• Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On September - 16 - 2015


Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton’s SuperPAC, Correct The Record, sent out an email that tried to smear Bernie Sanders as a terrorist loving “commie”-esque socialist with a radical agenda.

The email tried to use guilt by descriptive association, that is, Sanders being a socialist makes him identical to and responsible for all things that have ever been said by Jeremy Corbyn, the UK’s new socialist Labour Party leader.

Corbyn has espoused some very provocative things along the way. These include calling the killing of Bin Laden a tragedy because the U.S. didn’t try to capture him alive, referring to Hezbollah as friends that he would like to meet with to discuss Middle East policies and putting blame on NATO’s growth for provoking Russia into becoming more aggressive and invading Ukraine.

Also, after Hurricane Katrina caused oil prices to skyrocket in 2005, Venezuela’s leader Hugo Chavez began a program through the national oil company, CITGO, that provided low cost heating oil to the poor in a number of U.S. states.

Sanders responded to Chavez with gratitude on behalf of Vermonters who were benefiting from this program but Correct The Record wants people to believe that this was actually the socialist Sanders cuddling up with his fellow evil socialist Chavez…because socialists are all alike.

For the record, according to CITGO, this continuing program that’s been running for nine years has so far helped more than 1.8 million poor Americans in various states receive badly needed discounted heating oil. In other words, “Damn commies!”

Correct The Record also tried to spin different positions and votes of Sanders to distort them into appearing anti-American.

The person running the Hillary Clinton SuperPAC, Correct the Record is David Brock. He also heads up the watchdog group, Media Matters and another SuperPAC, American Bridge. Years ago he was a staunch critic of Hillary’s but transformed along the way to become a fervent supporter.

What may be surprising is that instead of the Republicans trying to push the envelope on post-Citizens United limitations on SuperPACS, it is in fact Brock and Correct The Record that are admittedly testing the boundaries by coordinating with Hillary Clinton directly through areas they see as loopholes. So, since CTR coordinates its actions with her,  Hillary Clinton’s fingerprints are indeed on this email (hasn’t she had enough trouble with emails?).

Bernie Sanders vowed not to campaign negatively against Hillary Clinton and his other Democratic opponents, instead to focus only on policies and issues.

Up until this email, Hillary has acted similarly towards Sanders but with the drumbeat of reports about Hillary sinking in the polls, being untrusted by many in the public and losing in polls in Iowa and New Hampshire against an ascending Sanders, apparently she and Brock determined it was time to test the waters on smearing Sanders (in a way that she could have plausible deniability).

Consider that this SuperPAC, ironically named Correct The Record, intentionally has tried to distort and mischaracterize “the record” when it comes to Sanders. Despite their allegedly heroic dedication to exploding lies about Hillary and revealing the truth, they have now proven themselves to use the same tactics as their propagandist foes.

Correct The Record has obliviously painted themselves as Swiftboaters who can’t be trusted to provide the truth and that boomerangs back on them when it comes to their legitimate defenses of Hillary. They have disqualified their critical position in Hillary’s campaign, seemingly out of their and Hillary’s panic and desperation over her decline and Sanders’ ascent and foolishly have done so with the people they most need to believe in them…fellow Democrats.

And in this era of Trumperfection, where politicians and their operatives no longer see any profit in apologizing for saying the wrong thing, Brock became very slippery when pressed on the dishonesty of his email (and other Hillary-defensive comments):

Again, this is a SuperPAC run by one of Hillary’s strongest allies and supporters, who coordinates with Hillary and her campaign, which sent out a dishonest smear against Sanders who hasn’t criticized Hillary once.

It is kind of astounding that Hillary and Brock could be so tone deaf at this point in time. First, Hillary is having to fight the impression that many voters have of her as being dishonest. Secondly, what voters on both sides of the aisle are clearly revolting against right now is politics as usual including devious negative ads and campaigns. Voters are yearning for authenticity and honesty (even if that is terribly misplaced in Republicans supporting Donald Trump).

The energized supporters of Sanders rally around him because they believe that he is addressing truths about the inequities of our society, they place a high value on truth and honesty. They are not going to be attracted to someone who uses dishonest attacks against their current candidate of choice.

Up until now, though there has been a degree of polarization between Hillary and Bernie supporters, a majority of Bernie supporters appear to be fine with voting for Hillary if she is the eventual nominee.

However, just as Hillary alienated many Obama supporters in the 2008 primary by trying to smear him with Reverend Wright/unAmericanism and other falsehoods (like not strongly affirming that she believed Obama was an American citizen when the Birther crap first whipped up), Hillary’s and her SuperPAC’s attempts to improve her polling in this way may have the opposite effect.

One need only review Correct The Record’s Facebook page to see that this email attack has stoked a great deal of animosity from Bernie supporters towards Hillary and Correct The Record. How counterproductive might this and future attempts to dishonestly smear Sanders be? Consider that most of the recent posts on Facebook by CTR to “correct the record” or attack Republican candidates have only been met with replies by Sanders supporters about how unethical, disrespectful and dishonest CTR and Hillary are.

