Clinton vs. Sanders

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by Khampelf

I hear that President Obama met with Sanders for several hours, then came out endorsing Hillary. No word from the Sanders camp that I've heard. Is Bernie going to jump into the funeral pyre of party divisiveness?

I'm no politico but I think/hope he'll campaign for HRC/against Trump, and that he'll have a lot of input into the platform adopted at the convention. Hasn't HRC already made some accommodations?

What I don't understand is that it's big news that Obama has endorsed HRC. Did anyone really think he'd wait until the convention? Let Trump go unattacked for the next couple months when the big guns in the Democratic party could go after Trump now? Bernie and his supporters might feel pushed aside, but time's a'wastin'!

[Khampelf]

I saw Obama's lack of endorsement as damning, and FWIW it's helped my opinion of Hillary. I guess I'd rather have her scheming and cheating for the country than for herself.

[Aneurin Bevan]

Originally Posted by Khampelf

I saw Obama's lack of endorsement as damning, and FWIW it's helped my opinion of Hillary. I guess I'd rather have her scheming and cheating for the country than for herself.

Why would think that? It's general policy for a sitting President not to endorse a particular candidate if there's an ongoing race (see George W. Bush in 2000). In terms of policy, Obama is much closer to Clinton then he is to Sanders.

[piepiepie]

Originally Posted by Khampelf

I hear that President Obama met with Sanders for several hours, then came out endorsing Hillary. No word from the Sanders camp that I've heard. Is Bernie going to jump into the funeral pyre of party divisiveness?

https://streamable.com/tjvz

[Khampelf]

Originally Posted by Aneurin Bevan

Why would think that? It's general policy for a sitting President not to endorse a particular candidate if there's an ongoing race (see George W. Bush in 2000). In terms of policy, Obama is much closer to Clinton then he is to Sanders.

Why would think that? I just did. I did not know of the custom not to endorse until there was a presumptive, but she's been called that quite a while.

[Argument Clinic]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxF...ature=youtu.be



Totally coincidence, right?

Oh great, Bricky the Retard Crybaby dimwit conspiracy theorist provides a Youtube video "Did Google Manipulate Search for Hillary" - if there is the perfect example of idiot millenialesque incoherent stupidity it's this.

[Paul in Qatar]

I was in the US last week. I saw some Bernie bumper stickers. I saw quite a few Trump stickers. I saw zero Hillary stickers. I think it will be very important to vote this time around.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar

I was in the US last week. I saw some Bernie bumper stickers. I saw quite a few Trump stickers. I saw zero Hillary stickers. I think it will be very important to vote this time around.

That just shows HRC's demographic - old people who aren't likely to deface their cars, and imaginary voters who don't exist outside the Diebold voting machine.

[loshan]

This Hillary supporter has a business to run and would rather not piss off half her potential customer base with a bumper sticker.

Last I checked, I am not the figment of my own, nor a voting machine's, imagination.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by loshan

This Hillary supporter has a business to run and would rather not piss off half her potential customer base with a bumper sticker.

Last I checked, I am not the figment of my own, nor a voting machine's, imagination.

Yep. I don't have a customer base, but I'm not about to enter in to a pissing match (or suffer being catcalled and shouted at) for having an HRC bumper sticker on my car. Plus, it's a brand new car and I'd rather not put anything on it. And lastly, I really don't believe in advertising 99% of my "values" or "beliefs" via stickers on cars. Exception: I had a Colbert Nation sticker on my old Volvo and an NPR sticker.

There are lots of HRC supporters who do not feel the need to publicly display their support. But yes, it is very important to vote in this (and any) election.

[Khampelf]

It looks like Sanders has all but conceded. Shifting the focus of his campaign to defeating Trump. Says he'll do whatever he can to help Hillary. Probably best, but doesn't mean I'm happy about it.

[Jaglavak]

Well, crap. Now we're in for it.

[JackieLikesVariety]

Bernie is endorsing Hillary.

give me a minute....

[Pere]

It was a solid speech.

[JackieLikesVariety]

fox news calls it Hillary Takes a Hard Left

so you know that's a good thing!

[JoanieBaloney]

Is Bernie going to be her VP?

[JackieLikesVariety]

he says no, AFAIK

[SmartAleq]

Bernie delegate tweeted that the DNC told Bernie that if he didn't endorse (note that he has not conceded and still keeps his delegates) they'd block every single one of his policies out of the official platform and refuse to allow him to speak at the convention. So he endorsed, but has not and will not concede. This will go to a floor fight and Bernie will be bringing the much larger and much more enthusiastic crowd along with him. Yeah, this sucks, but it ain't over 'til it's over and Bernie's a canny man with about zero ego. Hillary, on the other hand, is a lying, crooked, scandal ridden establishment tool who runs roughshod over everyone she sees as being in her way. She's seriously a huge cunt, and I will never vote for her no matter what. They don't make guns scary enough to change my mind on this, I will never vote for her and due to Oregon using paper ballots she won't get my rigged voting machine vote either.

[loshan]

Zero ego, my ass.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by loshan

Zero ego, my ass.

Yep. I'd say Bernie's ego is more than healthy. But he is correct in his speech yesterday: he and HRC do agree on most policies. Too bad he demonized HRC for months--but then, BS is not a Democrat; he just played one on TV. If anything, BS held the DNC hostage while he dicked around with this entire nation's future (which is still in peril--and I say peril knowingly. Trump is no joke to the future of this country. HRC is far from perfect, but he's an irresponsible, insane choice). He subjected the party and the nation to his prolonged temper tantrum--I lost interest in him as any kind of viable anything about May. He got more than he should have, but I actually now prefer the platform (as much as anyone actually pays attention to either party's platform) because the DNC tends toward wishy-washy milquetoast stuff. But I'm not willing to "forgive" him or thank him as yet.

I get that you dislike her, SA, and that's fine by me, but could you stop with the sexist language?

[Nonny J. Nonnington III]

Originally Posted by JackieLikesVariety

Bernie is endorsing Hillary.

give me a minute....

At this point, Hillary needs to be very careful in how she proceeds. She needs to craft a message to Bernie supporters that thanks them for their involvement, speaks to their energy and promises them that they will be included in the ongoing administration.

I have zero belief that she will do so.

I'm guessing that she will proceed as the heir apparent and will assume that all Bernie supporters will jump on the train. There is already talk of Bernie turning over his donor list to Hillary, and a lot of anger over that. If that happens, and if the first email is not a very carefully worded message instead of a sticky hand asking for cash, I see people clicking "Unsubscribe" in record numbers.

[JackieLikesVariety]

no, she won't do it right and a lot of Bernie supporters won't get on her band wagon.

those of you who assume Bernie has not only an ego but a giant ego like every other presidential candidate ever (well, maybe not Carter) flat out don't understand him.

I have been listening to him speaking for years, since way before this election, and I know what he is about. it is the ISSUES he cares about. he doesn't actually want to be president, he wants the ISSUES addressed.

he got a real, progressive revolution started and it doesn't just get absorbed into the DNC - or any corporate candidate. no- it will roll on and make massive changes.

we'll see what happens at the convention. I suspect it will be interesting, although maybe in that Chinese Curse kind of way for awhile.

I don't think Trump will be president and I don't assume Clinton will be either but if she is? Bernie will still be making real change.

I trust he is doing what he has to do.

[AuntiePam]

I hate rewarding bad behavior. Part of me wants to vote for Trump just to spite Hillary, to show the powers that be that we're tired of her brand of "public servant".

How much damage can he do, on his own, if Congress doesn't fall in line?

There's a bumper sticker photo on FB: A Bernie sticker, and next to it another sticker -- "Okay. Fine. Hillary I guess."

[Khampelf]

I'm in the "Hold your nose and vote for Hillary." camp.

