Oh she answered it: that she's a lifelong career politician.

That's exactly what the tea party appeals to.

Bernie's not being honest either; he vastly overpromises on what he can deliver, and he has yet to address why single payer failed in his home state of Vermont. You'd think an honest man would not only be willing to go there, he would be concerned enough about Green Mountain's failure to learn from it. (The lesson is that medical costs are out of control and we need to fix that before we can make a sustainable single payer system.)

Obama, though. Dude does a ton of good that doesn't get reported, and I think he's in it because he wants to help people. Here's a rundown of the things he's done for Native Americans, the one demographic that has been treated worse than African Americans, and one that certainly doesn't win him any political advantage:

http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2015/09/beyond-denali.html

I'd argue that poor and working-class whites are the most marginalized demographic in America. There are no government programs that specifically target them (Affirmative Action actually works against them) and when they air their grievances they're called 'bitter clingers' by a president who's supposed to be representing their interests - the same president who publicly feels the pain of every other marginalized demographic. There's an open contempt for them that spans both wings of the Capitalist Party, but it's particularly odious when its left wing smugly dismisses them.

"I'd argue that poor and working-class whites are the most marginalized demographic in America."

At least your reservation has an Internet connection.

Yeah. It's worth noting that whites worked as slaves right beside blacks in the early years of America and it wasn't until slave uprisings became such a problem that slave owners decided to pit them against each other instead.

I won't say that poor whites have it worst, but there is a dignity and sympathy to being a poor minority that you just don't get when you're poor and white. I'd take that over having systems gamed against you, people ignoring or fearing you, and the cultural weight of being considered lesser than others by default, but I think it's something a lot of people don't consider.

Speaking of Sanders possibly overpromising, here's an analysis of his single payer proposal by one of the guys behind Green Mountain. He says that BernieCare is making overly optimistic assumptions about how much it could negotiate prices down, and as such, BernieCare would cost much more than predicted.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-t horpe-single-payer

I don't know for sure who's right, but if nothing else, it illustrates the importance of controlling costs, which is what a SERIOUS champion of health reform would be focused on. I do not consider Bernie serious, just enthusiastic.

"I'd argue that poor and working-class whites are the most marginalized demographic in America."

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf

Seriously, visit a reservation some time. Read up on the history of how the government has dealt with Native Americans, right up until today. Most people in the east don't even realize they still exist. Working class white people have their problems, which you well identify. Native Americans have it worse.

"Read up on the history of how the government has dealt with Native Americans, right up until today."

Well, per my link, Obama has been trying to fix that and he's been getting results. Not that everything's all smiles and puppies, but if we're going to fault an organization (such as the government) for causing or worsening a problem, it's also important to note when they're getting it right. To not do so leads to a "they're all the same" attitude that punishes the virtuous and rewards the unworthy.

That was a great link, and Obama is improving things. There's still a long way to go.

There's a thin line between an indian reservation and an Appalachian 'holler'. They're both miles from civilization, thus proper infrastructure and a healthy job base. Rural isolation begets poverty, but unlike poor southern whites, poor indians have access to federal subsidies (they're also covered under the Affirmative Action program). Even if they only get a percentage of what was promised to them, that's a percentage that poor whites don't get. How they make use of those subsidies probably has a lot do with the poor living conditions on their reservations.

I do think that indians are in a similar boat as poor and working-class whites in that neither party considers them to be a demographic worth overtly appealing to. Blacks and hispanics get most of the attention because they form a more potent voting block.

The Appalachian holler is a depressing place all right, but the country is not built on shoving white people into Appalachia and/or semi-deliberately keeping them in poverty. And not that I fault the Appalachian poor for being politically disengaged -- having to walk four miles for groceries kind of focuses your priorities close to home -- but those white Appalachians could theoretically vote themselves into better fortunes, without some powerful demographic interpreting it as a threat. The system is still conceivably willing to serve them; their biggest problems are topographical, in that mountains are not conducive to building cities and suburbs.

The problem is that poor and working-class whites aren't just 'forgotten', as the case may be with poor indians. Their complaints are simply dismissed as backwards or xenophobic by the upper-middle-class and wealthy limousine liberals who now guide the party that used to serve their interests. Obama's 'bitter clinger' rant was just a roundabout way of calling them icky, stupid white trash. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Oh horseshit. Every chance the Democrats get, they pass jobs bills or raise the minimum wage or otherwise make efforts to help "average" Americans -- and by "average" you may infer "white".

No there is no affirmative action for whites, but then again whites have not been systematically oppressed by the system. Let's keep it very simple: do you think your lot in life would be better if only you had been born black?

Which Democrat candidates are talking about off-the-rails free trade, which sent their jobs overseas, and unfettered immigration, which is flooding the country with their economic replacements?

None of them, why do you ask?

>>Every chance the Democrats get, they pass jobs bills or raise the minimum wage or otherwise make efforts to help "average" Americans

Calling bullshit on that.

My point is that by ignoring or mocking the concerns of whites who occupy the bottom of the economic pyramid, western liberals are pushing them towards right-wing populism. This is probably the greatest failure of the modern American (and western) left, and I think it will cost them an election.

^ I think that this is impossible to disagree with (in the US at least- Idk if it applies to Europe), and I pray to fucking God that it doesn't cost them this election.

...and not because I love the Dems.

We have a cozy, fat-cat, 'bare-minimum populist' left, and we have a raging, bigoted-metaphysics far left, but we have no fucking left for working-class whites, as evidenced by the fucking wealth distribution.

Call bullshit all you like, That guy, then you might want to look here:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/minimum-wage -legislation-database.aspx

Hell of a lot of minimum wage bills on record, and notice how they all seem to be introduced by Democrats.

But keep believing your "both parties are the same, maaaan" bullshit.

My fault, Bort. I should have said that I was calling bullpoop on that, because I do not think both parties are the same in that regard.
What I do think is that the Dems don't take the fight to the GOP on this issue with a decade of agressive pressure. They go for short term gains, and their elites just work to get re-elected, but constantly running to get re-elected means not fighting.

ie. 'bullpoop' as much milder than 'bullshit'

The Republicans have an easy job: they don't want to pass jobs bills / minimum wages / etc and so all they have to do is shut down any Democratic efforts along those lines. There is no "fight" to take to them, because the Republicans are happy with how things are now and have no incentive to change.

The solution is to vote them out of office, but the Left is absolute ass at actually showing up on Election Day.

"Yeah but, it's not like drug and insurance companies have any real power to get their way on everything." he said, with just enough energy to be sarcastic.

Your logic is fucked. What you seem to be saying is that it's inherently dishonest for Hillary to be critical of a contributor.

Its absolutely true that the insurance lobby attacked her 20 years ago. The politics are different now. Its not part of any response to the question that takes less than a half hour, and its not a secret, since you know about.it.

Then why is she stuck talking only about twenty years ago instead of the politics and reality of today? You know, the kind of thing "young'uns" might actually find relevant?

It's relevant to the question, you whiny little bitch. If we dumb down history for the youth of today, do you suppose that the little darlings will decide to vote this time?

FTFY: Young people think she's dishonest because the media keeps telling them she is dishonest, which the media is right about.

(You seemed to be implying that the media was wrong or being deceptive there)

Meerkat is right. It's the old "vast right-wing conspiracy" meme; Hillary should have called young voters out for being naive and easily led.

And That Guy is also right. Hillary *is* dishonest. She's also a war-mongering, globalization-loving, collectivist monster. Her questioner should have called her out on specifics, such as her attitude towards rape victims, her role in pushing for the war in Syria, or her time at WalMart, rather than making an appeal to popularity.

Pretty much all of them are dishonest; they are politicians. Hillary has been "not genuine" for like forever, because she is really bad at disguising political calculus.

It's like some kid standing up and asking Donald Trump why young people think his hair is unusual.

People don't like Hillary for the same reasons people like Donald Trump. Now Donald Trump, well THERE'S a guy who speaks his mind.

Hilary's biggest problem is sexism. As a woman, she can't get away with the blustering rhetoric that every male candidate, including Sanders, and especially Trump, indulges in. If she seems rehearsed, its because being natural isnt really a good idea for her .

No, she doesn't really answer the question, but I can't think of a reasonable answer to "Why don't my friends think you're honest?". other than WHY THE FUCK DON'T YOU ASK THEM? I think she does a good job of speaking to the question, which is pretty much all that's possible here.

I don't think sexism is a problem for Hillary. She and her people are VERY good at claiming it whenever criticized.

I remember when conservative retards like Michelle Malkin claimed everyone who criticized Sarah Palin was doing it because they were sexist.

How comforting it is to hear liberal retards doing the same thing.

I don't doubt that there's a misogynist aspect to some of Palin's opposition, though there are plenty of good reasons to oppose her. Just yesterday, I saw Bristol Palin referred to as "the little leg spreader". Sarah Palin, Nancy Pilosi and Hillary Clinton all share the distinction of being portrayed in the costume of the wicked Witch of the West in campaign ads and blogs.

I think that if most of you encountered this kind of vague, relentless hostility toward Obama that I'm seeing here toward Clinton, you'd suspect racism.

>>I don't think sexism is a problem for Hillary. She and her people are VERY good at claiming it whenever criticized.

Examples?

Dude, like 15 seconds on Google: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/h illary_clinton_is_smearing_bernie_sanders_as_a_sexist_it_s_an_insu lt_to.html

>>Dude, like 15 seconds on Google

He said, expecting me to do his homework. And then he posted a link from "Slate"'

Did you read this piece of shit? This is supposed to smear Sanders as a sexist? She didn't mention him by name, and she didn't talk about sexism. She essentially said "some people don't like it when women speak up." It's true, and I consider this article to be a [pretty god example.

But even if it isn't, it gets you about ten per cent of the way to your premise.

>>I don't think sexism is a problem for Hillary. She and her people are VERY good at claiming it whenever criticized.

"Whenever" means whenever. Whenever suggests a pattern continuing pattern, and you're saying that the pattern is so effective that sexism isn't a problem when a woman runs for president.. The fact that this guy is so touchy about such a benign statement in a political campaign doesn't speak well; for your premise

Pretty sure you're the lazy one chum. There's a thousand more articles out there for you to dismiss without reading; for instance https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/26/the-13-w ords-you-cant-write-about-hillary-clinton-anymore/

Or is the Washington Post also on your 'do you read this shit' list?

Holy cow, I agree with EvilHomer again. Are there two of you or something?