2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary demanded a Secretary of State appointment in exchange for calling off her PUMAs.
Sanders is not making any similar demand.
If Hillary is nominated, party unity should not be hard to achieve for three reasons:
1. Party rules and platform issues mean a lot to Sanders and his supporters. I have not ever run across a single Hillary supporter who has said "I LOVE the super delegate process for installing a wall of lobbyists to keep grassroots Democrats out of the nomination process," and I have not heard anyone say, "wow, if I didn't already love Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her passionate support of America's vital payday-loan industry, I'd still want her running the show because a smaller Democratic party with fewer elected officials is SO much easier to manage!" Likewise, I think I'll puke if I hear Hillary say I'm in "vigorous agreement with Senator Sanders on this issue" one more time. Let's document all of these vigorous agreements in out platform and adopt a plan that more Democrats are proud to stand upon. If fixing the party rules and platform ares good for the party and important to Sanders and his supporters and not a thing that Hillary and her supporters oppose, that is an easy compromise.
2. We all benefit from re-taking the Senate. Hillary is not universally liked, and her appeal is weakest in many states where Sanders did very well and there are key Senate battles looming. Key races include Colorado, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin where Sanders is beloved and they are not Hillary friendly (these are also important battleground states). Sanders also has a different, but comparably strong, base of supporters in Illinois and Missouri and Nevada and Ohio, venues for four more key senate races. Hillary should do what she can with the party rules and platform to make it easy for Sanders to motivate his supporters in these key eight senate races to feel the Bern for our Democratic candidates. If our platform sucks, if our top-of-the-ballot candidates include no one to excite independents and millennial Democrats, if the rules of the Democratic Party are not even remotely democratic, Sanders job of motivating his supporters down ballot is much tougher (and maybe unachievable). Put Sanders to work in those eight states AND MAKE HIS JOB EASIER.
3. A progressive running mate will help in the general election and would help Sanders get his supporters to support the ticket. Gore-Lieberman, The Sequel will not sell. Consider John Hickenlooper. Consider Elizabeth Warren. Consider Tulsi Gabbard (the ultimate party unity choice). Avoid picking some centrist white male just because he comes from a swing state. Please.
cali
(114,904 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)finding things easy to believe without evidence? I ask because I generally find things only "easy" to believe when there is ample evidence.
cali
(114,904 posts)I find it easy to believe.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I am still waiting for evidence of this collusion between President Obama and HRC. Could you provide some?
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Nixon taught a lesson to all following
synergie
(1,901 posts)about a great many things, most of which they are 100% wrong about. How does this terrible standard work when things are essentially made up whole cloth by people who seem to enjoy writing bad fiction?
OwlinAZ
(410 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)And what I said stated is literally the GOP line on the Clinton smears, the attacks on Planned Parenthood, and a variety of other RW conspiracy theories and beliefs, and when called they all insist it's you not them that is doing the thing you just pointed out they were doing.
This tactic you are engaging in is pure CON, no just "like" it.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)documented by witnesses on both sides, including his advisors. Many have written articles and books and described it in interviews.
What happened is that Obama asked her to be his SoS soon after the Democratric convention. She was surprised and initially refused, fully intending to return to the Senate (she was a sitting Senator from NY, remember), but he persisted and the rest we know.
Btw, the notion that Obama would have traded such an incredibly important position for what would have been a mostly failed attempt to swing a small block of hostile extremists is silly. A critically large block, perhaps, such as the big block of liberal Hillary supporters, but we backed him immediately when she conceded, no endorsement by her actually needed.
This story that the hostile "PUMAs" could have mattered so much sounds like a conceit pleasing to some who find themselves in a similar position now. Extremists on both sides never seem to understand they are very much in the minority, so they misunderstand...much.
still_one
(92,394 posts)BootinUp
(47,186 posts)brush
(53,850 posts)dchill
(38,532 posts)That she didn't have even more demands than that. I remember, she was in a serious state of poutrage, then suddenly, the skies opened up...
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)brush
(53,850 posts)refers to black kids as being predators.
The drug dealers are the predators.
OwlinAZ
(410 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)So, unless either Clinton or Obama admit to what was said during their meeting after Barack hopped off the plane and visited her at her Georgetown house that night in June, 2008, we will simply never have direct evidence. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, however. There are many people who Obama could have approinted as SOS who are just as qualified and far more supportive, but he didn't. That indicates a form of blackmail on HRC's part. Call it a deal, if you prefer,
benny05
(5,322 posts)But as a Bernie supporter, I think Tad Devine has got to quit getting into fights with the DNC. Bernie's issue with the DNC is about fairness, but I suspect (as perhaps this post may be suggesting) it is more that the DNC has issues with Devine.
The suggestions made in the post are good ones. A good platform will not emerge else wise, and it just complacency again.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)DURHAM D
(32,611 posts)Further, I assume you are not an attorney and not in Texas.
Are you a Democrat?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)sarcasm,
then again, I have come to expect that.
Nice way of accusing the poster of being a non democrat.
procon
(15,805 posts)No, he isn't, but he is threatening a floor fight at the convention, yeah? That's worse, and for certain, he won't release his delegates or urge his supporters to get behind Hillary until he extorts concession from her and gets his demands aired,
apnu
(8,758 posts)By defination, he makes deals and uses leverage. He is not His High Holiness Saint Bernie of Sanders. Rather, he is a political animal who's spent decades as an independent getting things done in Congress. And again, nothing gets done in Congress without deals, swapping favors and votes, all involving leverage. Bernie has leverage now, he will use it before this is over.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
So I would expect some verifiable proof or of this thread to be self-deleted, as you just accused a Democratic candidate for office of violating a federal law.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)insta8er
(960 posts)of it? I mean when did we become this low? that we rather kill the voice of someone because we are so full of ourselves and our candidate. Sickening...
Tarc
(10,476 posts)in a forum that is expressly for supporting Democratic candidates for office. With Emailgate there was at least a semblance of a case to make, as there was an official investigation. But this? This is just vile politics by poo-flinging moneys, trying to see what will stick and what will roll off.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)If you had bothered to read the TOS, Community Standards or Mission Statement, you probably wouldn't be flagged for review and getting your inevitable PPR. Members are expected to use the alert button in cases like this thread.
The OP obviously has not read them either or he would know that bald faced lies and conspiracy theories aren't welcome here either.
The fact that OP's like this don't get hidden or self deleted is the actual sickening part. But many jurors are not acting in good faith at the moment.
sheshe2
(83,898 posts)I thank you.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)don't answer to them. Meanwhile, a hungry person that stole a pizza slice sits in jail for life. And some entrepreneur that sold a regulated product without a license spends decades in jail while those with licenses to sell regulated products are Scott-free even when they rip off consumers or kill people with their malfeasance.
The system is rigged and your refusal to acknowledge is becoming doltish.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)just flinging the poop at the wall to see what sticks against a Democratic nominee, no less. There's a time coming soon when this sort of thing won't be allowed here, so, get it in while ya can. I guess...
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)I'll just sit here and wait for evidence to come forth.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)Response to Tarc (Reply #56)
Post removed
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)things like that and pretty much don't seem to be very nice are "mythical" just ignore the many instance where they prove otherwise.
dubyadiprecession
(5,722 posts)years old.
synergie
(1,901 posts)And 8 is being rather generous, unless the 8 year old in question is suffering from some developmental delays.
sheshe2
(83,898 posts)Why do you purposely misread what they said?
synergie
(1,901 posts)starring the Clintons, and moles. Here you have posted another work of creative writing, which is not terribly credible and seems to be devoid of any shred of a coherent argument or proof, why should anyone trust someone who engages repeatedly in such untrustworthy behavior?
This insistence that "the system is rigged" which apparently applies to any and all systems, assuming you know what those are, is rather doltish.
You can't just say things, you need to back them up with verifiable facts, and that involves using specifics in language and examples not just snippets from some modern day attempt at a bad imitation of a Horatio Alger story. Your refusal to do so is simply silly.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Response to Tarc (Reply #7)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #42)
Post removed
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)will make their own choices.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Nothing in your post offers any. So...let's see it, please.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)You could argue she was one of the worst SoS in memory....with exception of Kissinger, of course...but, then again, Hill and Henry are BFFs.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Fri May 6, 2016, 07:37 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Hillary demanded a Secretary of State appointment in exchange for calling off her PUMAs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511914688
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
OP accuses POTUS of breaking Federal Law:
18 U.S. Code § 599 - Promise of appointment by candidate
Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 6, 2016, 07:47 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This alert is over-the-top
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: More anti-Clinton bullshit. I figure we'll see a lot more of this as the inevitable becomes undeniable.
Hide it.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Allegations with no factual evidence.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just silly.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Perpetuate false bullshit memes? This post shits all over Obama's integrity. There was no deal, Obama held all the cards. It's just ludicrous.
Fla Dem
(23,741 posts)So it's just made up crap. Evidence has been asked for numerous time in this thread and all the responses are empty snide comments.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Conspiracy theories (especially baseless, fact free, evidence free) have NEVER been welcome at DU. This particular creative speculation is no exception. In fact I would say that this shit is worse than your average 9/11 CT. This shit is being served here to intentionally mislead and depress turnout for one of our candidates. No excuse for that. None.
sheshe2
(83,898 posts)Obviously we agree for different reasons.
moriah
(8,311 posts).... regardless of truth or fiction of any of the three statements, without proof we have nothing.
(Imagining a meme like the Got Milk? Campaign, with, "Got proof?"
And fyi, she officially denied any such thing in her book, and President Obama has not said that it was a lie.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Why make shit up?
democrattotheend
(11,607 posts)That's a pretty big accusation that, if true, reflects poorly not only on Hillary but on the President as well. I find it hard to believe Obama would have agreed to something like that. Also, I read that she initially was not that interested in being SOS and he had to beg her to do it, after the election. Maybe that story was put out as subterfuge, but again, I doubt it. I think there was a time after 2008 when she wanted to be done with politics, and Obama appealed to her to take the SOS position.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)One of the largest areas of campaign differentiation between Hillary and Obama was foreign policy. Then suddenly he wants her to be SoS? Doubt it. These kind of deals are struck, it's politics, doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on anyone.
edit to add: given the headline of the OP, it would have been nice if there was something to substantiate the assertion. I believe it, but it's still just speculation as far as I can tell.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)He's magnanimous, so why not. She did OK with the reset button. Showed many countries that the US is willing to open talks. Something Bush completely let fall to the wayside under Rice.
Obama held all the cards in that situation. Many people expected him to just toss out the establishment and do his own thing, but his own thing was actually embracing the political elites, and being an uber bipartisan, magnanimous, reach across the isle type of person. We saw that with his cabinet picks. Totally unnecessary. But he did run on that platform. People just don't remember that.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)it's talk to the hand, where else are you going to go?
He got a bunch of us to help pay off her debt (worst waste of my money ever, what the fuck do I care if Marc Rich got settled up square or not?) and offered her a plum position to keep her in house rather than a free agent potentially stirring up trouble once the good soldier window passed in a few months.
He also wanted a right of center cabinet and appointed just such a one chock full of the who's who of the DLC stars and some actual Republicans including Bush junta holdovers in security positions which was and is fucking nuts/wicked.
The end result is exactly the same as if there was quid pro quo or just ideological confluence so I don't care if it was or not and think no better or worse about the players involved either which way or somewhere in the middle.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I think Clinton was totally burned out after 2008 and probably would've quit politics if Obama didn't press her to be his SoS.
I think the conversation was about how in 8 years she could try again and he'd be cleaning up the mess, and that ultimately she'd have an easy go of it. I think that appealed to her sensibilities. Frankly, given the mess Bush left Obama with, I think it was a damn good deal. She will very likely be able to enact much more change than Obama because he basically turned things around.
democrattotheend
(11,607 posts)Given that Hillary was reluctant to accept the position, I don't think there was a quid pro quo in June of 2008 that she would support him if he would appoint her to SOS. She had to fully support him because people were watching, and she knew people wouldn't forgive her if she did (or didn't do) anything that could result in him losing. It wasn't like 2004 where her supporters could quietly sabotage/not fully support the nominee to keep the seat open for her four years later.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)You can find news on DU that is simply not available anywhere else.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)#releasethetranscripts
Fla Dem
(23,741 posts)Innocent until proven guilty, at least that's the way it works in America. Socialist countries, maybe not.
#ReleaseyourTaxesBernie
synergie
(1,901 posts)to the contrary, I will have to assume it's true. #releasethetaxrecords
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Mike Nelson
(9,966 posts)...saw President Obama's latest news conference and he did not mention Hillary's "demand." Perhaps it's the subject of his Saturday radio address...
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)But after top surrogates asked Obama to help retire Clinton's campaign debt, amounting to more than $22 million, he asked many of his campaign bundlers to chip in to help his former rival.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/278074-clinton-to-take-hard-line-with-sanders-say-allies
Sancho
(9,070 posts)This OP has no evidence or link. It just bash and trash - and typical of the serial OPs by uninformed propagandists.
This is a lie:
Attorney in Texas may as well proclaim that Obama is an alien who was born on Mars.
Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)
Post removed
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Tarc
(10,476 posts)I never expected to see those groups have a toehold in the DU, though.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Same anti-Semitic crap be behind pogroms and Hitler.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)their numbers in the general population. Conversely, left-wing "anti-Zionism" is a rising theme outside but not on DU because it's specifically forbidden. Rather funny when you think of all the conflicting interests involved.
Vinca
(50,303 posts)But nothing would surprise me.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but we have no way of knowing what anyone's specific bargaining points were. The primary ended peacefully, and ultimately Hillary Clinton was appointed to the Cabinet.
There's no need to portray the events any more dramatically.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)"Attorney from Texas" just to proceed to make a claim without a stitch of supporting evidence. This is how they do it in Texas folks.
Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I didn't and won't.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)You are letting your legal education get in the way of looking at amusing but baseless theories
tabasco
(22,974 posts)and left Kerry a big mess to clean up.
synergie
(1,901 posts)Remember that he is making demands publicly, and you are merely asserting that she demanded something. We'll wait for your citation.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Simple business model tells us what a stupid and counter productive idea that is.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Last edited Sat May 7, 2016, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)
I live near the coast, so climate change is a concern.
What's in her campaign for me? Not for you... but for me.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)At least he admits it.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The main criticism of Republican voters is always "why do they vote against their best interest?"
Explain to me why Hillary is in mine.
kcr
(15,320 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Working class white guy with three draft age sons. Convince me.
kcr
(15,320 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)Angering and alienating your supporters who put up with her dishonesty and abuse, AND who are well aware of her history of homophobia is a pretty stupid thing to do.
Also, when you lose as badly as Sanders is doing, or at all, you don't get to dictate the VP choice. That's just not how reality works. Tulsi Gabbard has shot herself in the foot with the choices she made. They were stupid and impolitic, which is a terrible combination in a politician.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Talk about rewarding shitty behavior.
synergie
(1,901 posts)when did a Hillary shot herself in the foot by indulging in stupid antics to embarrasss her party and say utterly false things, and homophobic things?
Oh right, she didn't, Tulsi did. Also, she's a lame surrogate with bad political skills, no diplomatic skills and not much experience and god awful judgment, who didn't bother to do her homework on the guy she endorsed to at least tailor her talking points to make her seem less ignorant.
She doesn't have the stature, the experience, the success or the standing here, plus she's just not qualified to be a VP, for the reasons stated above, plus people don't like her. Not the DNC, not voters, just some small segment of the losing faction, and you don't get to dictate things, especially not VP.
I'm sorry you don't seem to understand simple facts about what losers get, you seem to think you're working from some position of power where you get to demand appeasement, you don't.
And even if you did, the homophobe and hater with zero skills wasn't ever going to be it.
You want to mend fences? Try dialing back the hate and abuse of the candidate. That's the first step. Shitty behavior by people who literally have no clue what they're doing, and that goes Bernie on down to Tulsi, and his other terrible surrogates will not be rewarded.
You truly don't seem to understand that destroying fences yourselves doesn't entitle you to force anyone to "mend" them in your favor. That's not how reality works.
I can only imagine the howls out outrage and frothing that would go on if Hillary was in Bernie's place, losing badly, and still arrogantly demanding that his royal will be done, and the amount of abuse that would rain down on any supporter who made a demand like yours, and then responded as you did.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I don't think she actually said that marriage should be between a man and a woman from the back of that pickup, but there are so many examples of both phenomena that you really shouldn't go there.
Kaela
(13 posts)Lots of attacks to smear Tulsi; short on facts.
All the personal nastiness coming from you sounds exactly like what's coming from Hillary's paid trolls across social media. Tulsi backed Bernie instead of Hillary so "woe be unto Tulsi."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-hillary-clinton-paying-trolls-attack-people-online-article-1.2613980
This is a central part of Clintons campaign strategy: smear, demean, and try to destroy the reputation of anyone who criticizes or challenges her on the issues.
Calling Tulsi a homophobe when she's actually 100% supportive of Equality/LGBT rights is disingenuous as hell. https://www.votetulsi.com/vision#equality
Tulsi has never attacked Hillary Clinton, but looking at someone's poor judgement in the past gives one an idea of what one will do in the future. Tulsi and many others like her don't trust Hillary when it comes to keeping the US out of more regime-change wars.
Pastiche423
(15,406 posts)Have you heard her speak?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Loki
(3,825 posts)just left the building. I make a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence, as usual.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
gopiscrap
(23,765 posts)if Sanders loses to her, then he should demand the Vice Presidency
George II
(67,782 posts)uponit7771
(90,364 posts)Beacool
(30,251 posts)You may be entitled to your opinions but not to your own facts.
Hillary did not want to be SOS. She rejected Obama's offer in Chicago and avoided his calls. She had drafted a letter formally rejecting the offer when Obama recruited Biden and asked him to talk to her. Biden appealed to her patriotism, asking her if she wouldn't have wanted Obama to serve if she had been the winner. Obama had told her that he would be quite busy with the domestic front and wanted someone of her international stature to lead on foreign policy.
Biden was quite open about it in one of his interviews. Both Obama and Hillary mentioned it on their own and even repeated the basics during the joint interview they had on 60 Minutes when she left the post.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)But I suspect that what you have posted here is pretty close to the way things actually went down. Clinton is still clinging to the "I could have won, I was a lot closer than Sanders is now, but I conceded for the good of the country" fiction, and we probably won't know the truth until the parties have both passed away. I may never know since Im older than either of them.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)You could have just made the demands without that unproven point. The fact that this still stands/hasn't been edited shows everything that's wrong with GD-P. Damaging, unproven accusations against our President are fine because he hasn't kissed Bernie on the cheek.
tritsofme
(17,399 posts)Her accusation is patently false
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)This post belongs at Free Republic.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Were made, Hillary withdrew in June, did nit "contest" the convention, supported Obama at the convention, released her delegates to Obama at the convention, and nominated Obama at the convention. They have lots of respect for each other, Obama selected Hillary to be SOS because he respected her abilities.
I do not see any need to tarnish the works of President Obama or Secretary Clinton with this theory.
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)Renew Deal
(81,871 posts)akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)in my opinion, fucked up by electing her Secretary of State. Big mistake, I can understand he wanted her in his cabinet but far away. Now she is riding on the coat tails of a President whom she disliked. I could be wrong. She is not right for America, but here we go again, between two evils, whom you gonna vote for. I can never forget how Mrs. Clinton went after Senator Obama in 2008, people may forget but I cannot understand how some people feel she has their interest at heart!
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)Il_Coniglietto
(373 posts)Assuming you have one....which looks unlikely.
trudyco
(1,258 posts)Especially since the colorado courts said the towns that stood up to Fracking aren't allowed to.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)riversedge
(70,299 posts)what a Sanders fans will do?? Shame on YOU.
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.