Skip to main content

Please read this before you vote in the poll…

Bernie Sanders is busy lately practicing his stump speech for his unofficially-declared 2016 run. Sanders made some strong comments after returning from a trip to Iowa and before heading back to New Hampshire.

Sanders is thinking of calling himself an "independent Democrat"… “That would mean running in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, but acknowledging that I am an independent, and have won every election I have run as an independent.”

Sanders then goes on to describe the situation like Cantor's race:

Everyone was shocked by Eric Cantor. My guess -– my experience –- is that when you go out and you talk to working people, there’s a lot more dissatisfaction with the status quo and status quo politics than you think… And if that if my conclusion is true, we’ll do better than I think people think.”

Now Bernie gets classy and then says exactly what needs to be said:

“In terms of Hillary, I respect her. I’ve known her. I like her. So I’m not running to attack Hillary Clinton. I’m running to talk about the issues that impact the working class of this country and the middle class… No question in my mind that if there was a national Democratic primary today, Hillary would win it, and win it handsomely. She would win it because she is widely respected, she is popular.

What people are dissatisfied with is not Hillary Clinton. People are dissatisfied with the fact that 95 percent of all new incomes go to the top 1 percent. That’s what people are dissatisfied with. And people are dissatisfied that we have billionaires pay a lower tax rate than working families. And those are the issues.

I think what we need is a new politics -- a different type of politics than Hillary’s. A politics that is much more grassroots-oriented, much more having to do with strong coalition-building and grassroots activism than I think Hillary has demonstrated over the years, or supported.”

In my opinion, we are at a turning point of history. We have some choices to make that will determine the course of our future and our childrens' future.

Our economic system has been revealed to be a hierarchy of corruption serving those as the top, and certainly not an evidence-based Science. Our democracy is being eroded, our rights trampled by both parties (Rethugs obviously the much greater evil). Most of our politicians regard the following as taboo: Snowden & the NSA, Citizens United, Too-Big-to-Fail Banks, Jobs, Inequality, Living Wage, Bankster Regulations, Expanding Social Security, TPP/TPIP/TISA (NAFTA pt 2 & 3), Fracking, Marijuana legalization.

Then we have the devastating interrelation between Climate Change and the gradually worsening resource limitations. Wait till we see the food prices in 10+ years.

Obama has set us on an "all-of-the-above" energy path, knowing full well his plans do little to nothing to mitigate Climate Change. Obama has more often in the past boasted of his commitments to fossil fuels. Their is no reason that to believe that Hillary or any other Democratic establishment will do anything different. Vox has an excellent article: These 5 charts show why the world is still failing on climate change. Even moderates like Ezra Klein have become pessimistic which he detailed in 2 articles: 7 reasons America will fail on climate change and An 8th reason to be pessimistic about climate change action. Most in the Science community are aware that we are most likely going to overshoot the "extremely dangerous" 2°C, and with only moderate mitigation, as current business leaders are willing to support, stabilize at 3°-4°C. This does not account for systemic feedbacks likely to start around this stage, most notably methane release. While 6°C is broadly agreed to be the mass-extinction threshold, a "4°C future is incompatible with an organized global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable." One can only wonder if the USA will still be around, or what it would look like. Its questionable the present population level will even be sustainable.

On a positive note, only 38% of voters would vote for a ClimateChange-denying presidential candidate. With the Repugs' candidate almost guaranteed to be a denier, I believe this expands our prospects for 2016, and we must take this opportunity.

Bernie Sanders has spoken a lot about Climate Change, and shown that he fully appreciates how we currently hang between hardship and catastrophe. I also believe Sanders can draw many new and disenchanted voters out. Lets give our future a fighting chance, unite the left, fix our democracy, and push our country in the right [left] direction!

Poll

Bernie Sanders 2016…

0%2 votes
23%50 votes
10%23 votes
24%53 votes
39%84 votes

| 213 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  ezra klein is a concern troll on climate (15+ / 0-)

    and speaking of climate scientists, michael mann and john abraham have very prominently praised obama's climate efforts. and hillary cites it as the number one issue for the future.

    i love sanders. he has zero chance of defeatng hillary. zero.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 08:18:26 AM PDT

    •  But Remember It Was Cantor who Beat Cantor. (8+ / 0-)

      Just as it was Hillary who beat Hillary in 2008, in that case by competing in a different contest than the one that was actually being held.

      Candidates sometimes beat themselves, ship sometimes happens.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 08:23:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't disagree with your assessment of his chances (6+ / 0-)

      In terms of office, this would at best be a run for VP.

      But using a primary run as a means to start a national dialogue? It's very intriguing. I'd throw some change that way.  

      Republicans: If they only had a heart.

      by leu2500 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 08:26:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm afraid that isn't true (0+ / 0-)

      Ezra Klein may be more pessimistic than many Climate Scientists, or more than many are willing to publicly admit. The facts he present though are valid though.

      As someone who follows Climate Science for several years now, I can tell you Bill Mckibben and Michael Mann both know that Obama's strategy is not enough, and definitely not in line with a 2°C target. Because thats what the Science shows. But, they are happy that at least something is done to remove Climate Change from political purgatory.

      Read Prof James Hansen's take on Obama's policy.
      Too Little, Too Late? Oops?

      •  klein is a defeatist (3+ / 0-)

        which is just another form of denialism. meanwhile, i'll quote mann himself:

        All in all, it is the most aggressive and promising climate plan to come out of the executive branch in years, and President Obama should be applauded for the bold leadership he has shown in confronting the climate change threat head on.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:38:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Forget Klein's attitude (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shaylors Provence

          The data he presents is all correct, draw your own conclusions.
          Also, since u ignored it the first time:

          Prof James Hansen: Too Little, Too Late? Oops?
          http://www.columbia.edu/...

          •  Also... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shaylors Provence

            Obama Climate Rules Not Enough to Fight Global Warming
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/...

            "If the measure of President Obama's proposed power plant regulations is their impact on climate change, they would be doomed to failure, according to climate scientists."

            Also, exporting our pollution is not a solution:
            Obama Boosts Coal Exports, Prompting Allies’ Complaints
            http://www.bloomberg.com/...

            Obama even plans to export the pollution stored by the CCS technology of his new regulations. This is an insult.

            Same Obama used NSA spying to kill Copenhagen Climate Change talks
            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            •  tol? (0+ / 0-)

              you link an article that cites tol?

              http://www.theguardian.com/...

              http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/...

              http://skepticalscience.com/...

              http://www.lse.ac.uk/...

              and here's joe romm:

              One of the country’s best wonks, Vox’s Ezra Klein, has gone defeatist on climate change with his piece, “7 reasons America will fail on climate change.” He invites a reply, and this is mine.

              I have praised Vox’s recent climate coverage. But to see how pessimistic this story is, look at a few of the large-type, all caps, pull-out quotes:

                  STAND BACK AND WATCH THE WORLD BURN
                  CLIMATE CHANGE HAS A “GAME OVER” QUALITY TO IT
                  I COULD MAKE UP A MORE OPTIMISTIC STORY. I JUST DON’T BELIEVE IT.

              KMN?

              I asked one of the country’s top climatologists, Michael Mann, who criticized this story in a tweet to comment. He wrote:

              Defeatist framing is not helpful and threatens serving as self-fulfilling prophecy. We all grew up reading not “The Little Engine that Couldn’t.” The only real obstacle to averting dangerous climate change is lack of willpower and imagination. We must avoid messaging that seems to condone that, as the title of the Vox piece unfortunately does.
              get back to me when you know what you're talking about.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:38:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Climate Targets (0+ / 0-)

                Richard Tol happens to be often quoted, but obviously he is an academic troll. Still, it isn't him making the argument in the articles I mentioned.

                Here are better articles:
                There's a big gap between Obama's climate ambitions and his actual policies:
                http://www.vox.com/...

                America’s Dirty Secret: Shipping coal to China could wipe out the benefits of Obama’s climate-change policy
                http://www.macleans.ca/...

                So, the question is: What target of degree C are we aiming for? The 2°C is practically a fantasy now. The Neoliberals and their "all-of-the-above" strategy will likely push us right to the 4°C threshold.

                Its a simple math of how many gt of carbon we can still burn, and doesnt yet incorporate complex feedbacks. Need I remind also of Scientists' tendency to anti-alarmism has already seen conservative projections fail. Jut a few years ago we were all still discussing 2°C by 2100 and the Arctic wasn't in threat of imminent summer collapse.

                Judging by Obama's actions and many other business leaders, we all see positive momentum for mitigation. Sadly, most still seem to live in some technological fantasy where man will ultimately "overcome nature". What % of Earth's population are we willing to sacrifice?

                •  michael mann and john abraham (0+ / 0-)

                  and joe romm understand the science, and neither under nor over estimate. klein doesm't understand the science. you're good at tossing around code words like "neoliberal" or "anti-alarmism." you're not so good at understanding how the words do and don't apply to contexts.

                  The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                  by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 07:20:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I am speaking entirely about the Science (0+ / 0-)

                    I follow the Science very closerly, and even regularly read published research. Joe Romm and Michael Mann both agree with me. Here are Joe Romm's own words:

                    Two Steps Remain Before Obama Can Claim A Genuine Climate Legacy
                    http://thinkprogress.org/...

                    "U.S. natural gas consumption must peak sometime between 2020 and 2030 to preserve a livable climate. So it makes little or no sense to spend any substantial amount of money on new natural gas production, delivery, and power systems"

                    "even very low leakage of methane from the natural gas system wipes out its advantages over coal power for decades. The recent scientific literature — based on actual measurements of methane — reveals that methane leakage is actually quite high."

                    "By The Time Natural Gas Has A Net Climate Benefit You’ll Likely Be Dead And The Climate Ruined"

                    "if Obama can’t leverage his policies and commitments to get a serious international deal, it will be prima facie evidence that he didn’t do enough. And future generations living with the multiple catastrophic impacts of a ruined climate will judge him, and all of us, as failures. "

                    How Does The New EPA Rule Stack Up Against Obama’s Other Climate Actions?
                    http://thinkprogress.org/...

                    "That rule isn’t expected to make a huge difference in terms of U.S. carbon emissions"

                    Again, the scientific community is happy that anything is being done, but nobody is imagining that efforts so far can themselves cause or lead to limiting warming to 2°C or maybe even 3°C.

                    Michael Mann: Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036
                    http://www.scientificamerican.com/...

                    •  whoosh (0+ / 0-)

                      michael mann has praised obama's bold steps on climate. he and romm directly criticized klein, which undermines the exact premise of your post. you might not understand it, but this isn't complicated.

                      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                      by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:20:11 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Go ask them then (0+ / 0-)

                        They have both praised Obama's bold political steps, which is badly needed to at least break the ice. Neither are in an illusion that this is a significant step to remain within a 2°C or even 3°C target.

                        I think you are also ignoring my links. Please read Joe Romm's article directly above. Quote:

                        "if Obama can’t leverage his policies and commitments to get a serious international deal, it will be prima facie evidence that he didn’t do enough. And future generations living with the multiple catastrophic impacts of a ruined climate will judge him, and all of us, as failures."

                        •  i don't need to ask (0+ / 0-)

                          i already know. i also know what they think of klein's concern trolling.

                          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                          by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:37:16 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  do u just read my comment subject? (0+ / 0-)

                            Joe Romm's article directly above. Quote:

                            "if Obama can’t leverage his policies and commitments to get a serious international deal, it will be prima facie evidence that he didn’t do enough. And future generations living with the multiple catastrophic impacts of a ruined climate will judge him, and all of us, as failures."

                          •  and he's trying (0+ / 0-)

                            meanwhile, you know, we have romm's actual post dismantling klein's, point by point. i know this is hard.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 04:46:31 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dismantle his *defeatism* (0+ / 0-)

                            Which I certainly agree with Romm & Mann on. But they don't disagree with Ezra on the numbers or the challenge ahead of us though.

                            Honestly, Ezra is mainstream media guy who apparently just recently woke up & realized how fucked we are and overreacted with depressing pessimism. Hard to blame him if you look at the facts of the Science, and the political roadblocks - there is certainly a lot to be pessimistic about

                            But there is still a lot we can do, and we must do the very best we can. We can still have a very liveable planet. But if we fail to push for radical mitigation, it will be catastrophic, with deaths in the billions. Wall St and the "ecopragmatists" are pushing for no strong climate targets, rather just mitigate gradually as is most cost-effective in their eyes, and hope for the best.

                            Besides, I am not sure why you keep ignoring the fact that I gave u exactly what u originally asked for: proof on the Science (from Joe Romm & ThinkProgress) that Obama and the establishment Dems are not planning to do nearly enough to avoid a horrific future.

                            I wish it wasn't so, but it is. This Neoliberal agenda is identical around the world too, across various countries. Not enough.

      •  There's a difference (0+ / 0-)

        between saying Obama hasn't done enough, which is true, and claiming he has done "little to nothing" which is untrue.

        I have a lot of respect for Bill McKibben but he has made it clear he's got some kind of issue with Obama that goes beyond policy differences. For example, after spending years pushing Obama to put solar at the White House (even though there already was solar on the grounds), all McKibben could do when it finally happened was to shrug his shoulders and act like it was no big deal. WTF?  I guess the issue doesn't matter anymore once it can't be used to make Obama look bad.

        And Keystone XL isn't the most important climate issue to tackle. It's just one of the few that allows Obama to be targeted directly because it doesn't require Congressional action. I wonder if we could have gotten something more through Congress if 350 and others weren't so singularly obsessed with the White House?

        •  Not really (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shaylors Provence

          Obama has made America a fossil fuel empire. Obama oversaw the mass-expansion of fracking, technology that destroys soil and water it touches for generations. Most of those gas pipes seem also to be leaking copious amounts of methane due to lousy regulation he implemented. Lately there is even much talk about how profitable this whole venture was due to declining EROI as the energy gets harder to extract. Now Obama has started his new push for exporting fossil fuels:

          Obama Boosts Coal Exports, Prompting Allies’ Complaints
          http://www.bloomberg.com/...

          Ahead Of New Anti-Coal Regs, Obama Streamlines LNG Exports
          http://www.forbes.com/...

          Obama is even pushing export of the pollution stored by the CCS technology of his new regulations:

          How the U.S. Exports Global Warming
          http://www.rollingstone.com/...

          "While Obama talks of putting America on the path to a clean, green future, we're flooding world markets with cheap, high carbon fuels"

          Same Obama used NSA spying to kill Copenhagen Climate Change talks
          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          •  Copy and paste? (0+ / 0-)

            You posted this same comment before and it seems even less relevant in this thread. None of what you wrote negates his other actions or otherwise makes them magically disappear.

            And to suggest Obama intentionally killed the Copenhagen talks is complete speculation contradicted by many actions he has taken to get agreements moving. Can we stick to facts without the mind reading conspiracy theories?

            •  Yes it does negate (0+ / 0-)

              Obama is expanding our fossil fuels at a time when we should be contracting. Also, he has approved and encouraged the export of more and more emissions in the form of coal and now LNG to other countries. Thats a reduction on paper only.

              Yes, Obama has taken important symbolic steps. But practically speaking, this is still mostly hot air. We need to aim for 80% reduction by 2030, and hope we can get anywhere near that.

              If you don't believe me, thats fine. Please go ask Michael Mann on twitter yourself. I am here to educate, not troll. We have a limited window of time, and the capitalists want to mitigate a lot less than you'd think. Certainly not enough to limit warming to 2°C or 3°C.

              •  Building renewables (0+ / 0-)

                is not symbolic. It's tangible. The stimulus investments and tax credits for renewables got tangible results.
                Billions in energy efficiency spending isn't symbolic.
                Auto fuel standards, truck standards, billions invested in rail, and promoting alternative transportation planning for cities isn't symbolic. A lot of other President would not have made those things the focus of the stimulus or used the auto bailout to get car manufacturers to change. Ultimately, reducing consumption is more important than what we're extracting right now, and Obama is getting results to reduce consumption.

                The CO2 rule doesn't exist in a vacuum. Mercurcy and SCAPR are already pushing announced coal plant closures. Add in CO2 and coal ash rules and you've got something way, way more than symbolic. I've seen announcements of 12 coal boiler closures in just the last two weeks. Hundreds more will come. That's not symbolic.

                Obama needs to do more. I don't see how convincing people that tangible progress is all meaningless motivates people or politicians to do more.

                •  The point is what target (0+ / 0-)

                  What target of degree C are we aiming for. The 2°C is practically a fantasy now. The Neoliberals and their "all-of-the-above" strategy will likely push us right to the 4°C threshold.

                  Its a simple math of how many gt of carbon we can still burn, and doesnt yet incorporate complex feedbacks. Need I remind also of Scientists' tendency to anti-alarmism has already seen conservative projections fail. Jut a few years ago we were all still discussing 2°C by 2100 and the Arctic wasn't in threat of imminent summer collapse.

                  Judging by Obama's actions and many other business leaders, we all see positive momentum for mitigation. Sadly, most still seem to live in some technological fantasy where man will ultimately "overcome nature". What % of Earth's population are we willing to sacrifice?

          •  C'mon (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Willinois
            Obama has made America a fossil fuel empire.
            And it wasn't before?

            "A famous person once said, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' But as I once said, "If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like." – Max Headroom

            by midnight lurker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 02:31:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  We must throw ourselves upon gears of the DLC (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RepublicansDemise

      machine, risk being drowned in the oceans of their money for the sake of "better Democrats", win or lose.

      The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

      by Wolf10 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:45:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He's not a Democrat (7+ / 0-)

    and that Independent Democrat title has been forever tarnished by Joe Lie berman.
    The best Bernie can do is pull the Overton Window a bit to the Left. The worst he could do is act the spoiler and give us another BushCheney type outcome.
    Don't get me wrong, I love Sanders and his positions on most things, but he's going nowhere in the flyover and south of the Mason Dixon line.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 08:20:31 AM PDT

  •  Hinting that Sanders could do to Hillary (3+ / 0-)

    what happened to Cantor, is in effect a comparison between Hillary and Cantor.

    Trust me, there's no comparison.

    I just want to live somewhere warm. Is that so wrong?

    by lotac on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 08:22:42 AM PDT

  •  I'll Say This to Sanders' Credit, There's Probably (15+ / 0-)

    no progressive less likely to sink the ship for personal gain or self aggrandizement.

    It seems clear he's pursuing this as a potential issue-candidacy, but you never know future events, so I for one am happy to see him give it his best shot and let the people and events speak.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 08:27:00 AM PDT

  •  Won't happen. (0+ / 0-)

    the woman who is easily irritated

    by chicago minx on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 08:28:57 AM PDT

  •  Unfortunately for Bernie (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    if he ever threatened to come close to actually Cantoring Hilary Clinton, he'd be viciously torn down and nothing would be out of bounds, including his being an independent socialist.

    Bernie might want to be talking about issues he'd want kept alive, without running a teardown campaign on anyone else, but if he started winning the contest his reward would be whatever was the nastiest shit that the cold-blooded and ruthless Rahm Emmanuel-types could dream up to tear him down.

    I love Bernie Sanders, I think he'd be a great US President, but nothing about him tells me that his stance would make him likely to respond well to a full-on scorched earth campaign. Not if his wider focus was on not harming the end-viability of the other rivals in the race.

    "Real journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." -George Orwell

    by LeftHandedMan on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 08:32:46 AM PDT

  •  Interesting (4+ / 0-)

    I agree with your opinion about what his motives are. I don't think he will win against Hillary. I don't think he believes he will win against Hillary. He is merely trying to shift her more to the left. I think many of us Dems believe our party has lost its way and went to far center Right. The Democratic Party needs a major reboot. We need it to return to its roots and be a facilitator for change, social issues/justice. I think Bernie realizes this and is trying to make sure we have these imporant conversations and have Hillary address these issues.

  •  If Bernie runs as a Dem in the primaries? (3+ / 0-)

    I'm all for it.

    And I say that as someone who has posted 1,000 comments on the utter madness of the Hillary-haters on this site.

    If he pulls a Nader (spit)?

    He should be shunned and ridiculed, as that egomaniac POS should have been.

  •  Warren would be FAR better against Hillary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chicago minx, Willinois

    as a credible primary threat, that is.

    I doubt Sanders has any intention to really threaten Hillary. He'd drop out if it meant letting a Republican win. Which leads to an unfortunate conclusion: if everyone knows he won't run as a serious candidate, then nobody will take him seriously and his effect will be minimal. Still, I'd vote for him.

    "Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

    by quill on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 08:46:21 AM PDT

  •  I hope Sanders has the chops to do it (0+ / 0-)

    And you can not tear Hillary down , that is a loser

    Unfortunately I have witnessed Sander fail in a few interviews where the GOP is challenging him , he would have to really prepare himself and get some real good people to help him , and stay on the right massage , he has to do it in a way that if he does come up short , his message still looks good

    In my liberal opinion on the Senate floor , no one can beat Sanders , and Hillary did all right there also

    Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

    by Patango on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 08:55:24 AM PDT

  •  Part of the major dislike for Cantor is (0+ / 0-)

    his association with the religious reich and his nasty misogynistic policies.

    Perhaps that was a bad comparison.

    "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

    by GreenMother on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:04:08 AM PDT

    •  I don't think that's what Republican primary (0+ / 0-)

      voters didn't like about him.

      •  That's what I don't like about him, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG

        I don't see how he makes a good comparison to Hillary. Also didn't Cantor also lose because of lots of Dark Money being pumped into Brat's campaign? So will Hillary lose because of Dark Money? And how does that make her bad and not simply a victim of bad campaign finance laws?

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:41:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  But .... but ..... but .... (3+ / 0-)

    Hillary is not Jewish and has a terrible singing voice.  No way she could be a cantor.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:25:12 AM PDT

  •  Can we find a challenger serious about winning? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chicago minx, Jon Sitzman

    I'm not going to waste time with a campaign that starts with a loser mentality that they're only going to "raise issues" or push Hillary left. Run to beat Hillary or don't run at all. I hope Sanders will show there's strong interest for an alternative and help recruit a challenger who's serious about being elected President.

    And just a correction. You're assessment of Obama on climate change is too cynical. The stimulus investments in clean energy and efficiency programs were massive and exactly what we needed. He pushed cap-and-trade, so you can blame fossil fuel Democrats in the Senate for blocking that. His new fuel standards for cars and trucks will be reducing transportation CO2 for years to come. Half a dozen new EPA rules regulating coal will combine to squeeze a lot of coal plants out of business.

    Yeah, Obama can do more but he's taking very significant steps that are putting us on the right path. There are always debbie downers to trash talk everything he does. But to claim Obama's actions have done "little to nothing" on climate change is a false exaggeration. The fact that he threw out some favors to the fossil fuel industry does not negate everything positive he has done.

    •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

      Obama has made America a fossil fuel empire. Obama oversaw the mass-expansion of fracking, technology that destroys soil and water it touches for generations. Most of those gas pipes seem also to be leaking copious amounts of methane due to lousy regulation he implemented. Lately there is even much talk about how profitable this whole venture was due to declining EROI as the energy gets harder to extract. Now Obama has started his new push for exporting fossil fuels:

      Obama Boosts Coal Exports, Prompting Allies’ Complaints
      http://www.bloomberg.com/...

      Ahead Of New Anti-Coal Regs, Obama Streamlines LNG Exports
      http://www.forbes.com/...

      Obama is even pushing export of the pollution stored by the CCS technology of his new regulations:

      How the U.S. Exports Global Warming
      http://www.rollingstone.com/...

      "While Obama talks of putting America on the path to a clean, green future, we're flooding world markets with cheap, high carbon fuels"

      Same Obama used NSA spying to kill Copenhagen Climate Change talks
      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      •  Waaahhh????? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Willinois, Jon Sitzman

        Fracking is the product of a decades long program of research and development.  The fact that it has come to fruition during the Obama administration is hardly proof of the president's nefarious intent, as he lacks a pen to wave that would bring the entire industry crashing to a halt.

      •  No, really. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jon Sitzman

        Yes, I'm aware of fracking and I'm aware of the stimulus money wasted on CCS projects, most of which were never built. But, what exactly is your point? That everything else he does is meaningless because of a short term uptick of extraction?

        The clean energy, efficiency, and transportation changes plus EPA rules still make a significant impact and will for decades after he leaves office. The hodgepodge of extraction issues you raise are a problem but it doesn't make his other actions disappear. You can argue that his record is mixed, but to say he has done "little to nothing" is still inaccurate.

        •  No, it hasn't (0+ / 0-)

          Obama's policy have not had any significant impact yet on the Climate. Do your research. The new EPA rules are barely 1% global reduction of emissions, and thats with strict enforcement.

          Michael Mann has written how we pass the 2°C threshold by 2036 under BAU (business-as-usual). That is how fast we are shooting forward. Most scientists will tell you, limiting warming to 2°C is likely impossible without radical emission reductions. New research has also practically eliminated the lower climate sensitivity range.

          •  CO2 emissions are down. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jon Sitzman

            Renewable's share of the power supply is going up rapidly. Obama has enacted policies that will continue that trend and are reducing energy consumption, including in transportation.

            I agree that Obama needs to do much more. But to claim he hasn't had ANY impact is simply not true.

            •  Show us (0+ / 0-)

              Show us how the Obama's new regulations significantly reduce emissions, or how it significantly helps us meet any concrete Climate targets.

              In 2013, coal, oil, and gas provided 87% of the world's energy. That fraction hasn't changed since 1999:
              http://www.vox.com/...

              •  Here we go (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jon Sitzman

                From the link you posted:

                Obama pretty clearly doesn't have the power to fix global warming all by himself. Yes, the administration has taken a number of big steps to nudge down US emissions — including stricter fuel-economy rules and curbs on carbon-dioxide from power plants.
                So, the article agrees with what I've been saying. Obama has taken significant steps and needs to do more. I've had this same conversation with people before. I'm not sure why some on the left sound like Fox News when it comes to not giving Obama credit for anything at all. If anything, the debbie downer cynicism is demotivating. Spreading the attitude that nothing anyone does accomplishes anything seems counterproductive to me, and it's untrue.

                Recent and projected coal plant retirements.

                Planned coal-fired power plant retirements continue to increase

                And since the apparent argument is that coal exports somehow negate that progress, which doesn't really make any sense, but this is how the CO2 rule will pay off:

                After Obama's Big Climate Proposal, China Signals It May Cap Carbon

                1) Billions spent on housing and building efficiency.
                2) Billions spent on renewables.
                3) Half a dozen coal rules that combine to close an estimated 1/3 to 1/2 of US coal plants.
                4) Reducing oil consumption.
                5) Using the CO2 rule to get an agreement with China and other nations (which is what cap-and-trade was supposed to do if the fossil fuel majority in the Senate hadn't blocked it).

                This is real progress. He sucks on increasing extraction and I'm actively fighting that. But, the other stuff matters too.

                •  Significant how? (0+ / 0-)

                  They are only significant politically, they still barely make a dent in emissions reductions

                  •  Brick wall. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Jon Sitzman

                    Do I really need to explain to you how shutting down coal plants and using less energy reduces CO2? J.H.C.

                    •  You misunderstand (0+ / 0-)

                      The argument isn't that it doesn't lower emissions, but rather that it is a very small reduction in emissions relative to what is needed. Indeed, Scientists have estimated that at best it reduces Global emissions ~1% per year.

                      What Climate target are we aiming for? Neoliberals clearly dont mind taking more risks, and relying more on tech that doesn't exist yet, all so their profits are harmed the least possible. Their strategy, in their calculation, is cost-effective for themselves (the 1%). Climate Targets are not even that important to them.

                      Brad Plumer has another excellent article about why 2°C is basically in our rear-view mirror:
                      http://www.vox.com/...

                      Obama's Climate legacy will be in moving the conversation forward and taking important political baby steps. However, his ecological & ClimateChange legacy will be remembered as insufficient.

                      Leaky Methane Makes Natural Gas Bad for Global Warming
                      http://www.scientificamerican.com/...
                      "Natural gas fields globally may be leaking enough methane, a potent greenhouse gas, to make the fuel as polluting as coal for the climate over the next few decades"

            •  Better Articles (0+ / 0-)

              There's a big gap between Obama's climate ambitions and his actual policies:
              http://www.vox.com/...

              America’s Dirty Secret: Shipping coal to China could wipe out the benefits of Obama’s climate-change policy
              http://www.macleans.ca/...

  •  WAY (2+ / 0-)

    too many boomers underestimate younger voters.  I assume they judge by their own kids but the blue working class kids I know are not gonna go for Hillary.

  •  I'd vote for Bernie (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RepublicansDemise, Lepanto

    or Elizabeth over Hillary.

    And wasn't Hillary crowned as the victor in '08 long before the race even began? So Hillary was "Cantor'd" long before "Cantor" was. Yet here we are again, Hillary crowned as the victor long before the race has even started.

    Deja Vu all over again?

    And by the way, shouldn't it be Dewey'd? Isn't the defeat of Dewey by Truman considered the biggest political upset ever (or at least in modern times)? Or am I missing something?

    "Nothing travels faster than the speed of light, with the possible exception of bad news. Which follows its own special rules." ~ Douglas Adams

    by coyote66 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:41:06 AM PDT

  •  I hope Bernie Sanders jumps in the race, (3+ / 0-)

    if only to get some serious back 'n forth on all the issues Bernie (all of us) has been fighting for, for years.  As I've said often enough in so many words, we need our best Dems who have the courage, the conviction to challenge each other honestly, to debate and prove why s/he should be earn the nomination to run for President.

    I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

    by KayCeSF on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:55:27 AM PDT

  •  Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RepublicansDemise

    Re: Above in diary RepublicansDemise wrote

    One can only wonder if the USA will still be around, or what it would look like. Its questionable the present population level will even be sustainable.
    Checkout this mixed Mother Jones blog & Inquiring Minds Podcast (a SoundCloud audio resource), "Jared Diamond: We Could Be Living in a New Stone Age by 2114" . —By Indre Viskontas and Chris Mooney, Apr. 18, 2014—wherein "The Pulitzer-winning author (Diamond) explains why he adapted his classic book 'The Third Chimpanzee' for kids: because we need them to fix our mistakes."
      ... (goto audio at 15:43 to 46:45 with follow-up discussion through 48:20)  ...interview host Indre Viskontas asked Diamond where he thought humanity would be 100 years from now. What's striking is that he wasn't positive that the modern world, as we know it, would be around at all. It all depends, he says, on where we are at 2050: Either by the year 2050 we've succeeded in developing a sustainable economy, in which case we can then ask your question about 100 years from now, because there will be 100 years from now; or by 2050 we've failed to develop a sustainable economy, which means that there will no longer be first world living conditions, and there either won't be humans 100 years from now, or those humans 100 years from now will have lifestyles similar of those of Cro-Magnons 40,000 years ago, because we've already stripped away the surface copper and the surface iron. If we knock ourselves out of the first world, we're not going to be able to rebuild a first world.

    In 2005's Collapse, Diamond provided a great deal more detail on how ecological despoilment led to the collapse of other societies, such as the Easter Islanders, who cut down all their trees. The difference now, however, is that globalization causes our peril to be more widely distributed, kind of like a house of cards. "In this globalized world," Diamond says, "it's no longer possible for societies to collapse one by one. A collapse that we face, if there is going to be a collapse, it will be a global collapse."

          I believe Senator Bernie Sanders is willing to make a loud, serious presentation of many themes and strategies that resonate well with Jared Diamond's admonitions whereas I do not believe Secretary Hillary Clinton is capable of carrying on frank discussions of such alternatives as are likely to surface if-when Sanders (and/or Senator Elizabeth Warren, and/or Mayor Ross Carl "Rocky" Anderson and/or a tiny few others) enter the necessary, wide-ranging debates and socio-economic-religious-political struggles.

                    p.s. Illinois voters: Come to your senses and repudiate Gubernatorial candidate GTCR Chairman Bruce Rauner (R) who wants Illinois to be the next state in the same mess as Wisconsin. "Rauner says he would model his governorship after those of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. Both significantly rolled back union power in what they said were necessary steps to attract business and reduce costs."

  •  I like bernie sanders (0+ / 0-)

    yet I don't know what he respects about hillary clinton.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site