Hillary Clinton Says “No We Can’t” In New Ad

As the Iowa and New Hampshire campaigns continue to plow ahead full speed, Senator Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have officially dropped their diplomacy and engaged in a “no holds barred” battle for the Democratic nomination. Polls from a multitude of sources showcase both sides having a tight lead over the other, but ultimately only one will emerge victorious.

While Sanders has raised valid points about Clinton’s validity as a candidate (citing her continued ties to Wall Street cronies like Goldman Sachs), Clinton has taken to adopting a different tactic to smear Sanders; realism. Clinton (and her family for that matter) continue to raise the question of whether or not Sanders’s plans for America, such a single-payer healthcare system, would even be legible in today’s political climate.

Now Clinton has upped her game, releasing two political ads that, while not naming him directly, target the Senator’s proposals. The first claims how Clinton will be able to push reasonable legislation through Congress compared to Sanders’s ideas “that sound good on paper but will never make it in the real world.” The second highlights Clinton’s experience as the former Secretary of State, and takes small jabs at Sanders’s stance on gun control.

What’s interesting about both, particularly the first one, however, is the unintentional message they send out. Bernie Sanders has gained a lot of popularity by proposing what strategists may call “real change” ideas. It’s not just about maintaining the status quo, but fighting Wall Street for their damages on the economy, fighting for healthcare as a human right, and fighting for every kid to be given a chance at a college education. Clinton’s ad seems to suggest that all this “real change” is too idealistic, which may hold some truth.

However, by outright using that as a reason to support her, what Clinton’s ultimately saying is: “real change is impossible, so settle for me.” Not the best motivation speech.



Big liberal and gamer.


45 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton Says “No We Can’t” In New Ad

  1. Robert McDiarmid

    Anyone that has paid attention to the two Obama administrations knows this to be true. Look at the laundry list of agenda items Obama was elected with in 2008 – and only major piece of it, The Affordable Care Act has come under relentless attacks and votes to remove it, simply because it is Obama’s idea.

    There is a) no reason to believe the GOP would treat a sitting democrat in the white house any differently after January 2017, b) that Hillary has a centrist position and allies in both parties in the current congress is absolutely true, and c) that Sander’s positions would be dead on arrival is the political reality.

    The amount of gerimandering and voter rearrangement done by GOP statehouses and the GOP controlled House and Senate makes the chances of changing either Chamber of Congress Democratic slim to none. Ultimately, though, most Americans don’t care about the House and what it does, unless it becomes so toxic that it makes persistent and damaging national news (like during a shutdown, although we saw in 2013 how the polling effects of shutdowns are ephemeral).
    Even if they lose the White House, Republicans still remain heavy favorites to hold the House and Senate next year.

    It’s politically naive to think Sanders would have success versus the current stock of GOP leadership in Congress. Mitch McConnell railroaded to another four years last November. and Paul Ryan – is just a younger, sulkier version of John Boehner. Even amongst his peers in the Senate, Sanders is far left.

      1. Dreams2Reality

        So true…imagine what would’ve happened if:

        1. American Revolution – GB’s too powerful, France will never help us, resistance is futile
        2. Ted Roosevelt – Rockefeller’s too powerful, we can never trust-bust Standard Oil
        3. WW2 – Hitler’s too tough to beat, we can never land on Normandy
        4. WW2 – atomic bomb’s just not possible
        5. Cold War – USSR’s too much for us to stand up to, we should just give up
        6. JFK – going to the moon is a stupid idea, who’d want to waste money on that. It’s technologically impossible anyway

    1. Suzanne M. Lambert

      And just like with Obama, the radical supporters will stay home two years later. Same thing that happened with Schwarzenegger in California — all the fans voted for the Terminator, then stayed home at the next election.

      Supporters like to point to Sanders 30+ years in Congress, but cannot name one single piece of legislation he supported that made the kind of changes he is promising. They cannot name the members of the coalition he formed – because there is none. He has spent his career as the radical outsider, and when it came right down to it, he voted to keep his job by voting against gun control six times.

