Press "Enter" to skip to content

Sanders Man Williams Endorses Clinton; “Working Together” with Democrats Only Route to Progress

"Good work, Bernie. Now let's get behind Hillary!" Jay Williams and Bernie Sanders, from Williams campaign FB, Rapid City, SD, 2016.05.12.
“Good work, Bernie. Now let’s get behind Hillary!” Jay Williams and Senator Bernie Sanders, from Williams campaign FB, Rapid City, SD, 2016.05.12.

Jay Williams, South Dakota’s Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, introduced Senator Bernie Sanders at the Presidential candidate’s rally in Rapid City last month. He chaired the Sanders side of the Democratic delegate caucus in Pierre in March. He was a Sanders guy.

Now, as Senator Sanders negotiates his exit startegy with President Obama and Majority Leader Reid, Williams says he is a Clinton guy. In a press release issued this morning, Williams calls Clinton “one of the most qualified candidates to ever run for President of the United States.” The Democrat from Yankton calls on South Dakotans to reject the “hate, bigotry, and division” of Republican nominee Donald Trump and rally for the “wisdom, compassion, and unity” represented by the Clinton campaign and record of public service.

The people of South Dakota have a duty to reject Donald Trump, whose very candidacy is an affront to decent people everywhere and who poses a clear danger to the future of the United States if he were to be elected. The same right wing hate mongers who made Trump the Republican standard bearer have unfairly maligned Hillary Clinton. Secretary Clinton is principled, hard working and has earned her place in history as the first woman Presidential candidate. I urge the people of South Dakota to reject Donald Trump who represents what is wrong with America and vote for Hillary Clinton, who is a great American and who will be an extraordinary President [Jay Williams, campaign press release, 2016.06.09].

South Dakota’s Democratic superdelegates (“unpledged delegates“, Sharon reminds me) have been subjected to that unfair maligning. Unpledged delegate and South Dakota Democratic Party vice-chair Joe Lowe has been a Clinton guy along. He tells me that, now that the primary is over and the voters of South Dakota have spoken, he is happy to go to Philadelphia and vote for the nominee who won more votes in his home state and nationwide. He says the vicious e-mails he has received from Sanders supporters have only made him more confident in his support for Clinton. Via e-mail, Sanders supporters have accused Lowe and other Clinton supporters of catering to the Oligarchy and co-enabling Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual assaults. When Lowe replied to one of these messages, the Sanders supporter thumbed back the following:

seems like YOU are part of the problem Bernie did win Indiana don’t know if you knew that Your day will come how much did they pay you [Sanders supporter, e-mail to Joe Lowe, 2016.06.06]

This Sanders supporter abandons issues, facts, and punctuation. Instead, this supporter concocts a supposition that someone is paying Lowe for his vote (not happening) and levels a threat. “Your day will come”—help me understand how that statement works in any positive, progressive, party-building conversation.

Superdelegate Joe Lowe is part of a process that Senator Bernie Sanders himself endorsed. Sanders could have run a fully Independent campaign. He could have thrown in with the Greens and organized petitioners and party offices to secure Green access to the ballot in every state. Instead, he decided that the best way to promote his agenda was to work within the Democratic Party, seek their nomination, and influence the party to adopt more of his principles. Sanders came closer to that nomination than anyone thought possible. He has pulled Clinton and the DNC toward his agenda, as shown by Clinton’s shifts on Keystone XL, the minimum wage, Medicare, and other important issues. Heat on DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz over her running interference for payday lenders has inclined her to switch direction and support payday-lending regulations proposed by the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. (Now, about Bernie’s post-office loans….)

To reject the results of the Democratic nominating process is to reject the choice Senator Sanders made. He lost the nomination but won important policy concessions. If the movement is about ideas and not a man, that’s not a bad outcome.

Senator Sanders has more power now than he will at any future point this election year. Even as supporters like Jay Williams announce their willingness to support Hillary Clinton, Sanders can do the presumptive nominee an enormous favor by defusing the rage Joe Lowe and other superdelegates are hearing from his supporters. The sooner he turns that rage into a non-story or, better yet, positive activism on behalf of a unified ticket, the better the chances of defeating Donald Trump, and the more grateful and receptive the Democratic Party will be to Senator Sanders and his critique of their corporatism. The longer the Sanders campaign keeps up the knife fight, the thicker Clinton’s and Reid’s and Lowe’s hides will grow, and the less welcome Sanders will be in the Democratic Party’s decision-making process

That brief and soon-to-fade power cannot plug in to any other institution as effectively as it can in the Democratic Party. Protest-voting with Trump? Ha! The only place Trump and GOP have for Sanders voters is the seats labeled “Useful Idiots.” “Working together” (those are Sanders’s words out of the White House today) with the DNC, Team Clinton, and Sanders-loving Democratic candidates down the ticket like Jay Williams and me is the route to political relevancy for Sanders supporters.


  1. DR 2016-06-09 13:07

    Are we going to continue to “Feel the Bern” as an Indy?

  2. 12 2016-06-09 13:59

    DR, Abso-damn-lutely.

  3. Roger Cornelius 2016-06-09 14:32

    As expected, President Obama endorsed Hillary today Gratefully Jay has followed suit. There will be more endorsements for Hillary coming in the next days and weeks.

    Oddly and rightfully so, republicans are either refusing to endorsement Trump and in some cases (Sen. Kirk) withdrawing their endorsements.

    Bernie needs to complete the campaign with D.C. next week, I understand that. Bernie needs to find his own way to exit, hopefully graciously.

    I do wonder what the result would be if Bernie was able to say, “I’m a registered Democrat and not an Independent”. Would that have made a difference in his candidacy?

  4. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-06-09 14:51

    DR, 12, a Sanders Independent candidacy seems unlikely. The only way he runs Indy is if someone shows him math that shows a way to win states worth 270 Electoral College votes. That state-by-state analysis is beyond my time constraints, but I will offer the following hypotheses about a three-way race:

    1. It is more likely that Trump, Clinton, and Sanders split Independent voters roughly evenly than that any one of them would win a majority of Independent voters. (Corollary: Sanders cannot win on the strength of Indy appeal alone.)
    2. More Republican defectors will vote for moderate Clinton than for socialist Sanders.
    3. Clinton will hold more of her party than Trump holds of his.

    Sanders must weigh that tricky math against this hypothesis:

    If Sanders tells his people, “Vote for Hillary,” Clinton’s chances of winning in November increase to 95%.

    Option #1, the Indy/third-party run, requires Sanders to make enormous effort (petitioning, getting on ballot, continuing campaign) for an uncertain and unprecedented outcome.

    Option #2, what Roger recommends, requires Sanders to say three words that almost guarantee the next President is a woman eternally grateful to Sanders votes.

    Where does the betting candidate put his money?

  5. Roger Cornelius 2016-06-09 15:21

    I’ve read a few accounts that some of the GOP establishment are working to force Trump out at the convention. The delegate rules can be changed if there is enough support.
    So, here is fun option to consider, the GOP can draft Bernie an Independent, to run against Clinton the Democrat.

  6. mike from iowa 2016-06-09 15:43

    Williams will prolly be vilified as HRC’s partner in murdering four people in Benghazi. Never underestimate the depths a wingnut mind will ascend to.

  7. mike from iowa 2016-06-09 16:03

    For the record-my state senator, David Johnson of Ocheyedan, iowa suspended his allegiance to the wingnut party because of the lack of his fellow wingnuts condemning Drumpf#$k’s racism. He is going the no party route instead of aligning with the good guy Dems.

  8. Leo 2016-06-09 16:07

    My position remains thus: Be patient. Not every DEM needs to jump on the Hillary Clinton bandwagon without some assurance from the FBI and the DOJ that she will/will not be indicted regarding the private email server – the only investigation that I am aware of. This is a seemingly huge cloud over her head which is real, not made up by right-wing lunatics, and that bothers me. When that is all cleared up for the public, then I think we can safely put the superdelegate argument of Bernie Sanders to rest once and for all because Hillary Clinton has achieved the larger vote total in the system that we have, and she should be the Democratic Party nominee.

    I call on the FBI/DOJ to do their job and make their investigation conclusions ASAP! How can they have let this important investigation drag on? It is inappropriate.

    In my opinion, Trump is totally unfit for office for countless reasons, and I have always maintained that the real race was between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. We love Bernie Sanders, so let us all do right by him and his positive message and progressive policy positions and continue the struggle to make these positions so – with him or without him.

    What most people do not realize is that this is not about Bernie Sanders, it is about us! He has always said so! For that strength of character and integrity, we should all be thankful that it still exists in American politics!

  9. mike from iowa 2016-06-09 16:50

    E Warren to endorse Clinton tonight.

  10. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-06-09 16:53

    Enough with the indictment fantasies. The FBI wouldn’t indict piddly Mike Rounds during the 2014 election. They have less evidence on which to indict Hillary Clinton. Not happening, and not a good reason to extend the campaign.

  11. Darin Larson 2016-06-09 17:41

    Trump’s past is going to catch up with his present. Trump has a track record of what can only be termed fraud in my book. He used his lawyers and deep pockets to force workers and contractors to settle for less money than agreed upon for jobs that he and his companies had hired them to do. He has made a living out of screwing common folks and small companies, driving some small family companies out of business.

    Couple this exploitation and fraud with his penchant for declaring bankruptcy to avoid his creditors and he is the poster boy for the rich that exploit the law and legally bribe their way out of any problems. The middle class and poor on the other hand have to live with the consequences of their actions.

    USA TODAY exclusive: Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn’t pay his bills

  12. leslie 2016-06-09 17:46

    I agree darin. after trump pulls every con in the book in this election and the smoke clears, he’ll be slaughtered

  13. Leo 2016-06-09 17:51

    Cory, I disagree, respectfully. I do not wish for an indictment; however, the possibility is out there as a potential and voters are concerned about it. If it is not a potential, then our government needs to inform us of that. Would you agree with that request from our government? Or do you just want to shake the dice?

    PS: I understand your frustration with the zero number of federal indictments regarding the EB-5 scandal. How did the Democratic Establishment help us with that?

  14. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-06-09 17:58

    Considering Darin’s point about Trump’s past: would it be correct to say that Clinton has faced far greater and long-lasting attacks from the right than Trump has? Would it be correct to say that Trump’s heightened attacks on her won’t be the same proportional change from the status quo as the proportional change in the narrative we’ll get when Team Clinton and the DNC start firing all guns at Trump? The attacks on Clinton have been harder, because the press and the opposition have always taken seriously the possibility that she could win the Presidency. Nobody took Trump seriously as a holder of the nuclear button until the middle of this primary season. Some opponents may still be holding back, thinking, the electorate will come around and vote him down without much of a push. If they haven’t already gotten serious, the donors and the attackers will watch Trump’s acceptance speech in Cleveland in horror then turn to their checkbooks and write huge checks to the progressive PACs of their choice, who will then rain fire on Trump unlike anything we’ve seen.

  15. leslie 2016-06-09 18:02

    Trump hired pollster “John McLaughlin, infamous for working on Eric Cantor’s primary campaign in 2014, when the then-House majority leader lost to upstart Dave Brat. McLaughlin’s internal polling heading into the race showed Cantor leading by 34 points. National Republicans warned other candidates away from using McLaughlin.

    trump was introduced to McLaughlin by Dick Morris, the one-time Clinton consigliere-turned-professional crank…(Morris recently became chief political correspondent for the Trump-aligned tabloid National Enquirer, leading The Hill to finally drop his column) which would fit with its focus on ’90s Clinton scandals.

    New York hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential contender since 1984…. Democrats have a more than 3-million-person lead in voter registration, 5.8 million to 2.7 million. President Obama won more than 63 percent of the vote in 2012, besting his 2008 total. Hillary Clinton leads Trump by around 20 points in polling….

    what Trump is attempting to pull off here isn’t refining or improving best practices for what we know can win a campaign today. It’s throwing it all out the window… by all of the known metrics, it makes no sense.”

  16. leslie 2016-06-09 18:12

    establishment has always meant “white collar conservative”-jimi Hendrix “if 6 was 9”

    the verdict is still out on why UAA Johnson “failed to nail” the big SD political catfish of an insurance broker w/ “Missouri river view”, but that failure may have a reason WE’LL EVENTUALLY HEAR, while EB5 and MCEC failures are pure criminal fraud during 250,000 republicans’ watch. unless the feds investigate and break SDGOP’s conspiracy of silence and political cover-up, you’ll never know, leo. if you haven’t noticed dems in d.c. have been abit busy with national GOP politics of scorched earth obstruction, aiding and abetting Iran’s nuke program, ect.

  17. leslie 2016-06-09 18:46

    I think trump and republicans are trying to set Hillary up. as we know from savage recent experience, republican conspiracies are hard to prove both by traditional law enforcement and the justice system, especially in republican strong holds (like SD)!!

    for example, principal lenders to PAC “Voters for Hillary” are republicans. “CrossClick first sold stock to the public in 2010 under its then-name of Southern Products Inc. It segued from beer-pong tables to other sectors, including consumer electronics, before announcing its deal to provide Voters for Hillary with call center services in late 2014.

    The company had about 170 million shares outstanding in mid-2014, trading at a price as low as a hundredth of a cent. The number of outstanding shares grew as the political season began, increasing to 2.6 billion by the end of April 2015.

    “Soon the 1st lady announces her candidacy and it’s on like Donkey Kong,” read a comment posted March 28, 2015, on a site called InvestorsHub. “Hope you have some shares :)”

    Days after Clinton announced…

    CrossClick’s stock (listed as XCLK on the over-the-counter market) was indeed rising. By May 6 it had shot up about twelve-fold from where it had been hovering. Tens of millions of shares traded hands on some days, meaning anyone who sold at the peak could have made tens of thousands of dollars in profits.

    It appeared to be a big success. But a closer look at the company and the PAC suggests a different story. Operating in lightly regulated areas of Wall Street and politics, the two entities were closely entwined and their finances weren’t what they seemed.

    [Remember easy non-invasive audits for MCEC, stolen records for EB5?]

    Records show the PAC paid the company close to $73,000 in all.” Then the PAC paid the company back about the same amount.

    1. One lender, “Judson Church, a New Jersey investor who gave $250,000 to “provide liquidity during pre announce for Hillary,” according to FEC filings. A public records database shows Church has registered before as a Republican. He could not be reached for comment.

    2. Another loan, for $200,000, came from Mary Coons, who is identified in FEC records as a student and housewife in Hartford.

    [kinda like payday lender schill Lisa Furlong. the republican model of fraud is alive and well in SD partisan/ALEC/Koch fueled government, as we know. sound like joop, rounds, jackley and tidemann, and MCEC, SDDOE and Regents?]

    A public records database also lists Mary as a registered Republican. Her husband is William Coons III, a stockbroker who the SEC once described as playing an integral role in a market manipulation scheme in which a stock was pumped up with false publicity, then sold to the public for inflated prices…. confirmed that William Coons is Mary Coons’ husband….

    In 2009, allegations that William Coons made material misrepresentations to a client led to a $925,000 settlement. More recently, he was temporarily suspended by the self-regulating body for securities brokers over allegations that he sold $2 million in promissory notes after overstating the financial health of their issuer, records show. Neither Coons could be reached for comment.

    3. Another lender was Kyleen Cane, a Nevada attorney who provided $10,700, paying for one of the PAC’s early expenses directly on her credit card. Cane was charged in a federal indictment unsealed in Brooklyn, N.Y., last year relating to allegations that she was involved in a $300 million pump-and-dump scheme that left elderly investors with worthless shares. Federal authorities have alleged that the defendants in the case, which is ongoing, concealed their ownership interests, released false press releases and issued misleading SEC filings.

    CrossClick’s shares have sunk back to being nearly worthless, and one of its executives recently described it as insolvent in court records. Meantime, federal campaign reports indicate that Voters for Hillary has spent no money supporting Clinton….”

    This is what the republican “Establishment” does to win elections, imo.

  18. leslie 2016-06-09 19:37

    jerry, sore loser? I think in November the country can start moving forward, in a way you and I will like.

  19. jerry 2016-06-09 19:46

    From Bernie today.

    After his meeting at the White House with President Obama, Senator Bernie Sanders held a press conference where the contours of party unity began to emerge.

    Aides to Sanders said his top priorities are a $15 minimum wage, college affordability, and stricter regulations on Wall Street.

    He also praised President Obama and Vice President Biden for their impartiality.

    “Let me begin by thanking President Obama and thanking Vice President Biden for the degree of impartiality they established during the course of this entire process. What they said in the beginning is that they would not put their thumb on the scales, and in fact they kept their word. And I appreciate that very, very much.”

    Senator Sanders gestured movement toward uniting with Secretary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump.

    “I look forward to meeting with her in the near future, to see how we can work together to defeat Donald Trump and to create a government that represents all of us and not just the 1 percent,” he declared.

    Sore losers ass, I want what Bernie Sanders’s platform is. What do you want?

  20. leslie 2016-06-09 19:52

    same, same, w/o your vitriol of the last several weeks. sounded like a monster republican by your hate mongering. we are on the same team, you forget.

    super hard core republicans speak with similar hate about Hillary, I am surprised you don’t recognize it in your comments.

  21. Roger Cornelius 2016-06-09 20:11

    Jerry will likely follow republicans and FOX “News”Hillary hate right into the White House and beyond.

    Bernie came very close to acknowledging Hillary’s victory as well nearly endorsing her by saying he wants to work with her.

    At this point it doesn’t have to be about Bernie’s platform, he didn’t win the nomination. The Democratic platform is in the process of being developed by Team Hillary and the Democratic National Committee.

    Give Bernie the time to accept the reality of losing and that he will not get the nomination.

    If he chooses he can make a significant contribution to Democrats and Hillary by turning his supporters into voters.
    There has also been some talk today about Bernie being a tremendous asset in helping the down ticket

    Jerry can whine and continue to throw a fit about the election, but it will all be for naught. Bernie is bigger than that and has demonstrated that by saying we have to beat Trump.

    And, republicans are continuing to fall away from Trump, today republican Maine Senator Susan Collins is considering endorsing Hillary.

  22. leslie 2016-06-09 20:24

    merrick garland without a hearing is costing the country big, and will cost the republicand big in November.

    next, Ed Kane, Professor of Finance at Boston College, is blunt in characterizing some of the behavior in the banking industry in recent years: “Theft is a forced taking of other people’s resources,” he says. ‘That’s what’s going on here.” Kane urges a deep inquiry into our culture to understand why bankers so commonly get away with crimes in the United States.

    In 2007, just before the housing bubble burst, Goldman Sachs chief Lloyd Blankfein wrote to a colleague to discuss how the bank could deal with toxic mortgages — “ cats and dogs“ as he called them — on the books. Blankfein’s bank went on to sell the toxic junk to unwitting investors who were told they were sound, while taking short positions on the very same securities. As the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report noted, one structured finance expert compared Goldman’s practices to “buying fire insurance on someone’s house and then committing arson.”

  23. leslie 2016-06-09 20:34

    It is one of those rare times — like the repudiation of Joe McCarthy, or consideration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Watergate crisis — when the spotlight of history stops on a single decision, and a whole political career is remembered in a single pose. The test here: Can you support, for pragmatic reasons, a presidential candidate who purposely and consistently appeals to racism?

    Is Trump himself a racist? Who the bloody hell cares? There is no difference in public influence between a politician who is a racist and one who appeals to racist sentiments with racist arguments. The harm to the country — measured in division and fear — is the same, whatever the inner workings of Trump’s heart.

  24. Roger Cornelius 2016-06-09 20:43

    Hillary has received the coveted endorsement from Elizabeth Warren!!

