Bernie Sanders on 2016: His candidacy, Elizabeth Warren & the Clintons

Senator Bernie Sanders recently announced that he’s considering entering the 2016 presidential race if a strong progressive doesn’t. He also mention (in passing) that he likes Elizabeth Warren.

He’s not alone. Seems like the rest of us Democratic voters like her a lot as well.

Josh Eidelson at Salon has a wide-ranging interview with Sen. Sanders about the state of the nation, the state of the issues he cares about, the peace initiative with Iran — and naturally, his candidacy and the potential candidacies of Sen. Warren and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I found the 2016 part of the conversation fascinating. Here are a few segments of it. Be sure to read it all, though, if you’re interested in this stuff. There’s a lot of there there.

On the 2016 race

First, Sanders talks about why he might run:

The Burlington Free Press reported that you’re open to running for president if there isn’t a good enough alternative in the race. What do you think you could accomplish by running?

Well, let me just tell you, Josh, I don’t wake up every morning with a huge desire to be president of the United States. I gather there are people who do. I don’t.

But what I do wake up believing is that this country is facing more serious crises than we have faced since the Great Depression. And if you include the planetary crisis of global warming, the situation today may even be worse. And given that reality, what distresses me enormously is that there is very little discussion about these major crises, and even less discussion about ideas that can resolve these issues.

After detailing the issues that Sanders feels needs discussing — income inequality, global warming, unemployment, Citizens United, the danger to democracy from oligarchic rule, media silence on everything important to the country — he says this:

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders

And if you ran for president, what do you think it would do for those issues?

The nature of media is that presidential campaigns and candidates are a means, to some degree at least, of getting these issues out there. And I think that you can give all the speeches you want on the floor of the Senate, that’s great, but I think being involved in debates and being out there around the country allows — gives you the opportunity to talk about these issues in a way that you otherwise could not.

Forcing the progressive discussion, in other words. And that discussion is being had (thank you, Noam Scheiber). Even by the right (thank you, Wall Street Journal).

On Elizabeth Warren in 2016

Elizabeth Warren’s name always comes up in these discussions, doesn’t it. Sanders:

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren

The Free Press also reported that you’d be comfortable with an Elizabeth Warren presidential bid. What would make Elizabeth Warren a good president?

Oh, Elizabeth Warren is, you know, clearly one of the smartest people in the Senate. She is a true progressive. I’ve known Elizabeth for many, many years. She is doing a great job, and understands fully the issues facing the middle class and working class in this country. She is a very strong proponent in defending the working families in this country.

So should she be running for president?

Why don’t you give her a ring?

You could give her a ring too. Her number is 202-224-4543 (DC) or 617-565-3170 (Boston). Don’t ask her to run (she already knows you want her to), but you could thank her for her support for expanding Social Security and ask her what she thinks about Medicare for all.

On the Clintons

I use the phrase “the Clintons” because Eidelson does. Also because they really are a formidable team. Sanders again (my paragraphing):

Frontpage /

Hillary Clinton
Frontpage /

You told Playboy that while you like the Clintons, they “live in a world surrounded by a lot of money,” and a Hillary Clinton candidacy would not offer an alternative for the country.  Why not?

Well, actually that was a – a) You don’t know and I don’t know whether Hillary Clinton is running for president. And b) if she decides to run for president, we don’t know the issues that she will be focusing on.

I have known Hillary Clinton for a number of years, not terribly well, but I knew her when she was first lady and I knew her when she was in the Senate. I like her. She is extremely smart. But it’s — we will have to see what she has to say, so — but based on the kind of centrist positions that we have seen her take in the past, it remains to be seen — although I may be wrong — it remains to be seen whether she will be a forceful advocate for working families.

By the way, check here for an update on that Clinton money situation. And I see the going rate for speeches has not gotten worse since I stopped giving talks at the kitchen table. The going rate for the special few at Goldman Sachs, is mentioned here. It’s nice to see the economy recovering, at least in some sectors.

Other issues

On Iran, Sanders likes the current initiative. So do I. So should you if you don’t want gas to go to $10 at the pump. I’m serious; think Straits of Hormuz. Yet not surprisingly, some Democrats are considering scuttling the deal by adding additional sanctions to the president’s deal. Watch for that, if you’re watching Iran.

My thought? What better way to serve the warmongering crazies than to stimulate the nation’s testosterone gene and claim the manly-man high ground while doing it. Any Democrat in Congress trying to sabotage the Iran deal, look carefully at their lobbying money. You’ll find the usual suspect, I’m almost certain.

On Walmart, he’s not a fan, and thinks no Democrat — no progressive Democrat at least — should be a fan either:

And when the president or members of his administration hold these public appearances with Wal-Mart, at things like a manufacturing summit, for example, does that give Wal-Mart more cover to keep its practices the same?