      1. Olivia

        Your comment about Bernie reflects a profound level of ignorance and lack of information, or you are simply a liar:
        FYI copy and paste in the event that one is tired of hearing the “Hillary is more experienced, can work better with Republicans”, argument. If you’re not a Bernie supporter, this is still worth the the read. It is not propaganda, just voting history, the things he has spoken out on, and a few fun facts.
        BERNIE SANDERS: Former student organizer for the Congress of Racial Equality and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Led the first ever civil rights sit-in in Chicago history to protest segregated housing. One of only 2 sitting US Senators to have heard MLK’s “I have a Dream Speech” in person in the march on Washington, DC. Former professor of political science at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and at Hamilton College. Former mayor of Burlington, VT. Elected by the state of Vermont 8 times to serve in the House of Representatives. The longest-serving independent in U.S. congressional history. He was dubbed the “amendment king” in the House of Representatives for passing more amendments than any other member of Congress. Ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee. Author of 2 books, and co-author of 3 others. Has recorded and released a folk music album. Self-described Democratic Socialist. Married to a woman named Jane, who is a former president of Burlington College.
        ~In a stunning upset in 1981, Sanders wins the mayoral race in Burlington, Vermont’s largest city, by a mere 10 votes. Running as an independent, he shocks the city’s political establishment by defeating a six-term, local machine mayor.
        ~During his tenure as mayor, he balanced the city budget, drew a minor league baseball team to Burlington, turned the formerly industrial waterfront into a mixed-use district featuring housing, parks, and public space. Burlington is now reported to be one of the most livable cities in the nation.
        ~In 1991, he was the first independent elected to the House in 40 years. He will be re-elected by the people of Vermont to serve eight terms.
        ~Votes against a measure providing President George H. W. Bush with authorization to use military force in the Gulf War. “I have a real fear that the region is not going to be more peaceful or more stable after the war,” he says at the time.
        ~Co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus and chaired the group for its first 8 years.
        ~In 1992, Congress passes Sanders’ first signed piece of legislation to create the National Program of Cancer Registries. All 50 states now run registries to help cancer researchers gain important insights.
        ~Voted against the Clinton-era North American Free Trade Agreement, which we now know sent millions of American jobs overseas.
        ~Sanders is one of only 67 votes against the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married. It took 17 years to overturn this Act.
        ~Standing up against the major pharmaceutical companies, Sanders becomes the first member of Congress to take seniors across the border to Canada to buy lower-cost prescription drugs. The congressman continues his bus trips to Canada with a group of breast cancer patients the following April. These women are able to purchase their medications in Canada for almost one-tenth the price charged in the States.
        ~Thanks to Sanders’ efforts, IBM agreed to a $320 million legal settlement with some 130,000 IBM workers and retirees.
        ~About 10 years before the 2008 Wall Street crash spins the world economy into a massive recession, Sanders votes “no” on a bill to undo decades of financial regulations enacted after the Great Depression. The House passed the bill 362-57 over Sanders’ objection.
        ~Sanders votes against the USA Patriot Act. “All of us want to protect the American people from terrorist attacks, but in a way that does not undermine basic freedoms,” Sanders says at the time.
        ~Sanders votes against the Bush-Cheney war in Iraq. He warns at the time that an invasion could “result in anti-Americanism, instability and more terrorism.” We now know that that war was one of the worst foreign policy decisions in our history.
        ~Sanders passes an amendment in the House to stop the government from obtaining library and book-buying records on Americans.
        ~Sanders defeats Vermont’s richest man, Rich Tarrant, to be elected to the U.S. Senate. Sanders, running as an Independent, is endorsed by the Vermont Democratic Party and supported by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
        ~Sanders’ authored energy efficiency and conservation grant program passes into law. He later secures $3.2 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for the grant program.
        ~Thanks to Sanders’ efforts, funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program funding doubles, helping millions of low-income Americans heat their homes in winter.
        ~Sanders works with Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley to pass an amendment to an economic recovery bill preventing Wall Street banks that take taxpayer bailouts from replacing laid-off U.S. workers with exploited and poorly-paid foreign workers.
        ~Sanders passes language in the Affordable Care Act to allow states to apply for waivers to implement pilot health care systems by 2017. The legislation allows states to adopt more comprehensive systems to cover more people at lower costs.
        ~In 2010, President Barack Obama signs into law the Affordable Care Act with a major Sanders provision to expand federally qualified community health centers. Sanders secures $12.5 billion in funding for the program which now serves more than 25 million Americans. Another $1.5 billion from a Sanders provision went to the National Health Service Corps for scholarships and loan repayment for doctors and nurses who practice in underserved communities.
        ~Sanders works with Republican Congressman Ron Paul in the House to pass a measure as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill to audit the Federal Reserve, revealing how the independent agency gave $16 trillion in near zero-interest loans to big banks and businesses after the 2008 economic collapse.
        ~In 2012, he becomes Chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee.
        ~Sanders, backed by seniors, women, veterans, labor unions and disabled Americans leads a successful effort to stop a “chained-CPI” proposal supported by Congressional Republicans and the Administration to cut Social Security and disabled veterans’ benefits.
        ~Sanders introduces legislation to break up major Wall Street banks so large that the collapse of one could send the overall economy into a downward spiral.
        ~A bipartisan $16.5 billion veterans bill written by Sanders, Sen. John McCain and Rep. Jeff Miller is signed into law by President Barack Obama.
        ~In 2015, Sanders takes over as ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, using the platform to fight for his economic agenda for the American middle class.
        ~Sanders votes against the Keystone XL pipeline which would allow multinational corporation TransCanada to transport dirty tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.
        ~Both the NAACP, Human Rights Fund, Planned Parenthood, and the NHLA (National Hispanic Leadership Agenda) have given Sanders 100% voting scores during his tenure in the Senate. Earns a D- from the NRA.

