Matt Damon endorses Hillary for President: she understands the issue of water

DamonTCCover
Matt Damon is covering Town and Country’s June/July philanthropist issue. He talks about his work with Water.org, a charity he co-founded which brings clean water to the third world, and he endorses Hillary Clinton for President. I pegged Damon for a Bernie guy, but it sounds like he’s personally met with Hillary and knows that she’s committed to this issue. Plus it’s possible that he’s endorsing Hillary because it was thought that she had already statistically won the primary, although Bernie is giving her a good fight. (No disrespect to Hillary supporters and I swear I will vote for her!) Damon also discusses how he got involved with this charity.

On the impact of being a celebrity and the influence that comes with it:
“I became famous. It’s surreal to suddenly wake up to one day and have a larger sphere of influence than you ever anticipated. You genuinely want to do good in the world, but you’re going to make a lot of missteps. People started asking me to come to this gala or that. And then I would find my name associated with things that I didn’t know anything about. I didn’t want to be somebody at whom people rolled their eyes, thinking, ‘What is he doing, getting into the middle of this kind of stuff?’ And that’s why, once my life stabilized a little—my career was going pretty well, my wife was pregnant—I decided to get very serious about one thing.”

On lack of access to uncontaminated water in areas where water is ubiquitous:
“We don’t know anyone who goes thirsty. We have faucets everywhere. Our toilet water is cleaner than what 663 million people drink. The crisis in Flint, Michigan, ironically, is one of the first times, at least in my memory, that Americans have become aware of just how necessary clean water is, and the dire consequences of not having it.”

On his endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President—because of water:
“She understands it from a number of different angles—as a national security issue, as a human rights issue, and, obviously, its impact on women and girls. This is not a partisan issue, which is one really good thing about it. We’ve talked in equal parts to Republican and Democratic senators and congressmen.”

On children missing school due to lack of clean water
“One child dies every 90 seconds because of water-borne illnesses. It’s completely insane. But beyond just senseless death, this is robbing people of their humanity, of their hopes and dreams. And also of simple day-to-day things, like a kid having time to play.”

[From Town and Country, received via email]

Read the first paragraph above. Doesn’t it sound like his decision to go into charity work was image-driven rather than issue-driven? He’s serious and committed to this cause, I’m not questioning his involvement, I’m just saying that he describes his initial interest as a desire to control the narrative around him. Damon is calculated and careful with his public image and you can see that in how he reuses talking points, although he rarely talks about it. That said, he also focused on one thing so well that he brought worldwide awareness and money to an important cause. Water.org is an extremely effective and high-regarded charity and Damon has absolutely made a difference in the world.

The full interview includes a nice story from Damon about how he talked to a 13 year-old girl in Haiti who had just received clean water in her village for the first time. The girl, who was top of her class, told Damon that she would use her extra free time to play. Damon said her answer “buckled my knees.” He also explained that he has four daughters and that he often hears how a lack of clean water affects girls especially.

DamonTC3

DamonTC2

Related stories

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

100 Responses to “Matt Damon endorses Hillary for President: she understands the issue of water”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. nicole says:

    I think it’s ok to get involved with things for pretty selfish reasons. I see lots of people (including me!) getting involved with charities/non profits etc. partially for their resumes and to build different skills and the passion for the issue grows from there. The selfish part of the involvement does’t negate the good and the reason for involvement often morphs the longer you’re involved.

  2. Emma33 says:

    A great cause. I’m in Nepal at the moment, volunteering for an earthquake affected village. The earthquake moved the water table, and now the village has next to no water. People are walking around an hour a day just to get a bucket load of water…and that isn’t even clean water! We had 3 volunteers who got typhoid a few months ago, probably from contaminated water. I feel sad when I think of us flushing drinking water down the toilet in first-world countries!

    So, more power to Matt.

    • Naya says:

      And more power to you, Emma33!

    • SilkyMalice says:

      Go Emma33! I hope the issue can be resolved… my heart breaks for communities suffering after earthquakes.

    • Kitten says:

      Wow! Good for you, Emma!

      • Emma33 says:

        Thanks to you all for your lovely messages! There are village meetings going on today to see if wzter can be piped in from a nearby village…but water politics are complicated. Life is just so damn tough here…if it’s not one imminent disaster it’s another. But, the people are amazing, they’re unbelievably stoic.

  3. littlemissnaughty says:

    I don’t care why he got involved, it’s a GREAT cause. He can stand in front of the mirror every night and congratulate himself for all I care. Everyone’s all panicked because we’re running out of fossil fuels but clean water will probably come first. Well, as he points out, it’s already an issue for hundreds of millions of people. And if Clinton is serious about this (though who knows, really) I understand why he supports her. Without political support you can bring clean water to as many people as you manage but unless issues like water rights etc. are addressed on a global scale, no charity will make a lasting difference.

  4. ab says:

    I would think most celebs initially get involved with charities for image reasons. but I appreciate that he realized it would be better to go all in with one important issue rather than just add his name to any gala that comes along, without really doing anything to help the cause.

    • Esmom says:

      Yes, this is what I took away. He was uncomfortable with his fame being used to promote random charities he didn’t know anything about, so he decided to focus on a single one in depth. Doesn’t sounds selfish to me, sounds smart.

      • ol cranky says:

        agreed, especially when so many celebrities have “vanity” charities (foundations named after themselves) and you wonder what actual philanthropic work they’re doing with those – if any

  5. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I didn’t read it that way. I thought he meant he wanted to find one thing that was important to him and learn about it in depth rather than spread himself too thin. It’s a great cause and I commend him for supporting it. On a nitpicky note, our toilet water is the same as our faucet water, so that’s sort of a misleading or meaningless statement.

    • Liz says:

      That’s how I read it too.

    • lilacflowers says:

      I got that too. I also got that he realized that he could use his celebrity and image to generate more interest in causes that mean something to him.

      In his early years, before he was so well known, Damon did do local charity work and, in addition to the water issue, he also has done some much quieter advocacy around mental health issues.

    • Livvers says:

      I agree. It reads to me like he didn’t want to be a dilettante philanthropist who was superficially associated with a bunch of charities that might range from legit to totally questionable, thereby undermining he could have accomplished with his participation.

    • lucy2 says:

      That’s how I read it too.
      I think he was also saying that some of the early things he was invited to ended up he didn’t know what the charity was really about, and later questioned if they were legit, or just an excuse for a gala.

    • KR says:

      I think he meant that our toilet water is cleaner and more drinkable than the water of over 600 mil people in other countries, who do not have access to running water, or if they do, it’s not sanitary.

  6. Brit says:

    Remember when Matt went off on Sarah palin for being an idiot. Hope he does the same to donald

  7. Lucky says:

    So he’s a single issue voter? My guess is some Clinton crony promised his charity funding or access integral to the water issue -an offer he couldn’t refuse, in return he gave this endorsement in the lead up to the California primary. disappointed to see this.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      If you vote on a “single” issue – and clean water doesn’t really fall into that category – it’s not the worst one to pick. Who the hell would you vote for if you took every issue into account?

      • Lucky says:

        The article headline states that Damon is voting for Clinton because of water.

        That is singular.

        Just stating my speculation of what motivated him to be a single issue voter.

        No sure what you’re trying to do, bra

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        I have no idea what that last sentence is so I’m moving right past it.

        Water is technically one issue but you know it’s tied to a million different other issues. He makes reference to that. In this case, fixing one thing would fix many others and it actually affects everyone. Literally. Around the world. But if you want to fixate on the technicalities, fine.

      • Lucky says:

        Damon is a famous Liberal loudmouth. His past statements have hurt the Obama administration. California primaries are weeks away; they strategized to shut him up.

      • Lucky says:

        Hey little miss sorry to twist your words. It just seemed like you were very much defending Clinton when you asked who the “hell” would I vote for. I dont think Bernie is the almighty, I just think he will do the least harm, and that is what I look for in a presidential candidate. I think Presidents only make things worse, from NAFTA, to wars in the middle sat to TPP. Sanders opposed all of those. Clinton Panders and seems to have no problem handing the keys of government to the highest bidder. We could elect Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans would obstruct him if he was a Democrat, so to me that point is moot.

    • Kitten says:

      lol that’s a huge leap.

      And ITA with littlemissnaughty.

      • Lucky says:

        Not a huge leap if you understand politics. Littlemisnaughty is effectively towing the line created by a false dichotomy of this endorsement : a vote against Clinton is a vote against water conservation. Bernie has never been tied to the long list of corporate special interests that Clinton has, so his endorsement of Clinton over Sanders is illogical, unless you read between the lines. Damon has a cause, Clinton campaign is promising to help him with it. Duh.

        This is in the lead up to the California primaries, a drought-ridden State where water issues are at the front and center of politics and where I’m sure Damon has some sort of appeal to voters.

        Damon is self important enough to have taken the Clinton bait; “we really want to work with you on water issues. If we are elected we will. Please endorse.”

        This how politics work!

        Any time you read of an endorsement at this level, you need to ask yourself ” what’s in it for the endorser?”.

        As if Bernie wouldn’t wouldn’t be able to *actually* achieve the same if not better progress. Come on

      • Esmom says:

        I’m not saying the endorsement couldn’t have happened the way you describe, but it could have also happened for simpler reasons, that he decided Hillary was the best candidate. The water issue was the topic of the article but somehow I don’t think that’s the only reason he’s supporting her.

      • Lucky says:

        Esmom, we only have what he said to go by and knowledge of the fact that Clinton has a team of America’s top politicos running her campaign. If Damon had addressed other issues then maybe we could talk about that. I think he needs to clarify. This election is about so much more.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Dude, I’m not toeing any line. For the love of god, I didn’t say any of that. He supports the candidate he thinks will help him advance this cause. Whether she will or won’t wasn’t part of my statement although if you actually re-read it you’ll not that I was doubtful. And whether he is right in his assessment or not is also not what I was getting at. You said single issue voter, I said this doesn’t really qualify as a single issue. We can disagree on that. That was it. Then you went and gave half a Sanders campaign speech. Btw, you really think Bernie is the Almighty? He will “actually” get things done? That’s what Obama thought and then Congress laughed in his face. How’s the closing of Gitmo going, btw?

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        @Lucky
        You are putting words in people’s mouth, jumping to conclusions and reading way, way too much into what little miss naughty said. If you have something to say, and it sounds like you do, just say it.

      • Lucky says:

        Nope not putting words in anyone’s mouth. I’m answering q jest ions in response to my posts and identifying how I think people’s answers play into the bigger picture. Little miss naughty first addressed me by saying “who the hell would I vote for”. That’s pretty rude, provoking, and to me seems to imply that voting for Clinton is the only choice. So I made an attempt to deconstruct her statements. Clearly I’m in the bag for Bernie and I’m just trying to help point out that there are inconsistencies with Damon’s endorsement. If I offended little miss naughty I’m sorry. I wish she would refrain from cursing at me in future posts.

      • BabyJane says:

        HC’s campaign is funded by corporations who line their own pockets by exploiting and overdeveloping these very regions devoid of sanitary water. Conflicting interests, just like private prisons and Black Lives Matter. She’s a Mountebank.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Lucky, your first response to me was pretty rude so I’m not sure why you’re suddenly sensitive to someone’s tone. And to clarify, I did not actually ask you specifically who you would vote for. It was a rhethoric question, asking in general if there is actually a voter out there who can identify on more than a handful of issues with any candidate. A candidate who stands a chance. I should maybe point out that I’m not a U.S. citizen, I don’t live there. So if you think I’m a Clinton voter, I’m obviously not. But this goes for all democracies I guess.

        I have no idea how you go from my rhethoric question to thinking I’m implying Clinton is the only choice btw. She is not. You’re reading way too much into what I’m saying. Or what Matt Damon is saying. But having an issue that’s important to someone doesn’t make them a single issue voter. I don’t know why he thinks she’s the one to support, maybe he’s just trying to suck up to the one he think will get the nomination.

      • Lucky says:

        Hey Little Miss. I’m in Montreal myself though I am dual national.

        It’s clear that I misunderstood you, and for the third time I am sorry if I twisted your words to have meaning. To me Sanders is by far the better candidate to support water conservation in general, but in this instance Damon’s support of her speaks to the fact that she is a candidate not to cross if you need help from the federal government in the future, as I’m sure Damon expects to. This is part of what bugs me about the Clinton’s, they make it seem like they are the best option for liberal voters when in fact they are liars and users and will sell Americans down the river the first chance they get.

        By this endorsement, I do think that Damon is effectively implying that from a philosophical standpoint Clinton’s platform is superior to Sander’s when it comes to water conservation, which is dishonest, based on Clinton’s voting record and her attitudes toward Fracking and campaign donations from the very money interests who create these issues. I think it’s extremely important to discuss these issues before we just praise him.

        But, as you’ve mentioned, if Clinton is the inevitable President, then it is wise for Damon to side with her now and earn her goodwill for the good of his cause.

    • lucy2 says:

      He’s not saying that, the writer of this article is. Those bolded headlines aren’t his words.

      All he said was that she gets the importance of the issue. That doesn’t mean it’s the ONLY reason he’s voting for her, he probably has many reasons but in this interview is speaking about one that really matters to him and that he’s promoting in this magazine.

      • Lucky says:

        I’m a member of my local Watershed organization, and have worked in government and finance and have been involved with politics.

        My point is only that Sanders wouldn’t necessarily be against many if not all water protection initiatives proposed by Clinton. And Damon has a habit of crying foul against the Obama Admin which is undoubtedly tied to the future Clinton admin.

        Therefore, I don’t think this endorsement came out of the blue.

        It’s not rocket science to piece together that a promise was probably made: support the Clinton campaign and we will work with you on XYZ water initiative.

        One last thing: Clinton and Fracking.

      • mimif says:

        I honestly cannot wrap my head around being a water crisis activist and then endorsing a person who supports fracking. It makes zero sense. Not to mention, Bernie’s views on climate change (which directly impact water quality/availability) are far more progressive/aggressive than Hillary’s.

      • Lucky says:

        Mimif, I agree with you. The dissonance with Damon between what he purports to support and Clinton’s partnership with Fracking companies is shocking. She seems to get a pass from a,large chunk of voters time after time; as this forum shows she doesn’t even have to do the backpedaling over that gap for herself, many of her supporters are happy to do it for her. SMH.

      • sanders says:

        I imagine Howard Zinn is rolling over in his grave.

      • Lucky says:

        Mimif, maybe Damon thinks that “yeah what sanders has to say is nice” but thatClinton had the clout. Which is wrong because Clintonian strategy is always to hedge at the expense of what’s right.

      • lucy2 says:

        I assumed he was thinking Trump vs. Clinton, not about Sanders at all. Who knows, but either way, I don’t see his statements as declaring himself a single issue voter.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Aw, we were so close to having a comment section with measured non-aggressive replies. On a political post that’s a golden unicorn.

      • lucky says:

        Point well taken Side-Eye. I will pay attention to your responses and follow suit.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      The Clinton Foundation has been greatly involved in many water projects around the world. It isn’t a big stretch to think that Hillary has been involved and educated on the issue.

    • ol cranky says:

      funny since I hear so many Bernie supporters focused on the single issue of Wall Street and being willing to let Trump win the election if Bernie isn’t the Democratic nominee because Clinton is [insert Fox News talking points here] and doesn’t stand up to Wall Street for them (so I guess her keeping SCOTUS safe from religious zealots and protecting civil rights for LGTBIQ, POC, etc. isn’t enough) . . .

      • lucky says:

        Tiffany: The multi-million dollar Clinton foundation does a lot of things, and will support anything for so long as it doesn’t become politically inconvenient. Clinton takes money from frackers, she supports fracking. Fracking obliterates water quality. The Clinton foundation is just a legalized racket for the Clintons to cash in on political favours.

        Crank: Clinton was the last to get on the bandwagon for gay marriage. She famously gave a speech about her hearfelt opposition to gay marriage.

        Letting Trump win is a playful notion that Susan Sarandon facetiously brought up lightheartedly during an interview . Her comment has been ripped out of context.

        Sanders supported Gay Marriage DECADES before Clinton, who only supported it once the polls showed that it was safe to come out.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “The Clinton foundation is just a legalized racket for the Clintons to cash in on political favours.”

        Cute talking point, but reality is different. I know an Oxford scholar who has spent summers with the Clinton Foundation setting up water and plumbing in 3rd world countries. Their work has sincerely brought clean drinking water to many people.

        As for fracking, I don’t like the effects on drinking water. I think it is horrible that they can put chemicals into the ground that run into water supplies and not disclose what those chemicals are. That being said, fracking has caused the demise of the coal industry, which was MUCH more harmful to the environment. I think fracking as a technology shouldn’t be 100% stopped, but I think it needs to be reworked to be transparent, accountable, and safe. We aren’t there yet.

      • ol cranky says:

        @Lucky you completely missed my point. when push comes to shove, Clinton is sufficiently in support of SSM that she will not nominate some to SCOTUS to ban it so the point is that she will protect those rights and the civil rights of other minorities if elected (even if she is not as bold and brave and perfect as Bernie’s supporters say he is).

        “Letting Trump win is a playful notion that Susan Sarandon facetiously brought up lightheartedly during an interview . ”

        I didn’t refer to Sarandon, I am referring to the multitude of BernieorBust folks who are saying they will not, under any circumstances, vote for the democratic nominee if it is not Bernie and am pointing out that voting for a third party would split the liberal/progressive vote more than enough to ensure a Trump victory and the only thing more dangerous than that is those who are saying they will just stay home (which means not voting in downstream ballots and further enabling the GOP to turn the US into some pseudo-religious backwater).

        Just in case I’m not being clear, Trump wins in a 3-way race. The only reason Clinton would lose in a 2-way race where Bernie would win is because the Clinton supporters will vote for Bernie were he to miraculously win the democratic nomination whereas the BernieorBust folks as making statements about voting 3rd party or not voting to make a Trump presidency a self-fulfilling prophecy (‘look, see, we told you that Trump would win if you don’t anoint Sanders the D nominee” because they made sure it happened). I don’t give a fiddler’s fart about the cult of personality of the candidates or the party, I care about the issues and I have the sense to know that getting/maintaining progress on a bunch of them, but not all, with either Clinton or Sanders is a hell of a lot better than the huge setbacks on all of them under Trump

    • Huh? says:

      Who is he to “endorse” a political candidate and am I supposed to care?

  8. stoner says:

    Too bad he doesn’t understand the issue of fracking and the effect it has on water. Christ.

    • Lucky says:

      Amen.

      • Lucky says:

        wasnt it also Damon who famously said that “we were lied to” by the Obama administration? Does he think a Clinton admin will be better?

    • mimif says:

      THANK YOU. While Hillary just recently back pedaled on some of her views re: fracking, her involvement and promotion of natural gas extraction on a global scale is very well documented.

    • Capt. Mo says:

      Yassss! Was gonna say the same. Clinton has stated clearly that she would allow fracking federally and let states determine if they will allow it and to what standards. Terrible, terrible idea as we have seen with BP oil spills in the sates and all over the world!

      Bernie Sanders does not mince words when he says “No fracking, at all”.
      SANDERS 2016!

    • BabyJane says:

      Exactly. Too bad the commenters above stopped reading once they got in their 2 cents.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Fracking is a complicated issue. I am frightened that it contaminates water and leads to earthquakes. At the same time, it is the biggest reason for the demise of the coal industry. It is many times better for the environment than coal, which poisons water and air with mercury. I wish fracking could be made more transparent (what chemicals are the using), and more researched. At the same time, I do see that it has some value in the overall goals for care of the environment.

      • Dangles says:

        Renewables?

      • lucky says:

        Actually Tiffany it is very staightforward that fracking poisons water tables. What’s complicated is a political system that is corrupted by it.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Dangles, renewables are certainly the way forward but we don’t have the battery technology at this time to rely 100% on solar, wind, etc. Those energy sources are not consistent, so storage becomes very important. There are also resource issues with things like solar and batteries, because those technologies require precious metals and other resources.

        Lucky, right now fracking is not transparent. They are using chemicals to get it done, and they won’t release information about those chemicals. What if other options are available to produce the gas without putting chemicals in the ground? I think this technology is worth exploring and reworking to see if it can be done in safer ways.

    • Magnoliarose says:

      Definently agree with you. I don’t see how you can support fracking at all much less be an advocate for clean water. Makes no sense.

  9. EM says:

    Just as well we have Damon to mansplain it, because my mind would struggle harder than a bison trying to ice skate

  10. Kim says:

    Thanks Stoner! How can anyone be serious about clean water and completely oblivious to its relationship to fracking? In his research, I wonder if he did any investigation into the complaints of water pollution caused by fracking in states such as Pennsylvania and Oklahoma. He can’t be serious. It’s like saying that you are an advocate for women’s rights but are willing to overlook FGM.

    • Jayna says:

      Matt and John Krasinski actually wrote a movie based around fracking and is set in Pennsylvania and Gus Van Sant directed it. It was about Matt’s character and his company coming to small towns suffering economically, selling the dream and buying drilling rights, and downplaying the environmental complications.

      The Promised Land, 2012.

  11. Maya says:

    No Bernie is not giving Hillary a good fight. What he is doing is giving Trump more ammunition against Hillary.

    Bernie is being a sore loser by not accepting that Hillary leads in delegates, popular voting and super delegates. And yet he is misleading people by claiming that he is leading and that superdelegates have to switch to him because he can beat Trump by a higher margin according to polls.

    Bernie also seems to forget that Hillary has had the republicans attacking/smearing her for the last 3 decades and he hasn’t been. If Republicans has done the same to Bernie, his popularity will be way down.

    In my opinion, Hillary has been too nice to Bernie because she needs his voters. Otherwise there are lots of negative stuff about Bernie which will make him lose his voters.

    Matt has always been very manipulative on his image and what he wants the public to know. However, I am glad he is supporting this water issue.

    • mimif says:

      Can you link us to where Hillary has the numbers to beat Trump if she gets the nom?

      • Lucky says:

        Sanders has the numbers to beat Trump.

      • mimif says:

        Shhhh quit scaring people, Lucky. I want to see the OP back up his/her comment.

      • Maya says:

        Do read my comment carefully before asking a question.

        I didn’t say anywhere that Hillary has the numbers to beat Trump.

        I actually said Bernie has the numbers and that he is using that as his only reason to continue his campaign. He doesn’t care about Hillary leading in all the other areas but as long as he leads in beating Trump, that’s all that counts.

      • ol cranky says:

        @Lucky Sanders has the #s to beat Trump because the Clinton supporters will vote for him if he is the Democratic nominee whereas the BernieorBust folks have made it clear they would abstain or vote 3rd party (which would make it so much easier for Trump).

      • lucky says:

        ol cranky you are basing that statement on speculation. Bernie or bust withstanding, Clinton and the DNC have to EARN votes, not just take them for granted.

        Also, wouldn’t you want the candidate who most accurately reflected the majority of the American people to win, instead of someone who won because of a flawed system????

      • ol cranky says:

        @Lucky you mean the system that is flawed because independents didn’t want to vote for Bernie enough to lower themselves to register as democrats to voted in closed primary states? sorry, when I turned 18 and got ready to register I had the sense to realize that I would have no say in the primaries as I live in a closed primary state so I registered as a democrat. doing so came with 0 requirements and had no impact on my life or voting other than giving me the privilege to have some sort of a say in primaries. I don’t have to vote for a democrat in generals, I don’t have to vote at all. I don’t have to pay dues or work in any way to support a political party.

        If I can’t find a cure for a disease, I’m not going to reject a treatment that gives me a decent quality of life and may just let me live long enough for a cure and, when faced with a choice, I’m certainly not going to say “ah no treatment, and please torture me while I die”

    • Lucky says:

      Maya you said that Bernie is “misleading” voters by:
      -claiming he is leading and that super delegates have to switch because he can beat Trump.

      Is that not what you said ?

      The numbers are showing that the majority of voters prefer Sanders over Clinton and Trump and that Clinton only leads when voting is restricted by party membership in closed primaries. There are a number of valid statistics (from a diversity of sources) that demonstrate that Clinton cannot win a general election because the majority of voters would not vote for her. Polls show that outside of closed Primaries, Sanders would have the lead over Clinton. People are pointing out the quiet disenfranchisement of voters due to closed primaries.

      The will of the majority of voters should be serviced and not obstructed by the DNC.

      • Maya says:

        I only have to post this link and you can see for yourself:

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/02/bernie-sanders-insists-he-can-still-win-the-math-says-otherwise/

        As for the DNC obstructing voters – isn’t it about time Bernie supports provided evidence to this rigging instead of just claiming it. Bernie is a lifelong independent and then suddenly decided to join DNC last year because it will give him more exposure.

        He knew the rules and what needed to be done – if he doesn’t like the rules then he should have campaigned as an independent. Bernie himself is a super delegate so he aso knew you had to court those delegates way before the election.

        Btw – Hillary has 3 million voters more then Bernie so she is doing something right.

      • mimif says:

        @Lucky, The DNC is a joke at this point IMO.

        @Maya, I find your comments confusing and without merit. Of course Bernie wants to keep Trump out, but that isn’t the only reason he’s continuing his campaign. He has been unwavering on his platform since he started campaigning, and has said from the beginning that he won’t quit until every last vote was counted. He has also stated numerous times that he will endorse Hillary if she gets the nom, so I’m not sure what your point is. That he should be “nicer” to her so Trump doesn’t have more ammo? Trump is going to go for her jugular regardless.

      • mimif says:

        Sorry, I posted my last comment before yours was approved.

        That’s an op-ed piece you linked. I could link a hundred op-ed pieces on why the DNC is being investigated for rigging and voter suppression. Or, I could post an op-ed link questioning the validity of those 2.5 million votes.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/06/is-hillary-clinton-really-ahead-of-bernie-sanders-by-2-5-million-votes/

      • Dangles says:

        Great to see the Clinton supporters finally encountering some decent opposition from the Bernie supporters on this site. Keep up he good work!

    • Lucky says:

      Maya, basically I think open primaries would yield a different candidate than this system does. Wherever primaries are open Sanders wins with a significant lead.

      There is nothing wrong with Sanders switching to the DNC if it means he will lead it to where to majority of A,erican voters want it go, not the long term party insiders.

      That is reflective of what our democracy is supposed to be -a place where what counts the most isn’t who has been the most loyal or who ha the most connections within the party, but whose candidacy best reflects the will of the majority of Americans. That is what the Sanders campaign is saying.
      Clinton didn’t create the flawed system and she is acting rationally. Bernie is making her and the DNC work, and in the end it will benefit the Americans who need it the most. He doesn’t have a multi million dollar foundation and he has been philosophically consistent for decades. He would do the least amount of damage.

      Mimif, after the last eight years and watching this primary play out, I’m aching for an alternative to the DNC. I’m grateful that Sanders is staying the race to help shift the party back to what matters for American workers. I genuinely don’t understand this anger towards Sanders. He clearly cares in a way that we’ve never seen from a Presidential candidate in our lifetimes.

    • Lucky says:

      Basically Sanders SIGNIFICANTLY elevates the discussion by staying in the race.

      And for some reason that **seems**to make some people extremely angry.

      • mimif says:

        Full disclosure, I’m a delegate for Bernie so of course ITA agree with you. I’m very careful whom I trust in the media, especially re: the polls and the projections, and and I’m for Bernie til the very end. As disheartening as politics are these days, it’s been a really refreshing change to see so many issues brought to light. He’s just a stand up dude, period. Like you said upthread, he’s not a saint, but he’s lightyears ahead of most US politicians. Even my Repub friends like him, so….yeah. Be interesting to see what happens in Cali!

        And if Hillary gets the nom, I will vote for her. The End.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        I could not have said it better. I’ve been a Bernie supporter well before this election. My family is involved in politics and we have worked on his campaign. Frankly, many of us are disillusioned with the DNC and the only reason some remain is because of closed primaries. I will vote for Hilary but I do not like the condescending attitude from some of her supporters. We have a right to want some of our issues on the platform.

      • lucky says:

        hey mimif that’s really neat that you are a delegate, and I totally get your stance on eventually voting for HRC. I’m in Canada now but I grew up in Vermont where Sanders is from…its been surreal to watch his rise. He has made it so much further than I ever expected, and I agree it’s encouraging to see the majority of people respond so well to him. Its clear that he won’t win the nomination, but I’m not sure that I want to subvert my enthusiasm for him into accepting the status quo…I think America needs something to change. The DNC doesn’t deserve his intertia. And Debbie Wasserman S., man, I don’t want to see her obtain a key appointment.

        Sanders Candidacy has been such a brilliant act of political defiance bordering on performance art, it sounds crazy, but I think he deserves a Nobel Peace prize for unveiling how rigged and crooked our electoral system is. I dunno. I don’t think I can just forget what his campaign has brought to light. Are we entering a new era in American politics? Can we, please? ;-)

      • mimif says:

        @lucky, I totally hear where you’re coming from and I really hope we can keep the movement going. I also totally understand why some people won’t vote for HRC and the status quo, and I wish there was less inflammatory coverage regarding why they’re not. If Bernie ran 3rd party, which I petitioned for, I’d be all over it (I also considered voting Green Party…can you imagine a Sanders/Stein ticket?!). It’s something I struggle/d with daily, hourly even, but at the end of the day, I’m going to cast my vote against Trump, and then really press for institutional progress within my own county & state. I’ve learned so much as a delegate and it’s been really exciting to participate in the process. It also makes me want to pull my hair out.

        Couple really good links that I highly encourage everyone to check out (thanks QQ):
        https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1227028497307715&id=539514796059092&_rdr

        http://m.democracynow.org/stories/16194P

        Psssst it’s not over yet!

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Agreed, the only good thing is that Hilary is focusing more exclusively on Trump than Bernie. That’s where the fight is, the rest will resolve itself by the numbers.

      • Dangles says:

        Because in her arrogance she thinks she’s already got the nomination.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Because she knows Sanders has no viable numerical path to the nomination, call it what you will, when the numbers are crunched Bernie needs a miracle to make it. No super delegates. No pledged delegates. Just lack of average voter support that leaves him with no path to the White House.

  12. SilkyMalice says:

    I’m a supporter of the Children’s Nutrition Program of Haiti, so yay Damon. I may not agree with your politics, but your heart is in the right place.

    • Kitten says:

      That’s great, SilkyMalice! Always nice to see how big-hearted my celebitches are.

  13. Sam says:

    I can’t fault him for voting on what he actually cares about. However, I do question whether Clinton would stand up to the biggest issue around water access, which is privatization of natural resources. Huge corporations demand that developing nations provide them with exclusive rights to water systems in exchange for loans or financing, basically. It’s a huge, huge problem (the same with food privatization and corporatization). I do wonder exactly why he feels justified voting for Clinton on the water issue – what exactly about her makes him believe that? Why does he feel comfortable with that given that Clinton has long history with many corporate donors, including some of the same ones engaged in water privatization?

    • Lucky says:

      Yup, exactly. My suspicion is that some quid quo pro incentive was offered to him in return for his endorsement.

  14. perplexed says:

    “Read the first paragraph above. Doesn’t it sound like his decision to go into charity work was image-driven rather than issue-driven? He’s serious and committed to this cause, I’m not questioning his involvement, I’m just saying that he describes his initial interest as a desire to control the narrative around him”

    Even if his motivation is image driven, I didn’t think his actual answer sounded image driven. All I got from his answer is that it seems he didn’t want to be a dilettante or uninformed about the issue he decided to take up. And I don’t think he’s wrong in assuming that people would laugh at an actor trying to take up certain causes. I mean, we kind of laugh at George Clooney at times. Even his marrying a lawyer has been met with skepticism.

  15. Emily C. says:

    He’s not careful and calculated enough to avoid talking over a black woman about issues regarding representation in Hollywood. But for some reason, that went away quickly, though his “apology” was pathetic.

  16. Emma - The JP Lover says:

    Holy Batfleck, Celebitchy! That black and white photo of Matty D. is ‘YUMMY’ as shite! Somebody fan me quick! :)

  17. Luffy says:

    Nvm

  18. Betsy says:

    Goodness. Some of the Bernie supporters on this page… bless.

    • Emma - The JP Lover says:

      @Betsy, who wrote: Goodness. Some of the Bernie supporters on this page… bless. ”

      You mean … Bless their Hearts? :)