Well, I would hope that the president would be speaking out on the need to address a very serious crisis in this country, which is that most of the new jobs being created are low-wage, part-time, and that Wal-Mart is very much a part of that model. So I would hope that the president would join us in demanding that Wal-Mart start paying its workers a living wage.

This really is an interesting interview, and the 2016 discussion is interesting as well. We’re not talking about 2016, you know; we’re talking about whether the people who control the Democratic party will represent their voters or their … I have to say it, after a $2 billion dollar presidential campaign … their paymasters.

The nation waits. Thank you, Sen. Sanders, for beating the progressive bushes for a real progressive candidate.


To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius

Gaius Publius is a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States.

Share This Post

114 Responses to “Bernie Sanders on 2016: His candidacy, Elizabeth Warren & the Clintons”

  1. Technicmender says:

    Yes that is true, but having someone in there that is tries to help the people can spur the people to push back on the legislative branch. Who knows what can happen then. I think the biggest problem in the US is that no one does anything politically to help themselves, they don’t call congress members, don’t vote. If we can get someone in that makes a big hubbub about the congress and senate not passing things that many americans would like then we can hope to change the US. The problem is not only the system, but the lack of public oversight on it. Well at least i think this.

  2. Technicmender says:

    Troll Brother = Koch Brother

  3. Technicmender says:

    Same could be said about pretty much anyone who can or has or wants or will be president.

  4. Zeus says:

    utterly ridiculous. What would you have, young cranky farts—how about Paul Ryan, you blockhead.

  5. GaiusPublius says:

    This is more complicated than simple, but I agree with Indigo below. There are bad-Dem leaders, bad-Dem office-holders and (some) good-Dem office-holders. There are office-holders and voters. None of these mixed-bag groups is identical to the others.

    In addition, Dems as a party are an org with some power. By definition, to have an inside game means gaming the Dem org. The primary function of Sanders and Warren–talk, whether they know it or not, is drawing Clinton out well ahead of 2016. If Clinton isn’t drawn out early and made to declare herself, she could be the next neoliberal president. All this Warren talk is a nice wedge ahead of that, and we should use it. IMO.

    Thanks for the question.


  6. typhoeus says:

    Nicho, Green Party members and other progressives are asking Sanders to seek the Green Party nomination for exactly this reason. Sanders could help build the Green Party, and even if he didn’t win the presidency the Green Party will have grown exponentially thanks to his campaign, and this would wedge a huge gap in the two-party system and shift the political climate leftward–something that is badly needed. You can sign the petition at, if you like.

  7. typhoeus says:

    Green Party members and other progressives are petitioning Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent, to reach out to prominent Greens such as Jill Stein and to eventually seek the Green Party nomination for president in 2016. Sanders has called for a “political revolution” in the United States and has announced that he might run for president. He has a small window of opportunity to help make that political revolution happen by helping to build the Green Party, which exists in direct opposition to the current two-party system. Please join us by asking Sanders to reach out to Jill Stein and to eventually seek the Green Party nomination. You can read and sign the petition at A political revolution will not happen by tinkering within the Democratic Party or by going alone as an independent; if Sanders is going to run, then he needs a party, and that party needs to be the Green Party.

  8. Bill_Perdue says:

    Progressives will make a strong showing if some socialists win, but not if Democrats or Republicans win.

  9. Terry Cooper says:

    Progressive have to make a strong showing in the Congressional elections.

  10. Indigo says:

    I don’t disagree but I also don’t think revolution is likely to happen. Meanwhile, it’s time for breakfast. ;-)

  11. Bill_Perdue says:

    The system, as the Bolsheviks, the Fidelistas and others found out, can be replaced by a democratic system. We don’t have to live with the diktats of the twin parties of the rich.

  12. Indigo says:

    Fair enough. We’re embedded in the situation, there’s no living off-planet available . . . yet. And even then, we’ll most likely be dependent on NASA’s arbitrary scheduling and Chinese rockets. No, you don’t have to make a pseudo-choice ‘twixt Democratic and Republican options, but you’re going to live with them anyhow. Here we are, we aren’t anywhere else. We’re all in this quicksand together, that’s all I’m saying. No amount of verbal conjuring or mental reservations makes it otherwise.

  13. bansh says:

    Our mission is to create a dynamic world-class education system that equips all the students with the knowledge,skill and
    attitude,which will help them to enhance their professional ability to foster a strong sense of responsibility and ethics.
    top mba in bangalore.

  14. Bill_Perdue says:

    If you mean we all have to work and have our wages stolen by bosses pay taxes or get loans that’s one thing. We are ’embedded’ in that.