        1. Tone

          I love what you posted, but that is really old news. Plus Sanders has only be a minority is terms of power. He hasn’t done anything on the World Stage, he’s never run anything bigger than the very small town of Burlington. People forget the President is overseeing a Trillion $$$ budget. Bernie has basically only balanced his cheque book from the stuff you posted. Let’s bet honest, Bernie is a small town, small state career politician. I love Bernie Sanders, because he was an Independent. Suddenly last November he changed to Dem, convenient?
          But let’s stop talking about nonsense and focus on what’s really important. Getting the country to move forward. I totally agree with Bernie (and hold out hope), if his Revolution truly happens, I’m right behind him!!! But he only got 50% of IOWA and that’s a small state, very homogeneous and the Dems in the state are known to be very liberal. If there is no revolution, Bernie’s policies would be impractical, never see the light of day, that’s coming from Bernie himself. So the real issue, if you see the Nation, standing up and overwhelmingly turning to Bernie, then he is the man to support, if not Clinton!!!! She’s get the job done, in face of the GOP. She’s done it before with the Children’s Health Care Plan, which she got many GOP to support.

      2. Steve Magruder

        I can name one piece of legislation that Hillary Clinton supported (and Bernie Sanders didn’t) that had a major impact on our nation: the legislation that enabled the genocidal Iraq War. Forget the ridiculous Benghazi — it’s Hillary’s compromises that have caused death and destruction. She’s no champ on foreign policy. She’s likely a warmonger-in-waiting.

      3. Steve

        Support for Treating Autism in Military Health Care: Sanders worked with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to pass an amendment by a vote of 66-29 ensuring that the military’s TRICARE system would be able to treat autism.

        Restricting the Bailout to Protect U.S. Workers (Feburary 2009): A Sanders amendment required the banking bailout to utilize stricter H-1B hiring standards to ensure bailout funds weren’t used to displace American workers.

        Expanding Free Health Care (November 2001): You wouldn’t think Republicans would agree to an expansion of funds for community health centers, which provide some free services. But Sanders was able to win a $100 million increase in funding with an amendment.

        Saving Money, for Colleges and Taxpayers (April 1998): In an amendment to H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Sanders made a change to the law that allowed the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education to make competitive grants available to colleges and universities that cooperated to reduce costs through joint purchases of goods and services.

        Suzanne, this is just a sample of things that Bernie has accomplished in Congress. They cover the issues of Veterans, Healthcare, Education and Corporate Bailouts.

        The following is a list of Congressional Committees that Sanders is part of:

        Environment and Public Works

        Energy and Natural Resources

        Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

        Budget

        Veterans’ Affairs

        Joint Economic Committee

        He also was reelected to his 2nd Senate term with 71% off the vote and has an 83% approval rating from his constituents. The highest of ANY senator! I’d like to see any of the other democratic or republican candidates make this claim.

        You’re welcome!

      4. Soli

        “Supporters like to point to Sanders 30+ years in Congress, but cannot name one single piece of legislation he supported that made the kind of changes he is promising. They cannot name the members of the coalition he formed – because there is none. He has spent his career as the radical outsider, and when it came right down to it, he voted to keep his job by voting against gun control six times.”

        You seem to be projecting your own ignorance of Bernie’s record onto us supporters. For one thing, he has been in Congress for 26 years, not 30+ – getting basic factual details wrong, when 30 seconds or so of skimming his article on Wikipedia would have revealed your mistake, demonstrates pretty well how committed you are to the facts in this discussion. After all, you already have a tidy narrative about Bernie and his supporters in your head; why let something as insignificant as facts get in the way and muddy the waters?

        Of course, getting the timeline of his career wrong is not all that important. It’s just a nice illustration of how little you care about whether the things you’re saying have any basis in reality. Far more problematic is your assertion that he did not accomplish anything in Congress, and that he has steadfastly refused to compromise and build consensus because he’s such a wild-eyed radical. It would be pretty difficult to come up with a description that is LESS grounded in reality than that one.

        http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you

        As for the gun manufacturer liability bill… I am so unbelievably sick of hearing people who have little to no understanding of the law misrepresent that vote. First off, it has nothing AT ALL to do with gun control, if gun control means restricting the types of weapons available, who is allowed to have them, how they are allowed to be used, or how they are allowed to be sold. It’s about civil suits for damages based on a tort claim against the manufacturer of a gun that was used in an unlawful shooting. Look, I think gun manufacturers are some of the most vile, despicable corporations on the planet, but I also paid attention to my torts class in law school. That bill was a response to some US courts actually accepting the theory that gun manufacturers can be liable for criminal misuse of their products. That might sound okay to you in this particular context, because you hate gun manufacturers and anything that hits them where it hurts is good public policy in your mind (I largely agree, for the record – fuck the gun industry)… But that’s not how law works. That theory of liability could have enormous and disastrous unintended and unforeseen side effects as other courts start applying those precedents to cases not involving guns. Do you think Nissan should be fined every time a drunk driver hurts someone with a Nissan car? My college roommate sold knife sets for Cutco; if one of his customers ended up stabbing their spouse with a knife he sold them, should he be liable in a wrongful death suit? I sincerely hope your answer to both of those is “of course not, that would be absurd.” Radically expanding theories of tort liability in ways that don’t make sense and ignore the basic equitable principles that tort law is supposed to be based on, simply because this crazy new rule would in some occasions hurt gun manufacturers, is a really really terrible idea.

        Tort law is important. It is, in many cases, one of the only legal principles that members of the public like you and me can use to protect ourselves when companies cut corners to save money and put their employees, their customers, or just random innocent bystanders at unreasonable risk. Republicans and corporate lobbies are always looking for an excuse to restrict tort judgments as much as possible. Remember that McDonald’s “hot coffee” case? It was actually a pretty valid claim – the coffee in question was so hot that, when it spilled on the plaintiff, she suffered extensive burns that required immediate medical treatment. But when the media and members of the public started reacting to it as a silly/exaggerated claim, the right wing seized the opportunity to push tort reform bills through many states which set maximum caps for damages (so if you get injured by the unreasonable, unsafe practices of a for profit business, and you take it to court and win, you still might not get enough in damages to cover your medical expenses from the injury).

        Tort actions are for when another party fails to uphold whatever duty of caution and care a reasonable person would expect of them in the circumstances. I think our society would be a better place if selling guns to consumers was generally considered unreasonable and unsafe, but that clearly isn’t descriptive of the society we live in. I’m all for the idea of enacting some new, tougher restrictions on guns, but if a gun manufacturer follows every rule meticulously, sells its guns only through lawfully authorized gun dealers, etc., it is ridiculous, IMO, to say that this behavior should retroactively be declared to have been illegal, if someone else who acquired the gun long after it left the manufacturer’s hands used it to commit a crime. That’s not how the law is supposed to work. And in this case, not only is it a bad legal rule – it’s a bad legal rule in a controversial area of law that also serves very important functions to protect the public from irresponsible corporate activity, and it could be used as an excuse/rallying cry for the anti-tort right to further undermine the whole area of law.

    2. Corey

      I don’t always agree with Obama’s decisions over the past 8 years but I have to say, he has done a lot more than any other candidate in decades. Hillary claims she will be the only candidate to really get things done but that’s because it’s easy to move forward with plans when you’re part of the corporate problem. Sanders, the ONLY candidate that’s not part of this rigged government, of course will have a harder time than Hilary because he’s not part of it and wants nothing to do with it. Just another reason why we need him more than ever as the President.
      Also, the only people that are naive in this country are not the Sander’s supporters, but every other candidate supporter for the shear fact that they don’t believe in a better world, they are just willing to settle. People who support Sanders see that when we unite and work together, anything is possible and with such a corrupt country ruling the world, it’s not time to settle, it’s time for a revolution to bring America back to the Rights of the American People.

    3. Me

      Which is why it isn’t enough just to elect Senator Sanders as President, but we need to elect more moderate politicians to Congress and to the Senate in order to pass meaningful legislation to address the nations problems. It is extremely frustrating to hear so many people say that we cannot effect change. As a matter of fact, YES, we can effect change, but it will not be easy and it cannot stop with just voting in a more progressive candidate for President, but YES, it can be done. Settling has gotten us where we are today. I, for one, refuse to settle any longer. We didn’t become a great nation by settling.

    4. Chuckwee

      I fail to see how the candidate who brags about how hated she is by republicans is going to have any more luck working with them to get things done. It’s true! They hate her with an unreasonable passion, and just as they’ve done with Obama (a candidate who was virtually unrecognizable from Clinton, on paper) they will do EVERYTHING in their power to block and obstruct everything she tries to put forth. Several republicans have said that they respect sanders, believe him to be an honest man, and, despite their political differences, consider him to be a friend. Case in point, oklahoma’s own, congressional Snow Ball thrower, and John McCain, just for starters. I’ve yet to hear anything approaching a kind word said about Clinton from republicans.

      I don’t think many of us supporting Sanders actually believe we are going to see the bolder policy proposals (like single payer HC, free tuition, etc.) actually go into effect in his first term, or even a second, but at least those things would be on the table, discussed seriously, and we could start working towards them so that one day, the actually COULD happen. Sanders never claims that he can do anything on his own to fix what is broken in our government. Time and time again he calls on the American people to stay politically active, to vote in every national and local race, and stand together so their voice can be heard. Clinton asks that we just vote for her, and she’ll fix it all with half measures, capitulation, and comprimises, as though republican obstructionists won’t react exactly as they have with all of the same from Obama.

      I’m also not sure why the Clinton camp is acting as though Sanders would allow the perfect ideal to get in the way of any progress, as though he wouldn’t work on or support smaller, incremental improvements to policy in pursuit of the larger goal. It’s as though Clinton is trying to suggest that as soon as Sanders gets into office, he would just totally dump the ACA, despite the fact that he was, in part, responsible for creating it, and make the American people wait, until he pushed through exactly the policy he wants. Of course he wouldn’t do that, that’s ridiculous! The ultimate goal is to make sure everyone in this country has access to healthcare as a right, whatever way gets us closer to that goal he will support.

      This “centrist”, defeatist attitude in the Democratic Party that we’ve seen since Bill Clinton, has yet to produce the results it was suppose to. You can’t appease the opposition, and compromise, when the other side doesn’t wish to participate in bipartisanship, and only looks to see what they can do to oppose you at every turn, even when you suggest their own policy proposals. The myth of the “moderate” uniting the country has been thoroughly debunked, at this point. Maybe we should try something different, now.

    5. Brady

      It is not that Sanders is far left, as you say. It is that the entire country has moved so far right.

    6. Nicole

      You know the Republican party hates her right? While most of them respect Bernie, and while they don’t agree with all his ideas they atleast give him a chance. If Hilary was elected they would deny eveything simply because it is her. While Bernie they might at least listen to and compromise with. Additionally Bernie is about a political revolution in which he wants to publicize the midterm elections and get people involved in their government and press for the issues that THEY care about. He knows he can’t do it alone, no president can, that’s why he stresses we not him. If Hilary won she wouldn’t make a push for Democrats to vote midterm for the senators and she would probably wind up with a Republican senate and house again instead of Bernie actually having the chance for it to change hands.

    7. Soli

      By your own logic, it is stupid and futile to react to GOP obstructionism by nominating a more centrist candidate. As you correctly point out, there is no reason to expect the GOP to cooperate with ANY Democrat in the White House. Cutting out all the parts of our ideal policy platform that we think they’ll never warm up to is a fool’s errand.

      You’re right that Obama was unable to implement much of his agenda, but let’s look a bit deeper than that. In the first two years, after Obama campaigned on a platform of radical change (which was dismissed as naive by Hillary back then, too), the popularity of his candidacy and the deep yearning for his policies led to unprecedented Democratic voter turnout in 2008, giving us a filibuster-proof majority and allowing things like the ACA to be passed.

      In 2010, Obama didn’t campaign very hard for midterm candidates, and the party utterly failed to repeat his voter turnout surge from 2008, so we got the Tea Party. Obama spent the next couple years trying to compromise with them – the voters elected a split government, so clearly they want the parties to cooperate, right? We all know how that turned out. At the worst of the obstructionist phase, Republicans were literally threatening to shut down the federal government and/or cause the United States to default on its loans, solely to give themselves another opportunity to extract concessions from President Obama. Obama was making offers like 10:1 ratios of spending cuts to new tax revenue, and even said he was open to reducing SocSec benefits and raising the retirement age. In many cases, his proposals were identical to GOP proposals from the Clinton and Bush administrations, and in a few cases he was even further to the right than Gingrich and co. would have been in 1994. Remember all the progressive policy victories we were able to get during that era in exchange for all those unilateral concessions and narrowly averted artificial crises? Yeah… Me neither. The Obama administration only started getting shit done again when the President gave up on the idea of trying to govern from the center via Congress, and turned his attention to executive orders, executive agency rulemaking proceedings and non-Cabinet level appointments, carefully worded international agreements that technically aren’t “treaties” and therefore don’t require the advice and consent of the Senate… Basically, all the tools his office has to make policy with no legislative component.

      So, where does that leave us? The next President will be able to influence federal administrative agencies (which are of little use in some areas, e.g. tax policy, while playing an enormous role in other areas – climate policy, for example, can be done largely through agencies like the EPA, based on the authority Congress has already delegated to them). They may get to replace a Supreme Court justice or two (although that involves Congress, so expect a shitshow). And of course, the President has nearly unlimited authority to act unilaterally on matters of foreign policy. Everything else – for ANY Democrat – won’t happen until we retake Congress.

      I think Bernie and Hillary would have some definite overlap here (for example, I don’t think there would be a huge difference in the qualities either candidate would look for in a Supreme Court nominee), but in every case where they differ substantially, I STRONGLY prefer Bernie. He would, without a doubt, be more aggressive at using federal agencies to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Hillary is a big fan of fracking, and not only supported Keystone XL until very recently, but actually helped bring it into being. You may recall many climate scientists expressing their profound alarm at that proposal – one prominent scientist famously declared that it would have been “game over for the planet” if we had allowed it to be built. Bernie is far more outspoken on the need for a thorough overhaul of our thoroughly broken, racist, classist criminal justice system (another promising area for unilateral reform through the executive branch). Even if Hillary talked the talk on those issues, I would struggle to believe her, because I’m old enough to remember her shameful race-baiting and fear-mongering when she championed draconian “tough on crime” policies as First Lady. I sure as hell would expect Bernie to be more aggressive when it comes to going after the banking and finance sector. The big wins, like reinstating Glass-Steagall, require Congress, but there are some executive agencies that are relevant here, like the new(ish) consumer protection bureau championed by Senator Warren and President Obama.

      The other issue to consider is which candidate will do more to help us retake Congress. We can’t just give up on that goal as a party if we ever want to end this long Tea Party nightmare we’re still trapped in. I’ve written MORE than enough already, so to keep it brief: Bernie’s campaign is built around achieving massive voter turnout among young people, immigrants, and other first time voters. What he is doing is reminiscent of Obama’s 2008 campaign, but he has BLOWN AWAY Obama’s records when it comes to turnout at campaign events, number of donors, number of campaign volunteers… There is a reason that many national polls show Sanders significantly outperforming Clinton in the general election, despite all conventional wisdom telling us that the centrist should be far more popular than the democratic socialist among Independents and moderate Republicans. The idea that American elections are all about courting the center is a dated one that bears little resemblance to political reality. There simply are not that many undecided centrist voters out there, and their behavior is too unpredictable to make pandering to them a useful strategy.

      Either party can win a massive landslide in any remotely competitive race, simply by turning out a few percent more of their existing base. Democrats in particular have a lot of trouble turning out their base consistently. That’s why elections tend to be neck and neck, even though there is a pretty clear majority in favor of the “Democratic” stance on most political hot-button issues. There is a very compelling body of evidence, growing larger each day, that Bernie Sanders is an extraordinarily strong candidate on this basis. Hell, if some of the most favorable data points turn out to be representative of end results, it’s plausible (albeit a long shot) that we could retake the Senate this year and the House in the midterms. If we nominate Bernie, that is. Hillary’s “enthusiasm gap” will wreak havoc on our down-ballot efforts if she’s the nominee.

    8. Carmen zayas

      Hillary’s campaign, like her career is about actually getting things done, not just rhetoric. No one is more Establishment thaN Bernie Sanders, you guys just haven’t done your homework. Why don’t you ask why he supported legislation to dump Vermont’s nuclear waste on a small poor Latino towninTexas? delve into the real epic failure he had with black lives matter. Delve into his fantasy essay and his numerous comments about women that are sexist. Why aren’t you guys asking why Berniebros have been cyberbullying and posting sexist crap since day one? And he’s done nothing about it. Why don’t we asking why Staff on his campaign had to steal data? Oh why Sanders in the last days of the first primary has to misrepresent that AARP, league of conservation voters, and the Des Moines register are endorsing him when they’re not? Why has he broken every campaign promise, including not going negative which he is always doing in his passive aggressive manner, not taking super PAC monies, which he did, not taking oil company money which he has. The article below does a great job of telling you what a hypocrite BS is, and you guys would already know this if you truly cared. But it seems to me this campaign is more about not electing the first feminist female president, then electing someone everyone nose is completely unqualified to be president. You should asked why Republicans have put more than $6 million into Anti-Hillary ads but not one red cent (pun intended)into anti BS add? Why not asked why a so called progressive inclusive candidate would literally turn on Planned Parenthood and HRC? Why would so-called progressives turn on unions, 23 national unions to be exact, turn on civil rights, labor and feminist icons, simply because they support the female candidate?? It’s all there. You guys truly have no concept of who is gotten shit done that advances the social liberal agenda. The only one who is championing women at home and globally. The only one who is advanced rights for LGBTQ, for persons of color, for education. To support someone who has sat on his ass for 32 years and gotten absolutely nothing done, over a woman who has battled the odds and accomplished something, a true fighter, it’s disgusting and dismissive. Read the article – BS is opportunist and establishment (The biggest thing of all is being unqualified).
      http://www.libertyunionparty.org/?page_id=363

      http://social-ecology.org/wp/1998/10/the-texas-vermont-maine-nuclear-dump-bringing-environmental-racism-home/

    9. Mike

      If I am not Mistaken, the Democratic Senate was the one who stripped a Bill from the House and made Obama Care; pushed it thru by (D) Pelosi( Pass it and you can read it later) with no chance of a Veto. Everything said by Obama was a lie about ACA. Affordable it is not! Taxing People for not being able to afford it is BS. Thinking that Young People would join the Band Wagon has not happened. The Government paying for part of ones Insurance that could not afford themselves is money We pay in. That is Just Stupid. High Deductibles do not help when a couple pays in $6000 before Insurance helps they never get to that point!

    10. vallon

      It wouldn’t take an act of congress for a President Sanders to appoint a supreme court judge who will declare Citizens United unconstitutional or to break up the banks. There are a number of things he could do by executive order and while hes busy getting things done he will increase voter turnout, especially with the young and make voting day a national holiday. As we all know, or should know, higher voter turnout in the midterm elections means more democrats and progressives in congress which means less gridlock. There you go! #FeeltheBern

    1. Fed_Up

      How childish of you. It’s “pointing right” because THAT’S THE WAY WE READ.
      Thanks for showing how desperate & shallow the criticism of Hillary REALLY IS.

  2. Paul Dolph

    She is using all of his platforms, and then saying that her way is the only way that it will work. What she does not seem to understand is that along with Bernie we are voting in a not for sale congress that is republicans and democrats that can and will work to save our economy and environment ! She is just more of the same. She is using wall street money to run these adds. She has no shame !

  3. Vince

    I would rather vote for the guy who would try and fail then she that gives up for the highist dollar.

  4. Charlotte

    I read somewhere that the President can fire our Congressmen and Senators if “We the
    People” want them GONE. Real Change is Bernie Sanders there is “no we cant” if we the people run our country by staying on top of the people who work for US…we dont work for them! This is as REAL as it gets.

    1. Playhouse

      The president absolutely CANNOT fire congressmen or senators. The separation of powers doesn’t allow for this. The people can either vote them out during a standard election or call for a special election to remove them from office. Or, if they can be proven to have done something illegal, the court can strip their office.

