Bernie hurt himself in the debate.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The reason Sanders distanced himself from Obama were different from the reasons congressional Democrats distanced themselves from Obama. You must understand this, if you understand American politics at all. Otherwise you shouldn't be on this board.

Maybe you can explain why someone who runs in a Democratic primary distances himself from the most popular Democrat in the country.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Lol ok "Clinton 2016".

Uh, by your logic your post is equally as irrelevant based on your giant Sanders signature

I think the issue has been "spun" by Clinton. As Sanders pointed out Clinton ran against Obama in 2008.

I thought about this, but while it makes for a nice sound bite, it's not a good comeback logic-wise. Most people didn't support Obama at first, including African Americans. They did after they got to know him and saw his presidency in action. Likewise, Clinton didn't know him or what his presidency would be like until after. And surely she knows as she went to work with her primary rival.

So the difference here is Sanders is, you could say, "running against Obama" after 8 years of him in office. It's completely different.

However, I do have to say I still think a primary candidate should be able to offer some criticism of their party's sitting president if it is warranted.

It's completely illogical because Joe Biden also ran against Obama in 2008. Does this mean that he is disloyal too?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Lol ok "Clinton 2016".

Uh, by your logic your post is equally as irrelevant based on your giant Sanders signature

I think the issue has been "spun" by Clinton. As Sanders pointed out Clinton ran against Obama in 2008.

I thought about this, but while it makes for a nice sound bite, it's not a good comeback logic-wise. A great deal of Democrats didn't support Obama at first, including African Americans. They did after they got to know him and more so after seeing his presidency in action. Likewise, Clinton didn't know him or what his presidency would be like until after. And surely she knows as she went to work with her primary rival.

So the difference here is Sanders is, you could say, "running against Obama" after 8 years of him in office. It's completely different.

However, I do have to say I still think a primary candidate should be able to offer some criticism of their party's sitting president if it is warranted.

I think that was an irrelevant point since Clinton was in that race before Obama. It's not like she set out to oppose him.

Yes, but by March, she had gone full-on raging banshee mode. Even if she didn't set out to oppose Obama, she mercilessly attacked him.

LOL, Sanders advocated a primary challenge against Obama in 2012. He is no position to question anybody else's loyalty to him.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Lol ok "Clinton 2016".

Uh, by your logic your post is equally as irrelevant based on your giant Sanders signature

I think the issue has been "spun" by Clinton. As Sanders pointed out Clinton ran against Obama in 2008.

I thought about this, but while it makes for a nice sound bite, it's not a good comeback logic-wise. A great deal of Democrats didn't support Obama at first, including African Americans. They did after they got to know him and more so after seeing his presidency in action. Likewise, Clinton didn't know him or what his presidency would be like until after. And surely she knows as she went to work with her primary rival.

So the difference here is Sanders is, you could say, "running against Obama" after 8 years of him in office. It's completely different.

However, I do have to say I still think a primary candidate should be able to offer some criticism of their party's sitting president if it is warranted.

I think that was an irrelevant point since Clinton was in that race before Obama. It's not like she set out to oppose him.

Yes, but by March, she had gone full-on raging banshee mode. Even if she didn't set out to oppose Obama, she mercilessly attacked him.

LOL, Sanders advocated a primary challenge against Obama in 2012. He is no position to question anybody else's loyalty to him.

He advocated it once, he thought it would make the president stronger, and he never actually went through with it. What point are you trying to make here?

Yeah, like Kennedy's challenge made Carter stronger in 1980 or Buchanan's made GHW Bush stronger in 1992.
Learn your history kid.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Really, I think the problem is that Hillary is still an instinctively hawkish person.  It's not her genius, but her instincts, that are the problem.

Yes.  She is instinctively hawkish and for her to pretend she is some great friend of Obama after dog whistling through the entire 2008 primary is beyond absurd.  It really is a disgrace to the Democratic party that we would be considering a standard bearer who thinks it "sends a message" to deport children, that we will "never ever" have single payer because it's too hard (?), that it's okay to lie and bet against the American people by assuming they will never vote for a black candidate.  There's a reason Republicans are okay with Hillary Clinton.  They have plenty in common.

Well said.

Hillary Clinton:  The real conservative choice for president.

Jesus effing Christ! That's exactly what America needs. A Democratic Tea Party on a DINO hunt.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Really, I think the problem is that Hillary is still an instinctively hawkish person.  It's not her genius, but her instincts, that are the problem.

Yes.  She is instinctively hawkish and for her to pretend she is some great friend of Obama after dog whistling through the entire 2008 primary is beyond absurd.  It really is a disgrace to the Democratic party that we would be considering a standard bearer who thinks it "sends a message" to deport children, that we will "never ever" have single payer because it's too hard (?), that it's okay to lie and bet against the American people by assuming they will never vote for a black candidate.  There's a reason Republicans are okay with Hillary Clinton.  They have plenty in common.

Well said.

Hillary Clinton:  The real conservative choice for president.

Jesus effing Christ! That's exactly what America needs. A Democratic Tea Party on a DINO hunt.

christ, you are a greek who is in favor of austerity measures who supports an american president who's forwarded an economic agenda that demonstrates the stupidity of "contractionary fiscal expansion" and that embodies the virtues of counter-cyclical fiscal policies. count me as someone on a "DINO hunt" if being on a "DINO hunt" means opposing candidates that a right-wing Greek weirdo, who is okay with the undemocratic rule of EU bureaucrats, supports.

Ummm, what?
Obama, along with Geithner first and then Lew, has consistently pressured Merkel and the other European policymakers to abandon austerity and loosen up fiscal policy, to the point that Schauble has openly expressed his annoyance with the American interference in EU's internal affairs.

Also, what the fyck has that to do with the rabid opposition of the Berniebots to Hillary?
Has she advocated austerity in any way and I missed it?

[Landslide Lyndon]

english: do you speak it.

my point is that:
1. the obama administration has forwarded an economic agenda that is very "keynesian" and in touch with prudential macroeconomic practices. everything that you are stating about lew and geithner forms the basis of my post.
2. if i am remembering this correctly, you supported the memorandum and ditched pasok for some center-right liberal party because pasok was insufficiently reasonable.

this really isn't a complex point. i am questioning your bonafides and your general ability to accuse people of being purity trolls or left-wing tea party types seeing as you have a history of being opposed to the left in your own country. the democratic party is, in fact, a big-tent party of the left and my wonderful president's economic policies are a testament to this fact.

anyways, i do not think that berniebros on this forum are passionately opposed to clinton for the most part. i think they are simply aligned with his ideology and support him as such. it's not our fault that clinton has ran a condescending campaign over the past few weeks that implies that sanders supporters are either misogynists or gender-traitors or that a single-payer healthcare system, an idea which hillary clinton was once well-disposed to, would "damage" americans etc. furthermore, few people on this forum believe that hillary clinton should exit the party or that her "establishment" allies are DINOs. the last time i checked, it is the rabid clintonites who imply that they'd sooner vote for a billionaire than sanders.  this, in my view, is ideological purity trolling or dogmatism.

Dude, you're seriously messed up. Really.

Can you find any posts where I support austerity in Europe?
I always said that Obama followed the right policies and we should do the same if we want to get out of this crisis.

As for the Berniebots, just today I saw posts here that call Hillary "evil". That just pisses me off and makes it impossible to take them seriously. If they change their attitudes then we'll see what happens. Otherwise don't ask me why I'm critical of people who think that Krugman and Ezra Klein are corporate sell-outs.