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by Khampelf

I'm in the "Hold your nose and vote for Hillary." camp.

Yeah, me too. Dammit.

GWB took us into Iraq, so obviously a President can do a lot of damage.

The worst that can (probably) happen with Hillary is four more years of the same. I don't see her winning a second term.

[SmartAleq]

Not voting for her no how no way--if Bernie doesn't make the nom or run as an independent or Green I'm voting for Jill Stein. And kindly don't bother telling me how I'm "wasting my vote" or similar dismissive statements. Save your breath to cool your porridge.

To all the downmouthing naysayers and doom predictors and all the rest I just have to point out that some poor bastard has to be the idiot who starts the dance party. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm NOT the only one.

[SmartAleq]

Stephen Colbert takes the gloves off:



HRC Receives Gift Horse, Administers Extensive Dental Exam

Originally Posted by Above linked article

But here is the real factoid that is pushing Hillary over the logic precipice - she is appearing to say that to this day, she is still maintaining that she did not (does not) believe that she sent any material that was classified. Doesn't the fact that a criminal referral was made to the FBI indicate otherwise? How about the information that not only was some of the material was classified, it was classified at the very highest levels and even as we speak is not available to the public or even to Congress? Should that be a clue that she is 100% wrong and that in maintaining this fiction, she is making herself out to be either delusional or incapable of admitting that she made a mistake, a very serious mistake, but one which the FBI was very magnanimously willing to overlook and to continue to allow her to walk among us?

How is it possible that HRC's self image is so fragile that she has to continue to market this persona of infallibility? If she remains unable to discern the very highest level of classified material up through today, what basis is there for believing she will be able to recognize it as President in the future?

Election fraud lawsuit to be filed by the end of this week.

Ralph Nader weighs in on Bernie's endorsement.

In an interview with Jorge Ramos, political activist and author Ralph Nader suggested there was, in fact, a strategy behind Sanders’ endorsement, and called the speech “brilliant.”

Nader said that listing off the many promises Clinton has made on issues like student aid, immigration reform, and minimum wage, Sanders was actually making a self-serving move.

“He set her up for political betrayal, which would allow him to enlarge his civic mobilization movement after the election and after she takes office,” Nader told Ramos. “So I think it’s a very astute endorsement.”

But don’t expect him to vote for Clinton come November 8. He called her a “deeply-rooted corporatist” and “militarist” in terms of her foreign policy.

“She’s never seen a weapons system or a war she didn’t like,” Nader told Ramos.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

So he endorsed, but has not and will not concede. This will go to a floor fight and Bernie will be bringing the much larger and much more enthusiastic crowd along with him. Yeah, this sucks, but it ain't over 'til it's over...

Uh... I don't think so. Endorsing is understood to be a step beyond conceding.

Conceding = "I admit, I'm not going to win this." For all practical purposes Sanders did this a week ago when he started referring to Hillary as the "presumptive nominee."

Endorsing = "I want this other person to win this." This is the new part.

He was very clear on both elements, with Clinton beside him in New Hampshire yesterday,

Originally Posted by Bernie Sanders

Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process, and I congratulate her for that. She will be the Democratic nominee for president and I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States.

I have come here today not to talk about the past but to focus on the future. That future will be shaped more by what happens on November 8 in voting booths across our nation than by any other event in the world. I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president.

Originally Posted by loshan

Zero ego, my ass.

Every serious candidate for President (or Governor, or US Senator) has some ego. You have to, to get into the game at that level--and the process itself feeds it. You literally have a team of people working to help you feel strong, energized, right, destined to lead. The conflation of personal success with policy goals is a mistake, but it's a seductive one that takes character to resist.

I believe Sanders to be a good man, genuinely committed to his issues before himself. In terms of character, this is about the best that can be said for any politician competing for a statewide or national office. At the high point of his primary run, I'm sure he found the prospect of President Sanders alluring, as I expect anybody who ever gets to that point would.

But he recognized the realities of the situation, and he kept his priorities straight.

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

If anything, BS held the DNC hostage while he dicked around with this entire nation's future (which is still in peril--and I say peril knowingly. Trump is no joke to the future of this country. HRC is far from perfect, but he's an irresponsible, insane choice).

He wasn't dicking around; he was campaigning. Playing politics, in the best sense, with the sincere intent of advancing his agenda. It's what politicians are supposed to do, and Bernie has done it pretty well, all told. Both running against Hillary, and now supporting her, are equally part of that.

[SmartAleq]

This guy gets it, and it's pretty fuckin' funny.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

I hate rewarding bad behavior. Part of me wants to vote for Trump just to spite Hillary, to show the powers that be that we're tired of her brand of "public servant".

How much damage can he do, on his own, if Congress doesn't fall in line?

A President can do a lot of damage. Even without formal exercises of power, a President's words and positions matter to the culture (hell, Trump has already done harm to this country that can't be easily undone, even if he loses). And the executive branch can do a lot of things all on its own, in its choices of which laws to enforce and how, and in dealings with other countries.

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

There's a bumper sticker photo on FB: A Bernie sticker, and next to it another sticker -- "Okay. Fine. Hillary I guess."

Remember the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial runoff? Neo-Nazi, Klansman David Duke, against inveterate gambler, womanizer, bribery-recipient, indicted-for-corruption Edwin Edwards. The gem sticker-slogan of the season was, "Vote for the Crook: It's Important!" Crook Edwards indeed won; twelve years later both of them were in prison on fraud charges, but at least there was not an actual modern white supremacist running an American state.

[Nonny J. Nonnington III]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

Yeah, me too. Dammit.

Yeah, me three. And dammit two.

There is one SCOTUS seat vacant, and surely another in the next four years. We have lost the Executive and Legislative branches of government no matter who is elected; damned it I am going to give up Judicial without a fight. Support same sex marriage? No way that would have happened with a majority of Republican nominations on the bench. Hate Citizen's United? With a Democratic majority on the bench maybe it could be overturned.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Pere

A President can do a lot of damage. Even without formal exercises of power, a President's words and positions matter to the culture (hell, Trump has already done harm to this country that can't be easily undone, even if he loses). And the executive branch can do a lot of things all on its own, in its choices of which laws to enforce and how, and in dealings with other countries.

Like what? Honestly, what did he inject to the discourse that wasn't already present? He just brought to light the ugly underbelly of America.

Step 1 to eliminating a problem - identify and find it. Whether he meant to or not, he's given a lot of useful information to the rest of the nation along the lines of knowing what social issues need the most attention and education moving forward. We also know more about the genesis and origin of those deep-seated bigoted views.

So, Trump has not done any harm. Not yet. He may, but if we slay the dragon now, we'll be able to feast on the meat for years and emerge a better society. I just view the option of HRC becoming prez being like slaying the dragon with a poisoned dagger. We won't be able to benefit from taking down Trump because of all the shit she brings to the table.

[SmartAleq]

Trump might very well have done an unintentional service to the entire country because it's getting pretty fucking difficult these days to put on the disingenuous "who, me?" face when all the shitty racist, misogynist, arrogant know-nothingness that permeates a large contingent of our citizenry has been dragged out into the bright light and the whole world has been treated to an HDTV closeup of the baboon ass our country drags around on a daily basis. I worry more about evil that's carefully disguised as niceness and reasonableness than the screaming howling shit flinging mobs revealing themselves in all their disgusting glory. You can't walk that shit back--you can't go back to church and insist you're a good and godly person when there's YouTube footage of you screaming for your fellow citizens to be flayed alive for your enjoyment. Good luck with that. Yes, the people who always knew who you were and agreed with you won't abandon you but any decent person who might have harbored an illusion you were a basically okay person has to decide whether or not to go full asshole along with you or disavow. Sometimes polarization is a good thing.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

Like what? Honestly, what did he inject to the discourse that wasn't already present? He just brought to light the ugly underbelly of America.

Yes. Brought it out in the context of an ostensibly mainstream political campaign. Gave it an imprimatur of legitimacy and acceptance. I'm hearing more unapologetic racist bullshit, spoken in public on a routine basis, than ever before (I'm too young to personally remember the '60s and early '70s, YMMV). This is a poisonous retrogression for our culture, that bigots feel validated and minorities threatened anew. And it is embarrassing as hell in front of the rest of the world, that this asshole is a large part of our national face. It won't all be forgotten after November, if he loses; of course it all gets much worse if he wins.

[Nonny J. Nonnington III]

Originally Posted by Nonny J. Nonnington III

Yeah, me three. And dammit two.

There is one SCOTUS seat vacant, and surely another in the next four years. We have lost the Executive and Legislative branches of government no matter who is elected; damned it I am going to give up Judicial without a fight. Support same sex marriage? No way that would have happened with a majority of Republican nominations on the bench. Hate Citizen's United? With a Democratic majority on the bench maybe it could be overturned.

You know what? Screw it. Clinton is polling with about a 30 point lead over Trump in Massachusetts. My vote won't make a damn bit of difference in this state to Clinton, but a vote for Jill Stein would be symbolic. She's seen a 1000% increase in donations after Sanders endorsed Clinton, with a lot of them in $27 amounts. And she has seen hockey stick increase in Google hits. I'll keep an eye on the polls, but if it looks like it is a lock for Clinton then Stein will get my vote.

[BJMoose]

Thanks to the Electoral College system, there may be quite a few symbolic votes this time around.

[ulfhjorr]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

GWB took us into Iraq, so obviously a President can do a lot of damage.

He only did that with the help of a whole lot of Congressional idiots. HRC right there among them.

[SmartAleq]

Eh, pic won't post, fuckit.

[SurlyOldBroad]

Originally Posted by Pere

I believe Sanders to be a good man, genuinely committed to his issues before himself.

Bernie Sanders is the only politician who cares about the issues. He's not like every other politician. Democrats don't care about anyone. Only Bernie!

He wasn't dicking around; he was campaigning. Playing politics, in the best sense, with the sincere intent of advancing his agenda. It's what politicians are supposed to do, and Bernie has done it pretty well, all told.

He's advanced dick, and I am really growing sick and goddamn tired of Bernie fans pretending he invented liberalism. He doesn't have any new ideas, he's just shoutier about them and less detailed on how to get anything accomplished. He legitimately responds to detail requests almost exactly the same as Donald Trump: "Revolution!" Fair wages and banking industry regulation have long been a part of the DNC's platform and were part of HRC's policy proposals and Senate record (a real thing that exists that you can check out yourself) before Bernie, Che, God of Millennials, Dear Leader, Detail-Free, Limp-Wristed Revolutionary Sanders came along.

I'll be happy when he goes back to the Senate so he can rename some post offices while actual doers can write some policy.

[piepiepie]

TheRockClapping.gif

[Pere]

Originally Posted by SurlyOldBroad

Bernie Sanders is the only politician who cares about the issues. He's not like every other politician. Democrats don't care about anyone. Only Bernie!

Of course, this is nothing like what I said or think.

Originally Posted by SurlyOldBroad

...Senate record (a real thing that exists that you can check out yourself)... I'll be happy when he goes back to the Senate so he can rename some post offices while actual doers can write some policy.

Yes, check. Sanders' Congressional record is more substantive than his critics represent. Somewhere around here there's a post where I linked to Senate records. (I used to work for NGOs, have some friends in policy-related jobs now, so I read some fairly wonky stuff for a blue-collar guy in the boonies.)

[Pere]

More to the point, perhaps... I'm not really a Sanders fan. Not down with all his policy ideas, nor Clinton's.

I'm just a bit amazed that after the two of them came to a reconciliation that they presumably see as mutually and nationally beneficial... some of their partisans are still tearing at each other, here and elsewhere. Hillary wants Bernie & co. on board now; if you like her, why do you want to undercut that?

[SurlyOldBroad]

Originally Posted by Pere

Yes, check. Sanders' Congressional record is more substantive than his critics represent. Somewhere around here there's a post where I linked to Senate records. (I used to work for NGOs, have some friends in policy-related jobs now, so I read some fairly wonky stuff for a blue-collar guy in the boonies.)

You mean like this? Sanders is a two-trick pony, and one of his tricks (Break up the banks!!!) is absolutely bereft of detail of any kind. He hasn't introduced anything that's become law aside from the renaming of post offices because he writes shit like this: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/downlo...eg?inline=file

This is the saddest piece of legislation I have ever seen, and is legitimately his "plan" for the banking industry. Turns out the entirety of his plan was his stump speech. Ever wonder why when pressed for detail he reverts back to it? Because that's it. So please do not call Bernie Sanders a policy wonk, because that is insulting to everyone who knows what they're doing. Please show me any indication that he understands nuance or how to convert his lofty ideas into actual, tangible action.

Meanwhile, here is HRC's overview over what to do about it. Please note the addressing of the kinds of behaviors that led to the industry collapse, and concrete actions that can be taken to address them.

For comparison, Bernie. Please note pure stump speech. Btw, his first bullet point, the introduction of the Too Big To Fail Act, is what I linked to above, i.e., 3.5 pages of incoherent nonsense.

The reason I have not, even for one flash of a second, ever felt the "Bern" is not because I don't think the banking industry has run amok or consequence free, or that college costs are some combination of out of reach and financially devastating for most people; it's because Bernie doesn't have a goddamn clue what to do about it. Hillary does. I was happy to vote for her in the primary, and I'll be happy to in November. It won't be an anti-Trump vote. It'll be a straight up, legit, This Lady Knows What the Fuck She's Doing vote.

Edit: Bernie Sanders got on board and so have most of his supporters (I think latest numbers were 81%), so that's a good thing. It still rankles me when his die hards act like left-leaning causes are "his" as if the DNC and HRC didn't have a liberal platform before he showed up. And I can't even live with the idea of considering him a wonk. Where is the head exploding emoticon?

[SurlyOldBroad]

One more thing, then I'll chill: I see you said you read wonky stuff, but didn't call Bernard a wonk. I got so agitated that I forgot how to read.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by SurlyOldBroad

Please show me any indication that he understands nuance or how to convert his lofty ideas into actual, tangible action.

I dunno, I kinda figured that the point of being a leader of the executive branch meant you led others, you inspired them, you have hundreds of other people at your disposal to help put the fine point on the broad strokes. People who say things like "Well Mr/Mrs president, we can't actually do THAT, because XYZ. But to get closer to that goal we can actually do ABC, via DEF"

You know, like the way governments actually work? People working together? Having a strong leader who inspires other to positive action is a quality that myself and many others prefer in a president (the LEADER of the country) rather than someone who fills in every blank spot on the document with precisely the right piece of information.

I'd say Sander's biggest weakness is not surrounding himself with people who would fill in those blank spots with the right kind of things that attract other policymakers and senators and representatives to his ideas.

Every good writer needs an editor.

Not every good editor makes a good writer.

[SurlyOldBroad]

Well he sure has shown leadership by sitting in Congress for 25 years never passing any laws. No one says he needs to be so involved with every aspect of the presidency that he's sweeping up corners, but you'd think someone who built an entire campaign stoking populist angst and threatening to "break up the banks" would have assembled a team of advisors able to cobble together a policy more coherent than this. As of today, he is a professional lawmaker, yet the guy can't create passing legislation, if his lengthy political tenure has taught us anything. And if his presidential candidacy has taught us, he can't create a coalition of people who can at least school him on foreign policy or how to convert his giant ideas into something that can get accomplished.

Sorry, but yelling about what's wrong isn't leadership. Figuring out how to fix problems, whether you know personally or you delegate to experts, is part of the job. Bernie Sanders not knowing shit isn't a strong point, and you're going to have a hard time selling me on that argument.

I've heard the stump speech and agree with it largely in principle, but I feel very certain his presidency would have been horrifically ineffective.

[eleanorigby]

SOB, you have reinvigorated me. You see his naivety on the banks; I see his total ignorance on foreign policy--scary.

I think Bernie serves a purpose, but it is not the messianic calling of a pure leader to the enlightened, that's for sure. The man has an ego: he's in politics. This means he has to think enough of himself to think that he can actually foment or implement change--and that his notion of change is in either his best interests or the nations (it's best when these two dovetail, but they don't, sadly, all that often). Having the notion that one can actually lead and others follow means one must have a high opinion of oneself.

So, enough with the St Bernie already. Thing is, his sitting around, grousing about The State of Things in America makes for good talk radio, but it's armchair leadership. True leadership means you make compromises, you give up things that truly matter to you or your constituents; you make these deals in order to move the country forward--in incremental steps that can be agonizingly slow. That's real progress. It took decades, if not an entire century, for women to get the vote. Ditto for Civil Rights. LGBT rights only seem to have happened in a flash.

We live in a crazily complex country/world and change happens over time, often without us even realizing it (witness the general acceptance of gay marriage, despite the new GOP platform etc). Witness the number of female doctors and lawyers and how almost nobody presumes to say that women shouldn't go into those professions-but when I was a girl, it was rare. Witness female athletes running marathons, which they were not allowed to do as recently as the 1970s (might even be 1980s--not sure). Witness any number of things that show we have progressed, we are improving lives and society.

What I deplore and find concerning is this notion of Savior/St Bernie, as if all he had to do was get into the WH and all would be well in the land. The press never got their hooks into him (and I'm sure there is dirt on him. Dirt is relative. Overall, I think he's been a Senator with integrity, but every politician has some dirt. They just do). Anyhow, somehow he got a pass, but even that was not enough. I always felt like he was the dinner party guest who shows up begrudgingly, complains about the dinner provided for him, finds fault with the company, setting and general conversation, and then has to be reminded to thank his host when it's time for him to go home. Hell, he got to pick the menu and it's still not enough for him.

His prolonging until the bitter (and he was bitter, in the end) end, despite clear evidence he was NOT the chosen candidate, his tepid endorsement of HRC despite the DNC catering to his every whim, and his silence now--where is he for the Dems, now?, all of this has soured me on him. The party needs unity; we face disaster in November with Trump. I know of no other candidate in my lifetime that has acted so churlishly, so immaturely, so self-centeredly as Bernie (even Nixon showed more grace in defeat!) Frankly, I am glad he did not get the nomination because IMO he lacks the fortitude and grace to be POTUS.

Which is why he belongs in the Senate, where he can rail against "The Man" etc all he wants. Vermonters seem happy with him. Perhaps IF HE HELPS THE DNC AND HRC, we might actually see a Democratic majority Senate and House and some of his Bernie's ideas can actually come to some sort of fruition. I think that'd be good, depending on the idea.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

I always felt like he was the dinner party guest who shows up begrudgingly, complains about the dinner provided for him, finds fault with the company, setting and general conversation, and then has to be reminded to thank his host when it's time for him to go home. Hell, he got to pick the menu and it's still not enough for him.

Oh, you mean like an old curmudgeonly jew? Sounds exactly like my step-grandfather.

[JackieLikesVariety]

So, enough with the St Bernie already.

really? oh, OK, now I will vote for Clinton.

[Double A]

What exactly is so liberal about the Democratic Party? As best as I can tell, they want the status quo, which is the exact definition of conservatism. Any reform they offer is token at best.

From my perspective, status quo and the regression the Republicans offer is almost the same damn thing.