IF i post the link i think it would just put in another video

Real News ( the video link is front and center)
http://therealnews.com/t2/

and here is the Thomas Frank video link:
http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19944:Clinton-Attacks-Sanders-in-New-Book----RAI-With-Thomas-Frank-%2826%29

In watching this I felt like I was back in the late 1960s watching Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid analyze a news story.

This is what a site that calls itself the "Democratic Underground" should be debating with facts. Phrases like "Hillary is a real Democrat" are meaningless because you don't say what a real Democrat is. No one is better than Frank at explaining why there is now a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party.

Oh look, Nina Turner does a "news program" on that website. Have they hired Thom Hartmann and Cenk as well? H. A. Goodman should send them his resume.

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19950:The-Nina-Turner-Show%3A-On-Solidarity-with-Linda-Sarsour-and-Winnie-Wong

There's a handy link in case you want to send "The Real News" some money. That's odd. I didn't realize that "news" organizations solicit donations.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=369

Maybe he should call his next book "What's the Matter with People Like Me?".

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/08/whats-the-matter-with-thomas-frank

That does solicit donations, vice putting most stuff behind a paywall. You can also subscribe or become a supporter.

https://contribute.theguardian.com

(Couldn't resist a plug for the Guardian.)

especially those which formerly operated on revenue primarily from print editions. It's akin to paying for a newspaper or magazine.

Soliciting "donations" is another thing entirely. There is a distinction with a difference.

I too read The Guardian. I read an excerpt from Professor Susan Bordo's book on the 2016 election on the website that was so interesting that I wound up buying the book.

Think the distinction is on the perceived worth of the news source.

which has been reporting news and opinion since 1821 and which was put in a trust in 1936 "to secure the financial and editorial independence of the [the newspaper] in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of the Guardian free from commercial or political interference," to be worthy of support.

Reel Newz...not so much.

But, of course, it's not unusual for different people to have different standards.

It's in the perception and judgement.

I don't know about the other source, so I *reserve* judgement at this time.

So it's *not* the asking for donations that is the deciding factor, as I said.

Thanks for the condescension....

Democracy Now! solicits donations...so do NPR stations.

It's a sign that they're not bought.

Those who prefer to send their contributions to "The REAL News" (as opposed to the fake "corporate" news) rather than to NPR or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are free to do so. Others may choose to be more discerning in accessing the reliability of a news source and dispensing their donations.

http://www.npr.org/about-npr/186948703/corporate-sponsorship

"All NPR funding sources, including corporate sponsors, are considered under the "access" principle, which means that NPR has no list of sources from which funding will not be accepted. However, potential conflict of interest and problems of listener misperception, confusion, or similar reason regarding the funder's role and/or influence on programming will be considered in accepting or rejecting underwriting".

It would seem you trust corporate media outlets because they are financed by the Oligarchy both directly and with ads. You can be sure they will air news that helps them, their CEO's, and the rich.

I would trust any one of the journalists you dissed over any of the media on corporate television.

Free Speech TV is financed on about 3 million a year--Rachel Maddow gets paid 7 million a year, and that is to keep her talking about issues the rich want to be discussed and not saying stuff they do not want to be said.

Or again, maybe not.

?

I watched a whole two minutes.

The website is a hoot.

Nina Turner has a "news" show there, and Danny Glover is on its board of trustees.

Oh, and they accept donations.

Oh my.

Yeah, I've heard a lot along that line, and have learned a few things about how much "learning" isn't a part of it.

was so piqued that I went to the website.

I did learn something:

I learned that some "news" networks solicit donations.

True? LOl!

I'll pass.

Certain people--i.e. anyone who is not sufficiently respectful of a certain person--must be dismissed out of hand. Because purity I guess. Or pure butthurtedness.

I think it's pretty obvious where it's going. Besides, I pretty well know where Thomas Frank is always going when it comes to Hillary, who, in my opinion, absolutely does not get her

Some quotes:

Start at the top. Why, oh why, did it have to be Hillary Clinton? Yes, she has an impressive resume; yes, she worked hard on the campaign trail. But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine.

That’s who she is. Her identity is bound up with professionalism, more so than her husband, and more so than Barack Obama. She is a characteristic figure of professional-­class liberalism

The only contest in recent years to cause the billionaires of Martha’s Vineyard to feel pangs of political unease was in 2007, when both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were hitting the sweet spot of the liberal class. Both politicians showed up here to raise money, sometimes within a few days of one another. Who would line up with whom? Tensions ran high. Tycoon turned against tycoon.

Last edited Fri Sep 8, 2017, 06:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Like the producer of that video obviously does - I mean the introduction alone...

Shame on you....

...I just googled his name, nothing else. FIRST hit:

LISTEN, LIBERAL!

The subject of my new book is the Democratic Party’s failure over the last few decades to do anything really meaningful about income inequality.

Indeed, they have scarcely dented the free-market consensus at all. This is not for lack of opportunity: Democrats have occupied the White House for sixteen of the last twenty-four years, and yet the decline of the middle class has only accelerated. Wall Street gets its bailouts, wages go nowhere, and the free-trade deals keep coming.

What else do I need to see?

Just a suggestion.

Last edited Fri Sep 8, 2017, 09:09 PM - Edit history (1)

occupied the WH 20 of the last 36 years, and under Reagan began the destruction of unions (DEM entities), had two recessions under the two Bushes, the one extreme one under W Bush almost taking the whole country under, and while in office, they've made it a point to reverse Democratic policies that helped middle class/working class people.

This is exactly what trump is doing also in his attempt to erase Obama's complete legacy.

Yep, don't need much more than that to get the Hillary hater gist of the link.

"The Real News".

that follows journalistic standards....

I wish these people would go away and form their own party and leave a party they don't want to join, alone.

one's own party from the ground up, especially for the most establishment position in the system. Or even go with one of the more "ethical" third party options.

I guess you can talk yourself into anything if you have a dictionary or Thesaurus.

Last edited Fri Sep 8, 2017, 10:24 PM - Edit history (1)

to build a national, state and local apparatus, and a national brand.

I guess introspection is only for Kansas.

So, no secret, I'm a Bernie supporter from the primary, but i'd like to know what this is before I start watching it, and if you know something about it, that would be helpful.

If it's biased or has the appearance of bias, I'd like to know how/why

I think some didnt' get the gist of the video

They should maybe watch it instead to be sure

to agree with would help.

Pompous blowhard Hillary bashing bullshit.

Typical of them.

Guess we should have watched to see Hill bashed one more time.

She is so evil.

creating myths out of FDR's presidency, ignoring Hillary's actual voting record in the senate ( where she and Sanders were on the same page over- I think 90% of the time was it?) Even if we take Bill Clinton's hayek-erian love of free markets into account, or the overstated impact of the repeal of one part of glass steagall, there isn't much diversion from FDR ( especially if we look at trade)

Yet we see the simplistic comparisons between eras, lack of context and historical revisionism.

It was disgraceful both times.

you might provide a synopsis.

Why should we demand some sort of summary, or reason that it's worth an hour?

Would be good if people here would watch and learn.

Yes.

But apparently some feel it's a better ruse of time to post that they don't want to take time to watch a video then watch a video.

Frank's points often nuanced. I didn't want to lose what he said by over simplifying it.

Last edited Fri Sep 8, 2017, 07:53 PM - Edit history (2)

Noted. And I am just so humbled to be splained to by someone who clearly understands what the rest of us sheeple just won't admit is clearly our handicap.

Bless you, and your patience with us dim people.

Bernie is Everyman- aggressive . And I thought, yup. Lol.

Yeah, those establishment shills probably do sell baby parts, now that I think about it....

Ok, why are they giving Frank fifty minutes to comment on it?
How is Clinton peevish if Frank has not read the book?

Frank is way past his prime. I loved his Cspan narration on What's the Matter With Kansas, but he has done nothing of interest in ten years.

....more to say about the history of the Democratic Party and what the current predicament is than just the Sanders/Clinton book.

He's still entirely relevant. He was right before (about Kansas) and his intersectional analysis is spot on now.

Thanks, zentrum.

It was hard to listen to him after ten minutes talking about how she should have been nicer. Gosh, that's serious analysis that's not at all sexist, LOL. /S

of repugs have occupied the WH 20 of the last 36 years and with Reagan began the destruction of unions (Dem entities), had two recessions under the two Bushes, the one under W Bush almost taking the country under, and while in office, they've made it a point to reverse Democratic accomplishments that helped middle class/working class people and bought the country out of repug recessions.

Exactly btw, what trump is doing also in his attempt to erase Obama's complete legacy.

I found something else to do than watch and listen to thomas Frank. I quit at 3:55.

Plus, he doesn't like her. He's hardly an unbiased critic.

I know, I read "What's the Matter with Kansas", too, and sometimes I have to ask myself if this is the same person who wrote it.

is divisive/eviscerates Bernie/lies/doesn't take responsibility/has been legally required reading/will cause men to be impotent.

$17.00 at Costco!

...for stating the distinction between a New Deal Dem and what happened later.

Good luck on DU.

They have no concept of the Golden Age of the Democratic Party: 1933-1968!

Bernie said we can still be that again; many in the DNC said no!

Democratic Party.

But hey - saying that's just "identity politics" and will destroy the Democratic party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And will cause hair to grow on your palms!

Loads of people make excuses why they're still under paid.

Because those "identity issues" don't exist.

At least in VT.

It gave us a lot of things that we're still desperately trying to hang onto today. It was right for its time and place, but we live in a different world now. You couldn't broker that same kind of deal with southern politicians now.

with all their damn "identity politics" and other distractions like reproductive rights.

and the regulation of Wall Street with the Securities and Exchange Commission!

How old are you? Suggestion: crack open a history textbook!

It was the best vehicle for its time and place and I think we all know that the America we're fighting to keep wouldn't be where it is except for the New Deal.

But the kind of politicians we have in the South now wouldn't vote for something like that, and a "new" New Deal, in this day and age, absolutely has to factor in women and POC and the disabled and a lot of other things that weren't on the table back in the 1930s.

are a really hard sell. I know we'd al like to cut military spending and move it to health and education but the country is kinda fucked up when it comes to their priorities. It's weird it took years for OCare to be popular with the masses, but it is now. But the voters spanked him for it.

It's awesome that benefits were extended to women before things stared crumbling. But we can't pretend that there's not a strain of nationalism growing there that's anti the common good these days. Shit is complicated.

just "made all that right."

Be patient, women, gays, people of color and non-Christians! When white men get paid what they think they deserve, they will let all of you people have all the rights you want.

Until then, be quiet, let Bernie handle things, and the social justice will trickle down.

That is not at all what was being posited.

"New Deal" policies that dismiss the very real barriers that women and POC as mere "identity politics" aren't any kind of "new deal."

And the economic situation now is very, very different than the 1930's, so clearly, the public isn't going to greet them in the same way. The he so called "white working class male" population that is said to be just roll over and vote for this "new" new deal, and restore the house and senate to the Democrats foams at the mouth at the mere hint of "government programs." So there's that.

Is that clearer?

Very creative you and pathetic!

Inequality that already existed.

And red herrings!

I pointed out your strawman, and explained, and you doubled down. That took some cojones!

and equality for all. The fight for human rights in fundamental.

Relatively speaking, 1933-1968 was a golden age, but too many were left out.

they lost me, and that is why Bernie was so appealing. I did vote for Hillary tho.

overtly or not.

Move forward with the values that were once the heart and soul of the Democratic Party!

Pointing to times when minorities and women lacked rights were not the glory days for us.