This is clearly not Hillary's finest moment, but I can understand the frustration: like any number of other politicians (including Bernie) she receives donations from employees of fossil fuel companies, but she's apparently the only one where receiving donations is proof that she's bought and sold.

... well, there's one exception: Russ Feingold didn't take donations six years ago, and look where that got him. His ethics and scruples bought Wisconsin six years of a Teabagger senator.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-lashes-out-i-am-so-sick-the -sanders-campaign-lying

---

”The money in question is from individuals who work for these companies. By the same metric, Bernie Sanders has taken more than ,000 on this campaign from individuals working for oil and gas companies. Assuming they don’t believe their own candidate is bought by the fossil fuel industry, they should stop the false attacks and do what they’ve claimed the campaign is about: debating the issues.”

She's kind of right, compared to everyone else running (except Sanders) her 0k (not counting donations to the Clinton Foundation) from oil and coal isn't actually that bad, and this is just a distraction from the million she's gotten from the financial industry so far.

And even Sanders has taken a few thousand from energy interests.

This is far from the first time that hardcore Bernie supporters have condemned Hillary for doing the exact same thing as their messiah.

The latest Bernie hypocrisy I've been enjoying (for lack of a better word): how he's won six of the last seven caucuses, and therefore he represents the will of the people.

Caucuses are not primaries; they aren't run by your state government with conveniently located polling stations in every town, but maybe a few per county. And they are time-consuming; the caucuses may eat up a chunk of your day, and the head counts are conducted at a fixed time. So caucuses impose significant barriers to people who may not have time or transportation, and they're certainly not a great option for anyone with limited mobility.

The turnout at caucuses is a fraction of what you see at primaries, which is a big red flag. For example, less than 5% of deep blue Washington showed up to their Democratic caucus, while over 10% of purple-red Ohio voted in its Democratic primary. Sounds to me like caucuses present significant barriers to half the voters, give or take. That's voter suppression that Republicans would sell their souls to achieve.

And Bernie -- Mr. "Let's Make Election Day a National Holiday So Nobody Can Say They Couldn't Take Off Work To Vote" -- is making like his relative success at caucuses (specifically caucuses) is proof that he is the man the people prefer. Fuck that bullshit. If Bernie were doing poorly at caucuses, you know he and his fans would be screaming bloody murder about how unfair caucuses are; but Bernie isn't about fairness, he's about whatever gives him an advantage. Not a shred of principle to the man as far as I can tell.

Because I know somebody's going to go there: no, I'm not saying that Bernie's wins in caucuses are in any way illegitimate; he didn't make the rules, and he won the caucuses fair and square. This is about him drawing dishonest conclusions from them that additionally go against the ostensible principles behind his platform.

ah yes, the "Hilary is the most corrupt politician to have ever politiqued in the history of politiking" guy.

Did the word get out that Cena had dropped the act and Enjoy has retired, so we get an influx of new people auditioning for the part?

When was the last time that we elected a President that had been personally paid tens of millions of dollars under shady circumstances by industries that would profit tremendously from favorable administration policy? Adding up to million in the two years before being elected. That's OK with you?

The numbers I'm seeing are more like 0k in direct donations. .2 million would put her about even with Ted Cruz.

Also the number I got was from NPR, who were falling over themselves to downplay the whole thing.

Whose own otherwise mostly-respectable 2015 donor list also includes Dow, GlaxoSmithKilne, Warner Bros., Goldman Sachs, Fox Broadcasting(!), Target, Globoforce, Universal, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Disney, and Reddit.

Point being a donor list with at least a little dirt is a donor list that probably doesn't exist.

When was the last time that we HAVEN'T elected a President that had been personally paid tens of millions of dollars under shady circumstances by industries that would profit tremendously from favorable administration policy?

What Oscar Wildcat said.

Carter, maybe?

If Bernie actually got some shit done as a politician I would be more inclined to believe all his promises. As it stands now he might as well be going around promising to stop global warming and remake batman v superman into a good movie

You can sign the "Bernie or Bust" pledge here:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1fUL4amIrdA-tuTy5nFTRZu4kRNFaU OEk6hA7kxSKtoE/viewform

Yes there are many parallels with 2016, I agree. I haven't seen anybody here claim to be a progressive and openly support Trump however.