An argument against both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush is that they are outdated legacy candidates, each feeling an entitlement to their party’s nomination due to the Presidencies previously held by their families, each using the same campaigning tactics of the past of massive fundraising from big corporate donors and pandering to the base in their primaries with plans to move to the middle in the General Election.

If this truly is an era of a more enlightened public that recognizes the way the game of politics has been played for decades and is turned off by the dishonesty and corruption that is typically personified by establishment politicians, then affirming that she is indeed this same type of politician who is playing the same dishonest games the public is tired of, can only hurt Hillary Clinton.

So far, it appears that Hillary’s toolkit for politics is the same old one that has been turning off  voters. It’s not one that works well in this cycle but they may be the only tools she knows how to use. The inauthentic way she presents herself, alternately now as a Progressive then a Moderate, her dancing around the email server issue that has harmed her image far worse than just saying, “My bad!” at the outset and now this CTR email (which could be the start of an ongoing smear campaign against Sanders) are all suggesting that Hillary may be a far more self-destructive candidate than her campaign understands.

In 2008, it was Hillary’s dishonesty about herself (remember her fabrication about being shot at on the tarmac in Bosnia) and Obama, her anti-democratic attempt to rig the primary so she could win it through Superdelegates despite losing more caucuses and elections to Obama and her sense of entitlement to the nomination and Presidency (and outrage at those like Obama who challenged it) that helped her grab defeat from the jaws of victory back then.

In this cycle, she has shown only superficial changes to the way she campaigns, there are many reminders this year of the way she campaigned unsuccessfully last time. Yes, she might have learned to be more tactical in scooping up many Superdelegates early this time and not be caught as unaware of being beaten in the small states and caucuses as Obama successfully planned but behind-the-scenes tactics aside, she is presenting herself to Democratic voters once again in a questionable ethical light at a time when they most want an honest and ethical candidate that is genuinely concerned about the issues they care most about.

It would be ironic if the SuperPACs that Citizens United created, that represent such a huge threat to maintaining a democracy over a plutocracy, were the cause of politicians losing the votes they thought their SuperPACs would buy. If Hillary Clinton continues to use David Brock and Correct The Record as a beard to smear Sanders, pretending not to be campaigning negatively against him while doing so, she may not only disqualify herself with a huge swath of Democratic voters not currently supporting her but also see history repeat itself when the winner of the 2016 Democratic Primaries is determined.

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

71 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. AdLib says:

    Don’t want to say, “I told you so”….ah hell, sure I do!

    Bernie Sanders raised more than $1.2 million in less than 48 hours off a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC’s attack on the Vermont senator, his presidential campaign said Thursday.

    “We’ve never seen an immediate donor response like what the Sanders’ campaign received on Tuesday,” said ActBlue Executive Director Erin Hill. “Over its 11-year history ActBlue has sent money to over 11,000 campaigns and committees – and the Bernie Sanders campaign holds the record for the two biggest donor days ever for a campaign on our platform.”


    Mission accomplished, Correct The Record! Please proceed…

  2. Nirek says:

    Bernie was on CBS this morning. It was excellent. Nora tried to say that Bernie wants the rich to pay 90% income taxes. Bernie said that it doesn’t have to be that high. He said that the rich and corporations need to pay their fair share of taxes.

    Under Ike the tax rate for the super rich was 90%! But , today they pay less than us middle class folks percentage wise. Bernie wants the tax rates to be progressive. What is wrong with people paying more when they can afford to? Why do they need to stash money off shore? Why do corporations like GE get refunds when they pay zero income taxes? There are many of the BIG corporations paying zero income taxes. This has to change, and Bernie is the man to change it!

    • monicaangela says:

      Good Morning Nirek!

      Did you see Bernie on the Rachel Maddow show last night? He was terrific there also. It appears the MSM is beginning to take him seriously. It’s about time. His track record of integrity goes back a long way. I am working as hard as I can in minority communities to wake people up to the fact that he would be a much better President IMHO than any of the other candidates running. I have convinced some but not nearly enough. It is a fact that without the overwhelming vote of the minority communities in the upcoming primary elections and then in the general, Bernie probably won’t win. I noticed he has gained the endorsement of Cornell West, that is a good thing. I am writing to many of the other notable characters in the Latino, African American and Asian communities (activist) to beg them to please take a closer look at Bernie and hopefully decide to help improve his numbers in their communities. Wish me luck!

      • Nirek says:

        Monica, thanks for all the help you are giving Bernie. I did see the clip of Bernie with Rachel and he was great there as well as where ever he goes. Bernie sticks to the issues. I like that! He refuses to be dragged into personal attacks on hair or looks. I am a member of Vets4Bernie and post a lot on that site. I use my real name there and have no problem giving it here so folks who see what I post is me. I’m (***) aka Nirek which is Kerin spelled backward.

