebola until it’s cured after the convention. In the meantime, he is winning ;)

  119. dcinsider says:

    I don’t vote for the person who “excites” me. I’m not trying to find a sexual partner, I’m trying to find a President. I don’t need proposals to “excite” me, I need them to work. Rebuilding America’s infrastructure is about the least exciting thing I can think of, but it critically important to our future.

    This concept that someone or some idea must “excite” people shows how shallow and stupid most voters really are. This is not a sports contest, it is an election.

    And in the fall, it won’t even be an election, it will be an IQ test, because we will have Hillary v. Cruz or Trump.

  120. dcinsider says:

    I think you can support Bernie, and John can criticize him, and we can all manage to survive the process. John does not need to stop negative posts about Bernie, and you do not need to stop supporting him. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

  121. dcinsider says:

    I can be a liberal and think Bernie is not qualified. That does not make me a Republican.

  122. dcinsider says:

    Well put John. I love Bernie’s ideas, and his passion, and I always have. But never once in a million years would I consider him qualified to be President.

  123. kladinvt says:

    So vote for the candidate of “Lowered Expectations”, but let’s see how that pans out in getting the electorate jazzed up to vote, come November.

  124. kladinvt says:

    I have asked Hillary supporters dozens of times now, to name a few of Hillary’s policy proposals that excite them and that they believe will energize the electorate come November, if she’s the nominee. The only 2 answers I’ve received have been: name-calling or silence. Maybe Aravosis and the other Hillary supporters, might consider putting something “positive” forward about their favorite candidate instead of wallowing in the muck.

  125. trinu says:

    I did. I was referring to what he said in the first Democratic debate, last fall.

  126. kladinvt says:

    Yes, I read that the Daily News Editorial board doesn’t even know the difference between the Treasury Dept and the Federal Reserve.

  127. kladinvt says:

    So is HillaryInc paying Aravosis by the article or is it a competition with the Washington Post to outdo their “16 negative Bernie articles in 16 hrs”? Aravosis why don’t you just post on the masthead of this blog “HillaryInc ONLY” with a red rightward pointing arrrow?

  128. NY Daily News is owned by Mort Zuckerman, a huge Hilary supporter and donor. Coincidence?

  129. Island In The Sky says:

    Getting fed up with the Sanders-bashing. Americablog, feeling strangely Republican for it to boot. Been a reader of the blog for a long time – but not for much longer if this persists.

  130. heimaey says:

    Has anyone tried emailing him? ;)

  131. heimaey says:

    Or on the flip side – “Democrats” today are scared of change and have held us hostage with “it could be worse,” and continue to do a sub-par job and push things way too slowly while they pocket millions from lobbyists and corporations?

  132. goulo says:

    If the Washington Post labeling something “disastrous” is a sign of unreadiness to be president… well, a bit of web searching shows that they’ve ALSO used the term “disastrous” about Hillary Clinton on various occasions, e.g.:

    Therefore Hillary Clinton simply isn’t ready to be president as well…

  133. heimaey says:

    I mean yeah he’s a genius. No one else wants to call out the obvious and then people like him do and they get roasted and then it happens and people are all “well yeah we could see that but what could we do.” Well why didn’t they say anything? Because they either didn’t know or they were too scared to stop it. So either way his position was overlooked and scoffed at for all the wrong reasons.

  134. keirmeister says:

    Now that was one heckuva long read, but a good one. I’m supporting Clinton mostly for the reasons you mentioned. I love Sanders, but I WANT him as a firebrand! And he won’t be able to be that person as president. That’s just the reality of it all.

    Just like Elizabeth Warren, who s doing great work in the Senate holding people’s feet to the fire. That is where we need her….that’s where we need Bernie.

    Let Clinton take the brunt of Republican stupidity. At this point, I believe she’s best equipped to handle them…at least more so than anyone else.

  135. MG1 says:

    Well, just think about who Hillary will bring in as advisors and cabinet member —the same old corporate and bank shills that have infested the Obama administration and Bill Clinton’s administration before him. Then think about who Bernie will appoint. Night and day. Having Joseph Stiglitz instead of a “Rubinite,” for example, or someone in charge of the EPA who will actually look out for our well-being. Or someone in defense who is not a Neocon. Or someone at State who is not a warmonger or a grotesque influence peddler as Hillary was. This absolutely huge difference between Bernie and Hillary, alone, will be transformative. His administration will be made up of public servants like himself. An amazing concept. If the Senate refuses to approve them they will get more grief than they have ever thought possible. And you have to remember, Bernie has nothing to lose, and he is owned by no one.

    Obama shut down his campaign organization, he knee-capped it so that it would not threaten his Wall Street agenda. He put it under the DNC so as to neuter it. Bernie will feed and grow his campaign into a permanent organization. Holding someone’s “feet to the fire” will take on new meaning under a President Sanders. Senators and Congressmen are used to operating without any much public scrutiny. Those days would be over. Does this translate into getting his policies passed? Who knows? But I will take a President Sanders any day over the same old neoliberal bullshit that Hillary represents. Hillary will consult with her donors before promoting any policy, which, after being vetted by them, will be incremental at best. And no, she “won’t get things done.” What she gets done will be moving the country forward by inches, if that.

    About Aravosis’ being in the tank for Hillary, I suspect he thinks he has a better chance of getting consulting work with her in the White House, with the same old hacks he knows swirling around. He is a DNC/beltway Democrat. So, she’s his kind of candidate.

  136. emjayay says:

    Wow. He must be a genius to predict what documents from what bank would be leaked in five years. If he only predicted that all these politicians and corporations and wealthy individuals would be doing all kinds of shady things to sequester their money and avoid taxes – well really, who knew?

  137. emjayay says:

    The Clintons have together been subject to a couple hundred million dollars of investigations, which found a blow job one time. The only reason seems to be that they are perceived as liberals or something. Sanders has proclaimed himself a Socialist for about fifty years, with a lot of hippie politico stuff going on in the early days. What do you think the Republican machine will do to him? They haven’t bothered trying to start on him yet.

  138. emjayay says:

    Did you read the Daily News interview?

  139. George says:

    Huffington Post shows that it is actually the New York Daily News, NOT Bernie Sanders, who botched this interview. And when did Hillary Clinton ever have to face such a rigorous interview? She just gets a free pass.

    Enough with the pro-Clinton biased crap. Ever hear of actual journalism?

  140. hiker_sf says:

    How soon we forget Clinton’s disastrous interview, you know where she called the Reagans the patron saints of AIDS or something.

  141. MattM says:

    Bill, stop pretending you have a stake in this fight. You don’t vote for ANYONE in the general election because they’re not avowed socialists (not that there’s anything wrong with being a socialist). You’re just a troll.

  142. Jasa Pembuatan Website says:

  143. Jasa Pembuatan Website says:

    your article that was really superb got much pleasure to read that post.

  144. Finn says:

    56.3% of participating Wisconsonites think he’s quite ready to be President, thank you very much!

  145. hiker_sf says:

    Not that I would accuse you of this, but part of the problem on both sides, but especially with Sanders supporters is the adoration of the candidate. He isn’t perfect. None of the candidates are and pretending that they are perfect and that issues don’t exists only makes things worse.

    And if there was a real choice I wouldn’t vote for either candidate because neither ‘more of the same’ nor a ‘revolution’ are what we need.

    But in the end, I feel the greatest threat to this country is oligarchy and Sanders would seem the best equipped to do something about that.

    In San Francisco, there is now speculation that the type of money in the “Panama Papers” has driven prices up to where normal folks are being ejected from the city. As we had several months and maybe even years where 57% of all very expensive home sales were cash only, and many of those units remain vacant, it seems plausible.

    With the widening gap between rich and poor and the ridiculous wage gap, if nothing is done, we will see a revolution and that is the last thing I want. Many hold romantic ideals about revolution but they are rarely bloodless.

    And that is why I support Sanders and have committed to voting for Clinton in November, should she win the primary.

  146. Grant Saw says:

    I’m saying that Bernie believing that emails make the difference is just not true. McConnell just doesn’t want to give up any power and apparently he doesn’t have to put a vote on a SCOTUS now or even after the election. Sanders is kidding himself if he thinks he can sway senators to his side with shaming alone. Gerrymandered districts ensure some seated congressmen don’t have to care.

  147. RickRollington says:

    HRC routinely touts her ability to get things done. Now, given that Obama has been completely stopped by the GOP’s obstruction, it seems like a really bold claim on HRC’s part that she’ll be able to succeed where he wasn’t given that his proposals were very far from liberal.

    Conversely, Sanders makes it clear, and goes to great lengths to emphasize, that he cannot do this on his own, and that it’s going to require massive engagement from the public with the political process and applying pressure to legislators.

    Now those are two extremely different arguments. Hillary is insisting she will be able to “get things done” (How? Who knows, she certainly doesn’t say.) despite a lunatic Congress. Sanders says he needs the public’s involvement and massive voter turnout to apply political pressure to legislators.

    One has to be either inattentive or disingenuous to pretend these are similar positions.

  148. BeccaM says:

    To push anything remotely like that through Congress the Democrats would need not just a majority in the Senate but 60 solid votes for it plus control of the House.

    Unless the Senate Dems either use the threat of or actually enact the so-called ‘nuclear option’ and do away with the filibuster. Given the complete lack of respect the Republicans have had for the normal operations of our government — and their flat out refusal repeatedly to do their duties — I’d put chances now at greater than not the Dems will pull that trigger next year. After that, simple majorities would do.

  149. BeccaM says:

    Now do you see why I would be happy to vote for either of the two Dem candidates in November?

    Yep. And same here.

  150. BeccaM says:

    And yet you throw the exact same remark at Clinton. Pick a position and stick with it rather than this rhetorical quicksand you can’t seem to avoid.

  151. BeccaM says:

    HRC’s camp is basically a bunch of rich people counting on defeatist beaten down former progressives to vote their pocketbooks instead of their morals

    My wife would be extremely offended if she knew that’s all you think she is and the only reason she supports Clinton. Her reasons are many, but “defeatist beaten down former progressive” or choosing money over morals isn’t even close to who she is. That’s uncalled for.

  152. BeccaM says:

    If you are correct, then 60% of Americans are idiots for thinking they get to ‘vote on the next SCOTUS justice.’ That’s not how it works.

    None of the current GOP or Democratic party candidates have nominated anyone. They can’t nominate anyone. They would be criminally stupid to announce, before being elected, who specifically they would nominate to fill the empty Justice position.

    And even if a would-be presidential candidate were so stupid as to do so, this isn’t like picking a running mate. Whoever is nominated has to be vetted and then get past Senate hearings and a confirmation — and whether or not the Senate itself swings Dem or GOP next year also determines who can potentially get past it and be confirmed.

    So yeah — I personally doubt the percentage is as high as you claim, but I’m entirely comfortable with referring to anyone who thinks they’re ‘voting’ on the next SCOTUS justice is an uneducated idiot.

  153. Webster says:

    Actually, it’s not non-stop Hillary boosterism, it’s non-stop Bernie-bashing. Which is a subtle, but telling difference. Boosterism I can live with, but character assassination is a whole ‘nother kettle of herring.

  154. Grant Saw says:

    If a million emails won’t work, then 10 million emails…won’t work. I’m pretty sure close to 60% of the people want the next SCOTUS to be voted on – maybe 150 million people. Mitch isn’t swayed by this. He would be swayed by a dozen senators saying something, but 150M people mean nothing to him.

  155. RickRollington says:

    Nobody believes that he will magically get anything done. That’s a straw man built by Hillary’s consultants.

  156. RickRollington says:

    But nobody is saying that they are. That is the difference between HRC’s backers and Sanders’.

    We know that getting him elected is only 1/4 the battle, if not less. Then you have to put pressure on office holders who want to keep their jobs.

    It’s too bad Aravosis simply reports Cilizza’s summary and doesn’t read the interview for himself. Sanders points out how they were able to make changes in Vermont by activating the grass roots.

    HRC’s camp is basically a bunch of rich people counting on defeatist beaten down former progressives to vote their pocketbooks instead of their morals.

  157. Webster says:

    All too many Americans in the Democratic party are fearful of genuine change — but many of us, now, are seeing in the Bernie campaign that Margaret Mead was right when she said “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

    Hillary has, in her favor, looked at things and asked why — but Bernie dreams of things that never were and says “why not!?” and that’s why millions of us will stick with him as far as he wants to go…

  158. mark_in_toronto says:

    So, when someone thinks bold, progressive and positive, they’re “pie-in-the-sky proposals?”

    Will a Hillary presidency help you deal with the your fear of any change that is too uncomfortable or inconvenient?As an expat, I’m really surprised how Americans have become so afraid of change and especially the sacrifices needed to achieve it. You want it all, but want it all for nothing.
    Good luck with that.

    “America . . . We’re Just Asking For It”

  159. TheAngryFag says:

    And tell her to stop fucking lying all the time too. We live in an age of YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. She keeps getting caught.

  160. A_N says:

    Oh John, I wish you would stop with the negative posts about Bernie. Bernie has done so much better than I ever expected him to do. If he doesn’t get the nomination, then I will vote for Hillary. But in the primary I get to vote for who i WANT to be the next president– and that is Bernie.

  161. Phil in FLL says:

    There are a few issues that I think will be of paramount importance:

    (1) The next president needs to make sane appointments to the federal judiciary including, but not restricted to, the U.S. Supreme Court. Civil rights, voting rights, union rights, reproductive rights and most of all overturning Citizens United are certainly priorities.

    (2) The next president needs to push for renewable energy. Closely related to that (and of consequence to worldwide sexual liberation), the next president needs to push for energy independence from the loathsome scumbags in the Saudi royal family and the equally loathsome fundamentalist Wahhabist sect that has been bankrolling anti-gay, misogynistic and generally sex-phobic initiatives since they started getting oil money in the 1940s. Wahhabism is the inspiration behind both al-Qaeda and ISIS. Wahhabism needs to be cut off from its source of money, and green energy and energy independence is the only way to do it. I think an energy initiative is doable since even most Republicans in Congress would be on board with it.

    (3) Expand the reach of government-subsidized health care, however incrementally. This might cost some money, but the only way to pay for it is move back toward the corporate tax rate during the administration of that flaming socialist, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

    If you keep your list short and sweet and doable, it looks more and more like something that either Bernie or Hillary could accomplish. Not pie-in-the-sky, but doable. Now do you see why I would be happy to vote for either of the two Dem candidates in November?

  162. Silver_Witch says:

    John. How about you tell why we should trust Clinton instead of attacking Sanders. I know it is hard to tell why slew should vote for her. But hey give it a try. It might work.

  163. Houndentenor says:

    To push anything remotely like that through Congress the Democrats would need not just a majority in the Senate but 60 solid votes for it plus control of the House. That actually could happen but it would take a perfect storm of complete chaos in the GOP which while possible is not something I’d count on. Especially since Democrats already have a tendency to stay home. I have no intention of counting on any votes before they care cast. Especially considering all the threats from Bernie supporters lately.

  164. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Bernie is now the projected winner in the Wisconsin primary.

  165. I get it, you think that Bernie’s way is wrong, and that simply by appealing to Mitch McConnell’s better instincts, and making concessions to the right-wing extremists McConnell represents, that somehow things would be better. You even brought out tired GOP talking points like “the Jew Socialist is going to RAISE TAXES! Gasp! Clutch pearls!

    Your “source” for this whole opinion piece is Cillizza, who was possibly the only person in the country who believed that the Benghazi inquiry was a genuine fact-finding mission and NOT political at all.

    Wow, John, I know you’re a Hilary fan, but this is Trump-level teabaggery. You couldn’t find a nice juicy quote from Sarah Palin too?

    I’ll still take the honest (if unrealistic) idealist over the corporate apologist (who admired Kissinger, voted for war, and for the Panama “free trade”/tax-evasion act) any day.

  166. BeccaM says:

    I’m seeing the same thing among Sanders supporters, as if electing him President will result in his every proposal coming true. And as a Sanders supporter, I see more of it than I might otherwise.

    Honestly? I still see no reason to change my support away from Sanders right now, but I am entirely on the fence as far as which of them can actually achieve their stated policy goals. I remember supporting Obama in part because he promised to shut down Gitmo “on Day 1” — and we know how that turned out.

  167. BeccaM says:

    The thing I wanted most out of the ACA — and thought would have been achievable with solid leadership on the part of Obama and the Congressional Dem leaders — was a public insurance option. What offended me most was how for months we were either told nothing or told it was desirable, when in fact we were lied to, that it had been taken off the table even before the negotiations started.

    Not having it though, what we do have with the ACA is infinitely better than not having it at all. Without the ACA, I would not have health insurance, period.

    I brought up that particular line that I did because I prefer Sanders’ baseline position — a starting point — of Medicare for All, out of which a compromise for an improved ACA with gov’t provided or underwritten insurance could result. And I was irritated beyond measure when Clinton and her campaign deliberately misrepresented Sanders’ position as “repeal the ACA, then see what we can get” when that was not the truth at all.

    Yes, I do find myself wishing we could fast-forward to next January where President Clinton or Sanders is being sworn in, along with a Democratic majority in the Senate and maybe — just maybe — even the House, too.

  168. trinu says:

    I agree with you, but many of Hillary’s supporters have been talking as if the GOP will just melt before her, even while they call Bernie’s supporters naive. I trust Bernie more to appoint prosecutors to go after corporate abuses of power, and to appoint judges to oversee legal cases (including corporate abuses of power). Bernie has said he intends to shut down the NSA mass surveillance, which he can do with a simple executive order; Hillary has not. Given their environmental positions on issues like fracking, I’d rather have Bernie appoint the head of the EPA.

  169. Doug105 says:

    The way you wrote it sounded much like a Berniebro.

  170. ADDISON GAINOUS says:

    This is the thing that drives me crazy about him. He almost thinks childlike or something. in that I mean naive and stubborn.

  171. Houndentenor says:

    I got the rest of it. I was responding to one sentence early on and to Sanders supporters in general. I know not everyone is like that but I’m seeing a lot lately from folks who’d just as soon Trump or Cruz be president as Clinton who according to them is more of the same. Medicare for all was never on the table. I wish people would stop acting like it was. I didn’t mean that to be an attack on you. I was just discussing something that you did mention in your post, not to the whole thing. Sheesh. Everyone is so goddamn touchy. I can’t wait for this election to be over. People are fucking insane.

  172. BeccaM says:

    Thinking the GOP is just going to melt before Sanders and give him whatever he wants strikes me as particularly magical thinking.

    Thinking the GOP is just going to melt before ANY Democrat elected to the White House and give him or her whatever they want is magical thinking.

    Tell me (1) how a given potential nominee’s proposals are better and (2) how he or she has concrete plans to implement them, then there’s a debate to be had. Otherwise it’s just more “your candidate bad, so you have to support mine” nonsense.

  173. BeccaM says:

    Well put, Phil, and I like that framing as it’s perfect.

  174. BeccaM says:

    I don’t think you really read my post or my intentions. I am emphatically NOT and never have been “fuck the ACA if I can’t have the perfect outcome.” Same as I’m not a BernieOrBust idiot.

    Hell, ‘perfect and my way or nothing’ is the exact OPPOSITE of every single damned thing I wrote up there.

  175. stupidicus says:

    wow — a couple of Clinton lovers say it so it must be so. It is good to see you taking ownership of the various Clinton failures on the foreign policy front one of the other writers here so rightfully noted, ect.

    Given that, and a lack of anything else meaningful in her record other than her failure to achieve another market-based healthcare scheme, and embarrassingly so, you’re supporting someone with a record of failure in getting the big things done, except in her role as an avid warhawk.

    How long have you supported our empire and its costs in blood and treasure, and who’s most likely to diminish those costs?

    “gets things done” indeed.

  176. RickRollington says:

    She is using corporate money from super PACs to help other blue dog corporatist Democrats (aka center-right).

  177. AxelDC says:

    You are putting words in my mouth. At least Clinton is helping get other Democrats re-elected by raising $32 million for Congressional campaigns. Sanders can’t be bothered with party building.

    I expect Republicans to treat Clinton and Sanders with the same contempt they have treated Democratic Presidents since Jimmy Carter. Sanders is the one who thinks emailing McConnell will get him to change his mind.

  178. basenjilover says:

    Ugh! Did I ask you to line up and vote for my pick (BTW do tell who my pick is)? Are you not familiar with BENGHAZI !!! crap and it is on-going with no end in sight? I will vote for Democratic nominee whether it is Clinton or Sanders. The point is, my dear, we better be damn ready for extreme Republican obstructionisms particularly if Hillary is elected. Far too often Democrats do not fight back as hard as they should.

  179. RickRollington says:

    Thinking the GOP is just going to melt before HRC and give her whatever she wants strikes me as particularly magical thinking.

  180. RickRollington says:

    It’s a good thing Teddy Roosevelt didn’t have you around.

  181. trinu says:

    There’s no reason to expect Hillary to fare any better, given how the GOP has treated Obama, who is a moderate. With the gerrymandering of the House, we’re just voting for who makes appointments. Also, in the highly unlikely event that the GOP is willing to negotiate, you don’t start negotiations by opening with the best deal you think you can get.

  182. RickRollington says:

    Yes. I don’t understand why this is complicated. Bill Clinton and the DLC made the party appeal to business interests, and changed the Democrats into a center-right party advancing privatization and other neoliberal economic policies like “free trade”. They’re no longer friendly to labor, and have instead remade themselves into a party for educated white-collar professionals.

    From my perspective, as a Democrat who predates this shift, they have converted the Democratic Party into what used to be the moderate wing of the GOP.

    So yes, John is not a crazy, right-wing, Tea Party type. But sorry, when he complains about taxes and defends Hillary so vociferously despite her hawkish foreign policy ideas and commitment to the financial sector (as we see with her support of the Panamanian trade deal which helped so many people hide even more money offshore), he sounds like a Rockefeller Republican.

  183. Houndentenor says:

    John is a Republican?

    The Bernie followers are as bad as the Tea Party.

  184. Houndentenor says:

    Medicare for all instead of the ACA? Obamacare just barely passed. No way was medicare for all possible. Should we have just waited and continued to deal with pre-existing conditions bullshit from insurance companies until some day god knows when when we have the votes in Congress to get what you want? I know you mean well, but how is what you think should have happened supposed to have been accomplished? It’s easy enough to want to stick to your guns but this all or nothing approach to politics is getting us nowhere. There are things that need to be done for our country and they are things that are broadly popular but they aren’t happening because most of the Republicans and too many Democrats would rather have nothing than half of what they want. The rest of us can’t wait for perfect bills and proposals. we need things to be happening now.

  185. Houndentenor says:

    I have this fight with liberals all the time. I’m not impressed by empty promises and token gestures. Both Sanders and all the Republicans are promising things that are impossible. Dreams are nice but at some point you have to grow up and deal with the possible.

  186. AxelDC says:

    Magical thinking never achieved anything but heartbreak.

  187. trinu says:

    I was impressed by his foreign policy positions in the earlier debates. Although I’m closer to Hillary’s stance on Syria, I prefer Bernie on most other issues like Israel and trade agreements. I do hope he talks more about racism and environmental issues.

  188. Phil in FLL says:

    I’ve tried to ignore this humorous meme up to this point, but it’s been repeated on the last several threads over and over and over and over and over…well, you get the idea. The meme is:

    “Who paid you to disagree with me? No one could possibly disagree with me in good faith, so someone must have paid you to disagree with me.”

    This meme is as humorous now as it ever was. Some people support one candidate, some people support another. Fair enough?

  189. I did not read that, and am happy to do so as well now that you reference it.

  190. Doug105 says:

  191. Doug105 says:

    Conservatives, only caring till they’re born.

  192. BeccaM says:

    A couple weeks ago, John said he was between jobs and (my own term here) blog-slumming a bit until he figures out what he’s going to do next. I took him at his word.

  193. Jasper says:

    liberals; tough on unborn babies, soft on terrorists

  194. Doug105 says:

    Go vote for the pedophile party then.

    Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15 year old girl.

    Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

    Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

    Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to sexual relations with a juvenile

    Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

    Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

    Republican anti-gay activist Earl “Butch” Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

    Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15-year old girl.

    Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.

    REPUBLICAN Otis O’Neal Horsley (born 1944) is an American political figure of the far REPUBLICAN right. He is the author of christiangallerycom, a website devoted to his advocacy of militant anti-abortion, secessionist, and anti-gay views admitted to Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.engaging in homosexual and bestiality sex, including having sex with a MULE!

    Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a “good military man” and “church goer,” was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

    Republican director of the “Young Republican Federation” Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.

    A former college administrator, a former Christian bookstore owner and a former policeman admitted to sexual misconduct with a teenage boy.They were among five men arrested in March as part of an ongoing investigation of men who meet boys through Internet chat rooms, authorities said.William Gillin, 53, republican and Paul Skiles, 63, republican, both of Johnstown, pleaded guilty yesterday to corruption of minors, indecent assault and unlawful communications with minors. Mr. Gillin is the former alumni relations director at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown. Mr. Skiles owned the now-closed B&K Christian Bookstore in Richland Township.Some of the incidents occurred when the boy was 16, prosecutors said. He is now 17.

    Donald Lukens, Republican Congressman, was found guilty of having sex with a minor – a girl he was accused of sleeping with since she was 13

    Jim Wesr, Spokane Mayor. Supported a bill, which failed, would have barred gays and lesbians from working in schools, day-care centers and some state agencies. Voted to bar the state from distributing pamphlets telling people how to protect themselves from AIDS. Proposed that “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person” among teens be criminalized. Had a sexual affair with an 18 year old boy

    Stephen White, Republican preacher. Was arrested after allegedly offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

    Nicholas Morency, Republican anti-abortion activist, pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor

    Jeffrey Patti, Republican Committee Chairman, was arrested for distributing what experts call “some of the most offensive material in the child pornography world” – a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped. Daily Record News Article

    John Paulk, lied about prowling for gay sex while running a fundamentalist group to cure gays.

    Harvey Pitt, SEC Chief under George W. Bush until he was forced to resign in 2002. Worked for New Frontier Media, a firm which distributed teen sex videos.

    Mark Pazuhanich, Republican judge, pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

    George Roche III, carried on a 19 year affair with his son’s wife, while serving as president of Hillsdale College, which “emphasizes the importance of the common moral truths that bind all Americans, while recognizing the importance of religion for the maintenance of a free society.”

    Beverly Russell, County Chairman of the Christian Coalition, admitted to an incestuous relationship/sexually molested his step-daughter, Susan Smith, who later drowned her two children.

    Jack Ryan, 2004 Republican nominee for US Senate from Illinois, pressured his wive, actress Jeri Ryan, to have sex with other men. Tricked her into visiting sex clubs, where he asked her to have sex with him while others watched.

    Joe Scarborough, former Republican Congressman, currently a conservative talk show host. Resigned his congressional seat abruptly to spend more time with his family, amidst allegations of an affair. His intern, Lori Klausutis, was soon after found dead in his office. The medical examiner, who had his license revoked in Missouri for falsifying information in an autopsy report, and suspended in florida for six years, ruled the case an accident, after giving conflicting information about her injuries. He said he lied about them because “The last thing we wanted was 40 questions about a head injury.”

    Ed Schrock, two-term republican congressman, with a 92% approval rating from the Christian Coalition. Cosponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, consistently opposed gay rights. Married, with wife and kids. Withdrew his candidacy for a third term after tapes of him soliciting for gay sex were circulated.

    Dr. Laura Schlessinger, right wing conservative radio host. Promotes family values, estranged from her mother, opposes birth control, has had her tubes tied, espouses saving oneself for marriage, admits to having had sex before she was married, opposes adultery, has committed adultery while she was married, and has slept with a married man, opposes divorce, is divorced and remarried, has posed for nude photos which are available online.

    Jean Schmidt, OH-2, though not herself implicated, employed a campaign manager (Joe Braun) in her 2005 election who once wrote an article condemning gay men for running sex ad profiles, and who was then accused of running his own sex profile on Collarme, an S&M sex site. The profile called for “submissives” to wear only a collar and handcuffs and to have hot wax dripped on them

    John Scmitz, right-wing republican congressman, who had had his committee chairship taken away from him in the California State Senate after issuing a press release attacking Jews, feminists and gays. Forced out of office in 1982 for having an adulterous affair and fathering two children out of wedlock with one of his students. He was caught because his baby was admitted to hospital for having hair tied so tightly around his penis that it was almost severed. His daughter, Mary Kay LeTourneau, was convicted of having an adulterous affair with one of her students, and giving birth to two of his children

    Jimmy Swaggart, televangelist, said during a sermon “I’m trying to find the correct name for it … this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. … I’ve never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I’m gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I’m gonna kill him and tell God he died.” Had an affair with a prostitute.

    Randall Terry, Right to Life activist, founder of Operation Rescue, involved in the Terri Schiavo protests. Once imprisoned for sending former President Bill Clinton an aborted fetus. His son Jamiel is gay; his daughter Tila had sex outside of marriage, became pregnant, had a miscarriage – she is no longer welcome in his home; his daughter Ebony had 2 children outside of wedlock and became Muslim. He has campaigned against infidelity and birth control, gays and unwed mothers. Terry himself was censured by his church after committing adultery.

    Strom Thurmond, republican senator and racist, raped and impregnanted a 15-year old African American maid

  195. So you’re saying he’s not affiliated, employed or paid?

    When this was John’s blog I expected him to do as he wanted. He’s now a guest on Jon’s blog and, like Cliff (and I think even Chris in Paris or maybe Joe Sudbay (sp?)) added clarifications if, and when, they were affiliated, employed or paid.

    It’s seriously just a question.

  196. Doug105 says:


  197. BeccaM says:

    Thanks, appreciate it Trinu. And all your points are valid. Plus I really do hope the Clinton v Sanders competition makes it all the way to the end, because whoever wins, it’s been good for them — and it keeps the news from being 100% 24/7 Trump TV. The other thing I’m hoping is that after today, Sanders takes at least part of the next two weeks to bone up on non-Wall Street issues. The rhetorical flailing from those interviews was painful to witness.

  198. trinu says:

    I think his point was that Hillary isn’t going to get much in the way cooperation from Congressional Republicans either.

  199. Doug105 says:

    So because of fake witch hunts we should all line up to vote for your pick? Do you even have a real point?

  200. Jasper says:

    Doug, as a human right advocate I can’t support either. I mean they are terrible people, they support chopping up unborn babies in the womb.

  201. trinu says:

    I don’t think you’re a pro-Clinton mole. That being said we’re voting for candidates, not their supporters. As for the general election, none of the GOP candidates are electable. Cruz and Trump have much larger hatedoms than either Sanders or Clinton, and Kasich can’t win the nomination without a brokered convention, which would cause Trump supporters to sit out.

  202. BeccaM says:

    I’m torn. All of the following is from my own perspective and represents nothing but my own opinions, but here goes–

    I’ve made no secret of the fact I’ve been a Sanders supporter, ever since his candidacy went from quixotic to possible. I like what he says and I like his aspirational goals. He’s right: Social Security and Medicare shouldn’t merely be ‘protected’; they should be expanded. Medicare for All is what the ACA (aka ‘Obamacare’) should have been, rather than a retread of exactly what the GOP tried to push as its healthcare reform alternative in the early 1990s. “Too big to fail” for any corporation, especially banks and investment firms that can bring down the world economy, is too big to be allowed to continue to exist in their current forms. Sanders was on-board with LGBT civil rights in general years before Clinton was, and while he initially has a disturbing “states rights” and “civil unions only” attitude regarding marriage equality, again he switched his position years before Clinton did. Most of all though, I’d trace a majority of this country’s problems to the income and opportunity inequalities which have been getting steadily worse over the last few generations. Inequalities which really began to accelerate after Reagan’s ‘trickle down’ and ‘government itself is the problem’ policies began to take hold.

    There is also a lot about Clinton I don’t like. The ‘triangulation’ and center-right lurches. The promotion of incrementalism over real reforms. The adoption of GOP-lite talking points, like the notion there’s something inherently impossible with the idea of taxpayer-funded college education or baseline guaranteed access to healthcare — even though dozens of advanced countries all over the world have managed it.

    And yet… and yet. I’m disturbed and dismayed by the “Better Trump or Cruz than Clinton” supporters Sanders seems to have attracted, because it smells like 2000 and 1972 and 1968 all over again. However, they’re not his fault — Sanders has never encouraged this attitude and if asked he’s said it’s important however the primaries turn out, a DEMOCRAT is elected president — so I just try to ignore these short-sighted nose-spiting fools.

    It’s also a truism that presidential candidates always promise way more than they or the office they’re campaigning to win can actually deliver. Or, as we’ve seen with Obama, sometimes when in office they can’t, don’t, or won’t use the powers they do have. I also try not to make the mistake, as I did in 2008, of projecting my hopes and dreams onto a fallible human being whose actual qualities never can match the perfection of the idealized version of them. I think both Sanders and Clinton supporters can be prone to seeing only the good in their preferred candidate and none of the downsides.

    There is no doubt whatsoever Sanders has managed to energize young voters, just like a young junior Senator from Illinois did eight years ago. Unfortunately, these are the same voters who, if we look at the demographics and actual poll data, didn’t show up two years later when the Democrats needed to protect their tenuous House majority and Senate supermajority during the crucial 2010 census year. Now to be fair, I don’t like blaming voters — I put the VAST majority of the blame on Obama and the Dems for pissing away their temporary control of the federal gov’t by failing repeatedly to even try to deliver on their many campaign promises and policy objectives. Still, this is what temporarily energized Democratic voters seem to keep doing: They show up for the presidential years, then sit out the mid-terms when it really matters. Over and over.

    One of Clinton’s top weaknesses as a candidate is precisely this ‘enthusiasm gap.’ Her long career in and adjacent to politics makes her an easy target for the opposition. But to keep this already long comment from getting too ridiculously long, let’s just say I have these mental lists of positive and negative qualities when I decided who I was going to support. BOTH candidates have positives and negatives about them, and until very recently, Sanders always scored well ahead of Clinton in my personal and entirely subjective analyses.

    But lately that edge Sanders has had for me has been eroding, caused by two factors mainly. One is how he’s so relentlessly “on message” that it seems like you can’t ask him anything without Sanders bringing up Wall Street and big banks. Yes, I get it, that’s very important, but what about all these other issues? When he does try to answer complex questions about domestic or foreign policy, he seems lacking in depth and substance. (Clinton, on the other hand, is such a policy wonk it’s almost painful.)

    The second factor is I’m not hearing a single answer other than “voter enthusiasm” as to how Sanders plans to implement any of his policies or promises. John Aravosis is correct here: Appealing to Mitch McConnell’s sense of human decency and empathy isn’t going to achieve a single goddamned thing. Emails and phone calls? Oh for fuck’s sake…

    You make your presidential aspirations possible by coming up with concrete plans and vigorous efforts to retake Congress. For all her many flaws, Clinton has been campaigning and helping fund-raise for down-ticket Democrats. Sanders has not and when it’s brought up, he changes the subject to Wall Street and “money in politics.” I have to ask: How the hell are you going to get Citizens United overturned if you don’t have any kind of plan or intentions to retake the Senate for the Dems?

    Seems like we’re at the point of idealism versus pragmatism. In this election cycle, one of the best features of Sanders v Clinton is he’s pulled her to the progressive left. Not as far as I like, but it’s helped. But between the TV debates and these recent interviews and having watched more stump speeches than I care to admit or remember, I’m increasingly feeling like my guy is mostly a one issue candidate. (Not exclusively, mind, but ‘mostly.’) These interviews trying to drill down and get an answer other than (sorry for doing this…) “a noun, a verb, and Wall Street” haven’t convinced me Sanders actually has a plan other than personal appeals to GOPer assholes to implement his policies.

    So where am I now on all this? (If anybody cares, which I suspect isn’t the case.) Well, my enthusiasm for Sanders isn’t what it was, while my grudging respect for Clinton has grown. (Whoever wins this Dem nomination is going to be a stronger candidate for it.)

    If people want to accuse me of being a paid Clinton mole for backing away from full-throated Sanders support, rather than having my own opinions, preferences, and positions, so be it. Come June, I still plan (for now) to cast my New Mexico primary vote for Sanders. But I am beginning to suspect he doesn’t have what it takes to win the nomination or the general election. I’m also way, way less certain than I was a few months ago that Sanders can even hope to implement these lofty goals of his, if he thinks he can rely on personal entreaties to get anything done.

    Yeah, Clinton is going to face non-stop GOP demanded investigations and attacks for being a woman and simply because she’s Hillary Clinton. If anyone thinks Sanders isn’t similarly vulnerable to being attacked is foolish; he’ll likely face anti-Semitic attacks, attacks on his “angry old man finger-waving” physical demeanor, and flat out accusations of being a Communist. If anyone thinks the Republicans will let this general election be about the issues and not an endless barrage of frantic personal attacks, that’s foolish, too. Let’s be clear here: Senator Bernie Sanders is no more immune to crass political attacks and dirty politics than Clinton is. If Sanders supporters think he won’t be ‘Swift Boated’, it’s flat out delusional. He will be. No matter who the Dems put up, whether it’s Clinton, Sanders, or a rainbow-shitting unicorn handing out wads of cash and candy, the Republicans will attack with everything they have because attacking is all they have left.

    So, if you’ve made it this far, the TL;DR version is: I still support and prefer Sanders, but lately he’s been making my likely switch of allegiance to Clinton as the likely Democratic party nominee rather easier to contemplate.

  203. Bill_Perdue says:

    Obama started, renewed or continued racist wars of aggression begun by the Clintons and Bushes in Libya, Egypt (where they support the Al Sisi dictatorship), Yemen, Palestine, Bahrain, Iraq where there are thousands of US troops and more on the way), Syria, Afghanistan (where almost 10,000 US tropps remain) and Pakistan, still subject to intermittent anti-civilian air and drone).

    Wars of aggression are a bipartisan policy, not just a Republican policy.

  204. trinu says:

    John, I know you’re probably worried that the Bernie or Bust movement could hand the presidency to the Republicans, but if you want to convince Bernie’s supporters to get behind Hillary, you have to convince them that she’d be a good president. Many of them are convinced that they’d be screwed with a Republican or Hillary in the White House. Also, calling the ideas pie in the sky without demonstrating how Hillary would fare any better isn’t persuasive. Most of us know that with the gerrymandering of the House, we’re just choosing who gets to appoint judges, prosecutors, etc, for the next four years.

  205. TheAngryFag says:

    I love these Hill-bot arguments against Bernie because they actually point out what his general election candidacy is going to be about… The ISSUES. Where as Republicans, no matter what troglodyte they run, will be screaming “Benghazi!”, “E-Mails!”, and just about any other scandal they want to dredge up from Whitewater to Monica. She will be on the defensive the whole time.

    They’ll also seize on her little white lies that she can’t seem to stop telling.

  206. BeccaM says:

    And John Aravosis has made it clear he prefers Clinton over Sanders. Why can’t he have that opinion and make arguments in favor of it without you assuming — or at least suspecting — these aren’t honest opinions but ones literally purchased?

    Like I said, it’s a cheap and dishonest rhetorical tactic, the lowest form of ad hominem that attempts to de-legitimize others by claiming their opinions aren’t their own. You should know better.

  207. nicho says:

    Not necessarily. Some people jump the shark voluntarily.

  208. Did Cliff Schecter always clearly denote his affiliations on here? I seem to remember that.

  209. Actually, I think Jock Ewes will be my new porn name!

  210. Oh, girl. I am much more Drama- Queen than that. I would have put on a fedora and stood on a chair and squealed “J’accuse!, motherfucker!”

    We deserve to know if John is paid, employed or affiliated – it’s just basic respect.

  211. basenjilover says:

    Will we be ready for endless special prosecutors appointed by Republicans on Clinton-fishing expeditions while Hillary is president?

  212. BeccaM says:

    Sometimes a question is the same thing as an accusation. Which is precisely what you intended.

  213. I did not say that. I asked.

  214. I’ve been on this blog for years. John is a consultant, and has consulted plenty of campaigns in the past. I am asking a question.

  215. BeccaM says:

    “You’re being paid to say these things” is, unfortunately, one of the cheapest attack lines out there.

  216. Badgerite says:

    If you have ever followed this blog there is one thing you should absolutely know for sure and that is the John Aravosis is not up for sale. This is perhaps the stupidest comment I have ever seen at this blog. And this shows exactly what is wrong with the Sanders campaign and their supporters. These are the people who claim they can build a consensus in this country that will scare the GOP. Yeah. Right. They are too busy sniping the people who would be their natural allies to do that.

  217. Badgerite says:

    It isn’t about “experience”. It is about temperament, knowledge and judgement and I believe the point of this post is that Sanders is not up to it and I agree. That can be seen in the kind of campaign he is now running. Please don’t tell me the man’s ego has not got the better of him. I got eyes. And his supporters and their what are essentially idiotic statements are indicative of poor leadership on his part.

  218. You show up suddenly with several hit pieces, John. Are you being paid? I know you’re great at what you do – but if you’re being paid we deserve to know. Oh, and welcome back?

  219. doug dash says:

    I agree with you.

  220. nicho says:

    Oh, Hillary is “ready,” and that’s what’s so scary. A Hillary presidency will make us nostalgic for the warm and cuddly days of Dick Cheney. If Hillary gets elected, once the shit hits the fan — and it will — all the Hill Shills will scurry back into the woodwork.

  221. doug dash says:

    I am going to to everything I can to elect a Democrat no matter who its. The alternative is too nasty to even contemplate.

  222. doug dash says:

    If you are not able to vote for either Clinton and Sanders with a good heart then you are no Democrat. Pick up your fucking marbles and go home. Some of you people sound like Trump. “Well. he started it first”. Grow the fuck up.

  223. BrianG says:

    John, are you being paid? You quit blogging a year ago. You put $50,000 into this blog. Suddenly you come back and it’s non stop Hillary boostersism from a former “Hillary Hater.” How much experience did Obama have in 2008?

  224. Chuck from PA says:

    John, I am so happy that you are back on this site with your incisive perspective. You have been missed by me. Now if the web would only bring back the pet tab, I’d be completely happy.

  225. keirmeister says:

    My main problem with Bernie’s plans is that they often require the efforts of “young people” to implement.

    Remember the last few times we tried that? How reliable was that youth voter turnout?

    I don’t mean to harsh on the Millennials, etc. I’m GenX (which means pretty much screwed). But history is history and we were just as unreliable.

    Frankly, and I’m going to need a shower after saying this, Conservatives had the right idea: start small, start local, build it up over time. Change the terms, move the Overton Window in ways it won’t be noticed until it’s too late.

    And build your own media and support infrastructure.

    Oh yeah, and fight dirty.

  226. heimaey says:

    Bill, if he’s alive and/or coherent, and Obama will have to do all the heavy lifting in the fall.

  227. Naja pallida says:

    When one’s electoral chances hinge entirely on whether people will hold their nose and vote for you, it’s hard not to expect failure. Hillary Clinton is the Mitt Romney of the Democratic party. Perfectly electable on paper, but a lot of people in their own party are less than enthused, and the other side despises them.

  228. heimaey says:

    She’s also doing herself no favors with young people and long-term liberals like myself. If anyone is not ready to be president it is her – she looks about as excited to be running as I am when I go to the dentist.

  229. doug dash says:

    Yes, they have hated her for years. That is not going to go away.

  230. Naja pallida says:

    They don’t want the military to really work either. Sure, they want to start wars all the time, but they don’t ever want to adequately fund them or assign the necessary amount of manpower. Then they hamstring every mission with vague, entirely political, rules of engagement, which guarantees failure. They certainly don’t want to fund the aftermath when thousands upon thousands of veterans need and deserve help. Not to mention, millions of refugees. The only thing they want the military for is to funnel huge amounts of completely accountable money to corporate interests, and nobody can question it because “national security”. Right now our military is one of the most broken parts of our government, and everybody in Washington – with the exception of one person – has the same solution: Throw more money at it.

  231. RickRollington says:

    Hillary will be “more successful” because she wants to pass the same things Republicans want to pass. It took Bill Clinton to pass welfare “reform”, it’ll take Hillary to pass Social Security “reform” (i.e. privatization of some kind).

    John Aravosis is a Republican. When he makes Republican arguments, like taxes are an evil to be avoided, he’s defending all of the malign neglect this country has been subjected to since the days of Regan’s “starve the beast” philosophy.

    That’s leaving aside, of course, the asinine idea that presidents are supposed to write legislation. Maybe John needs to remind himself of what the constitutional duties are of the POTUS.

    I’m sure FDR and Teddy Roosevelt didn’t know every last detail of their Wall St. reforms and trust-busting. It doesn’t take a financial regulator to recognize the malfeasance of the financial sector and their unhealthy grip on our politics.

    If John doesn’t like Sanders that’s his right, but to pretend that Hillary’s “get things done” mantra is preferable when what she’s offering is more of the same failed economic neoliberalism of the past 30 years is extremely dishonest.

    And now that we see the headlines about the latest catastrophe from Hillary’s reckless pursuit of “free trade”, the Panama Papers, John sounds even more ridiculous than usual.

  232. heimaey says:

    Clinton – I think she will have a big general election problem. The right despises her and half of the left is not a big fan.

  233. heimaey says:

    Not sure how one interview proves he’s not ready. Also not sure how his answser was so terrible – young kids are marching in the streets – he is motivating them and getting them excited about politics. It’s not a far stretch to imagine if he were president he wouldn’t stir up significant GOP protests to help the potlical process; it’s happened before. Also, if you’re going to run on gaffes (which I don’t even think this was – just not his best interview) then Hillary by comparison has far more miserable moments just in this campaign season alone.

    I’d like to add that Sanders also predicted the Panama Papers five years ago. Personally, I’d like a president with that kind of foresight.

  234. doug dash says:

    You got a good point. Who do you think the republicans hate more, Clinton or Sanders?

  235. Jimbo2K7 says:

    And somehow Hillary is going to be more successful? Upon what do you base this?

    Bernie’s point is that this cannot be done without major changes in the House and Senate, his ‘revolution’ as he describes it. He has never indicated that he will wave his hands and make things happen – he has always been much more pragmatic than that.

    I am also pragmatic. It is unlikely that anything will change until we get rid of the corrupt radical right wingers and DINO’s that are sabotaging our government. Be it Bernie or Hillary I will be there to push for change – not more of the same.

    Bernie has proven to be far more experienced and capable than you will allow, and it is very disappointing to see you go down this road of trash talking Bernie. His groundswell of support does count for something, and if the pendulum swings for Bernie, there are far worse things that could happen.

  236. doug dash says:

    Unless something drastically changes in this country very soon, I don’t know how anyone will get anything done. The Republicans want to shut down the country. They don’t want any facet of government to work with the exception of the military.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS