Bernie Sanders calls George Clooney’s ritzy Clinton fundraisers ‘obscene’


George Clooney spoke about his support for Hillary Clinton several months ago, when he was promoting Hail Caesar. Clooney has always been a big Hollywood Democrat, and he supported John Kerry and Barack Obama in past presidential election cycles. Clooney has made no secret of his support for Clinton this time around, but he also hasn’t said anything negative about Bernie Sanders. The only person Clooney has criticized is Donald Trump. Anyway, George and Amal Clooney are cohosting two major California fundraisers for Clinton’s campaign and the DNC. The fundraiser tickets cost $33,400, and the Clooneys have co-hosts like Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg and more. This usually happens, by the way – the Hollywood Democrats and Silicon Valley Democrats will throw several big (and big-money) fundraisers in LA and San Francisco every presidential election cycle. But Hillary Clinton’s competition, Bernie Sanders, doesn’t like it. He thinks the Clooneys represent “big money people.”

“It is obscene that Secretary Clinton keeps going to big-money people to fund her campaign,” Bernie Sanders said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday. Clinton is asking donors for $353,400 for two seats at the head table with herself, Clooney and his wife, Amal, at the April 15 event in San Francisco. The next night, the Clooneys will host a $33,400 per person fundraiser for Clinton at the couple’s Los Angeles home.

“I have a lot of respect for George Clooney. He’s a great actor. I like him,” Sanders said. “But this is the problem with American politics … Big money is dominating our political system. And [my supporters and I] are trying to move as far away from that as we can.”

Sanders, whose campaign has been largely funded by small donations, says his events usually cost “$15 or $50” to get into.

“So it’s not a criticism of Clooney,” he said. “It’s a criticism of a corrupt campaign finance system, where big money interests — and it’s not Clooney, it’s the people coming to this event — have undue influence on the political process.”

Throughout the Democratic primary, the self-described democratic socialist has attacked Clinton’s ties to Wall Street. He did so again Sunday.

“It’s not only this Clooney event,” Sanders said. “It is the fact she has now raised well over $15 million from Wall Street for her super-PAC, and millions more from the fossil fuel industry, and from the drug companies.”

Clinton’s Clooney swing comes less than two months before the crucial Democratic primary on June 7 in California, where 475 delegates are at stake.

[From Yahoo]

CB and I were debating this between ourselves – she’s a Bernie fan, and she agrees with what he’s saying. Meanwhile I voted for Clinton in the Virginia primary, and I did so because I honestly think Clinton is a better Democratic candidate for office. I understand Sanders’ point about getting the “big money” out of politics, and I agree with it as a moral and ethical stance. But in practice, I find it difficult to understand why Clinton (or any Democratic candidate) should be held to a different standard than the GOP candidates. Plus, I just have a fundamental disagreement with calling George Clooney a “big money” donor who will use his fundraising skills to push some agenda with Hillary Clinton. If you want to talk about the hedge fund people pushing candidates for tax cuts for billionaires, sure, let’s talk about that. But what’s on Clooney’s political agenda that isn’t already on Clinton’s agenda?


Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

228 Responses to “Bernie Sanders calls George Clooney’s ritzy Clinton fundraisers ‘obscene’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kitten says:

    I really respect Bernie’s approach to politics because he practices what he preaches, which is a rarity in the political sphere but I have to agree with you, Kaiser, on this: “I find it difficult to understand why Clinton (or any Democratic candidate) should be held to a different standard than the GOP candidates”.

    • MexicanMonkey says:

      Right now, I think Bernie is still focused on his fight with Hillary for the nomination. That’s why he’s rarely attacked any of the GOP nominees, at least that I know of. I think he will definitely level those same accusations at the GOP nominee if he ends up being the Democratic candidate.

      • Algernon says:

        Which he won’t because the DNC knows he can’t win a general election and they’re not going to give up the White House without a nasty backyard dogfight.

      • IvyMades says:

        Algernon – You’re wrong. Bernie is electable — in fact, every projection shows Bernie beats the republican candidates by a larger margin than Hillary (there are 2 republican candidates polls show Hillary LOSING to!)

        That’s what the DNC is afraid of. That’s why mainstream media downplays Bernie as a candidate. Without the backing of the DNC and corporate sponsors Bernie is putting up up a hell of the fight. Word of mouth and internet are getting past the media blackout (and yes, there’s a blackout. No surprise as Time Warner is Hillary’s 8th largest donor!).

        Imagine if voters had all the facts — this primary season would look very different.

      • Naya says:

        The GoP has been focused on Hilary as a threat for over eight years and people quite simply dont know who Bernie Sanders is and what he represents. If he gets that nomination that will change, and good luck passing a candidate with his far left positioning even among actual democrats in places like the South. The word is “socialist” is toxic in American politics and you have a candidate who actively embraces it. It would be handing Trump an easy win.

      • Fiorella says:

        Hoping for Bernie as the president. Overall I like Obama but he didn’t do much about food issues and gun control didn’t happen either . Can Bernie do any better on gun control? I heard Obama was too tight was big Agra . AnywYs if gun control happens I can’t wait to move out of expensive rainy Vancouver and get a nice reasonable sized house somewhere with more sun

      • Merritt says:


        It is really convenient that you ignore that the average person didn’t know who Sanders was a year ago. If he were the nominee the attack machine would start targeting him and his numbers would drop.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I think it needs to be noted that Clinton has REALLY held back attacks aimed at Bernie. I think this is a good thing, but it also means that when we look at his general election numbers, we have to include the fact that he hasn’t withstood any kind of serious attack on him as a candidate.

      • Michelle says:

        He has barely attacked Clinton either! She deserves to be called out on so many of her scandals and flipflops but itsn’t. She is treated with kid gloves.

        The media is a business and the vast majority want a Clinton presidency. She has had an unbelievably huge and unfair bias in her favor since day 1. It won’t be so easy for her if she faces Trump. Bernie has a chance to win but Hillary doesn’t, imo.

    • Nikki says:

      Because he has the integrity to avoid what he sees as a broken system, that’s why. Saying that others are doing it, so he can too, are part of why we’re going down s cesspool. team Bernie; I just made up my mind this minute!

      • Tiffany :) says:

        But if this is a joint fundraiser with the DNC, Bernie’s campaign will receive part of this money if he is the nominee for the Democratic Party.

      • Val says:

        Welcome! 🙂

      • jess says:

        Hillary is the Number 1 Liar in this race followed closed by Cruz. I have a cousin who is a pathological liar who lies about unimportant things that don’t even matter, it is a disease. HIllary unfortunately ‘must’ have this disease. Who did it benefit to lie about being under sniper fire? I don’t think she is capable of being ‘honest’ She was lying in Arkansas, this behavior she has gotten away with her whole life. It’s very hard to debate a liar.

      • Mc T says:

        @Merritt, I kinda remember (President) Barack Obama being unknown only a year, or so, prior to him winning the presidential election.

    • Birdix says:

      But his race is with her at this point, so it makes sense that he points out the differences between them. It is a compelling argument. And quite shrewd because it plays upon people’s fears about Clinton being corrupt.

      • Kitten says:

        But Clooney is just one person raising money for Clinton, it’s not like he’s a Super PAC. So does this mean that Sanders will remove the “donate” link on his campaign site? Or is it ok for us plebs to donate, just not rich folks?

      • perplexed says:

        I don’t think he’s saying that it’s not okay for rich folks to donate. I think he’s simply saying that they have extreme political influence over the system, much more so than the average person on the street, and he’s using a fundraiser where people have to pay $30 000 to get to chat with politicians as an example. There’s usually something expected in return when the figures go that high. He makes it clear he’s not criticizing Clooney, but how the system operates. I get that he could have used a different example, but I also think he was clear with criticizing the operation of the system, which appears to be an issue he raises more generally on his campaign platform (I think?).

        Who knows if Bernie has a chance of winning, but if he loses the nomination, it seems he was able to get his message through to the media. Other politicians seem to get drowned out when they criticize how the system functions.

      • Down and Out says:

        Rich people do have greater influence in politics by virtue of their economic power. I’d also argue that celebrities have greater influence on public discourse by virtue of their cultural status, yet Bernie seems to have no problem taking advantage of that for his own campaign. Money, media attention, etc… these are all tools of power. My problem with Bernie is that he presents a very narrow perspective on a systemic problem. If he wants to argue that the average American deserves greater influence & a greater voice in politics, great. But don’t trot out celebrity endorsements, go on popular talk shows, etc and perpetuate the problem.

      • Liberty says:

        I found this, which outlines the causes Clooney supports —

        I think Bernie as a candidate is (as others have said here) is just pointing out their differences as candidates in a way his supporters do understand, in a way that that is integral to his outsider quality that is getting some voters interested. And as indicative of the larger issue that lots of power-linked money can ensure a victor, but not necessarily the best victor. But that said, that has been the case for decades: politics.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Bernie has been a long time supporter of campaign finance reform, right? What government body is in charge of changing the current system? The SCOTUS already blew their chance, so that leaves congress….the political body that Bernie was ALREADY a member of. Did he use that power to create campaign finance reform? No. Why? Because this is the congress you get when dems don’t turn out at mid-term elections.

        I just don’t see how he can get done what he pledges to, without 1.) better skills at leading congress and negotiating with other views 2.) without dems turning out at midterm elections.

    • Esther says:

      the answer to this is: because they are supposed to be left wingers. the same as we hold people who are anti abortion to different standards when they pay their mistress to get an abortion than we would a liberal pro choice woman.

      Bernies job is also to get Hillary to the left, Sanders will be one of the most important political figures in the history of the United States if he manages to at least get his campaign into a movement. the United States was ruled long enough by two right wing parties and wingnuts like Clinton should never be able to get votes in a civilized country.

      • Kitten says:

        I don’t disagree with this but I don’t understand how it applies in this scenario though.

    • Notintohillary says:

      What the hell? This fundraiser has been specifically for people lower down on the ticket. The money is for grass roots politicians that were on the same level sanders was on. It’s for helping the democrats get the house back. Clinton is a hack, but she’s a hack that is using “big money” to help The little hacks. Yes, she likely has control over who gets what and how. It’s shit but it’s better than an NRA hack that claims to be progressive when he straight up said he only disagreed with DOMA because it was his fight for states rights and not equality, and then he lied and reversed history. Bernie is a self serving terrible person that knows he can’t win but is taking money from minimal wage earners and claiming that’s noble. This d@&k hat is on the NRA bill and his supporters either don’t care or are compliant. Clinton is evil too, but at the very least she is capable.

      • lucy says:

        @NotintoHillary, facts are your friend. Bernie will raise the minimum wage to $15/hr and will not raise taxes on earners under $250,000.

        Sanders has demonstrated 3 decades of integrity in support of the people he represents, not special interests. Not sure what you are inferring is “self-serving” and “terrible” about that, but name-calling and spreading fallacies is not very informative.

        And, no, Hillary Clinton is not Robin Hood. However, Clinton is capable of continuing the expensive perpetual wars she has historically supported and instigated throughout her tenure as Secretary of State. My standards for leadership are much higher than that.

      • Veronica says:

        Bernie will not be doing anything – only Congress has the power to make laws and raise the minimum wage, more likely because of voter pressure than anything else if it happens. I’m fine with the reasons people support Sanders, but people are setting themselves up for another disappointment ala Obama if they don’t accept the really that politics are a collaborative process.

      • lucy says:

        Yes, Veronica, governance and lawmaking is collaborative. That is why selecting representatives who align their service with the public interest is crucial, rather than neglecting to vote.

        POTUS nominates SCOTUS and selects cabinet members, POTUS does have executive privilege and veto power, POTUS does liaise with other world leaders and rebel factions as the leader of our country. POTUS is not a mere honorary or do-nothing title. It does matter who is in the role.

      • Down and Out says:

        But Bernie does not have the support of the party (please notice I said “the” & not “his”). This speaks volumes about their belief in him and their willingness to collaborate to push for things like raising the minimum wage. Bernie will also not help to get Democrats elected to Congress, and that is the biggest reason he will spectacularly fail on his campaign promises if elected. That is the flip side of electing an outsider–they don’t have the support or experience to navigate the system.

      • frivolity says:

        @Down and Out
        “Bernie doesn’t have the support of the party.”
        This has nothing to do with their “belief” in him. It has to do with him showing the true colors of the current Democratic party in the U.S. They are a war-mongering, Wall Street supporting, corporate capitalist machine, only different from the Republicans in their support of certain social issues that have more to do with identity politics that the systemic problems like lack of basic human rights (such as universal health care), income inequality and environmental calamity that face the world today. He’s been in Congress for over 25 years. He’s not an outsider and though he’s technically and Independent, he supports plenty of Democrats. Frankly, one of the things working most against him right now for the real lefts and independents that support his candidacy is that he said he’d support Clinton should he lose.

      • Veronica says:

        You are misunderstanding my point. The POTUS is an important position. It is not, however, the only position that matters, and if the president is at odds with the Congress, it’s going to be a major issue getting legislation through. You need to extend that passion to routinely voting for Senate and House leaders. Particularly when it comes to wage since federal standard has only a limited reach because STATE defined minimum wage supersedes federal, something that seems to get brushed over when people discuss that campaign promise.

      • Down and Out says:

        @frivolity Hey, there’s this longstanding group that I don’t support or respect, and doesn’t accurately represent my values. Hm, how do I voice that displeasure? Oh I know, I’ll join that group and after about five minutes of being a new member I’ll run for its top leadership position. Wait, what do you mean they don’t support me and prefer another longstanding member who more accurate aligns with the group’s positions? And what do you mean they won’t overhaul their way of doing things based on what I, member of all of 5 minutes, think? The system is rigged!!! – Bernie Sanders right now, basically.

        tl:dr – Bernie should’ve run as independent.

      • lucy says:

        Veronica, we agree “governance and lawmaking is collaborative. That is why selecting representatives who align their service with the public interest is crucial, rather than neglecting to vote.” Meaning, people must vote for ALL of their representatives (POTUS and Congress), including in the midterms. When the voters collaborate with selecting reps aligned with their interests, the elected representation TEAM works better together.

        That said, Sanders has bridged across party lines successfully creating legislation throughout his career; he is experienced at working WITH others to get results. Obama had little governing experience before his 1st presidential term, having been an Illinois senator for only 1 term prior.

        Low voter turnout (apathy) during midterms combined with incumbents is what resulted in composing the obstructive Congress we have been suffering with. We can do better by cleaning house this election and not being lazy /apathetic /uninformed in future selection opportunities! 🙂

        You make an excellent point about the wage issue. But I think it is more likely to get cooperative results if states play follow the leader. Bernie leads by example (and even pays his intern staff).

      • Veronica says:

        Bernie has worked with Democrats before, but he’s always been a bit of the party outsider and he’s made it clear he has no f*cks left for the current Republican party – which I can understand – but it does raise concerns for me on how well received he’ll be by said Congress. I don’t necessarily have a problem with him a person – he strikes me as a generally good person with practiced principles – but the broader picture of how all of those components will work together under him is more uncertain to me. I don’t think you and I have much to argue about if you’re fully active in the political process; my frustration is more younger Democrats who don’t understand the importance of mid-term elections.

        (Also, rereading my posts, I realized that my tone came across as kind of aggressive when I’m just kind of a blunt person. My apologies if that’s how it read.)

    • BabyJane says:

      Yeah, that’s because Sen. Sanders refuses to argue about scandals and administrative whoopsies and instead insists on debating issues.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I am not saying he hasn’t made attacks (he has), I am saying he hasn’t withstood attacks against him. Clinton is treating him very gently. People will be attacking him if he competes in the general, and he hasn’t experienced that yet. He hasn’t really been vetted in the public sphere.

      • Kelly says:

        Poor guy. He is way too far to the left for me, but if it comes down between him or Clinton, it’s the Bern for me.

        He could have played dirty on Hilary over the emails etc, but has treated her with kid gloves. With the Super-Delegates and the DNC in her pocket, I don’t know if he’s following his ideals or living in fear, but the the D part of the process seem set.

        Wackiest election I’ve seen since I started voting 1980.

    • sauvage says:

      It’s not about holding Hillary Clinton to a different standard, that’s not how I read Bernie Sanders’ statement. He was pointing out the huge issue that donations of that quantity represent – the corporate doners ARE expecting something in return, who are they kidding. That fundraiser is Buy a Politician Day. And the system behind those huge donations is something Bernie Sanders is not okay with.

      (And neither am I.)

    • Kate says:

      I guess I would hope that she would WANT to be held to a different standard and hold herself to a different standard.

    • Dangles says:

      Clinton is a pro-choice Republican.

    • Pansy says:

      @Naya, my name is Pansy and I’m a southern Christian who supports Bernie! And I have many, many friends in the same demographic group that agree!

    • Dirty Martini says:

      I don’t think it’s a question of being held to a different standard than republicans per se, They already declare themselves different,…I think it’s a matter of acting in accordance with those differences. And Bernie is calling her out for not acting in accordance with those differences.

      I respect Bernie. He truly walks the talk. I don’t agree with his politics but I respect him more than Hillary and any republican front runner.

    • kibbles says:

      Democrats should hold themselves to a different standard because we are not Republicans nor should we try to be! Just because the GOP does it doesn’t make it right or justifiable to establishment Democrats. That is why the Democratic Party has become Republican Lite and why so many people are eager to elect someone who isn’t seen to be part of the establishment (Sanders for liberals and Trump for conservatives). Things have got to change and just going along with the status quo doesn’t work for normal folks anymore.

    • raincoaster says:

      He apparently flew coach to Oregon. Pretty amazing.

  2. MexicanMonkey says:

    Honestly, as a non-American I will never understand how people can be okay with the obscene amounts of money that corporates can donate to a political campaign. Not to mention lobbying, which is basically a legalized form of bribe.
    Just the idea if all that money spent on campaigns when the economy is that bad in the states is baffling.

    • Snazzy says:

      I agree with you. I have a serious problem with it as well. But I’m not from the US either, so maybe there’s an element I am missing.

    • Kitten says:

      Most Americans are NOT ok with Super PACS, but it’s not like we have the power to overturn a federal court decision on a case like v. Federal Election Commission.

    • Algernon says:

      Our economy is actually doing pretty well right now. It’s the best it’s been since 2007. But other than that, yes, it’s ludicrous. I keep advocating for a system in which the candidates are all given a flat amount of money to spend on their campaigns. Show us how good with budgeting you really are! Also they shouldn’t be able to mention other candidates in their ads. They should only be able to address their own records and platforms. No more super/PACs and end negative campaigning.

    • Esther says:

      i agree. in every other country stuff like this is called a bribe.

    • susanne says:

      The campaign donations are Nothing compared with the behind-the-scenes sh!te that happens with big corporations. This is what we should be looking at.

    • lucy2 says:

      I am an American, and I’m not OK with the crazy money or the lobbying.

    • tealily says:

      I think it’s only the people participating in the massive donation scheme who are okay with it, but as Kitten says, it’s not something we’re in control of.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      The hard part is that we need the very people who benefit from the system (legislators) to change the system.

      An act of Congress is needed to change campaign finance reform. Until we vote in a large group who is courageous enough to change it, nothing will happen. It isn’t enough to have a President who supports campaign finance reform, it has to come from Congress because they write the laws.