        I love that Cornell West has endorsed Bernie. Also some Rappers have endorsed Bernie. I’m afraid I don’t know them but I welcome all comers to the Bernie campaign. Bernie has a history of being a civil rights protester that is unblemished!

        I’ very proud that you are on board and helping because I feel you and I are kindered spirits. As are so many here at PlanetPOV.

        Peace, my friend.

        • monicaangela says:

          I may have to join facebook, just to check out what other veterans are saying and doing in the fight to help get Bernie elected. Thanks for letting me know who to look for on the Vets4Bernie thread. Is it vets4bernie or vetsforbernie?

          • Kalima says:

            Hello Monicaangela.

            Just wanted you to know that I have removed the comment with your real name in it. I’m in a position to see how many bad people visit our site each day, so for your own protection, we don’t encourage giving out personal details. Just want to keep you safe. Hope you understand our position on this?

            Thank you.

            • monicaangela says:

              Kalima!!!!! What a great cartoon, I hope you didn’t place that here and vanish laughing out loud at what I’m sure you knew would be my response. I have got to use that one, GREAT!! Thanks for the laugh. :) Sweet Dreams! :)

            • Kalima says:

              I’m so glad you understand, and that’s why we are here.

              There are people who come to read. Then there are those just waiting for a chance to steal information and email addresses, so we take protecting our members seriously. Thanks for letting me know.

              Before I leave for the night, here is a very funny cartoon about Bernie Sanders at the Liberty Uni. Enjoy. It made me laugh out loud. 😆

              Goodnight from Tokyo.


              New cartoon: @BernieSanders message on economic inequality for Rev. Jerry Falwell’s @LibertyU


            • monicaangela says:

              Thank you so much. I had thought about asking for a request for deletion after I remembered that not everyone is as nice as Nirek and many of the folks who participate here. You don’t know how happy I was to receive your reply to my comment in my email this morning. Can’t thank you enough for all you do here. Question, I noticed Nirek gave his name in the comment above your comment. Should that also be removed? I wouldn’t want anyone to cause him any problems either. :)

          • Nirek says:

            Monica, if you don’t want to join FB try BernieBlog.org

          • Nirek says:

            Monica, both #Vets4Bernie and #VetsForBernie will get you to our group. I don’t understand #’s but that will get you to the group.

            Many people join FB using fake names, so it is possible for you to be anomonous if you want to.

    • AdLib says:

      True that both progressed in their lives following their values but Sanders definition of being a Democratic Socialist is a bit different that Corbyn’s.

      That said, there are some general similarities between them but they are two very different people. Corbyn’s views are seen by UK conservatives and some moderates as radical but Sanders views are very mainstream and populist, he even got grudging approvals on some views from some of the RW at Liberty University.

      The only reason I point out the differences is to affirm that it isn’t appropriate for CTR to attribute the more extreme things Corbyn has said to Sanders because he doesn’t share those beliefs.

      Meanwhile, I might also suggest that the citizens in the UK, after being under siege from a conservative plutocracy are similar to Americans who are tired of being under siege from a conservative plutocracy.

      The time may indeed be very ripe for more Progressive change in both countries, led by socialists who are in step with the majority of citizens. It sure doesn’t seem like there is a desire for a more expansive plutocracy, slashing of government services and going to war in numerous countries.

      • monicaangela says:

        I placed this video here to show where the similarities stop. As you say, they are similar in those things that I feel make them both desirable candidates for a person that is as progressive as I am, but anyone who takes a minute to read about Corbyn will find that this is where the similarities stop. I believe as you have said, the people of the U.S., the UK, and many other countries, especially many in South and Central America are finally waking up to the fact that conservative ideas have bought us a really ugly world. In many nations around the world, people are waking up and realizing the fact that this world is supposed to be beneficial for us all, not just those that would use corrupted capitalism to control and dominate.

  3. Nirek says:

    AdLib, I have seen some people and petitions to pledge to “write in” Bernie Sanders if he doesn’t get the nomination. So far I have resisted signing on. I honestly believe Bernie will win the primary and then go on to a landslide victory!

    I keep telling folks that what we need to do is elect some new younger folks, willing to do the work, to Congress. That will help Bernie get his agenda passed!

    • AdLib says:

      Have to second KT’s position, unless someone wants a Jeb or Trump in the WH, they need to vote for whoever the winner of the Dem primary is.

      A write in vote for Bernie in the GE, if he doesn’t win the primary, is one less vote Jeb or Trump would need to take the WH.

      For those people who don’t want to vote for the Dem nom if it’s not their choice, I’d suggest considering that they look at it instead as voting against the Repub candidate.

    • That won’t work, Nirek, and it will just give the right a better chance of winning. I sincerely hope Bernie gets the nomination, but if he doesn’t, it is best to vote for the candidate that does win the nomination.

      Splitting the vote is a bad idea.

  4. monicaangela says:

    Maybe the ideas of this Super Pac speaks more to their distaste for or lack of respect for the electorate than it does to Bernie Sanders being a “DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST,” something if I might add is far different than a Communist Socialist or many other kinds of socialist you might want to think of, not identical to the type of socialist that Jeremy Corbyn has become. I personally think this Super Pac, and Hillary Clinton if she approves their tactics are under a false impression that leads them to believe those that would be voting are stupid.

    And, also regarding Citgo, Chavez, and Bernie Sanders. Chavez did something that should have been an eye opener for the citizens of this nation. In an effort to help the elderly, the poor, and those struggling with high energy bills, he set up a program to bring some relief to those that were suffering, this for citizens of one of the richest nations in the world. Not only should Bernie Sanders have congratulated Chavez, but when I think about it, I feel the entire government including the President should have shown their appreciation for this effort on the part of Hugo Chavez (may he rest in peace) and the government of Venezuela. He did something that none of our allies were willing to do, he actually showed us how unequal and how depraved some of the most wealthy in this nation and around the world are.

    When I speak with likely voters, many are under the same impression as you are AdLib, they feel Hillary Clinton and her Super Pac are to say the least using out of date tactics. Many of us feel that it is time to do as Bernie Sanders is doing, stick to the issues, debate policy, describe how you will tackle some of the problems concerning the citizens of this nation and how you will deal with the misguided U.S. policies that are having an effect on citizens of this nation and around the world, some of those policies I might add can be contributed to the Presidency of none other than Bill Clinton, the husband of the candidate. Mud slinging politics should hopefully become a thing of the past. I for one have no respect for candidates that try to gain approval by tearing down their opponent with personal attacks that are skewed to appear true when the Super Pac and the candidate know the attacks are false/misleading.

    Hillary and Jeb are both wrong on many of the issues, both are War Hawks, and both are what I consider to be establishment candidates who feel because of their pedigree they are undoubtedly what is best for this nation. The days of Kings and Queens and serfs have never been in this nation, and if the electorate is smart those days will never ever be.

    Thank you for yet another thoughtful inspiring article, it has given me an opportunity to engage in many wonderful conversations with friends regarding the issue of the tactics of this super Pac while at the same time allowing me the opportunity to express my sincere approval of Bernie Sanders and his attempt to bring our electoral process back to civility. :)

    • RSGmusic says:

      Good analysis MA I agree Bernie can out debate her Hillary!! I will vote for the dem winner either way!!

    • AdLib says:

      Agreed, monicaangela! I think the end result of this clumsy smear is to make Hillary and her SuperPAC look desperate and cynical about the intelligence of Americans (hence the title of my article). It has hurt their image, not Bernie’s.

      None of them considered the blowback from using such a Republican tactic, how it would reflect back on CTR and Hillary and undermine how honest their “correcting the record” would be seen subsequently by voters including Democrats.

      It is ironic that instead of attacking the greedy and powerful oil companies in the US for not providing discounted oil for the poor, CTR and Hillary attack Bernie for working with a foreign oil company to help Americans. The message is, it’s worse to help poor people via Hugo Chavez than to watch them freeze as US oil companies sit on their hands. Who in the Democratic Party do they think is going to buy into that?

      I feel similarly, the more we can have adult campaigns, where issues are discussed and debated in depth and detail, instead of mudslinging lies and personal insults (the GOP candidates are more similar to bratty kids in a food fight), the better it is for our democracy and government. Americans have been subjected to this cynical political game playing for so long, it seems that they’re sick and tired of it. But some candidates still haven’t gotten the memo yet.

      Jeb! does seem like the weak and confused errant prince who is trying to get onto the family throne. Hillary has more maturity than Jeb but the air of entitlement is inescapable. She believes it is her destiny to be President and she just needs to weave her way around the people to get to what she knows she deserves. Meanwhile, the people see her weaving around them and are becoming less and less pleased with her lack of genuine interest in them, she just wants to get past them to get into the WH however she can.

      No one believed a black man could become President in 2008, a majority of Americans would never vote for him.

      Now, no one (but Bernie supporters) believes a socialist who isn’t financed by corporations could become President in 2016.

      The status quo never sees the revolution coming, they rely on the comforting notion that whatever has been will always be.

      If Donald Trump hasn’t snapped them out of that mentality yet, they may indeed be gobsmacked when they see who’s taking the oath of office for President in January 2017.

      And I don’t mean Trump.

  5. choicelady says:

    One question -- I read the article and cannot see how it ‘smeared’ Bernie at all. Maybe I just don’t get the insider stuff, but even reading the post, I don’t see it.

    • AdLib says:

      Hey CL!

      Using guilt by association to tie Bernie to offensive remarks by another unrelated person such as Jeremy Corbyn, only because they share the label “socialist” is dishonest and an attempted smear. As is trying to portray him as palling around with socialist dictators only because he helped poor Vermonters get discounted heating oil from CITGO.

      Trying to smear him for being a socialist and trying the nasty practice of guilt by association is flat out slimy, it’s what Republicans do and it’s very disappointing to see Hillary doing it through her SuperPAC.

      If they weren’t trying to smear Sanders with someone else’s offensive words, why did they include the quotes from Corbyn? Corbyn has literally nothing to do with Sanders or his campaign. And why did they exaggerate his relationship with Chavez? What points do you think they were trying to get across to voters about Sanders with this email?

      And wouldn’t you agree that it is only legit to attack someone for what they themselves actually do and say?

      Though I am usually loathe to post links to HP, here’s the link to their article which similarly describes this email as a dishonest attack on Sanders (and if The Planet and HP agree on this, I’d suggest that there may be something to it):


      • choicelady says:

        I guess I just took this as a matter of fact not saying anything Sanders has not already said. Maybe I’m partly influenced by various progressive groups around northern CA that of course support Sander but also openly supported Chavez and Corbyn taking it as a matter of course not anything being hidden.

        I have no idea if this was intended to be a slam, but I can’t see anything here I have no seen before -- openly.

        • AdLib says:

          CL, I posted this below, here’s another article from Salon on how this is an unfair attack by CTR and Hillary to demonize Sanders for being a socialist:


          I do think there is a preponderance of views at legit media sites and Progressive blogs that conclude that the only purpose of this email was to unfairly demonize Sanders as a socialist through guilt by association and by twisting various other information around.

          I really can’t imagine any other purpose for this email. Why did they list the worst and most offensive quotes from Corbyn and include them in an email about Sanders? And the thing is, he never held any of these views or expressed agreement with them ever.

          Let’s not forget, Hillary did this type of thing to Obama in 2008, tried to smear him with the harsh things that Rev. Wright said because Obama went to his church (but wasn’t there when the harsh things were said). She did the same thing again with attacking Obama for having his first fundraiser as a politician at Bill Ayers’ house, who had been a radical Weather Underground member when Obama was 8 years old but was then reformed and a university professor.

          Hillary has many strengths and detailed policies to stand on against Sanders, if she relies on that, I think she stands a far better chance of winning the primary and having more enthusiastic ex-Bernie supporters behind her if she wins the primary.

          But IMO, trying to poison Sanders in Dems minds by demonizing his being a socialist, using guilt by association again, will be a big mistake if she and CTR continue down that path.

    • Hey cl. I think it was very subtle. The implication that Sanders is somehow tied to Hugo Chavez and Hezbolah. It’s a subtle smear on Sanders’ socialist label.

      It wasn’t a direct smear, but a very subtle attempt to paint Bernie as some sort of dangerous socialist.

      That’s my take on it, anyway.

      • monicaangela says:

        Exactly KT, Spot on. :)

        • RSGmusic says:

          Agreed MA good to see your post again!! Have been very sick!! Need to catch up on politics!! we moved also’ Also lighting hit the house and fried my music studio! SO i have been busy finding parts and some synthesizers and mixing board just can not be replaced! Waiting on Money to get New equipment!

          • monicaangela says:

            I’m really sorry to hear how you have been suffering RSGmusic. I hope you are feeling better. Sounds as if you have been having lots of misfortune…sorry to hear about your loss of your music studio and your home. I sincerely hope you get things under control soon, and are able to get back to doing what you appear to love doing and do very well I might add…making music. :)

    • AdLib says:

      Very interesting, equating socialism and Christianity as similar systems with similar altruist goals…that can be realized or corrupted.

      America likes socialism, it’s the word that has the stigma, not what it represents. Social Security, Medicare, building roads and bridges, having firemen, police and public schools, all are provided for through socialism.

      Labels can be a trap. If Bernie just renamed his views as something else, say, “Altruist”, the stigma would disappear.

      • I think Bernie is doing a pretty good job of explaining or clarifying what he means by socialism. He has to do this to get the American people to understand that he’s talking about democratic socialism like in the examples you gave.

        The term Altruist is not specific enough.

  6. Well done Ad. Some very astute observations. I don’t have a real good grasp of how SPs really work. Does this particular pac work for Hillary, at her discretion? If so, this certainly doesn’t bode well for Hillary.

    As far a David Brock goes, he’s got all the habits and mannerisms of a political sleeze. In the interview you provided in this article, he did nothing but bob and weave when asked some pretty obvious questions.

    Why did he even mention Chavez? Why even mention Hezbolah? He says this wasn’t dirty work, but simply the normal “process?” Isn’t that what most progressives DON’T want, as you pointed out? Brock uses the word facts, but I didn’t see very many, just sleezey, sideways insinuations.

    I will not be very happy about having to vote for Hillary, but I will if she is the nominee. I don’t see her as all bad, or even being close to as bad for America as anybody in the GOP field. But, I’ll definitely be holding my nose in the voting booth.

    I hope this wasn’t an attempt, by Brock and his stooges at CTR, to make Bernie break his word about running a clean camapaign. If it was/is, I don’t think it will work.

    People can say what they will about Sanders, but the man has shown, time and again, that he does have integrity.

    • AdLib says:

      Thanks KT!

      For some background, here’s an article from Salon on Hillary’s SuperPAC and how they are directly coordinating with her:


      You nailed it, there is no other reason for grouping Bernie with Corbyn, Hezbolah, Chavez, etc. other than to demonize Sanders for being a socialist through guilt by association. It is the lowest form of attack and IMO, reveals just how panicked Hillary’s camp is becoming.

      Do they really think that Dems will become scared of Bernie Sanders because they try to equate all socialists? Especially when Hillary has co-opted all or most of Bernie’s core positions? Or that his supporters will be turned off when they find there are different people who are socialists who say things they don’t like?

      Hell, there are many Democrats who say things they don’t like and they still vote Democrat.

      As you say, I will vote for whoever the Dem nominee for President is including Hillary but like you, it won’t be with great enthusiasm if it is her. She is not genuine or trustworthy, who knows what she will actually do in the WH? I do know one thing though, at her worst, Hillary would be 1,000 times better than any of the Republicans.

  7. sillylittleme says:

    One, Brock is obviously jealous of how Bernie shed his curls for a lovely pate. Two, that commie Joe Kennedy has been working with CITGO for that same period. You see, our benevolent American oil companies could give two shits if New Englanders freeze to death. How dare they be poor!!!

    I see he’s already wrote his posthumous autobiography. Meh.

    • AdLib says:

      slm, I was amazed at how Brock is competing against Trump for the title of “Least Sensible Hair”.

      Yep, true Americans support US oil companies that sit by and would watch poor people freeze to death. It’s unAmerican to thank other people who are socialists for helping poor people not freeze to death.

      • Some states make it illegal to stop oil deliveries or shut off power and gas if people can’t pay their heating bill in the winter. Of course, they eventually have to pay, but they can’t be “frozen out.”

      • sillylittleme says:

        Here’s the real scary part. Some people who get that assistance probably don’t know that if Chavez hadn’t kicked out the US oil barons, they may very well have frozen to death.

        Obama cut that program last year. We had some of the coldest temps on record. Yes I know he’s not responsible for the Rs behavior, but he doesn’t seem to draw a line in the sand. Ever.

  8. TresL says:

    “Bernie Sanders vowed not to campaign negatively against Hillary Clinton and his other Democratic opponents, instead to focus only on policies and issues.”

    Given this quote, I’d be interested to know why you think Bernie is campaigning negatively against PBO instead of the GOP and why he thinks Dems will select a Socialist as their nominee?

    • TresL, how is Bernie campaigning negatively against a man who cannot run for a third term and consequently, has no campaign himself? Is he telling lies about our president?

    • AdLib says:

      Hi TresL, I agree that Sanders was very critical and at times, harsh towards Obama in the past. However, I have been keeping up on Sanders’ campaign and I don’t hear him attacking Obama anymore. His speeches are consistently about social inequality and presenting proposals to address them.

      As for asking why he thinks Dems might prefer voting for him as their nominee, the polls in IA and NH both show him beating Hillary so it is de facto that Dems currently would indeed select him as their choice for the Dem nomination.

      I think most Dems put substance over labels. What does it matter if he calls himself a socialist, a Progressive or an Independent? All that matters is what he would do as President. What policies of his do you think would be problematic for Dems?

      As far as I can see, he is in step with many Democrats. And there are many Democrats who feel Hillary isn’t on the same page as them due to her aggressive views on war, refusing to say if she would or wouldn’t approve the Keystone pipeline and her close ties, huge contributions from and support for Wall Street.

      That’s not to say that if she was the Dem nominee, I wouldn’t vote for her, just saying that even though she uses the label “Democrat” and Sanders uses “Socialist”, his stands on the issues are more Progressive and closer to mine and many other Dems than Hillary’s.

      • TresL says:

        Thank you for your reply. I think the most recent and egregious lie he’s spouted about PBO is that once he was elected, he disengaged his supporters. That’s a surprise to me given the countless emails I’ve received and continue to receive from OFA since 2008 requesting I contact my congressional reps, call into a conference call or participate in a day of action on a particular issue. I’ve called into several conference calls where PBO himself was speaking so I find it most offensive that a person who is not a Dem and has no desire to be one campaigns bashing the current Dem president who, by the way, has millions of supporters and is still quite popular among them. I will never vote for such a candidate and that includes HRC as well. I asked a perfectly reasonable question to you and was insulted by one of his rabid supporters which apparently is SOP for many of them whenever anyone dares question him or his campaign. I am not happy with the current Dem options at all and partially blame HRC and her campaign for discouraging other candidates from entering the fray. I say partially because PBO showed in 2008 that she can be beaten if you’re willing to engage.

        As for his polling, personally, I think much of his strength is a direct reflection of HRC’s weakness and terribly run campaign and a lack of options which is why I am hopeful some one is sitting on the sidelines watching this play out and contemplating entering the race because at this point the choices are abysmal and are pointing toward a 2016 defeat.

        • Nirek says:

          TresL, Bernie has stated that President Obama did not follow up on his promises after he was elected. Saying that he had it from here and would work with the republicans and get a consensus with them. Not that PBO has not tried to work with them. But, President Obama was doomed from the start because of the “republican pledge” to make him a one term President. They failed, naturally, but they never tried to work with him.

          Since that is true, there is no reason to say that Bernie was disrespecting President Obama. Bernie speaks highly of the President. Bernie speaks truthfully about whatever he is talking about.

          Bernie is a different kind of politician. He sticks to the issues. He doesn’t speak ill of the other Democratic candidates. He does compare his record to theirs and that is fair. Telling the truth is a good thing, in my opinion. That is what Bernie does.

          I agree with you that HRC has discouraged other candidates. She has a close ally in the DNC chair. Debbie W. S. has limited the debates to just six and only four before the first primary. I am willing to say that I think this is to make it easier for HRC. DWS also has made the ruling that any candidate who takes part in any other debateswill be banned from the DNC debates.

          To me, Bernie is the BEST candidate for America!

          • TresL says:

            “Bernie has stated that President Obama did not follow up on his promises after he was elected.”

            That is one of his many lies about PBO which puzzles me. First, I don’t understand why he feels the need to talk about PBO at all given he’s not running all while saying little to nothing about the Dems he is running against or the GOP. Secondly, if you’re a Socialist using the Dem Party to run for president, it’s not smart to unnecessarily alienate Dem voters who think very highly of PBO and have no idea who Bernie is. Third, PBO has fulfilled many of his promises and those that he has yet to fulfill have been mostly stymied by the Republicans, some Dems and Bernie the Socialist who voted against closing Guantanamo Bay. There will likely be promises that will never be honored for reasons we may never know and I’m okay with that. Part of being an adult is realizing you can’t have everything you want; besides, there are promises he kept that I never thought he would be able to so it all balances out for me. PBO has not disappointed me because my standard for him was never perfection.

            This same thing bothered me about HRC who would take shots at PBO every chance she got. Meanwhile, there are 17 or 18 lunatics who are ready to destroy this country; yet, neither she nor Bernie have anything to say about them. Instead, they prefer to beat up on the only person trying to fix decades of damage wrought by presidents of both parties. That offends me greatly; especially, when you consider neither of them have any accomplishments to speak of themselves and neither of them can win a national election and will need all the help they can get. HRC seems to want a do-over against PBO to prove she is and was the better candidate after all. Bernie, who suggested PBO should be primaried in 2012 didn’t have the courage to do it then and seems to be trying to run that race now.

            I have my suspicions as to why but I’ll admit they would be quite controversial to note here as most of the comments and the article are supportive of his candidacy. What prompted me to comment in the first place as I don’t normally frequent this blog is my thinking that Bernie shouldn’t be applauded for not attacking HRC because she is his opponent; whereas, PBO is not. Yet, that seems to be where he directs his critiques.

            I do not expect him, HRC or any other Dem candidate to agree with PBO on all issues; but I do expect respect for the sitting President and his supporters and if the candidates can’t do that, it’s best to say nothing at all.

        • Many Americans bulk at the word “socialist,” and maybe think, at present that Bernie is the the bad kind. He is not.

          Bernie is a democratic socialist and has never registered simply as “socialist.” He was an independent before he began his campaign for president. He’s running as a dem because 1, he doesn’t want to split the democratic base, and 2, he wants to debate Hillary in the dem primaries and hopefully force her more left of center.

          I think Sanders is going to really surprise a lot of naysayers in the next year or so. I wouldn’t be so quick to count him out.

          • TresL says:

            I appreciate your optimism but he’s already disqualified himself for me and HRC was a non-starter for me in 2008 and nothing has changed to make me consider her in 2016. I keep hoping O’Malley can get his act together but right now that seems like a long shot.

            • TresL says:

              I would never vote GOP but I would omit the presidential section of my ballot when I vote. The GOP has 20 lunatics to choose from who when they’re not tearing into each other, they’re maligning PBO. I just find it shocking that we don’t have a better selection of candidates to choose from. Some days it seems like the GOP is running unopposed.

            • Well, it’s a long way to November 2016.

              So, if O’Malley doesn’t pan out, who are you going to vote for? Certainly not a GOPer, I hope.

              Anyhoo, welcome to the Planet. It’s a pretty cool place, and disagreements are welcome, as long as people keep it civil.

    • TheHandyman says:

      The answer is very simple, if you actually think about it, which you clearly didn’t. Bernie isn’t running against the GOP, he’s running for the nomination so his opponents are the other members of the Democratic Party who want to be nominated. And the answer to your second question is equally simple. Bernie a Democratic Socialist and he is actually is a reflection of what the Democratic Party used to be during the late 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s until Bill, a closet Ronnie Reagan Republican, was elected. Hillary too is nothing more than what we used to call a Wall Street Democrat. As we see by Bernie’s rise in the polls to pass Hillary in Iowa and New Hampshire he appeals to Democrats who are finally tired of being lied to just as Obysmal did. Where ever Bernie goes he not only draws the die hard Democrats but those who gave up on the party years ago but many Independents and Republicans as well. Bernie knows what the people want while Hillary only cares about what the filthy rich and their corporations want. See how easy that was to figure out when you actually are willing to put some thought into an issue?

      • AdLib says:

        TheHandyman, good points. Bernie’s positions are very much in the same vein as Dems from the 60’s-80’s. I’m still not aware of a single position he’s taken that would be considered not to be in sync with Progressive Dems.

        It’s just anecdotal but a Republican friend of mine said that Republican friends of his said that they do like some of what Bernie is saying. He does represent something almost unheard of, a potential Democratic nominee who is openly a socialist but could pull Republican voters over to him.

        • Nirek says:

          Ad, to back up your premise that Bernie is attracting republicans and independents, the head of Veterans for Bernie Sanders is a republican fed up with the nonsense of the republican party! Paul Leobe a former marine. He writes very glowing things about Bernie and his history of caring about us vets.

  9. S-Man says:

    Thanks Ad, this is exactly what sunk her campaign last time. Some people never learn, I expected more from her.

    • TheHandyman says:

      Why would you expect her to change her methods any more than a leopard would change its spots? Hillary is a true believer in her own destiny, which is to bee the first woman President. That is why she has stayed with her lying, serial adulterer husband. It is about the thirst for power. She will continue to make the same mistakes that she always has. It is called hubris. Obysmal was smart enough to not define himself. Liberals claimed he was one of them….he wasn’t. Progressives claimed he was one of them…he wasn’t. And moderates also claimed him…but he wasn’t. Like Clinton Obama was a Ronnie Reagan Republican, or what we used to call a Wall Street Democrat. If the GOTPers weren’t standing on the edge of their flat Earth staring down into the abyss they would have embraced him. Obamacare is a great govt giveaway to the rich. His willingness to sell out Medicare and SS is something they have orgasms over. But they only saw him as being Black and a Democrat. And Hillary stupidly the other day admitted that she was unapologetically a “Moderate.” She has now lost support from Liberals and Progressives. What Hillary is, and the term sounds strange because we don’t think of this in these terms, but she is an Extreme Moderate. That means she believes in helping the People a little but helping the Filthy Rich and the Corporatocracy far more. She is unashamedly for Wars that help the American Weapons of Mass Destruction Industry keep on rolling sacrificing education, infrastructure, jobs, and education for political power.

      After all her lies about coming under fire in Bosnia, knowing anything about TPP/TPA, demanding that all State Department employees act as spies, as well as poor decisions she made over her servers I expect her to continue on in the same way Bill O’Rielly does!

      • AdLib says:

        TheHandyman, you have some legit points to make but using such petty insults as “Obysmal” undercuts them.

        Your portrayal of Obama as single-handedly drafting and passing Obamacare just isn’t correct. If you delve into the news reports during that years-long process, you would see that it was Congress that was responsible for there not being a public option. The House had already passed such a bill but in the Senate, with all Repubs opposing it, it was the Blue Dog Dems including Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson who prevented passage of a bill with a public option. Obama then had a choice of either proposing a new version that didn’t include a public option or not getting any health care reform.

        BTW, Obamacare was designed to allow states to create and collaborate in a public option down the line and of course, it would be easier now for a Dem Congress to pass changes to the ACA including a public option instead of having to pass an entire comprehensive program like the ACA.

        Something or nothing, that was the choice. The public option was a poison pill in the Senate and could never pass.

        From Wikipedia:

        Ultimately, the public option was removed from the final bill. While the United States House of Representatives passed a public option in their version of the bill, the public option was voted down in the Senate Finance Committee[6] and the public option was never included in the final Senate bill, instead opting for state-directed health insurance exchanges.[7] Critics of the removal of the public option accused President Obama of making an agreement to drop the public option from the final plan,[8] but other journalists pointed out that the agreement was probably based more on vote counts than backroom deals, as substantiated by the final vote in the Senate.


        Though I prefer Bernie Sanders, I think it is far too early to declare that Hillary has permanently alienated voters. As much as I find her far more conservative than I would like a Dem nominee to be, it would be far worse to sit by and watch a Donald Trump, Ben Carson or Jeb Bush wint the White House.

        • monicaangela says:

          Once when you helped me add a picture to my article I thanked you, and you replied, no problem, this is why we are here, or something to that effect. Well, after reading this reply, I can attest to the fact that there is another reason you are here…excellent response, thanks for setting the record straight. 😉

    • AdLib says:

      Sure thing, S-Man! In politics, it’s hard for a leopard to change its spots. This style of politics worked so well for the Clintons, Bush’s, etc. for so many years, I don’t blame them for thinking that it would work again this time around. And it may be all they know when it comes to campaigning, I don’t expect any of the establishment candidates to change drastically.

Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories