HRC can only GAIN by working with Bernie on platform and party reform issues.

[Ken Burch]

We all support her social liberal values.

It's just about adding economic democracy, internal party democracy and party renewal to the mix.

The voters are much more likely to rally to us in the fall if they see that HRC "gets it" that the system is broken and that real changes are needed(changes she can work for through executive actions AND through firing up the base to get a big national vote for a Democratic Senate and House in the fall).

It's not about letting Bernie give HRC orders...it's just about openness and listening to the people.

And a lot of HRC supporters have said that they preferred Bernie on the issues, but voted HRC because they thought she was "more electable". She can maintain electability WITHOUT being seen as just demanding Sanders voter support without making concessions to Sanders voters.

[bravenak]

1. Bargaining

[Ken Burch]

4. It's not a stage of grief.

It's practical politics.

And I'd be saying the same thing if Biden was the nominee.

It would be a tragedy if the platform was ONLY HRC stuff. It wouldn't be a program for change.

We need to be working against bigotry AND corporate power. Both are intolerable.

[AgingAmerican]

54. She NEEDS his support to win

Plain and simple

[Mr Maru]

57. He NEEDS her support to see his wishes made real

Plain and simple.

[AgingAmerican]

67. No, he doesnt

Thats the beauty of it. Without him, she loses the general.

[Mr Maru]

68. Yeah, he does.

Without her, he's still just a guy walking around yelling about the 1% with no way to get anything done.

Good thing it looks like he plans to do the right thing, concede and endorse, work together. It's an absolute necessity for him, and it'll be better for everybody.

[AgingAmerican]

69. No, his revolution has nothing to do with her

Is she snubs him, he pulls the plug on her.

Its a thing of beauty

[Mr Maru]

70. Whatever gets you through the day; but yeah. He needs her.

Thank goodness he's smart enough to know that.

[AgingAmerican]

71. Its a thing of beauty

About 45% of the party loathes her.

[Mr Maru]

73. it's a thing of beauty

The voters have spoken. She's the nominee.

[shadowandblossom]

2. I didn't vote for Sander's platform. I voted for Clinton, and she won my state.

Like she won the nomination. I wouldn't give him anything.

[FDR_Liberal]

3. Thats nice of you

Give a big middle finger to 45% of the democratic pary. True uniter....smh

[SFnomad]

6. 45% of the "democratic pary"? And how many times have I heard that so many of the Sanders voters

were Independents? He's not giving the middle finger to 45% of the Democratic Party ... he's giving it to Independents that think they have a right to tell the Democrats how to run their party.

[Ash_F]

13. If we are looking at the total electorate, then we are talking about more than 50% probably

Indies can't vote in many(most?) state primaries.

Maybe Indies should not tell Dems how to run the their party, but they still have to get their votes in the GE.

[SFnomad]

18. No, you're not talking about "more than 50% probably" ... Secretary Clinton won ... she got well

more than 55% of the Democratic vote. And the BS cheerleaders would like us to believe a significant part of the BS vote were Independents ... which would mean that Secretary Clinton probably got 65 to 70% (or more) of the Democratic Vote.

And Indies can vote in ALL state primaries ... they just have to register as Democrats.

[Ash_F]

20. Doesn't that make them Democrats?

Something like 30% of the electorate identify as Democrats.

I said over 50% due to some national polls that Showed Sanders slightly ahead.

[SFnomad]

22. If they're still Independents .... no it doesn't n/t

[Ash_F]

23. I suppose someone can register as a Dem and identify as an indy

But legally they are Democrats if they registered as such. There are many indies who did not register as Democrats this year.

[azurnoir]

48. Then I guess you don't need their votes - right?

[Ash_F]

64. I think you meant to reply to someone else

Or maybe we misunderstood each other.

I do think Dems need independent/non-affiliated voters.

[JDPriestly]

24. The "independents" who vote for Bernie are progressives who feel they have been

shut out of the party by the move of the Democratic Party to the right -- primarily under the Clintons' leadership.

Seems to me that after having lost the 2014 congressional races so badly, the Democratic Party would be looking to be more inclusive. The progressives who register as independents are the most obvious group of voters to include in a more broadly based and successful Democratic Party.

Seems obvious to me.

[Ken Burch]

59. We should look at the progressive independents as people who COULD be Democrats

if the party makes them welcome.

[FDR_Liberal]

25. No, it is 45% of the democratic party

You realize the system we use, we elect delegates, right? And sanders got 45% of the delegates in the democratic party. He didnt get 45% of the voters, he got 45% of democratic delegates. Just hope you realize that so your rhetoric in this case is completely irrelevant.

So again, you plan to expand the party is to give the middle fingerto 45% of the democratic party? Thats really smart. Even if it was 15%, why would you have that mentality, so elitist and selfish...go read and ayn rand book.

Independents voted for him, yes. Youd rather shun out those independents? Big tent party? No, we want exclusivity....smh

[shadowandblossom]

10. Oh no.

Did somebody lose in a landslide? Poor dear. Ah, I see I stumbled into GDP... I'll just show myself out.

[Cali_Democrat]

41. If Hillary lost the nomination to Bernie, would you still want her to shape the platform?

Probably not.

[Ken Burch]

60. I would. I truly would. I would want the platform to include the best of her program

Specifically, the policies she crafted to appeal to POC voters and the LGBTQ community(policies which don't actually conflict with anything Bernie supports, for that matter).

I and the rest of the Sanders supporters, were we in your current position, would be reaching out and being as conciliatory as possible in the name of unity and victory.

We didn't support Bernie out of hostility to any of the groups who preferred HRC. Most of us don't even "hate" her...we just disagree with her on some things. And the overwhelming majority of us would feel exactly the same way about HRC's camapaign if her name was Henry and her spouses name was Billie.

[Mr Maru]

61. OMG can you just imagine for a minute the grave dancing and howls of "YAY! NO MORE OLIGARCHY!"

and instructions for her to sit down and shut up we would likely see?

No, I don't think we would see very many SBS supporters calling for her to shape the platform and pick his VP and act like she was the co-nominee. Nope.

[Cali_Democrat]

63. Yep

I'm not sure why Bernie and his supporters feel so entitled.

He lost.

[Ken Burch]

5. It's not like he stood for anything you've got any reason to object to.

[shadowandblossom]

11. Most Americans, including myself, did not vote for Sanders nor his platform.

According to you we have no reasons for our objections. I'm leaving now, I didn't mean to enter Bernie Central, I stumbled in here by accident and am on my way out. , but first, I'm just going to say (GO CLINTON!!!) WOOOOOOOOOH!!!

[Ken Burch]

15. HRC wasn't nominated to be the enemy of change. n/t.

[shadowandblossom]

17. I'm not having this emotion based argument with you, nor any other.

not going to try and take the bait to argue against nonsense.

But for fun I'm going to imagine Sanders was voted in, and then we replaced his platform with Hill's platform. Excuse me I can see the door if I could just reach it...

Oh, and again, GO HILLARY!

[all american girl]

38. Thank you

[shadowandblossom]

74. Thank you too

I thought it was going to be somebody telling me what a bad person I am for being happy! It was something supportive instead!

[Dustlawyer]

8. Obama gave her the SOS job she wanted for her endorsement.

It is how it is normally done. Bernie doesn't want a job in her administration, just some issue and positions in some of the platform. Winner take all is not what you do to win the General, but hey, if you think you don't need us then let's see what happens when you put it to the test.

Oh I forget, she has a lot more corporate money coming.

[shadowandblossom]

14. by which you mean Hillary agreed to do the SOS job, doing him an enormous favor.

.

[Dustlawyer]

32. Funny how you look at it differently from then to know with very similar circumstances.

He needed her support and that's what she wanted for it so he did the deal. It benefitted both.

Hillary, despite what is being said, needs our support as well. She needs to cut a deal to gain the support of Bernie and his supporters. It would be mutually beneficial to do this for the same reasons in 08, but for some reason Hillary supporters just expect us to shut up and fall in line. We are not Republicans and will not comply just because we are told to. Many of us plan on holding our nose to vote for her but the attrition rate is high due to the ugly treatment at the hands of the Hillary supporters.

[think]

34. Hillary was a horrible SoS. Kerry and Obama on the other hand have done great things

in regards to foreign policy now that the neocon war hawk has left.

[all american girl]

40. You do understand that the SOS works at the pleasure of the President.

She was an adviser, just like Kerry....Obama made the decision, and I find it insulting that you think that the President was incapable to be in charge.

[Sheepshank]

46. Even more insulting that Obama deliberately made poor choices when he had a female SoS

but that Obama suddenly had wiser choices when he had a male SoS

[Ned_Devine]

56. Try as you might, but it's not gender based. She's a hawk and always has been

That's the difference

[Sheepshank]

62. Her hawkishness as SoS (if there even such a thing) was at the will of the president

SoS is not Dictator, Leader or President...so the poster above (to whom I had responded and you felt the need to jump in) claimed that Clinton's SoS stint was any way worse than that of Kerry, is ludicrous.

[Ned_Devine]

65. There is such a thing, and she served as an advisor to our President. She also stovepiped...

Last edited Tue Jun 14, 2016, 12:33 AM - Edit history (1)

...foreign intel from Sidney Blumenthal after she gave him a position at the Clinton Foundation because she was told specifically not to hire him at State by President Obama. Apparently he had run some op research attacks on him during the '08 primary that were unforgivable. HRC of course did an end run around Pres. Obama and found a way to keep Blumenthal plugged in to the goings on at State. He pushed her on issues in Libya and Honduras which the President was hesitant to do but she forced his hand.

So yes, SoS is not a dictator but does have influence. Kerry was a friend and confidant of Pres. Obama's before he was elected and was likely to have been his SoS in the first administration before HRC used the position as a bargaining chip to close out the '08 primary.

[liberalnarb]

49. Well, good for you.

You aren't the only person in the party.

[AgingAmerican]

72. Since you voted, the Weathervane has changed Directions

[SFnomad]

7. For someone who lost a primary, his supporters sure feel they are entitled to a lot n/t

[Ken Burch]

26. A lot of HRC supporters have said they agree with Bernie on a lot of the issues.

They voted HRC because they believed the claim that she's "more electable".

So it's not as simple as saying that Bernie's ideas were rejected.

[Tarc]

9. Why do we need Bernie when we have Warren?

I think at this point, Bernie kinda blew his chance to be relevant to the convention.

[JonLeibowitz]

12. Warren's endorsement of Hillary Clinton, was, as I remember, not done on the issues.

It was mainly (correctly) about how dangerous Donald was and how we need to stop him.

[TwilightZone]

33. "as I remember"

Meaning you have no clue. The only person who knows why Elizabeth Warren endorsed Hillary Clinton is Elizabeth Warren.

Warren encouraged Clinton to run. Clinton and Warren have similar views on the vast majority of issues. The ideological gap you perceive exists only in your mind.

[Jackilope]

16. Because Warren is viewed by many as having sold out?

We have all viewed the Moyers interview. Warren knows exactly what HRC is like and has now gone to the dark side.

HRC is not trusted. There are many that want a None Of The Above bubble added to choices on the ballot.

Sanders brought new people into the Party and got them registered to vote. People put off with politics as usual. He did illustrate with complete funding from us that you don't have to sell your soul to resonate with the people.

Kicking progressives down to curry favor to corporate issues is killing the Democratic Party. The time is ripe and over due for a viable progressive party and the Independent registration is growing bigger with escapees from the D side as well as R side. Shaming and belittling us and then expecting us to fall in line is more of a Republican expectation.... Which is what Dems are today, moderate R's.

[BzaDem]

21. Will you say the same about Sanders when he endorses HRC? n/t

[Tarc]

27. I'm sorry, but this post is a sad commentary on the last gasp of the Sanders campaign

Warren went under the bus as soon as she didn't endorse Sanders months ago. It's interesting how the most allegedly progressive outfit is so rigidly authoritarian when it comes to dealing with support; it's like Bush on the aircraft carrier, the "you're either with us or with the enemy" speech.

[Demsrule86]

29. You keep throwing people under the bus in your search for purity.

Pretty soon, you will be a leaderless, directionless 'movement' with no leaders...Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren are natural allies of such a movement...but they have failed the 'purity' test. You will end up a weak movement with few concrete accomplishments...sadly like occupy which showed such promise. Progressive people are tolerant in general...you all are way to authoritarian to be considered progressive.

[Jackilope]

36. Interesting comparison to Occupy

That particular movement was thrown under the bus by establishment, including our party. Remember how Tea Party people who openly carried chummed with police, vs Occupy which was continually watched, profiled and villified?

No one in their quest to label as idealistic, Unicorn riding, etc. seems to have a problem with the current corporate welfare, inequality, rising health care and pharmacy costs or impending war or reckless war drum beating. No one seems to care that HRC has pivoted so many ways and most likely will enter us into TPP.

No one seems to care about the Bill Moyers interview with Warren or that the one person that has spoken out against Wall St. abuses, has spoken up for reinstating Glass Steagall will be neutralized in a potential VP spot and us actively in silly twitter wars with Trump. WTF?!?! We are watching middle school aged insults while quietly behind the scenes plans are under way to rob us of more money, more labor, more young people in battles ... but oooooooooooh, did you see that last nasty
"Delete your account" Twitter slam to the big orange boogeyman?

In a day or so DU will have nothing but oozing praise for emperors without clothes and an echo chamber that reassures yourselvs what a good Democrat you've picked. I forsee Sanders endorsing Clinton because heaven forbid Trump. I also forsee many of us being a movement and a thorn in the side to try and prod the Democratic Party more left. The movement and the desire for an honest government of the people and for the people -- not corporations will not go away.

[liberalnarb]

50. He was one of the major candidates for the nomination.

He's relevant to the convention.

[Demsrule86]

28. It must be considered that some issues

should not be on the platform. I don't think any stuff about the Palestinian/Israelis issue. Why give the GOP a club to use against us? Also, free, college that uses payroll taxes is a non-starter. You would be asking some of the poorest people in the worst schools ...many who will not go to college unless we improve k-12 to foot the bill for those more fortunate...it is a good idea to reduce the cost of college,but Bernie's plan is not good. While single payer is our ultimate goal, we can not undermine ACA...it is all we have at the moment. I am sure some issues ...there will be agreement...but Bernie has no right to make demands of Hillary Clinton. He lost the primary.

[bettyellen]

42. I think they should band together in assault weapons and background checks....

And agree with pretty muc what you said.

[seabeyond]

30. Do you create a new one of these OPs every two hours? Clinton economic policies were voted on.

[Scuba]

31. She may allow some platitudes in the platform, but you can bet your last dollar that she ...

... won't betray her financial backers once in office. That we will get neo-con fiscal and military policy is a given.



What worries me most is that someone will blackmail her into doing something even worse than privatizing Social Security and starting another war or two in the middle east.

[Orsino]

43. We will have to speak louder than all that easy money.

Last edited Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:59 AM - Edit history (1)

We'll have to do it consistently, and our numbers will have to grow, until the Establishment no longer dares to ignore us. Only then do we get a chance to begin the real work.

[Scuba]

44. Eighty gazillion recs, or, better, a couple of million in the streets.

[NCTraveler]

35. They already are. The meetings have been going on.

Sanders has multiple members working on it and they say progress is being made.

This has been happening since well before you op here.

[all american girl]

37. I just want to clarify, I preferred her on the issues..

I'm not sure the system is broken, but it can be improved on...caucuses anyone...but I don't want people to think she should have to take over Bernie's campaign...she won on hers and he does not get to be in charge. Bernie and his supporters need to realize that this is how it works. I'm not trying to be rude, but I think it's wrong that a woman has to bend to a man, when she won by huge margins...it only goes so far.

[democrattotheend]

39. Agreed

A lot of voters I talked to who were supporting Hillary actually liked Bernie and his ideas better. They voted for Hillary because they thought she had a better chance of winning.

[Sheepshank]

45. Bernie appears to want to dictate his whole platform as "working with" Hillary

where are his compromises and why should his losing platform carry any weight?

[liberalnarb]

51. If she is going to be the leader of the party

then she has to compromise.

[Sheepshank]

55. The loser doesn't get to call the shots

The loser doesn't get to dictate anything since they had a losing platform. The loser can suggest, the loser can compromise at the will of the winner, but they don't get to dictate...ever.

[liberalnarb]

66. You have such an authoritative tone in saying this

But you have no say in the process. And considering the way you've framed it, you don't know the first thing about it.

[BreakfastClub]

47. Since when did the LOSER in the primary get to set the agenda? I mean, the dude

not only lost, but he lost by a lot. You lose, you don't get your agenda enacted. Those are the rules. Sorry if you don't like them. I think they're fair. Would you want Bernie to enact Hillary's agenda if he had won? Haha, you know you wouldn't. It would be ridiculous to even consider it. And yet here we are, and it's ridiculous.

[KingFlorez]

52. Translation: Clinton should step aside and let Sanders have the nomination

This is what the whole "working with" meme really is code word for. Ignore the votes and just give Bernie Sanders the nomination, because he is 100% right and was robbed by a corrupt system of fraud.

[pat_k]

53. Of course

You are, of course, absolutely right. But I fear the power of beltway group think is in the process of burying common sense, once again. Clinton is being pushed to stay on "playbook" and do the "move to the right" thing for the GE. The notion -- that winning means you must give up positions deemed "too left" by the DC brain trust, look 'shifty", and make it clear to voters you have no strength of conviction -- is incredibly irrational, but it's one that is strongly reinforced.

It makes sense to believe the example of the Sanders campaign has put a dent in the notion, but I'm seeing signs of the opposite. There has been a profusion of "Democratic noise machine" efforts to marginalize and write off the Sanders campaign, "put it behind us," or even define it as an illness of sorts. For example, on Friday, Cass Sunstein had this to tell us:

The Sanders campaign has become a classic example of the phenomenon of "group polarization," arguably more so than any campaign in recent memory — even Donald Trump's, which has greatly benefited from the same phenomenon.

Gee, that sure sounds terrible! Sanders people are victims of "group polarization" so bad they're even worse than the Trump people!

The article is devoid of anything that would give the reader an inkling of what the campaign is about. Absolutely no acknowledgment that all those "afflicted" people came together for a purpose worth considering.

What we're up to is pretty simple. We are calling on the nation to recognize its illnesses; we are advocating effective, and available, treatments. That's what we were doing throughout the primary as we worked to get Sanders the nomination. That's what we are continuing to do.

Without acknowledging that the campaign has a message, Sunstein just turns his lens on the group, finds some who hold beliefs he thinks are problematic, and then presents his diagnosis.

Easy peezy. It's not the nation that's ill, it's the Sanders campaign. It's not the nation that needs curing, it's the campaign. By defining the group as being afflicted by a problem that causes extremism, you get to write off the group as a bunch of extremists.

And what's the cure? If the group is the problem, the group needs to go. And if they won't go away on their own, find ways to write them off so you don't need to about think it. If you did think about it, you might need to do a little self-examination.

It's long been a "given" within the beltway that advocating "socialist" notions like universal health care, billionaire’s tax, and so on, is political suicide. The successes of the Sanders campaign constitute overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As you point out, it's not just Sanders voters who would love to see a New, New Deal, Clinton supporters would love it too.

I'm usually not so pessimistic. I like to believe DC Dems are "teachable." But a full court press is on to ignore or misinterpret the significance of what has happened so they can recommit to all their bizzaro world beliefs. It's so much easier in that bizzaro world. You don't need to do much. Anything that looks a bit difficult is deemed a "loser." And you know, if you can't win, you don't fight. That belief is perhaps the number one killer of progress. Clinton is the "preemptive surrender" standard bearer.

Is all hope lost? Of course not. I'm just having a tough time finding the wellspring of hope and confidence within.

Here are some of my favorite quotes. They aren't working for me at the moment, but might help others:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511811478

[qdouble]

58. I support Hillary or Bernie, but I wouldn't mind her championing some of the stuff that he does.

I just want him to show some class about it.

[RobertEarl]

75. The DNC needs to listen to Bernie

And adopt his wisdom. Only he can unify the party, and against great opposition by those who don't want party unity, he has his work cut out.

Long may he prevail over those who are against party unity!