In the end she needs Sanders' supporters. Her job as a leader, is to reach out to Sanders and his supporters and get them behind her. I still think she and the DNC need to give him the primary Prime Time spot during the convention, and they need to give other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus a large percentage of the time during the convention. That move, along with a good progressive VP candidate (I think Dennis Kucinich for reasons I've detailed before) would go a long way to helping secure the nomination. And as pointed out by @newtboy, her supporters in '08 were Democrats, so it isn't nearly the same story as what Sanders is doing now. The Democrats will continue to vote for her, it is the independents that you need to turn out and vote against Trump. Trump is doing better than expected at getting the Republicans behind him, and their hatred of Clinton can't be understated. Not to mention of course fears of indictment and other issues ahead of Clinton, such as the likely hood the Republicans would try to impeach her first thing... even if they don't impeach her, they'll stonewall congress like they have against Obama anyhow. They need to get the independents out to vote against the Republicans and have a Senate change as well, and I don't see them really working to that end yet, which mystifies me to no end.

As much as I am a Sander's supporter. I can't support the idea of him running as an independent. That would split the Democratic vote too much, and the idea of a Trump Presidency is far too dangerous. I think the fact that the polls show again and again that Sanders would do much better against Trump should show the DNC that Hillary needs Sanders and his supporters far more than Sanders needs her and her supporters.

If I were Hillary I'd offer Sanders the VP spot. Even if he doesn't accept, he gets the prime time keynote spot. Then you also promise the Congressional Progressive Caucus get's at least 60% of the rest of the prime time spots, with moderates getting 40% of the prime time spot. Off prime time the CPC still gets 40% (no less than 33%). Between Sanders and the CPC having the bulk of the prime time spots, it helps move the progressive message forward.

She then needs to have a known progressive on her ticket. If she can't secure Sanders, she'd probably consider Warren, but unfortunately, two women might make too many independent voters nervous. So I'd push for Dennis Kucinich. The advantage with Kucinich is that he's a known progressive, and he'd help give Clinton Ohio. If you can't get him, then find a rising member of the CPC. Again, the idea is to push the progressive agenda. Warren and Sanders have to have spots in the cabinet though if they want in.

There's enough hate of Trump in the Republican ranks that I think this year is the year to push for 3rd parties, especially the Libertarian party since that is the one most likely to pull votes from Republicans looking for an alternative to Trump... it won't pull the religious right who'll stick with Trump, but the more sane minded Republicans will probably consider it over absentee voting. The anti-Trump Republicans need to push the idea of the Libertarian party, and then push for Republicans for the Senate and House to avoid loosing the Senate, which is possible...

The Democrats meanwhile need to do something to get people out and vote. Democratic turnout keeps going down, beyond what one would expect purely from the Voter ID laws Republicans put in to lower Democratic votes. They need to rally the base into actually getting out and voting. To secure not only the Presidency from Trump, but to overtake the Senate and start making a push for the House. Of course one of the main way they do this is start appealing to Sanders supporters, and the party seems so intent on dissing his supporters.

The DNC is way too dismissive of the actions in Nevada. The Nevada people went out of their way to make sure Sanders didn't win, they knew people were still trying to get in when they made rule changes... people they were holding back on purpose so they could push those changes through, then when those people got in, they of course were upset. The DNC, a party that publicly tries to support those who have been disenfranchised from voting, is going out of their way to disenfranchise a large percentage of its base... all just because it's Clinton's turn or something. Fine, let it be her turn, but don't shut out the movement. She needs to step to the left, and add a large number of progressive voices to her team. She and the DNC needs to reach out to Sanders supporters and other progressives and unite the party... Trump seems to be pulling in the moderates to his side. As split as the Republicans were at the start, they are starting to pull together far better than the Democrats are... and it isn't up to Sanders to drop out and push his support to her, she needs to be the one to offer an olive branch and start wooing him and his supporters. Right now they seem to think it's Sander's job... no, it's the leader's job... It isn't the Republican moderates reaching out to Trump, it is Trump meeting with them and wooing them. Some to less success than others, true enough, but he's doing far better at starting an appeal to the moderates than Clinton is to Sanders, his supporters and the progressives.

And so are Republicans and Democrats. The problem is dumbass voters who vote for pawns of lobbyists that actively work to undermine our country. And the only way to break that cycle is to elect the one motherfucker who flips them the bird. Ron did that. Dennis Kucinich did that. Bernie Sanders does that. It doesn't matter what side of the isle we vote--it matters that we vote out the special interests.

I agree she'd probably be better than Hilary, and probably more electable too as the right (especially the Tea Party) hate's Hilary and Bill so much they'd pull out all the stops to make sure Hilary lost. They'd probably come out in force against Warren as well, but the loss wouldn't be as big. I'd say the progressive's best hope lies with Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich (oh to dream) or some other high end member of the CPC. Bernie has explored the option, but unless he's willing to run on the Democrat ticket, I'd think it'd end up hurting the progressive cause due to the first past the post voting system we're stuck using here. Ralph Nader would be another good option, but again, he'd have to run the Democrat ticket, which is unlikely. I could see Sanders coming to the Democrat ticket if they'd put him on the main post, with Warren as VP perhaps...

Your video, Dennis Kucinich on Iraq Lies, Govt Accountability & GMOs, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

upvote for Dennis Kucinich!

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

It's an infringement on religious liberties as protected by the 1st amendment and it won't hold up in court. If you want to learn more, watch this video and follow the conversation in the thread:

http://videosift.com/video/Congressman-Gowdy-Grills-Secretary-Sebelius-on-HHS-Mandate

All of this is far left.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing.

Obama supports the FOCA, which is far left.

Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true.

They receive 1/3 of their income from abortions (around 300k every year and counting), and although they list all of their other services separately, making it seem like abortion is an insignificant percentage, many of those services are directly tied to the abortions themselves, so the percentage is much higher.

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

He has set a goal to repeal the DOMA:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/obamas-ready-repeal-doma-least-theory/52337/

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

I think I've shown otherwise..

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

The executive office is the most powerful it has ever been in this nations history. There is no telling what he could do to push his (unknown) agenda forward.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

When constructing an national entitlement program, you aren't going to be able to get away with going hard left. Further, we still have no idea how bad Obamacare really is, or the secret deals that transpired behind the scenes to set it up.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

Like I said, I don't think Obama is a traditional democrat. I don't believe we have seen the real Barack Obama as of yet.

>> ^heropsycho:

His recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage?!

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing. Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true. A truly radical stance to the left on abortions is pushing for a federal law to provide anyone who wants an abortion to get them for free, and at any time during the pregnancy. Something closer to that line than "I want to continue to provide funding for an organization that spends 99% of its budget on other things than abortion. BTW, this is an organization that was also funded by the Republican presidential administration AND a GOP dominated Congress. In fact, it's received funding since 1970."

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Not some , most . Obama governs mostly to the center-left, except for his recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage. He lets his minions do his dirty work for him.
I agree, this happens all the time. It is the lens through which everyone seems to understand politics. I just don't think anyone really knows what makes Obama tick, and certainly not what he plans to do in his second term, when he is no long accountable. He is not a traditional democrat, certainly.

thanks back at ya =)

i'm a china analyst serving overseas for the state dept

and you?

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

>> ^Diogenes:

@criticalthud
let's be really clear... i agree with your position on corporate personhood
but... we can use "citizens united" to abbreviate the scotus decision: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission... and how that decision has overturned several previous legal precedents and aspects of bcra -- and we can also use "citizens united" to refer directly to the non-profit group of the same name...
i'm just pointing out the latter (the npo) filed suit against the fec because they felt that a media corporation (moore, et al) was violating bcra - the fec dismissed their complaint -- then the group made a similar 'documentary' about hillary clinton and promoted it with the same style and timing of moore's anti-bush film - a lower court barred it, stating that it violated the bcra -- this background led us to the troubling scotus decision
what i was pointing out was that bcra, etc, was already allowing corporate political advocacy through the media, i.e. movie producers, book publishers, newspaper conglomerates, and television networks, etc
this, imho, is what really muddies the waters


thanks i really appreciate the clarification. muddy waters for sure. You raise some good points. Especially in distinguishing an over-reach of political influence from entertainment and documentary media. But are we getting to the point where campaign finance legislation will necessarily intrude on free press and the works of film-makers? what is your take? I would prefer to think that legislation could and should be narrowly tailored in this instance.
and (edit)
@bmacs24 I think it makes sense to start with the fundamental underlying legal ambiguity by which the power grab occurs. The war on "terror" is another ambiguous area of laws that also leads to incredible abuse.
Otherwise you find yourself caught in the minutiae, trying to re-arrange the top bricks on the shit-stack

by accident, @marinara?

How do you accidentally open fire on protestors?


This is an excellent article on the events:
New Kent State Video Evidence Points Towards FBI Provocateuring


The word “Guard!” can be heard around 11 seconds. “All right, prepare to fire” begins at around 20.5 seconds. “Get down!” is spoken at 23 seconds. The final “Guard!” is at about 25 seconds, and the gunshots begin at 27.5 seconds.


The order to fire directly contradicts claims from guard commanders who testified that there was no order to fire and that troops unloaded their weapons only after receiving incoming sniper fire.

The tape was given to Yale in 1979 for its Kent State archives by an attorney who represented students in a lawsuit filed against the state over the shooting. It was originally recorded by a student named Terry Strubbe who put a microphone at the window of his dorm, which overlooked the rally.

Subsequent analysis of the tape also uncovered an altercation and four pistol shots a little over one minute prior to the Guard gunfire. It is believed that the shots came from Terry Norman, who was at the time believed to have been an FBI informant.

Despite attempts by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich to pave the way for a new federal investigation, the evidence has remained largely ignored.

I think this video needs coupled with his The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained.

I don't know if we can ever get a constitutional amendment passed to get rid of the electoral college, which is why I've long advocated just getting rid of the winner take all in every state. Whoever wins the congressional district, gets that district's electoral vote, with the two extras going to the winner of the popular vote of the state as a whole.

If we combined that with the Singe Transferable Vote type system explained in the Problems with First Past the Post video, we would have a system that better represents the people.

We still have an issue then with the large states being under represented and small states and DC being over represented, and he doesn't go into detail on why that is in these videos. We have had 435 Representatives since 1911 (save for a couple years where we had 437). The 1910 US Census said we had 76,212,168 people, so with 435 Representatives that gives us 175,200 people for each Representative, so we'll round that up to 200,000. The 2010 Census pegged us at 308,745,538, so each Representative now represents a bit over 709,750 people. If we kept with the 200,000 figure we would have 1543 Representatives now, and with modern technology there is no reason they would all need to be in the Congressional building for votes, just in their office in their home district. Heck even if we raised it to 250,000 people, a full quarter of a million, we 1234 or 1235 Representatives, which still insures people are better represented in Congress and at the electoral college if that is still in place once we fix First Past the Post and up the number or Representatives. Congress itself set the limit to 435, so it wouldn't take an amendment to fix it, unless we wanted to insure that it was fixed forever. I don't think we would need an amendment to move to the Single Transferable Vote either, just a law stating all Federal offices must use that method.

Of course to afford that many Representative they, and the Senate, probably need a pay and budget cut. So good luck on that, which may be reason enough it would never pass... that and the lobbyist trying to stop it since such a move would make their job harder and far more expensive.

We do need an amendment limiting the term of the Supreme Court, especially since they are appointed and not elected, and a term limit would be needed even if they were elected. An amendment that specifically exempts anyone who is in now and perhaps appointed within a few years of passing should be passable I would think (if they could agree on what the limit should be), then again, they haven't made a real effort to limit the Supreme Court term yet.

The primary system needs fixed as well, but I think that would be harder to fix. Even with a Single Transferable Vote in place, if it isn't party locked, you have people from the other party purposely voting for the person who would most likely lose against their candidate. Even party locked, you still have people saying they are one, voting for the person you best guess will lose, and then voting for your real candidate during the actual election (which should never be party locked). However, a single Transferable Vote does make "fringe" candidates that don't get the mainstream press coverage, like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and the like, to raise higher, which is probably why the parties themselves would fight any real primary system reform.

I like Ron Paul... I probably would not vote for him, instead I would just not vote at all and give into bitterness. But, if Dennis Kucinich gets involved as Pauls running mate I will be absolutely sold on the idea of voting for them.

I seriously have me some man love for Kucinich. He is an angel from a different dimension where Spock mated with elves and they formed a utopian society by bonding over Working Class Hero, fighting off the evil mages and making love to fine women.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
I wish there was a medical system in the US that took care of all of us. I really do. And I'd much rather my tax dollars go to that
We can make your dream of universal taxpayer-funded health care come true! I'll be counting on your support when the GOP tries to repeal Obamacare.
It'll be you, me, and Dennis Kucinich out there yelling for single payer, and getting shouted down by Ron Paul and all the rest of the libertarian and conservative movements who want to make sure we let people die if they can't pay for the treatment they need.

How are those cherries tasting you've been picking?

Wait, you didn't really mean it? My heart is broken.
Does this mean you'd let him die if he couldn't pay?
I'm just asking if failure to pay for a service means you shouldn't get that service, no matter how dire your need for it is. If we were talking about someone buying cherries, you wouldn't be dodging the question, you'd be pretty steadfast in saying "you don't pay, you don't get cherries", because that's what the law of property demands.
Well, substitute "life-saving medical treatment" for cherries. Do the laws change, or do they stay the same?
PS: How do you like them apples cherries!


I don't think we should have compulsory healthcare. I think in a post-industrialized free nation we should have something better. But that would require the government getting out of healthcare altogether and letting the free market care for people. I understand that scares most of you.

But he's right that churches and hospitals used to care for people. Then sometime in the '60s (pardon me for being too tired right now to research it and find links) government got involved and it all went to shit. They got involved and started telling people how healthcare should be run. How doctors and physicians could care for people. And who could and couldn't give treatment. Also it's government's fault we tend to get health insurance through our work, which drives up costs. Again, I apologize for not getting you links, but maybe some other time. Tired and it's dinner time.

Now we have big corporate health insurance companies that are more of the problem. They get away with murder. Pun intended. I'd like to see the entire thing reformed, but not your one-size-fits-all-steal-peoples-money-to-fund-it way.