Thursday Reads: “The Other Candidate is the Ralph Nader…”

Two sides of the "populist" coin?

Two sides of the “populist” coin?

Good Morning!!

For some time now, I’ve thought that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are very similar in terms of their style and their approaches to politics.

Each of these men offers a vague platform based on simplistic policies with little detail to back them up. Each argues that he and he alone can lead the country to some mythical promised land in which every American will have an equal opportunity to achieve some hypothetical “American dream.”

Each of these candidates claims to be an outsider who is fighting “the establishment” and each holds up a boogeyman that he blames for all our problems. For Trump, it is immigrants, protesters, and the media. For Sanders, it is millionaires and billionaires, Wall Street, and, frankly, the Democratic Party.

Finally, Sanders and Trump are both focused on the needs and anxieties of white men; yet both claim to be friends to African Americans, Latinos, women, and other groups who so far have mostly been supporting Hillary Clinton.

Both Trump and Sanders have been referred to in the media as populists. Dakinikat has made that argument to me as well. They certainly are both demagogues, and they both are damaging the political parties they aspire to represent.

Here are a few of reads on the populist question.

Margaret Talbot at The New Yorker: The Populist Prophet.

Isaac Chotiner at Slate: Is Donald Trump a Populist?

Michael Kazin: How Can Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders Both Be “Populist?”

Rosario Dawson makes a heart sign at Sanders rally in San Diego

Rosario Dawson makes a heart sign at Sanders rally in San Diego

Anyway, what brought this on was something I saw last night on Twitter. On Tuesday night Bernie Sanders gave a speech in San Diego. He was introduced by actress Rosario Dawson. I had never heard of her before, but she’s a movie and TV star who played the role of Delores Huerta in a movie about Cesar Chavez.

I saw a clip of Dawson’s speech on twitter and then I went and watched the whole thing on YouTube. It was shocking to me. See the video below.

I transcribed a small part of the video, beginning around 5:00. I’ve highlighted two sections.

We need someone who has bold leadership to understand that with climate change, with health care, with education, with our future at stake, that we need bold leadership from someone we can trust, someone who has stood up for justice his entire life.

They haven’t listened to him but we are. And we need to keep spreading that message because people are voting against themselves. They are hurting themselves and their future, and we need to help them. Because we need to help each other. Because this is about us. Not me. Not one person. It’s not just a party. This isn’t the GOP vs. the DNC. This is about the 99 percent that is too big to fail against the 1 percent.

So when I hear someone ask me, well well well if it comes down to it, will you vote for the other candidate if it’s Trump? (shaking head) I say if you want to beat Trump, vote Bernie. We’re playing chicken here, and we can’t pull back. They are going to have to turn. That candidate is the Ralph Nader, not Bernie Sanders.

As an Independent, he is doing a service to the Democratic Party right now. Democratic Party hasn’t– we haven’t left them; they’ve left us. This is an opportunity to turn the tides and change history. Do we really want someone who encour- who condones mass incarceration, who thinks that the death penalty is OK, who hesitates on environmental injustices and issues, who thinks that regime change is an idea for foreign policy?

No. What we need is bold leadership from a great leader whose time has come. Truly this is a future to believe in. It is not a dream; it is a vision and it is worth going for with all of our might.

To say I was stunned by Dawson’s claim that Hillary Clinton is “the Ralph Nader” of this election is putting it mildly. She–and I assume Sanders and his followers–actually see Hillary Clinton as the spoiler who is preventing the “grass roots” voters from making Sanders President of the United States. They a play a game of “chicken” says Dawson, and the other side must be made to turn aside.

Think about that for a minute. The winning candidate in the primaries is somehow preventing the candidate with much fewer primary victories, pledged delegates, and popular votes from becoming the Democratic nominee.

Apparently these folks have convinced themselves that Hillary’s wins are the result of conspiracies against Bernie. You can see this all over the internet where Sanders supporters are claiming there has been “voter suppression” and fraud in Iowa, Nevada, Arizona, and who knows where else. They believe that the DNC is somehow manipulating the primaries to give Hillary the nomination and they are convinced that the only candidate who can win in November is Bernie Sanders. Based on what? Don’t bother to ask. Their answers don’t make any more sense than those of Donald Trump’s supporters.

Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader

In Dawson’s speech, she also claimed that Hillary is in favor of mass incarceration and regime change and that she doesn’t care about environmental justice. Does she even know that Hillary is the one who reached out to the mayor of Flint and sent staff members to find out what she could do to help? Does she know that Hillary’s first speech as a candidate was reforming the criminal justice system and ending mass incarceration? Probably not.

The people who follow Bernie Sanders are every bit as much “low-information voters” as those who follow Donald Trump. If they do know anything about Hillary’s real policies, they probably don’t care. They want Bernie to be president and if minority voters, women, and other groups don’t vote for Bernie, it’s because they don’t know what’s good for them.

I can’t believe this crazy philosophy isn’t coming from the top. From the things I’ve heard said by Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine, I have to believe this is coming from them and from Bernie Sanders himself. Maybe they even wrote Dawson’s speech for her.

If all these weren’t bad enough, Dawson also posted a piece in Huffington Post today in which she attacks Delores Huerta!  It’s written in the form of an “open letter” to in response to a post Huerta wrote on Medium in February.

Delores Huerta

Basically, Huerta’s post argues that Bernie is a “Johnny come lately” on immigration reform.

Bernie Sanders has positioned himself as a champion of the immigrant community. From the letter he sent to Barack Obama last week, to the work he, his campaign, and surrogates have done attacking other candidates’ positions, you would think that he has been a lifelong champion on issues that matter to Latinos and immigrants. But here’s the truth: Candidate Bernie Sanders, advocate for immigrants, is not the same as Senator Bernie Sanders.

