Bernie Sanders’s anti-Semitic surrogates

149 thoughts on “Bernie Sanders’s anti-Semitic surrogates”

1. I’m in the small minority of Vermonters not voting for Sanders. My vote surely won’t count for much, but I am voting for Biden. He’s the candidate most likely to win, although there is certainly no guarantee. I hope he picks a really good VP, given his his age and possibly cognitive decline.

   1. Biden has always sounded a bit “off”. I don;t think that’s new.

      But I’ll take him any day over the Orange creature in the White House with his 10-year old mentality and 12-year old emotional maturity.

      1. Much has been made lately of Joe Biden’s having been a childhood stutterer (and of his noble efforts to help others overcome their stuttering).

         I understand that one strategy childhood stutterers use is to hesitate before speaking so they can mentally pronounce the words first. I wonder whether there is a tendency for childhood stutterers to revert to this strategy as they begin approaching senescence, because that’s what I seem to notice Biden doing now.

         1. If he wins I can see the film pitch now

            “The King’s Speech 2: The President’s Speech!”

            1. As sequel titles go, it ain’t exactly Breakin’ 2: Electric Bugaloo, now is it? 🙂

         2. Some of the hesitation, I think, comes from a need to search the memory for synonyms. If one word doesn’t want to emerge, you can try again with another.

            1. Biden takes some time to collect his thoughts before he speaks. Shouldn’t that be a good thing? Would we rather have an orange maniac who just spills whatever garbage is on the tip of his tongue?

            2. Agreed. Speaking style is a trifle when compared with the power of policy ideas.

2. Speaking of Sanders surrogates designed to turn me off…. Marianne Williamson?

   I have no idea what the race will look like when I get to vote. Wisconsin’s primary isn’t until April 7. I supported Sanders four years ago. This time I’m mostly intent on getting rid of the Orange Menace. I’ll probably go for whoever can lock the nomination up quickest.

   1. You should have some very clear (and few) choices by 7-Apr.

      I voted early for Amy, which people will call a wasted vote; but I don’t mind that.

      1. The primary here is St. Paddy’s Day, March 17th. I’m waiting until three days before to fill out my mail-in ballot and drop it off at the post office.

   2. She is not a surrogate, she merely endorsed him.

      1. Define “surrogate”. She was invited to appear with Sanders.

         1. A surrogate is someone with a long-term official association with the campaign, who is authorized at some level to speak as a proxy for Sanders.

3. sub.

4. Well, this matter of choices has certainly narrowed in the past few days!
   I was really impressed by Amy at an event here in New Hampshire, with Pete a strong second. Warren didn’t measure up to either of them, in my estimation … she felt too much like a peppy schoolteacher in front of the classroom.

   1. I like Amy and Pete as well. They are now household names and in a good position to run in 2024 if they choose.

      1. Good point. No kidding about 2024. You Americans are already getting ready for the next, next election. It is like you finish one and you’ve already started the next campaign.

         1. Since Trump is so likely to win re-election, Democrats should be thinking long term. Not so much about specific candidates, but about what the party really stands for.

      2. I like them too, but I’m really hoping they don’t run until 2028…

5. Biden or Warren, never Sanders. Can you imagine his Cabinet?

6. There is something profoundly wrong with American politics when the four remaining Democrats and the Republican are all in their 70s with three of the Democrats in their late 70s. Americans seem to be in denial that people age, get sick, and die. But, actuaries do not suffer from the delusion.

   https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/27/electing-an-older-candidate-carries-risks-just-ask-life-insurance-industry/

   1. I think that many people live much longer than in earlier times (e.g. mid 1800s). They have more time to accumulate power and influence.

      This makes the “abrrier to entry” higher than in earlier times.

      Those who choose to run to POTUS are, pretty much by definition, among the most robust and energetic people in our population.

   2. Interesting to compare to UK PMs, where according to Wikipedia below Palmerston is the only one to be 70+ when becoming PM.

      Even Pitt the Elder was only 57 when elected.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age

   3. “An adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has died after contracting the novel coronavirus, state radio says” CNN

      So we’ll just have to wait and see how the virus infects us (esp the elderly) here in the US.

   4. Hell, even William Weld, the former Massachusetts governor currently mounting a quixotic GOP challenge to Donald Trump is 74. (Hard to believe that an incumbent who’s been underwater by double digits in his approval rating for his entire presidency hasn’t drawn a stronger primary challenger, but that’s one sign of the GOP’s arrant capitulation to its arriviste overlord.)

   5. It’s not a complete surprise given the ageing of the entire population, and the fact that people are working into their 70s now as almost a matter of course.

      I suspect that as long as the boomers represent a significant share of the U.S. actually-voting electorate, we’ll see boomer candidates regularly contesting elections.

      1. True enough. But Biden, Bloomberg, and the Bern are all older than Boomers.

         Whenever one of ’em says something on tv I disagree with, I always say, “Okay, Boomer Silent Generation guy.” 🙂

         The Silent Generation has yet to have one of its own in the Oval Office (and, indeed, has fielded only two presidential candidates: Michael Dukakis and John McCain). The nation went straight from having seven so-called “Greatest Generation” presidents (JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Poppy Bush) to having four Boomers in a row (Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and Trump).

         1. My dad is always saying, “I’m not a Boomer BTW I’m from the silent generation” like I say “I’m not a Boomer or Millennial, I’m Gen X”. If I were true to My Gen X roots, I’d just say, “Meh”.

7. I’m all in for Warren and have contributed to her campaign. I’m curious as to the “some slipperiness” you detect. Could you expend on that? She seems to be very consistent to me, although I think that she is more likely to compromise to get things done than Sanders, while consistently pursuing “great structural change,” unlike Biden. As to her manner, she is and has been for years a teacher, so that is hard to change. Curious that we liberals celebrate teachers but don’t want them as a President? That said, I would vote for any of the four remaining, although very nervous about Bloomberg.

   1. What is your opinion on her idea of giving a transgender child the veto on the secretary of education?

      1. As though it’s humanly possible to have a shittier Secretary of Education than Betsy Devos?

         1. That is not the point, is it?

            1. It’s to the point of who to vote for come November (and it’s at least as close to your point as your point was to Mr. Wagner’s).

            2. I find it very disturbing that you are so blase about such an insane statement from Warren.
               Do you think it is appropriate to tell a child that he/she can appoint a member of the cabinet? I do not want comparisons with Trump/Republicans, just what you think about the state of politics in the democratic party.

               It is the silent majority that allow politicians to espouses insane views to satisfy the noisy lunatic left.

               In the UK all the adults were driven from the Labour party by the radical left.
               The fact that Warren made such a statement seems that something is rotten in denmark.

            3. What Warren actually said is that she would let the girl interview the Secretary of Education nominee that Warren herself picks. Here’s the clip:

               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk-yvUOQm0E

               Familiarizing yourself with Elizabeth Warren’s senate committee work overseeing the Department of Education should go a long way toward assuaging your fears.

            4. Warren was still pandering shamefully and wokefully there; THAT was the point. It was embarrassing to watch.

            5. Yeah, well, pandering is pretty much what candidates do, especially during primary season. Every time they open their piehole, for instance, at least other than to stuff it with a state-fair corn dog (which is just another form of pandering) or to kiss a baby (which is still another). You think pols’re being sincere when they tell a tiny group of potential caucus-goers in Cedar Rapids or Sioux City how thrilled they are to be there with them on a frigid January night?

               I mean, I’ve got no more stomach for it than you do (and am unlikely to vote for Warren in my state’s primary, even if she survives the night), which is one of the reasons I’ve only rarely gotten heavy into politics, other than as a spectator (and, of course, a voter).

            6. ”I’m going to have a secretary of education that this trans person interviews on my behalf. And if only if this person believes our secretary, or secretary of education, nominee is committed to creating a welcoming environment, a safe environment and a full educational curriculum for everyone, that person will actually be advanced to be secretary of education.”

               “What Warren actually said is that she would let the girl interview the Secretary of Education”
               Not exactly, she effectively promised the child a veto (a promise she obviously have no intention to keep – lying to the child)

               You just do not seem to be troubled by this pandering bullshit and the damage this kind of dishonest woke politics does to the democratic party chances in the general election. (and no need to mention trump, we all agree he is an asshole)

               Anyway, lets agree to disagree 🙂

            7. It’s a stunt, yes. But then again, anyone being considered for such a senior position had better be able to handle such an “interview.” (An analogous case might be: any two-star or three-star who can’t explain to a ten-year-old why mommy or daddy has to go overseas, arguably isn’t smart enough to be a general or had better start questioning why the child’s parents are risking their lives for a purpose he can’t explain).

               So, a stunt. She should be better than to use such things. But a stunt any reasonable candidate should be able to pass.

   2. Some “slipperiness”:

      One of Warren’s major campaign planks was that she would never use PAC money.

      Well, not only has she just accepted nearly $14 million in PAC money, but it is a dark money PAC.

      She also says she will not not drop out, and will be there for the convention. The only possible reason for this is to play a part in stealing the nomination away from Bernie.

      So, we see a candidate who has maintained she is not in the race for power or politics, but because of the issues and for America, who is staying in the race merely to participate in undemocratic political chicanery at best, and at worst, hopes of power in the very establishment she railed against.

      1. One or more of these three could have a (another) heart attack and leave the race open. So, I can see hanging on just in case.

      2. Reminds me of how Barack first said he would accept public matching funds (and the restrictions that accompany them) during his 2008 campaign, then went “nah.”

         The US of A is in dire need of a major campaign-finance overhaul.

         1. That, my dear Ken, warrants an endorsement.
            Thumbs up.

         2. Obama changed his mind when he saw the amount of money he was facing from the Republican Party iirc. Hard to disarm in the face of an opponent that is stocking up.

            1. John McCain himself took the matching funds, IIRC. But Obama saw what he was facing from the Republican-aligned PACs, and how well he himself was fairing himself from his online donor base. I’m certainly not faulting him, not at all. The problem is with US campaign financing in general, particularly now in this post-Citizens United era.

         3. +1

8. Omar did join the Bern last night at his rally in MN. I heard her (recorded) speaking this morning on my local NPR (MPR, KNOW, 91.1 FM)

   1. Bernie does a lot that exercises Trump’s base, and having the likes of Omar, AOC, etc. just adds fuel to the fire. For the Christian right/Christian Zionists, Israel must exist in order for Jesus to return. They really don’t give a s*** about Israel or Jews – it’s all about their eschatology.