    If you mean that we’re all ’embedded’ in the political system and have no choice that’s wrong. No one is forced to vote Democrat or Republican or to vote for wars of aggression, racism and attacks on the standard of living of working people.

  15. Jafafa Hots says:

    What they call “Libertarianism” now is what we used to call “the terrible twos.”

  16. Jafafa Hots says:

    Yep. Germany is in RUINS!
    France – abandoned!
    The UK? FAMINE!
    All of these countries with better working conditions, longer lifespans, lower child mortality rates, universal healthcare, longer paid vacations, stronger unions, shorter workweeks, better schools, a more educated populace…

    hellish places, every last one of them.

  17. Jafafa Hots says:

    Sanders is, yes, a socialist, as he himself says.
    And good for him.
    What “other socialist” can you name that has run for President?

    I’m prepared for a nice guffaw.

  18. met00 says:

    I would financially support such a ticket as well as agree to work as staff for them.

  19. MyrddinWilt says:

    On the contrary.

    The problem is we are not the Democratic base. Not yet. But we will be.

    And unlike the GOP base we are not batshit insane.

  20. dula says:

    The same goes for rich, old, cranky, white women who would also serve the 1% at the expense of all.

  21. Whitewitch says:

    Here is another FDR action which no one speaks about: FDR signed executive order 9066 which moved 110,000 Americans to internment camps. Stripping them from their homes and sometimes their families. 2/3 of these were American Citizens, many lost their homes and had no job to return to.

    So maybe in hindsight he really was not a liberal…so many paint him with the same brush Republicans paint Reagan with. He was a man, a not very moral man, who was President during very trying times…he did some good and some bad. He was not however a God, just a very flawed man.

  22. LaCrika De TuMai says:

    Another socialist running for president

  23. Dameocrat says:

    Oh I don’t know! Winning the Civil War, ending slavery. 13 14 15th Amendment. Just trivial shit like that.

  24. Whitewitch says:

    You can’t even admit that you were rude and wrong in your claim that I lied.

    I am done with you now.

  25. Dameocrat says:

    The value of gold may or may not rise over time. It is a commodity. That being said they were compensated so if they became homeless it was over other factors. Doesn’t matter whether some were more middle class it was still hurting the economy as a whole and the economy didn’t recover until he did it.

  26. Whitewitch says:

    Oh my Goddess…first you never respond to my posts – you just Judge them.

    Second I said

    “Gold is an investment that grows over time, unlike the paper money people got in exchange for their gold – which does not increase over time”

    Which by the way is my statement – not one I copied and pasted from Wiki.

    If anyone is paid it is you…I have been posting here for a long time and although my opinions may not support yours, nor indicate to you that I am a Bleeding Freaking Heart Liberal – I am IN FACT a Liberal… A BIG FAT LIBERAL and F/U for implying that I am not.

    Reading comprehensive is a wonderful thing.

    Oh and P.S. per your own Paste and Copy Job – the government made a HUGE profit on the gold they collected in exchange for paper money from people. Many of whom where just common people not the wealthy. Goddess I dislike attack posters.

  27. Dameocrat says:

    Except now you are being dishonest about what he did, giving everybody the impression that he took the gold with no compensation. He compensated them for the gold he took. He didn’t leave them with nothing.

    Executive Order 6102 required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 (equivalent to $372.75 today[3]) per troy ounce. Under the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the recently passed Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, violation of the order was punishable by fine up to $10,000 (equivalent to $180,334 today[3])
    or up to ten years in prison, or both. Most citizens who owned large
    amounts of gold had it transferred to countries such as Switzerland.[citation needed]

    Order 6102 specifically exempted “customary use in industry,
    profession or art”—a provision that covered artists, jewellers,
    dentists, and sign makers among others. The order further permitted any
    person to own up to $100 in gold coins (a face value equivalent to 5
    troy ounces (160 g) of Gold valued at about $7800 as of 2011). The same
    paragraph also exempted “gold coins having recognized special value to
    collectors of rare and unusual coins.” This protected recognized gold
    coin collections from legal seizure and likely melting.

    The price of gold from the Treasury for international transactions was thereafter raised to $35 an ounce ($587 in 2010 dollars). The resulting profit that the government realized funded the Exchange Stabilization Fund established by the Gold Reserve Act in 1934.

    Dishonesty is such hard work. I wonder if you are paid good for it.

  28. Whitewitch says:

    Many thanks!

