Happy Friday.

It seems that there is a division within the Party. There are third wayers, moderates, and liberal/socialists. I don't think that this will ever end, which is why we need more than two parties here in the US. The two party system is a joke in a lot of ways, because there are not enough options for the myriad of beliefs that people have. We need what every democracy in Europe has, many parties.

I never, ever, thought I'd even consider going third party. Now it feels like I'm being forced into the Green Party. This response from Sherrod Brown, now endorsing Hillary, made that painfully clear. And I do mean painfully.

I'd rather Democrats be Democrats, but this is no longer the reality.

Time will tell if multiple, strong parties will emerge. I think we need that to happen.

That gave us the Weimarer Republik here in Germany, that gave us complete dysfunction, and that gave us Hitler.

Even now, here in Germany, none of the major parties gets much done because either some tiny party in a coalition holds the big one hostage and thwarts initiatives, or the two main parties from a "grand coalition" like in Germany now, and little gets done. Bureaucrats rule because no one stops them when they go overboard.

A two party system gets more done, flawed as our system is. No way in the world the multiparty German parliamentary system would accomplished a tenth of what Obama did to raise itself out of the kind of crisis Dick Cheney (dba GW Bush) left us. They'd still be arguing about the first steps, trying to lick the boots of tiny coalition partners so they don't have tantrums and leave the coalition altogether.

is going on the Democratic Party.

This is a Democratic primary. Comparing records of two or three Democratic candidates in a Democratic primary is totally appropriate--and necessary-- unless and until the admins say otherwise. You have a problem, alert. If you don't think something is alertable, then you're probably on a control trip, trying to control the content of my posts and those of other adults and I'm sick of it.

I have a right to say I'm sick of it and I did.

BTW, I get alerted on. However, for a very long time, I've had 100% chance of serving on a jury. Before that, I was working off a hide for saying "Fuck you" to another poster, which I knew would get me a hide. (Seemed worth it at the time, now I love him.) So my posts just can't be that bad.

If the poster had asked for a more civil debate, I would have read the words and considered them valid. But not to disagree is to say that there is one way for this primary. And "Which way would that be?", would be the next thought. It seems to me, the only ones asking for no debates are from one Candidate's supporters.



Now, why is that?

You can't run as a Democrat, you can't run as an indie. We just want a frickin' coronation and no criticism of our candidate's record and no comparisons, because democracy.

This day will be marked red in my calendar!



heh.

A lot of sources appear to be deluded on this, including the Third Way stink tank itself.


http://www.thirdway.org/ (home page today says it's the one stop shop for the TPP, LOL!)

And then, there's this

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation[1] founded in 1985 that, upon its formation, argued the United States Democratic Party should shift away from the leftward turn it took in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The DLC hailed President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of Third Way politicians and as a DLC success story.

The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats. This term is also used by other groups who have similar views on where the party should go in the future, like NDN[2] and Third Way.[3]

Origins (of political triangulation)

The term was first used by President of the United States Bill Clinton's chief political advisor Dick Morris as a way to describe his strategy for getting Clinton reelected in the 1996 presidential election. In Dick Morris' words, triangulation meant "the president needed to take a position that not only blended the best of each party's views but also transcended them to constitute a third force in the debate."[1] In news articles and books, it is sometimes referred to as "Clintonian triangulation".[2][3][4] Morris advocated a set of policies that were different from the traditional policies of the Democratic Party. These policies included deregulation and balanced budgets. One of the most widely cited capstones of Clinton's triangulation strategy was when, in his 1996 State of the Union Address, Clinton declared that the "era of big government is over

Can be traced to the inability or unwillingness to offer a strong and clear ALTERNATIVE to increasingly right-wing policy.

Triangulation started with Reagan and we never looked back. Still aiming for that ever-rightward moving goalpost too.

I have started to see that here on DU as well correlating certain things from one group to another or on source vs. another. It all comes from the inability to justify the one position that they support.

The argument is over when someone tries to tell me that both are the same regardless if it political parties or car companies. The one proclaiming both are the same just lost the argument.

and the Republicans are now Tea Partiers. Obama is a self described moderate Republican and Hillary is right there with him.

I would rather the Dem Party get back to its roots. This is why we NEED Bernie to win the primary. Otherwise we get another Reaganite term. Or worse, since I do not believe Hillary is a shoe in in a general election.

Last edited Mon Nov 23, 2015, 06:14 AM - Edit history (1)

WHAT is a "shoe in in a general election?" Similar to a "shirt in in a general election?"

(Sorry, couldn't resist. That is one the best typos outside of a Chinese menu I have seen)

cheating, bribery and corruption used to be also illegal not that long ago. Today
such behavior has become legalized, mainly because of the non-stop efforts of one
party -- and practiced in the open.

It looks like more and more people are finding the above behavior normal and
acceptable. This could be a reason for more and more socio- and psychopaths
holding high positions - both in government and in the business world. We are
being ruled by sociopaths!

It's getting to be Republican RW and Republican not-so RW. Where have all the liberals gone?

The above is how I felt until Bernie got into the race. He is an FDR Dem and that is what I want.

I don't think we should tear down our candidates using vitriol typical of Republicans who irrationally despise Democrats.

I would agree that there is far too much of the latter and very little that can be described as helpful criticism.

It seems you seek a paradise,politically speaking, also a shrine to the Democratic Party. When I first arrived here I took a look at the editorial policies of this form. I found no mandate to be a registered democrat or to support everything Democratic Party. I chose to believe the word democrat did not refer to partisanship , only to a political system.

I think you even misidentify the "enemy" as both parties have become allies of the real enemy, unchecked, unregulated capitalism.

If I am wrong about the purpose of this forum, or of the necessity to be a democrat I am hoping an administrator will correct my assumption and I will gladly depart and leave the place to those who"qualify" to be here.

Philosophy because that is not their function. Parties are a collection of special interests, each with own philosophy and priorities. The goals of one group may or may not blend with another's. And each group's members may or may not agree with the goals of others. For example guns are important to union members while job issues are the most important things to unions. A union's members may or may not agree with gay marriage it gay rights, but members in general vote for Democrats because of job issues. They often may NOT vote for Democrats because of gay issues and gun issues. There are many other similar agreements and conflicts in the party which makes a clear philosophy impossible. The closest obtainable is a party platform. And that's what happens here.

PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND with something like "so it's OK for unions to hate gays" or some similar unrelated nonsense. (Or "so gay rights are nonsense" for that matter.)

What we see here at DU is a SYMPTOM
NOT the cause of whats wrong.

You give little people too much credit.

Many of those at DU opt not to do so.

No one can tells us hows
or whats to say nor hows
ta saez it!

... one being the "traditional FDR Democrats" and the other being the "Third Way Republican-lite".

Right now we are in a fight for our lives to preserve the traditional ideology from the conservatives who have infested our party.


If the Third Way wins, it will be the end of Social Security, Medicare and any other aspects of the social safety net that remain.

We can wait to pummel the Republicans; cleaning up our own party must come first.

As always, Scuba. ^^^ THIS is the bottomline.

The parties are more polarized than ever. I provided links above.

And have established 'moderate' positions on many issues that mimic the so called 'moderate republicans' of past decades, incrementally pushing the Democratic party to the right over the years ...

It is long past time for a course correction ... No more GOP-Lite ....

Obama is a self-described moderate Republican and it's easy to see that when looking at his policies. Hillary is more of the same. You think the parties are more polarized because the GOP has gone so extreme. But the true heart and soul of the Democratic Party, the faction that is still holding on to its principles and ideals is on the left and are NOT moderate Republicans in the center as the Third Way faction is. Third Wayers embrace a lot of what Republicans embrace when it comes to big business and capitalism and eroding the safety nets. That's not good enough.

The Third Way crap is an invention by the EXTREME left to justify hiding behind their quest for ideological purity.

The socialist wing of the left purports to despise capitalism, power structures, and traditional politics. Anyone who doesn't openly and enthusiastically agree with every fucking point is immediately cast aside as a sellout.

Why? They want to fail. They want to be fully justified in hating those who succeed, and the only way to do that yet remain engaged is to insanely support an impossible ideology. That way, they remain on the sidelines vigorously and poisonously criticizing every action by everyone in power (with the exception of completely impotent like Sanders and Warren) knowing that their concept of purity will never be realized, enabling them to scream Truth to Power until hell freezes over.

nah. not so much.

Let me help~

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_%28think_tank%29

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/lanny-davis/324541-lessons-from-clintons-third-way-

Much like Climate Change, Third Way is not an invention by ideologues.

(it really is exasperating talking to conservatives.)

Since you are totally hung up on whether or not "Third Way" was coined yesterday or awhile ago, let me rephrase my reply title:

"It is clear as hell that 'Third Way' is a rhetorical device used by ideologues to make a clear separation"

I really don't care about the etymology of "Third Way" or anything about its history or whether others have shoved Clinton into that convenient cubby hole; my comments were in the context of of the OP and the horrible dsyfunctionality among Dems. Everything else I said stands without edit.

Dream on.

I have strong opinions about GMOs... but not on this thread.

I'm just surprised and expressed as much. She's pro-GMO, you're anti-GMO. Its perplexing.

I am, however, highly annoyed by the dung flinging by the pro-Sanders crowd, who also happen to have strong overlap with the anti-Obama crowd and also embrace those who, because of previous trade agreements, threw Carter under the bus.

All this in the context of the OP...

is perplexing?

I am a Bernie supporter and I think capitalism is great. I don't think the buying of our elections is great though.

Reaganite democrats are a recent phenomenon. You try to portray progressives as usurpers of the democratic party when in fact the opposite is true. The democratic party is not a conservative party. It was stolen from us by conservatives and now we are taking it back.

"They want to be fully justified in hating those who succeed, and the only way to do that yet remain engaged is to insanely support an impossible ideology."

When the "success" of individuals is built on a system in which the foundations are savage oppression, insidious exploitation, and the criminal theft of labor and more...hatred of that system - and the foundations on which it is built - is a justifiable response in every way. Individual success is not an admirable trait or an admirable notion under such human social relations. I'm sure many slave owners spewed the same nonsense about the hatred of slavery and "purity" of the Abolitionists and those who opposed human slavery.

You also ignore history to make such a reactionary post.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

--Karl Marx


You also ignore the obvious truth.

"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society.

This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of political rights. "

--Albert Einstein

Since you are totally hung up on whether or not "Third Way" was coined yesterday or awhile ago, let me rephrase my reply title:

"It is clear as hell that 'Third Way' is a rhetorical device used by ideologues to make a clear separation"

I really don't care about the etymology of "Third Way" or anything about its history or whether others have shoved Clinton into that convenient cubby hole; my comments were in the context of of the OP and the horrible dsyfunctionality among Dems. Everything else I said stands without edit.

Doubleplus good thought control citizen. It must be freeing to not have the capacity for cognitive dissonance.

sure does seem like that. The Oligarchs, the Corporatists, the Third Way and the Authoritarians are all out to get us.

It is very real. As was its predecessor, the DLC.

How do you define "EXTREME left"?

Look at the chart posted above... Do you think Hillary - a DLC/Third Wayer is left enough? Do you think Sanders is "EXTREME left"? Most Americans agree with Sanders on those issues. So are you saying the US is really "EXTREME left"?

But, I've never heard Bernie ranting endless about "Third Way" is attempting to smear his political opponents within the party. His supporters are the only ones doing that, much to Bernie's dismay.

Do you think you know something that Bernie does not?

It's fact.

That you want to pretend it doesn't exist and is brought up as a smear is very telling. In my world people are proud of what they are and don't have to paint it as someone trying to smear them.

... by Sanders supporters against HRC and her supporters, it most certainly is a smear.

Pretend all you like, that FACT is indisputable.

FACT is, Third Way existed and was brought up LONG before Bernie joined the race, YEARS even. Sorry if you haven't kept up.

And I don't care.

Perhaps we'll talk again on another thread about something completely different.

If Democrats are to succeed in leading the country, they better get busy ridding the party of DLC, Third Way,...all the DINOs...

Getting rid of everyone who doesn't agree with us is such a new idea.

interests which have subverted our Democracy and who have, through campaign donations and other less legal avenues, been able to control our politicians and have the laws written to their benefit. They have rendered the regulatory agencies toothless and become above the law. Their greed and lust for power knows no bounds. They have no empathy for the rest of us.

History shows us where this leads, it's just a matter of how bad things have to get before the people have had we enough. We currently have an opportunity to get back our Representative Democracy if enough people have realized the truth of our situation. TPTB have the MSM to spew their propaganda and at least delay the inevitable, but change will come!

It hurts to see how many are still deluded in thinking that electing someone like Hillary, who couldn't be more "Establishment" if she tried, would help protect the 99%! The bottom line is that to restore Democracy and solve our myriad of problems we must eliminate the ability to legally bribe our politicians! Bernie knows first hand how this corruption has turned us into an oligarchical Fascist state.

When Bernie says we need a political revolution he is correct in every sense of the words. A cabal of special interests control OUR GOVERNMENT and we must take that power away from them. They will fight as hard as they can to defeat us. Hillary is part of the propaganda, someone who appears to work for us but does their bidding on the issues important to them. Obama is the same type of ruler, he throws us bones from the table, stuff TPTB don't care about, or what they think they must to keep up the illusion of Democracy. They keep us fighting the symptoms of the root problem, Gay rights, climate change, immigration, guns..., but not the root problem itself, campaign finance. If we ever can work together to institute Publicly Funded Elections we can break their control. Keeping us divided has been the way they have chosen to maintain power and it is working. Fox Bots are not the only victims of the propaganda, just the most obvious.

This Presidential election is different as we finally have a leader to help focus us to attack the root problem, not a group of candidates all willing to take the corporate money and do the bidding of TPTB! I hope We can pull it off because I am tired of living under corporate rule!

Well said Scuba, thank you.

But what we are watching is no different than previous primaries. A one hundred percent vetting of all of our candidates. Building arguments for when these things are thrown at us by republicans. In the end I think it is very positive. We know it will all be coming at us from their side, why not vet it all now.

I actually think Sanders is somewhat being treated with kid gloves in the vetting process. There is a commercial that every one of us knows will run if he wins the primary yet it isn't allowed for discussion here. I think the vetting could go up a notch, not ratchet back.

I am tired of posters referring to the tearing down of other Democratic candidates on this board as "vetting". To assume that those who frequent this board are "vetting" our candidates is absurd on the face of it.

"Vetting" does not not consist of pulling pulling articles, polls and opinion pieces favorable to our favorite candidate and/or unfavorable to the opposition candidates and posting it here. That's not vetting, that regurgitating old information to try to win an argument. Vetting is defined as "investigating someone thoroughly, especially in order to ensure that they are suitable for a job requiring secrecy, loyalty, or trustworthiness." We are not investigating anything.

In addition, only a tiny fraction of a percentage of voters frequent this board. Those who don't at least read this board on a regular basis know nothing about what is posted here or care for that matter. So let's not pretend what we post here is going to affect who gets elected.

And also let's not pretend that we are actually making any progress on convincing even those who do frequent this board to switch sides and vote for our candidates. I find it extremely hard to believe that that even a few people are changing their minds.

Let's face it: The only reason why people are trying to tear down other people's candidates is that they are trying to win an argument. And that's pretty petty in my humble opinion.

Not one hundred percent of it but absolute statemens often don't work.

"In addition, only a tiny fraction of a percentage of voters frequent this board."

You don't say?

" To assume that those who frequent this board are "vetting" our candidates is absurd on the face of it. "

They are being vetted nationally and we are discussing it.

"There is a commercial that every one of us knows will run if he wins the primary yet it isn't allowed for discussion here."

That's an unspoken, arch insinuation, not 'vetting' and not presenting facts, it smears Bernie and this website with whispered bullshit. Every of of us knows? Who is 'us'? I have no idea what you are on about so I'm obviously not one of 'us'. And who exactly does not 'allow' this subject matter? Skinner? He's the only one who could.

Vetting my ass. Gossip, innuendo and stank.

And once again you have made an personal assumption about me when my own words say something different. There are no absolutes. I made that clear. Not sure how you missed it. To come to your flawed conclusion you would have to completely remove that from my reply.

"Vetting my ass. Gossip, innuendo and stank."

Not in the least. Have at it and happy Friday.

I believe that third way, is actually turd way. It's a crappy way of trying to come to terms with the opposition.

until they dish up the vote.
Personally I think any election that gets less than 60% of the voters to participate should be null and void. All voters would then be assessed $50 on their tax bill and another election held. Anyone not voting in the second round loses their right to vote in the next election.

Dismantle completely all Republican voter disenfranchisement mechanisms they have put in place in the last 10-15 years. Getting Democrats to lose their right to vote in elections has been a major goal of Republicans for a long time.

The reason is quite simple: people gravitate to DU because they want to scream in the face of those in power. Front-runners in Democratic campaigns are called traitors to the cause at the very best. President Obama has been experiencing 8 solid years of extreme criticism. And, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have been discarded as non-idealists, DINOs, and sellouts.

So, is this new? Nope. Will it continue? Yes.

compared to who came after him. Bill Clinton screwed the pooch, and apparently everyone else. His policies started this downward spiral. The ONLY reason that we had prosperity under him was because of the Internet. If the Internet hadn't happened he would have been considered a failure. And, this is coming from someone who voted for him twice.

Jimmy Carter was my dream candidate, I voted for him twice. If he had been allowed to stay in power, no telling what this country would look like or be like. But, the Republicans cut a deal with the Iranians so Reagan would get in, and here we are.

The third way Democrats are even more to the right than Eisenhower, and he was a moderate Republican. People look at politicians and think they are all corrupt, and most of them are. You look at them and how many are millionaires, and became millionaires after they got in office. It doesn't matter now, if they are Democrat or Republican, the majority of our representatives are bought.

Z

The pro-Warren crowd gutted him.

if I had seen it.

Z

The real battle is to fight the corrupt industrialists and militarist who OWN the Republican politicians, and those that OWN Democratic politicians.

Owned Democrats and owned Republicans are two sides of the same coin. They're not the same, and when the coin is flipped I will call donkey not elephant, but our party has no alternative agenda to the policies of something like the Nixon-era Republican Party, except at election time, when they are all about the policies we want that they will deliver if we just elect them.

Any Democrats who are not owned are who I am fighting for.

The reason is very simple. The large donors and their lobbyists literally (and I mean literally) are writing our legislation, and delivering it to their sponsored politicians. This is why we're in the situation we're in.

Catastrophic climate change, endless wars, financial deregulation, erosion of social safety nets, largest prison population, construction of unprecedented surveillance and control systems, the Democratic Party's inability in the eyes of much of the electorate to distinguish itself as morally superior to the blatantly corrupt Republican Party, American labor having to compete without protection against third-world labor pools, our inability despite immense national wealth to support our citizens' lives to the extent that many other nations do, healthcare is a corporate mandated profiteering racket rather than a publicly funded human right, and I could go on.

I don't know who made this image, but it pretty much says it all:

Not just vote for labels.

That scrutinizing should be based on a clear idea of what principles we are aspiring to.
Not what sex, age, color, or whatever politically correct notion is in vogue at the moment.
We must know what we want first and then demand it of our candidates.

goes without saying . Your opinion is pure passive agressive bullshit about the current rift in pop politics .The difference in stances between Clinton and Sanders are more important than a web site being civilized .See this was better unsaid .

Those differences have nothing to do with the majority of drivel served up as informed opinion on this site at the current time.

when it comes putting the demands of the working class over that of the ruling class and the owners. Unity with lifetime "individualist" social scabs and lapdogs/apologists for capital and the ruling class is not something any working class person should be interested in regardless of what party brand or label they're wearing. This is not a "game" or "entertainment." Millions of working class people are suffering, dying, and being destroyed and exploited by capitalist social relations.

Defining what side of that line people are promoting and defending and who is doing the talking is important. “Unity" is a nice slogan, but what the struggling and exploited need is the unity of the working class, and not unity with "Democrats" who would defend business as usual and the status quo.

The defining question of struggling working class people and the poor everywhere - at this moment is history - is to what actual result ? To what actual result have capitalist social relations benefited the working class and the human condition AS A WHOLE ? The answer is clear and the verdict is in for those making an objective assessment in material reality. Capitalist social relations have been an unmitigated disaster for hundreds of millions of people in the relativity short history of capitalism.

I totally agree that most Democrats share a common ideology and will stand together when choosing a presidential candidate. I do think DU is an aberration. This place is not reflective of the national Democratic electorate. What goes on here is pretty irrelevant.

I wonder why?

This place saved me psychologically after the bush/SCOTUS coup of 2000. Just can't seem to shake that loyalty thingy. Besides it is often a fun and amusing place. Does that help?

Edit: DU will become a lot more fun and productive after the primary.

The failure of the democratic party is that they have been taken over by corporations who realize they can get everything they want if they buy enough of our candidates.

The problem isn't voters voting against their interests. The problem is voters not voting at all because the party that is supposed to represent them doesn't have anything to offer them.

How do you suppose the small numbers of far right people have so much power?
They vote!

The far right people vote for far right candidates. They don't turn out in numbers for more moderate candidates.

by backing Hillary over Bernie.

Is not reason to get angry, like I just deserve it. This is very sad to see how people think harassing black folks will not turn them off of their candidate. How well is he polling with blacks? Umm hmm. I know why. Because I show them the threads and they look and these people and they RUN back to Hillary. RUN. Other folks do the same as they have been harassed as well. It does not look good when supporters start harassing black folks and mailing the, hate mail and then attacking them for being angry. Tell the person who sent my pm to you, lol.

Peace to you, my friend.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Nov 20, 2015, 12:20 PM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I don't care about posting PMs, but calling a poster a liar has always been against DU community standards.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I am voting to hide it because of the private message being made public. I don't know about the rest of it and don't want to know.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

But they can't figure out why Sanders is cratering, so their solution is to be even nastier.

It gets way worse. All day.

Last edited Fri Nov 20, 2015, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)

….the democratic party but I don't think it's because democrats attack each other as the primary reason. It's because the major democrats, the DNC and leadership have failed to articulate a clear not-republican message for the country as a whole. They have instead, beginning with Bill Clinton, moved right, become more pro-corporate and tried to sound republican-ish, but with a few more liberal social policies.

What you see on DU is the split between these new 3rd way democrats and the more clearly progressive FDR/Kennedy/Wellstone/Warren centered democrats. It's hard for some of us to fight for, campaign for, and fund democrats that don't seem like the center left progressives the democrats have always been.

Wish I had time to say this better but it's the big guns in our party who have ceased articulating a clear ideological distinction.

some people. Maybe it just comes down to pretending not to understand, for unsavory reasons.

This isn't 1964 anymore, where the establishment can shove a candidate down our throats, and voters will suck it up get in line for the 'good of their party'. Times have changed...that generation is dying off. TY, internet.

The "Get in line or be intimidated" stuff...it'll work this primary cycle as the Clintons are the BEST at this old school style. But they are a dying breed--the Boomer's last gasp. That target market will only grow smaller and more insular as the years progress. The party has to adapt and have a less arrogant, condescending image if they want to pull more independent voters.

Obama's election changed everything...democratic establishment now has to come to the people, not the other way around. Which is how things should be.

I do not agree with knee capping any candidate with BS allegations so we're in agreement there.

But this is a primary: largely Clinton vs Sanders so the merits of each candidate are going to get discussed for forums like this - a mix of good aspects and bad.

I don't think muzzling fair and reasonable freedom of expression about the candidates is what democracy is all about.

Hopefully, we remain civil and fair so that after the primary, we can come together to take on the GOP getting behind the winner of the primary.