      1. That is an oft-repeated belief that does not really match reality.
         Of course there are doomsday cultist Christians who obsess constantly about the end times, but the vast majority of Christians are much more moderate. My area has a lot of churches and yards with “I stand with Israel” signs, and I have taken the time to ask some of my neighbors about them.
         They literally support Israel and the Jewish people. They have Israeli lecturers in their churches, and participate in trips to Israel and student exchanges. However those contacts started, the result is familiarity and genuine affection.
         I suppose it is politically necessary to ascribe malevolent motives to what might otherwise be seen as benevolent actions and statements, especially in light of the current antisemitic infiltration of the left, and the sorts of movements we naturally associate antisemitism with.

         As for Bernie and his staff, I think he has found that his best options for election require him to associate with and advocate for people with whom he does not necessarily agree. I hope that should he be elected, he would (peacefully) purge the more radical elements of his movement.

         1. Max – I was not talking about the majority of Christians, most of whom appear to be sane and many of whom do not support Trump. I was talking about the right-wing nut evangelicals who visit the White House to lay hands on the chosen one, who rhapsodize about Trump moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem, affirm his unquestioning support of Netanyahu, and so on. Some of my relatives are among these crazies and they speak openly about Israel being the cornerstone of Jesus’ return. They are not dooms day cultists – Southern Baptists and the like. For a thoughtful Christian response to Israel, I suggest https://www.cpt.org/programs/palestine?gclid=CjwKCAiAnfjyBRBxEiwA-EECLPbjoCyPccatZeL-wjQ1obEcgxyK7vp6DLPy8wI0ULupJZbNEs5gvBoCrE4QAvD_BwE

         2. More direct link: https://cptpalestine.com/

            1. Thanks for the link. I did read through their site, but found them somewhat less than objective on the issue.

               For one thing, they endorse BDS, which has been discussed here more than once.

               NGOwatch summarizes them as follows-“The Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) program is a central element in the anti-Israel divestment campaign. Behind claims to support peace through non-violence, CPT activities promote extremist Palestinian positions. Through cooperation with radical groups such as Sabeel and EAPPI, CPT-sponsored visits to the region highlight Palestinian victimization while erasing and the impact of terror from the itinerary. Similarly, CPT publications use language to demonize .”

               This led me to spending a bit of time reading themennonite.org, where the history of Mennonite antisemitism has been explored. Of the few Jewish voices I was able to find on their site, most were affiliated with JVP.

               The Peace Science Digest has also criticized CPT for failing to maintain a nonpartisan stance.

9. Biden has some (some) momentum now, and he may come out as the nominee. It would be interesting if he chose Elizabeth Warren has his running mate in a move to unify our fractious party for the Final Battle against Thanos. Er, I mean Trump.

   1. As long as he doesn’t get the dictator stone.

10. Sanders is and has been the only Democratic contender that actually makes me consider voting for that vile piece of dog excrement currently occupying the White House. I believe that if he gets the nomination, not only will tRump be re-elected, but there is a good chance the House will flip.

    1. Really?

       You don’t believe in the validity of the dozens and dozens of polls showing that Sanders, of all the Democratic contenders, is the only one who consistently beats Trump?

       1. Well, I’ll be. I hope those polls are correct. That is if Bernie gets the nod.

       2. Polls from pre-election season never reflect reality. Once the campaigning starts — once there are ads in every commercial break with Bernie calling himself a socialist and saying Fidel’s Cuba wasn’t all bad, once he has to debate Trump, once he has to put up with the media playing all the bad videos for him — those polls will shift mightily.

          Instead of looking at the polls you’re using now, look at the ones that ask Americans which groups they dislike the most. One of the most disliked is socialists. A recent NPR/PBS/Marist poll found that 28% of independents and 7% of Republicans have a favorable view of socialism. Whether or not they understand what Bernie means by “socialism” or what socialism is or whatever else, they know it scares them and they don’t like it when someone calls themselves a socialist.

          The people paying attention to the Democratic nomination process are Democrats. Most likely voters outside of Democrats know almost nothing about Bernie, but, once they do, your poll numbers will look very different.

    2. If you’re saying he’s the only one whose policies might make you prefer Trump, then (a) you haven’t been listening to Warren, as her positions are very similar, and (b) the fact that every President has to work with Congress to pass legislation means none of his pipe dreams will come true. For the Dems big ticket items like health care, it probably almost doesn’t matter who they choose, as pretty much all of their policies are going to look similar once they go through the Congressional wringer…including, likely, a GOP Senate. Which means all such plans will have to be extremely moderate to have any chance of seeing his desk.

11. Prediction: Liz will be handed the nomination the convention. Bernie (especially Bernie) and Bloomberg won’t do well against Trump on a national scale. Biden is completely past it and might barely be able to get through one term even if he wins. Better get a good VP if he is the guy.

    Only Warren is both spry enough and has enough moderate appeal (really, she has been a moderate all of her political life). Dems will risk a major foodfight at the convention but probably should take that risk.

    1. Warren does not have moderate appeal, from my listening to the Minnesota electorate anyway. She is always pumped with Bernie.

       1. … lumped with Bernie.

          1. Lumped, pumped, what’s the difference?

    2. ” Bernie (especially Bernie) and Bloomberg won’t do well against Trump on a national scale.”

       That’s not what six years of national polls say. They say the exact opposite.

12. We’ll find out today whether Warren is still in the race or not. No doubt it would have helped her if Klobuchar or Buttigieg had endorsed her. The lack of a coalescence around her campaign will hurt.

    If she doesn’t get some significant portion of delegates today then I suspect she’ll withdraw.

    1. Bullseye.

    2. “If she doesn’t get some significant portion of delegates today then I suspect she’ll withdraw.”

       She just said she will be there at the convention regardless.

       1. “She just said she will be there at the convention regardless.”

          That is bad news. What the hell?

          I admire Amy and Pete for their decisiveness and their timing.

          1. I think SNL should have Amy & Pete on this weekend, so they could make fun of how they used to bicker during debates.

13. “He just doesn’t see the presence of two palpable anti-Semites and BDS supporters as a liability to his campaign.”

    Antisemitism worked the UK for Jeremy Corbyn — it had the most vile and ignorant Jew-baiters crawling out of the woodwork to elevate him to leader. Sanders is blowing the same dog-whistle, while trying to obscure it with “I’m a proud Jew” so the mainstream voters and press won’t notice it. It will allow his fanatical surrogates and even more fanatical supporters to present their lies and hatred as mere “criticism of Israel”, under cover of “we’re supporting a Jew, so we can’t be antisemitic”.

    If he wins the nomination his racist friends will be rightly called out as racists by the Trump campaign.

    1. [His surrogate’s] best friend is a Jew!

14. The Left anti-Zionists, including Uncle Bernie’s surrogates, always insist that a future single state of Palestine will be “secular and democratic”, and hopefully “democratic socialist” as well. Leftists of this kind have a supernatural ability to see into the radiant future, just as earlier exemplars foresaw how the state would wither away in the USSR, the political police having become unnecessary would evaporate, and ethnic conflicts would all disappear (as in Armenia and Azerbaijan).

    The results in the real world turn out a little differently—“secular” like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, “democratic” like the “German Democratic Republic”, and “socialist” like the Al Assad clan’s kleptocracy in Syria ruled by the Baath Arab Socialist Party. But never mind, the visionaries tell us, the radiant future is so, well, radiant that it more than justifies a few little glitches along the way.

    The kind of thinking that links immediate politics to visionary delusions of this sort could be viewed as a serious medical danger. That, in particular, is reason enough to be wary of Uncle Bernie and his acolytes.

    1. This is exactly what I get off the Bernie fans I interact with:

       Stars in their eyes. They’ve fallen in love. They await the “revolution” with bated breath! (And these are people in their 50s!)

       They flatly refuse to acknowledge that Bernie will turn off a substantial slice of the electorate by his embrace of socialism. Most expecially the Obama08/12+Trump16 voters and the working class who went for Trump. (Do they ever interact with anyone from “red America?” I doubt it.

       I point out to them that I’d be happy with Bernie but that he less likely to win that the alternatives, in my judgement, based on what I hear voters saying/writing.

       One of them posting a canned FB thing saying FDR was called a Socialist, Social Security was called Socialist, Medicare was called Socialist, etc.

       I simply pointed out that no one needs to call Bernie a Socialist. He calls himself a Socialist. He hugs the term. (Hard to believe they didn’t realize they were posting a non sequitur but they apparently they did not.)

       I remain calm; but they are annoying. As TrueBelievers™ are.

       1. Some of his fans are in their 70s, still waiting for the revolution. I would bet that many of them (including Bernie) still can’t figure out what went wrong in the 1960s when the revolution seemed so close, at least to them. This is what happens when people live in cocoons.

       2. My younger brother is a hardcore Bernie fan who likes to throw around the words “corporatist” and “Neo-liberal” when discussing Democratic Party politics. He’s 67.

          1. Kids today, huh?

             1. LOL

          2. My older brother is a hardcore Bernie fan. I’m 50, he’s 53. He said if Bern doesn’t win the nomination he won’t vote. We live in WA, so his non-vote won’t affect the election, but FFS what is it with these Bernie hardliners? The first time he ever voted was for Obama, and he’s not very political, but that damn Sanders has him wild-eyed. He called Biden and Buttigieg “corporatists”. At least he hates Trump, unlike my blinkered parents.

             I don’t know who I’ll be voting for yet, leaning towards Warren, but I’d vote for Biden over Bernie. I’ll make up my mind after Super Tuesday is counted. Don’t know if it needs saying, but I’ll vote for Sanders in the general if he gets the nomination.

             1. What weird terminology “corporatist”.

             2. I prefer “plutocratic”, but …

15. I will probably vote for Biden but I expect him to be thrashed by Trump. Sometime in the next 8 months Lazy Joe will have one (or probably many) of his “senior moments” during a debate or campaign event. They will go viral.

    Some combination of the Russians and Republicans will bring up his brain surgery (he had two aneurysms in 1988) and imply he had another one recently. The brainless Biden meme will ensure another term for Trump. This is a prediction not a wish. I still plan to vote for him in the primary.

    I cannot imagine Bloomberg or Sanders winning. Does that leave Warren as the proper pick? I think Trump’s Pocahontas attacks will work.

    Perhaps the best hope is Biden or Sanders picking a reasonable vice president (e.g. Klobuchar), getting ill and dropping out and Klobuchar’s competency plus sympathy winning over vulgarity.

    Without something major happening, I think Trump is going to win.

    1. I’m not worried about the Pocahontas slur, as Agent Orange’s kryptonite is being called Broke-a-hontas.

       1. I read a lot of your American politics but I had never seen “Broke-a-hontas” before. That is excellent.

    2. Just another Zoloft day.

    3. Right now Biden beats Trump in the majority of polls. I know that can change. And wasn’t that also true for Hillary?

       1. Well, to employ poker lingo, Trump sucked out an inside straight in the electoral college against someone who was holding wired-up trip Aces.

          That can happen in two hands of Texas Hold ‘Em in a row, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

    4. I think the greatest chance of losing is if the Bernie fans refuse to vote for the nominee if it’s not Bernie, as many did in 2016.

       (I know I have said this many times; but we got der Drumpfenfuhrer by just 77,000 votes spread through WI, MI, and PA. That’s just 0.06% (6 one-hundredths on one percent) of the 137M votes cast. HRC won the popular vote by 2.9M votes, or 2.1%. Not close.)

       Second most likely for losing is if Bernie gets nominated.

       Unless Warren makes a huge showing today, it’s down the Biden v. Bernie.

       1. It’s a conundrum for sure…Biden wins and the younger and progressive voters are turned off and don’t vote, Sanders wins and the older and moderate voters are turned off and don’t vote.

          I just hope everyone realizes what’s at stake and vote blue no matter who.

          Will people realize that America’s response to the Corona virus was and is a travesty and that Trump is directly responsible for the piss poor response?

          1. I think the progressives will hold their noses and vote. They are a lot more versed in compromise and have lived long enough to understand that sometimes you have to be practical.

             1. Yeah, me too. That’s what happened when Obama beat Hillary and when Hillary beat Bernie. Though still too many stayed home or voted 3rd party since it was “known” that Hillary would win; I doubt they’ll do that this time.

          2. Now that it seems that Biden wins big on Super Tuesday, Bernie may regret his stating that the candidate who goes into the convention with the most delegates ought to be the nominee. Probably best for the Democrats that if Sanders is not the nominee, that Biden get a majority out of the gate so that Sanders’ supporters will not be feeling (or at least not have any justification for feeling) that it was “stolen” from them.

    5. I’ve seen clips of Trump making “senior moment” type comments: slurring words, etc. If Trump goes that way on Biden, Biden can return the favor.

       1. Difference is Biden knows he made a mistake and corrects it or moves on. Trump doubles-down on lying about it and insisting “his” facts are true.

16. Is being anti Israel welfare actually antisemitic?

    Bernie is a Jew, and he is not antisemitic, but he is against Israels policies and attacks on Palestinians.

    I don’ necessarily like some of these people you mention but they don’t hold a candle to some people working on other campaigns

    I will never understand why you are so against Bernie Sanders, he is the ONLY person running that hasn’t taken corporate money, who can’t be bought, who cares about this country and steering it away from the oligarch it has become.

    1. It can be argued that the idea to expel or kill about 7 million Israeli Jews seems a bit antisemitic. Which is the idea of Mr. Amer Zahr as well as other people surrounding Sanders, for example, Imam Omar Suleiman.

    2. You can be intelligent, honest and caring but support policies that causes destruction and mayhem. (Like many disillusioned communists in the early 20th century)

       Bernie attracts these kind of woke idealistic idealogues who disregards human nature. For example if you get rid of the evil Zionists in Israel paradise will follow…

       Sometimes a non-ideological machiavellian politician is the safer choice!

    3. “Is being anti Israel welfare actually antisemitic?”

       It is if you omit, in the same breath, any mention of the fact that the US gives way more money to the Arab states dedicated to the elimination of Israel merely because it is Jewish.

       And, btw, that Israeli “welfare” you mention, is actually American jobs welfare. The money Israel receives from the US is immediately turned around and spent on military hardware made in the US. And this will soon be codified into a legal requirement.

17. It must be me, because I don’t find anything wrong with Warren’s tone or character or her integrity. Clearly, she must have seen where a couple of her plans for a social safety net were not gaining traction, and so pragmatically she’s had to compromise and pull back on them.

    1. Besides her claim to Native American heritage, she seems to have embraced a lot of woke and identify politics positions?

       On a visceral level I do not like her, which makes me wonder how biased we all are.
       Perhaps we react on a gut level, then we rationalize our position. (ignore or exaggerate the failings of a candidate)

    2. She seems to have a tenuous relationship with truth.

       When she ran for senate in 2018, she told her prospective constituents over and over again that she was not running for President.

       She was not fired for being pregnant. She was offered a contract renewal, but decided to stay home instead.

       Her children did attend public school, but also private school.

       The AP noted in her biographical stories that she claims the family Lost their car” after her father’s heart attack. But it was their second car that was sold, and it was for sale before his attack.

       She live the Native American thing for quite a while, including when she plagiarized a French cookbook when providing her family Cherokee recipe. It was not a matter of thinking she might have a Cherokee grandmother. She has constructed elaborate stories of prejudice and discrimination.
       It is pretty common for families in Oklahoma and other parts of the west to speak vaguely of native ancestry. But Warren has oddly specific and changing origin stories.

       Her times of “struggle” seem to have happened over a two year period in her early teens. By the time she was 16, she had a nice MG convertible.

       “I got my degree thanks to a quality public college where tuition was just $50 a semester.”
       Actually, she got a scholarship to GWU, but dropped out. Later, she went back to school at two public universities.

       I would feel better about her if she embraced her middle class to riches story, and stopped trying to adopt identities that are not hers.

       1. Sounds like you done some ‘oppo’ research. Maybe you have a slew of things against Biden and Sanders too?

          1. I wanted to be specific, and as correct as possible. And yes, I have written at length about the Bidens.

             Bernie has some faults, but I still believe that he is the best human being running for president right now, and seems to have good motivations. I strongly disagree with him on many of his personal political beliefs, but that’s where we are these days.

             If I have serious concerns about Bernie, it is primarily an issue with his campaign staff and allies. The antisemites are the subject of the current article, but there are also a bunch of hardcore communist revolutionaries who are under the impression that a Sanders victory will bring a literal socialist revolution.

             1. If you’re looking for purity among any candidate, you’re not going to find it. Which of us hasn’t done or said something a little stupid in our younger, more ignorant days? And yet we might still consider ourselves now of good character and having integrity. Whatever Warren et al have done does not rise to level of outrageous, fraudulent and immoral conduct of the Agent Orange.

                Who are these hardcore communist revolutionaries you speak of?

18. Such surrogates are appalling and detrimental to Sanders cause.

    I don’t know well how surrogates get involved and picked and how strong their influence is. The articles I read say they are supposed to rally people of a demographic or represent when the candidate cannot personally make it somewhere. It doesn’t seem their views matter to the candidate, only that some feature or role will rope in certain voters.

    But no doubt, it looks bad to work with antisemites. It’s interesting however to also see how some people can be highly particular when it concerns the other side, but discover their super tolerant side when e.g. Dave Rubin invites one white supremacist after another. One cannot draw conclusions from that, it’s all guilty-by-association etc.

19. I’m no expert, but it seems to me surrogates are chosen from lists of candidates who hit a wide range of demographics. So, they may accept some of questionable character to get the coverage they feel they need to win. No specific endorsement of the surrogate is required, and I suppose if there’s enough pressure they can be cut free without much loss. In other words, pure political strategizing. Good or bad, I guess it’s the way of the world. tRump holds prayer meetings with evangelical con artists and may pick up some votes even though I doubt he has any interest in their shtick.

    1. So, they may accept some of questionable character to get the coverage they feel they need to win.

       So Sanders needs surrogates who can help him get the muslim antisemitic voters?

20. All that really matters this time is the battleground states. This election will be decided by, for instance:

    Minnesota (Trump came much too close in 2016)
    Wisconsin
    Michigan
    Pennsylvania
    Virginia
    Colorado
    Florida
    Ohio
    Iowa

    Almost all the others will never swing in my lifetime.

    Actually, I would be surprised if it doesn’t turn this time, as it did in 2016, on WI, MI, and PA.

    1. No Republican (going back to the GOP’s first presidential candidate in 1860) has won the US presidency without carrying Ohio. Barack won there twice. Trump won the state by 8% in 2016, but his approval rating there has been on the slide since.

       Ohio might be the place for Democrats to plant their flag this year. Putting popular Ohio US senator Sherrod Brown on the bottom half of the ticket could go a long way (the downside being that Ohio has a Republican governor who would name Brown’s replacement, which could cost Dems control of the senate were the party split to come out at 50-50 after the election, which seems quite plausible).

21. “Ilhan Omar ‘one of the greatest people I know’: Sanders at Super Tuesday rally”

    https://forward.com/fast-forward/440737/bernie-sanders-ilhan-omar/?utm_source=PostUp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%20RSS_Test&utm_maildate=03/03/2020

    1. That’s about as reprehensible a statement as Trump saying he had the “perfect phone call” with the President of Ukraine.

       I really think Sanders screwed up badly on this one.

       1. Perhaps the idea to involve Omar in the race comes from his campaign aides/advisers.

          It might be that he is dominated by the radicals in his campaign or he is a more odious character than meets the eye.

          Either way, I have little respect for him.

22. Sanders’ greatest strength is that he isn’t a weasel. That is why him calling himself a socialist isn’t a problem, because he isn’t flinching from the term, so it looks strong on him.

    The trouble is, on policy, Sanders is a pretty standard Democrat regarding Israel. He doesn’t like Netanyahu much, but he still supports Israel’s right to exist and is calling for the same two-state solution Bill Clinton was.

    So what he’s doing with these surrogates, is building the impression of promises he’s not making. In other words, there’s some weaseling going on.

    And come the main event, the actual election, this is what is going to hurt him, having to defend these surrogates’ past statements or disavow them, and either way is going to cost him.

23. I wasn’t going to support Sanders this time anyway after supporting him four years ago (I voted for Hilary). But now he is dead to me as a Presidential candidate. What a lunatic. Thank you, Jerry, for all you do.

    1. He’s dead to you, but would you vote for him if he’s the candidate? Not doing so (eg voting for a third candidate) is basically voting for the worse of a lunatic incumbent. Would you do that?

       1. He’s not and won’t be the candidate. Deal with it.

24. Nobody on the websites I read seems to have expressed any reservations about the anti-Semitic acolytes that Bernie has recruited to campaign on his behalf.

    I think it’s relatively small news in the context of the race. The much bigger concern is whether his views are a political dead-end in the sense of helping him do well in the primary but becoming an election-losing albatross around his neck in the general.

    But wait! There’s more! This dude clearly wants a single Palestinian state: “democratic,” which means that, if voting is by numbers, that would be the end of Israel. (That is, if voting takes place before the extermination of the Jews in Israel.) As for the other parts, “secular” my tuchas!

    Yeah, Mr. Zahr seems at best out of touch with the practical realities of what would happen. It’s a nice dream. But right now, a single democratic state would end up a tyranny of the majority in the worst sense. (And before anyone cites the U.S. as a counter-example of how creating a Constitution was able to avoid that problem, remember that at the time it passed we didn’t avoid it. Slavery, women’s rights…it took almost 100 years after the Constitution was fashioned to limit the tyranny of the majority before we could eliminate these most egregious repressions of minorities in the system, and we’re still not done).

    1. I’m a Bernie supporter, and I hate the anti-Israel bias and outright antisemitism of some of his surrogates and staff.

       And Bloomberg and Biden are very pro-Israel. But I am not going to vote for either if Bernie gets the nomination. Nobody is a perfect candidate.

       The interesting question is what I, and tens of millions of Bernie supporters will do if they steal his nomination. I’ll tell you this – I ain’t going easy into that night this time around.

       The very best the DNC can hope for as far as I go is that I simply stay home. But right now, I feel voting for Trump is a better option. I am way more angry at the Democrats than Trump.

       1. I voted Sanders for years ago. But you are exemplifying why I might not this time. “If they steal his nomination” is exactly how I think you’ll react if he simply loses the nomination. He wins if he gets enough delegates. If he doesn’t, that’s not having anything stolen from him.

          Someone who would vote for tRump is just a tRump supporter. Why pretend you aren’t one?

          1. “Someone who would vote for tRump is just a tRump supporter. Why pretend you aren’t one?”

             Is politics not supposed to be about convincing people to your cause instead of insulting them?

          2. ” Why pretend you aren’t one?”

             Because I despise him? Because I oppose almost all his policies? Because I want to do what I can to reform the heck out of the DNC?

             Choose one – they all work for me.

             1. “I want to do what I can to reform the heck out of the DNC”

                Yeah. Voting for tRump will definitely do that. I’m completely convinced.

                Like I said, this time I’m inclined not to support Sanders precisely because so many of his supports take that position. It is poison for politics, which is the art of making things better. None of these candidates is the one I want to have as president. I’ll vote for any of them, though, because I can actually see that the world isn’t black and white.

                A guy walks into a restaurant. The waiter says “We serve food or shit.” The guy responds “If you don’t have my favorite dish, then give me the shit.”

             2. I often wonder if, had all the Bernie supporters from 2016 who sat out the election out of pouting pettiness had voted for Hillary, if we’d even be having this conversation. We might very well have a Clinton administration instead of one of the most disastrous in history.

                But so many Bernie supporters seem even more willing this time to do the same if he doesn’t get the nomination (AKA if it’s “stolen” from him via the exact rules of the process in which he is engaged and which everyone else is following).

             3. Sanders supporters voted for Clinton in higher numbers than Clinton supporters voted for Obama. Remember the PUMAs?

          3. Trump offers youth voters full employment, with black unemployment particularly at a historic low, with wages at the bottom end of the scale rising for the first time in decades.

             Biden on the other hand, is the same guy who pushed bankruptcy reforms that eliminated students’ ability to discharge their debt via bankruptcy.

             With Biden, you’re asking the youth vote to vote against themselves.

             1. Ha Ha.

             2. Republicans have shown that voting against your own economic interests is a voter strategy. If we take what you say as a given though, Biden can be happy that the youth don’t vote.

       2. “Nobody is a perfect candidate.”

          True, but your (everyone’s) standards and expectations are so low!

          Imagine if Obama (or a non-senile common sense centrist) was also a candidate – it would not be a contest, and Trump would stand no chance.

          Like the previous election, terrible candidates on both sides.

       3. I’ll second GBJames – the super delegates are going to vote. Since they’re 15% of the total delegates, if the count of committed delegates is close between two candidates, the supers will end up deciding the outcome.

          So if superdelegates shifting the balance is what you think of as “stealing”, then I have news for you, the outcome of this convention is very, very likely to be a “stolen” convention for someone.

25. I voted in CA primary today, and agonized over Biden vs Sanders – I didn’t consider Warren because a vote for her would be a vote for the front runner, who at the moment is Sanders. There is no way in hell the DNC is going to deny Sanders the nomination if he has plurality. That would be suicide.

    I chose Biden thinking that even if he doesn’t win, he is most likely to help retain the House and perhaps win Senate. Who knows if that’s actually true, but I’ll take the word of new House democrats who gave Dems the majority in 2018.

    1. Good thinking. Good voting, Mehul.

26. Regarding those starry-eyed Uncle Bernie fans: their snthusiasm obviously reflects a predilection for millenarian dreams of the future—a society based on justice not greed, democratic socialism, perfect sharing of resources, a secular democratic Palestine, a cure for every ill, a pony for everyone, etc. etc. Enthusiasts born yesterday are not old enough to have witnessed the outcome of
    millenarian-based social experiments.

    But those who are middle-aged or older are old enough to recall what became of the “Radiant Future” and “the New Soviet Man”, and similar visions elsewhere. Perhaps they have suppressed that knowledge. At the same time, they may gain a certain thrill from the revival of sensations they felt during the 1960s (and others before them in the 1920s). Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing? Gone to Bernie, every one….

    1. Bernie is simply arguing that the social benefits enjoyed by most 1st world nations should be part of the goods and services Americans also receive for their tax dollars.

       That is what he means by “socialist”.

       I do not understand why you think his campaign planks – Medicare for all, tuition remission/free college, and building and deploying a 100% renewable energy system are sophomoric fantasies worthy of derision.

       1. I agree almost entirely with Sanders positions, it’s just that you’d have to evolve these ideas over a long period and adapt them to USian realities. He seems oblivious to any kind of gradualism.

27. I think referring to those who favor BDS as anti-Semitic is over the top, as I highly doubt that many BDS proponents in the US harbor hatred in their heart for Jews, but rather carry delusional ideas about a one-state policy being realistic and desirable. Whether they harbor intentions to harm Jews would be the key to seriously applying the label of anti-Semitic, imo. This certainly applies to some actors, like the NOI, but not to others, like the many college groups that advocate this issue or mild-mannered community peace groups. They are simply confused and naive. The main effect of BDS is to harm Palestinians, by delaying a two-state settlement (it’s both anti-Palestinian and anti-Semitic, if we going by effects, rather than intentions). The BDS fantasy is that Israelis will agree to a single-state with Palestinians as 2nd-class citizens, which would form a basis to launch ‘anti-apartheid’ activism from within.

    Bernie has very clearly indicated his support for a two-state solution, and argued that US policy can’t be one-sided in favor the Israelis. This is as mild and mainstream a position as it gets. It falls short of other sensible positions like revoking US military aid on the grounds of Israeli human rights violations in the occupied territories. (This same move ought to be applied to all nations consistently guilty of such crimes, in accord with US law.)

    I am reluctant to assign ulterior motives to Bernie merely by association with supporters and surrogates that harbor bad views on some issues. AOC and DSA favor open borders (Bernie does not), Marianne Williamson favors reparations for slavery (Bernie does not), Killer Mike favors lax gun laws (Bernie does not), etc. If he were to vet every supporter/surrogate for 100% alignment with his favored policies, he would be alienating himself from lots of support. And for what goal exactly? A Stalinist level of ideological rigidity?

    1. Okay, we’re agreed that some BDS supporters are either willfully native or stupid, and the rest are anti-Semitic.

       Please note, though, that I did NOT assign ulterior motives of anti-Semitism to Bernie; I just said he had bad judgement and didn’t understand it. The others you mentioned are not surrogates) be wrong about one or two, but not most of them.

       And give me a break: it’s “ideological rigidity” to use anti-Semites like Sarsou and Zahr? Why not use racists like David Duke as well to appeal to the South.

       He could have chosen better.

       1. I understood you weren’t assigning ulterior motives to Bernie at all (let alone anti-Semitism), and you were just raising the question about whether he may actually be more open to BDS/one-state than he lets on. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. Asking that question is reasonable, and I don’t know the answer, although I’m skeptical that he would adopt those positions himself since he rarely budges on his policies.

          I do disagree on the labeling of Sarsour and Zahr as anti-Semites, since their support of BDS/one-state doesn’t merit this serious charge absent clear evidence of hostility toward Jews, which I don’t see. I think there is a conflation of “some bad policy ideas + occasional bad tweeting” with “odious intentions”.

          Having searched their names and Hamas, I see that they’ve both denounced the organization. Zahr’s association with Odeh is presumably predicated on her claims of innocence and having been tortured. I don’t see how that differs from a US activist taking up the cause of someone like Mumia Abu-Jamal or Leonard Peltier. We wouldn’t call such activists “cop-haters” or some such on that basis, even if we strongly disagreed with their case. By contrast, there is not an iota of ambiguity about David Duke’s bigotry and anti-Semitism, which takes only a millisecond of googling to confirm.

28. Although this is a bit late because several candidates are out, take Randy’s advice. https://youtu.be/llYbn83iZ48

29. So far, it looks like a Biden night. Most voters want a Trump-beater. Cranky socialist ideologue Sanders would be whipped like a dog by Trump.

    1. Bernie’s got most of his marbles and knows how to push back.

       Biden will play defensively in the Kerry tradition and be made a fool. I still think he’ll win, but it will be a much closer than it ought to be.

       In the end Trump’s loss will be down to a recession and a completely inept disaster response.

       And most likely Biden will pull an Obama, claim we need to move past the ugliness of the previous administration, and give all the rampant criminality a pass. Nobody will have learned anything and we will be primed for a repeat of this cycle in 4-8 years.

    2. There is nothing wrong with socialist ideologues! 🙂

30. I thought Sanders is Jewish?

31. The sad thing is that majorities of Americans actually do support a lot of Sanders’ ideas (including in many cases self-described Republicans), but only when they are mentioned without who supports them, etc. Tribalism at its finest.

32. I live in Maryland, so our primary vote is still weeks away. I would have voted for Warren, given the chance. But there’s NO WAY I will vote for Sanders in our upcoming primary. I think our best hope will be for Biden to pull together a cabinet of good people and not seek reelection in four years. Then maybe Warren will get a second chance.

    If we’re not all wiped out by the Coronavirus by then!

    1. It’ll be death from toilet paper dearth.

       1. I always want to remind people, there’s always the Sears catalogue. But, unfortunately, it no longer exists.

          1. Expensive printer paper.

             1. That’s a bit toothy.

33. After seeing stuff like this I’m surprised you haven’t made up your mind. There’s a clear choice and I voted for Biden without hesitation (I live in CA, a Super Tuesday state). Although I don’t dispute he’s lost a couple steps, the claim that Biden is senile is really unfair. I went to his victory rally in LA, and there was this moment that went all over about how he mixed up his wife and sister. In person, what happened was his wife was on his left side and sister on right side, and as they all began to walk up the stairs the two switched places, and were standing behind him. In person, it was not weird at all that he grabbed his wife’s hand and said “my sister,” and he wasn’t even looking at her when he did it. The reason I point this out is that in this case, I was in person and saw how out of context a gaffe was taken to make him seem senile. I’m starting to suspect that that’s been generally true

Comments are closed.