    • frivolity says:

      You are absolutely right. But in America, corruption is obfuscated through acceptable acts like fundraising and unethical behaviors are given euphemisms so that it looks like the country is a democracy. It is not.

    • kibbles says:

      I agree with you too. It’s amazing how many unethical practices that Democrats who are loyal to the party will stand these days. I am an American but I have traveled internationally enough to know that things are a lot better in other developed countries where policies that Sanders endorses are being enacted – universal health care, free college education, etc. Unfortunately, establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle are bought by Wall Street, insurance companies, the top 1% who will never support these policies. Republicans and Democrats are running scared of the possibility that a non-establishment candidate could be elected this year.

    • isabelle says:

      Americans aren’t OK with it and its hugely why Bernie & yes Trump are doing well. Will never vote Trump, don’t like Trump but he isn’t taking money from corporations. People I know voting for him site it as their top reason.

    • Veronica says:

      Some of these problems frankly arise from the sheer size of the United States – a candidate has to have enough money to reach a very large consumer base to combat incumbents. The other major problem is that we don’t have term limits for Senators, so these people can form a fairly strong support base and financially crush any candidate who doesn’t come from significant means. (There’s also the fact that the system was, frankly, kind of designed to keep the wealthier, educated class in power due to the era in which it was designed.)

  3. Talie says:

    He needs to start helping Dems below the Pres line, if he really cares about the party. The math is done — he could win Cali, NJ and NY by 20 (spoiler: he won’t) and he would still lose. It’s over.

    • Scal says:

      THIS. What really matters is the down ticket elections-esp in non-presidential years. Look at what happened with the midterms in 2010, the US is still having to deal with many of those folks in the House/Sentate. They are up for reelection this year, focus on those elections as they don’t get anywhere near the same amount of funding. Same goes for local elections. Look at what’s happening in the state houses across the board. That’s where the real change needs to happen if we want to see any kind of lasting difference/if Bernie wants to achieve anything.

      Meanwhile the GOP does a tremendous about of fundraising for Congressional and local elections. The DMC Victory fund comes nowhere close.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “What really matters is the down ticket elections-esp in non-presidential years.”

        So true, so true.

    • Mich says:

      He doesn’t care about the party. He has said it again and again over decades.

    • Hollz says:

      Um, no it’s not.
      Right now, when you exclude super delegates, Bernie is only trailing by about 200. That’s not a big difference. And super delegates shouldn’t be counted until they actually vote, because until then they can – AND WILL – switch sides. They did so in 2008, and they’ll do so again.

      • HH says:

        Given that it’s proportional voting, what is the route for him to over take or tie HRC in delegate count? And I’m talking reasonable voting margins. We are running into states with diverse populations and Bernie has either lost or won within 5 pts in these states.

      • Talie says:

        Over 200 is pretty major. Hillary was never trailing Obama by that much in 08 and she still couldn’t catch him. It’s over and superdelegates aren’t going to jump to him — he hasn’t shown that he can expand his coalition beyond a sizable base of white voters.

      • Veronica says:

        It’s a big difference, but we still have yet to see most of the major coastal states weigh in. The big players like California will say a lot as to how the vote actually swings.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      He’s not really a democrat and only ran along the party ticket for exposure, it’s not surprising he’s not the biggest supporter of other democrats.

      • Hawkeye says:

        So what would it take for him to be considered a real Democrat? He has a pretty solid voting record that aligns with the Democrats and his policy positions are in my opinion very close to what the party used to be for. On top of that, if the “real” Democrat in the race is Hillary, can someone explain how that squares with her relationship with Henry Kissinger?

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Sanders himself said he was not a democrat and chose to run on the party line because he felt it was the only way he’d have enough exposure for his ideas. He doesn’t favor the party and has criticized it often in the past, as a result it’s unlikely he cares about supporting down ticket democrats.

        The really was just a speech connecter, I should have just left it at not.

      • Neelyo says:

        He is an old school democrat, just like Clinton is closer to an Eisenhower republican than she is to being a Democrat.

      • Naya says:

        So he is also gaming the party system? What a great “man of principle”.

        Not that I am surprised. I saw the list of his highest paid staffers. Its pretty much what you would expect from a white man with a savior complex stretching back to his twenties i.e. a top tier thats predominantly white male

      • frivolity says:

        The system is already gamed, which is fundamental problem with this so-called democracy. He’s very forthright about his campaign and candidacy.

      • kibbles says:

        The meaning of Democrat today is really messed up. Sanders IS a traditional FDR Democrat, it’s just that the Democratic Party has left him and most of us who still believe in Democratic values. The Democratic establishment no longer speaks for me nor for millions of other people who would traditionally be Democrats if the party had not moved itself so far to the right.

      • Naya says:

        So if he knows the system is already gamed why is he bitching about campaign fundraisers? He is happy to play when it suits him, thats why. A person driven by principle (as his supporters keep claimig) would have spent his career as an independent. He wouldnt even deign to touch a party nomination for president with a 10 foot poll.

        Of course he knows he would have trouble compteting so he GAMES the system for decades but throws stones at Hillary for raising money to help her and down ticket candidates be able to compete against wealthier candidates. Hypocrite.

  4. Hawkeye says:

    I’m with Bernie 100%. I think the question people should be asking themselves isn’t why should Hillary be criticized for doing what everyone else does, but instead why it’s acceptable FOR ANYONE to be running for office in this manner, whether that’s D or R, for POTUS or local water commissioner. If that’s the case, that big money is allowed into elections, voters who have no cash for legal bribery basically have no vote, and that starts with campaign contributions all the way to hired lobbying.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      So at a certain income bracket a voter instead loses their ability to voice and offer support to the candidate of their choosing?

      A flat limit or running without donations is something I’m fine with, but I don’t agree with the idea that the wealthy are immediately bad and should not be able to donate. Super PACS are far more destructive than a single donation from a wealthy individual. Furthermore all the donations in the world are no guarantee of a law.

      • frivolity says:

        Okay. I’ll bite.
        I’m here to say that the wealthy are immediately bad.

        “Behind every great fortune lies a great crime” Balzac

        But nowadays, those crime are usually indirect in nature, so as not to be noticed.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:


        That’s childish. People don’t immediately become evil simply their income increases and if it’s the cliche of the malevolent business person I can promise you theres millions of small business leaders doing everything they can to screw their employees.

        I don’t believe in the Republican ideal of handing everhthing to millionaires on a platter nor Bernie’s ideal of demonizing the wealthy. There are many good philanthropists who donate more than the average individual such as Bill Gates or even Mark Zuckerberg who has attempted to invest in and reinvent the American school system.

  5. Sam says:

    This was very dumb, misplaced criticism from Sanders. The fundraiser, while billed as a fundraiser for Clinton, is actually raising money for both Clinton and congressional Democrats. You know, those people who will have to get into Congress to actually work with the next President to get anything done?

    Clinton is smart in that she’s about the long game. She knows that a Democrat in the White House is only half the equation. If the Republicans retain Congress this year, it won’t much matter one bit who wins the Presidency. Clinton’s dispersing of PAC funds to congressional races is extremely smart and shrewd at this stage, and I applaud her foresight. Sanders is coming across more and more as a one-trick pony who isn’t very pragmatic.

    In another year, with less at stake, Sanders might have a point. But let’s be real. We’re facing the very distinct possibility of a President Trump. I am okay with Democrats pulling a BAMN and doing whatever needs to be done to try to prevent that. This is not the year for carping about ethics and major money in politics. Bernie should save it for 2020.

    • Merritt says:


    • nicole says:

      Yes, that’s exactly it. You can’t actually get anything done as President unless you get the right people elected down-ticket as well. This is the wrong thing for Sanders to critique as it adds to the concerns that he has no interest in other Democrat support and therefore is an unrealistic candidate.

      Also, I’m not American. I’m not against Sanders…please don’t attack 🙂

    • V4Real says:

      Well Bernie if Hilary doesn’t go to big money people to get campaign funding who in the hell is she supposed to turn to; me and my broke ass.

      I’m also willing to bet that if George had endorsed Bernie instead of Clinton and funded his campaign he wouldn’t be complaining.

    • felixswan2 says:

      Actually polls show that Bernie could defeat Trump more so than Hillary.
      There is never going to be a good year for someone progressive to come in against the two party system because people are always going to make the excuse that we need to vote for the lesser of two evils. That’s why the two party system works so well for the established Democrats and Republicans.
      It’s amazing that Bernie has gotten so much support. It shows that people are tired of the corporate establishment and want a change. I just wish more people voted with their conscience and not out of fear for something worse (and I do agree that Trump and Cruz are worse).
      And I agree with him 100% about what he said above. He also said it wasn’t a criticism of Clooney, but of the people coming to the event who have influence over the political process.

      • Luca76 says:

        That’s not and has never been an accurate poll. Most general voters don’t know Sanders, don’t know that he’s a Socialist, or that he’s an Athiest. He’s never had to face the full power of the Republican Party against him. On the other hand Clinton is one of the most vetted and famous politicians in this country. She has a higher negative rating than Sanders because she’s been attacked on a steady basis as a kind of bogey woman for years. If Sanders were to win the nomination we would almost certainly end up with Trump as president.

      • IvyMades says:

        Thank you!

        The lies people tell about Bernie’s chances in the general are to prop up Clinton’s “inevitability” narrative. The idea that she’s the only possible choice for nominee if democrats want to win. In truth, her negatives are high and in the general you NEED to appeal to independent voters. That’s how you WIN swing states.

        Bernie’s policies are in line with what most Americans want. To pick one issue — Healthcare is HUGE There’s no reason we shouldn’t have a single payer system. Medical bills is the #1 cause of debt facing Americans and lead to foreclosures. It’s life or death for so many people. — But there’s so many others he supports too that the mainstream media dubs “unrealistic” simply because they go against the corporate interests of the owners of said media.

      • Naya says:


        Yep. Even plugged in democrats are still getting to know Bernie. I’ve read comments from his own supporters questioning his “socialist” quote, they claimed he wouldnt be so dumb as to allienate so many voters. I told them to visit google sometime. This man cant win a general election. Fact.

      • lucy says:

        @IvyMades and @felixswan2, thank you for staying on-message, as so few seem to.

      • Gerry says:

        @Felixswan Basic common sense tells me those polls are useless. As others have pointed out, he has been ignored for most of his campaign. Other than his supporters nobody knows who he is.

        There’s also a really weird overlap between his voters and Trumps. Many of his supporters especially the white dudes have declared they’ll vote for Trump if he doesn’t run. This tells me and Trump strategists that these guys can be poached from Bernie with the right messaging. In other words I don’t know if he can even retain his bros to the ballot.

      • Melanie says:

        No way in hell is this a reality. Amongst my family and friends that are Hillary supporters, they’re all sitting this one out if it comes down to Bernie and Trump. No joke. They think they’re both nuts and will either write in Hillary, or just stay home.

        Neither man represents my morals or views. If it’s Bernie over Hillary, I may honestly sit out the first presidential election of my life. Bernie will not win over Trump, even if he had my vote. Socialism is a very bad word in America and you will get many middle of the road Dems to vote for Trump.

        Sometimes I feel like I’m the only one that really wants Hillary to win. For a lot of reasons. I like her. Maybe I’m the only one, but I respect her and would happily call her my President.

    • HH says:

      Agreed. 100%.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Exactly, which makes it all the more ironic he chose to choose this as an arguing point considering if he does manage to make the nomination and become president he would find himself made lame without a majority Democratic Congress and Senate. He was already voted the most partisan and doesn’t have a record of things actually coming into fruition under his proposals.

    • Mollie says:

      I came in to point out the same thing. This wasn’t a fundraiser for “Hillary” it was for down-ticket dems. It was a worthy fundraiser.

    • Luca76 says:

      Yes!! Exactly! This fundraiser is because the only way to get any material changes in this country done we need a Democratic Congress and Senate. In the past I had a lot of respect for Bernie Sanders for many years but the way he has conducted his campaign and egged on his supporters to shred Hillary apart is deplorable.

      My Facebook feed has been filled with some mildly racist, sexist, conspiracy theory BS by the Bernie supporters in my life for weeks. They have gone off the deep end. Apparently a bird landing on his podium is proof that he’s the next messiah and Hillary is the exact same as Ted Cruz although she’s one of the most liberal politicians in this country.

      • frivolity says:

        Yeah, because from 2008-2010 the Democratic controlled House, Senate, and Executive branches did so much good for the little folks in the country. They wouldn’t even consider single-payer universal healthcare so as not push out the health insurance industry. And are you kidding that Hillary is liberal? On social/cultural issues, maybe, on everything else, she’s a Reagan republican.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “Yeah, because from 2008-2010 the Democratic controlled House, Senate, and Executive branches did so much good for the little folks in the country”

        *Obama wasn’t sworn in until 2009.
        *Al Franken’s election was contested, and he didn’t get sworn in for 7 months until July of 2009.
        *Sen. Byrd was hospitalized shortly thereafter.
        *Sen. Kennedy died in Aug. of 2009.
        *Replacement for Kennedy was sworn in in Sept. of 2009, and held the seat until Mass. special election in Feb. 2010.

        Bottom line: Dems had a supermajority in theory from July-Aug of 2009 (one month, but Byrd was out in the hospital) and then again from Sept. 2009-Feb. 2010 (5 months).

      • frivolity says:

        Sorry, you’re right. Move the dates from 2009-2011, but the majority rule still stands. Why are the Dems so ineffectual when they have power? Maybe because the current Dems basically support many of the same fundamental fiscal and socioeconomic policies as the Repubs. You don’t solely need a supermajority to get things done. The Repubs seems to push through anything and everything when they have the trifecta of power – partially because too many Dems support the Repub’s horrid policies too.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        But it wasn’t 2009-2011 (which suggests it lasted 2 years). It was 5 months from the end of 2009 to the beginning of 2010. September to February.

        The dems could assert more power if their voters reliably turned out in midterm elections. The House members only have 2 year terms, they are re-elected every two years. Dems got clobbered in off years 2010 and 2014. The House controls the finances of congress, if you don’t participate in off year elections you don’t get to decide how money is spent. And yes, if voters elect “blue dog” democrats, they are going to vote more closely inline with the GOP.

        “You don’t solely need a supermajority to get things done. ”

        Before 2009, you’d be correct. But after Obama was elected, the GOP filibustered everything meaning that you DO need a supermajority to get a vote. Never before has a senate filibustered as many times as the GOP did during Obama’s presidency.

      • Kitten says:

        Your comments on this entire thread are a thing of beauty, Tiffany.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Thank you, Kitten!

      • Ash says:

        “Yes!! Exactly! This fundraiser is because the only way to get any material changes in this country done we need a Democratic Congress and Senate. In the past I had a lot of respect for Bernie Sanders for many years but the way he has conducted his campaign and egged on his supporters to shred Hillary apart is deplorable.

        My Facebook feed has been filled with some mildly racist, sexist, conspiracy theory BS by the Bernie supporters in my life for weeks. They have gone off the deep end. Apparently a bird landing on his podium is proof that he’s the next messiah and Hillary is the exact same as Ted Cruz although she’s one of the most liberal politicians in this country. ”

        I’m very glad to have found many rational folks on this forum. Many of the Bernie supporters come across as scary and annoying as the Trump supporters.

        I cannot wait for this election cycle to be over.

    • Lama Bean says:

      This is such a good summary (in my opinion)!
      Also, I would hope we wouldn’t attack people in an intelligent conversation with differing opinions. I think you’re safe. 😊

    • The Original Mia says:

      Incredibly shortsighted on his part.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Well said, Sam.

    • Sam, I couldn’t agree more. The coverage of this event was very myopic. While I agree with Bernie’s principal of trying to do-away with beg money in politics, this is the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY we’re talking about here. It’s not like (as Celebitchy said) they are a bunch of Wall streeters looking for a meal ticket. This is a liberal-leaning bunch of people who happen to have done well and have the funds to back up their political beliefs.

    • Veronica says:

      Yeah, I like Sanders as a person, but I have serious concerns about how he plays the political game and whether it can work taking him to and/or when he’s in office. Being the rogue is all well and good when you want to appeal to people’s apathy over a seriously flawed system, but for those of us who are older moderates, you need to be able to channel that energy into legitimate strategies to change that. There’s plenty of things I don’t like about Hillary, but she’s at least answering the questions raised even if I don’t like what she has to say.

    • Melanie says:


  6. Locke Lamora says:

    I’m not American, but I’m really really rooting for Bernie. He’s the best American presidental candidate in at least the last 20 years. An actual moderate leftist in the White House would be great.
    And Hilary should be held to a different standard than the GOP candidates because compared to them Lex Luthor seems delightful.

    • Hawkeye says:

      @Locke Lamora, I am Canadian and I have been following Bernie’s career ever since his opposition to the Iraq invasion and occupation. I feel like he is the only candidate in the race who would keep the US from destorying itself and taking the rest of us down with it. Climate change is a huge issue for me, and on this alone, Bernie is head and shoulders above the rest in climate action. And incidentally, guess which D candidate takes money from the fossil fuel industry? But wait! If the Rs can do it, why can’t she?

    • Esther says:

      its crazy how someone like sanders is called a left winger. he is a little left of center compared to left wingers in other counties around the world.

      • LisaH says:

        Right? People don’t realize that the Democrats do NOT represent working class people the way they used to. They win on the social issues, but have no intention of truly addressing economic inequality in the U.S. Sanders is the only one willing to address this issue. The Clintons pushed NAFTA. They are the original corporate sell-outs.

      • frivolity says:


      • Naya says:

        Except the fact that the democrats occupy the centre whereas the Republicans have shifted further right is their major strength. If we cede the center, the republicans can reclaim it and we lose the only independents that count.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        I don’t think most Americans realize how the right moved the center more to the right and so it is no longer the center. Bernies’s proposals are not radical at all but he’s painted as one quite wrongly.

      • P&J says:

        @LisaH You’re abso right!

    • kibbles says:

      Bernie trounced Hillary in the global presidential primary, picking up 69% of the votes from American expats around the world.

      The vast majority of non-Americans and Americans abroad are solidly in the Bernie camp which says a lot about the mindset of the international community compared to Americans.

      What Americans think is infeasible or impossible has been practiced in most developed countries in Europe, East Asia, and right across the border in Canada for decades. To say that what Sanders is proposing is impossible just reveals how much Americans have been fooled by their overlords into thinking that they can’t have what the rest of the developed world is having, just because. No real reason while presidential candidates continue to be bought out by the one percent. It’s a very sad situation but I am happy to see that at least the majority of young people in America aren’t buying the BS.

    • isabelle says:

      We haven’t had someone like Bernie in 40+ years. As a Gen Xer I’ve never been able to vote for anyone like him, even in state elections. One of my co-workers described Bernie perfectly, he was a hippy that actually believed in the stuff he was protesting and still believes in it. He really is a for the “peoples” politician and more concerned about the populace rather than the Hill & getting elected again.

  7. Claryssa says:

    “what’s on Clooney’s political agenda…”?

    Well, the problem, and the point I think Sander’s tries to make, is that you never know what’s going to be on their agenda, but you can reasonably anticipate they will expect something in return for that kind of money. Sure, I think Clooney’s a nice guy, and he has a solid track record as a humanitarian, but to Sanders you can’t start trying to separate who its’s okay to take money from, and when its not okay — better off not doing it at all, and that appears to be what Sanders has done.

    When I think of Sanders position on big money, I usually consider what big money in the U.S. has done to destroy the environment (heck, 70 degrees at Christmas in NYC!), simply because it was good business, and I must conclude he has it right.

    • lisa says:

      cloooney needs to step off

      he takes endorsement money from nestle, who publicly wants to make free water a thing of the past

      then pretends to be a democrat and wants to be a player in politics

      either take your ill gotten gains and go or practice what you preach

  8. Kg says:

    As Bernie said, it isn’t Clooneys himself – he is just the host with name recognition to draw in the power players. It is the people willing to pay the money to be there. You know who bought the $300k ticket to sit beside Hillary and George? Alice Walton, who very much has ideas in conflict with what the Democratic party should stand for – Minimum Wage, Healthcare Access, Unions, the TPP, Environmental concerns….Walmart is one of the biggest corporate welfare recipients and a shining example of how trickle down economics doesn’t work because it doesn’t account for people like Alice Walton pocketing the difference creating an even bigger income disparity. Bernie isn’t wrong here.

  9. EbonyS says:

    So dumb. So so dumb. Clooney does this ALL the time, like you said. Each election cycle. He held one of these dinners in 2012 and it raised $15 Million for the Obama campaign. And what Sanders doesn’t say is that both Bernie and Hillary signed a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC, money they raise also goes to lower members like people running for public office in 30+ state parties. Those running for Congressional, Senatorial seats because, guess what, you need them on your side to help make/pass laws too. In February alone, Clinton raised $4.4 million for the DNC to help fund lower elections in districts. Sanders has contributed zero. Zero. But do I care? No. Because sure he’s only been a registered Democrat for less than a year. I don’t expect him to help out those running elections below him.

    And if we want to talk about money, Sanders’ campaign manager/ad team netted $800K last month alone. It takes money to run a campaign. Why are we acting surprised when it happens?

    Just a week ago, a fundraiser dinner was held for Bernie by some big real estate guy. It may not be Clooney, but doesn’t the arguements hold?

    But note, I don’t CARE about him having a dinner thrown for him too where those who raise/donate $10K get a special “pre-dinner” event. But don’t lambast someone for doing the same thing you’re doing because they’re happening to raise more money.

    If Bernie wins the nomination, I will vote for him. If Hillary wins, I will vote for her. Even with my preference for Hillary, I refuse to spend my time vilifying one in the place of the other. I will not do the GOP’s job for them. I want a Democrat in office. Because women’s rights and those of POC ARE under attack.

    • Kitten says:


    • Mot says:

      Totally agree!!!!!

    • Algernon says:

      Hear hear!

    • tracking says:

      Yes, this smacks of hypocrisy. I’d really like to see the breakdown of Sanders’ donations. Also, is he forgetting his own efforts to raise big money for the DNC? He acts so appalled by the system, of which he’s been a contributing part for 30 years.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Perfectly said.

      ” I refuse to spend my time vilifying one in the place of the other. I will not do the GOP’s job for them. I want a Democrat in office. Because women’s rights and those of POC ARE under attack.”

      This whole rivalry is stupid, I thought we were better/smarter than this.

      • Dangles says:

        Clinton is an imperialist war monger.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Yeah and she pees when she laughs too.

        I’ve heard all the villainous claims before.

      • Dangles says:

        Oh, then they mustn’t be true then because you’ve heard them.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        More so that exaggeration and rewriting history do not a villain make. Every person makes decisions based on the most likely outcome and the reality of being a president of a United States is that there will have to be compromise and acknowledging of the wishes of the electorate.

        We can not now scold someone for not supporting gay marriage in past decades when as recently as 2008 the majority of Americans were against it. When even Obama changed positions on it and as a result overtime the Supreme Court was able to lay down a definitive ruling that made it the law of the land (much as certain districts may try to fight against it).

        Being president means you make compromises and that even the best President has a series of checks and balances keeping them from making drastic changes. Merely saying, “We’ll do this!” when anyone with two eyes can see a large mass of the other governing bodies will stop you in your tracks does not a ‘bern’ make. All this is to say in spite of this ridiculous and idiotic rivalry I still think Bernie has good ideas and intentions, I just don’t think he’ll be effective unless there’s a large number of democrats in the House and Senate.

    • HH says:

      Agreed with everything you’re saying. But FYI, that article is from October 2015, not a week ago. Is that the right article?

    • Mollie says:

      Agreed. I’m blue no matter who.

      • lucy2 says:

        Me too – the GOP choices are just terrifying this time, I will happily vote against them. I’m an independent, but always end up voting Dem on the national level because of the current state of the GOP.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        Me as well. No way would I vote for R. They are scary.

  10. aims says:

    I’m a huge supporter of Bernie. I live in Oregon and yes I was there when the bird landed on his sign. He’s been busting his ass up and down the west coast. He has shown himself to be for the people. Hillary Clinton has not had a single rally here. It pisses me off that she thinks it her turn to be the nominee when she’s been not around. Bernie Sanders is correct about the ungodly amount of money being shelled out. While Hillary is taking selfies with celebrities, Bernie has been talking to the people who can’t get i to the rallies because there’s no room.

    I believe in Bernie so much that I’ve volunteer for him and he’s the only one there that honestly gives a damn.

    • Pivotal Badger says:

      I so agree with this. He has been completely busting his buns across the nation, talking to voters and working incredibly hard for each and every vote.

      Hillary, in contrast, has been holding a succession of private, closed-doors events with the wealthy donor class who, let’s face it are patently buying access.

      I’m team Bernie all the way. He is amazing and you guys are lucky to have someone of his character and intelligence running for your highest office. My husband is the dual citizen, he has voted for Bernie already in the Global Democratic Primary this month but we are canvassing and phonebanking and donating for Bernie. This is not a coronation.

    • Betsy says:

      Gosh, I can’t speak to your state, but Hillary most certainly has been busting her buns out there. She remembers 2008.

    • kibbles says:

      I am crossing my fingers that he can win California or at least come close to a tie with Clinton. I’m almost certain that Sanders will win Oregon by a large margin.

  11. Merritt says:

    Sanders completely incorrectly characterized the fundraiser. A lot of the money is going to fund down ballot democratic candidates. It is not just for Hillary. Sanders has done very little for other candidates and funding. Not only that but his team in MN threatened a democratic senator for not having endorsed him yet.

    • Sam says:

      Because Bernie is, by his own admission, not a Democrat. He was an independent for years and openly admitted that he ran as a Democrat largely for the media advantage (media tends to ignore independent and 3rd party candidates). I applaud his honesty, but why would somebody who, admittedly, doesn’t have much affinity for the Democratic party put his own funds and time in service of party candidates? He wouldn’t.

      But that’s dumb strategy. Sanders has an extremely ambitious agenda should be get elected. Does he really think a Republican congress would even come to the table with him? No! He’d get nothing done. The most optimistic agenda in the world means nothing if you can’t actually get it done. And I’m not sure he genuinely understands that.

      • Kitten says:

        Your second paragraph is why I’ve veered away from him in recent months.
        I don’t want another Obama, getting blocked at every turn.

      • Merritt says:

        This is part of why I don’t support Sanders. Don’t join a party that you don’t belong to for the sole purpose of raising your public profile, but then do nothing for that party in return. At this point it is basically impossible for him to get the nomination. Most of the caucuses are over and those were his major wins. He would need to take the remaining states by huge margins and it is not going to happen.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Your second paragraph is why I could just never quite get on board with him. He sounds very ideological and his campaigns don’t line up with our reality. We have a party completely refusing to even meet with a potential nominee while one on the highest courts in our country remains dangerously deadlocked. People might not like it but things are going to be centric for a long time just in an effort to even try to rebuild some of our damaged processes before we can even move left.

      • SloaneY says:

        I think deep down Bernie knows he can’t win the nom, but could maybe get enough support to establish a viable 3rd party in this country. Which we desperately need.

      • Prettykrazee says:

        ITA! He has been in politics long enough to know that he will achieve nothing as president if the Democrats don’t win the down ticket races. Since he isn’t a Democrat, he could care less. That attitude and women not holding any of the highest paying jobs in his campaign is why I’m not ‘Feelin the Bern’.

      • Pivotal Badger says:

        This is so disingenuous. He has caucused and voted with Democrats throughout his career. He is known as the “amendment king”, as a representative who can effectively get things done in congress. He reached across party lines and helped lead the most important Veteran’s bill in decades. To paint him as “not a Democrat” is such a falsity. President Obama campaigned for him. Bernie is the real deal, an effective and principled legislator with passion, heart and vision.

        To think that Hillary will be able to effectively work with Republicans who she has referred to, in her own words, “the enemy”. Talk about a polarizing and divisive choice.

      • Sam says:

        Pivotal Badger: except, uh, no. He caucused with them because for ages, he was the only independent in the Senate. A refusal to caucus with the Democrats would have left him entirely alone and without and political leverage. He’s no fool, he knows that refusing to play with anybody is dumb and useless. But he’s also repeatedly on record as stating that the Democratic party doesn’t go far enough, is “establishment” and is too similar to the Republicans. He’s accused the DNC of cheating, manipulation, and all manner of stuff. So yeah, he’s no Democrat, and the party has an excuse for not being “all in” for him.

      • Prettykrazee says:

        @Pivotal Badger Of course he caucuses with the Democrats. If he wants to get anything done he has to. Who else is he going to cauces with? Angus King? He has crap talked the entire Democratic Party. How is he a Democrat when he called the entire party ‘ideologically bankrupt’. And when asked recently if he still believes that he didn’t answer yes or no, but gave a talk around answer.

        No one said Hillary will have an easier time if she is elected president. Hillary or Bernie will need down ticket democrats to win their races, if they want to achieve anything as president.

      • lucy says:

        @Pivotal Badger, well-stated! Thank you for seeing through the propaganda and fears.

      • lucy says:

        While it is important to elect representatives who will actually do their jobs, and to select those who align best with the voting people’s interests, it is entirely disingenuous to dismiss the Office of President’s impact on the overall representation and leadership of the USA.

        Governing is a team effort, and each member brings something valuable to the table. EVERY representative counts, POTUS most of all.

      • Sam, exactly. I always think back to listening to POTUS on that podcast he did with the Mark Marin show, and he characterised it something like “you steer a ship 10 degrees at a time, in the hope that in 10 years time, it will have turned 40 degrees.”
        That is exactly how the machine works, rightly or wrongly. I think that even if Bernie gets the nomination (and if he does, I’ll vote for him), his supporters will be disappointed by the amount of stuff that he wont be able to get done. There is compromise and you will have to concede a lot of the more idealistic goals if you want to steer the ship

  12. Mot says:

    How does Bernie fundraise? Don’t all presidential candidates do something to raise the obscene amount of money needed to run TV ads? I think he wants us to believe he’s not a politician but how do work in the senate for 30 years and not come out a politician?

    I’m a Hillary supporter, but I would vote for Bernie is he was our nominee. I’m not in the camp of “if my candidate doesn’t get elected our country is going to fall apart”.

    I think they would both do what is best for the country…they might be right, might be wrong, but I know their intention is correct.

  13. kcarp says:

    My big issue with this fundraising is the hypocrisy of Hollywood. While criticizing these corporations and hedge funds these Hollywood millionaires are still putting their money in hedge funds. Are these Hollywood people still using tax loop holes to get out of paying higher taxes? You bet they are.

    The elite like to tell all of us how to live, be environmentally conscience, volunteer, donate to candidates, etc. while they continue to use private jets and live extravagant life styles.

    • Gg says:

      Yes!!!!! So glad Clooney and Amal are getting questioned! But she’s totally into human rights?! just so long as she can jet away for long private vacations with her millions. I would pay to see the smug looks on their faces fall flat when they heard Bernie Sanders go on National TV and say their phony liberalism and propagation of democratic suppression was “obscene”. Good on him! He is speaking truth to power no apologies!
      And of course Clinton is fundraising with the DNC , it’s trickle down bribery! How else do you think she had 400+ super delegates lined up on day one, even though you know she “wasn’t sure she was running” and still taking checks from Wall Street?

  14. lisa2 says:

    I liked that he used this as a way for himself to raise money too.

  15. Algernon says:

    I really respect Senator Sanders and I think he’s bringing up a lot of important issues to discuss in an election year, but there is no way he’ll win a general election and at a certain point, he’s dividing the democratic base in a way that may hurt HRC’s chances in November. I would really like to see him drop out and start supporting HRC to unite the base because I am legitimately *afraid* of what will happen if a republican wins in November. In return, I would like to see HRC appoint Bernie the head of a commission on either campaign reform or wall street reform. I think he can do the most good there.

    • Locke Lamora says:

      I, for the life of me don’t understamd why Bernie wouldn’t win a general election, especially if he ran against nutjobs like Trump or Cruz.

      • Algernon says:

        Because all it takes is some national attack ads calling him a socialist and it’s over. Too many people see “socialist” as “communist” and don’t understand the difference. Also, he has *zero* foreign policy qualifications and that’s going to be a *huge* part of this election. I don’t think HRC is any great shakes, but I believe she can win because she knows how to play this system, and all I want come November is a big Dem win.

      • aims says:

        The numbers show that Bernie would win and by a lot.

      • Merritt says:


        A lot of people didn’t know who Bernie was a year ago. The Republicans have barely talked about him. If he were the nominee he would be attacked in the extreme, so those numbers that you are currently seeing would be very different.

      • Locke Lamora says:

        I guess I just have to get used to the fact that socialist is such a terrible horrible bad word in the States. Half of the politicians in my country actually WERE communists, and people are fine with it.

        Anyway, I like Bernie’s policies more than Hilary’s. I don’t really mind her past mistakes because I’m not stupid to expect a politician to have integrity.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Tbh I think Bernie has been very lucky in that Republicans are playing both sides of the coin.

        On the one hand since there were so many Republicans running they had to spend the majority of the time fighting amongst themselves, even Hilary hasn’t gotten as many attacks from a Republican candidate as she would have. Still in their mind she’s the primary target and the one they do reference when they do choose to attack. Bernie on the other hand is largely forgotten.

        However, you have a few Republicans eagerly talking up and encouraging Bernie knowing full well that if he does become the more likely candidate that they’ll immediately begin blasting SOCIALISM and twisting every idea he has till even the most resistant to Trump chooses to favor him.

        I truly believe it wouldn’t be hard to manipulate that way.

      • perplexed says:

        duplicate comment.

      • perplexed says:

        Yeah, the Republican candidates are acting like reality tv show contestants and I’m putting that mildly; this is probably the one year where I think someone like Sanders could win.

      • Sam says:

        It’s not that people would vote for somebody like Cruz or Trump over Sanders. It’s that people would just stay home and not vote. And that’s for several reasons:

        1.) Bernie has a major problem with POC, especially African Americans. Gallup shows he has a favorability rating among African Americans of under 40%. POC are not enthused about him. If he’s the candidate, there’s a strong fear that POC will just stay home.

        2.) People who identify very strongly with the Democratic party might stay home. Sanders has spent years basically bashing the Democratic party as establishment. If you love the party (or work for it or volunteer for it) you might not cotton to some long-term independent “hijacking” the party. You might stay home.

        3.) The self-described “socialism” thing hurts him. Most Americans still, according to the polls, have strongly negative views of the term socialism and related stuff. The Republicans would bash him over the head with these terms, making Americans wary of him.

        4.) The non-religious thing. The polls indicate that most Americans still, to this day, believe that a religious belief is essential to holding public office (Gallup actually found that more Americans would vote a Muslim into office than an atheist/agnostic, for the perspective). The Democratic party has a long tradition of attracting blue-collar, working class , union laborers – who tend to be religious people (mostly Catholics and assorted Christians). There is a genuine concern that these people won’t warm up to a non-religious person and won’t show up for Sanders.

        So it’s not that these people would vote for Trump or Cruz – they certainly would not. That’s not the concern. It’s that they simply won’t vote and the Republicans (who generally beat Democrats when it comes to whipping up voter enthusiasm) will simply win be default (a la 2010). That’s the real concern.

        (My source is my husband, who is a political aide, just in case anybody is wondering.)

      • LisaH says:

        One study showed that Sanders would fair better in the general election against Trump than Clinton would.

        It’s a populist election.

      • Jess says:


        “Because all it takes is some national attack ads calling him a socialist and it’s over.”

        and all it would take for Hillary is another email scandal and BAM! We now have Donald Trump for president.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:


        In terms of the email scandal we have had and are still waiting for the crime to be revealed. It’s been dozens of hearings, it’s been months, it’s been showboating by the Republicans. If there’s something to be said then by all means it should be exposed, but this is becoming Obama’s Birth Certificate 2.0. with Republicans losing more and more support time as time passes and no proof is revealed.

      • Luca76 says:

        @Jess you are contrasting known facts about Sanders he is an avowed Socialist (I personally don’t have a problem with that) with hyperbole about Clinton. It’s possible that any candidate can have an October surprise (look at the accusations being thrown at Ted Cruz) but Sanders is a Socialist and an Athiest (again nothing wrong with that in my book) and most of America won’t vote for either.

      • Jess says:


        Um, its a known fact that Hillary used her private email system as secretary of state which she is not supposed to do. The FBI is still investigating her and if they find a giant bombshell in the middle of the general election, Hillary would be over and Trump would win.

        And while using a personal email server isn’t against the law, transmitting state secrets on such a server is. Does anyone really think the top person at the State Department didn’t know this? Most likely though the real smoking gun would be Hillary’s use of the State Department as a cash conduit for the Clinton Foundation…

        Aside from Bernie testing better than Hillary against Trump and Cruz in the general election, I’d rather take my chances on a socialist than on the candidate who ran a disgusting and vicious campaign against Obama in 2008.

    • Hawkeye says:

      Personally I think it’s time Hillary left politics and took Bill too. Her unfavourables are through the roof, she hasn’t added anything fresh to this race, she’s been flip flopping non-stop, and this run for POTUS in my opinion is nothing more than a career move for her. Google Frank Giustra and his involvement with the Clinton Foundation; just one example of how they facilitate favours for rich people. It’s obscene, it’s without integrity.

    • Veronica says:

      In fairness, I think this kind of split vote was kind of inevitable given the state of the country. There’s a reason both Democrats AND Republicans are struggling with rising candidates who weren’t originally placed on the presidential trajectory and forcing them to regroup. People are just tired of the corrupt and polarized system. I’m just way more afraid of what the scare tactics of the political right has created than what the Democrats have produced.

  16. juliaoc123 says:

    Que Clooney’s smug public response in 5…4…3……

  17. Hollz says:

    … I find it difficult to understand why Clinton (or any Democratic candidate) should be held to a different standard than the GOP candidates…

    She isn’t! Bernie wants money out of politics, regardless of party. Right now, Bernie is focused on the nomination against Hilary. It’s just like with the wall street speeches. He’s asking for her to release the transcripts because he’s competing against her. If he wins the nomination, of course he’ll ask the same thing of his republican opponent. Hilary is clouding the water by saying she will release her transcripts when everyone does because she doesn’t want to release them and the republican candidates don’t want to either.

    Hilary is a terrible choice for president. She’s a liar, a manipulator, and in the pocket of wall street. Bernie is none of those things, and I hope he wins!

  18. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    Focus on policy and getting your point across Bernie, trying to argue against this when you have your own celebrity fans endorsing you and major big-pocket backers is a bad look. We all know running takes money and all the money in the world is a guarantee of nothing.

    For evidence you can reference Jeb Bush’s campaign. He raised huge amounts of money, had many big name backers, had plenty of SUPERPACS and could never rise out of the mediocrity necessary to be a possible nominee.

    • lucky says:

      His point is to get bid money out of politics. Charging more than $300,000 to sit between the Clintons and the Clooney’s is an embodiment of what he stands against.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        If that’s his point then why doesn’t he focus on the NRA that’s holding actual gun rights issues hostage in our country as the number of mass shootings increase? The problem isn’t rich people eager to be with other rich people and the politicians of their choice, it’s when actual political groups takes their billions and use it as a method of attempting to force and control political change by way of constant lobbying. One snooty dinner party isn’t going to do it.

  19. Rita says:

    I have a lot of respect for Mr. Sanders. I think he is honest and has a true passion for what he believes in. I also think he is wrong about everything he wants to do as President.

    That being said, money is money and it’s going to make its way into politics unless we have publicly funded elections and outlaw everyones’ right to fund a cause whether it is union activism, chamber of commerce interests, environmental, women’s issues or anything else involving our political system. Money is the mechanism of political speech.

    What makes me barf about Hillary Clinton is her never ending hypocrisy and pandering to anyone with a vote. She points at Wall Street financial and investment firms with her sanctimonious right hand as the bad guys while she’s stuffed $44 million dollars of their money in her pockets with her left hand. She’ll probably become President because honesty and integrity in this country no longer matters as much as a vagina.

  20. Neelyo says:

    Hilary is running the same tone deaf campaign she did in 2008. She’s lucky that she has Debbie Wasserman Schulz and the mainstream media greasing the skids for her or else she’d be toast by now.

    My concern is that the second they coronate her as nominee, a ’47 percent’ style video will emerge from one of her Wall Street speeches, proving what everyone already thinks about her and the election will be lost to the whichever Horseman of the Apocalypse gets the Republican nomination.

    • sanders says:

      Neelyo, I worry about that too. It’s a scary thought for sure.

    • Luca76 says:

      So your not voting for her because of something Mitt Romney said???
      Hillary is one of the most vetted politicians in the history of this country, she’s also one of the most liberal politicians that voted with Bernie Sanders 93% of the time. I get that the 7% is some important stuff but why risk the 93% that you agree on by sabotaging Hillary for Trump when mathematically it’s nearly impossible for Sanders to win the nomination?

      • Neelyo says:

        Where did I say I’m not voting for her? I think she’s beholden to the upper class and she’s never met a war she didn’t like but if I must, I’ll plug my nose and vote for her come November.

      • Luca76 says:

        Ok I apologize for misreading your comment but I still think the concept is ridiculous. The fact is any candidate can fall victim to an October surprise.

    • Merritt says:

      Mitt didn’t lose just because of that video, fivethirtyeight was already predicting he would lose before that.

  21. Elizabeth Beachwood says:

    Bernie all the way!!

    • wolfpup says:

      I live in a religious republican state – Utah. The LDS church has told its members to vote Republican for many, many years now. However, with the two lame republican nominees, Trump and Cruz, a large number of republicans switched sides and voted for Saunders. Saunders won 73% to Hillary’s 20%. Go Bern!

  22. kg says:

    Yes this raises money for down ticket Democrats…something Bernie as an Independent did in the past, and he continues to support candidates today – see Tim Casanova and other politicians he invites to speak at his rallies. So that criticism is a little unwarranted. This particular fundraiser also maxes out the individual contribution to Clinton, but then also contributes to the Clinton Victory Fund, then any left over goes to the party for other down ticket Democrats so not like anything over $2700 is going to them like it is being portrayed by some people here.

    Bernie is definitely more electable in the general because he walks the walk. What happens when Trump says I know Clinton can be bought, because I bought her in the past? Independents and moderate Republicans like Bernie. I am one of them. I won’t be voting for Clinton in the general. And for all the talk about Bernie not getting stuff done as president – they called him the Amendment King when he was in the house. You are fooling yourself if you don’t think a Republican House and Senate will obstruct Hillary as much if not more so than Obama. They had to come up with reasons to obstruct Obama, Hillary presents reasons to obstruct her on a silver platter.

  23. LisaH says:

    “…should be held to a different standard than the GOP candidates.”

    Because she’s supposed to be a progressive, but she’s a corporate sell out.

  24. susie says:

    As a (very liberal) Democrat, I hold myself at HIGHER standards that my republican counterparts. I expect my Commander in Chief, and everyone down the line to do the same.

    That’s ONE of the many reasons I feel the Bern!

    • kibbles says:

      It’s scary to see so many self-professed Democrats defend neoliberal ideas that have destroyed America as much as neoconservative values. I wonder if the majority of Americans will ever wake up to the fact that both the Republicans and the modern day Democratic Party has denied them universal health care, a free college education, and have sent most manufacturing jobs overseas while spending billions of dollars on unjustifiable wars in the the Middle East that have killed millions of people. Very frustrating to see that most Democrats have bought into these ideas and won’t even support candidates who try to change the status quo.

  25. me says:

    Rich celebs don’t want to vote for Bernie because he is going to raise their taxes lol. I honestly think Bernie would make a better president for you Americans. Too bad I can’t vote.

  26. lucky says:

    Re Kaiser asking why Clinton is being held to a different standard than GOP candidates….that’s not what’s happening. Sanders is holding her accountable to his principles and those of other voting democrats. If you look at Clinton’s voting record, she’s basically a Republican styled as a Democrat, in bed with bankers, Middle East warmongers, oil, and big pharma.

    Glitzy fundraisers basically encourage putting our elected officials up to bid. $334,000 to sit next to a politician is obscene in what it represents.

    Clooney may be a humanitarian, but even he must understand that equality and freedom are protected by a strong democracy “of the people, by the people and for the people.” Many Americans have strong concerns when the only voices being heard are those of the oligarchs. Is there a place at that same table for a college graduate who is underemployed and has $120,000 of student debt? The glitzy fundraiser is an example of that corruption of politics by money, out don’t have to love or hate Clooney to see that. He’s an actor, not a scholar.

    • Luca76 says:

      Lucky that’s just not true

      ‘Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members.’

      I get that she has some problematic stances but she’s not basically a Republican. I think Sanders supporters should congratulate themselves for pushing Hillary to the left instead of weakening her to facilitate a Trump presidency.

      • kg says:

        Lots of people only feel she is to the left until the nomination is secure. Her donors/lobbyists have already assured people she will sign TPP even though she had a “change of heart” on a trade agreement she helped draft and called the “gold standard” of trade agreements. Kind of like Trump is only saying insane stuff until he secures the nomination and doesn’t have to pander to people anymore. I am not convinced she is the lesser of 2 evils.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        “Kind of like Trump is only saying insane stuff until he secures the nomination and doesn’t have to pander to people anymore.”

        That’s some dangerous logic to apply to a man who’s casually and comfortably alluded to violence against protesters and happily says he’ll pay bail for any of his supporters who do attack protesters.

      • lucky says:

        Just because a study claims that she is liberal doesn’t make it so. The simplest way to make a determination is to look at the big issues, the ones that play to the heart of what it means to be liberal . From opposing the closure of Gitmo to supporting the Patriot Act and voting for wars in the Middle East she is nothing more than a moderate Republican looking to maintain the status quo duopoly sham government system. She is not the right candidate to represent liberal ideals and to enact liberal pragmatism. Please see article below, and think of the suffering these wars have caused :

      • Luca76 says:

        “Kind of like Trump is only saying insane stuff until he secures the nomination and doesn’t have to pander to people anymore.”

        Ugh it’s really awful what’s going on in this country. The fact that people don’t take seriously that Trump was reluctant to condemn the KKK or that he says awful racist crap against Mexicans and Muslims. I hate to classify all Sanders supporters but when they minimize the effects of a Trump presidency (the wretchedness of those words) and equivocate Clinton and they show their true interest. Progressive seems to mean the agenda of that 7% difference in voting between Sanders and Clinton or nothing else. We saw the same thing happen in 1999 and Trump makes Bush look like Abraham Lincoln.
        There is a reason that POC overwhelmingly support Clinton while more affluent, whiter, younger people are behind Bernie because ultimately we are the ones that will have to deal with the worst from a Trump presidency .

      • kg says:

        I get where you are coming from Luca76, I do. I just don’t necessarily think Trump is a worse candidate than Hillary – they are kind of 2 sides of the same coin to me in that they are both just saying whatever will get them elected, and they will show their true hand when they are secure in their respective nominations – unfortunately for Trump he has to pander to a lower denominator because the Republicans hold nothing back and Bernie has been beyond civil to Hillary. Trump’s platforms from when he was with the Reform Party in the 90s were not unreasonable. I think he will pivot back that way once the nomination is secure, just like I think once Hillary is rid of Bernie she will be pro-TPP and less hiding the fact she is pro-fracking, and a lot of other stances she has “come around on” in the primaries. You are more than welcome to not agree with me but here are some examples of how they come off the same:

        Hillary, like Trump, had a black rights protester removed from one of her $250 speeches and said “now let me get back to the issues which are important to me” after she was removed. She didn’t encourage violence as she had secret service remove them and it was a smaller gathering and not a rally, but she was rude to the girl and the condescension was there just the same. She supported the Honduran coup as Sec of State (which was a democratically elected government), which led to thousands of children fleeing to the USA to seek refuge, and her response was we need to send them back to “send a message.” That isn’t that much different than build a wall, that we all know isn’t feasible or going to happen – not to mention Trump has mentioned before that he thinks the military is used for defense not to intervene in other governments. I don’t view her as a great ally to POC, whereas I actually see Bernie as a principled, man of his word – with a history to back it up.

        I think that is fine and dandy if you want to support Hillary. I just don’t see her as being pushed to the left in anything but lip service. I will be voting for Bernie in my primary, and I will likely vote 3rd party if he isn’t the nominee as I also don’t agree with Trump.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        Luca you make good points. I’m a Bernie supporter but I will work hard for Clinton when the time comes. I don’t think people realize how truly disastrous Trump or Cruz would be. Bernie is great for driving the conversation to the left and I want him to stay in. It keeps Dems involved and excited. If Hilary were an automatic nominee, we run the risk of apathy and inaction. Nothing he lobs at her is terrible and is much less than what the right is doing to each other.

    • frivolity says:

      Spot on, lucky. My only addition is that Clooney deserves to have a voice, just as any voter does. The voices of people other than scholars should be relevant in a democracy. However, the problem with celebrity voices is that they are disproportionately amplified due to their money and fame (and thus power). So, perhaps that excess money and fame and power of celebrities is the issue that needs addressing …

      • lucky says:

        I agree he deserves to have a voice. What he has done with his voice for Darfur has been awesome. But the issue isn’t about his voice, it’s about supporting big money in politics, and it deserves this discussion.

        Clooney is getting his hands dirty by helping perpetuate big money politics.

        Charging over $300,000 to sit at a meal between the Clinton’s and the Clooney’s is obscene, no? It’s symbolically putting value of one big time donor over millions of other small time donors. There is absolutely nothing grass roots about hat gesture.

        Bernie’s point is that dollars have drowned democracy.

  27. bernie has my vote because …. he was a civil right activist….. and since really before 2008 I just cant understand why hillary voted for the iraq war knowing good and damn well it was fraudulent

  28. Nymeria says:

    I’m not thrilled with any of the choices for this election period. We have:

    Socialist Bernie / Corporate Hillary

    Wall-building Trump / Hyper-religious Cruz

    Oy vey.

  29. lucy says:

    I respect Sanders’ integrity of calling out big-moneyed interests whether said interests are among his opponents’ party or his own. Bravo!

  30. Snapdragon808s says:

    Agree with @lucy – as a Canadian expat living in the UK, I can’t help but be warmed by the fact that this guy is actually positioning as a credible threat to Hillary, and is even winning in certain states. What he says makes so much sense! The campaign finance system in America (as well as Canada, to be frank) is totally corrupt and a harsher light should be cast on it! Go Bernie!!!!! If nothing else, I hope this causes her to incorporate some of his left-leaning policy into her eventual platform should she be the presumptive nominee..

  31. Veronica says:

    That’s all fine and dandy dude, but if you win the nomination, I imagine you’ll have accept plenty of “big money” yourself to get to office. I totally agree that the political spending is out of control, but he needs to provide more concrete plans for how to fix that situation if he wants to sway cynical moderate assholes like me.

  32. lucky says:

    Ah and look who snagged the $350,000 golden ticket: Alice Walton, richest female on the planet with a net worth over 30 billion, who is the heiress to the Walmart dynasty…Walmart being America s most successful modern day mega plantation. Ah the glamour of it all!

    • Dangles says:

      Says it all really. But the Clinton apologists will gloss over it.

      I wonder the Clinton apologists have to say about this:

    • kibbles says:

      Appalling. It’s disgusting that any Democrat would take money from this corrupt family.

    • Gg says:

      ROFL!!!!! How are the Cloineys and Clintons going to explain away taking that kind of money from the oligarchs themselves, the Walton family?! Who personally profited the most from NAFTA? Who are the largest abusers of our welfare system? Who propagate discrimination and pay inequity? Thank you Bernie!!!! You are really righteous in your indignation.

  33. CK says:

    Sorry. Nope, I disagree with Sanders. First, this is for downballot democrats. Both candidates will need the House and the Senate to pass any of their agenda. Bernie needs to start raising cash for downballot races before her starts complaining. Secondly, don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. I’m all for holding myself to a higher standard, but Scalia is dead and 2 justices are going to be 80+ soon. I’m willing to excuse meeting the republicans tit-for-tat in outside spending because I’d like to keep my right to marry. I’d like to not have my vote suppress. I’d like for the females in my family to maintain the right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. And until we get some enforceable laws on campaign finance, I don’t see the point in hobbling oneself. No one gives a damn about moral superiority of a 75 year old, heterosexual, white man when their very way of life is at stake. If that means, we have to get in the mud and fight, then count me in because losing this election is not an option for a lot of people.

    • lucy says:

      Hi CK, I hear you. Except that you seem to have some misinformation. Sanders is in your camp on EVERY one of the issues you cite here. Please see . Yes, POTUS will need to bridge party lines to get work done, and Sanders has decades of experience doing just that. And, finally, the candidate is 74, not 75. Cheers!

  34. MyrtleMartha says:

    In my view, everybody past infancy should be held to a higher standard than the Republican candidates hold themselves to. So whoever is wealthy enough to make the biggest donation can sit next to Hillary and have a personal conversation with her? There’s something really distasteful about a candidate, any candidate to any position in any country, selling access to the highest bidder. And if it’s true that it’s one of the Walton family who paid enough to get the personal Hillary access, we might note that this family is reported to pull three billion dollars a year out of a company that pays its employees so little some stores apparently have put out boxes begging for food donations for the people who work there. As for some of the money from these Hillary galas being donated to the Democratic Party to help those below get into office, the party routinely preserves it interior power structure by restricting crucial campaigning information access in primaries to incumbents. As Tim Canova explained, “I was told that our campaign would be denied access to this database because I am running against an incumbent Democrat, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I was also told that any Democratic candidate running against an incumbent Democrat would be denied access — even a lifelong progressive challenging an out-of-touch incumbent.” (Because of the angry response when this information became public, Canova – but not other primary challengers – is being given access to the information.) So the Democratic Party is actually not holding its candidates to any higher standards than the Republicans hold theirs. The U.S. political system is in a race to the bottom where politics is about who has the biggest …whatever… and how those in power can keep themselves in power. What we desperately need is a Progressive Party.

    • frivolity says:

      Did I miss this somewhere up farther, or have we all forgotten that Hillary sat on the Board of Directors of Walmart for 6 years?

  35. Tara says:

    I don’t know whether to be happy or sad to bury my Clooney love. I think he still does some good work, but stumping for Hilary is breakup worthy. Bernie forever.

  36. Kelly says:

    Is Bernie upset Clooney does not support him? Bernie seems like a nice man but his plans will never work and he will not win the nomination.

  37. Dangles says:

    I remember this post on CB from a few months back:

    “Useful list to differentiate between Sanders and Clinton:

    1. Sanders has served as an elected official for over 34 years. Clinton has not.

    2. Sanders has supported gay rights since the early ’80s. Clinton has not.

    3. Sanders wants to end the prohibition of marijuana. Clinton does not.

    4. Sanders wants to end the death penalty. Clinton does not.

    5. Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Clinton does not.

    6. Sanders wants to break up the biggest banks. Clinton does not.

    7. Sanders voted against the Wall Street bailout. Clinton did not.

    8. Sanders introduced legislation to overturn Citizens United. Clinton did not.

    9. Sanders refuses to accept money from super PACs. Clinton does not.

    10. Sanders supports a single-payer healthcare system. Clinton does not.

    11. Sanders refrains from waging personal attacks for political gains. Clinton does not.

    12. Sanders considers climate change our nation’s biggest threat. Clinton does not.

    13. Sanders opposed the Keystone XL Pipeline since day one. Clinton did not.

    14. Sanders voted against the Patriot Act. Clinton did not.

    15. Sanders voted against the war in Iraq. Clinton did not.”

    • kibbles says:

      This says it all. Thank you. People who vote for war mongers should not complain when the family and friends of the people our government kills in unjustified wars end up with deep psychological issues and hate towards us. Our wars abroad is one of the main reasons for groups like ISIS today. SMH.

  38. Sarah says:

    A human rights lawyer should never spend millions of dollars on her wedding. a human rights lawyer should not support a candidate who is all about big money. There is no practical evidence she cares about human rights at all, but only her own. Hillary Clinton is the same creature.

  39. dippit says:

    I’m just observing from a distance in the UK, but reading this made me “urgh”…

    “Democrats certainly don’t slink in through the back entrances to these events. They have embraced Hollywood. For a while it seemed to increase their “cool” factor. That ship might have sailed with the uncool Clinton, who breathlessly peddles information regarding the Clooney bash to her supporters.

    Here is one email sent from Christina Reynolds, her deputy communications director:

    “I had the best dream ever last night — I was hanging out with George Clooney and his wife Amal at their house in Los Angeles, just drinking champagne and talking politics, and then Hillary Clinton was there, too, and we all toasted to being part of the team that’s going to make her our next president. The craziest part? This isn’t a dream — it’s a real thing that you could do in just a few weeks”

  40. Sherry Lassiter says:

    The writer seems to have ignored Bernie saying repeatedly he was not referring to Clooney but, the people who will attend. If you think for one minute Hillary will not be one of the most conservative Dem POTUSs ever, you have not been paying attention to what she has DONE in the past. Not what she says because the two are light years apart. Want more war? Vote Hillary. Want more fracking? Vote Hillary. Want a minimum wage hike put on the very back burner? Vote Hillary. Want more for profit prisons? Vote Hillary. Wake up people, Oligarchy needs to go.