Barney Frank: Ditch Bernie Sanders

“Decades ago, Sanders made a principled choice to play a valuable part in our politics — the outsider within the system. He defied the uniquely American aversion to the word ‘socialism.’ We are, after all, the only Western democracy in which no self-identified socialist party has ever played a significant governmental role. While voting with the Democrats to organize first the House and then the Senate, he made clear he did so as a regrettable necessity, not a preference, and cited his nonmembership in the party as an indication of his political integrity. Substantively, he has consistently, forcefully and cogently made the case for a larger federal government role in improving both the fairness and the quality of life in our country, refusing to soft-pedal in the face of declining support for this view in public opinion. His very unwillingness to be confined by existing voter attitudes, as part of a long-term strategy to change them, is both a very valuable contribution to the democratic dialogue and an obvious bar to winning support from the majority of these very voters in the near term.” – Barney Frank, in a lengthy Politico piece titled Why Progressives Shouldn’t Support Bernie Sanders.

  • Gene

    a realistic political assessment. It wont be popular here, but, its realistic.

    • Ian

      He already has ruled out a third candidate run, so supporting him would be demonstrative to the winning candidate that his policies are America’s policies.

      • cleos_mom

        LOL, especially if the winning candidate is Scott Walker.

        • e jerry powell

          Except that Sanders has flipped from being an Independent to being a Democrat, so we’re talking about Hillary.

    • Gerry Fisher

      Ever the pragmatist…and it resulted in some astoundingly good work over the years. Dodd-Frank turned out to be a lot better than I initially thought it would be.

      • bill weber

        Bull. Deck chairs on the Titanic.

    • Gene

      ( I admire the idealism folks…but, idealism does not win elections. and the big crowds for Sanders are like the big crowds for Trump. neither represent the majorityin the parties, or the VAST independent middle. its not about having the best candidate, its about winning and keeping a republican from appointing 3 or 4 judges. period. reality bites sometimes, but this nation is NOT Vermont, and he can only hurt her candidacy, which inversely means he helps the republicans. All the republicans I know confirm this, and are routing for Sanders. that alone should give massive pause)

      • Soren456

        Trump will disappear, but his words will remain, along with what they aroused, and the GOP will use both. Trump is framing the rightist side of the coming campaign.

        Same with Sanders. He will fade, but not his words, nor the meaning of the crowds he attracted. The Democrats will use these things to their advantage—and ignore them at their own peril.

        Like Trump, Sanders is not a serious candidate for the nomination. But both have discovered bully pulpits for the time being, and their words and what they arouse will remain in play.

      • Bill_Perdue

        The idea that right right wing candidates like all Democrats and all Republicans should be supported because they can win is an admission that you want right wing candidates to win.

      • Jeffrey

        You’re saying what I’ve been thinking for two weeks. Trump and Sanders each appeal to the fringe, but these two are not going to be our presidential contenders. The only question I have is whether or not Sanders’ supporters will support Hillary at the polls.

    • Bill_Perdue

      Your ‘realistic’ is Realpolitik… German pronunciation: ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtɪk]

      It makes no difference because BS is not a socialist, he’s a social democrat and like you a supporter of the Military Industrial Complex, capitalism and racism

      • What?

        This is part of my trouble with Sanders. He calls himself a “socialist” but I can’t find any truly socialist policy implementations on his watch (and after how many years in politics?).

        I also find his critiques of systemic problems in American culture and politics lukewarm (consisting of the usuaual bromides about 99% vs. 1%, etc.), to which I say, talk is cheap! For example, I’m waiting for him to introduce strong legislation on stiffening penalties for the banksters…but no such luck.

        I still support him, but I’m no longer as enthusiastic as I used to be.

        • Bill_Perdue

          BS’s role is that of a stalking horse to draw people back into the Democrat party.

          It will work to a limited extent but not nearly as well it did with Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama. The DP will move inexorably to the right and fool fewer and fewer people each time.

          The DP can’t be reformed. It’s been tried time and time again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epxmX_58tOo

  • GreatLakeSailor

    Stuff it, Frank.
    Lying that Bernie’s positions are not popular!? Surely you can shill for HRC better than that.

    • Gene

      47% of the population reports it would never vote for a person who describes as socialist. Polls who most Americans support gun ownership, and a lot of the things he supports, no…sad to say (because I like Sanders) but, Frank has accurately described this situation. he has an important role to play, but he is not a democrat, and he would be a great candidate…in Parts of Canada or France, but, not a winner nationally in the US.

      • Doug105

        Up voted, but I do wonder how many used the faux definition of socialist(I.E. communist) when answering that poll.

        • Adam Schmidt

          To the average American, those two are the same thing. And saying that we should educate them is denying reality… we weren’t able to educate these people on the ACA, immigration issues, and a host of other issues and people honestly expect that we can explain the difference between political ideologies to people who frankly don’t care?

          • Doug105

            And like ACA if you ask them one part at a time they happily agree with you.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Humana/GSKcare is a fraud against working people and that’s why you like it.

      • PeterC

        The primary will let us decide what all those people think.

      • Jafafa Hots

        Polls have shown that when given a list of his POSITIONS, not just the scary word “socialist,” Americans support his positions.

        If you refuse to think beyond the 10 second talking point, you are destined to be governed by the ten-second talking point.

        • Gene

          they wont be asking about one topic at a time. they will call him a socialist. Gallup polling shows 50% of americans say they wont even consider voting for a person so described. that they might like his individual positions is no more relevvant that the fact that they like most of Obmacare…till you call it obamacare, then they fucking hate it.

          • GreatLakeSailor

            Your earlier reply said 47%; now it’s up to 50%. At this rate, by bedtime it’ll be 117%.

      • YES!
        I love Bernie, I love Sanders, I love that we’re talking specifics here.

        Cmon Elizabeth Warren for VP!!!

      • Bill_Perdue

        It was about 37% a few years ago. Now it’s up by 11%, a big jump in our support and it’s reflected in the votes for socialist and labor party candidates and our campaigns for $15, union recognition and 40 hours pay even if workers are only allowed 30 hours of work.

        That fight will continue in spite of the efforts of Democrats and Republicans to try to stop it or dilute its outcome. http://labornotes.org/2013/12/2013-review-aiming-higher-labor-tries-new-angles-and-alliances

        Sanders is a Democrat and swims in the same foul political swamp as HRH HRC and yourself. Sayonara Democrat.

      • Bill_Perdue

        Where are your statistics, as opposed to your bankrupt opinions, proving that support for socialism is not important and that we can’t win. And please don’t refer to fictional acquaintance and relatives to ‘prove’ your lies.

        The truth is that your opinions are reactionary and bankrupt.

  • Ian

    Is he going to win the primary…No. BUT I believe that if he garners enough support Clinton will be FORCED to take action on some of his progressive I would say American platform that is supported by a great number of people already.

    • Gene

      I fear he will move Hillary to the left the way Santoru and others moved Romney to the right…making him unelectable in the general. a great platform and policies that wont win the general is no victory at all.

      • Ian

        The first primary debate hasn’t even happened, let alone an election. We got a long way to go before I can start worrying about it.

      • If he moves her to positions that help the vast majority of Americans and not just a few billionaires, then he can help the Democrats overall, not just Clinton.

        • Gene

          people still loath the ACA (obmacare) and its helped 16 million, due to a lack of understanding by some, and a true disdain for paying the medical bills for others on the part of yet more, and a sincere loathing for the idea of paying for the medical bills of the poor and minority voters, and a fear that more people getting care will mean “I have more people to wait behind mroe people at the doctors office” (i have heard that one a lot) and you think he can move THAT elecorate to the middle? Seriously?

          • BudClark

            But everyone was ALREADY paying high insurance rates on account of poor people having to use the ER as their only source of healthcare.

          • ZhyKitty

            Which is, I will point out, what is STILL going on here in these Southern states where Medicaid was not expanded to cover people…..people who still have no access at all…people like my twin sister, who died from lack of access to care, having nothing but the ER to turn to.
            She could have been saved, early on, but because of the way this works, her life was forfeit, and the tax payers got to pay just under 70 grand for the effort to save her when it was too late – the only time the ER would act.
            It would have been cheaper to save her…and millions of others like her….

      • garyschor

        I don’t think that’s a valid fear. The country is far more progressive than our corporate media will allow you to believe.

      • cleos_mom

        If that would be the case, then Sanders would lose in the general election big time — just like Romney did.

      • Jafafa Hots

        If he moves Hilary to the left, she might end up becoming a moderate Republican instead of a conservative Republican.*

        *(I’m using these terms as they applied 20 years ago, not in today’s world where right-wing extremists are labelled as “moderate” Republicans)

        • Gene

          we live in TODAYS world.
          Idealism, such as in those of the far right who would only vote for Santorm, put Obama in the White house when they did NOT vote at all, or when others would not vote for Romney because he had moved to far to the right for them, even after they had voted for the MODERATE version for Gov of Massachusettes. You want us to do the same thing in the other direction..and, like the santorum supporters, feel REALLY good about your vote and the message your favorite candidate espouses. Same thing…different direction

          • Jafafa Hots

            No, I want to vote for the candidate who represents me, not the candidate I was threatened and bullied into voting for.

            If this is a radical and idealistic idea for voting in a democracy, then we are well and truly fucked.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Hysterical scaremongering by by Fox News ideologues like Gene are just the beginning of the problem. “A new scientific study from Princeton researcher Martin Gilens and Northwestern researcher Benjamin I. Page has finally put some science behind the recently popular argument that the United States isn’t a democracy any more. And they’ve found that in fact, America is basically an oligarchy.

            Comparing the preferences of the average American at the 50th percentile of income to what those Americans at the 90th percentile preferred, as well as the opinions of major lobbying or business groups, the researchers found out that the government followed the directives set forth by the latter two much more often. It’s beyond alarming.

            As Gilens and Page write, ‘the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.’ In other words, their statistics say your opinion literally does not matter.” http://mic.com/articles/87719/princeton-concludes-what-kind-of-government-america-really-has-and-it-s-not-a-democracy

          • zoli

            Always vote for a candidate you truly believe in, if one exists, regardless of whether that person is not a democrat or republican. Vote your conscience, your gut. Ignore the talking heads, of whom there are far too many. Change never happens until people have the courage to act on their convictions.

      • Bill_Perdue

        Santorum moved HRH HRC to the right. “Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. ” … Clinton’s prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or “the Family”) … The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God’s plan. …With Santorum, Clinton co-sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act… http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics?page=3

  • Hue-Man

    Frank reciting the party line as the Dems move more and more right-ward. There are NO voices for a counter-balancing leftist movement within the mainstream Democratic party – Clintons and Obama are 1960s Republicans.

    • Octavio

      Trust me. The 1960s Republicans were something I hope you and the rest of the USA never has to encounter again.

      • Hue-Man

        Barry Goldwater’s policies would probably be considered RINO by today’s TeaParty/GOP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#Policies

        • Estrafalario

          Which Barry? 1964 Barry? Or later Barry? Cause he toned it down a notch as he got older. Younger Barry was cray cray John Bircher Barry. And you’ll recall that Koch Brothers daddy was big on the Birch crazy.

        • Octavio

          Really? The Champion of Phylis Schlafley’s fledgling Eagle Forum, a life-long segregationist, a life-long anti communist and one who was in line with the John Birch Society’s anti United Nations stance? And then there was his fabulous record on voting against the voter’s rights act, not to mention his occasional frenzies about uppity homosexuals. That’s just scratching the surface of Goldwater and he was a moderate war hawk compared to Sen Bob Bennet (R-UT) and similar ilk. The RINOS of the 1960s were called Rockefeller Republicans, mostly benign rich ass holes who did very little except stay white and rich and owned the manufacturing concerns that sold the US Military all the toys necessary to play war and kill people in Indochina. Goldwater was definitely not a RINO by the standards of any era of the Republican Party, especially today’s teabag extremists. Goldwater maintained the Democrats’ biggest mistake was when Truman refused to authorize General McArthur to use nuclear weapons to destroy North Korea. Yeah, that would have been a good idea. Yup. Just as good an idea as the willingness of most Republicans of that era who thought it would be best if we just “bit the bullet” and nuked the USSR and took it on the chin to end communism.

          • Skylar Webb

            Goldwater was a lifelong segregationist? What do you cite as evidence?

            Fuzzy as my memory can be, I recall Goldwater being rather active in desegregating the Arizona National Guard and the Phoenix public school system, all while being a member of the NAACP.

          • Octavio

            Check out his illustrious voting record on civil rights. He was also a great opponent of the Voting Rights Act. When the Civil Rights Act finally passed in 1966-67(?) he was able to publicly support integration of schools and lunch counters. But he was also cooling his heels at the time, having been booted out of office in 1964 after losing the ’64 presidential bid to LBJ. Previously he had voted against the Act. However, revisionists like to regale that he quietly supported equal rights in private.

            Odd thing about Goldwater is that when he returned to the Senate for another couple of terms in ’69 he was a bit more fuzzy and warm. He’d lost his bid for the presidency because of his public stance and voting against the Equal Rights Act. When he got back into the Senate in 1969 he was suddenly a great supporter of equal rights. And before he left the Senate in 1986 he even supported LGBT rights. Actually, what he did was more fight against the religious extremists who wanted us all rounded up and put in camps more than openly defend our right to be LGBT. But he at least leaned to the right side of history. This was possibly because by 1986 he had to accept that he had at least one openly gay grandson (a friend of mine), as well as nieces, nephews, and grand nieces and grand nephews from his “extended” family. Even Barry Goldwater had polygamous relations. 🙂 And to his credit, he was also a bit less of a war hawk in his old age — but much.

      • Bill_Perdue

        Yes. They supported the pig LBJ’s war in Vietnam.

    • AndyinChicago

      Evan Nixon did more for the Environment than Clinton seems comfortable with.

      • Estrafalario

        Well, Nixon also had a Democratic majority in Congress that allowed him all that. WHOLLY different era.

      • Soren456

        Nixon’s “environmentalism” was a watered-down version of stronger measures (and sentiment) proposed and supported in Congress, and in the country.

        He moved to thwart and head off more potent legislation.

        He does not deserve credit.

        • AndyinChicago

          No, Nixon does not deserve credit, but the point I’m making is that the compromise with the left that Nixon agreed to is further left than Clinton, who will be arguing for the left if congress remains the same, is starting at a place to the right of that position.

    • Jeff D

      The DNC has become the party of Big Business. Look at the money Clinton has raised from huge banks and the like. Barney is a pet of the DNC.

    • Wayne Anderson

      Then by all means you disaffected “counter-balancing leftist movement” types should feel free to start your own independent third party. But, in the end, much like Ross Perot, the only thing support for Bernie Sanders in that regard does is to help a Republican candidate win the White House.

      Clinton on her worst day is better than ANY of the current Republican candidates. And the reality of the situation is that the American electorate will NEVER elect a self-avowed socialist. Period.

      • Hue-Man

        I was reacting to Frank’s bald-faced lie:

        “… as part of a long-term strategy to change them….”

        I agree with you on 3rd party politics but what’s the point of having two parties when one is fascist far right and the other is only far right?

        • Estrafalario

          Two words: Supreme Court. Look at all the major votes (Citizens United for example) and talk to me about right and far right parties. There IS a difference.

          • Toasterlad

            That card gets played so hard there’s a hole in the table.

            Threatening people with the Supreme Court is a pretty shitty way to keep money flowing to the 1%. I’ll take my chances with Sanders.

          • Estrafalario

            I like Sanders. I was only referring to the end-game and the prior comment about there being no difference between both parties. Utter bullshit as evidenced by the make-up of the Supreme Court.
            I hope Sanders goes as far and long as he can. But I’ll vote and campaign for the final election against anyone on the other side.

          • Toasterlad

            Fair enough.

          • Estrafalario

            And that “card” doesn’t get played much in the mainstream. You know most people have no idea what’s at stake with the Court. It’s so little argued (or falsely argued from the other side).

          • Bill_Perdue

            There is no difference.

            Judges are political animals and they respond to pressure. That’s the only explanation for their desegregation, abortion and LGBT rights rulings. Judges from both parties supported those rulings.

        • Gerry Fisher

          IMO, you change a party from the grassroots up. Plunking Bernie in as our nominee won’t change the Democratic Party. (I agree with everyone who says that his participation is a very, VERY good thing. Just not his winning the nomination.)

          • Toasterlad

            Bernie is the RESULT of the grassroots effort. Bernie is the culmination of the frustration of Occupy Wall Street and the lost promise of Barack Obama. The change we wanted is here. The change WE wanted. Those who do not support Sanders were clearly never serious about changing the Democratic party, or progressivism in general.

          • GreatLakeSailor

            “Plunking Bernie in…”
            Really? Plunking him in. Who is doing this plunking?? Would that be the grassroots people he’s organizing that say they’ll show for the primary? Let the process work. If Right Wing Dems show and vote for Hillary, then she wins. If Working People sick and tired of the Lesser Evil gambit show and vote for Bernie, then he wins.

          • Hue-Man

            Agreed. Maybe his (doomed) candidacy will be reminder that there are “Left” issues that are beginning ignored.

            Sadly, there’s no $$ to be made for Democrats to move left and risk funding from right-wing Dem donors – they’re not afraid of voters only of the cash drying up. And every election cycle seems to involve more billions.

          • ChitownKev

            I agree…now from all of the polling that I’ve seen, a 2020 run would be feasible for a Sanders-type of politician with the faint possibility that he (or someone that leans that far left…and sanders isn’t as far left as he used to be) could pull it off.

            I’d rather that progressive work more on the downballot or do more to support Bill DeBlasio

          • Bill_Perdue

            There is no chance the Democrat Party can be changed and become a democratically run party.

          • Bill_Perdue

            It won’t work. It never does.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epxmX_58tOo

      • cleos_mom

        If Sanders becomes next year’s Ralph Nader, the people responsible will be the first to scream and throw fits. Sort of like eating your own excrement and complaining about the taste.

        • ChitownKev

          Sanders has already stated that he will endorse Hillary Clinton if Clinton is the nominee.

        • Bill_Perdue

          Get a clue.

          Gore was defeated because he ran on Clintons record and Clintons program. And because no one can tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans any more, because there aren’t any.

          • that’s not my opinion. Gore “lost” b/c of a conflation of some of the problems that affect our system.

            the main one was cheating. after that, Gore shot himself in the foot by *not* running on Clinton’s record. he ran away from it, rather pointedly.

            the media was no help. you and i both know who owns and controls them. they put forth a nonstop effort to make Chimpy look like a real preznit. and bashed Gore for things true and false about him, and Clinton.

            Gore was too conservative for my tastes. but i will never, ever believe that he actually lost. i have friends who were on the ground in FL. what happened was nothing less than a coup, with the SCOTUS helping things along.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Gore did develop some mild opposition to DADT but not to DOMA. But on most of the issues he solidly supported the Clinton program, before and during the election.

            “BUSH: I’m not for gay marriage. I think marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. I appreciated the way the administration signed the Defense of Marriage Act. I presume the vice president supported it.

            GORE: I agree with that, and I did support that law. But I think that we should find a way to allow some kind of civic unions. ” All the bigots are for civil unions as opposed to marriage equality.

            He had no objections to Clintons lies about WMDs, which were the basis for Bushes invasion and occupation of Iran, or for Clintons policies of kidnapping, torturing and murdering opponents of US imperialism.” The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: ‘Lloyd says this. Dick says that.’ Gore laughed and said, ‘That’s a no-brainer. Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

            He had no objections to NAFTA or deregulation and strongly defended them. (He had a few objections to the Republicans Telecom plan but not when it came time for Bill to sign off on their bill.) I can’t remember any other major differences Gore had with Clinton. whdhttp://www.newrepublic.com/article/121670/obamas-tpp-arguments-mimic-gores-nafta-defense

            He had no objections to gutting welfare, which the DLC and the Republicans called ‘reform’.

            The 2000 election was very much a coup and I said so at the time, but as for who won and who didn’t, it’s not critical. Gore lost because he supported virtually all of Clintons policies. There were no real differences between Gore and Bush campaigns just as there will be few in 2016 between Democrats and Republicans. Their main concern is who gets to collect the spoils of ‘victory’.

            And, in the end, it was Gore who surrendered the election although I think your friends are right, it was a coup, and not the first one in US history.

      • Doug105

        Hush, we can dream a bit longer. No one in their right mind wants this.

      • Jafafa Hots

        The right thanks you for your decades-long commitment to helping them shift the overton window ever rightward.

        It has been a tremendous success.

        Remember to keep up that platform of never voting for someone who truly represents your views.

        It’s a real winner. For someone, anyway.

      • Toasterlad

        Bernie Sanders on his worst day is better than ANY Third Way DINO, most especially including Hillary Clinton. And the enthusiasm of the people coming to see him and volunteer for him and contribute to his campaign are proof of that.

        • Gene

          the enthusiastic crowds coming our for him this early in the game are the like enthusiastic crowds coming out for Trump this early in the game, Neither group represents the mainstream of their party, and neither group is anywhere NEAR the great independent middle who would find BOTH of them…NVTS, Nuts, and unelectable.
          I like most of what you post, and think you are a nice guy Toasterlad, so please dont take this as a personal insult, its is NOT meant that way, but, you sound like an Idealist. (which is a fancy way to say high minded loser in general elections who feel GREAT about their votes and just don’t understand the great middle does not see the logic of why they candidate should be the choice for them)

          • Toasterlad

            You mean the people Trump pays to come out for him? There’s a difference between real support and paid support. And I should let you know now, so you can let all your friends know: this position you’re all taking, labeling Bernie and his supporters nuts and crazies? You’re not doing your candidate any favors with that. Remember: Democrats fall in LOVE, REPUBLICANS fall in line. Piss us off too much, and you may not be able to count on us if the extremely unfortunate happens and Sanders doesn’t win the nomination. Although it will be interesting to see what happens when he DOES win. Will you all do what you expect US to do, and support the Democratic nominee? Or will you show your true colors?

            I’m proud to call myself an idealist, so don’t worry about hurting my feelings. I know you mean it as an insult, because it’s dangerous to your worldview that someone could imagine a different status quo (which I’m guessing is treating you pretty well), or worse, actually try and change it. Doesn’t bother me a bit. It doesn’t take idealism to see that Bernie has a legitimate shot, however. All one needs to do is look at all the “pragmatists” shitting themselves whenever his name is mentioned.

        • Bill_Perdue

          BS has a chance to be nominated and if he’s elected he’ll be another Obama who also ran on a ‘reform’ ticket but then betrayed everyone one but the banksters who own him.

      • Bill_Perdue

        You, Gene and Fox News and MSNBC agree again.

    • gaylib

      Then why is Sanders running for the nomination in the Democratic party? That doesn’t make any sense.

      • Gene

        because Americans hear the word socialist and go “no. Love to visit Europe, aint gonna move there” and he realizes he cannot win..so, piggy back on the party with a chance.

        • noni

          Bernie has a history of caucusing with Democrats, so no he isn’t piggy backing on the party, but you and Claire carry on with your Hillary talking points.

        • Bill_Perdue

          Provide proof other than fictitious conversations with fictitious acquaintances and relatives.

        • Jafafa Hots

          Americans don’t love to visit Europe. Most don’t have passports.

      • Bill_Perdue

        Because, like all Democrats, he’s moving right.

      • Bill_Perdue

        Right centrists running in a right centrist party makes perfect sense. Get a clue.

    • Gene

      we are a centrist, not a leftist nation. And, gay rights aside, we are not moving to the left, as much as that bothers many progressives to read. Frank is right in his assessment, and any money or energy used by clinton to counter Sanders in the primary is just money she wont be using against Bush or Walker later as the has to defend against positions she has had to take to placate the extremists who think like Sanders which have made her unacceptable to the vast middle of America who will decide the election.

      You can have a GREAT candidate with a GREAT platform you LOVE…..or, a winner who is not as good but a FUCKING DREAM compared to her Rethuglican opponent. Thats the REAL world politics of it. I love to hear republicans say “I will ONLY vote for Santorum because he is REAL conservative, and I want to vote for someonw I respect” because I knew that if enough thought that way, I would get a PRESIDENT OBAMA as they made Romeny move to the extreme right (which they DONT see as extreme) and become unelectable to the middle…which happened.

      Lets not do the same thing in the other direction folks.

      • Toasterlad

        Ah, yes…the GREAT LIE again.

        In poll after poll, Americans unanimously support progressive policies and solutions. Yet we’re constantly being told by the likes of Hillary Clinton that we’re a center-right nation, and we need to move to the right to attract voters.

        And that’s why we currently live in an oligarchy, where the corporate elite control every aspect of life: what we can buy, where we can live, what can be taught in our schools, who we can vote for to represent us. Because people like you keep spreading the lie that this is what Americans want.

        Based on what we routinely say when we’re asked about the kind of world we want, we want Bernie Sanders. But people like you who are either paid to promote the status quo or do so out of genuine willful ignorance keep trying to tell us that all we want is more of the same, and we’re lucky to get it.

      • Bill_Perdue

        Wrong. your are are a right centrist. These are the politics of the previous period. This is the period characterized by the death agony of capitalism and all nonsense of people who support BS who’s pretending to be a socialist is a clear demonstration that you and your politics are bankrupt.

        • Polterguest

          ” This is the period characterized by the death agony of capitalism ”

          you write that as if it’s a historical truism when that’s actually never happened. Your sad little communist dream is what has failed. Repeatedly.

      • ultragreen

        That was the rationale for selecting Gore and Kerry as presidential candidates. They both lost. Hilary will lose too if she comes across as being too boring and too moderate (where ‘moderate’ really means ‘conservative’ in this day and age). People won’t bother to vote for her if they think she represents more of the same old thing (which she does).

      • Jafafa Hots

        “we are a centrist, not a leftist nation”

        Your agenda here is clear. You are a conservative yes, you tell yourself you’re a centrist, but when the supposed center has moved to the right of where the GOP was 20 years ago, that makes you a conservative.

        In any case, centrists are always conservatives anyway. Conservatives with a small c.
        “Don’t rock the boat” types. Defenders of the status quo.

  • Soren456

    I haven’t read Frank’s piece, so I don’t know how he means “shouldn’t support” Sanders.

    But Sanders is moving the Democrat discussion and candidates to the left—and finding enthusiastic support for that definition of the issues.

    Sanders is helping to frame the election. For that reason alone, he should be encouraged to speak and to proceed with his “campaign.”

    (And I put “campaign” in quotes because I doubt that even Sanders himself expects to be the candidate.)

    • ryan charisma

      I concur.

    • cleos_mom

      If you’re unwilling to read the whole piece, you might try reading at least this bit:

      If you weren’t watching the TV and only overheard our discussion, you might have wondered why one of the leading conservative strategists was speaking so approvingly of a tribune of the left.

      • Soren456

        “Unwilling” is your word (and your presumption), not mine.

  • BrandySpears

    Preach it, Barney! Sanders should stick to his convictions and not be the unprincipled flip-flopper!

    • Bill_Perdue

      That won’t happen. He supports zionist racism, is a tool of the military industrial complex and does not call for the end of capitalism.

  • AndyinChicago

    Saying a healthy debate in the primaries is unwise is stupid. We need people to be pumped going into the elections, and if you look at the Senate elections in 2014, there’s a great hint that just going with the DNC’s choices isn’t always a great idea. We learned in 2014 that we need to listen to the Democratic base, because if they don’t show up in the general election, we’re effed. Having the debate, independent of a Sanders nomination, will allow our party to identify what would energize people, and we need something, especially if we’re going with Clinton, who’s about as exciting to liberals as Kerry was. If she wants to win us liberals, she’s going to have to fight for us early.

    Plus, I like Bernie. And I’d really like to vote for someone I believe in for once.

    • David Walker

      Welcome back. You and your analyses and comments have been missed.

      • AndyinChicago

        Sorry; wrapping up my PhD.

        • David Walker

          Cool stuff.

        • BlueberriesForMe

          Should we call you “doctor” or will you just play one on TV? :=)

    • John T

      Agreed. Sanders is the first presidential candidate I would actually be pleased to vote for. Usually when I vote for Democrats I have to hold my nose and quietly chant to myself “remember Ralph Nader, remember Ralph Nader”.

      • Gene

        understood…but, if Sanders pushes her to the left, she is unelectable. Same end result as what Nader did….the bad guy wins. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

        • you really hate progressives, don’t you?

          believe it or not, most americans support and want progressive policies.

          i agree with others that you’re a paid plant. get a grav, be a man/woman and own your comments.

      • zoli

        Nader was so far above the democrats in honesty and integrity, no wonder they had to vilify him.

    • Estrafalario

      I think Bernie could make sure the conversation doesn’t leave out issues of inequality, banks and environment.

    • gaylib

      My only problem is your definition of the party “base”. You seem to think it is college educated, white, liberal (primarily) men. That isn’t the case. The base of the Democratic party (to which Sanders isn’t even a member, let’s not forget) is people of color and women. Sanders ineptitude at connecting with this base (and in fact his supporters ham fisted antagonizing of them) could have the opposite effect of energizing the base by suppressing the enthusiasm of the votes we need going into the general. I think that was one of Frank’s main points.

      • Jafafa Hots

        Which is worse… having trouble “connecting” with them but supporting policies that will help them, or having a very polished marketing driven ability to “connect” with them but then throwing them under the bus in favor of Wall Street plutocrats once you get elected?

        From poor southerners to poor African-Americans to white suburbanites, we have shown we are all united in one aspect… being in thrall to the marketing bullshit to our own detriment.

      • AndyinChicago

        I’ll give you that; this is the best argument against Sanders I keep reading. I’ve been really disappointed with Sanders outreach to voters of color and women. He was a civil rights activist here in Chicago, and he’s not talking about that. His stance on immigration, racial politics, social safety nets, and women’s rights have been more than consistent, and yet he doesn’t talk about that nearly as much as he should. He’s really sticking to his economic policy, which is great, but it’s not well rounded. I hope that that gets highlighted in the debates.

        I also really don’t think that was the point that Barney Frank was making after reading his editorial, but I’ll re-read it with that critique in mind.

        • ChitownKev

          Oh honey, all you read about over at The Great Orange Satan is Sanders’ civil rights record; frankly, I’m sick of reading about it.

      • “people of color” are a) still a minority in the population and b) often don’t vote. this is a sad but true fact. you may be right that women could (in my fantasy world) carry Bernie. but it won’t be b/c of people of color voting for him. not yet at least. he’s saying everything right, but this community (i live in the “hood”) will need a lot more penetration by his campaign before he motives Folks like obama did.

    • Wayne Anderson

      I hate to rain on your parade but I will say it again and say it plain: The American electorate will never elect a self-avowed socialist. And if you need a reason to get excited about voting for Clinton it’s that she is hands down better than any of the Republicans, and she can actually win a general election. Bernie never will. He is a socialist. This is America. That is reality. It’s Clinton or one of the clown car Republicans. Choose.

      • PeterC

        To continue to call him a “socialist” it what’s silly.

        • Wayne Anderson

          Uh, he is a self-described “democratic socialist.”

          • Bill_Perdue

            He’s a social democrat.

      • Toasterlad

        People like you were saying that America would never vote for a black man in 2008.

        • Gene

          people, when polled, did not say they wuold not vote for a black man in 2007. In 2015 they DO say that they will not vote for anyone who calls them self a socialist. (gallup)

          • Toasterlad

            Yes…BY THREE POINTS. 50% said they NOT vote for a socialist, 47% said they WOULD. With over a year to go before the election, you’re basing your scare tactics on THREE PERCENTAGE POINTS?

            You guys are more desperate than I thought. Sanders really scares the shit out of you, doesn’t he?

          • Gene

            because he is the single best thing, as my republican co worker who works heavily in Republican party elections tells me, for getting a Republican elected, and they are gleeful about it, fuck yes he scares the shit out of me. He offers no real chance of change, save to help the other party put its choices in the supreme court

            and 47 never means Never. 53 who would does not men WILL. He would have to get ALL that 53 %. A statistical imposability that has the dirty stink of immature idealism ( redundant) to it.

          • Gene

            misread….it IS 50% who said the would not vote for a socialist…a situation even worse than the inverse 53 / 47 one. when half the people polled say they wont even consider a candidate, WHY waste time on them? It makes NO sense. At all.

          • Toasterlad

            Less than three years ago, the majority of Americans would “never” have supported same-sex marriage. And it’s not 53% who “never” would. It’s 50%. with 3% undecided. Half the country. If you took a poll tomorrow and asked them if you’d ever consider voting for a Democrat, the results might look about the same. And yet, we elected a black Democrat TWICE in the last two presidential elections.

            And since barely more than half the country votes anyway, I’d say your three percentage points don’t mean a fuck of a lot.

            Your Republican friends were no doubt gleeful in 2008 and 2012, as well. They, like you, are out of touch with the mood of the country, and the hunger for ACTUAL hope and change. It’s not surprising you routinely piss on idealism; it is antithetical to the political process that people like Clinton and Bush use to gain power, although they gladly exploit it whenever they can. But much like Roosevelt’s famous line about Democrats and Republicans: give people a choice between genuine change and a person running on “change”, and people will choose the real one, every time.

          • Bill_Perdue

            It was 36% in 2010, now it 47% who support socialism. As they find out that the Democrats remain rightists then things will begin to happen in terms of mass actions and real, as opposed to Democrat, political actions. In fact things are already happening.

            You Democrats and your Republican brothers and sisters are screwed.

            Sayonara, Democrat.

        • ChitownKev

          I actually agree with Wayne but I’ll never tip or respond to that bitch.

          .

    • zoli

      Then do it and be done.

  • amboy00

    This reads like an endorsement to me.

    • billbear1961

      Until the very end, yes, it does.

      I wondered why Joe labelled it the way he did, until I reached the end.

      Sanders has an important contribution to make.

      Again and again, I’ve heard it said that while many Americans are wary of the Democrats, they nevertheless poll in favour of many progressive policies (then turn around and vote for the GOP, which is against everything they want to see happen!).

      It has been said that Americans LIKE many social democratic principles UNTIL someone calls it “socialism” and they recoil in horror!

      This just shows how successful right-wing propaganda has been at brainwashing the electorate in this country!

      There is no one of Franklin or Eleanor Roosevelt’s stature to show a foolish and gullible people the way FORWARD, and few politicians and journalists left who make it their business to expose right-wing LIES aggressively and relentlessly, in a way that cannot be ignored, so that the people can see CLEARLY what the right is up to!

      Propagandists are allowed to LIE 24/7 with virtual impunity.

      They INFEST the media.

      People SHRUG at the notion of journalistic ethics, and propagandists are treated like colleagues by reporters whose JOB it is to get at the TRUTH and not allow lies to masquerade as facts, sabotage to pass for responsible political behaviour, and mad and callous policy positions to be trumpeted as acceptable solutions to the problems of a modern, genuinely democratic nation!

      Good government is becoming impossible in some GOP-run states, and economies are being laid waste to in these sinks of corruption–while tax-payer funds are funneled into the hands of corporate scoundrels!

      Bernie is good at cutting through the BULLSHIT, and his voice should be heard!

      He has many questions to put to the GOP about their behaviour and their positions!

      If they won’t answer, he can ask WHY–what are they afraid to admit to?!

      Let Bernie put them on TRIAL!

      • Bill_Perdue

        In the end, you’d vote for HRH HRC, all the while pretending that she’s any different than her Republican brothers and sisters.

    • Gerry Fisher

      I think it speaks to different strategies for enacting change. Barney’s been very impressed with the work Bernie’s done outside of the DNC mainstream, and doesn’t think that it would be the most effective route for change for him to mount a serious candidacy–now–from within that system.

  • Rocco Gibraltar

    Fuck you Barney. You are starting to sound like Reince Priebus. Allow me to choose my own candidate.

    • You make some good points. I love Sanders [and Liz Warren!] but please don’t say Fuck you to our Barney. Barney knows how to succeed in politics. He was trying to explain something about how it all works.

      • Bill_Perdue

        Frank gutted ENDA and launched vicious attacks against trans people. He might be your Barney but those betrayals put him outside the LGBT communities. He’s a quisling.

  • I’m glad Bernie’s in the race. He’s the ONLY candidate in either party who can be bothered to talk about how badly things suck for the 99%. I don’t think he should be the nominee (I don’t think he can win the general election) but sometimes (actually often) it’s candidates who aren’t going to win the nomination that force the conversation to issues voters care about and not just the 1% that fund the superpacs.

  • Dramphooey

    Primary elections were instituted to replace party bosses picking our candidates. I do not like this suggestion that we all need to go out to a “show primary” and vote for the one candidate on the ballot. It is offensive and it does not motivate me at all.

    Also, his point that a nice, clean, easy primary is the ticket to win the national election is demonstrably false. Complete rubbish.

  • Ish

    Liberal infighting is funny.

    • Dramphooey

      Infighting among the both-parties-suck crowd would be funny, too, but I’m hoping that the two of you will continue to get along.

      • Ish

        2012 voter turnout was 57.5 percent. That means there are quite a bit more than 2 of us, actually.

    • PeterC

      Not funny; but proper and instructive.

    • ChitownKev

      Ish…I have been in the thick of all of this “liberal infighting” and you’re right, it is a piping hot mess.

  • Jeff D

    Great TV Show idea: Two old white guys living together in the same apartment. One a crotchety old gay guy whose never happy. The other a forward thinking progressive. They can’t afford their own apartments because their old friend President Hillary Clinton helped her corporate friends cut social security. It’s called Barney & Bernie.

  • garyschor

    Sorry Barney but Sanders has my vote in the primary and I will support the Democrat vigorously in the general election!

  • Keiffer

    I agree with the spirit of many commentators: Let Bernie have a voice so that the oft ignored topics are finally covered by the media so as to spread the conversations more broadly. I’ve been a fan of Bernie and his politics for a long, long time.

    However as a strategy to win the White House (and its implications to SCOTUS) as well as the necessary down ballot races, Frank’s argument not to deplete the war chest for the sake of these discussion by waging a controversial Democratic primary is difficult to counter.