  5. JoelKatz

    You get the politicians you deserve. What do you prefer? Honesty? Or a message filled with false hope?

    Suppose Obama had originally campaigned by saying that he was going to try his best to close Guantanamo, but that it probably wouldn’t happen. Suppose he had said that he was going to try to end the horrific international policies of Bush, but that we’d probably still be using drones to kill people in friendly countries and still refusing to unconditionally condemn the use of torture.

    Would that have made him a better candidate or a worse candidate? And if you say “if he had said that I wouldn’t have voted for him”, then you were suckered. And this article is asking to be suckered again.

  6. Ivan Butcher II

    Donald Trump is saying a lot of what the silent majority of Americans are feeling, but just like how President Obama was elected and reelected in spite of the racism here in America, Americans will again vote on the side of reason.

    Mr. Trump is in a win, win situation, he is getting all the free press and air time, and his money is making money.

    He is a Want-To- Be!

    Donald Trump, someone that has and can have everything a person could ever want, except for the power from the political throne.

    In my humble opinion, now that Mr. Trump has everyones attention, he could come with a new campaign. Mr. Trump might be considered arrogant, brash, disrespect, narcissistic, etc., but I don’t see him as being foolish.

    New Campaign:

    America, Since You Cannot Handle the Truth, How About This!

    This would be the opportunity to turn Politically Correct and lay down a real progressive platform, that his supporters and the silent majority would have reason to compare and question, to which candidate is best for America’s future.

    Then again Mr. Trump may just be an Wealthy Out-Patient!

  7. Val

    Bernie stands a better chance in the general election than Hillary. You want to vote Cruz into office, nominate Hillary.

  8. Veritas

    I’m 100% behind Bernie – as a matter of fact, I’ve already sent in my overseas primary ballot for him. But please, please, everyone – if it should come to pass that he is not the Dem nominee, PLEASE don’t let your ‘Bern’ turn to bitterness and refuse to vote.

    This election is quite possibly the most important of our lifetimes – the next President is likely to appoint enough Supreme Court justices to change the balance of the court – and it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that every Democrat turns out to VOTE DEMOCRAT in the general election. Even if that isn’t a vote for Bernie (though I very much hope it will be). If we don’t stand together as Democrats, we lose – and the alternative is very, very scary.

  9. misfit3571

    So, according to Hillary, with Sanders it is ‘no we cant’ yet with her it is ‘no we wont’.

  10. Daniel Hill

    $HILLary speaks of progress… What progress?! The US has the greatest polarization of wealth on Earth! Americans have the least social mobility of all the developed nations, the fastest growing social group are the working poor, who work full time yet don’t make enough to survive. Is that the progress she’s referring to?

    $HILLary’s a member of the oligarchy who’ve taken America backwards over the last 30 years, by cutting taxes for the rich, and legislating on their behalf. She’s a 1%er, a multi millionaire with billionaire friends and business partners, who takes millions from Wall St banks, big pharma, big health insurance, you name it.

    Serious conflict of interest concerns must be addressed. These big companies have bought political influence with her, and their interests deviate radically from those of the average American household. How can voters be confident $HILLary will act in their best interest, when she’s already been bought by greedy corporations who seek to drive down their standard of living? #feelthebern

  11. TallGirl

    And what, with all his “progressive-ness” has Bernie actually gotten accomplished? How many bills sponsored and passed in 24 years in Congress? Like 2 or 4?

  12. Stacey

    In 2007, Sanders was part of the charge from the left to kill an immigration overhaul bill. He voted against The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 — its full name was Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348) — was a bill discussed in the 110th United States Congress that would have provided legal status and a path to citizenship for the approximately 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States. He voted against it twice.

    Sanders reason – “At a time when the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing and millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages it makes no sense to me to have an immigration bill which, over a period of years, would bring millions of ‘guest workers’ into this country who are prepared to work for lower wages than American workers,” Sanders said after that year’s bill died. “We need to increase wages in this country, not lower them.”

    Back then, the Vermont independent warned that the immigration bill — a product from then-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — would drive down wages for lower-income workers, an argument that’s been used by hard-liner reform opponents. He paired with conservative Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on a restrictive immigration amendment. And Sanders backed provisions characterized as poison pills to unravel the bill, while voting to block the final measure in June 2007.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: