Lord forbid we have choices.You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.
I do.I did. But his implication is that people will find Bernie to be honest, and Hillary to be less than honest. They don't.Did you even read what he wrote?The polls consistently show....This is an observation from business and politics: people who believe and know their subject are better and more convincing than people who go in with notes and preconceived notions of what people want to hear. This is true even when their audience does not necessarily agree with the person on every single item, they tend to favor the person whom they trust more in knowledge and as a person. The above reads a little like he was a populist in VT, but it also sounds to me like he's not about pressing buttons. I think if someone hears Bernie, and they hear Hillary, with an open mind, most often (50+%) they will pick Bernie. The question is how many will get that chance and how many will be open minded. He does seem to have a history of upsets though. IIRC he first got into politics as mayor of a small town, those are the people who intrigue me the most, they get involved because they are civically active trying to improve things around them. It also sounds to me like VT is maybe more like our democracy was envisioned, smaller and more intimate.
I wish more liberals would embrace the virtues of competition. A guy like Sanders who rails against corporate power should logically be advocating for more competition, not less.He said this yesterday which got a chuckle from me.
Lord forbid we have choices.You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.
Yeah, this is the Bad Bernie. Self-righteous and sure he always knows best (not to mention always connecting every woe in the world to big business, even when the connection is tenuous).He said this yesterday which got a chuckle from me.
Lord forbid we have choices.You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.
I don't have much of a problem with this quote, but I think it is a bad phrasing of his argument. I didn't take this to be an argument against choice or competition so much as a statement of: "we care more about promoting corporations, consumerism, energy companies, etc. than we do supporting our own citizens and protecting our natural resources for ourselves and our future." I feel like his references to sneaker and deodorant variety are a somewhat quick and lazy analogy for the way that we've been calculating economic success in our country, namely, "the economy must be doing great, look at all of the #### we make and what regular people can buy!" That's great, and that's, to some degree, what modern America is founded on. However, we need to realize that there are other important metrics that we should care about and that are not served by our current view of economic success. I don't know, maybe I'm reading too much into a bad soundbite.Yeah, this is the Bad Bernie. Self-righteous and sure he always knows best (not to mention always connecting every woe in the world to big business, even when the connection is tenuous).He said this yesterday which got a chuckle from me.
Lord forbid we have choices.You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.
Hopefully we'll see more of the Good Bernie on the campaign trail.
I guess Hillary's dirt diggers have been busy...Speaking of dreams. https://www.google.com/#q=bernie+sanders+perv
Webb will get very few minority votes with positions like this, and that alone guarantees he won't win the Democrat primary given the increasing Democrat minority vote vs. the decreasing Democrat white vote.My political daydream is Webb/Sanders ticket where Bernie is made the Grand Poobah of domestic policy (with lots of leeway) while Webb deals with the rest of planet Earth. Alas, the "two white guys" ticket is about to go the way of the way of the dodo bird, but as long as Elizabeth Warren chooses to sit on her hands we could have one last hurrah.
How are Hillary and Bill supposed to justify the "end of welfare as we know it"? That can be forgotten, but this op-ed cannot?Webb will get very few minority votes with positions like this, and that alone guarantees he won't win the Democrat primary given the increasing Democrat minority vote vs. the decreasing Democrat white vote.My political daydream is Webb/Sanders ticket where Bernie is made the Grand Poobah of domestic policy (with lots of leeway) while Webb deals with the rest of planet Earth. Alas, the "two white guys" ticket is about to go the way of the way of the dodo bird, but as long as Elizabeth Warren chooses to sit on her hands we could have one last hurrah.
I'd compare Sanders' twisted writing more to how the Clinton team treated people like Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaderick, Monica Lewinsky and numerous others....How are Hillary and Bill supposed to justify the "end of welfare as we know it"? That can be forgotten, but this op-ed cannot?Webb will get very few minority votes with positions like this, and that alone guarantees he won't win the Democrat primary given the increasing Democrat minority vote vs. the decreasing Democrat white vote.My political daydream is Webb/Sanders ticket where Bernie is made the Grand Poobah of domestic policy (with lots of leeway) while Webb deals with the rest of planet Earth. Alas, the "two white guys" ticket is about to go the way of the way of the dodo bird, but as long as Elizabeth Warren chooses to sit on her hands we could have one last hurrah.
You would expect writings about fantasies about abused beaten and raped women from the party who wages war on women.Petty dirt diggersI guess Hillary's dirt diggers have been busy...Speaking of dreams. https://www.google.com/#q=bernie+sanders+perv
Sidney Blumenthal and David Brock run that show, yes.I guess Hillary's dirt diggers have been busy...Speaking of dreams. https://www.google.com/#q=bernie+sanders+perv
Typically, they are busy removing her foot from her mouth, but since she isn't talking much, they have little to do at the momentI guess Hillary's dirt diggers have been busy...Speaking of dreams. https://www.google.com/#q=bernie+sanders+perv
- Deleted from Daily Kos.Breaking: Hillary Unloads On Bernie
Just as Senator Bernie Sanders starts his campaign with some momentum. Someone or someone's campaign slipped this 43-year-old nugget out of the literary dustbin to discredit Sanders as a smart, active, courageous 73-year-old young man in 2015.
The 43-year old dirt on Bernie
This article is classic "Oppo 101": slime and try to define your opponent now before the other candidate defines you. Since Sen. Sanders has decided to focus on issues rather than slime against the Clinton campaign, it does make it easier for the Clinton campaign to fire first!
Just like with the State Department reluctant releases of Clinton's emails, no one should be surprised to see more old papers of Bernie's life during the cultural wars - with no explanation - in attempts to malign his campaign.
Just think about it: who has the money, the researchers, and the war room consultants digging up every factoid or half-truth peccadillo they can find? (Guess: It ain't Fmr. Gov. Martin O'Malley, or current "not running" undeclared Sen. Elizabeth Warren, or Vice President Joe Biden.)
It can only be the candidate who can't say anything substantive beyond the national Democratic platform (i.e., No TPP talk) because the campaign is already gearing to tack to the center after receiving the nomination!
'Nuff said.
(And, of course, she knows nothing. But, maybe David Brock does..)
Bring it on, Hillary! Let the games begin!
Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.If neither Jezebel or National Review are worried about this essay, then I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.
I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious, rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.
EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
Between this and the return to the 90% top tax rate, I'd say we have finally located a major political figure actually more stupid about economics than Barack (ATM) Obama.He said this yesterday which got a chuckle from me.
Lord forbid we have choices.You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.
That's not dumb economics. Though some may want to state its unfair.Between this and the return to the 90% top tax rate, I'd say we have finally located a major political figure actually dumber on economics than Barack (ATM) Obama.He said this yesterday which got a chuckle from me.
Lord forbid we have choices.You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.
It's so dumb even France has given up on it.That's not dumb economics. Though some may want to state its unfair.Between this and the return to the 90% top tax rate, I'd say we have finally located a major political figure actually dumber on economics than Barack (ATM) Obama.He said this yesterday which got a chuckle from me.
Lord forbid we have choices.You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.
He says that 1/10th of 1% own 90% of everything. They should pay the taxes. Not everyone else fighting for the final 10%.
Yeah, I would be extremely surprised if Hillary's people had anything to do with this. Why should she be scared of Bernie Sanders?Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.If neither Jezebel or National Review are worried about this essay, then I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.
I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious, rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.
EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
Why would Nixon be afraid of McGovern?Yeah, I would be extremely surprised if Hillary's people had anything to do with this. Why should she be scared of Bernie Sanders?Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.If neither Jezebel or National Review are worried about this essay, then I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.
I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious, rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.
EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
Exactly. Hillary and Nixon are pretty much interchangeable on ethics, policy, and paranoia. And that's not a good thing.Why would Nixon be afraid of McGovern?Yeah, I would be extremely surprised if Hillary's people had anything to do with this. Why should she be scared of Bernie Sanders?Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.If neither Jezebel or National Review are worried about this essay, then I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.
I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious, rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.
EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
Of course they are.Exactly. Hillary and Nixon are pretty much interchangeable on ethics, policy, and paranoia. And that's not a good thing.Why would Nixon be afraid of McGovern?Yeah, I would be extremely surprised if Hillary's people had anything to do with this. Why should she be scared of Bernie Sanders?Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.If neither Jezebel or National Review are worried about this essay, then I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.
I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious, rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.
EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
From the vast right wing conspiracy out to get them in the 90s? Ha Larry usHe was afraid of the Democrats, not necessarily McGovern. But are you asserting that Hillary is the same kind of political paranoid figure Nixon was? Because there's nothing in her history to indicate that.
Well that proves it. Everybody goes crazy about that 18 year old quote. The funny thing is she was right. There was a right wing conspiracy to get her husband and it was vast. He was accused of smuggling drugs out of Mena Arkansas, murdering Vince Foater, rape, and other assorted crimes. Witnesses were bought and paid for by conservative newspapers at the time and videos documenting his supposed wrongdoings were peddled on conservative talk shows. That's what she was talking about, and she assumed that Lewinsky was part of that. She was wrong about that part,but not about the conspiracy itself.Dr Oadi said:From the vast right wing conspiracy? Ha Larry usHe was afraid of the Democrats, not necessarily McGovern. But are you asserting that Hillary is the same kind of political paranoid figure Nixon was? Because there's nothing in her history to indicate that.
Nixon erased the tapes; Hillary erased the emails.Of course they are.Exactly. Hillary and Nixon are pretty much interchangeable on ethics, policy, and paranoia. And that's not a good thing.Why would Nixon be afraid of McGovern?Yeah, I would be extremely surprised if Hillary's people had anything to do with this. Why should she be scared of Bernie Sanders?Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.If neither Jezebel or National Review are worried about this essay, then I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.
I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious, rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.
EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
So . . . lots of smoke, but no fire.Well that proves it.Everybody goes crazy about that 18 year old quote. The funny thing is she was right. There was a right wing conspiracy to get her husband and it was vast. He was accused of smuggling drugs out of Mena Arkansas, murdering Vince Foater, rape, and other assorted crimes. Witnesses were bought and paid for by conservative newspapers at the time and videos documenting his supposed wrongdoings were peddled on conservative talk shows. That's what she was talking about, and she assumed that Lewinsky was part of that. She was wrong about that part,but not about the conspiracy itself.Dr Oadi said:From the vast right wing conspiracy? Ha Larry usHe was afraid of the Democrats, not necessarily McGovern. But are you asserting that Hillary is the same kind of political paranoid figure Nixon was? Because there's nothing in her history to indicate that.
Says the guy who actually thinks Nixon was a good president on policy.Of course they are.Exactly. Hillary and Nixon are pretty much interchangeable on ethics, policy, and paranoia. And that's not a good thing.Why would Nixon be afraid of McGovern?Yeah, I would be extremely surprised if Hillary's people had anything to do with this. Why should she be scared of Bernie Sanders?Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.If neither Jezebel or National Review are worried about this essay, then I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.
I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious, rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.
EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
Oh my.Well that proves it.Everybody goes crazy about that 18 year old quote. The funny thing is she was right. There was a right wing conspiracy to get her husband and it was vast. He was accused of smuggling drugs out of Mena Arkansas, murdering Vince Foater, rape, and other assorted crimes. Witnesses were bought and paid for by conservative newspapers at the time and videos documenting his supposed wrongdoings were peddled on conservative talk shows. That's what she was talking about, and she assumed that Lewinsky was part of that. She was wrong about that part,but not about the conspiracy itself.Dr Oadi said:From the vast right wing conspiracy? Ha Larry usHe was afraid of the Democrats, not necessarily McGovern. But are you asserting that Hillary is the same kind of political paranoid figure Nixon was? Because there's nothing in her history to indicate that.
actually no. I don't think he was good on policy. I think he was great on policy. One of our best in modern times in fact.Says the guy who actually thinks Nixon was a good president on policy.Of course they are.Exactly. Hillary and Nixon are pretty much interchangeable on ethics, policy, and paranoia. And that's not a good thing.Why would Nixon be afraid of McGovern?Yeah, I would be extremely surprised if Hillary's people had anything to do with this. Why should she be scared of Bernie Sanders?Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.If neither Jezebel or National Review are worried about this essay, then I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.
I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious, rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.
EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
She was mostly wrong about Whitewater too....many of her friends and business partners were convicted over that....Well that proves it. Everybody goes crazy about that 18 year old quote. The funny thing is she was right. There was a right wing conspiracy to get her husband and it was vast. He was accused of smuggling drugs out of Mena Arkansas, murdering Vince Foater, rape, and other assorted crimes. Witnesses were bought and paid for by conservative newspapers at the time and videos documenting his supposed wrongdoings were peddled on conservative talk shows. That's what she was talking about, and she assumed that Lewinsky was part of that. She was wrong about that part,but not about the conspiracy itself.Dr Oadi said:From the vast right wing conspiracy? Ha Larry usHe was afraid of the Democrats, not necessarily McGovern. But are you asserting that Hillary is the same kind of political paranoid figure Nixon was? Because there's nothing in her history to indicate that.
The record says otherwise.actually no. I don't think he was good on policy. I think he was great on policy. One of our best in modern times in fact.Says the guy who actually thinks Nixon was a good president on policy.Of course they are.Exactly. Hillary and Nixon are pretty much interchangeable on ethics, policy, and paranoia. And that's not a good thing.Why would Nixon be afraid of McGovern?Yeah, I would be extremely surprised if Hillary's people had anything to do with this. Why should she be scared of Bernie Sanders?Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.If neither Jezebel or National Review are worried about this essay, then I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.
I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious, rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.
EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
She is such a scumbag.- Deleted from Daily Kos.Breaking: Hillary Unloads On Bernie
Just as Senator Bernie Sanders starts his campaign with some momentum. Someone or someone's campaign slipped this 43-year-old nugget out of the literary dustbin to discredit Sanders as a smart, active, courageous 73-year-old young man in 2015.
The 43-year old dirt on Bernie
This article is classic "Oppo 101": slime and try to define your opponent now before the other candidate defines you. Since Sen. Sanders has decided to focus on issues rather than slime against the Clinton campaign, it does make it easier for the Clinton campaign to fire first!
Just like with the State Department reluctant releases of Clinton's emails, no one should be surprised to see more old papers of Bernie's life during the cultural wars - with no explanation - in attempts to malign his campaign.
Just think about it: who has the money, the researchers, and the war room consultants digging up every factoid or half-truth peccadillo they can find? (Guess: It ain't Fmr. Gov. Martin O'Malley, or current "not running" undeclared Sen. Elizabeth Warren, or Vice President Joe Biden.)
It can only be the candidate who can't say anything substantive beyond the national Democratic platform (i.e., No TPP talk) because the campaign is already gearing to tack to the center after receiving the nomination!
'Nuff said.
(And, of course, she knows nothing. But, maybe David Brock does..)
Bring it on, Hillary! Let the games begin!
Because you know she's responsible.She is such a scumbag.- Deleted from Daily Kos.Breaking: Hillary Unloads On Bernie
Just as Senator Bernie Sanders starts his campaign with some momentum. Someone or someone's campaign slipped this 43-year-old nugget out of the literary dustbin to discredit Sanders as a smart, active, courageous 73-year-old young man in 2015.
The 43-year old dirt on Bernie
This article is classic "Oppo 101": slime and try to define your opponent now before the other candidate defines you. Since Sen. Sanders has decided to focus on issues rather than slime against the Clinton campaign, it does make it easier for the Clinton campaign to fire first!
Just like with the State Department reluctant releases of Clinton's emails, no one should be surprised to see more old papers of Bernie's life during the cultural wars - with no explanation - in attempts to malign his campaign.
Just think about it: who has the money, the researchers, and the war room consultants digging up every factoid or half-truth peccadillo they can find? (Guess: It ain't Fmr. Gov. Martin O'Malley, or current "not running" undeclared Sen. Elizabeth Warren, or Vice President Joe Biden.)
It can only be the candidate who can't say anything substantive beyond the national Democratic platform (i.e., No TPP talk) because the campaign is already gearing to tack to the center after receiving the nomination!
'Nuff said.
(And, of course, she knows nothing. But, maybe David Brock does..)
Bring it on, Hillary! Let the games begin!
This was a Hillary trashing diary that was deleted from Daily Kos for good reason. Seemed like something out of FreeRepublic, with wild accusations and speculation backed without a shred of proof. Not really surprised that Saints would post it, though.She is such a scumbag.- Deleted from Daily Kos.Breaking: Hillary Unloads On Bernie
I said it was deleted, and the deletion shows the political leanings of the editors/mods there, as opposed to the readers.This was a Hillary trashing diary that was deleted from Daily Kos for good reason. Seemed like something out of FreeRepublic, with wild accusations and speculation backed without a shred of proof. Not really surprised that Saints would post it, though.She is such a scumbag.- Deleted from Daily Kos.Breaking: Hillary Unloads On Bernie
Saying it was deleted doesn't turn irresponsible journalism that Breitbart wouldn't even touch into something valid. And, as indicated by comments like these, not exactly in tune with the political leanings of the Kos readers either:I said it was deleted, and the deletion shows the political leanings of the editors/mods there, as opposed to the readers.This was a Hillary trashing diary that was deleted from Daily Kos for good reason. Seemed like something out of FreeRepublic, with wild accusations and speculation backed without a shred of proof. Not really surprised that Saints would post it, though.She is such a scumbag.- Deleted from Daily Kos.Breaking: Hillary Unloads On Bernie
oh God.....you can't be serious can you??Yeah, I would be extremely surprised if Hillary's people had anything to do with this. Why should she be scared of Bernie Sanders?Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.If neither Jezebel or National Review are worried about this essay, then I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.
I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious, rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.
EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
Saying it was deleted doesn't turn irresponsible journalism that Breitbart wouldn't even touch into something valid. And, as indicated by comments like these, not exactly in tune with the political leanings of the Kos readers either:I said it was deleted, and the deletion shows the political leanings of the editors/mods there, as opposed to the readers.This was a Hillary trashing diary that was deleted from Daily Kos for good reason. Seemed like something out of FreeRepublic, with wild accusations and speculation backed without a shred of proof. Not really surprised that Saints would post it, though.She is such a scumbag.- Deleted from Daily Kos.Breaking: Hillary Unloads On Bernie
"I read the link
your title is full of ####e. I love Bernie. I don't hold anyone to thoughts decades old when they have evolved.
Where the #### is the link the HRC?
HR'd for bull####e bull####e."
X
"Are you really this ####### stupid/obtuse?
Did it never occur to you that the national press will be looking through everything Bernie has ever written now that he's running for president... just like they do with every single candidate?
I suppose you also missed this, from the linked article that you clearly never bothered to read."
"The essay originally appeared in the Vermont Freeman alternative newspaper, according to Mother Jones, which featured the piece this week in a profile of Sanders."
ho has the money to find this paper?Oppo research costs money. Who benefits?
Etc., there was enough of a debate going, and it was going. I'm sure this would have been a more viewed diary if given time to grow.So, no oppo could have sent to Mother Jones?Think! No Dem campaign is going throw stones out in the open right now!
More lies. Hillary's campaign is not illegally coordinating with David Brock. I don't feel like digging up the links (because you don't care about the truth anyway) but what Brock is doing is completely legal, and allowed under the current law as it doesn't cover internet advertising (which is what he is going to be doing for Hillary).Saying it was deleted doesn't turn irresponsible journalism that Breitbart wouldn't even touch into something valid. And, as indicated by comments like these, not exactly in tune with the political leanings of the Kos readers either:I said it was deleted, and the deletion shows the political leanings of the editors/mods there, as opposed to the readers.This was a Hillary trashing diary that was deleted from Daily Kos for good reason. Seemed like something out of FreeRepublic, with wild accusations and speculation backed without a shred of proof. Not really surprised that Saints would post it, though.She is such a scumbag.- Deleted from Daily Kos.Breaking: Hillary Unloads On Bernie
"I read the link
your title is full of ####e. I love Bernie. I don't hold anyone to thoughts decades old when they have evolved.
Where the #### is the link the HRC?
HR'd for bull####e bull####e."
X
"Are you really this ####### stupid/obtuse?
Did it never occur to you that the national press will be looking through everything Bernie has ever written now that he's running for president... just like they do with every single candidate?
I suppose you also missed this, from the linked article that you clearly never bothered to read."
"The essay originally appeared in the Vermont Freeman alternative newspaper, according to Mother Jones, which featured the piece this week in a profile of Sanders."ho has the money to find this paper?
Oppo research costs money. Who benefits?Etc., there was enough of a debate going, and it was going. I'm sure this would have been a more viewed diary if given time to grow.So, no oppo could have sent to Mother Jones?
Think! No Dem campaign is going throw stones out in the open right now!
I don't want to have a Kos-off. You're talking about a campaign that is illegally coordinating with a Super-Pac run by David Brock and which has Sidney Blumenthal in its sidecar. this is the attack business and political consulting industry tail wagging the political campaign dog.
I mentioned above the source as Mother Jones, you could look at that discuss what is MJ doing with these two reports about Sanders' early history focusing on sexual issues.