I'm from Brooklyn. When I hear Bernie speak, when I hear that accent, I hear my grandparents, my parents, my aunts and uncles. I hear common sense being spoken, as opposed to political rhetoric. I hear hard-working people who struggled to get ahead. Some moved to LI, Connecticut, Jersey; some stayed in the same neighbourhood where they were born, went to school, married, and raised their own children.

I hear words and phrases that originated in faraway places; I hear an accent tinged with a bit of Yiddish, a bit of German, a bit of the Irish lilt, a bit of the Eye-talian operatic drama - a pleasant cacophony (well, to me, at least) of people from "the Old Country" who made a place for themselves in the New Country - sometimes at odds with each other, more often accutely aware - and undeniably appreciative - of their common experiences, and common goals.

To make a point - the purpose of which still eludes me - of the fact that HRC's campaign headquarters is "vastly different" from the neighbourhood where Sanders grew up is beyond ridiculous. To say that "the respective locations say a lot about the values and politics of the two candidates" is equally laughable.

You have a great candidate in Bernie Sanders. He speaks from the heart, and he speaks to the issues that many Americans find important, too-often ignored, and highly relevant to their everyday lives.

To say to "look at where he grew up in the 1940s as opposed to where Hillary located her headquarters in 2015" is an incredible disservice to the man and everything he is saying. If your focus is on where campaign headquarters are located, you're missing the point.

I'm an HRC supporter - but I admire Bernie and his message, and I think he deserves better than this kind of nonsense.

As a fellow Brooklynite, I feel secure in saying that if Bernie sees a difference between where he grew up and Brooklyn Heights right now, it has to do with where you can still get a real egg-cream. Every other difference between the two addresses is irrelevant.

And besides, he has better things to talk about.

Isn't that like "bad optics" or something?

I think the basis for the comparison is that both candidates have this Brooklyn connection. So the writer is comparing the nature of Bernie's Brooklyn connection to Hillary's Brooklyn connection, to show the difference.

Maybe the comparison seems a bit clunky. How can you compare Bernie's childhood home to Hillary's modern HQ. Still I appreciate that the writer made an effort to shoehorn that in. It's like a symbol of how one candidate represents the working class and the other candidate represents big money and is especially close to the financial industry.

It's like a symbol of - nothing.

If THIS kind of bullshit is what you think Sanders is all about, it's time you read up on your own guy - because you really don't know him very well. Actually, you don't seem to know him at all.

One of her worst moments. Maybe not as bad as voting for the Iraq war. But it's up there. Like her voting for the Patriot Act too.

But getting back to the the symbolism of her sharing this address with Morgan Stanley, recall she is funded by big banks.

It's one of those things like OK Hillary shares a building with a major financial institution. How do I feel about that? It reconfirms my sense that she is very close to that industry. When I say close I mean they pay her money to influence policy. It's just like a symbol of the overall problem.

... on "the symbolism" of whose campaign headquarters are located where, so be it.

I trust most Sanders supporters are interested in more substantial issues.

The article is not even mainly about that. That was just the first few paragraphs.

Hillary HQ sharing a building with Morgan Stanley shouldn't determine anyone's vote. But mentioning it is a nice way to remind people about Hillary's close ties to the banking and finance industry.

And I'm sure Bernie will be speaking to this important issue immediately, because it's like really important.

Hillary sharing a building with a major financial company that probably gave her money 5 different ways, that's just a symbol. It's like the address is not important. But how close do you want your politicians to be with big banks, that's a real issue.

But Sen. Sanders probably wouldn't talk about something like Hillary sharing an office building with Morgan Stanley. It would just seem petty and confusing. Most people don't care about that.

But if you're writing a feature piece for an online magazine it might be decent material. It made a good intro for the piece because of the visual imagery of the two contrasting neighborhoods. It matched up nicely with the idea of how Bernie is for the working class while Hillary serves the banks.

... stunning insight, and all that there.

"But Sen. Sanders probably wouldn't talk about something like Hillary sharing an office building with Morgan Stanley. It would just seem petty and confusing. Most people don't care about that."

Well, you got that much right.

Can you point out where I said anything about him that is negative, untoward, accusatory, or something less than praise for who he is, and what he stands for?

I'd be much obliged.

The article is mostly accurate. Anyone who thinks there is no difference between Brooklyn Heights/ downtown Brooklyn and Midwood doesn't know Brooklyn. In fairness to HRC, though, downtown Brooklyn is where a national campaign headquarters would be located, for space considerations alone.

Right off Kings Highway, between Kings Highway and Ave P.
One of my old stomping grounds.
I am hearing what I consider is right from someone who grew up in the same neck of the woods that I grew up in. He has the same accent as I do. I am so much in support of Sanders, you cannot imagine.
I would do nearly anything to see he is elected President.