    • Dramphooey

      No, it isn’t difficult to counter at all. There is no evidence that an easy primary helps anyone. I apologize for using local politics but Pennsylvania had no Governor Fisher. I remember Mike Fisher bragging about a full war chest in 2002 with no opposition in the GOP primary while Ed Rendell and Bob Casey, Jr. sparred. And yet it is Governor Rendell who occasionally opines on MSNBC.

      • Keiffer

        You’re correct that there are exceptions to my proposition.

        Still, the pre-Citizens United state-level politics is so different than the current federal world SCOTUS has handed us. Money many not be the only factor but it’s going to be a major factor — or more accurately a super (PAC) factor.

    • GreatLakeSailor

      …by waging a controversial Democratic primary…
      What if it is an informative primary?
      What if it fleshes out better positions, better arguments for supporting those positions?
      What if it gets more people involved?

      • Jafafa Hots

        By “controversial primary” he means “a primary”

        Remember, there was never even supposed to BE one. There was just supposed to be an anointment.

        • Gene

          and, by throwing a useless sabot into that, and costing money and energy, he is only helping the Republican nominee in the long run. Warren, bless her, had the good sense and decency not to do so.

          • Jafafa Hots

            I still believe in the democratic process. I haven’t given up on it.
            It’s sad to see that so many “democrats” have.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Warren, a consummate sellout, made a deal. “Hillary Rodham Clinton held a private, one-on-one meeting with Senator Elizabeth Warren in December at Mrs. Clinton’s Washington home, a move by the Democrats’ leading contender in 2016 to cultivate the increasinglyinfluential senator and leader of the party’s economic populist movement.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/17/hillary-clinton-elizabeth_n_6698030.html

          • Guest

            You are an idiot.

            2 Democrats meeting to discuss whatever is not a conspiracy theory.

          • Bill_Perdue

            You’re a dummy.

            You trust politicians.

            You still wear diapers.

          • Guest

            And yet, since you cannot dispute what I post, you respond as you always do.

          • Bill_Perdue

            It’s hard to argue with your fantasies. I posted facts and you rely on your trust in politicians.

            Poor child.

        • Toasterlad

          Clintonistas are really gearing up to lose their shit over Sanders. We’re clearly edging out of the “then they laugh at you” phase and into the “then they fight you” phase.

          • Ragnar Lothbrok

            Right on TL

      • Gene

        not what ifs….WHEN it turns off those in the middle
        WHEN it makes the eventual nominee look like a leftist in a centrist nation
        WHEN it makes the eventual nominee turn off X + voters to appeal to X voters, the math more and more favors the Republican opponant.
        .
        In short. Sanders offers nothing, for his ideas are unsellable to the majority in this nation. Period. and he threatens to weaken the actual nominee who might be forced to somewhat embrace ideas that most Americans see as just taking their money to support welfare and other unpopular ideas, the environment (most Americans are very skeptical of global warming, and dislike the idea of taxation to fix the problem) Guns, etc etc.
        he cant win
        he can hurt the eventual nominee
        his ideas are so far out of the mainstream, whether we like to admit it or not, that discussing them serves no purpose, save to help the Republican nominee.
        cold hard reality. it is what it is, and, long and short of it, Frank is right.

        • GreatLakeSailor

          So walk me through this: with Bernie in the primary Hillary’s CorporaDem message will not appeal to enough Democrats to win the nomination, hence she needs to “move left” and not be who she really is. Or are you saying she really is more left, but she wants to pretend she’s not so she can fool enough people that would have voted for an R to instead vote for her.

          So in either case you don’t want HRC to get called out for being disingenuous. Hard choices indeed.

    • Toasterlad

      The fact that Democrats consider Bernie Sanders in any way “controversial” is proof that he should not only primary Clinton, but beat her. Badly.

      In the future, please don’t claim to be a fan of Sanders and then argue for letting a corporate DINO ascend the throne unchallenged. It makes you look silly.

    • noni
    • chiMaxx

      Except for the counterfactual: This is the exact same argument that was made against supporting Obama this time eight years ago.

  • 2karmanot

    pppppffffffttttt

  • cleos_mom

    Lots of fits in search of a hissie when the fanatics read this one.

  • elvigy

    We’re going to have to agree to vehemently disagree on this. Sanders has done a lot to bring attention to the issues that most progressives care about. Really, if it weren’t for him, I doubt Hillary would be focusing on some of the issues that she has recently.

    • Keiffer

      Then you didn’t grasp what I stated. I concur that Sanders raises the visibility of the issues — many, perhaps most, perhaps even all of which I align with him. That’s where you and I likewise align.

      Rather, I’m focusing on the strategy that gets a Democrat in the White House once again.

      So please explain to me how a primary fight is part of the best strategy.

      • kladinvt

        Then you’re advising that the primaries be cancelled and we “crown Hillary” now? Primaries are for debating, don’t rush them. Hillary, if she is the one, has a lot of evolving to do yet.

        • Todd20036

          Frankly I think a tiara would look better for Hillary

        • Keiffer

          In some sense I admit that I am. If there were any hint to suggest that Bernie could be elected President or that the primaries would manage to make Hillary evolve into a stronger electable candidate then count me in. I just don’t see any evidence of that to date but that doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to let this play out some more either.

          What Barney has professed is Democratic pragmatism towards the final goal and his op ed explains that in detail.

          • zoli

            Frank is peddling democratic pragmatism so his kind can keep their jobs and power to dole out scraps to the citizens, all the while continuing to whore for their lobbyist and corporate daddies.

        • noni

          The “Lets Crown Hillary” crowd doesn’t want Hillary to have to debate her policies. They want her to be able to be wishy washy and free to advocate her Republican Agenda with no debate from other Democratic candidates. Apparently the Hillary supporters just want one choice, something Republican.

      • Nexus1

        There can’t possibly be a primary fight as long and as bitter as the Clinton vs Obama primaries were. Next years primaries won’t be anywhere near as contentious or damaging to the party. If Obama was able to win in a landslide after battling with Clinton for months in a campaign that still has people angry with Clinton then I think the party can more than handle a Sanders vs Clinton battle. It actually would be more damaging to Clinton if she was allowed to coast, she got better in 2008 once she was challenged. I fear she would be much like the hare if she were allowed to just stroll to the nomination. Lets be honest here, she blew a huge lead and name recognition advantage in 2008 and I would not trust her to fix all those flaws if not force to by a worth adversary.

    • Adam Schmidt

      Sanders wouldn’t stand a prayer in the general election, and I agree with Barney Frank that we need a more unified front as we approach the primaries… but there is one good service that Bernie is providing right now… he’s reminding people that progressive policies when presented to the public actually poll very well.

      86% are in favor of mandated family leave, 59% favor using tax policy to redistribute wealth, 71% support increasing the minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour, 54% support labor unions, 58-60% favor marriage equality, 54% support keeping abortion legal in “all/most cases”, 58% are in favor of legalizing marijuana, 68% support a better pathway to citizenship, and 81% support universal background checks for all gun purchases.

      Frankly, progressive policies are popular policies and running as a Democrat makes sense rather than running away from left side policies. And if Bernie can help Hillary to embrace her progressive side, then all the better.

      * Source for most of the poll data above: http://theprogressivecynic.com/2014/05/02/is-the-usa-center-right-an-issue-by-issue-breakdown/

      • Nexus1

        I agree. I think Barney’s piece though is jumping the gun on this by several months. Clearly he and others fear that Sanders will gain some traction and possibly win some early primaries and they don’t want a repeat of 2008. But if Clinton manages to blow a second huge advantage then it’s clear that she’s not meant to be President. Bernie’s policies are in fact very palatable, but he is no Barack Obama and if she manages to stumble against him then she really doesn’t have the chops for national office. I understand that they’re trying to tamp down enthusiasm for Sanders early, but it just reeks of fear and insecurity. I really hope they’ve managed to shore up the major flaws from 2008, but articles like this make me doubt that tremendously.

  • rextrek1

    sorry Barney – your response to Bernie Sanders running is BS…and Unnecessary !!!

  • romanhans

    The honest guy can’t win so vote for the corrupt liar. Hmm, I wonder why so many people dislike politics.

  • Robincho

    The Dems have a side-show! A midway! A carny!
    (There’s also a thrill-ride called Bernie v. Barney…)

    • Bill_Perdue

      And they have loyal sheep who’ll do as they’re told.

  • Jacob

    Says the staunch advocate who quit when his district became a challenge. FO.

  • Queequeg

    I read the Politico article. He’s really saying don’t risk losing the presidency. If Trump actually runs as a third party candidate, however, it is far less likely that the Democrats will lose, regardless of the candidate.

  • Octoberfurst

    Sanders is a true progressive. Hillary is a corporate Democrat. Sanders has had huge crowds show up to support him wherever he speaks and I personally think he would make a hell of a good President. But I am sure that the socialist label will hurt him among uninformed Americans. “I ain’t votin’ for no commie!”. At the very least Sanders will push the Democratic party back to the left. (Look at all the Republican-lite Democrats that ran in 2014. They all lost.) The Democratic base will not get excited with more of the same. That is why we need Bernie to run. If he doesn’t get the nomination I will vote for Hillary because ALL those running for the GOP nomination are far-right loons. At least Hillary is sane and somewhat progressive in her views.

    • You can be sure if Sanders is the nominee that a huge amount of Republican money will brand him as a socialist marxist who was not even elected as a Democrat. I will gladly vote for Sanders and campaign for him in Florida if he gets the nomination. I will even contribute. . But I can tell you right now Florida, which is the most important swing state with 29 electoral, is going to have a hard time voting for Sanders. Socialist is a dirty word here. The Democrats can win without Florida, but it is a bellwether voting state.

      • Octoberfurst

        You make an excellent point. They will use his socialist beliefs as a battering ram against him. But frankly I have no idea why the word “socialism” freaks out so many people. I guess too many people still equate it with communism. But if we can get people to listen to what Sanders is saying I think his views will be popular. Time will tell.

        • It is not people in New York or California who may be freaked out by it, as much as people in swing states like Florida, Ohio, and Iowa — which any Democrat needs to hold on to to win. Florida is the biggest “swing” state with 29 electoral votes, and elections are decided her in the central I-4 corridor, Tampa -Orlando. Socialism is not going to sell there. And hundreds of millions of Republican ad dollars are going to hammer in Marxist over and over. Hillary seems to be falling in the polls right now, and many Democrats are looking for an electable alternative to her — and are frankly frightened that Sanders can’t win.

  • j.martindale

    Barney is a pragmatist. He has been right more often than wrong in politics. I think he realizes the likelihood that a Sanders nomination would go down in flames. I think the socialist label alone will scare too many Americans away from him, and don’t believe he can win. The prospect of a Republican President who gets the position because Americans are afraid of the socialist is too frightening a thought for me to bear. They successfully scapegoated McGovern and McCarthy as crazy. They even tarred Kerry, a war hero. Bernie is an older gentleman, and at the extreme end of America’s political spectrum. I think it would be easy for the Thugs to make Americans see him as a crazy, too.

    • Toasterlad

      Democratic “pragmatism” is the reason the country has been forcibly moved to the right.

      Sanders has remained consistent throughout his entire career. When asked a question about where he stands on an issue, he doesn’t have to wrack his brain trying to remember if he was for it or against it in 1986. He does not pander, and he is not indebted to Wall St, religious nuts, or the military-industrial complex. Typical reporter spin will not work on him: there is no “gotcha” question that Sanders can’t handle.

      He is our best chance for making real changes to this country, and the people that normally sit out elections, because they don’t believe it matters which crook gets in, can easily be made to see that. If he rouses those apathetic voters, the way he has roused all the crowds everywhere he’s been since he announced, he can win in a landslide, no matter who his opponent is.

      • uhhuhh

        Actually, those most responsible for our lurch to the right were the left-wing morons who voted for Nader and elected Bush.

        Bernie cannot win. That you think he can win in a landslide shows how utterly out of touch with reality you are. There is no left-wing “silent majority.”

        • Toasterlad

          Do you know how many people don’t vote in presidential elections?

          Do you know how many of those people don’t vote because they’re disillusioned with the political process?

          Do you know how out of touch with reality YOU are?

          If Bernie Sanders doesn’t get the nomination, it won’t be because people don’t want him. It will be because he didn’t get his message to those people. People like you shouting your third way talking points don’t help.

          If you don’t want change in this country, that’s fine. Have the guts to admit it, at least. Since you’re one of those Nader people, I have to assume you’re either not a serious person, or you prefer to keep the Democratic party Republican Lite, and enjoy using scapegoats to cover up for your party’s failures..

      • Soren456

        I agree with your first two paragraphs.

        • Toasterlad

          You are two/thirds brilliant!

    • Mike in Texas

      I think that’s a fair assessment of the current political climate. OTOH, I think it’s rather thrilling to see all the enthusiastic support Sanders is getting. He’s drawing progressives out of the woodwork. I think it’s too early to turn away from purely for political reasons. Progressive causes need the kind of light he is shining.

  • Yalma Cuder-Zicci

    “The last claim is that Hillary Clinton needs the experience of a tough nomination contest to learn how to campaign.”

    Even an experienced and successful boxer needs sparring matches to stay sharp and in shape for a title match. I usually respect Barney Frank, but it’s stupid to say that a primary challenge is about “learning how to campaign”.

  • Klip

    God, Hillary’s fans are out in force to ensure that she gets all the attention and credibility. I will be hopefully voting for Bernie Sanders.

    • WarrenHart

      They aren’t doing a very good job then if that’s what they’re supposed to be doing. She’s gotten nothing but rotten press for months. Bernie Sanders can not win so waste your vote if that’s what makes you happy.

    • I am moving to undecided, I actually am beginning to think that Hillary has major trust issues with voters right now. It is too early to tell. Now, I do not think there is any chance that Sanders can be elected as a Socialist.- there is no way he can carry my home state of Florida for example in my view, which is a crucial swing state . Why should I not express my views here?

      • From what I can see, you’re having no problem expressing your views here. I see a great deal of comments from you. Do you think that “expressing your views” means no one can express theirs in opposition to yours?

        • No, I just get annoyed when people call each names and get abusive in comments here.

  • Toasterlad

    Barney Frank, proving once again that he is, first and foremost, a DLC/Third Way Democrat.

    Thanks for the advice, Barney. I’m voting for the person who’ll best represent me, not the one the Democratic party has anointed.

    • uhhuhh

      Really? Do you make other decisions in life with myopic blinders and no attention beyond the immediate choice? What, pray tell, is your strategy for forming a coalition that can get a self-identified socialist to 270 electoral votes? Because, like it or not, the loser doesn’t represent you or anybody.

      • Oh’behr

        Hmm, I recall when we got stuck with Bush the elder because of the Willie Horton ad. All it takes it sometimes luck in a campaign. Something could easily do Clinton in too.

      • Toasterlad

        The immediate choice is between Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Too bad for you DLC types; the rest of us actually have a real choice this time. Enjoy the inevitable aneurism you’ll have sometime between now and Nov 2016.

    • Bill_Perdue

      There is absolutely no chance that the Democrats will move from being a right centrist party moving right to a left centrist party moving left.

  • caphillprof

    Support for Bernie Sanders is the only way to move Hillary Clinton from her right-wing Republican roots into something approaching Democratic Centrism.

    • uhhuhh

      She is a Democrstic centrist. Bernie is a socialist. If you think he’s mainstream, your perspective is badly warped.

      • noni

        Bernie is a Democratic Socialist, but heh continue with your Hillary talking points.

        • uhhuhh

          Bernie has been a Democrat for like two months. For decades he has been a Socialist. You get that the “Democratic Socialist” bullshit is a talking point, right?

          Mine are not Hillary talking points. I was hoping Warren would run. I’m just not stupid enough to hand Jeb Bush the presidency with this pointless drooling over another Nader who has no chance of ever being president.

          It’s called political reality.

          • noni

            Bernie has caucused with the Democrats for all the years he’s been in the Congress. So pretending that he is somehow new to Democrats is your lack of knowledge, your dishonesty, or willingness to ignore reality, but carry on with the Hillary and Claire and Harriet talking points.

          • uhhuhh

            I’m aware who he has chosen to caucus with. Which party has he been a member of for decades?

            Don’t smugly lecture me about “talking points” while you’re cutting and pasting from the Bernie campaign manual.

            Yep, just like the sanctimonious Nader imbeciles. “What happened? I don’t understand how Bush won. Nader was right on the issues. Duh, I’m a moron.”

          • Bill_Perdue

            Don’t be stupid. Gore lost the election of 2000 because he ran on Bill Clintons record of DADT, DOMA, welfare gutting, NAFTA, deregulation and his murder of half a million Iraqi children.

            He pissed off the LGBT communities, labor and unions and the antiwar movement. Gore never disagreed with any of that and like 1968 when Humbert Hubfrey ran on the pig LBJs platform, the Democrats got squished by a Republican.

        • Bill_Perdue

          He’s a social democrat, he votes for war budgets, supports zionist racism and is a tool of the Military Industrial Complex.

          • noni

            Let’s have that debate during the Democratic Primary. The primary debate Hillary was hoping she wouldn’t have to participate in.

            What candidate are you supporting?

          • Bill_Perdue

            On November 8, 2016 vote Socialist or Labor, vote for good referendums and if there aren’t any Left candidates write in Chelsea Manning or join the majority in sitting it out.

            It’s always better not to vote at all than to vote for our enemies, Democrats and Republicans.

            “It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don’t want and get it.” – Eugene V. Debs

  • an argument to continue the status quo that he supported while he was an elected official. nothing surprising there. if Sanders is so out of touch with the electorate, he will be “dumped”. and if he beats Clinton in the primaries, which is the main corporate concern, then what in the world does that say about how “in touch” her policy positions are?

  • Gerry Fisher

    I read the whole thing. It’s really worth the read. This excerpt doesn’t do it full justice (in Joe’s defense, I don’t think there is an excerpt that could).

    One of the more interesting tidbits in there was the argument that “Hillary’s too cozy with Wall Street” has no evidence in her policies. He offers a fact to back up his point. It also made me reflect on how easily I accepted “Hillary’s too close to Wall Street,” and I realized that I was munging “Hillary” with “Bill Clinton and Larry Summers.”

    He also claimed that there’s no evidence to support the idea that a “duke ’em out” battle in the primaries produces a better Presidential candidate.

  • kladinvt

    OK, we haven’t even gotten close to the kick off of primary season, but that hasn’t stopped Hillary-supporters from preemptively trying to stop the process and badger everyone into accepting “the inevitability of Hillary”.
    Primaries are supposed to be about debating the issues among the candidates. How about actually addressing the real issues and honestly show the differences between the candidates and what their actionable-solutions might be, instead of regurgitating Hillary’s resume, one more time.

    • I think for many, it is not the inevitability of Hillary — many of her early supporters are starting to look at alternatives right now (including myself) as she heads down in the polls. However, it is the impossibility of Sanders in my mind — as a perceived socialist- who will be branded a Marxists by Republican campaign dollars — in being elected. Raising questions about Bernie’s electability are legitimate. You might disagree, but don’t personally attack people for raising these issues. As I said if Sanders gets the nomination I will vote for him and support him — I just do not see how he can win. And I am not evil or stupid or right-wing for saying this.

      • Jeffrey

        I agree. Unfortunately people too often who espouse opinions that are well considered and not group-think are called trolls on this site.

        • I do not know if they all are trolls — they are just people who don’t know how to argue without throwing insults or denigrating others of different views. I am guilty of this myself at times– but every place on the web is like this I think.

    • Jafafa Hots

      What do you mean NOW they’re selling the inevitability of Hillary?
      They were selling it 8 years ago.

      Before she lost in the primary.
      They don’t want an election, they want a coronation.

      Hell, it was clear what was going on when HRC ran for NY senator and blatantly lied that it was not meant as a stepping stone for a POTUS run. She got on a radio station in Erie PA thinking she was in NY state… she was a laughingstock carpetbagger.

      And the thing was, after the crook D’Amato, NY desperately needed a REAL senator, especially upstate and Western New York… places HRC didn’t even know existed.

      She did nothing for the state as senator, she was a waste of space, and of course DID use the position that she lied about and clearly felt she was owed to run as soon as possible for the NEXT job she felt she was owed.

      Remember the OUTRAGE at Obama from the Hillarybots? How DARE he take her place? Some of it flat-out racist?

      Remember that Hillary supporters declared by the THOUSANDS that they were going to vote for the Republican candidate instead of Obama when he won the primary?

      This is the entitled mentality we are dealing with with HRC and her supporters.
      I want a woman in the White House, I want a woman as President, we are long overdue. But NOT HRC.

      I do not vote for right-wingers. Ever.

  • Clungeflaps

    Just because Barney Frank is gay, that doesn’t mean he’s my kind….I think he was a lousy politician and a slimeball. Is it any wonder he is a supporter of Hillary Clinton?

    Sorry, but I will not be voting for American Cristina Kirchner.

    • uhhuhh

      Then enjoy the destruction of gay rights and every other progressive accomplishment under Obama when the GOP takes over.

      • Clungeflaps

        Hillary will pass the same anti-gay laws if elected. You are incredibly naive and easily conned if you think otherwise.

        • uhhuhh

          OMG you’re as arrogant as you are stupid. In fact, I have a hard time believing you’re that profoundly stupid. You must be a GOP plant.

          • Clungeflaps

            Why do you Hillary supporters always pull that card “Waaaah you aren’t a real democrat if you don’t support Queen Hillary!” It makes you look like an utter muppet.

            And I certainly don’t mind being called arrogant or stupid. You can keep going if you please.

          • uhhuhh

            I’m glad you’ve aligned your self-identity with your reality: arrogant and stupid.

      • Bill_Perdue

        Stop lying. The gains we made we not the result of Obama.s rebranding. They were made solely by the LGBT communities.

  • LonelyLiberal

    Mind you, I’m not completely sold on Sanders’ ability to win middle America, particularly the swing states. Of course, I’m not completely sold on Clinton’s ability to do that either, so I’m actually pretty neutral all around.

    But do let’s see the two go head to head for a while and see who wins the war of ideas. It’s relatively bloodless and won’t weaken the party as a whole–it may pull Clinton leftward, actually.

  • uhhuhh

    Barney is exactly right. Bernie is unelectable. The only thing being accomplished is undermining the evential nominee, which will be Hillary.

    • Clungeflaps

      You all said the same thing back in 2008 and look at how hilariously wrong you were.

      And speaking of 2008, I will never vote for her simply because Hillary joined in the whole race baiting chorus ‘is he or isn’t he really from Kenya?’ nastiness right before she lost the primary. I can’t believe that everyone has forgotten about that.

      • uhhuhh

        I was an Obama supporter in 2008.

        You’re welcome to sit on your ass in November 2016 and hand the White House to the GOP. As progressive gains are dismantled, do us the favor of shutting your stupid mouth.

        • Clungeflaps

          “do us the favor of shutting your stupid mouth”

          Haha, well, it seems like you are the one who is spitting his binky out of his mouth.

          • uhhuhh

            Yeah, you’re just like the Nader morons from 2000. Still arrogantly denying any responsibility for the election of Bush and everything that followed from it.

        • Bill_Perdue

          You were a supporter of Obama after his bigoted sabotage of marriage equality in California. That explains all we have to know about you and your disregard for the needs of the LGBT communities.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

  • Eat shit. You glad handed your way to the top more often than you stood your ground on your principles. Bernie’s running isn’t just about him winning, it’s about dragging Hillary into the damn light and making her stand for the liberal democratic base.

  • Clive Johnson

    Ultimately I’m a pragmatist. One of my worst nightmare scenarios next to rapidly accelerating climate change or a nuclear exchange somewhere, is a Supreme Court with 1-3 more Scalia clones. If this happens it’s virtually certain that our indicators of human well-being will start to resemble those of developing countries, which in some cases they already do. Expect the worst current excesses of capitalism to have its last restraints removed:

    Polluted groundwater (fracking is the likely cause of high rates of radiation in a Pennsylvania river), asthma-producing air quality, the Sequoia National Monument being cut down by loggers, up-spiraling financial fraud and abuse of consumer’s rights, an end to the minimum wage, healthcare fully institutionalized as a profit-making system with human health 2 to 3 places down on the list of priorities, the elimination of government secular neutrality replaced by a Christianist social agenda, a full-scale attack on gay rights, the civil rights acts, and women’s reproductive health, an attack on the university system to make it conform to right-wing ideology (see what Scott Walker is doing to the UW system) and “market” solutions, more major oil spills with even less accountability, the further privatization of public goods at fire sale prices to connected cronies, the public policy abandonment of the working class and poor and a steady increase in “throwaway communities” and the social decay and human suffering they involve, continued attacks by global capital on the rights of democratic polities to protect their water and air, their food safety, their consumer safety, and more—and all of it wrapped in family values, Jeebus, nationalist, America is #1!, libertarian rhetoric.

    And even before this potential disaster, here’s a good statement of the problems we currently face:

    https://orionmagazine.org/article/america-the-possible/

    And this is in part why I can’t support Hillary. She’s the quintessential beltway insider who appears to only see problems are framed within the understanding of the rightward-shifting, corporate-funded Democrats. She believes in piecemeal fixes to problems that demand structural change. When we need to kick the scumbag corporate lobbyists out of Washington, she’s taking their campaign cash. When we need everyone who works a full time job to have a living wage, she hems and haws about $15/hour. We need to shift massive amounts of military spending into healthcare, support for seniors, childcare, healthcare, R&D, and Hillary won’t dare call for it. We need free or near-free college tuition, and not just at community colleges. When we need a deepening of democracy, Hillary comes out in support of TPP—a trade deal done in secret and designed to prevent public knowledge and participation.

    Hillary is simply the corporate Democratic overseer of the continued slide of this country into worsening oligarchy http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-us-no-longer-democracy .

    Here’s the problem: Our politics may be so corrupted by corporate interests that it’s no longer possible for mainstream candidates to speak about the full extent of the problem given its breadth, or engage in the necessary finger pointing because it would sound like an “attack on business” or capitalism, or even run a campaign without all the dark money seemingly necessary to win.

    I’m sick to death of corporate rule, of moneyed privilege, of everyone getting screwed in a hundred ways because we’re supposed to believe that making a profit requires that elderly folks get kicked out of their apartments when the property owner decides to participate in the next real estate bubble, or that profit requires that another trout river will be toxified for 200-1000 years because speculators are lusting after another gold mine in Montana, or that profit requires corporations engage in wage theft, or that profit requires that credit card companies engage in fraud to make more money, or that profit requires that we subsidize the fossil fuel industry globally to the tune of $5 trillion/year, or that profit requires that Los Angeles is spending more on Wall Street fees than it is on maintaining roads, or that profit requires that banks must rig prices, or that farm workers can continue to be abused, or that pharmaceutical companies can fabricate research in order to sell poisons to developing countries, or that 13,000+ preventable deaths are required by coal-fired power plants each year to maintain profitability, or that Wall Street destroys companies for profit, or that companies must hide huge amounts of money oversees to avoid taxes which all of us then have to pay, or that lead pollution is still OK because lead manufacturing plants want it that way, etc., etc., etc., etc.

    Hillary is ideologically committed to defending the fundamentals of this corrupt capitalist system. Anyone who has a higher vision for our species will see her, as I do, as part of the problem.

    If, however, all that stands between us and the filth of the right, is Hillary, I’ll push a button for her, but that’s it. Perhaps the whole system needs to come down in a catastrophic spiral of corruption, exploitation, environmental destruction, and worsening prospects for almost everyone before something new and better can be reborn. But I see no awareness on the part of Hillary as to the extent or seriousness of the problems we face.

  • chiMaxx

    A lot of the commentary here takes me right back to summer 2007 when people were arguing that voting for Obama in the primaries instead of Hillary was just going to weaken her, and if, god forbid, Obama beat her in the primaries it would just lead to a Republican President, because Southern voters wouldn’t allow a black man to get to the White House. In fact, a lot of the names making these arguments are very familiar from 2007.

    I wonder how many are paid shills from the HRC campaign team

  • noni

    Barney also recommends ditching your teeth.

  • Clungeflaps

    I love how all the Hillary supporters are using the scary boogieman tactic that if you don’t support her, then ‘a very very bad spooky ominous thing is going to happen in 2016 ooooohhhhhh’.

    That’s a republican tactic, that’s the same thing that they use to turn gays into scary folk devils. Honestly, you people know better and should be ashamed.

    • uhhuhh

      I love how the vapid Bernie people desperately try to silence any effort to think beyond jacking off to Bernie’s platform, like confronting that McGovern-style landslide that the Republican would win, the hideous damage that a GOP Congress and President would do to progressive gains, the destruction that a SCOTUS with 7 conservatives would bring.

      “Nooooooooooooo. Don’t interrupt me when I’m jacking off to Bernie!!!! I want to live in my political porn fantasy!!!!”

      • ultragreen

        With the Republican candidate, the country will sink into the quagmire really fast, while with Hilary the country will sink into the quagmire a little less fast. Regardless of which candidate wins, the end result will be the same. So who’s not thinking ahead?

    • I completely disagree with you. I think Sanders, if he is the nominee, he is going to have a hard time in states like Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Iowas and Nevada — the swing states that Democrats won in 2008 and 2012 – and need to hold in 2016 — with someone who is going to be blasted as a Socialist (and probably a Marxist) by Republican Campaign Dollars. Why is this a Republican tactic on my part? I am a progressive Democrat. If Sanders gets the nomination I will support him but he is not my choice — I see his nomination as a disaster, and one that will ensure SCOTUS moves hard right under a Republican president who will appoint as many as 4 new justices. Why is this like turning gays into scary devils? I simply do not think a socialist can win in the heartland. Why are my views not valid here, and why am I like a Republican? My views are legitimate and should not be a subject of hate and derision by Sanders supporters, and definitely NOT something that I should be ashamed of.

      • LonelyLiberal

        Pennsylvania hasn’t gone red since 1988. No matter how weak the candidate, we’ve been a consistent light to moderate blue for the last 24 years and that is highly unlikely to change.

        I can’t speak to the other states, but as far as Pennsylvania is concerned, every Republican feints at it but never actually bothers to engage. We’re simply too far over the line, and any claims that PA will go red is little more than fear-mongering.

      • chiMaxx

        Honestly, I think his proven, long-term walk-the-walk support of veterans could get him some surprising support from voters who usually lean Republican in a general election. And his hammering on repairing our roads and bridges probably looks pretty good right now to the people who depend on getting people and product between LA and Phoenix.

        • I promise to keep an open mind to Sanders — since Hillary does not look like she will do much better. But my instincts tell me a Sander candidacy against a Rubio or Walker will look like Mondale in 84 or McGovern in 76. In other words a disaster. And this Gallup survey released on June 22 2015 frightens me — Just 47 percent of Americans would vote for a socialist if their party nominated one, while 50 percent said they would not, while 58 percent said they would have no problem voting for an atheist in their party.

          Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/poll-voters-socialist-atheist-catholic-119273.html#ixzz3gpqwfTvS

          • chiMaxx

            I don’t put a lot of stock in polls that ask about abstractions like this. Before Reagan ran, people said they wouldn’t vote for a President who had been divorced. This issue seems like a perfect example of concern-trolling,

          • ChiMaxx, there are still many loyal Democrats like me — who are going to need convincing that Bernie can pull off a general election win.Of course I like Bernie and will support him if he gets the nomination btw. You have done a better job than anyone I have seen in the blogsphere in getting Bernie’s case across without attacking people – like myself- who need to be convinced that Bernie can win. I am not sold yet, but I am not completely sold on Hillary or any other Democrat either — Hillary is simply not connecting to the voters. It is early, but the Sanders campaign would be wise to hire someone like yourself to do outreach to centrist Democrats 🙂

          • chiMaxx

            Also: I wonder how many of the people saying that to pollsters are among those who have been calling Obama a socialist since the day he took office (or listening to Fox do so)? If what they’re saying is “I would never vote for a socialist like that Obama” then those are people who would never vote for *any* Democratic candidate.

          • I think all this is going to shake out as Sanders gets better known. Right now his favorability numbers are gaining. I really hope you are right here. Like I said you are helping me here have an open mind, thank you!

    • noni

      They’ve got me so upset, I check for a socialist hiding under my bed every night.

  • ChitownKev

    Come ON, is this a surprise to anyone considering the way Frank was the Democratic pit bull that bashed direct action protests by the LGBT community and bashed the last LGBT March.

    The man is a partisan Democrat. I love him but he is what he is.

    Frank isn’t doing anything different here from Howard dean (and Howard Dean HAS ALREADY ENDORSED Hillary Clinton.

    • uhhuhh

      Yeah, trying to ensure that a Republican doesn’t win. What an outrage!!!!

      • ChitownKev

        I’m not outraged about this; I am so unsurprised about this yet there are people in other places of the blogosphere that are clutching big time pearls over this but if they had been paying attention to Frank’s reaction’s over direct action LGBTs protest and the 2009 March, then progressives would have known to expect this

        I don’t dislike Barney Frank at all but I scratch my head at anyone who would think that this is such a surprise.

  • I was reading comments attacking Claire McCaskill, the centrist Democratic Senator from the red state of Missouri, over at Daily Kos, who said that Bernie Sanders could not win the Presidency as a Socialist, particularly in her state. There is no way (according to her thinking) that Bernie could win her state, Missouri, if he were the nominee, and could very well destroy her chance of reelection in 2018 if he were the nominee. . The comments about her — as Hillary’s pit bull “put out on the attack” to destroy Sanders were in my mind, unfair. She is worried about her own interests. I hope the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party realizes that some Democrats, like Frank, have concerns about Bernie and are not “right-wing scum” or “paid Hillary shills” for bringing these issues up.

    • noni

      “She is worried about her own interests.”

      That no one will be interested in her DINO politics?

      • She will still vote to confirm a Democratic nominated Supreme Court Justice if one comes up while she is in office.

  • Barney Frank is a sell-out. A few years back, he pressured us not to push too hard on marriage, to wait until it was safer to press for it. He’s such an insider that the very idea that any of us could think outside of the DNC box is scary and foreign to him. If we’d waited around until Frank and the DNC gave us permission to push on gay rights, we’d be 25 years behind. After all, his golden girl in the Presidential race was against us until the polls went from 49.9% to 50.1% in favor of gay marriage.

    • And he dumped the trans folks off every single bill that would provide LGBT rights of any sort.

    • StSean

      i have to say i find BF telling people which candidate people should back because of “chances of winning” unpalatable.

  • justmeeeee

    Barney’s always been willing to sell out too easily. Sanders has a good shot, if Hillary’s implosion comes before the nomination. If it comes after, we’re all fucked anyway.

  • kaydenpat

    While Sanders won’t win the Democratic nomination, he’s done a good job of pushing Secretary Clinton to the left which is great.

    At least he’s not grifting like most of the Clown Car GOP candidates.

    • houstonray

      And he has promised to stay above the fray, and keep the campaign upbeat and positive. Hillary has done the same. He can keep on pushing her, I”m ok with that. The R’s are eating themselves alive and it’s awesome to witness.

    • LAguy323

      You say, “While Sanders won’t win the Democratic nomination”
      So you’re a goddam fortune teller? Sorry. Your crystal ball is cracked.

  • SilasMarner

    I like what I hear from Sanders. I hope he has a huge impact on what the Democrats will do when they win the White House again in 2016.

  • CottonBlimp

    I’m tired of all these condescending “realists” telling us who we’re allowed to vote for. Would any one of these out-of-touch bozos have predicted that Trump would be leading the Republican primaries?

    As liberals, we can get all cynical and pessimistic about how much politics is run on money and influence, but at the end of the day this country is still a Democracy. The American people want liberal programs, and they only vote against them due to misinformation from opinion-makers in newspapers and broadcast TV – each a medium that is dying. And while this is happening, the most liberal, gay-accepting, anti-racist generation in American history is reaching voting age; we do NOT need to pass our pessimism onto them.

  • Michael Varian Daly

    Team Hillz tried to get him on Guns and Race. Both have failed. Now they’re trying to undercut him with the LGBT caucus.

    Hillary is like Obama, a Center/Right Corporatist. Remember Obama was ‘one man/one woman’ right up until 2012 when he needed LGBT votes and grassroots.

    Marriage Rights are lovely, but become a very thin soup when so many of our other rights are being giving away to corporations. [see #TPP]

  • Gary Ortega

    Spoken like a new-day Democrat, the party has gone so far right with all the reaching across the aisle that they forgot where the left is anymore. smh and very sad indeed.

    • Bill_Perdue

      When were the Demiocrats anything but right wing.

  • JCF

    With the Rethuglican abyss ever-present, Infighting is NOT Funny here. Please, focus on who the Real Enemy is…

  • DutchBoy74

    As I say to all those who appreciate Sanders but fear what others think:
    Not with that attitude.

    I’m voting my convictions in the Primary – Bernie Sanders. I will not be sacred out of my convictions. If he doesn’t get the primary then it’s Jill Stein.

  • THEBEARCUB

    What’s the SHADE on Bernie? 😯

  • Terry

    The same people said Barack Obama didn’t have what it took to beat Hilary, and 7 years later she’s going with a 2nd run. However, the numbers are on her side as most often the 2nd place in one primary run often makes the nominee for the next

    However, Bernie’s ideas are very popular and I think he can do it.

    I respectfully disagree with Frank on this one

  • mikestrawn

    Wow there are a lot of Repugnican trolls on here pretending to be progressives. I know everyone has Bill_Perdue figured out, but I think Toasterlad is another. His stuff seems like what a young Repug would imagine that a Sanders supporter would say.

  • bill weber

    Screw Barney Frank and his unimpressive legislative achievements.

  • goofy_joe

    Is it just me, or was there nothing bad in that paragraph? I found myself scratching my head after reading, because the title of the piece doesn’t seem to match what I read.

  • LAguy323

    Hillary is owned by the Banks and big Corporations. I’m voting for Bernie.