Let’s start with the letter he sent to President Obama. Bernie, candidate, decried the deportation raids — which he should. But in 2006, Bernie, congressman, actually voted…to create and fund two of the programs he criticizes in the letter.

Furthermore, in 2006, he voted for a bill pushed by James Sensenbrenner, one of the most anti-immigrant members of Congress, that would have allowed undocumented immigrants to be detained indefinitely pending deportation. This bill was widely viewed as a desperate attempt by Republicans to boost their reelection prospects that year by cracking down on immigrants, and the ACLU called it “inhumane.” Bernie voted for it anyway. (You’ll note that he was running for Senate — as an independent.)

In fact, in 2011, Harry Reid, and other Senators sent a letter to President Obama urging him to end the deportation of DREAMers. You can probably guess who didn’t sign that letter.

In 2007, he voted against Senator Ted Kennedy’s immigration reform bill.

Heck, here’s how much of a johnny-come-lately he is. During this campaign, he defended the vote with the same talking points.

“What I think [Wall Street is] interested in is seeing a process by which we can bring low-wage labor of all levels into this country to depress wages in America, and I strongly disagree with that.” -7/30/15

Militia members "guarding" the Texas border.

Militia members “guarding” the Texas border.

Huerta also notes that Sanders supported a bill to protect the militia members who took it upon themselves to patrol the Mexican boarder.

Perhaps you’re familiar with the Minutemen. You know — the anti-immigrant militias who patrol the border trying to stop undocumented people from coming to do their jobs. You would think that such a self-appointed lifelong advocate for the community would vote against anti-immigrant vigilantes. You would be thinking wrong. Bernie voted to protect them — and provided a weak excuse as to why. This point is especially egregious. Anyone claiming to be an advocate for the community shouldn’t have voted for this. Period.

That’s all true. Even though Sanders claims the militia amendment was part of a much larger bill, it did actually pass on a stand-alone vote.

Remember Dawson is well aware of Huerta’s long history of work for the rights of immigrant workers, because she actually portrayed Huerta in a film. In her open letter, she begins by praising Huerta’s work. Then she writes:

I, too, believe in the American ideal of reasonable and robust debate between opposing viewpoints in order to move a discussion forward and ultimately arrive at a sensible resolution. This becomes impossible, or at least unnecessarily difficult, when one of the parties involved is purposefully trying to obfuscate the facts. I recognized that very same tactic that the mainstream media has been using when I read your opinion piece, where the details of Bernie Sanders’ voting record and positions were misrepresented and, again, when you and America Ferrera spread the false story on Twitter that Bernie supporters chanted “English only” at a Nevada caucus. Though it was debunked by multiple media outlets and video evidence, neither of you have corrected, apologized for, or taken down the posts. It’s race baiting, misleading, divisive and inaccurate and I hope you both will rectify that immediately. Regardless of either your interpretations of the event, the guidelines strictly prohibited any form of communication with caucus participants by campaigners once the caucus was called to order!

The democratic process, as it was intended, is quite simple: Present your facts, track records and plans, move forward honestly and openly, debate, call out discrepancies, explain and educate, then let the American people decide whom they would like to lead the country based on such answers. By distorting and omitting facts you do not give us, the American people, a transparent picture. You cheat us out of making an educated and well-informed decision and dishonor our voting process and democracy itself.

Rosario Dawson, right, and Dolores Huerta arrive  at the north american premiere of  the film "Cesar Chavez" during the SXSW Film Festival on Monday, March 10, 2014 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Jack Plunkett/Invision/AP)

Rosario Dawson, right, and Dolores Huerta arrive at the north american premiere of the film “Cesar Chavez” during the SXSW Film Festival on Monday, March 10, 2014 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Jack Plunkett/Invision/AP)

Wow! So now Huerta is a liar who is deliberately trying to “obfuscate the facts.” Dawson then goes on to argue with each of Huerta’s points, she wraps it all up by attacking Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton’s track record goes directly against what you and every other activist before and after you has fought for: the rights of the people based on the Declaration of Independence and the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are principles that Hillary did not uphold when taking away American citizens’ freedom by voting for the Patriot Act, twice; by not treating all men as equal when going against same-sex marriage until 2013; and when she sold out her own citizens by taking money from lobbyists and promoting the rise of the private prison complex. This has led to modern-day slavery for the impoverished, and especially for Latino and African American communities. She has put corporations and special interest groups before the people of this great country by voting to bail out banks and not her constituents. She does not uphold the sanctity of life when endorsing wars, condoning fracking or the death penalty.

Yet these same communities are voting in large numbers for Clinton. Why. I guess we know, because Dawson explained in her San Diego speech that people who vote for Hillary are voting against their own interests and they need “help” from Sanders supporters.

And then there’s this condescending bit:

Dolores, I am surprised, dismayed, and concerned that you would do your legacy such a disservice by becoming an instrument of the establishment, rather than joining this movement to create a better America like you once inspired us to do.

I write this letter in the hopes that we can continue to have a robust and honest conversation based on the facts and on the actions that Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have taken during their legislative careers.

Somehow I don’t think Delores Huerta is going to respond to Dawson’s lecture all that well.

Now, I saw on Twitter this morning that Al Giordano and Tom Watson believe the “open letter” was written by someone from the Sanders campaign, and that makes sense to me.

But still, this sort of thing is not doing Sanders or the Democratic Party any good at all. Someone with some serious power needs to get Bernie under control. He should stay in the primary fight as long as he wants, but he should not be attacking the integrity of the leading candidate and her surrogates.

Let me know what you think. And remember this is an open thread. Feel free to post your thoughts and links on any topic below.


125 Comments on “Thursday Reads: “The Other Candidate is the Ralph Nader…””

  1. bostonboomer says:

    Sorry this is so late. It was kind of a struggle writing this. I hope you all have a great Thursday!

    • gp says:

      It was great if you ask me. Thanks for writing it and keeping us informed.

    • Fannie says:

      BB, I am late checking in (had my grandchildren), but I am beside myself after reading about Rosario Dawson…………..what the hell, she done swallowed her friggin nose.

      I know that Dolores Huerta is not going to respond. I wouldn’t piss on the bitch if she were on fire. How dare her tell Dolores that she is somehow mistaken about Hillary’s record, and her policies. I have just about had enough of the Bernie Camp.

      You’ve done a great job, thank you from the bottom of my heart. I really appreciate you dissecting the messages from her and the Bernie Camp.

      I just need to re read and copy this, and do some follow up if I can.

  2. ANonOMouse says:

    Super Post this morning BB.

    “He should stay in the primary fight as long as he wants, but he should not be attacking the integrity of the leading candidate and her surrogates.”

    He has been attacking Hillary’s integrity from the beginning, and he’s not about to stop now. This is the most attention this attention whore has gotten in his entire life. He will be gulping the glory of his adoring fans until the inevitable happens and he returns to the Senate. I just hope the Democratic Party has finally seen through this demagogue and stops giving him juicy committee spots and election support. He’s shit his nest once too often!!!!!

  3. purplefinn says:

    Thanks BB. Last night Judy Woodruff interviewed Bernie Sanders. When he said that ISIS needed to be “destroyed,” Judy pressed him on how he would do that. She pressed him two more times and she still got a vague answer. In his response his attitude was that there was something wrong with Judy that she didn’t understand him.

    This contest is between two candidates who agree on most issues. What separates them is their ability to do the job. Long live Bernie as the leader of a movement to get rid of Citizen’s United and to fight to reduce the income gap. Long live Hillary as the leader of our nation. Hopefully they can work together at times.

    Right now it’s painful. I read the comments section below the articles referenced on Sky Dancing. The seething anger and dripping hate contained in many of them against Hillary is painful. I wonder whether some of the things I’ve said about George W Bush have been that vile. Possibly. I’m glad we have a candidate that primarily focuses on the issues and her message. Hillary has the experience, the knowledge, the competence, the accomplishments and the goodwill to be an excellent president. I need to stay focused on helping her campaign however I can.

  4. gp says:

    The biggest problem with Sanders is that he is not a Democrat and has no loyalty to the party. He never paid his dues like Clinton did. He hasn’t worked behind the scenes to help others get elected. He hasn’t built up any foundation or support throughout the years. Him, Trump and even Cruz are all the same kinds of pariahs. They are trying to attain power for basically powers sake on the backs of people who have worked for years in both parties building up coalitions, helping others get elected, raising money for the party, etc. Really, all three make my skin crawl. I don’t think any of the three could accomplish one thing in office. Not one thing. If you want to be a politician and be the President of the USA then you have got to understand how our political system works and how important it is to build real relationships (political relationships), trust and have real goals in place. It isn’t enough to be President. You have to be able to make positive contributions and get at least some of your better ideas implemented.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      Ditto this!!!

    • babama says:

      Sanders would be ineffectual because the Congress would likely be R, and the strength of his Dem support not a given. I think the resistance from all sectors of the right would be fierce, and he’s no match for that. Worst effect he might have is to trash the hope of progress for years to come.
      Trump or Cruz, otoh, with an R Congress would do exponentially more damage, foreign and domestic. R’s would gleefully cooperate, because they make it clear that for them its about Power, first and always. Second is their Profits. “Gawd” and Country lists somewhere behind Guns. The Constitution, Democracy, and the Common Good are only for them and theirs. The R’s now are quite happy with the idea of permanent control and power. They have become a fascist party.

    • Fannie says:

      https://pivotamerica.com/bernie-sanders-may-not-back-hillary-wins-nomination-democratic-establishment-done-us/

      When I first listened, I thought he was just saying what are the democrats going to do for us (what came to mind was “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country). Then I thought, hell, he can’t be that fucking crazy to commit political suicide during a campaign. And now I see the path he is taking, and you fucking can’t trust him.

      • NW Luna says:

        Whoah! Some delusional Berniebros commenting on that site. “Search YouTube for evidence on Hillary’s deceit.” Is this kid old enough to vote? Did his teachers really think YouTube was an acceptable reference? Poor kid’s in for a shock if he does get to his free college.

    • joanelle says:

      Yep, he doesn’t have a clue as to the meaning of ‘loyalty’

  5. Pat Johnson says:

    FYI, Rosario Dawson is a D list actress. She is no Eva Longoria or America Ferrero who are out and unabashed Hillary supporters. Which answers why you have never heard of her.

    We are at a crucial state in the primaries. Trump and Cruz are dangerously close to winning the nomination and that would be the worst that could happen to this nation. Now is the time for a consolidation of Democrats to act swiftly against this disaster. Bernie needs to hang it up. NOW!

    He is not a Democrat. He has little experience with foreign affairs. He is beginning to show his age to be quite frank and he just does not have the proven chops to deal with the affairs of state.

    Bernie has had his moment in the sun. We get his message. That seems to be all he has. The global village needs the experience, brains, and determination of Hillary Clinton. What we don’t needs a petulant old man waving his finger in our faces while 20 somethings, or younger, hoot and holler from the balcony.

    Go away, Bernie, your 15 minutes is up. You don’t much like us anyway.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      Just the notion that this upstart thinks she has the knowledge, the instinct or the background in Latino Civil & Human rights to lecture a legend like Huerta makes me furious. I think we need to put together an OLD WOMAN & OLD MAN BRIGADE and set these no-nothing whippersnappers straight.

    • Fannie says:

      He in so much as says he doesn’t like being the leader, he wants a lot of leaders who are activist to run America.

  6. dakinikat says:

    He’s a “Johnny come lately” to everything but white beta male angst.

    They are very much representative of American populism which has frequently revolved around many forms of “they took our jobs, farms,country, etc.” Odd to see a young Latina fall for the leftist version. The xenophobia is a bit more dog whistle though than the right.

    • Fannie says:

      I was thinking of you as I watched the movie the Big Short. They said it comic, I didn’t think so.

  7. dakinikat says:

    Thx for the shout out…wrote about them being populists back in January if you want to see my thoughts back then. https://skydancingblog.com/2016/01/22/friday-reads-odd-ducks-with-odd-flocks/

    • bostonboomer says:

      I remember that–will go and reread it.

    • Valhalla says:

      That is a great piece.

      This was one of the great discoveries of my life. That if you go far enough to the left or right, you’re not on a straight line that just goes one. You’re likely following a circle that meets where the fanatics meet.

      This is one of my concerns with Trump. I’m not worried about the Bernie Bros who infest Twitter and FB’s threats to vote for Trump; they’re loud but don’t really have the numbers to swing the GE (regardless of their overblown sense of self importance). But I am a bit concerned that some number of Bernie’s supporters, the ones where the circle meets, could cause a big shift.

      With all the recent polls about Trump’s unfavorables recently, it seems unlikely. But it also seems like (so far) no one’s really looking at the circle-meeting people with any insight. They are being written off as racists or merely unrepentant rabble at best. But I don’t think they are the people going to his rallies or white supremacists, but people who experience the world as a very insecure place, especially economically.

      Anyway, again, great piece that pulled together a lot of important stuff!

  8. dakinikat says:

    Sanders attacks Obama and both Clinton’s in one day …tell me why is this guy running as a Dem?

    http://bluenationreview.com/bernie-takes-another-veiled-swipe-at-obama/

    His campaign out to be a lesson in not letting faux party members take advantage of a party.

  9. ANonOMouse says:

    Bernie talking to Lou Dobbs

    Bernie allows Dobbs to say hideous things about Amnesty & immigration without ever contradicting him, in fact agreeing with him throughout the interview.

  10. ANonOMouse says:

    All-out warfare is about to break out between Bernie Sanders’ supporters and the political press

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/all-out-warfare-is-about-to-break-out-between-bernie-sanders-supporters-and-the-political-press/

    • bostonboomer says:

      From your link:

      A lot of Sanders supporters have been primed by progressive media outlets that support the candidate – and various Facebook memes – to see these things through the prism of a conspiracy by the “establishment” media to keep Sanders down. So while the reporting will be factual and responsible — and based on the delegate math – we can expect our social media feeds to fill up with a million pissed off posts complaining that Sanders’ big win in Wyoming (18 delegates) wasn’t front-page news, or demanding to know why the media refuse to report the obvious fact that these next five contests are game-changers that will surely propel Sanders to a glorious victory over Hitlery Killton.

      And a legion of pro-Sanders writers at The Huffington Post and Salon and US UNCUT will stoke their fury by telling them what they want to hear. They will confidently write that Sanders’ win in the Washington Caucuses makes him the clear front-runner in the race for the nomination. They will accuse the mainstream media of covering up what they’ll see as an obvious reality.

  11. Valhalla says:

    One of the most common characteristics of Bernie’s more fervent supporters is that they just joined the political process 5 minutes ago. Yet they somehow know more, understand more, and demonstrate such manifest superiority of purpose and purity that they are entitled to lecture EVERYONE else on what is in their own best interest, against people who’ve been doing the hard work for longer than they’ve been alive. Gawd save us from the newly converted, there’s no group more obnoxious and more lacking in understanding.

    Yet, the irony is that more than any other group they mainline campaign propaganda and aggressively propagate it like no other group in the elections (yes, even more than Trump supporters in many cases — at least they are relying on 35 years of widespread RW smears and tropes, not 20 minutes on a Reddit subthread.) Everything and everyone who does not align perfectly with their idolatry is evil, a fraud, or a cheat. Would that the world could be so clear cut. The idea, as bb points out, that they are casting Clinton as a Ralph Nader, defies all logic and analysis, whether you support her or not. There is no meme, no excuse, no accusation that is out of bounds for them. (Seriously, I saw someone accuse Clinton of being a ‘Reaganite’ the other day, lol).

    Twitter has been alight with observations that at least part of Sanders’ maintaining his campaign is due to the big dollars Tad Devine off of his commissions, characterizing Devine’s actions as grift. I think, though, that Bernie and his campaign’s leveraging of his supporters’ extreme credulity and clear lack of analyical abilities amounts to a sort of intellectual grift, one which is almost more inexcusable than the $ one.

    After all, losing $30 on a bad bargain sucks but that sort of thing happens to all of us. You can learn from a bad money choice and be the wiser for it. But absorbing an uncritical, non-analytic, purity-worshipping framework for how to judge one’s (and others’) political support is dangerous, anti-democratic, and is much harder to overcome than losing some money.

    • bostonboomer says:

      Thanks, Valhalla. Great comment.

      What really bugs me is that this shit is obviously coming from Bernie himself. I’ve come to the conclusion that he is really a horrible person. That’s what comes out of interviews with people who have tried to work with him too. He’s managed to fool a lot of us into thinking he’s a decent guy, when all along he was this narcissistic, egotistical jerk. I hope he loses his Senate seat.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      Agree!!!

    • NW Luna says:

      Well spoken!

      “leveraging his supporters’ extreme credulity and clear lack of analytical abilities”

  12. bostonboomer says:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  13. Valhalla says:

    As for Dawson, I don’t have any idea if she wrote it herself, but it’s awfully consistent with the standard Sanders’ campaigns MO. If she had written the same letter but left out going after Huerta, I might think differently. But this is the Sanders’ campaign MO: it’s not enough for them to make their own case; they always have to include an attack on others. And not just any others, but others who most share their campaign’s ostensible goals. It just doesn’t make sense to go after a genuine hero like Huerta, unless it is to get far more attention than anything Dawson could muster on her own.

    Sometimes I think Sanders truly believes that his greatest enemies are not Republicans, or even his Wall Street millionaires and billionaires, but those who should or could be his political allies’ failure to adhere perfectly to his ideological purity. If you look at his actions, he spends much more time attacking people who actually agree with most of his goals than those whose goals are exactly the opposite of his. That’s the “tell” in Dawson’s letter — she had to go after Huerta, and do it with that same arrogance and lecturing that characterizes Sanders’ whole campaign.

    • bostonboomer says:

      I agree.

    • babama says:

      The left loves to eat their own, I know cuz I’ve lived it. Huerta is an honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, which is all in for Bernie currently. Gloria Steinem is an honorary chair too, she was previously smeared by the BS campaign. Huerta is a much more influential Hillary surrogate. I think BS is trying to neutralize her impact w/Latino voters, as well as infighting w/in DSA.
      I don’t think it will work. For one thing, Dawson is NYC Puerto Rican/Cuban. Huerta is New Mexico & California living history. Culturally and generationally different. Huerta is formidable, she almost lost her life protesting Bush 1, beaten by SFPD in ’88. I think Dawson will eventually see truth and regret her role in this. I hope so.

    • List of X says:

      What evidence is there that Dawson didn’t write her letter but put her name on the template written by the Sanders campaign, other than “looks like standard Sanders campaign MO”? Has there been other cases where a high-profile Sanders supporter fessed up about signing their name to letters that the campaign had written for them, rather than saying/writing their own words? I’m not being sarcastic, I just don’t remember hearing of any cases like that.

      • Valhalla says:

        Have any of his other surrogates written letters like this? I don’t know of any, but I also don’t particularly keep up with all that his celebrity or other surrogates are doing.

        I am not sure if this comment was directed at my comment, but no, I don’t have any grounds to claim Dawson didn’t write this, except for the strong consistency with the Sanders campaign’s default style and messaging, plus the condescension towards Huerta.

      • bostonboomer says:

        Wouldn’t you prefer that she hadn’t written the letter? It’s ghastly! Anyway, all I did was quote Al Giordano, who is a friend of Dawson and was trying to defend her.

  14. bostonboomer says:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  15. bostonboomer says:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    • Sweet Sue says:

      Yes. Dawson thinks because she played Huerta in a movie, she understands her struggle and achievements.
      No you don’t, Rosario. You’re just an actress. Huerta lived through it all and she knows the real deal when see sees it: Hillary Clinton!
      Now, go get a mani-pedi or something.

  16. janicen says:

    It never ceases to amaze me how the brocialists don’t recognize (or maybe they do and don’t give a shit) the racism in their statements and strategy. What the fuck kind of convoluted thinking does it take to say, “Hey, we’ll get a Latina actor to write a letter criticizing Huerta because then it won’t look racist.”? Yeah bros, it does. From their comments about Hillary winning the Confederacy and how people there are somehow less informed than northerners to this transparent stunt with Rosario Dawson of all people, you can’t help but wonder what the hell is going on? Is Bernie liberal at all? His campaign demonstrates racism, sexism, support of the NRA and militia activity on the border and we’re supposed to buy that he’s a lefty?

    • bostonboomer says:

      Bernie is out for Bernie, period.

    • Fannie says:

      I had an argument just prior to caucus…………I said, if the bitch (Sarandon) is in the same room with that I would approach her. As it was, she was there on Monday, and not Tuesday, and I didn’t do the caucus anyway. I was told during this argument, that I would be fine with Sarandon if she were voting for Hillary, and I said, she can vote for whoever the hell she wants to, you just don’t ever get in Dolores Huerta face. Then I heard the same bullshit, that the video somehow proved Sarandon was right, and Dolores was lying. That kind of shit didn’t go over, and I cursed, then the person I was arguing said they were going to go over to Hillary. I bet not. This is the kind of crap we are up against. You really can’t trust the Bernie Camp.

    • William says:

      I remember Joe Garagiola very well, and I think most baseball fans would. Boyhood friend of Yogi Berra; journeyman catcher who managed to take his genial good humor into a role as a rather legendary color commentator for decades on NBC. Certainly a great ambassador for baseball. It seems like not very long ago that I was watching him do the World Series broadcasts.

  17. janicen says:

    The BernieBros are apoplectic because the NYT ran an editorial about Hillz statement on terrorism and how well reasoned it is compared to the GOP candidates bluster. Not one mention of Sanders in it and the brocialists are fuming.

  18. janicen says:

    Bernie won’t select Hillz for his cabinet if he wins the nomination but if Hillz wins he will withhold support until he finds out what the Democratic party will do for him…

    http://www.shakesville.com/2016/03/this-is-getting-real-old-sanders.html

    • Riverbird says:

      Good grief. The Democratic party that Sanders talks about – the “cocktail crowd” – is not the same party I know. He really is not a Democrat.

      • Fannie says:

        Truth out.

      • Sweet Sue says:

        That’s rich because the limousine liberals and “cocktail crowd” are all lining up for Bernie.
        After all, they have nothing to lose if Trump becomes president.

        • janicen says:

          Don’t be confused, Sue. Susan Sarandon’s money is pure because she’s giving it to Bernie. Clooney’s money is tainted because it’s going to Clinton. 😉

  19. William says:

    I see no sign that Sanders or his followers have any intention of leaving this race any time soon. Just like Sanders has never conceded a point in any argument I have ever heard him make on TV or in a campaign, so his followers never concede an outcome against him, claiming that they were all procured by some kind of fraud. Thus I am resigned to seeing Sanders proceed to the Democratic Convention, contest every plafform plank; claim a variety of rules violations; make it as difficult as possible for Hillary to be nominated. After that, I don’t know whether Sanders will run as a third party candidate, but I do not expect too many of his supporters to vote for HIllary.

    For many of them it is not about more than a personal kind of social media warfare which they apparently revel in. Most of them do not have a clue as to what Sanders would do as regards foreign policy. None of them seems to understand that Sanders could not get one domestic bill through a Republican Congress. And they don’t care that Sanders has no interest in supporting any Democrat in a Congressional or state race. They are living in a land of fantasy and ignorance, and they are proud of it. The so-called radicals of the ’60’s certainly had their flaws and self-indulgences, but most of them at least had some knowledge of issues, and large and sometimes admirable ideas. All I see of ideas from the Sanders people is that they want their college tuition to be eliminated, so they can have more money.

  20. RalphB says:

    Great post BB!

  21. List of X says:

    The biggest reason I support Sanders because to me, the most immediate issue is how our election system has slowly turned into legalized corruption system, so that we no longer (or still do not) live in democracy, but in a plutocracy. That’s not a metaphor: there has been research on how likely a law to be passed depending on how big a popular majority supports it, and depending on how much top 1% supports it – and there is practically no correlation with popular support yet significant correlation with top 1% support.
    Sanders seems to be the only one who is actually taking it seriously – and for that, I am willing to overlook his stance on guns, his weakness in foreign policy, or dubious record on immigration. Because to me, if the political system is not fully functional and does not represent the voters, it’s not going to produce results that nation is going to be happy with. And while this seems like a minor procedural issue – it shoud be – but until it’s fixed, every actual problem we as a nation have to deal with – global warming, terrorism, economy, immigration, guns, education, foreign policy will therefore be pushed by special interests towards solutions that would be most beneficial to special interests, not necessarily to the country.
    Now, I never expected Bernie to actually win, and I’m not going to be too upset when he does – both because of low expectations and because I think Hillary as a candidate and president is pretty much as good as it gets. But if Sanders will lose but puts this higher on a party and nation’s agenda – it’s good enough for me for now.

    • bostonboomer says:

      Hillary is certainly taking the fight against Citizens United seriously. After all, the SCOTUS case was about a film that attacked her personally and viciously. I wonder if Bernie even knows that. I’ve never heard him mention it.

      If Bernie were to win the nomination, he would not be able to finance a GE campaign without big donors. And of course he has two superpacs supporting him. One is the Nurses union and the other is Karl Rove’s superpac.

      Meanwhile Hillary’s pac has not spent one cent in the primary campaign.

      I originally thought that having Bernie running would be a good thing, and I still think it’s good for Hillary to have the competition; but now that he is attacking Hillary personally and running against the Democratic Party, I think it’s a real problem. It will be interesting to see how the DNC and Senate leaders deal with this. He may will get a primary opponent and he could lose his committee assignments. We shall see . . .

      • NW Luna says:

        Oh please, please, please primary him! I’d donate to his opponent in a heartbeat. Come to think of it, I will do that anyway (unless the only opponent is a Repub.)

      • List of X says:

        Not being able to finance general election without big donors, and having Rove’s superPAC supporting Sanders to derail Clinton are just two more symptoms of just how f-d up the election system is with the flood of unlimited campaign money. Neither of those two things to me is the reason to think worse of Sanders as a candidate, just the opposite – that’s two more reasons why we need Sanders as a candidate.
        I realize that Hillary is also opposed to Citizens United and big money in politics. But given that Sanders is running this campaign with zero or little reliance on large donors or big-ticket fundraising dinners (even though he legally can and not doing it likely hurts his election prospects) makes it clear that he’s more dedicated to campaign funding reform.
        I don’t think Sanders has to worry about being challenged in the primary. He’s not even a Democrat, remember? 🙂
        But I think once the primary fight is over, he’ll back Clinton. After all, he did say that Clinton on her worst day is infinitely better than any Republican.

        • bostonboomer says:

          We’ll see. In the last interview Sanders did, he seemed doubtful that he would support her and I really don’t think it matters. He has become “the Ralph Nader.”

          Frankly, I think she’ll do fine without him. The polls already show that a majority of young people will vote for her. If he campaigns for her now after all the personal attacks, it could give ammunition to the Republicans.

          Sanders should go back to the Senate and try to accomplish something useful. His reputation as any kind of friend to Democrats is shot to hell.

        • janicen says:

          X, this whole, “…if only she didn’t accept large donations…” sounds to Clinton supporters like just another bit of Berniesplaining to justify not supporting the more qualified candidate. It nicely feeds a narrative which says that Clinton is corrupt. There’s no evidence of that but that’s the shade Sanders supporters want to throw on her so the fact that she’s beating him in fundraising is a convenient tool.

          When it comes to donations, what’s the cutoff? Exactly what dollar amount is the one that puts you in the category of nefarious influencers? Is it $100? $500? Obviously $2700 is over the line because that’s the one currently being seized by Sanders. $2700 is the maximum an individual is allowed to donate by law. So let’s say I send Hillary Clinton $2700. What kind of special influence or favors am I going to get that someone who only donated $50 won’t get and why should the $50 donor get a voice but my $2700 makes me dirty? Do you think it will buy me some legislation to help my small business? Will it get me special access to the White House or an ambassadorship? Maybe an invite to one of the inaugural balls? The truth is it won’t yield me anything other than a thank you note via email. That’s it.

          Unless and until campaigns are financed ONLY by public money and nobody can donate privately, there will always be a dollar amount some candidate can seize on and scream, “Corruption!!” Barack Obama raised record breaking amounts of money from huge numbers of both large and small donors but nobody batted an eye. Nobody accused him of being corrupted by it. He was just “smart”. He was slick and cool and playing the game better. Now it’s Hillary’s turn and the accusations of corruption are ever present. What’s the difference between the two candidates? Obama wasn’t corrupted by his donors and there is no evidence whatsoever that Clinton will be. Any accusation in that regard is spurious. The way to get money out of politics at this point it to get elected and change the legislature by your coattails in order to change the law. No other way to do it and Clinton is far more likely to make that happen than Sanders. Anyone who is really serious about wanting to reform campaign financing would support Clinton.

          • List of X says:

            I don’t think “…if only she didn’t accept large donations…” was anywhere in my comment. I even tried to word my comments to avoid implying that Clinton is corrupt – but you somehow found the insinuation anyway. Great job!
            But I do want to know – do you think that there could be no possible legitimate reason to prefer a candidate other than Clinton, and that therefore 40% or so of the Democratic party are just racist sexist brainless assholes?

          • List of X says:

            Oh, and just to be clear, I agree that Clinton is absolutely more qualified than Sanders. But that doesn’t have to be the only criteria: if the primary were between Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren,
            Biden would be more qualified than Warren, but I’m not sure that you would prefer Biden between these two.

          • janicen says:

            Awesome! The trifecta of mansplaining, attack the wording of my comment, attack me personally, and then change the subject of the discussion so that it has no similarity to the original point. X, don’t try to pretend you haven’t made a comment about $2700 donations in other comments and saying Sanders is the only candidate taking corruption in politics seriously certainly sounds to an reasonable person that you are implying that Clinton in corrupt. In politics, that’s really all you have to do is taint a candidate and the damage is done. X, I have not ignored your concern troll comments because I have appreciated you viewpoint in other discussions and I think you are not one of the worst of the Bernie Bros. But once the discussion becomes about me rather than the topics it’s counterproductive and tiresome for everyone. From now on I’ll ignore your comments so you can drop your turds on the discussion without fear of a response from me. I’ll let my candidate defend herself. She’s pretty good at it.

  22. dexter says:

    The tone on this site a fallen to the point that I thought I had accidently dropped by a republican site. It is okay to not like Senator Sanders but the infantile postings are below what I expect of democrats.
    I dislike Clinton for many reasons. The two biggest ones are her payments from the big banks for speeches and secondly, she pals around with mass a murderer, also known as Kissinger. She says it is because she wants many thoughts on foreign policy. If I want to study mass murderers I will research Stalin. He won his wars and took half of Europe in the process. The only thing I want to hear from Kissinger are his last words before he is hung for crimes against humanity.
    I would prefer Sanders over Clinton but I will vote for her come November because she is vastly superior to anything the Republicans are putting forward.
    I have this site on my favorite list but if the tone doesn’t change soon that will change. If I want to hear infantile bullying I will go to a republican site.

    • janicen says:

      If you are a Sanders supporter, why would you come here? You’ll be much happier at Republican sites because they aren’t even talking about Sanders anymore.

      • dexter says:

        Dear Janicen, boy, did you ever miss the point. I was complaining about your tone, not that you disliked Sanders. I enjoyed this site for a while mostly because of the posts about New Orleans.
        Don’t bother to reply because I am gone. I may come back after the election to see how old Dak is doing but for now bye.

        • janicen says:

          “Tone” is a well worn and meaningless criticism of Hillary Clinton so I’m not surprised to see it used against her supporters. See you after the election, dexter.

        • NW Luna says:

          Don’t bother to reply because I am gone.

          Gawdess, did he get a textbook with scripts for his $27? LOL!

          • ANonOMouse says:

            Well, he also got a DVD of Bernie waggin his finger and saying the same fucking things over and over and over and over and over and over and over, AGAIN.

        • ANonOMouse says:

          Nip it, Nip it in the bud, Bernie!!!

        • ANonOMouse says:

          “I may come back after the election to see how old Dak is doing but for now bye.”

          We’ll tell “old Dak” you stopped by, I’m sure she’ll be devastated that she missed your delightful visit.

          • NW Luna says:

            Did that guy sound just like the full-of-himself slob who asked the former SOS and 2-term Senator why she wasn’t inspirational to dudez like himself? Sure does to me.

      • ANonOMouse says:

        “I was complaining about your tone, not that you disliked Sanders.”

        What’s the matter with you Janicen, can’t you control your woman “tone”. 🙂 You know menz don’t like it when women use a forceful tone!!!! And by the way, as old as you are you should know that when a man calls a woman “infantile” he does so in a very, very good “tone”. So there you go!!!!

    • NW Luna says:

      Thank you for your concern.

      Try doing research on your claims against Hillary Clinton first. And take the infantile bullying out of your own tone before accusing others.

      • bostonboomer says:

        Weird. I’ve never seen that guy here before. I doubt he’s ever read us. Our posts are “infantile?” LOL!

        • janicen says:

          This must be part of that “all out warfare” to which mouse referred! 😀

          • ANonOMouse says:

            It’s getting to be crunch time and the Sweat is falling onto their keyboards and causing them to type ridiculous “infantile” things.

          • NW Luna says:

            Ya know, we haven’t been trolled much here by oh-so-concerned commenters this election year. (Thank the Goddess). I’d forgotten how pathetic they are.

          • bostonboomer says:

            I know. We’ve largely escaped. There have been a few trollish comments that we have sent to in the trash pile before they got through though.

        • NW Luna says:

          They’re above his head. And reality is hard for some people.

          BB, this is a splendid post you’ve written! Been at work and couldn’t comment until recently. I am so fuming with indignation at Sanders’ effrontery. Why/How is he letting his interns — or is it he himself — write and send these atrocious attacks and bald-faced lies? These tactics are another similarity with Trump. I’ve lost the respect I used to have for him.

          As far as “making a statement” — it’s a statement of adolescent sour grapes now. He’ll be remembered as an angry finger-wagger who had ideals but then ran right over them with a vehicle of lies and slander, full of gullible, alternate-reality based entitled women-haters.

          • Fannie says:

            It really is a super blog, and a great amount of work, and really stirs a lot within my head, and my heart.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      “The two biggest ones are her payments from the big banks for speeches and secondly, she pals around with mass a murderer, also known as Kissinger.”

      Those reasons are about as “infantile” as it gets. Kissinger is a former Secretary of State and it’s totally reasonable for current SOS’s to talk with former SOS’s for insight into the politics of the world. It’s no different than a current President talking and consulting with former Presidents. You know there aren’t many people a President or a SOS can go to for job perspective. Whether you like it or not Democrats and Republicans talk to each other all the time, especially those who serve in the highest positions in our government. This has been happening from the beginning of the Republic and it will continue to happen and there’s nothing nefarious about it and the implication that is, is “infantile” . And the paid speeches are much ado about nothing. It’s quite common for Famous People to speak to large Organizations, including financial organizations for large sums of money. Those include people like Jimmy Carter, Howard Dean, Al Gore, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Robert Gates, Fareed Zakaria, Roman Gabriele, Brian Urlacher, Tom Brady, Drew Brees.

      “If want to hear infantile bullying I will go to a republican site.”

      Or you can go to any of the many places where Bernie supporters call home. There you will read accusations against Hillary, sort of like what you’re implying here.

      • NW Luna says:

        Bernie doesn’t get paid as much for his speeches. Unfair! Whaaaaaa!

        LOL, Mouse. Save your breath. S/he’s obviously not an evidence-based person. Me, I practically had to wipe away tears of laughter after his “I’ll be gone!” parting “shot.” Ah, the pathos, lol! Don’t let the door hit you on your way out, dex!

    • Fannie says:

      Hey Dexter, you know, we learned along time ago that we women got to stick together. See that’s the really the thing you don’t like. The power we have when we unite behind Hillary.

      We be styling, walking and talking with Hillary, and it’s the way we feel that makes us important. I am feeling some latino sounds, good year for Salsa.

  23. bostonboomer says:

    Bernie Sanders Lays Out His Requirements For Endorsing Hillary Clinton

    Too much. Should the DNC negotiate with terrorists?

    • ANonOMouse says:

      The DNC should send him back to Senate and take away his plum committee assignments and any campaign assistance they’ve given him in the past. Let him start his revolution in Burlington.

      • NW Luna says:

        we want to completely revitalize the Democratic Party

        He should start acting like a Democrat then.

        He’s running as a Socialist for his Senate seat. Why should the Democratic Party listen to a non-Democrat? He and his rabid supporters need to drop the blackmail attempt and grow up.

      • Fredster says:

        After Hillary is elected and the Democrats take back the Senate, the first thing the new majority leader should do is change is his committee assignments to give him responsibility for refunds from the vending machines in the Senate Cloak room or similar place.

    • janicen says:

      Isn’t that just a kick in the ass? You know, I wonder about the convention. Will Bernie speak? Will he be invited to speak? Hillary graciously spoke at the ’08 convention, will Bernie do the same and endorse her at the convention? It will be interesting.

      • ANonOMouse says:

        This will be Bernie’s contribution at the convention

        • ANonOMouse says:

          Bernie will be demonstrating this firearm prowess before the rules committee. It is called “A Demonstration of how we use Firearms in Vermont. Or, How I learned to embrace the NRA and love the Gun, right after I shot off my right baby toe off”

          • NW Luna says:

            Let’s not forget that the gun protection bills he’s signed also ban the use of Federal funds or staff from research into any aspect of gun violence. This includes the public-health implications.

  24. janicen says:

    My daughter’s connecting flight from CA is delayed taking off from Atlanta so I’m having to stay awake in order to pick her up at the airport. You guys have been keeping me laughing with your hilarious posts and comments. Thank you!

    • NW Luna says:

      May your daughter have a safe flight.

      Always happy to hang out with the SkyDance team and have some witty fun! Keeps my spirits up, too.

  25. Stellaa says:

    What I find amazing is that now the “ersatz” Dolores Huerta is morphed into the voice of Dolores Huerta and Dolores Huerta is erased and diminished.

    • NW Luna says:

      The real Delores Huerta is not. People who can’t tell the difference between Hollywood and the real thing — well, that is their problem: mistaking the surface imitation for the genuine person, and mistaking talk for action.

  26. janicen says:

    This is awesome.