.
.
.
(“Don’t Tell Me”: Words by Bernie Sanders, Animation by Rodd Perry)
Why is Hillary suddenly hemorrhaging supporters in Iowa? Perhaps it is that she does the sort of thing reported on below. A story lede from this morning’s email from TIME magazine.
Bernie Sanders is a shill for the gun lobby. Bernie Sanders is trying to dismantle healthcare. Bernie Sanders is inexperienced on foreign policy.
Those are all criticisms Hillary Clinton has thrown at the Vermont Senator in recent weeks, like so many strands of wet spaghetti, as she looks for something that sticks to quell his populist revolt. Now in Iowa, Clinton is workshopping one more attack, painting Sanders as a starry-eyed idealist incapable of acting on his ambitious agenda.
In a day of campaigning on Thursday in snowy Iowa, Clinton questioned Sanders’ ability to form coalitions and pass legislation in Congress, accusing him of being out of touch with reality.
In theory, there are a lot of things to like about his ideas,” she said at an event at Simpson College, in Indianola, Iowa. “But ‘in theory’ isn’t enough. A president has to deal in reality.”
‘I am not interested in ideas that sound good on paper but will never make it in real life,’ Clinton said.”
Another day, another abrupt new line of attack, desperately hoping to find something that will stick. Tomorrow, it will be another one, while Sanders will keep hitting the same themes.
Here’s the secret: none of us really know what is “possible” in politics. Electing Reagan was impossible. Electing Obama was impossible. Now electing Sanders — or Trump, or Cruz — all of them impossible, but no longer that unlikely. What the centrist pundits claim to “know” isn’t fact at all; it’s preference.
What we KNOW is that if you don’t try, you can’t succeed. Hillary’s position is that she doesn’t want us to try, because she’s quite happy with the moderate consensus the way that it is. It serves her and her patrons pretty well. And yeah, she’d manipulate it reasonably well. (“School uniforms,” remember?) But it would not lead, despite her gender, to serious change.
When it comes to political issues overall, Hillary doesn’t get — or at least pretends not to get — what she DOES get when it comes to the “women’s and children’s issues” that are (or at least once were) closest to her heart. One’s own bold actions, fueled by what some guy once called “the audacity of hope,” can help make a new reality where new things become possible. That’s what Bernie and his “political revolution” are really about: finding out what is possible.
Cheney (as the worse part of G. W. Bush) had much the same view of extending the bounds of what is “possible” when it came to normalizing war crimes. Then, the stretching of the “possible” was terrifying. Now, with Bernie, it’s exhilarating — a step into the unknown of a new, non-lobbyist-dominated world. And Hillary’s drenching it with cold water is unnecessary and unpopular, because she really doesn’t KNOW what we might accomplish if we try.
It’s terrifying! But not to Bernie supporters. We’re willing to try. Like the video says, don’t tell me we can’t.
It’ll be entertaining to read all these posts when you predictably and dutifully line up to support her after she secures the nomination.
I am designing a line of clothespins, for all of us who don’t want a Republican shaping the next Supreme Court to wear on our noses come Election Day (if Hillary gets the nomination.)
If she is nominated, I’ll support while wearing one of Vern’s clothespins on my nose.
Although, what I’d PREFER to do is to get some Jill Stein supporter in a swing state to vote for her while I agree to vote for Stein here, where it won’t matter.
In fact, maybe Vern and I can get together and offer some Nevada or New Mexico voter a 2-for-1 deal!
It’s great, isn’t it? Art Garkunkel, who is normally apolitical, had an interview out today explaining why he agreed to let Bernie use his recording.
This talk of clothespins is disturbing. Just because there’s a presidential election it doesn’t mean that you are required by Law to participate. A vote for the ‘lesser of 2 evils’ is one primary reason for the decline of our empire. If we want to save the nation we must change our old habits.
Servergate may catch up with Hillary yet. There’s overwhelming evidence that she’s dirty. The FBI may surprise you. But then again…maybe not. I’d give it 4 to 1 odds that they let her skate. But still, 25% is an outside chance. If this was 1960-70 she’d would’ve already been indicted and working on motions to suppress. And if the dog wouldn’t have stopped to take a leak he would have caught the rabbit too.
*Teflon……lots of electeds get to paint on a coat of it. Unless they actually vote against those in charge……….then they wind up like Nixon or Spiro Agnew! If they really screw up…they wind up like RFK, JFK, MLK, Malcolm X or Lee Harvey Oswald. The facts are: America needs a Woman President. Much as we needed a Black President. We are still not ready for a Hispanic or Asian President ….just yet. If we have to have a Jewish President……we would hope it would be Bernie! Bernie is a real mench! Bernie is like Albert Brooks or Mel Brooks….either one of them could be a great Jewish President too!
I’d just settle for an honest President who isn’t owned before he or she moves into the White House.
You seem to have Presidential Election confused with Baskin-Robbins.
If the odds are 4:1, that’s a 20% chance.
If it truly comes down to a coin flip between two candidates, then I’d skip the race. Otherwise, one votes because — to whatever extent — it matters.
One in four is 25% on math challenged one
Nope smartass, Greg was right. And you are not the real Fullerton Harpoon.
You’re absolutely right that “one in four” is 25%.
You’re wrong because “four to one” means “one in five.” Add together the four and the one to get the denominator.
But thanks for reading, fake ‘poon!
I’m a Hillary guy. Me ‘n Lil’ Clumski are gonna walk Anaheim’s barrios for Hil.’ We’ll teach ’em they gotta get off their pinche backsides n’ vote. For their own best interests – the benevolent parasol of corporate America!
“That trick never works!”
“This time FOR SURE!”
I see Bloomberg is seriously considering throwing his hat into the ring as an Independent. Hmmm. At first glance it seems that he would take votes away from the Democrat nominee. Bloomberg and Trump have opposing views on many key issues. Bloomberg has more in common with Hillary and Sanders than with Trump. I don’t think Bloomberg has any intention to win. I believe if he enters the race he will end up being the spoiler. I wonder who’s pulling his strings behind the scenes? Stay tuned!
Professor Reich weighs in!