From as early as 2008 she has been viewed as the nominee for this cycle. Supporters have dismissed her opponents as non-serious and their supporters as delusional time-wasters. “it’s her turn,” “she is inevitable.” But the nomination for President has never been a coronation, Clinton has been winning and has a lot of delegates in her pocket. Sanders has the same races and – he’s not doing so bad. There are legitimate reasons to oppose Clinton and support Sanders. These votes must be earned. If he keeps winning – he can take the nomination. If she gets more votes than he does – she will win. I know I sound like Madden talking about football here – but people who complain about Clinton need to note – she is actually winning.
Mr BlawtMost multiple terms have traditionally been coronations. The no longer Democratic Party has shown its owners in the first days of this campaign. Sanders, whose MO is bipartisan amendments to bills to make them more citizen and less corporation directed, has suffered from party machine making him an unknown for as long as possible: few debates, the infamous ABC 2.5 hours for Clinton, 80 seconds for Sanders; the total censorship of the fact Saunders headed the University of Chicago chapter of CORE (MLK is truly dead) and the Chicago Tribune said at the time, “he was thrown into a police van” for peacefully protesting Jim Crow housing, while Clinton has only recently discovered black lives exist, much less matter, but collect to votes of those kept ignorant by those whose job it is to inform.
William Bednar Premium Member about 8 years ago
Look out for falling poop!
Flash Gordon about 8 years ago
Sanders/Clinton or Clinton/Sanders in November 2016.
californicated1 about 8 years ago
Just what we need—a gerontocracy.-Which one plays the role of “Chernenko” and which one plays “Andropov”?-Neither one can play “Gromyko”.
Cerabooge about 8 years ago
He’s raining on her parade (for the moment), and he’s golden. Please don’t connect the dots.
Liverlips McCracken Premium Member about 8 years ago
She’s getting crowned, alright. Just not in the way she expected.
Mr. Blawt about 8 years ago
From as early as 2008 she has been viewed as the nominee for this cycle. Supporters have dismissed her opponents as non-serious and their supporters as delusional time-wasters. “it’s her turn,” “she is inevitable.” But the nomination for President has never been a coronation, Clinton has been winning and has a lot of delegates in her pocket. Sanders has the same races and – he’s not doing so bad. There are legitimate reasons to oppose Clinton and support Sanders. These votes must be earned. If he keeps winning – he can take the nomination. If she gets more votes than he does – she will win. I know I sound like Madden talking about football here – but people who complain about Clinton need to note – she is actually winning.
hippogriff about 8 years ago
Mr BlawtMost multiple terms have traditionally been coronations. The no longer Democratic Party has shown its owners in the first days of this campaign. Sanders, whose MO is bipartisan amendments to bills to make them more citizen and less corporation directed, has suffered from party machine making him an unknown for as long as possible: few debates, the infamous ABC 2.5 hours for Clinton, 80 seconds for Sanders; the total censorship of the fact Saunders headed the University of Chicago chapter of CORE (MLK is truly dead) and the Chicago Tribune said at the time, “he was thrown into a police van” for peacefully protesting Jim Crow housing, while Clinton has only recently discovered black lives exist, much less matter, but collect to votes of those kept ignorant by those whose job it is to inform.