  25. jerry 2016-06-09 21:39

    I am honest, I really really do not like Clinton and probably never will. I started feeling that way before 2008. I could give a care if you are surprised or not surprised regarding this as it is the way I feel not the way you think I should feel. If you want the same same, then you should demand it before you pass on support. Why should that be hate mongering? I think I shall call it truth mongering.

  26. jerry 2016-06-09 21:41

    You seem to be pretty knowledgeable about what you speak of Roger, maybe you are just describing your own thoughts, who knew.

  27. jerry 2016-06-09 21:46

    Roger just wants everything to be the same as it has always been, don’t rock the boat. Stay in the bucket with the rest of the frogs as we do not deserve to try and better the situation. Wall Street is not so bad, they seem to know how to bank. The climate is so overrated, who needs clean water when you can get a Starbucks on every corner and even in the C Store. Wages, what the hell? When I was a youngster we did not get wages, we got a rock and were damn happy to get it. Wages, who needs wages? Stay the same Roger, you amuse me.

  28. Roger Cornelius 2016-06-09 22:06

    Have you lost your freaking mind Jerry, now you are sounding like Sibson.

    You don’t have a clue what my political positions are, not one damn clue. But, if you continue to think you know me, please proceed. But you would be wrong, as you have been with most of latest of your postings the past couple of weeks.
    The campaign is over in cased you missed it, Bernie lost.
    I am life long Democrat not an Indendent, born that way you know, and support Democratic causes and goals. I make my political choices first on what is best for the country and second on who I feel is best to accomplish our goals. And most importantly how I can support the right candidates for public office.
    As far as change, I’ve been actively involved in political change all my life.
    Again Jerry, you don’t have a clue about my politics.

  29. jerry 2016-06-09 22:18

    I better let you simmer down Roger, keep calm. Take some deep breaths. Tomorrow is a new day.

  30. Roger Cornelius 2016-06-09 22:51

    Bernie seems to have accepted his fate, perhaps if you sleep on it over night you will to.

  31. Roger Cornelius 2016-06-09 22:54

    Add Senator Lindsey Graham to the list of Dump Trump, he’s threatening to leave the party.
    The way it is going Democrats could control the senate.

  32. happy camper 2016-06-09 22:58

    Don’t understand why people go for Elizabeth Warren. She’s probably decent and a good school teacher but Hillary should go with Martin O’Malley. He’s ready for prime time and if all works out be President after Herr Hillary.

  33. Curt 2016-06-09 23:00

    I’m no referee but I think Roger is the calm and clear-thinking one here. I was for Bernie – still am – but read what Bernie has been writing this week. The movement is big and important, but see the forest.

  34. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-06-09 23:04

    The following is an excerpt from the introduction by Dr Cornell West to the new book, “The Radical King” written about our “hopey, changey” President, even though he had signed on to campaign for him in 2008. For those of you who are still alive after the Third World War, which will come no matter which of the two major party candidates is elected, you may think back and wish you had listened to Jerry. It is about our country, not some freaking political party, folks.

    “Sadly the damage done by the Obama apologists–often for money, access and stature–is immeasurable and nearly unforgivable. For the first time in American history, black citizens are the most pro war in American society. Black churches are the weakest in prison ministry –even given the disproportionately high percentage of black prisoners. Black schools are under attack from profiteering enterprises. Forty percent of black children live in poverty. Aside from a few exceptions, black musicians are more and more marginal in popular culture. Black deaths, especially among young people, are out of control. In other words the Obama apologists who hide and conceal Wall Street crimes, imperial crimes, new Jim Crow crimes, and surveillance lies in order to protect the first black President have much to account for. And a health care bill — a bonanza for big insurance and drug companies along side access to new consumers falls far short of the mark.”

  35. Curt 2016-06-09 23:15

    All true, Lanny. So sell me the prescription … D. F. Trump?

  36. happy camper 2016-06-09 23:34

    Obama is not black like we think about blacks in this country. His mother was white and his father from Kenya. We voted for a sophomore with all that potential before he was ready our fault not his. Hillary will do fine. Stop expecting too much and you’ll be happier. She’s not gonna tuck you in at night.

  37. grudznick 2016-06-10 00:39

    Mr. camper, you are right that Mr. Obama is partly black, but his libbyism is not a far cry from that of Ms. Clinton. Did you know that Bill Clinton once advocated for some of the same stances as our own common friend, Mr. Sibby?

  38. mike from iowa 2016-06-10 06:51

    Did you know that Bill Clinton once advocated for some of the same stances as our own common LOON, Mr. Sibby?

    Fixed it for you, Grudz.

  39. barry freed 2016-06-10 07:22

    Trump’s self enriching, joke candidacy wasn’t thought to be able to last this long. He will drop out for some reason he thinks will make him look like a he’s “winning”; ’twas always planned.

    We will see a mainstream Republican who is on all 50 State’s Ballots take over at the convention when the Dem war machine is totally focused on the easy task of discrediting Trump. There won’t be time to properly tarnish his replacement.

  40. jerry 2016-06-10 07:23

    Here we are in mid 2016 Roger, how is that healthcare going on the reservations? How was it before 2008? What is Clinton’s plan for the IHS? As a “party” insider in South Dakota that went off on how all of the tribal councils endorsed Clinton, why didn’t the regular guy and gal on the reservations do the same? Could it possibly be that they actually live on the reservation and can see that hope and change has left them with little hope and just spare change? Funny that Clinton did not even bother to show up and face what both “parties” have done little about.

  41. jerry 2016-06-10 07:29

    barry freed, that seems to be the plan. Keep in mind that as of day before yesterday, Clinton and Trump were basically tied. A tee vee reality bullshitter, in a tie with a “party” leader. The Evangelicals are still in the hunt as Trump has promised a revisit to all of the gay rights issues that have been passed. Garland still sits on the sidelines as there seems to not be any kind of hurry to put on a black robe for this guy. Garland now has this as what he listens to

  42. Roger Elgersma 2016-06-10 07:43

    We can all talk about unifying the party and us old dems will probably vote for whichever dem is on the ticket both because we are dems and because Trump is the biggest unifier of dems there has ever been. But us older folks have been forced to accept those who run to the center to get the middle votes to win and finally got a real progressive to vote for when Sanders came along. Sure we are like Sanders that we will agree to defeat Trump. But we see no reason to forget what Sanders is for since we both agree with him and see that he beats Trump better than Clinton did all along in head to head polls against Trump. So if the party forgets what Sanders was for we will lose some of our advantage.
    The youth who had no respect and especially no trust in government were for the first time starting to trust someone in government since Sanders is so honest. Think about it, a Jew who voted against a war with Arabs even though Bush told the congress that he would paint them as not defending out country to ruin their political careers if they did not vote for that war. So getting rid of Sanders is a slap in the face to honesty. This will alienate those young people that started in government for the first time. They simply will not vote in November. Talking party unity to a party they did not trust in the first place will not get them back.
    Then there are those who are for Sanders because he actually realized that NAFTA is bad and that we need to get our jobs back. They are the twenty percent of the Sanders supporters who will go and vote for Trump. That twenty percent is a number I got from the polls.
    So no matter what the leaders do, some will unify and some will not. Clinton and her supporters unified with Obama in the last close race but Clinton got a deal to be secretary of state to get some valuable experience and the promise of support in the next round. If they think Sanders and his supporters will unify as good as Hillary did they will have to get as good of a deal. But he is to old to have much chance of running again.

  43. Rorschach 2016-06-10 08:20

    Democrats will come together to oppose the Trump/Thune ticket. In 2020, the Ryan/Thune ticket will be formidable against President Clinton.

  44. jerry 2016-06-10 08:21

    Roger Elgersma is right on. If I may, I would like to add. If Bernie’s platform is not enacted with full throated support and then etched in stone on the DNC platform, 10 million new foot soldiers to the Democratic party will stay home and why would they not? Without the idea of a fair shake and the idea of goals set that will improve the country and the world, what is the point? These folks are already up to their keesters in student debt with the only way to qualify for healthcare is to be damned near broke, what is the point to drag it on with more of the same? Here is the latest in what and how perpetual war is really like

    Young voters see this and see the drain on what future they may have. No matter how they look at it, it stays the same. The only hope they have is that Democrats start realizing what Democrats are supposed to represent and then pull their collective heads out of their arse’s and demand a platform that addresses the same kind of ideals that Bernie Sanders has put forth. This is truth mongering.

  45. LS 2016-06-10 08:37

    Respectfully, I disagree. The power is not with the Democratic Party. The power is with the poeple. Bernie doesn’t have to do anything. It is the Democratic Party that has to do something to bring in Bernie’s supporters.

    Bernie is old and he doesn’t have much time left in public service. Rather than “come to heel” as Hillary supporters would like to see, he might as well just go for broke, IMHO. The movement is real and it isn’t going away. Bernie has given us a blueprint of how to run a successful grassroots campaign. I believe others will follow in his footsteps. Perhaps younger, more dynamic candidates. No, if the DNC wants to avoid suffering a similar fate as the GOP, they are the ones that are going to have to adapt and change. Hopefully, they haven’t become too conservative to do so.

  46. jerry 2016-06-10 08:46

    Lanny, I do not know if you have had a chance to read this excellent article from Rolling Stone, but if not, here it is. I am just a weary old shot up veteran that has seen this song and dance play out before. It is tiring to hear Democrats singing the praise of war with their support of certain candidates. Perhaps bringing back the draft as we are gonna need it, will knock some sense into their melons. Who knows?
    I can see and feel the smugness right here about how this may shake out. As I look around South Dakota, I also see that same smugness on why we cannot get anything done here. The bucket is not so deep, but the frog’s arms are strong enough to keep the rest tamped down.
    Time to enjoy this day, it will be a hot one, stay cool.

  47. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-06-10 09:27

    LS, I’m totally with you on the idea that the power is with the people, not any one party or one particular person.

    However, I don’t think that Sanders would agree with your characterization of the action I recommend as “coming to heel.” He vowed last year not to run a third-party campaign because he doesn’t want to be “responsible for electing some right-wing Republican to be President.” “Going for broke” in this case leaves the country broken with Donald Trump in the White House.

    If there’s been any “heeling,” Sanders “came to heel” last year when he decided to run as a Democrat rather than as an Independent. He chose his battle and his route to progress. As I note above, he won a great deal of progress. He has pushed the DNC to adapt and change. He can continue to push them far more effectively by doing what he says he’ll do, “working together” with Clinton, than by “going for broke”.

    The DNC should not call on Bernie to “come to heel.” Bernie should call on his supporters to “come to heal”: come to Philadelphia to find common ground with the Clinton wing of the DNC, write a common platform embracing real democratic values, and work together through November to remind people to elect not a person but the values that person and that party have vowed to fight for.

  48. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-06-10 10:13

    The main anti war candidate in 2004 was Dennis Kucinich. I and 4 of my siblings were candidates in our own state to represent him at the Democratic national convention. I worked hard across the border in Lyon County IA. In addition my brother (now deceased) who was a candidate for K in Mpls, went to Sioux City with a group from there and I met him the weekend before the Iowa caucuses. He and I worked Saturday and Sunday in the poorest section of SC and were told in house after house that they liked K but then when we asked if they would caucus for him they said they couldn’t because they had to work.

    My brother stayed close with the delegates for K from Minnesota and told of the party unity after that convention. Kucinich asked his delegates to support Kerry on the first ballot. But even more, he asked that they not push for a peace plank in the Democratic platform. His delegates and not just the ones from Minnesota were heart broken.

    So the point is, you can get party unity, but at what price. For those of you who consider yourselves party regulars, you may want to take heed of the words of Leo, Jerry, Berry, Roger E and LS. There are so many scenarios that could spell another Republican presidency, but worse yet, on the course we are headed with the two frontrunners, continued wars. Just because the bombs haven’t been dropped in our back yard, doesn’t mean that they can’t and certainly doesn’t make it right that we drop them in others’ back yard.

  49. LS 2016-06-10 10:32

    Respectfully sir, what did you expect him to do? There is a two party system in this country and if you want to be seriously considered, it is wise to run within one or the other. Bernie came to the Democratic party. He energized and inspired millions of voters. He brought all sorts of new and young voters into the fold. He gave the party just exactly what it needed, and how did they treat him? They buried debates deep in the TV schedule where fewer viewers were likely to see him or his ideas. They cut him off from his own database of voter information for a period of time. They deliberately tried to minimize his influence at the convention by only putting 3 of his delegates on committees. I admit that has changed now, but they sure tired to get away with it. So please don’t get all victim-blamey on me and tell me that it is Sanders fault for choosing to run as a democrat. Because I am not buying it.

    Further, I would point out that certain polls show that 43% of Americans don’t like the two choices put before them. They would be interested in considering a third party candidate. Any third-party candidate. Not to mention, there is already a Libertarian ticket on the ballot in all 50 states that I think will siphon off Republican voters that can’t stand Trump. Would Sanders going for broke really put Trump in the White House? I tend to think not. The division within the liberal ranks already exists. I think what might put Trump in the White House is nominating a candidate with very high negatives and a polarizing personality.

    Sanders is an honorable man, and I expect him to do what he says he will do, not what I think he should do. The real question is: Will his supporters follow him, or wait for the next progressive champion? I think a lot of that will depend on what happens in Philadelphia and after. Clinton is saying all the right things right now. But something about her reminds me of Romney 2012, in that she seems too willing to say or do whatever she thinks it takes to get elected. I will be watching carefully to see how much she is willing to back up those words with actual actions. If she doesn’t, even if she manages to get elected this Fall, I think she would almost certainly only serve one term.

  50. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-06-10 10:45

    I had not seen that article, Jerry. Here is a great youtube to watch, which essentially says the same thing. John Oliver is over the top funny.

  51. jerry 2016-06-10 10:46

    Clinton wants Obama to try to get the voters energized. “Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, citing Mr. Obama’s solid approval ratings and popularity with Democrats and some independents, said they thought he would be a net asset in Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Ohio and other battleground states that he carried in 2008 and 2012 and where he is arguably more popular now. All those states are critical to Mrs. Clinton’s electoral strategy.”

    Some Independents…Some Independents, we have seen in South Dakota that Democrats are few and far between as we have seen nationally as well. Independents will make the deal. What will Obama say to us, he had better say that the he has seen the light like he did when he finally said he would like to expand Social Security. 8 friggin years into his presidency and he now sees the social good in that. whew. LS points out a very interesting number, 43% of Americans, about half, do not like either one of the candidates running. When have we ever seen such poor polling?

    How does America win this? They demand the DNC go full Bernie with his platform. Allow him to sell it and seal the deal for Clinton. Obama can fly all around the country, but without that, he will get applause like a racehorse that is about out to pasture. They will hear him, but they will not get the message. How do we work here in South Dakota? By demanding that those who seek office in Washington, embrace Bernie’s platform and campaign on that. What else do they have to offer the voters?

  52. LS 2016-06-10 10:58

    Need to make a correction. That 43% is the number of voters who identify as Independent. The number of voters who want to see an Independent candidacy is 55%, according to this survey. Some 21% of respondents said they would vote for the Independent candidate without even knowing who it is.

    This is the article that I read.

    This is the survey the article got it’s data from.

  53. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-06-10 11:36

    So let’s be honest here. THe big knock on Bernie is that he is a socialist. Can we identify some other socialists throughout history? Well the first one that comes to mind of course is Karl Marx and the fact that his beliefs warped into communism, or at least that is what most capitalists want us to believe, is what has given socialism a bad name. But there have been others, Crazy Horse, Red Cloud, and probably every Indian Chief that you can name, Nelson Mendela, Dr Martin Luther King Jr, Dr Cornell West, maybe FDR, and of course the greatest socialist of all time, Jesus of Nazareth.

    The reason that socialism has such a bad name in the USA is because the Capitalists have given it to them. THey have caused people to fear the very thing that would level the playing field for everyone. If the US had stayed on the path that it was on after WWII, what with the way that veterans were treated and the fact that it lifted all boats as JFK was want to say, our country wouldn’t have any need for socialism. But capitalism has warped into a monster that wants to control all of the natural resources first of our country and then of the planet, to include the water we drink and the air we breathe and the very heart and soul within each of us.

    Anyone on this blog who cannot see damage that has been done not just to our country but to the majority of its citizens within the last 40 years, and the rest of the planet is just simply not paying attention.

  54. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-06-10 11:38

    Like Jerry, I have never liked Hillary Clinton. Like LS, I believe Hillary Clinton will say whatever she needs in the moment to win a majority.

    Like Roger, given my choices, I will vote for her.

    Yes, Clinton will say what she must to win votes. That’s exactly the tool that Sanders and his people can use to secure more of their agenda, as they have through the primary campaign, now through November and the Clinton II Presidency. Trump offers the Sanders crowd no such leverage. Trump offers inchoate rage, dissolution of alliances, national bankruptcy, and more international chaos and death than Lanny’s warmongering Hillary Clinton will ever choose to launch.

    And as LS said, there is no viable third way. The 43% who identify as Independent didn’t show up in Tuesday’s primary to give Bernie the win.

  55. LS 2016-06-10 11:53

    I didn’t say that. In fact, I believe the opposite.

    You are using primary participation data from one last-day primary state, and a deeply red state at that, to determine whether or not a national third party candidacy is viable. I don’t think that is enough evidence. Rather, I think the 55% of people who desire a third party candidacy help make a convincing case for an independent run. In 1992 Ross Perot still ended up with 19% of the vote despite dropping out of the race from July until October. Now, according to the survey I posted above, ANY third party candidate automatically starts off with 21% of the vote. That’s already two points higher than where Perot finished, and Sanders wouldn’t mysteriously drop out of the race for three months. I honestly think a third party run by Bernie is more viable that people think. But I also think arguing about it is moot because he won’t do it. Having said that, just because he won’t do it, doesn’t mean the Democrats should stand pat and believe everything still cool. Because they are just as vulnerable to the anti-establishment wave that is flowing through the electorate as the Republicans are. And if they don’t do a better job of adapting to it than the GOP did, then they are sure to suffer the same fate. From my point of view, the Dems still have a lot of work to do.

  56. Robin Friday 2016-06-10 11:56

    From what I have seen on social media, Sanders is a much more intelligent, gracious, level-headed and judicious individual than most of his followers, a significant faction of which are as mean and nasty as Trump’s people. (Granted, they’re much more aware of reality.) I have supported Bernie, too, in the interest of the far-away dream of compassionate government, in fact I have supported both Clinton and Sanders all along. Now it’s over and it’s time to move ahead with our esteemed nominee, leave the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth behind, and we should be so fortunate as to provide her and all of us with a congress who will work with her to bring the nation into the 21st century. That’s victory.

  57. bearcreekbat 2016-06-10 11:57

    Cory, when did you come to judge Hillary in such a negative light? Can you point to something she did that made you not like her?

    Consider this perspective:

    “. . . not so long ago, Hillary had a rosy favorability rating among most Americans, despite 25 years of getting bashed by the media. . . . [W]hen you cut through all the politics, Clinton’s sins are fairly standard issue for a candidate who has been in public life as long as she has: mistakes, errors of judgment (some severe), hubris, associations with Big Money. In fact, when the press examines her appeal, the usual verdict is that the public doesn’t dislike what she has done or hopes to do so much as they dislike who she is. . . .

    Hillary Clinton has always been under a media microscope. They assess her pantsuits, her hairdos, her gestures, her expressions, her “grating” voice. They assume that there is always some ulterior motive or calculation to everything she says and does — as if there isn’t for any presidential candidate. Whether you like Hillary Clinton or not, she labors under the media’s presumption of guilt.”

    Is it possible you have bought into this constant media message? Or can you identify an independent reason for disliking this woman?

  58. Roger Cornelius 2016-06-10 12:26

    During this primary season I have not attacked Bernie’s platform at any time, compared to your relentless attacks on Hillary.
    As a Democrat, not an Independent, in my long political activism I do not attack Democratic candidates, I leave that to republicans. Usually I make my political observations and select my choice in the primary.
    I have a longtime connection to the Clinton’s and they have earned my personal loyalty. In 2008 I supported Hillary and was heartbroken when Obama beat her. Being the gracious lady she is, she did not through a fit and encourage her supporters to misbehave. She encouraged her supporters to vote Obama almost as soon as she knew she lost the election.
    There were no demands for Obama to adapt her platform, only a commitment to work together to defeat John McCain.
    Early in this primary I expressed my concerns about Bernie, number one being that he was an Independent and not a Democrat. It is not likely, but as an Independent Bernie could be a Democrat one week and a republican the next.
    And as Lanny points out, there is the socialism thing. This country already is socialist and most people don’t even realize it, what upsets Americans is when someone gets something that they don’t have.
    My biggest concern about Bernie’s socialism is not that it is bad for the country because it is not, it is a necessary and integral part of our country.
    My concern, from very early on in this campaign, is not Bernie and his platform, but the American people.
    The majority in this country are caught in history and automatically equate socialism with Hitler, we know that it is not true, but the average voter doesn’t understand socialism.
    Bernie has created a big wall to climb with his socialism and was and will be tagged forever as a commie. Mind you, I don’t agree with that for a minute.
    So, in looking at any election and doing my own evaluations (not paying attention to links or others opinions), I look at the big picture and try to remain focused on the prize.
    One thing I do know, is that neither of us or anyone else on this blog is right or wrong, only time will prove that for us.

  59. happy camper 2016-06-10 12:29

    On paper the Clintons are the kind of moderates I like but they’re just politicians. Fake. Not real. We’ll end up being a better country because of Obama. He was elected for the right reasons. It’s still moving to see pictures of him with his mother and grandparents. They crossed barriers. Clinton is the pragmatic choice like the person she is, which is ok but there’s nothing exciting about her. She puts herself first always.

  60. Roger Cornelius 2016-06-10 12:32

    Hillary is a woman, how much do you think that will play against her with both republicans and Democrats?

  61. LS 2016-06-10 12:43

    Recently in a different discussion, I witnessed several democrats decry Thune, Noem, and Rounds for endorsing Trump. While I applaud that, I got hung up on some of the logic behind it. The biggest gripe was that they would support anyone with an R behind their name.

    On the other hand, these same Dems would encourage everyone to “vote blue no matter who”. Does anyone else see the irony in that? Before you “vote blue no matter who” please remember that Kim Davis ran and was elected as a Democrat. Democrat and Republican are just labels that anyone can wear. Once upon a time Republicans were the party of Lincoln and the Democrats were racist slave owners. So don’t judge people, good or bad, based on just the label they wear. And if Dems want to make their tent bigger, they need to stop talking like they belong to an elite social club. Independents like me find that stuff to be very off-putting.

  62. bearcreekbat 2016-06-10 12:48

    Roger, that is a great question. How many male politicians have been criticized for the clothes they wear, their hairdos, their gestures, their expressions, their speaking voice, their attractiveness, etc? But Hillary is very intelligent, hard working and focuses on positive public policies aimed at helping people. She has shown that she is willing to fight for policies she believes helps people, rather than policies that might advance her personal interests, despite the constant scrutiny and hostility.

    At this point in history, I think the fact that she is our first female major party Presidential candidate will help her, rather than hurt her, with voters that don’t harbor feelings of fear and inadequacy around strong women. As for voters who feel threatened by strong women, Mother Teresa couldn’t get their vote and Hillary won’t either.

  63. mike from iowa 2016-06-10 12:57

    LS- when was the last time anyone suggested HRC was an outright racist? See how fast wingnuts jumped on the Drumpf#$k bandwagon only to bail in short order because the guy is a RACIST! There was no miscontrue, no words taken out of context, no one stuttered and the whole world heard Drumpf#$k the RACIST!

  64. LS 2016-06-10 13:53

    Mike, I don’t know. And I am not sure why it is relevant. Trump might very well be a racist. At the very least, he is a racial opportunist. Either way, I am not voting for the guy.

  65. Rorschach 2016-06-10 14:11

    I feel like Cory does about Hillary. I like Bill Clinton, but I don’t like Hillary. ‘But why is that?’ I ask myself. Are her sins really any different than politicians I like and voted for?

    I didn’t like it that Tom Daschle took lobbyists on a special trip atop Mt. Rushmore, or that his kids had never lived in SD, or that he claimed his home in DC as his primary residence for tax purposes, or that he had obviously ‘gone Washington’ and would never return to South Dakota if he lost. But I voted for him anyway in 2004.

    Hillary ran a dirty campaign against Obama in the 2008 primary. Tried to get the superdelegates to coronate her. But that’s part of the game trying to make the rules work for you.

    Could it be the missing Rose Law Firm records that mysteriously appeared in the private living quarters of the White House? Could it be the amazing profit she made on cattle futures when she was allowed to purchase more contracts than she had money for? Could it be her artful parsing/spinning of the English language or her cozyness with Wall Street or her refusal to acknowledge or truly accept responsibility for the consequences of her own bad decisions? Or could it be the sum of all of those parts – a long history going back decades of questionable self-serving personal behavior? Or could it be that she’s a woman and subconsciously I am more forgiving of character flaws in men? I don’t know.

    I do know she’s a hell of a lot more prepared, knowledgeable, predictable, and temperamentally suited for the Presidency than the unacceptable and dangerous alternative. I will settle for Hillary. Doesn’t mean I will like it.

  66. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-06-10 16:02

    LS, you raise a reasonable counter to those who condemn Republicans who vote “anyone with an R” but then condemn Democrats who don’t support see the D with HRC and automatically support her. I agree that those two positions are incompatible.

    I’ll suggest there is a difference between that incompatible dual position and what some commenters here are saying. That difference lies in Ror’s last sentence: “[S]he’s a hell of a lot more prepared, knowledgeable, predictable, and temperamentally suited for the Presidency than the unacceptable and dangerous alternative.”

    Democrats can take this logically tenable position: It is o.k. to choose one qualified candidate over another qualified candidate based on party affiliation. Trump is not a qualified candidate; Clinton is.

    Hypotheticals win no arguments, but I will assert that, if the Democrats had somehow nominated Sarah Palin or Kim Kardashian or some other patently unqualified candidate, I would condemn Democrats for blind “D” endorsements as surely as I condemn Thune/Noem/Rounds for betraying their principles to endorse their party’s reprehensible nominee. I would encourage them to follow the path of Lindsey Graham, who, as Roger noted above, has the courage to reject his party’s nominee.

    Note also that I do not think Democrats who conscientiously object to the Clinton nomination are committing the same grave error as the Republicans who are setting aside conscience in the name of party loyalty.

  67. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-06-10 16:26

    Bear, as I’ve noted before, it may just be leftover irrational distaste from my youthful Republican days during the Clinton Administration. I’m not perfect.

    It’s also an abstract distaste for dynasty. Hillary Clinton is the nominee to some extent because her husband was President. I’m uneasy with another Clinton nomination in the same way that I was uneasy with another Bush nomination.

    Furthermore, I agree to some extent with the Sanders critique that Clinton is too much of an insider, a representative of the “Oligarchy” who is far less likely to fight corporate power than Sanders or Dennis Kucinich. Her pragmatism and centrism, like Barack Obama’s, will make it harder to get a fair hearing for the grievances of us Sanders socialists fighting income inequality and corporate infringements on our liberty and democracy.

    And single-payer. Bernie says it. Hillary won’t.

    But then neither did Obama, and he still rocked the house. Obama gave us a better Presidency than McCain or Romney would have. Clinton will give us a better Presidency than Trump. It just won’t go as far or be as reformist and awesome as a Sanders Presidency.

    Last note: back to pure gut, pure personal assessment. Barack Obama is funny as heck at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Hillary Clinton isn’t that good at comedy. That’s not a voting issue; that’s just me trying to give Bear a full picture of what’s going on in my head.

  68. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-06-10 16:29

    And LS, on your earlier comment about the possibility of a win for a third-party candidate: maybe Bernie could do it. But as you note, he said he wouldn’t. Who else can, right here, right now, when Bernie Sanders will be telling folks who want reform to support Hillary Clinton?

    I agree the party has work to do to move toward the Wellstone/Kucinich/Sanders ideals and policies that I want. By the time I’ve reformed South Dakota and am ready to run for President, maybe I can bring that heat nationally. :-)

  69. bearcreekbat 2016-06-10 17:39

    Thanks Cory and Ror, I appreciate your perspectives. I have a few follow up comments and questions.

    (1) missing Rose Law Firm records – Had Hillary wanted these billing records kept away from the investigation, wouldn’t she simply have destroyed them?

    (2) cattle futures – I am not sure I understand how Hillary’s luck in these investments, or her ability to go into debt for the investments, reflect poorly on her character. Isn’t that what any investor in the futures market seeks to accomplish?

    (3) articulate and eloquent speaking abilities – that sounds more like an asset than a defect. Indeed, when she gave a public interview about the Rose records and Whitewater Time magazine apparently characterized her comments as “open, candid, but above all unflappable…the real message was her attitude and her poise. The confiding tone and relaxed body language…immediately drew approving reviews”.

    (4) her cozyness with Wall Street – It has been reported that Obama raised more funds from Wall Street than any other President in the last 20 years – is the Hillary criticism the result of a double standard?

    (5) refusal to acknowledge or truly accept responsibility for the consequences of her own bad decisions – she has stated she made a mistake in voting for the war resolution and in using a private server. Is there more she should do?

    (6) As for her campaign conduct in 2008, Obama apparently didn’t see it as a deal breaker. Indeed, didn’t she bow out gracefully when it was clear Obama had the nomination and then campaign for him?

    And as others have pointed out, she has been subjected to investigation after investigation without a single finding of probable cause to charge her with an offense. To judge someone harshly because multiple accusations that the most aggressive anti-Clinton prosecutors, such as Starr, could not find evidence of wrongdoing strikes me as a very odd position for any liberal.

    And Cory, so your distaste for Hillary is a carryover from your days as a young Republican being told by Republicans how terrible the Clintons were. I wonder how much that early exposure affected your evaluation of Clinton’s 2008 primary conduct?

    As for me, I have never been a big Hillary fan or follower, but find it very unsettling to read so many disparaging opinions about her character that seem to be based on suspicions from old Republican attempts at character assassination rather than any actual illegal or unethical conduct. And as you recognize, with Trump as a candidate it seems pretty important to be very careful about not responding to unsupported attacks on her character.

  70. Rorschach 2016-06-10 18:10

    Is your standard, bearcreekbat, that Hillary’s in the clear because she hasn’t been charged with a crime? That’s what it appears to me. Mike Rounds hasn’t been charged with a crime either involving EB-5. I believe you agree with me that his behavior doesn’t pass the smell test.

    However much President Obama may have raised from Wall Street is irrelevant to the election. We’re choosing a new President here, and Hillary is the champion Wall Street fundraiser. She’s the one making six figure paychecks for giving short speeches to Wall Street firms and refusing to release the transcripts of those speeches. But you know all of that already. My preference in a President is someone who would give Wall Street some tough love – not just some love.

    I don’t want to have a big debate about old issues like the Rose Law Firm records and cattle futures profits. You are quite capable of looking up those news stories and making up your own mind. I pointed them out as matters that at the time raised concerns in my mind about Hillary and in conjunction with more recent things cause me ongoing concerns. Things like her nasty 2008 campaign and the private e-mail server and all of the deleted e-mails she claimed were personal but nobody will ever know for sure. Things like the apparent conflict of interest between staff working for the State Department and the Clinton Foundation at the same time and the funds raised by the Clinton Foundation by those looking to curry favor with the US government. My standard is not whether she has been indicted or not. I’m not Steve Kirby who once said, “If it’s legal it’s ethical.” To me, Hillary is a female Richard Nixon.

  71. bearcreekbat 2016-06-10 18:12

    This article I linked seems to identify valid reasons to criticize Hillary. Approving the use of drones when it results in killing of civilians should be considered a war crime, which ought to result in the prosecution of the entire George W. Bush administration as well as Obama and Hillary. But that seems to be the way we have conducted our so-called war efforts ever since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    But given this history, even these odious acts probably don’t support voting for Trump. His platform promises to attack families living right here in the good old USA, while saying nothing about the appropriateness of using drones overseas when we know they will kill innocent civilians.

  72. Rorschach 2016-06-10 18:16

    And to me Donald Trump is a diabolical creature with barely concealed horns and tail.

  73. happy camper 2016-06-10 18:22

    Watching Hillary trying to protect Bill during that Monica Lewinsky time was sickening. In one late night spot she kept saying over and over, “my husband” like she was Tammy Wynette. They probably haven’t slept with each other since 1979 but she knew middle America (like Stumcfar) expects couples to be monogamous and traditional so she put on a big show. She’s not entirely the real deal but the best choice: smart, tough, works hard or would you prefer President Trump? A recent article on marriage said success means settling. It’s time to settle. She’s an entirely reasonable compromise. Her debate with Trump will be the fight of the century (can’t wait). She’s gonna rip his head off and show what a woman can do. Don’t hold back Hillary. He doesn’t.

  74. Rorschach 2016-06-10 18:25

    All that said, the Republicans have repeatedly overreached and squandered millions of taxpayer money in their Clinton witch hunts. The fact that Trey Gowdy is still dragging out his House Benghazi investigation for political purposes knowing nothing is there is evidence of the GOP party’s bad faith.

  75. jerry 2016-06-10 18:40

    bearcreekbat, you are starting to sound like Clinton defending Bill for his wandering ways. You clearly have been out of the country for some years now on an island without hope. Kind of cute by half, but really kind of icky as well. Enabling does not stop the drunk from drinking. BTW, votes are still being counted in California. Clinton is ahead, but the convention draws nearer and nearer, what will the platform be? Will we unite? Will Democrats live with their choice? Will Independents go ice fishing in November or long hunting schedules? Maybe trips to Belize or someplace warm.

  76. leslie 2016-06-10 19:09




    “fortune in cattles futures”

    ect., ect., ect.

    you guys are getting to be as bad as Faux News at spinning the truth.

    Clintons came from nothing. Young Bill learned on the job. Hillary came on gangbusters as a feminist health care advocate that 1st term, qualified then, and now in spades. Bushes I, II and nearly III, oil money, ect., Saudis friends…now that may be a dynasty. Clintons have Monica, the ragin Cajun, a dog, and Hillary’s real law practice (as opposed to Bill’s never having practiced law. There is a reason it is called practice. it is one of the most difficult professions) which included the waltons, fortuitiously, in their “dynasty”. this is no dynasty.

    Bill probably still thinks he’s black. Isn’t his office in Harlem, or was?

    “hide and conceal Wall Street crimes, imperial crimes, new Jim Crow crimes, and surveillance lies in order to protect the first black President …. And a health care bill — a bonanza for big insurance and drug companies along side access to new consumers falls far short of the mark.”

    is any of this accurate? there were 900 some amendments republicans made to the “partisan” ACA (none of them voted for it, they love to claim). We are lucky we got that from republicans. they don’t want health care for us-remember? its going to take some heavy lifting to get insurance out of health care. but it’ll come. if we keep winning.

    you guys believe in fairies? getting anything past republicans, all those things you say Obama let us down on, that Bill killed us with NAFTA, ect., have long complex histories that no Bill, no Hillary, no Obama, no Tom Daschle, Tim Johnson, Brendan Johnson, or Bernie Sanders yahdayahda are going to be able to effectively accomplish in 4 years or 8 years. Obama has tried to shut down Bush republican wars for many years. It is not easy. This is complex.

    Bernie voted for guns. Hillary didn’t. Obama voted against the Iraq invasion, in the large minority, while Hillary did. big wuff. She didn’t take us to war. She won’t take us to another war. She’s tough as a president needs to be, as Obama is, but she has our values. NOT republican, conservative, religious, science-denying values! We are safe from Iran. Hillary won’t hesitate with North Korea, we’ll continue to figure out the republican Iraq/ISIS legacy as it has spread, and we’ll cool off the planet. kinda big stuff. not one-term/two-term stuff.

    Democrats aren’t an elite “party”. we are a bunch of smart, educated doves seeking to care for the neediest 1st, not exclude differences. doves are NOT the “establishment”. every word in the blogosphere is calculated to sway new, young, low-information, busy, frightened americans from the truth of their own best interests, those of the world population, and the planet.

    big vision is required. Bernie has it. Hillary has it. Either works if trump loses. Bernie already lost. Let’s make sure, for all the little people, that Hillary doesn’t lose. Republicans are supremely capable and plan on stealing ANOTHER election. If you buy their crap, Will Rogers said ” you get who you deserve”. there will be no blaming the democratic party. it is but a tool in your work belt.

  77. mike from iowa 2016-06-10 19:17

    Hasn’t HRC been investigated enough and Mike Rounds was allowed to skate? Had either Clinton committed a crime,the whole freaking Universe would be sure to know it. Dems don’t waste much time investigating wingnuts. The silly buggers seem to think they have a country that needs to be run. Wingnuts could care less about the country. Just keep the freaking investigations going.

  78. leslie 2016-06-10 19:29

    happy, you may misunderstand the facts, when you say ‘“my husband” like she was Tammy Wynette.’ Hillary said the opposite. fox may have spun this.

    I do agree that a primary strength is that she is a woman and a female president is going to make a huge (not “a trumpian huge”) difference.

  79. mike from iowa 2016-06-10 20:32

    2020 wingnuts will have to nominate a koch bros for Potus. Each election cycle their Potus nominees get richer,whiter and more clueless than the last sucker.

  80. Roger Cornelius 2016-06-10 20:57

    mike from iowa,
    Actually I’m enjoying Trump coverage over the past few days, it has been all negative and continually covers his racism. Bring on more of it.
    Today on CNN with Romney was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer, it was revealing and telling of the future of Trump and the GOP.
    First Romney denied rumors that he would challenge Trump at the convention. In fact he followed up with because of the time factor it would be nearly impossible to launch a third party run against Trump.
    Romney also added that because of Trump’s racism and hatred of all that makes America great, he could not and will not vote for Trump.
    He also said he couldn’t vote for Hillary, but didn’t say anything disparaging about her.
    If republicans won’t vote for either presidential candidate, we are in for interesting ride.
    Now for the best part of the Romney interview, he said that a Trump presidency would lead to “trickle down racism”. That is a powerful term that means it will be acceptable for wide spread hate and racism of anybody or group you don’t like”.
    If you hate and don’t like Hillary, don’t vote her, just remember there are consequences to hate, there always have been.

  81. leslie 2016-06-11 01:01

    Jerry-when i called u out for your vitriol u took a sly racist jab at someone here with that frog thing that is similar to the crabs in a bucket analogy sometimes heard on the rez. Is That An Independent Value? Then You Went Further. Should We Denigrate Your Military Service? say combat vs merely Vietnam era? none of these are democratic values.

  82. barry freed 2016-06-11 08:15

    I hope that Bernie does not drop out. The climate of dissatisfaction with the candidates foisted on us by the Parties in this country is much like Minnesota when the voters ignored them and elected Jesse Ventura.

    Boiled down, there is little difference between Hillary and Donald except Donald is critical of self enriching, insider dealing politicians like Hillary. Good luck convincing millennials she not Trump-Lite.

    At the Convention, Donald will reveal that he can not be on the ticket as he is the only human able to single-handedly colonize Mars and must prepare immediately for launch. Republicans will sigh in relief and vote without hesitation for: ___________ “R”, who appears sane and intelligent compared to Trump.

  83. jerry 2016-06-11 08:17

    leslie, you never called me out on anything but the truth that I spoke of. I don’t have to take a “sly jab” at anyone or anything, I assess what I read and then speak what the links provide. Sorry if that kind of thang gets to you. Thank you for that frog “thing” you speak of as that is my own, if you want the crabs run with it, but don’t make assumptions, you know what they say about them and that “u” part.

    I could give a damn about what you or anyone else says about my military service. I went, I served, I was in many combat situations that I still see vividly in my mind, I got shot, I came home and now I piss you off. Run with with it if you will, ya can’t harm me, I am the gingerbread man that tries to keep clear of foxes.

    I live Democratic values each day that I awake. I breathe Democratic values with each breath. I do not value the Democratic Party as my lifeline any more than I value the Republican Party. In short leslie, I do not follow any party rules. I am a socially consistent Independent that knows bulls— from the froth. My democratic stance is to vote my conscience, to thereby rise above the rest of the frogs in the bucket. ps. Where do you get crabs in South Dakota?

  84. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-06-11 11:03

    Jerry, If you want to see what effect Hillary’s TPP will have on the poverty of the world and increased immigration to the US, look at what her support for CAFTA has had on immigration from Central America, the folks that those on the right like to call illegal immigrants, when they are human beings whose jobs were destroyed by CAFTA.

  85. bearcreekbat 2016-06-11 11:46

    Politico’s Bill Scher has an interesting perspective on why liberals dislike Hillary that I haven’t seen before. For those of that can remember the political climate in the 1990’s, his analysis seems on the mark.

    “In a May 1993 address to the Service Employees International Union, Clinton tore into the health care industry. The New York Times reported: “What most energized Mrs. Clinton’s speech were her populist attacks. ‘We have to be willing to take on every special-interest group,’ she said, asserting that ‘the status quo exists because there are people who benefit from it. … Talk to your friends and neighbors about what you see every day in terms of price gouging, cost shifting and unconscionable profiteering.”

    The insurance industry opposed Hillary’s proposed reform and sought to work a deal that weakened it. In contrast to Obama’s willingness to compromise to get the ACA passed, Hillary refused to meet with the insurance industry and would not compromise. The insurance industry fought a public relations battle against Hillary and her proposed reforms.

    “In September, the health insurance lobby launched the famous “Harry and Louise” advertising campaign, in which a despondent middle-class married couple in the future grapples with the aftermath of the, at that point, nonexistent bill. “Having choices we don’t like is no choice at all,” says Louise. “They choose,” Harry responds. Louise finishes the sentence, “we lose.”

    . . .

    “Hillary Clinton escalated the fight in a November speech, ripping the Harry and Louise” campaign as dishonest and the industry as greedy: “They like being able to exclude people from coverage because the more they can exclude, the more money they can make. … They have the gall to run TV ads that there is a better way, the very industry that has brought us to the brink of bankruptcy because of the way that they have financed health care … One of the great lies that is currently afoot in the country is that the president’s plan will limit choice.”

    The result of Hillary’s broadside? The health insurance lobby’s fundraising exploded, and the “Harry and Louise” ad budget quintupled. Hillary became a national lightning rod. . . .”

    Within weeks her proposed reform was killed and Hillary was devastated.

    “If younger Democrats were more aware of the enmity Hillary Clinton and the health insurance lobby once had for each other, they still probably would have felt the Bern. They still would have rejected the notion that the corrosive nature of big-dollar fundraising was worth stomaching to win elections. They still would loathe Wall Street deregulation and the Iraq War vote. They still would believe only a revolution could change Washington.

    But if they knew more about her personal journey, they might be more likely to view Clinton the way many view Obama: as a decent person trying to push a lot of boulders up a big Washington hill. And that might have made it a little easier for a steadfast Bernie supporter to eventually get to “I’m with her.””

  86. happy camper 2016-06-11 12:49

    Old Ebenezer with that jabbing finger was never gonna get elected. You all knew that weeks and months ago but chose to delude yourselves. You expect too much from a President. Leslie has Hillary doing everything but curing cancer. Congress is the problem. Hillary’s insurance proposal was not very good and it was nepotism to give her a role. Her parents were upper middle class Bill is the one who came from an unstable background (and it shows). Infants and toddlers are learning a lot very young on how to survive. Hillary was a nice young Republican (sound familiar?) then bucked the system. She ain’t perfect give her a break and get behind her. And Leslie I know she said she wasn’t Tammy Wynette but that’s exactly how she acted. The “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” was a planned strategy. In fact she might have still have been willing to deceive herself even then cause she was a product of a conservative household and learned various things pulling at her like we all do but clearly she knows her man by now and stayed with him for other reasons. She’ll do fine none of you are perfect even if you expect it from everybody else. All you ever do is complain repetitively. Gripers. Gripers. Gripers.

  87. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-06-11 12:58

    What you neglect to mention, bcb, is that her husband, the President and Speaker Gephardt let her hang out to dry. They deserted her and that is why it failed not because of Harry and Louise, (which incidentally, I never even heard of.)

    I never held her vote for the war in Iraq against her, (even though I should have) because I supported her for President in 2008, even writing a lte in that support. Where I lost all respect for her was her getting us through NATO involved in Libya and getting the President to say that Assad must go. With her as SOS, we continued our policies of the previous 8 years of regime change. I also did not like her being for the Keystone XL and certainly cannot countenance her support for the banks, after what they did to the American people and in fact many people throughout the world. And finally her support for TPP which is just another rush to the bottom for the working people of the world, is more a Republican view of things than what Democrats used to believe.

  88. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-06-11 13:03

    If you want to call that last post of mine or any others griping, go ahead Happy. I have earned that right. I served my country and I have never missed a vote.

  89. bearcreekbat 2016-06-11 13:15

    Here you go Lanny:

    I respect (and share) your disagreements with some of Hillary’s policy positions. That seems a much more rational reason for rejecting her than the emotional “I just don’t like her” or “I don’t trust her” attitudes that so many Bernie supporters have. At this point, policy disagreements are not a deal breaker for me since virtually everyone has some policy views that differ from mine.

    And I would encourage voting for Hillary not just to stop Trump but because in weighing all the factors in her history I believe the positive greatly outweighs the negative. Her overall record supports the view that she was and still is “a decent person trying to push a lot of boulders up a big Washington hill.”

  90. happy camper 2016-06-11 13:37

    Lanny I’m calling all of you gripers. You all act like you’re perfect with judgements from way up high. I’m not convinced she’s all that decent but I don’t really care, she’s there to make decisions. We’re the ones who have to be decent.

  91. happy camper 2016-06-11 13:47

    Look at some pictures of Ambassador Stevens if you dare. He requested additional security. They were so stupid to send a gay guy to that part of the world. Those wonderful Muslim “neighbors” you so love raped him, drug him through the streets, mutilated his body. Some of you are so damn PC stupid.

  92. happy camper 2016-06-11 14:14

    In one breathe most of you will entirely support transgender people to be free from discrimination but in the next embrace the rights of Muslims whose very rigid doctrine would kill them in a heartbeat. You’re just dumb. Stupid. Refuse to connect the dots.

  93. bearcreekbat 2016-06-11 14:35

    mfi, that is some interesting history. I guess in retrospect I have to agree that it certainly was a mistake in judgment for Hillary (and Joe Biden) to believe President Bush’s promise to work with the UN before so war could be avoided, the fellow who wore his “Christianity” on his sleeve.

  94. happy camper 2016-06-11 14:35

    Muslim’s strict doctrine is “that way.” People are not fundamentally flawed but the Muslim religion is, so those Muslims who want to believe other things are left believing something else and using their own mind as it should be.

  95. happy camper 2016-06-11 14:38

    BCB religion is the problem. We have brains.

  96. mike from iowa 2016-06-11 14:56

    bcb-if memory serves,dumbass dubya ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq a day or so before “Shock and Awe” started,then he blamed Saddam for kicking them out. Quite the little liar.

    As for Stevens being gay and shouldn’t have been in Libya, he spent most of his adult life working in some place called Northern Africa which is worlds away from Libya- amirite?

  97. Roger Cornelius 2016-06-11 14:56

    Yesterday the world came together to honor and pray for one of the world’s most famous Muslims. People of all races and religion paid homage to The Greatest.
    President Clinton was there, republican and Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch said goodbye to his friend, and Ali’s little brother Jewish comedian Billy Crystal spoke as well.
    The problems with this world isn’t religion, it is the lack of respect for others faith and beliefs. Ali understood that, all should understand that.
    When people enter into high risk jobs with the government there is always the possibility of losing their lives. We see it through out history: in the military, in law enforcement and in foreign affairs.
    Ambassador Steven wasn’t the first ambassador to be killed in the line of duty nor will he be the last. Where were all the attacks on George Bush when his administration was riddled with attacks on our embassies.
    To lump all Muslims together is wrong, it will always be wrong. Just as it is wrong to say all Christians are actual evil servants of the devil
    Muslim radicals have done and continue to do evil and despicable acts, but so have Americans. We have a history of torturing prisoners. raiding villages in Middle East killing innocents.
    So Happy, tell me who is most evil?
    So many people in the Middle East are completely defenseless, they are attacked my their own in the name of ISIS and by Americans protecting oil fields.

  98. mike from iowa 2016-06-11 14:57

    ps- Stevens was considered an infidel-reason enough for pissed off Muslims to kill him. Whether he was gay or not is irrelevant.

  99. bearcreekbat 2016-06-11 15:00

    We know there have been many assaults and murders of people for being gay in the USA. The case of Mathew Shepard in Wyoming comes immediately to mind.

    This cite purports to list attacks and murders of LBGT folks from 1970 to the present in the USA based on FBI hate crimes statistics. Reading the incredibly long list is nauseating. I saw only two killers that were said to be motivated by the Muslim religion. Many more killers were said to be motivated by the Christian religion.

  100. happy camper 2016-06-11 15:37

    Oh you are the dumbest of the dumb. Supposedly intelligent and educated yet you ignore what is in front of you and makes excuses.

  101. happy camper 2016-06-11 15:43

    As an LBGT person I am very aware what has happened to me here. It’s nothing like that. You have to think “we are all the same.” Cause you’re PC stupid.

  102. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-06-11 15:49

    Happy, We idiots can’t be as smart as you portend to be.

    BCB I watched the videos and still have never seen them before. It is interesting that on Wikipedia, I found the following snippet.

    “The couple returned in several newer advertisements pushing health care reform during the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. In 2000, Harry and Louise appeared in a TV commercial sponsored by HIAA promoting its “InsureUSA” campaign advocating the need to provide health coverage to uninsured Americans. [4]”

    Isn’t that what we got with the Affordable Care Act and the Insurance and Healthcare industries got to write the bill, with the President’s public option left out so as not to cut into the insurance industry’s profits?

  103. happy camper 2016-06-11 16:02

    No Lanny but you are as stupid as you think you are intelligent. I can’t believe for this many years I’ve chosen to align myself with liberals who used to be thinking beings who eventually gave themselves over to a PC doctrine. You’re just as bad as Muslims, or Christians, or any other person who refuses to use their brain.

  104. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-06-11 16:10

    In the spirit of Ghandi and MLK, point well taken, Happy.

  105. Darin Larson 2016-06-11 16:13

    happy, how can you lump 1.3 billion people into one monolithic block and say that they all have the same beliefs?

    You do realize you sound a lot like Trump on one of his racist rants.

    Maybe you need to seek out more information on this topic:

    You and Trump don’t seem to realize that the small percentage of violent extremist muslims (or more correctly, people who call themselves muslims) would like nothing more than to make this into a fight between the West and Islam. This would justify their existence in their mind and the people they are killing (who are mostly muslims). But this is not a fight between the West and Islam; it is a fight between violent extremist terrorists on the one hand and many other groups and nations on the other hand, including peace-loving muslims.

    You sound like a right-wing scare monger trying to rally people to war. You are playing right into the terrorist narrative. That is stupid.

    As was mentioned, Muhammad Ali, a Muslim, believed in non-violence as part of his faith. I’m not going to say that all Muslims are saints, but nor should you say that they are all worthy of condemnation. Everyone deserves to be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin or the basis of their faith or non-faith.

  106. bearcreekbat 2016-06-11 16:38

    Lanny, it seems the ACA passed with substantial input from insurance companies, which is exactly what Hillary refused to allow in the 1990’s, according to the article I linked. The Obama compromise probably moved us a bit forward, with the pre-existing conditions provision, the 26 year old child provision, expanded Medicaid, and the subsidies to middle class purchasers, along with some of the provisions improving employer coverage.

    Perhaps the next step could be single payor. If Bernie puts in such a bill and Congress passes it, I would put money down betting a President Hillary would not only happily sign it, she would back it in the White House to help it move through Congress. But if the Republicans hold the House and at least a filibuster proof Senate minority we may have live with the ACA improvements a few years more.

    I recall seeing the early video clip back in the first health care reform attempt, but I don’t recall ever seeing them in 2000 or 2004. Was health care reform even on the table during those years?

  107. mike from iowa 2016-06-11 16:41

    bcb-that link is sickening, but not in the least surprising. My fellow Americans, right.

  108. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-06-11 18:52

    Bear, interesting history comparing Clinton’s health care reform effort in 1993–1994 to what President Obama achieved in 2009–2010. She took a Sandersesque stand against the insurance corporations and get creamed. Now Sanders stands up and says she’s too pragmatic and too beholden to corporations, even though the Affordable Care Act exists specifically because President Obama avoided Clinton’s 1993 error and left the insurers mostly unharmed.

    If Clinton had compromised and passed something like ACA 20 years ago, would we be that much closer to Bernie’s (and Kucinich’s! and Canada’s!) single-payer system now?

  109. Douglas Wiken 2016-06-11 19:13

    Might all the comments here suggest by themselves that Hillary is a candidate with a real uphill climb ahead of her? People like Trump and Sanders because neither of them is the same old, same old. Hillary is the SOS multiplied and squared a dozen times over.

    I supported the Clintons for years. The GOP attacks on them were almost totally crap from start to finish. Congress had already viewed the Pillsbury Accounting firm’s analysis of White Water and plowed ahead with their idiotic “investigations” anyway.

    But, Hillary should after all that crap realized that she could not do anything that even appeared to be corrupt or deceptive. It was a truly colossal error of judgement on her part to do what she did. I think it indicates a dangerous kind of arrogance that is in the same league with that of T-Rump.

    I also don’t think endorsements mean crap to people who are already pissed off with the SOS.

    I really don’t know what to do to get the Democratic Party out of the current hole, but I have no confidence that Hillary’s vision extends past tomorrow’s election polls. Her policy positions are also as flexible. One day after the recent elections when she crowned herself the presumptive candidate, she started waffling on the sort of leftish positions she took to blunt Sander’s positions.

    My wife and I keep hearing people say that they don’t like Hillary or Trump and there is really no choice and no reason to vote. That is not a good omen.

  110. jerry 2016-06-11 19:14

    Healthcare reform was on the table in 2003 and was passed with bi partisan support. It expanded Medicare to help out big pharma and the insurance lobby. It was an unfunded mandate that required all eligible to purchase a drug plan if you did not, you were assessed a penalty. That expansion cost considerably more than the ACA and is still costing each year. It was a Republican wreck that was only kept alive with Democratic support. What a costly mess that requires huge subsidies to this day.,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act

  111. jerry 2016-06-11 19:35

    What you and your wife are hearing is the talk on the street. The last thing the media wants is for more of that talk as they would not be able to sell air time. They are saying that Obama is going start on the campaign trail, that should be fun for him, but will do little if anything to persuade independent voters and voters of conscience from doing much at all. Republicans are plotting to make a charge at Trump to remove him from consideration, good luck with that. The party leaders know that Trump has hit a sweet spot and if they know they have a man that has already polled higher than Clinton. That was before her coronation though, so now we will wait to see what next week will bring. There will be a big bounce for both of them after conventions assuming that either one of them are their parties choice.

    I hear folks on this very blog speak of how they cannot understand why people would vote against there own best interests regarding party, and yet they advocate the same. Democrats had to really dig deep to find such a flawed candidate, but they were successful!

  112. jerry 2016-06-11 19:46

    Regarding the Medicare Act of 2003, the CMS has issued some new plans to save money in that pharma giveaway.

    But low and behold, here comes Ms NOem and the rest of beholding House to kill the savings with this nugget. H.R.5122 – To prohibit further action on the proposed rule regarding testing of Medicare part B prescription drug models.
    To this bunch of crooks and liars, there is no such thing as fiscal responsibility. It is all about the moolah for them.

  113. Roger Cornelius 2016-06-11 21:01

    I’ve been hearing all week that people don’t have a choice in the presidential race. Well you do have, you can select one of two candidates or not, but make no mistake you do have a choice.

  114. Roger Cornelius 2016-06-11 21:03

    What’s up with Happy calling everybody stupid?
    On occasion Happy could make a reasonably intelligent comment, but as of late he has gone all Sibson on us.

  115. jerry 2016-06-11 21:25

    That is true Roger, in the case of your choice though, and of the republican choice, then there is no choice. Regarding Happy, well, Happy is happy with his choice of words. Call me anything you want, is my motto, just don’t call me late for a meal.

  116. grudznick 2016-06-11 21:35

    Other choices, Mr. C, are to not vote for president at all, to vote twice or more to really “stick it to the man”, to write in a name, or to vote for a candidate not from the two largest political parties. I, for one, might defile my ballot. So that’s an option for all of you too. Defile.

  117. Roger Cornelius 2016-06-11 22:09


    You still don’t get it, there is a choice.
    Vote for Hillary, Vote for Trump Or Do Something Else With Your Ballot.
    It’s quite simple, really.

  118. jerry 2016-06-11 22:37

    Oh, I get it Roger. I really do.

  119. Leo 2016-06-11 22:45

    Look at Mr. Heidelberger’s columns. Where is the energy? Can we safely assume that the 80/20 article sparked much discussion? How about the Jay Williams switch article? Then the Stace Nelson article….sounds of silence… contention….beautiful harmony. The actual fight is for the heart and soul of the Democratic party. Why are we Democrats? What are our values? This is why Bernie Sanders should stay in the race until the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. The debate is not over.

  120. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-06-12 07:56

    Bingo, Leo!!!!

  121. happy camper 2016-06-12 09:00

    I got crazy when I saw that picture of Ambassador Stevens because Islam gives license to their radicals. The Taliban just skinned somebody alive, a Pakistani woman burned her daughter alive because she eloped. Cory’s Kindergarten statement “we are all the same” and the like still grinds on my nerves when I see the brutality being done in the name of religion. It’s in a totally different realm from most of the minor complaints we have here.

  122. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-06-12 21:36

    Camper, you do know that scalping of whites by Native Americans, started the other way around with the whites getting paid a ransom for every Indian scalp that they brought in, don’t you?

    How could anyone be more barbaric than the “christians” who dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and firebombed Dresden and killing a quarter of a million civilians in the process? Or how about the “christians” who killed a hundred million Indians in North, Central and South America in the last 6 plus centuries?

    Jesus, Ghandi and MLK gave us the road map of how to resolve our differences with others. Jesus gave us the roadmap for resolving our differences 21 centuries ago in Mattthew chapter 5 vs43-48.

  123. Leo 2016-06-12 23:59

    Should South Dakota Democrats wish to have any national relevance in this year’s election, our platform should include a COMPLETE REVIEW of all SD banking laws instituted under former Republican Governor WILLIAM JANKLOW! These laws have national relevance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.