  29. Whitewitch says:

    I never said I opposed roads or public schools or food stamps. We WERE not talking about taxes either. We were talking about the government confiscating gold…too completely different things. My grandparents were not rich and their gold was confiscating along with the rich people’s gold…they were not ruining the economy…they were saving for their future. A future that saw them loose their house because the bank seized it while not giving them the money they had in a savings account in the bank. Which my grandmother got a Nickel on the Dollar for in the 60’s as a settlement. Loosing their home/farm and their savings was devastating for them. So yes, FDR did some great things, sure he was a swell guy. He was also very human and very wrong in many of the things he did in his Presidency.

    Knowing the true does not make me a “gold bug” or a “austerity hawk”…and you should note that I have not called you anything – yet you continue to call me by terms you believe are indications of my badness.

  30. karmanot says:

    Move along Dameotroll.

  31. karmanot says:

    Well done!

  32. karmanot says:

    Which were?

  33. karmanot says:

    Oh for Christ’s sake—–give it a rest.

  34. Whitewitch says:

    And resulted in the “return” of a ship of Jewish Germans to their certain death. FDR can be held responsible for not letting the public know about the death camps as well…that was his decision.

  35. karmanot says:

    Exactly! Obama is little more than a pretty-talk bag of wind.

  36. Whitewitch says:

    Those are my posts…why they are showing as guest now I am not sure – you have been responding to me all along as Whitewitch. Your responses are going to my email and so yes – I guess I am now Guest in places….

    Your Point Being?

  37. karmanot says:

    “He couldn’t do anything about the Jews without a declaration of war.” Absolutely incorrect. Anti Jewish sentiment thwarted immigration.

  38. Dameocrat says:

    So you an guest are the same person?

  39. karmanot says:


  40. Whitewitch says:

    You are judging me because? Your opinion of me means what? Austerity Hawk – not hardly. Gold bug – something you made up? You think confiscating people’s gold was a good thing – super. You rule. Me I think people should not be forced to sell something to the government just because…it is theirs. Gold is an investment that grows over time, unlike the paper money people got in exchange for their gold – which does not increase over time…unless I guess you invest it like in the stock market – oh wait that just crashed and failed at that time so not an option.

    Save your judgement and come talk to me when you can use real words.

  41. karmanot says:


  42. Dameocrat says:

    Taxes take wealth and redistribute it to pay for things like roads and schools and so forth and so on. Do you oppose those? If you do you are an austerity hawk, that wants budget cuts on everything. A gold bug is someone who believes our money should be dependent on the gold standard, which is rare metal so it is deflationary. Rich people were hoarding it and ruining the economy. What he did saved it. Our economy was like Japan’s in the 80s at that point. What he did most certainly turned it around.

  43. Dameocrat says:

    Exactly and while JFK didn’t live long much of the legislation he proposed was passed by LBJ. Libertarian, anarchists and neoliberals all have an interest in disparaging and lying about FDR. They are all invested in the failure of government. Communists have an interest in disparaging the idea that capitalism can be regulated so they tend to lie as well.

  44. Guest says:

    Really with the name calling? I am not an austerity hawk, by any stretch of anyone’s imagination – particularly that of someone posting here who knows me not! As for a gold bug – no idea what that is – so can’t say if I am one.

    Confiscating the gold of people in the US however was a bad thing. Read about it. You know why – because it is a BAD thing to confiscate people’s wealth.

    Anyway – save your attacks on me and move along…there are others you can bother.

  45. Monoceros Forth says:

    Someone points out the obvious thing. This is why I lose patience with people who tell me that it’s foolish and idealistic and moonbattish to have expected Pres. Obama to accomplish more than the paltry bit he’s done. I’ve been told that I’ve been comparing his real-life actions to some impossible ideal of a godlike President–but that’s never been the case, ever. I’ve not wanted him to be God; I’ve wanted him to be FDR. I’ve wanted him to be as decisive as emphatic as a real President who actually did stuff.

  46. Dameocrat says:

    So you are a gold bug and a austerity hawk. Really Really on the side of progressivism! Uh Huh!

  47. cole3244 says:

    this is not the right time for warren and that is crucial in determining when to run for pres.
    as far as hillary goes i would support her but only because the alternative is unacceptable to me, aka republican.

  48. Just_AC says:

    Excellent post, Nicho

  49. Whitewitch says:

    You are listing ending the Gold Standard as one of FDR’s Good Acts? Okie dokie…

  50. Whitewitch says:

    Oh I see – I apologize…I did not realize that responding to someone was in fact arguing with them. Beg pardon – however could I have made such a mistake and been so very very rude.

  51. Dameocrat says:

    Chelsea Manning is probably a closet Paulite like Snowden! Bernie Sanders is a socialist.

  52. Dameocrat says:

    You could amuse yourself without appearing to be arguing if you used the box under the orginal article and not the box under my post!

  53. Dameocrat says:

    The first 100 days of FDR.

    First 100 Days

    Second New Deal

    Fireside Chats

    Pearl Harbor

    At War


    Table of Contents

    Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR): First 100 Days

    Once in office, FDR set to work immediately. His “New Deal,”
    it turned out, involved regulation and reform of the banking system,
    massive government spending to “prime the pump” by restarting the
    economy and putting people back to work, and the creation of a social
    services network to support those who had fallen on hard times.

    Between 8 March and 16 June, in what later became known as the “First Hundred Days,” Congress followed Roosevelt’s lead by passing an incredible fifteen separate bills which, together, formed the basis of the New Deal.
    Several of the programs created during those three and a half months
    are still around in the federal government today. Some of Roosevelt’s
    most notable actions during the Hundred Days were:

    A national bank holiday:
    The day after his inauguration, FDR declared a “bank holiday,” closing
    all banks in the country to prevent a collapse of the banking system.
    With the banks closed, Roosevelt took measures to restore the public’s
    confidence in the financial systems; when the banks reopened a week
    later, the panic was over.22

    Ending the gold standard: To avoid deflation, FDR quickly suspended the gold standard.23
    This meant that U.S. dollars no longer had to be backed up by gold
    reserves, which also meant that the government could print—and
    spend—more money to “prime the pump” of the economy.

    Glass-Steagall Act:
    The Glass-Steagall Act imposed regulations on the banking industry that
    guided it for over fifty years, until it was repealed in 1999.24
    The law separated commercial from investment banking, forced banks to
    get out of the business of financial investment, banned the use of bank
    deposits in speculation.25 It also created the FDIC[link to…………

    There is much more if you follow that link. This all happened in his first 100 days so it wasn’t all in response to public pressure other than voting for someone different. He actually campaigned on doing stuff like that and won on it. As for his failures in the leadup to ww2. He is not President of the world, only the us! He couldn’t do anything about the Jews without a declaration of war.

  54. Whitewitch says:

    No idea what you are talking about…sorry.

  55. nicho says:

    It’s important to remember that while we think we elect a person as president, we really elect an organization. A president without an organization behind him/her would be totally powerless — and, of course, wouldn’t be elected in the first place, because he/she needs someone to collect the billion dollars or so that is needed to run a campaign.

    Even with an organization, he/she is at the mercy of the corporatist media, which can turn the candidate into a nobody with about three-weeks effort.

    But once in office, it’s the organization, not the president who really runs things. Without the organization behind him/ her, the president would merely sit at the desk in the Oval Office rearranging pens.

    Obama was the candidate of the Chicago Machine and Goldman Sachs. That’s why he won. The Clinton Machine is good, but was outmatched. The primary was a battle of machines. McCain/Palin were a distraction and the last things the major organizations wanted was for either of them to be in office. Neither of them could have pulled off the coup that Obama has — running the country for the benefit of the 0.001 Percent.

  56. Dameocrat says:

    Must suck to have ADD!

  57. nicho says:

    For the same reason I watch sports.

  58. Whitewitch says:

    I am not arguing about anything – you are..I am only amusing myself and voicing my lowly and humble opinion. I like to keep up with the world, I don’t believe there will be any real change until the people get feed up with the 1%’s ruling the world and then hopefully it will not be too late.

    I have done my activism…I have marched in my protests and sought to change and save – it is the younger generations turn now…I am part of the dying generation AND NONE TOO SOON I might add.

    I am more disappointed with my own generation than any other…we were supposed to change things, make it a better world – you know free love, peace, happiness. What a major fail.

    Hopefully those behind us will do better and learn from our failures.

  59. Whitewitch says:

    Sorry I don’t understand the last sentence.

    As for the first – I believe you are wrong. FDR did not want to make the change we saw….the people made him. Would not have matter who was in office. I have been on this planet a very long time and I promise you change happens when the people get sick of their lot in life.

    Do you think President Obama is changing anything – only that which the people have demanded – he would have gladly sat through his term and done squat – and had to be forced to with DADT. He didn’t really give us healthcare either – he only enriched the Insurance Industry…hopefully it is a step toward One Payor.

    I don’t think Nicho is encouraging anyone to vote for Hillary.

    I for one will NOT vote for her – I don’t care who is running against her. I believe it is time to let the Republican hoist themselves by their own Petards and let their supporters see what they are really supporting. They certainly can not make a worse mess of it then it is now.

    Bush did a great job of demonstrating where Republicans really stand…let the people get a further taste of that and there will riots in the streets….like with LBJ…Civil Rights happened because he was TERRIFIED of what the people would do. Why do you think President Obama put down Occupy Wallstreet so hard and fast…he didn’t want the same power moving through the streets that we saw in the 60’s.

  60. Dameocrat says:

    Why bother to get online then? Why argue about it?

  61. Dameocrat says:

    Why bother geting online to argue about it? What is accomplished?

  62. Dameocrat says:

    You can only hold someones feet to the fire on positions they take. You can not do this with someone who is openly hostile to the left, like republicans and right wing democrats! You can not do this without electing other types of politicians when they screw up. Nicho is saying we should vote for Billary instead of Sanders because they all suck. If they all suck, then there is no reason to vote at all, and no reason to waste time arguing politics like Nicho does.

    You can Bill brought up the strawman of change not happening without the working class as if anyone said that it did.

  63. nicho says:

    Well then there is no reason to vote at all

    Bingo. Give that Dameocrat a cigar!

  64. Whitewitch says:

    Change happens when the people demand change and hold the politicians feet to the fire. Read about FDR – he is not as pretty as you think…nor as kind. I have a theory about that…anyone that would cheat on their wife (someone they supposedly love and adore) will in a heartbeat SCREW YOU.

    It is proven by FDR’s politics and underhanded dealings…not to mention his turning back of a boat full of Jewish Germans during WWII. That is just a tip of a very large iceberg.

  65. Whitewitch says:

    Exactly – why bother?

  66. Whitewitch says:

    Troll Brother did it – how do I know – it is spelled correctly.

  67. Dameocrat says:

    You seem to be countering an argument that I did not make!

  68. Whitewitch says:

    Yes, please run Rand Paul in 2016 – that will be a Tsunami for sure…you will be disappointed though for whom the Tsumani will be.

  69. Whitewitch says:

    But they make such pretty pretty speeches – dontcha know. And we wage drones just eat them up….medical care for everyone and a chicken in every pot! Yeah!!!

    I REFUSE to vote Democrat this time – unless they run a real candidate. ::Quietly climbing off soap box::

  70. Indigo says:

    Are we using the same vocabulary to talk about separate things? You seem to lock it down inside the Dem-Rep dichotomy (which is in fact not exactly a dichotomy) while I’m referencing the entire spectrum of our lives. We’re inside the US culture, we’re embedded. Or are you Canadian? in which case, never mind.

  71. karmanot says:


  72. karmanot says:

    The Democratic Party as a whole could care less about it’s base, except for speechifying around election time.

  73. Bill_Perdue says:

    There is a reason to vote if things like Prop 8 are on the ballot. Otherwise on Tuesday, the 4th of November, 2014 and on Tuesday, the 8th of November, 2016 vote socialist, write in Chelsea Manning or just sit it out as a protest vote.

  74. Bill_Perdue says:

    You seemn to miss the point entirely. The changes were accomplished by the working class, not by FDR, who feared revolution.

  75. Dameocrat says:

    So are you seriously arguing we could have gotten the same concessions from Hoover?

  76. Dameocrat says:

    He didn’t get overthrown and change would not have happened with another right winger! Lincoln lived long enough to make real changes.

  77. Dameocrat says:

    Well then there is no reason to vote at all, because Hillary will surely do nothin! Who gives a shit if she gets elected. She will govern the same as a repuke or die! That is just defeatism, pure and simple! Why bother? While it is true they can kill some progressive they can’t kill us all,so we have to have a deep bench. That is why having a liberal president paired with a centrist vp is way stupid. A progressive vp discourages assassins.

  78. FLL says:

    From your comment:

    “Just another person who doesn’t understand the term socialism…”

    You’re comment is insightful because you point out that any number of writers in modern times have used the term “socialism” to mean something other than the command economy under which the former Soviet Union ran. Be suspicious of people who feel that they hold some kind of trademark on broad, complex currents of thought. Such people are trying to BS you.

  79. The_Fixer says:

    One who doesn’t want it that bad is probably the best candidate for the job, however.

  80. nicho says:

    Right, FDR was not quite the demigod that some people on the left make him out to be. And he came within a hair’s breadth of being overthrown violently and being replaced by a fascist dictator (Prescott Bush). and Lincoln, too, is more myth than reality.

  81. nicho says:

    Actually, it’s capitalism that has failed and failed miserably. Socialism works pretty well. The capitalist US is pretty much a failed state at this point. The only reason anyone takes it seriously is because it has nukes.

  82. nicho says:

    Did you learn nothing from the “Mid-’60s massacre.” JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X. Anyone who would threaten the system got a powerful lesson from that.

  83. FLL says:

    Exhibit A from your comment: “When you people realize that emotion has no place in politics…”

    Exhibit B from your comment:

    “You people”? And who are you supposed to be? And where are the specific points in your comment? Labels like “progressive” and “socialism” don’t count as specific points. Your writing style needs a little tweaking.

  84. nicho says:

    And Bernie Sanders’ own ambivalence (“I don’t wake up every morning with
    a huge desire to be president”) would probably scuttle his own (already
    slender) chance.

    Yeah, you have to want it more than breath itself or you’re doomed.

  85. Blogvader says:

    I agree, Jomicur.

    It’s a shame that we liberals are so [email protected]#$ing cowardly when it comes to casting our votes. I’d estimate a good 95% of folks I knew voting Democrat in the last election did so only out of fear of Romney rather than actual support for Obama.

  86. Bill_Perdue says:

    Nothing changed because of FDR and the Democrats. Unions were built by working women and men and FDR, fearing revolution, grudgingly made some concessions to unions.

    You’re right to a certain extent about Lincoln but he evolved over time and became a radical instead of a mere Unionist. The changes accomplished during the Second American Revolution, 1959 to 1865, we the work of the hundreds of thousand of escaped slaves and the small farmers and workers, North and South, who fought with the determination of people terrified by the threat to spread slavery North.

  87. jomicur says:

    I’ve been saying since ’08 that if Barack Obama represented any serious chance for hope and change, the Democrats would never have given him the nomination. That same principle applies to both Warren and Sanders. If either of them tries to get the Dem nomination the party stalwarts, aided eagerly by their pals in the media, will scotch their campaigns at the earliest opportunity. The only way either of them would have even a snowball’s chance in hell would be to run as a third-party candidate. I don’t see Warren doing that (though I’d love to be proved wrong). And Bernie Sanders’ own ambivalence (“I don’t wake up every morning with a huge desire to be president”) would probably scuttle his own (already slender) chance. Then there’s the fact that Boobus Americanus is quite thoroughly brainwashed into believing that there is no possibility of supporting any third party. The deck is stacked, and it’s stacked GOOD.

    Don’t get me wrong, I like both of them, but the BIG cynic in me is inclined to agree with Emma Goldman: “If voting changed anything, they’d make it

  88. Bill_Perdue says:

    Acceptance is acceptance. Democrats and Republicans accept it.

  89. Monoceros Forth says:

    And just look at the schmuck’s son Rand, who’s as dedicated a Jesus-panderer as any Republican from Lower Slobbovia, Alabama.

  90. Indigo says:

    The system is bigger than that. It includes us whether we endorse or reject it. That’s why it’s the Big Brother.

  91. Dameocrat says:

    If religion has no place in politics why does Ron Paul allow dominionist Gary North to run his home school curriculum! You might have some credibility if you actually new what your hero believed?

  92. Dameocrat says:

    Wrong! It is a vicious circle. They system favors the corrupt and the corrupt keep the system going. Changing the types of people we elect is the first step to changing the system. See FDR & Abraham Lincoln! Both represented new faces that changed the system because they weren’t as invested in it.

  93. Bill_Perdue says:

    That will most certainly happen but only in terms of rhetoric. Not in terms of action. That was the case with both Clinton and Obama. The rhetoric fooled some, and then the reality sat in. Now those same people want to do it again. Because, maybe, this time…

  94. Bill_Perdue says:

    You’re only embedded in the system if you’re a Democrat or a Republican. with except as a quasi independent faction of the Republicans.

  95. Bill_Perdue says:

    Socialism is pretty well recognized as the democratic and direct control of the economy by workers, not by a better welfare state.

    The US had a welfare state until Democrats Clinton and Obama and Republicans Reagan and Bush gutted it. And at not point during that time, roughly from the mid sixties until the nineties, could anyone in their right mind describe the US as socialist.

  96. Bill_Perdue says:

    People who support and vote for the Democrat or Republican parties cannot really be counted as having any say in those parties. They’re part of those parties in the same way that catholics and mormons are part of those cults – nominally and marginally at the best of times. They can believe, and in the political arena, most of their beliefs are projections, but they have no say.

    From the point of view of the rich and the twin parties of lap dogs voters are marginal. They can’t make policy and are of interest only at election time and then only as a source of votes and money.

    The Democrat and Republican parties are owned by the rich. Every politician in both parties is for sale and none have any principles. That unfortunately includes Sanders who caucuses with the the Democrats and it absolutely includes Warren, who started out as a ‘progressive’ and is slipping and sliding down the same path as Kucinich, now a Fox News clown. Obama himself followed the same path, fooling those willing to be fooled with promises and then betraying everyone but Goldman Sachs, BP and Haliburton.

    The Democrats and Republicans can’t be reformed any more than the rich can be convinced to give up their riches.

  97. Naja pallida says:

    Sorry, as much as Bernie likes to talk, and that’s really all it ever seems to be from him, I don’t want a 75 year old President. We’re long past due for the old farts to groom their replacements and step aside. In general, I’m tired of old, cranky, white men thinking they have some inkling of what is best for the majority of the country. They’ve been wrong, with few exceptions, for over 200 years.

  98. yeah socialism really hurts those northern european countries that are thriving. Why don’t you stop worshiping the 1%ers. You are never going to be one.

  99. Naja pallida says:

    Just another person who doesn’t understand the term socialism, and wants everyone to equate it to Soviet-style communism. Without even considering that actual socialist policies are working just fine in many countries. But they actually require someone interested in the greater good, and not just selfish pricks lining their own pockets on the public dime.

    I’m sure Rand Paul would have a chance, if only he could find someone else’s campaign to plagiarize.

  100. Monoceros Forth says:

    But don’t you know? Falling asleep on the exclamation point is a sure sign of rationality and lack of emotion.

  101. MoonDragon says:

    So, we should be realistic and vote for a man who finds wisdom in a book promoting a facile justification of selfishness that ceases to appeal to most people once they grow out of their teen years; a “philosophy” that justifies the infantile “Mine, mine, mine” more eloquently expressed by Daffy Duck in “Ali Baba Bunny”. Talk about emotional investment in a candidate.

  102. Indigo says:

    Good link. Of course, the problem is the system. That we’re embedded inside it makes it all so very awkward.

  103. Monoceros Forth says:

    When you people realize that emotion has no place in politics, its as relevant as religion.

    Do Republicans vote for any other two reasons?

  104. Indigo says:

    Cute name. Did you make it up for the occasion or did Troll Brother do that for you?

  105. Indigo says:

    I don’t see ambiguity so much as I see more than one use for the word “Democrat.”

  106. Indigo says:

    Happens to me too at times. I’d like to blame Valerie Jarrett but I suspect this one’s on Disqus(t).

  107. Indigo says:

    We elected Bill and got Hillary as part of the package. It seems assured that if we elect Hillary, we’ll get Bill as part of the package. Chelsea fits in there somewhere, I assume. But the bottom line here, as I see it, is that Bernie and Elizabeth and some of the other prominent progressives (wherever they are) pulling together might be able to shift the Clinton Set a tad further of the Obama Wall Streetsters.

  108. Just_AC says:

    Hmm, well my comment disappeared – let’s try again – What I would enjoy seeing is a Warren/Grayson ticket! That would shake things up!

  109. FLL says:

    Gaius Publius: In Ronbo’s comment below (which you “liked”), he mentions “…abandoning the processes that keep us chained to the choices of the elite and their corporations.” To state the obvious, Elizabeth Warren is a Democrat and would certainly run in the Democratic primaries. Do you believe that supporting Warren in the Democratic primaries is an example of what Ronbo is talking about in the sentence from his comment that I quoted? The reason I ask is because Ronbo also comments that “both Democrats and Republicans belong to the 1%” and “The ‘either/or’ mentality must be exposed as a false imprisonment to the status quo.” The reader could certainly interpret that to cover all Democrats running in 2016, including Warren. Do you see the possible ambiguity?

  110. Progressive = Socialist says:

    That’s exactly what we need- more people to screw up the country.
    Socialism always fails.
    When you people realize that emotion has no place in politics, its as relevant as religion.
    Hiding behind the name “progressive” when in reality it means socialism is a complete joke.
    Keep voting on emotion and you will find yourself void of everything that made this country great.
    Rand Paul in 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  111. nicho says:

    The problem is The System, not the people within the system. Electing Sanders, Warren, or another Third Party candidate isn’t going to change a thing. As a start, we need to get corporate money out of politics. We need to make the presidential race a short-term affair. For the love of dog, we’re sitting here today talking about a presidential election that is three freaking years away. That’s absurd.

    Read Juan Cole’s piece on why the US is the most corrupt country in the world.

    Putting Bernie Sanders in the White House isn’t going to change anything. If the neo-liberals and corporatists can’t co-opt him, they will neutralize him — with extreme prejudice if necessary.

  112. Just_AC says:

    I’ve always said that a Warren/Grayson ticket would be great, but they might be too close to each other in ideology to make it work.

  113. BillFromDover says:

    I have a better idea: why not just restrict anybody from Texas from seeking national office?

    This way, they can remain free to fuck up only their own shit hole.

  114. ronbo says:

    We MUST remember that both Democrats and Republicans belong to the 1% and choose the candidates who move forward (their money, their media and their political parties).

    We can transform this nation by abandoning the processes that keep us chained to the choices of the elite and their corporations. Thank you Gaius for staying on point and in focus.

    More please!

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS