Hillary Throws Shade at Bernie: 'Fundamentally Wrong' About Democratic Party

[DonViejo]

by Joseph A. Wulfsohn | 6:00 am, September 5th, 2017

Hillary Clinton‘s new book What Happened will be released next week, but numerous excerpts from her tell-all from the 2016 election have been shared, including one about her Democratic primary rival, Bernie Sanders.

Tom Watson tweeted this page from her book.

Link to tweet

She took aim at Sanders for “impugning” her character during the primary, which she believed ultimately helped Donald Trump win in the election.

“Because we agreed on so much, Bernie couldn’t make an argument against me in this area on policy, so he had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character,” she wrote. “When I finally challenged Bernie during a debate to name a single time I changed a position or a vote because of a financial contribution, he couldn’t come up with anything. Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump’s ‘Crooked Hillary’ campaign.”

more
https://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-throws-shade-at-bernie-sanders-in-book-fundamentally-wrong-about-the-democratic-party/

[dalton99a]

1. Hillary spoke the truth

[samnsara]

3. yes, she does.....

[shenmue]

30. Yes

[stonecutter357]

67. +1000

[treestar]

78. [phone]

[Maven]

82. Yup. nt

[FarPoint]

152. We must always remember....

Hillary is the only DEMOCRAT between the two..

[yallerdawg]

185. Hillary could quote another famous Democrat...

judging from some of the responses:

"I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."

[Madam45for2923]

223. "I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."

[QC]

434. "The buck stops here."

Another classic Truman quote.

Also, "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

[yallerdawg]

439. My Truman quote applies to the campaign.

Your quotes apply to being president.

Thanks to a number of ignorant fucking jackasses, Hillary will never know the responsibilities of being Madame President.

[QC]

473. Can you really picture Truman writing a book about what meanies his opponents were?

I can't, but hey, he might well have had a side I don't know anything about.

[The Polack MSgt]

479. Truman's memoire was serialized in Life Magazine

Last edited Wed Sep 6, 2017, 08:45 AM - Edit history (1)

After he retired.

He did indeed talk about his opponents and their tactics.

So I don't need to imagine him doing that at all, he did it

[grantcart]

189. Yes she did

Even when she ran against Obama, who I supported 100%, and he said that you could achieve universal insurance coverage without a mandate I know that he was sugar coating it.

Secretary Clinton told the hard truth that a mandate would be needed.

[ehrnst]

235. Unapologetically, and without being coy or reassuring.

When women do that, men often get uncomfortable and then angry.

[Tarheel_Dem]

375. +2000

[Ken Burch]

377. Bernie had to run.

There HAD to be a candidate representing Occupy values in our primary. We'd have done even worse in the fall if the primaries had had no debate, and it can't be progressive to nominate someone without opposition.

[Native]

494. It's how he ran his campaign that is at issue, not that he ran.

[uponit7771]

391. +1

[kstewart33]

453. Dang right. Hillary you go, girl!

After all the crap you took from, well let's see:

Russia
The media including well, everyone.
Comey, twice. Love that move, about ten days before the election, Jim.
Of course, the Republicans.
And, to top it off, Bernie, the guy who wants to lead the party he refuses to join.

And you still won the popular vote!

[aikoaiko]

489. Her truth.

[Guilded Lilly]

536. Totally. And some will vilify her ten times more than they

would ANYONE else speaking the same truth.

[Gothmog]

550. Agreed

[samnsara]

2. i cant wait to read her book

[democratisphere]

4. Democrats should always vote for REAL Democrats.

[liquid diamond]

234. Truth!!!

[haveahart]

481. Only REAL Democrats should be allowed to run in our primaries.

[NurseJackie]

5. Actually, she's being honest and frank... not "throwing shade".

The adjective "throwing shade" suggests that Hillary's criticism is unfounded or undeserved. I think the author of that article should have chosen different words.

[mopinko]

10. it suggests nothing of the kind to me.

in fact, to me, the opposite is connoted.

[NurseJackie]

12. How so?

[mopinko]

24. not how i see it used.

the connotation i have is that the burn is deserved, righteous.

[NurseJackie]

42. She has expressed no contempt, insults, disgust or disrespect...

... and that's my general understanding of how "throwing shade" is defined. I simply don't see what you're seeing.

For obvious reasons, I'll refrain from expressing my opinions on whether the "burn" (as you put it) is "righteous" and "deserved".

[Hortensis]

241. It's actually her duty to write her first-person account of this huge historical event.

I wish all people could see that simple truth. Insisting that she was wrong to do so is anti-intellectual, anti-truth, even if others see the same events in other ways.

[NurseJackie]

316. From what I've seen, this is going to be a FANTASTIC first-person account. I'm very much...

.... looking forward to reading it.

[Hortensis]

371. Me too! The bits I've read are in line with what I witnessed, but I'm

Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)

hoping for a far more in-depth understanding. Studies are already published to verify what we all knew, that most media distorted their coverage specifically against her and to favor her opponents in both the primary and general.

I remember that the day there were no longer enough primary delegates available for Sanders to win the NY Times announced that he had gotten a big surge from the primary vote the day before (!). In a small-print header (smaller than ALL others on the page and farther down the page) was the required little article explaining that he now could not win the primary. No article about how Hillary essentially had it wrapped up. And the header for every piece about her was negative in tone, as usual.

Nevertheless, Sanders’ coverage during the opening stage of the primaries was the most positive of any candidate. His good press outweighed his bad press by 59 percent to 41 percent—the largest favorable margin of any of the contenders at any point in the primary season. In contrast, Clinton’s coverage tilted negative. Negative statements about her candidacy outnumbered positive ones by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent.

Why, despite prevailing in three of the four contests, was Clinton portrayed negatively? Why was she not afforded the positive coverage typically granted to a first-place finisher? The answer lies in an observation made by journalist Jules Witcover shortly after the nominating process was changed to a system of primaries and caucuses in the early 1970s. “The fact is,” he wrote, “that the reality of the early going of a presidential campaign is . . . the psychological impact of the results—the perception by press, public, and contending politicians of what has happened.”[10]

The perception that Clinton had a lock on the Democratic nomination diminished journalists’ interest in the Democratic race generally and in Sanders’ candidacy particularly.

The “psychological impact” in Trump’s case was that he was doing “better than expected,” which is a positive narrative. In Clinton’s case, the “psychological impact” was a belief that she was doing “worse than expected,” which is a negative story.

[ehrnst]

238. Anything she says about the election without apology or temerity will be called a burn. (nt)

[Hekate]

360. Or "whining," or any of the other words reserved for women.

[NurseJackie]

373. Things like "Emotional" or "Hysterical" or "Irrational"...

... it does get tiresome, doesn't it?

[Demsrule86]

487. It sure does...code for 'women'. My daughter who graduated Suma last spring did

an internship at a company that had their accounting team (only the ladies) be 'shot girls' for the partners which is fucking insulting...she had to stand at some golf hole...and hand out water while fielding lewd comments and some who pinched her ass. She was furious, and I don't blame her. People who think equality has been achieved for women are not paying attention. We are about to have to fight for the right to use birth control in the 21st century...not pay for it but be able to use it....mind boggling. Hillary Clinton was treated differently than any other candidate. She did not receive the same courtesies extended to male candidate either in the primary or in the general.

[NurseJackie]

488. And still doesn't. To this day. Right here. Right now...

... on this very forum. It's amazing AND disgusting. It infuriates me. It sickens me. (And it's always the same characters who are very clever at expressing their message without crossing lines or raising flags.)

, Demsrule86 ...

[Demsrule86]

499. Exactly right...Do you remember the poster who said...if only Sec. Clinton had remained a Senator...

he would have been fine wither her...she should have known her place of course. (sarcasm)

[treestar]

79. [phone]

She is stating her experience and observations.

[ehrnst]

199. I think the author's feelings are made very clear by that title. (nt)

[NurseJackie]

203. Please elaborate.

[Demit]

273. By author I think Ehrnst means Joseph A. Wulfsohn?

[NurseJackie]

274. Thanks.

[LisaM]

313. I agree with you. Telling the truth is not "throwing shade". n/t

[MrsCoffee]

6. Sing it!

She is 100% correct. That's all I'm allowed to say here. But I am really glad she is speaking out about it.

[DetlefK]

7. Somebody get Bernie cold water, 'cause he got burned.

[Gothmog]

8. K&R

[mcar]

9. She promised an honest assessment

Looks like she's providing it.

[RiverStone]

450. I just hope what ever she says, it helps us WIN in 2018

I presume her lessons learned and shared will be good to hear.

I'm concerned it will create more divisiveness among progressives as we desperately need a winning strategy next year.

[radical noodle]

558. The people who won't like it

aren't Democrats and would never help us win in 2018.

[Native]

495. Required reading in gender studies classes for decades no doubt.

[mcar]

497. It sure should be

[geek tragedy]

11. At least she's not bitter nt

[MrsCoffee]

13. Who wouldn't be after getting treated like that?

She devoted her entire life to the Democratic Party.

Please proceed to tell us how she should feel.

[geek tragedy]

19. Do you think she considered how these words would help

the party?

Hint: they'll do the opposite.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

33. I don't see how this helps... seems Hillary has no problem dividing the party.

We were all disappointed Hillary didn't beat the Fuhrer-in-Chief, but, why write this book?! I don't get it... it's only going to reopen old wounds.

[Perseus]

66. She is not dividing the party, on the contrary

Democrats/Progressives should take a good read at what she wrote, the divisions and lack of support Bernie and his followers gave Hillary, the derogatory comments he made during the primaries only fueled the republican party, and now we have the deplorable running the country.

The biggest problem democrats and progressives have is their disunion, Bernie should have rallied for Hillary hard, if anything to prevent the man-child from taking office, he did a disservice to the country.

Mind you, I supported Bernie Sanders, but I am not a fanatic, or one to hide my head in the sand. I remember being upset at Bernie during the primaries because of the things he said, which he did very softly, but nonetheless helped the rhetoric of the republican party, and although in that page Hillary thanks him for his support during the campaign, I thought that Bernie's support for Hillary was weak, he did not rally his base the way he should have.

Nothing is worst than what we have now, and Bernie knew that.

[left-of-center2012]

139. "derogatory comments he made during the primaries"

Typical of all primaries,
by all candidates.

[ehrnst]

214. What derogatory remarks were made at him? (nt)

[NurseJackie]

255. Boom!

[left-of-center2012]

326. Yep

I would like to post comments about Bernie bashing,
but,
well,
you know ...
I dare not.

[90-percent]

480. I agree with the above

and I've already posted too much.

-90% Jimmy

[pnwmom]

369. What isn't typical is to continue the fight all the way up to the convention when there's no

mathematical path to winning months earlier.

[ehrnst]

510. Absolutely. (nt)

[QC]

426. And he didn't refer to Bobby Kennedy's murder

when asked why he was staying in past California.

I thought that was nice.

There's a lot of selective memory here about the 2008 primary--which made this one look like Rainbow Brite's Happy Meadow--and much of it is coming from people who were outraged at the time.

[ehrnst]

527. Ah, so we're rehashing the 2008 primaries to mine for HRC bashing points.

Gotta dig deep, don't you?

[ehrnst]

529. And he certainly didn't equate himself with being the only choice

of candidates the Democrats had that would indicate they were the party of the people and not Wall Street.

[ehrnst]

216. Apparently, the need to "learn the lessons of 2016" don't extend to listening to

the candidate who actually won the popular vote.

[Hekate]

356. Preach it!

[Expecting Rain]

242. Dividing the party?

You just attacked Dianne Feinstein, a great DEMOCTAT, on another thread.

Seems hypocritical to me.

[Eko]

321. Yeah,

Because only Sanders can criticize people.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

467. If Bernie going to do things like appear with Seth Rich troofer Jimmy Dore and

continue to trash the party in speech after speech, then, by all means, she has every reason to respond.

I find it interesting that Bernie could call her every name in the book, but the second she hits back, the media and the poor widdle Busters start whining.

[ehrnst]

530. The continuing double standard... (nt)

[Demsrule86]

486. When you have former Sanders supporters like Nina Turner running an organization that primaries

sitting Democrats...and has announced that they are open to supporting Republican candidates...who attack Democrats and the party on a regular basis, you have division. Time to fight back and not cave to those who will sure cause us to lose in 18 and 20.

[MrsCoffee]

36. Oh please.

That whataboutism ain't gonna fly.

She has every right to tell the truth and she should. You can't accuse her of being responsible for the results of Bernie's actions just because she dare speak up. I'm sick to death of this vilification of Hillary from people who twist themselves in knots to defend the spoiler.

There are many lessons to be learned from listening to the truth she speaks. The bitterness lies in those who continue to vilify her.

[The Polack MSgt]

75. +1 damn million

Well said

[geek tragedy]

77. Truth is a subjective thing.

She no doubt believes all of the criticisms she launches at Sanders in that book.

But this seems a lot more like excuse-making and grudge-settling than it does conduct by someone who thinks of herself as a party leader.

[NurseJackie]

104. LOL!

[KTM]

109. Yup.

Looks like someone is back to being the chief PUMA representative.

[mcar]

116. You've read the whole book?

[The Polack MSgt]

170. Truth is NOT a "subjective thing"

Reality is itself, not what you wish it would be.

She praises Senator Sanders for what she sees as praise worthy and criticizes him for his actions that turned out to harm the campaign.

But you know what does look like "excuse-making and grudge-settling"?

The replies on this thread right here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029506370

[geek tragedy]

175. Perceptions of reality are very much subjective.

Politics is not physics.

[Hekate]

364. "I was walking down the street minding my own business when someone jumped me and stole my purse...

"I tried to hold on to it, but he broke my wrist and when I yelled he planted his fist on my jaw. See, officer, I have the deep bruises and abrasions, and the broken bone. What? You want my ID? It's in my purse. Which was stolen."

The above is what we call a story, but of the analogy kind. If it were real, bruises and all, how much of it would be "very much subjective"?

Or is this a case of "a lot of violence on all sides"?

You see, the Democratic Party was walking along in broad daylight trying to win an election, seats in the House and Senate, the Presidency, all that. The Party (not just one candidate) was set upon by gangs of thugs (Russians, hackers, and more) and an awful lot of people stood by and just watched it happen (the media, Bernie Bros, Sarandon, et al.). Some even cheered the thugs on, just on general principles.

Nothing to see here, just move along, it's all subjective, no lessons to be learned from the principal victim, and besides, there were some very fine people among the thugs and a lot of violence on all sides.

It's all subjective, unlike physics.

Physics, by the way, has a branch called Quantum.

[geek tragedy]

366. Are you claiming Bernie Sanders mugged Hillary Clinton?

Not sure what Russia, hackers et al have to do with the latest broadside from Clinton against Sanders.

[Hekate]

367. No, but if you can't understand it's because you won't understand

[geek tragedy]

372. The subject is Clinton airing grievances from the 2016 primary.

Not Russia, or hackers, or Comey.

[Hekate]

398. You poor soul. Russia, Putin, hackers, Comey, RNC, vote suppression: those WERE the 2016 election

But you are going to cling to your bitter illusions about the faults of Hillary and her supporters till your dying gasp, aren't you?

She still won by 3,000,000 votes over Trump, despite the worst they could throw at her.

But you are going to fight to your last gasp to deny (as you put it) objective reality and facts. I feel sorry for you.

JURY: I am not trying to be personally insulting. At this point, I do feel sorry for this person. I will not engage him/her further in this thread.

[geek tragedy]

422. no need to engage in personal insults

I was a supporter of Clinton in the 2016 election, including the primary.

Again, nothing you mention above in any way has a rational connection to, let alone justifies, her taking potshots at Senator Sanders in 2017.

[ehrnst]

532. She certainly refrained in 2016, unlike opponents.

And those people still keep taking potshots with impunity.

She simply gives a candid, personal account of what she was thinking, and the long knives come out, and she's the one whose called "divisive."

She dares to show her face and the gnashing of teeth starts. She takes time off and the same people point and say, "Where is she?? She was never a REAL leader."

[geek tragedy]

535. She's complaining about Sanders behaving like a more responsible version of Hillary 2008.

Remember the "kitchen sink" strategy?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/clinton-camp-throws-sink-_1_n_89236.html

Praising John McCain to attack Obama, talking about how Obama was unpopular with "hard working Americans, white Americans", 3 am phone calls, etc etc.

She of all people lacks standing to whine about someone using rough tactics in a primary.

[ehrnst]

544. So, tell us how does that help in 2017? Which is now?

I guess 2015 is on the table:

"You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”

“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”

“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’

[geek tragedy]

548. Reminder that I was a fairly strident voice for Clinton and against Sanders in 2016 primary.

But, 2016 is over.

Just like 2008 was over in 2009.

And 2004 was over in 2005.

[ehrnst]

565. So how do you explain the Dems saying that they need to retool their message?

If 2016 is over, and needs to be forgotten?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

559. Leading and unifying is one thing... complaining and dividing is another.

I do think, with this book, Hillary (unfortunately) falls into the latter category.

[ehrnst]

566. There doesn't seem to be a moratorium on complaining and dividing

on the side of others who are still in public office, and it's called "leadership" when they do it.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/23/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-brand-bad-anderson-cooper-cnntv/index.html

I think that if those who don't like her were ever going to tolerate her saying anything, it would start with 3 chapters of apologies and sel-flogging, and end with 4 chapters on why Bernie "was right."

But it's her book, it was her campaign, and anything she does or says is shot down by someone.


The exerpts I've seen totally describe what I saw, but I suppose actually talking about them is way, way more divisive....

God forbid Democrats might have something to learn from her experience....

[ehrnst]

531. Nice try to play coy. Not very convincing, though. (nt)

[ehrnst]

246. Well, she was there. We weren't. She had a front row seat.

And since when have "party leaders" needed to even be in the party, let alone be required deliver niceties, and withold their opinion about the last election?

[geek tragedy]

259. Party leaders have responsibility to unify party

even if it means foregoing opportunity to air grievances.

[geek tragedy]

344. Sanders himself is not doing that.

Candidates are responsible for their own behavior.

[comradebillyboy]

413. People like Nina Turner, who runs Sanders' PAC

are doing that. People Sanders appointed to the Unity Commission as well.

[geek tragedy]

419. call me crazy, but I think Clinton should be held to higher standard than Cornel West nt

[ehrnst]

509. In what way? Can you clarify what standard metrics you are talking about? (nt)

[geek tragedy]

512. I expect Cornel West to sow discord and try to reopen old wounds and tear the party apart. nt

[ehrnst]

526. So you're saying that Hillary is below "sowing discord and trying to reopen old wounds and tear

the party apart?"

And this isn't above that?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democrats-nebraska.html?_r=0

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/317770-sanders-reopens-dem-primary-wounds

Can you explain the difference?

[geek tragedy]

528. I criticized Sanders for that when he did it.

Nobody should be above criticism when they behave foolishly.

But the question "how does it help to bash Sanders and his supporters in September 2017?" doesn't have an obvious answer, does it?

[ehrnst]

540. How does it help the Democrats to forget what factors led to where we are now

and not learn from the person in the front row?

I assume the only way that she's allowed to talk about the election is if it doesn't include the slightest anything at all negative about Sanders, when Sanders was and is, clearly, under no such code of niceness for the good of the party that he isn't a member of.

I keep hearing, "Clinton is the past, and Bernie is the future of the party," so why even bother with what the little lady has to gossip about?

Either she doesn't know what she's talking about, or she wields the sword that can cleave the Dems in twain, with but a lash of her tongue or a paragraph of her grimoire. I hear Goody Proctor saw her strike a man impotent with a mere cackle...

She wrote a book, and a lot of people who always wanted her to shut up and go away are up in arms. I'm glad she did, because she had the grace and the class not to go low, and I wanted to know what she was thinking.

[geek tragedy]

546. Well, that's the thing, she hasn't renounced her status as a party leader, and seems to still think

of herself as a power broker.

I can tell you from my social media feed lots of Clintonians have taken her book as a cue to bash Sanders and Sanders supporters.

It's one thing to say "yeah I thought Sanders was being unrealistic" it's quite another to use campaign-style rhetoric against him.

Clinton's book reads like she's still trying to fight the primary.

Sore winner is rarely a good look.

[ehrnst]

549. Almost as bad as sore loser, who gets a shiv in whenever possible.

I can tell you from my social media feed that lots of Sandernistas have taken the fact that selected paragraphs from her book as a cue to tell her to SHUT THE FUCK UP, and die already!! She's GONE, go back to the woods!!

You think that she should take up knitting, fold up that evil foundation and go away, instead of acting like she's some sort of inspiration, or has the ability to affect change. You mean like Al Gore did?

But still not clear In what way has she "not renounced her status as party leader" You mean in the sense that she is a former Sec of State, and still a Democrat and has not stated that she is taking the veil of widowhood of the party? Or that she behaves as though she has something to say to people while being a Democrat?

Are you saying that she was a party leader before she ran for President, during that time after being SoS, and before the campaign? And that she should relinquish that leadership role?

She hasn't been given a role in the DNC, or the DCCC, so I guess I'm not clear on what you mean when you say that. Other than appearing in public as a Democrat and not apologizing.

Can you clarify?

[Ninsianna]

327. It is such a shame that people who are on "Unity tours" after inviegling themselves into

leadership positions in parties they have abandoned (despite making promises to stay in the party) shirk that responsibility so that they can "air their grievances" and divide the party whose voters ultimately rejected them.

Hillary, a private citizen, is giving her account, which the party has been asking her to do. Trying to silence her while allowing other "party leaders" to deliberately attack and divide the party is simply more evidence that her grievances are very real and deserve an airing. It's in studying what happened that we correct the flaws. Not forcefully confronting the dirty tricks was a mistake, allowing in people who are not members of the party and whose goals are not to advance the party was a mistake. It's a lesson we need to learn.

[RiverStone]

452. If correcting the flaws help us win next year, then air em!

There is plenty of blame to go around, with the bulk resting with tRump + Russia.

[Ninsianna]

561. That's what the book is about, airing them is good.

Agreed there is plenty of blame to go around, but let's look at what happened first and then assign blame later.

So many were eager for Hillary to self immolate and take all the blame, and they're so forgetful about everything else and so sensitive about looking at all factors.

Politics is ugly, and the purity politics of last year was no exception, what was new was the online harassment, that was spread wide.

I remember being swarmed for simply asking someone why they were using the right wing name calling when they were supposed to be non-Wingers. I think they used the term "killary" and I got attacked. By people I had been having nice conversations with on another platform. It was like they'd gone rabid or something. Actual frothing! One devolved into posting nothing but really rude F bombs over and over.

The behavior was disgusting and really overwhelming, and it was denied, despite ample evidence to the contrary. We really need to look at what caused it and what do to about it.

[ehrnst]

500. You mean like bashing the Democratic party concerning the election?

That gets a pass, I guess...

[geek tragedy]

513. Clinton bashed the DNC plenty when 'explaining' why she lost nt

[ehrnst]

524. When? (nt)

[geek tragedy]

525. example

https://www.recode.net/2017/6/3/15734856/democrats-dnc-clinton-tech-data-criticism-code-2017

[Hekate]

399. Katy Tur had a front row seat as well, and I ordered her book last night, along with Hillary's.

Can hardly wait to read them both.

[ehrnst]

250. So is the description "taking a swing at him." (nt)

[obnoxiousdrunk]

92. +1 . n/t

[smirkymonkey]

94. +1000

[cwydro]

141. Yes.

[Hortensis]

204. +1000. "She has every right to tell the truth and she should."

[ehrnst]

218. +1000 (nt)

[uponit7771]

392. +1

[LanternWaste]

53. An accurate observation is often misinterpreted as "the opposite of help."

An accurate observation is often misinterpreted as "the opposite of help."

[geek tragedy]

80. "accurate" being the key.

[brush]

136. A few short memories around here. Someone constantly attacked the Democratic Party establishment...

throughout the campaign, and it wasn't Hillary.

[ehrnst]

247. True this. (nt)

[Amimnoch]

256. exactly. nt.

[Ninsianna]

334. This is accurate, that seems to be what's upseting people.

[geek tragedy]

340. People who think Clinton generally can do no wrong

do generally also agree that everything she says is accurate.

[Ninsianna]

357. People who think, generally are able to assess accuracy.

Those who don't seem to be quite upset. You see this with the Wingers all the time. They insist that facts are wrong because they have a raging hatred for the person stating them, just look at their attacks on Clinton and Obama for instance. Those who generally froth at the mention of political foes who they do not like for reasons that are blatantly obvious have trouble with assessing anything. They often say stuff like this, and it's laughably wrong and desperate.

Generally emulating the right wingers is not a great thing to do.

[geek tragedy]

363. I would apply this standard to people who keep on hating on Bernie Sanders nt

[murielm99]

110. Projection, gk.

Why are you doing that?

[ehrnst]

156. Her being honest "hurts the party?"

Hint: No one has said that about Sanders' words directly about the party.

[NurseJackie]

163. WHY IS IT that when Hillary...

... is expressing her observations/opinions on the race, it's characterized as "divisive and harmful" for the party and for Democrats' 2018 prospects; but, when "other people" choose to engage in high-profile smearing and denigrating of Democrats and the party itself, that behavior is not considered to be "divisive and harmful"?

Everyone else gets to speak freely and openly EXCEPT for Hillary??

That doesn't seem fair, does it?

It's a double-standard, isn't it?

[ehrnst]

213. I have an idea... (nt)

[geek tragedy]

168. In these excerpts she is. Even blaming him for her loss

to Tr*mp.

Either she's a no-holds barred author airing past grievances or a party leader.

Can't be both.

[ehrnst]

240. You read into it what wasn't there.

And why are those conflicting?

Others who lost in 2016 are give no-holds barred assements of the election, and being called party leaders, even though they aren't in the party.

[WhiteTara]

245. He damn sure didn't help her.

She is no longer in politics. Remember? She is a private citizen now. She was defeated in her election bid and isn't a party leader. He is and constantly says how terrible the party is.

Thank you Hillary.

[geek tragedy]

345. Okay, so she's not a party leader but in the Senate

he is. He lead the Democratic opposition to the ACA by getting Trumpcare provisions stripped from the reconciliation bill.

[WhiteTara]

443. We'll see what he does.

I don't have much hope based on his previous records.

[Ninsianna]

330. Actually, no. She's pointing out facts, that some people have trouble with.

She can indeed be both, frankly she NEEDS to be both. There is some truth telling and some confrontations with unpleasant facts that are required to lead this party and to fight against Trump.

Demanding she shut up and not ever speak of what happened is a sure way to repeat these failures.

She MUST be both and she is. It might be hard but ALL of the dirty laundry must be aired and we must confront what happened. That will be more painful for some, but we cannot cater to the delicate sensibilities of those who don't bother with any consideration for anyone else's sensibilities.

[Bradshaw3]

198. Not just the party

We'll have dozens if not hundreds of threads and thousands of bitter posts on here about this. At a time where we should be talking about how to elect Democrats.

[LovingA2andMI]

287. This Right Here

But let us just continue to debate about Election 2016, when Trump is destroying the last Democratic President Barack Obama Legacy, in the White House.....

[geek tragedy]

347. Just remember, nothing is ever Hillary Clinton's fault nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

474. Yayyyy, someone gets it... thank you!!!

[pangaia]

14. ooppsssiee

[riversedge]

61. I really do not see bitterness in that excerpt.

[geek tragedy]

71. "Impugn my character" ... "disrupt the party"

Going out of her way to take swings at Sanders. No need to take liberties with his motivations in order to tell her own story.

[NurseJackie]

81. It's factual and demonstrable. She's not addressed anyone's "motivations". She is ...

... she is not "taking liberties" nor "taking swings".

[geek tragedy]

85. "Disrupt the party" is editorializing not description.

[riversedge]

87. Still not bitterness when reaching a conclusion based on her experience.

[Demsrule86]

89. The party has been 'disrupted' and it continue even today.

[NurseJackie]

95. Splitting hairs doesn't strengthen your argument. Especially when such "editorializing" can be...

... easily demonstrated to be true. She's right on target with that description.

I understand that her truthful words can be painful for some people to read, or perhaps even embarrassing for others. But it serves to good purpose to be so dismissive of what she has to say.

[ehrnst]

248. I remember those things. If talking about them is "taking swings" at someone

that's one perception.

She was talking about the results of his words and actions.

[Ninsianna]

333. No liberties were taken, she's simpy stating facts. No need to go out of her way to

state what happened, but that seems to be disturbing some people for some reason.

[geek tragedy]

341. Again, just because you agree with an opinion

does not make it a fact.

[Ninsianna]

361. Again, just because you don't like a fact, it doesn't change what it is, nor does it

make it inaccurate. There seems to be some issue with understanding what a fact is, those who are really upset about facts they don't like seem to need to deny them. We see this often with Trumpkins, it's like a defense mechanism or something.

[geek tragedy]

362. No, having taken coursework in epistemology, I fully understand

how people confuse assertions of fact vs actual facts.

[Ninsianna]

562. It's one of those things, where you might have taken coursework and understand how

"people" in the abstract confuse things, but it's a bit harder to realize or understand when one is confused themselves. That seems to be an issue here.

Lots of assertions, but no actual understanding of actual facts. Step back and examine your notes from the coursework and how it applies to you. It's often the difference in learning about something like a pathology and recognizing it in yourself when you've got the disease.

[uponit7771]

393. I agree with the facts that formed her opinion ... facts matter

[geek tragedy]

423. it's always someone else's fault with some politicians nt

[uponit7771]

424. When the facts point to it being someones else's fault then it is no? I mean, what are we supposed

... to do say climate change does NOT exist or that the grass isn't green?

We're the facts crew no?

tia

[geek tragedy]

427. The Buck Stops --- over there, with Bernie? nt

[uponit7771]

456. If that's where it stops, I'm not into taking accountability for something someone else did that's

... not honest either.

Yes, its MOSTLY the republicans fault US politics is so poison and I think the Clinton wasn't at fault of that primary becoming so poison either.

On the loss its Russia (their hacking voter roles), Comey (538 poll analysis after the announcement) and voter suppression.

Clinton made mistakes but didn't make big enough mistakes to lose to Benedict Donald.

[ehrnst]

534. I think that you may be unclear on the difference between

explanation and excuse, and confuse the two when it comes to HRC.

To deny that Sanders played a part in getting us to where we are now would be incorrect. To say that he was a part of it isn't blaming him, it's explaining in part why we are where we are.

Is that clearer?

[geek tragedy]

537. Let's pretend I wasn't born yesterday and can tell the difference between dispassionate

analysis and self-serving narrative.

"Bernie and I were just the same on policy, except mine were more honest and responsible. Also, he was too mean to me."

Come on.

[ehrnst]

538. "I am proud to be a Democrat and I wish Bernie were, too."

Yeah, that's tearing him apart...

And yeah, she was right about him in what she said in the book, and she refrained from saying it at the time, which is far more responsible than saying only one candidate was ethical, and represented people and not Wall Street, even when the time for campaigning had ended.

Let's not pretend we don't know what was said, and by whom.

[geek tragedy]

539. Again, that sounds like a winning line in a primary debate.

Unfortunately, it's 2017.

I'm sure she has a bunch of stuff she now wishes she had said during the primary.

But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to say it now.

Seems kind of like a "Jerk store" thing.

[ehrnst]

542. The time to learn is the present. Which is 2017.

And since she was wise not to say what she was thinking in 2016, and it's "not useful" in 2017, I guess there really isn't a good time for her to write a book, is there?

Are you saying that we have nothing to learn from her that's relevant, or that what we have to learn isn't really what you want discussed?

As I have been splained many times on DU concerning HRC, "Just because you don't want to hear it, doesn't mean that it's irrelevant."

I understand that Bernie isn't peeved:

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/349423-sanders-brushes-off-clinton-criticism-look-forward-and-not-backward

I think that the "Not 'useful' in 2017" is more of a "Jerk Store" thing.

[geek tragedy]

543. other than feeding Clinton partisans' sense of righteousness, what does it accomplish? nt

[Native]

498. Can you guys please give it a rest and spare us from revisiting this bullshit - some of us have PTSD

from all the infighting during the campaign.

[geek tragedy]

514. I fully agree. Too bad Clinton disagrees nt

[Native]

518. OMGSeriously?

[geek tragedy]

519. Yes. She bashed Sanders and blamed him for her own loss in November.

Said he was too mean to her during the primary.

[Native]

554. That's not how I read it. Btw - I was referring to your response. LOL

[LovingA2andMI]

84. You Think....

Sounds like a bitter Bernie Pill was choked on by this passage.

Also, this is why Trump is in the White House as Hillary could not see past her bitter Bernie Pill to acknowledge that all she needed to beat Donald Trump was offering Bernie Sanders the Vice President slot. This would have secured the Millenials following Bernie Sanders to the Moon and back. They would not have voted for Jill Stein, Trump (in some sad cases there), Johnson or not at all -- and those votes would have been Hillary Clinton's instead.

Ego and the "Bernie Bros" BS is a LARGE PART why Donald Trump is in the White House. When it comes to winning at all costs to keep an Insane, Racist, Idiot out of the Oval, one does what they need to do --- and in this case, it would have been for Hillary Clinton to swallow her Bitter Bernie Pill and offer Bernie the V.P. Slot.

If she did, Trump would be in New York City somewhere instead of Washington, D.C. right now. Those are the FACTS!

[seaglass]

188. You have an odd definition of facts. Could not find one factual sentence in your post. n/t

[LovingA2andMI]

281. There's PLENTY of Facts In The Post....

They fail to satisfy "your world view" of Election 2016, so you fail to understand them. Typical....

[seaglass]

342. Doesn't matter what my "world view" is, opinions are still not facts. n/t

[LoveMyCali]

252. Just wondering

Would Bernie have been obligated to choose Hillary as his VP to pacify her supporters or could he choose the person he thought he'd have a good working relationship with? Seems there are a lot of things people think Hillary should have done that don't apply to anyone else.

[LovingA2andMI]

284. Yes.....That Good Working "Relationship" with Tim Kaine who Nearly No One...

Outside of Virginia knew, came out with the result of Trump in the Oval. However, relationships can be everything.....

[LoveMyCali]

291. The working relationship is not to blame

It's the attitudes like yours where instead of listening to them during the campaign or reading up and informing themselves people choose "The Celebrity Apprentice" because they've seem him on TV.

[LovingA2andMI]

292. "Attitudes Like Mines"

-- Must be that "Gen X African-Americans Fall In Line" BS Again. No thanks, as we will continue to walk our on way.

[LoveMyCali]

296. How do you come up with that?

I have no idea what your age, race or gender is so the BS is coming directly from you.

[LovingA2andMI]

299. Easily.....

Next....

[ehrnst]

502. So you blame the Trump on Kaine as VP?

[Demit]

285. Great point! I hope you get a response from the person you asked.

Edited to add: I see your point got ducked.

[ehrnst]

503. Indeed. (nt)

[radical noodle]

451. Sanders did not want to be VP

and she was under no obligation to choose him, any more than Obama was obligated to choose Hillary to be his VP. I suspect, if she had won, she would have offered him a position in the cabinet that he would have wanted.

If this is what kept "Bernie Bros" from voting for her, then they obviously didn't think very far ahead. It was a spite vote for them and Democrats remember.

[LovingA2andMI]

463. And Tim Kaine equaled....

Trump in the White House. Period. Hope some folks sleeps better at night justifying her action here because many do not.

[The Polack MSgt]

496. So - around a quarter of Sanders voters in the primaries abandoned Clinton in the General

Half of those folks voted for TRUMP - in numbers that exceed his winning margins in PA and WI and MI, your second love evidently

Bernie or Busters were a key piece of the coalition that elected fascism.

BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T GET YOUR ASS KISSED HARD ENOUGH? Really?

Seems that old Hillary voters are not the ones who should change their ways cousin. People aligned with you elected trump, with out them he would be in New York.

And Tim Kaine equaled....

Trump in the White House. Period.

No, people who voted for trump are why he is the POTUS

[LovingA2andMI]

501. Here The Reply To The Ass Kissing You Stated Above....

Our Ass and All Body Parts Are Just Fine But America Is All The More WORST By Donald Trump In The White House.

Who should we thank for that? Just Sanders Primary voters or decisions still made AFTER Sanders endorsed the Candidate at the Top of the Ticket who still barely could be bothered to show up in Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania?

Oh and before you state another unverified "let's throw spaghetti on the wall and hope it sticks comment" about how supposedly 25% of Sanders Primary voters "failed" (BS) to vote for the Top of the Dem Ticket in the General-- let's see why a Michigan Democratic Congresswoman, Debbie Dingell (Former U.S. House Dean - the Honorable John Dingell's Wife) thinks Hillary lost Michigan....

DINGELL: You know, I was one of the people that said that this state was competitive, so I wasn't totally surprised by what happened last night. But no, clearly it was not a good night. I think there was a lot of anger among many voters, particularly union households.

There was also a lack of enthusiasm. I really believe that the American people are tired of partisan politics, that they are still very much feeling the economic scars of the 2008 crisis. They don't feel like anybody cares about them in either party.

SIEGEL: But when you say lack of enthusiasm, does that reflect on the candidate? Was Hillary Clinton just not that good a candidate in Michigan?

DINGELL: I think it was all - both candidates, to be - if I were to be perfectly frank. They're mad at everybody. They see partisan bickering. They don't see people working together to find solutions. Detroit turnout was down 10 percent. Flint turnout was down. So there were a number of factors.

SIEGEL: Flint of course nowadays is synonymous with the terrible water crisis. If people there didn't see any clear response from government, one can understand anger in that case.

DINGELL: A lot of anger there. Their water got poisoned. They want somebody to fix it.

SIEGEL: Is there a chronic problem for the Democrats with white, working-class voters? Has the relationship between the party and that very, very large bloc in the population - has it been broken?

DINGELL: I don't know that it's broken, but we as Democrats have to take a very strong look at what happened. People don't view Democrats as always been there for working men and women. Or what does it mean? Who's really going to fight for them?

I will tell you that I, for a year, have said to people - well, more than a year - I told Dennis Williams, the president of the UAW, a year ago after spending August at union picnics we had a problem.

SIEGEL: Were you getting a satisfactory answer? Oh, I see; you have a problem; we'd better get more resources deployed to Michigan or send more people.

DINGELL: I think that it took a while to - people I think took Michigan for granted. People didn't necessarily listen to me at first to be perfectly frank. But it wasn't just Michigan. It wouldn't have mattered if they had done some of the things that they did do in the last week which did energize bases and address the complacency.

What you saw in Michigan is what happened in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and other Midwest states, which is why we have to look at what working men and women, union workers feel about who's fighting for them, who understands their issues, who understand how they feel.

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501476912/rep-debbie-dingell-on-clinton-loss-people-took-michigan-for-granted

Thanks Congresswoman Debbie Dingell for speaking that truth.

An #FYI this is why Trump is in the White House The Polack MSgt -- not the mystery supposed 25% of Sanders voters in the Primary that proof like the Magic Dragon -- supposedly "disappeared" on Her in the General Election.

[ehrnst]

505. Interestingly, Clinton got the voters who voted on economic anxiety...

DT got the voters with cultural anxiety.

While the analysis pointed to some interesting patterns around economic status, more research is needed to confirm them. The findings contrast with much of the coverage of the election: People who said their finances are only in fair or poor shape were nearly twice as likely to support Clinton compared to those who feel more economically secure.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/white-working-class-trump-cultural-anxiety/525771/

[The Polack MSgt]

511. Not made up or mysterious in any way

Original article on The Wire is behind a pay wall, here is the Rawstory synopsis and some follow up tweets from the author.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/08/bernie-sanders-voters-helped-trump-become-president/

BLUF:

77% voted Clinton
12% - averaged from WI, MI and PA voted for Trump. the rates ran from 9% - 16%
3% did not vote and 8% voted third party or wrote in Sanders

The number of your brethren who voted Trump exceeded the margin of victory in each of those three states.

Don't know what else to say.

I do not believe that the reason so many Sanders voters preferred Trump had anything to do the VP pick.

[LovingA2andMI]

515. Sure you don't...

However, Congresswoman Dingell spoke the facts and nothing but for Michigan -- Along with Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Three states that Hillary Lost which cost her the Oval.

Three States she barely Campaigned in after the Primary despite doing a Rally with Lebron James in Ohio the night before the election which was totally a waste of time as Ohio was #AlreadyLostToHer. Despite not offering an OLIVE BRANCH to the candidate that gave her a "run for her money" in the Primary Election and it sure was not Martin O' Malley -- BERNIE SANDERS -- an opportunity for the V.P. Slot.

Here's the skinny on that:

Bernie would have likely TURNED IT DOWN allowing her to pick whoever she wanted for the V.P. Even if was Tim Kaine it would not have resulted in a "Who Is Tim Kaine?" moment that definitely occurred.

However, Hillary could have bragging rights, she offered it.

Meanwhile, the disaffected millennials would have less angst about supporting her. Add that OLIVE BRANCH to actually campaigning for her life (or Presidency) depended on it in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in the General Election -- there would be NO RACIST DONALD TRUMP in the White House Today.

But --- Her Ego and picking Tim Kaine as the V.P. (Again, who is Tim Kaine?) is exactly why we have Trump.

The Olive Branch and Bernie turning it down (which we believe he would have) were all that was needed along with strong campaigning in the Midwest - to change our reality right now.

Those are the facts.

[The Polack MSgt]

517. Her VP pick rather than actual votes cast for Trump are the issue

Got it.

[LovingA2andMI]

520. Actually, no you don't...

However, the facts have been presented and you choose to ignore them..... Got it.

[ehrnst]

504. You blame Trump on Kaine as VP? Seriously? (nt)

[radical noodle]

557. Nonsense

Are you going to seriously tell me that Bernie would have picked Hillary for his VP? Of course not.

[disillusioned73]

490. Dang.. truth bomb @ DU..;)

[LovingA2andMI]

508. Thank You....

[ehrnst]

219. I know - if she had just gone away and stayed, we'd be spared her less than apologetic

and perky observations.

[BainsBane]

322. Certainly not in comparison to many

who have trashed her since the election.

[nini]

441. We should all be bitter and pissed off

Look at the shit storm we're in now.

[geek tragedy]

447. That's not Sanders's fault nt

[ehrnst]

507. But who benefits from it? (nt)

[Sancho]

15. She is absolutely correct...

and actually being nice to Bernie.

[NurseJackie]

20. I admire her for that. She's a much better person that I am.

[hueymahl]

40. Yep

It is hard to take the high ground and be a good person, but the best of us can do it.

[George II]

17. She is being kind, considering what the men did to her.

[BeyondGeography]

18. I voted for her over Bernie but how sad would that primary have been without him?

Seriously.

The only reason he jumped in is Warren didn't run and there was no competition coming from the left at all. The Democratic Party created a huge void and he filled it. The proof is how well he performed at the polls and the excitement he generated at his rallies.

So I disagree with Hillary. He wasn't a disruptor, he was an enabler, but not the kind you think. He enabled Democrats to see all the people they were failing to reach with a field that consisted of HRC, O'Malley, Webb, Chaffee and whatever other bits and bobs were out there before Bernie. Turns out it was a lot, however annoying some of you might find Bernie.

[KTM]

48. +100

There's the truth, and its sad more people dont see it. Hopefully the Party learns the correct lesson from that experience.

[azmom]

86. I still have hope.

“Hope” is the thing with feathers
By Emily Dickinson
“
Hope” is the thing with feathers -
That perches in the soul -
And sings the tune without the words -
And never stops - at all -

And sweetest - in the Gale - is heard -
And sore must be the storm -
That could abash the little Bird
That kept so many warm -

I’ve heard it in the chillest land -
And on the strangest Sea -
Yet - never - in Extremity,
It asked a crumb - of me.

[Demsrule86]

56. I don't see it that way...

[BainsBane]

96. You voted for her in the primary?

Then why does every post you leave to me expresses anger over my own choice? Why not direct that anger toward yourself instead of me?

[BeyondGeography]

111. My anger is at her performance in the General, which had a lot to do with the result n/t

[ehrnst]

253. What specifically? (nt)

[BeyondGeography]

257. Didn't see her much in August, but I'm sure that Hey Jude celeb singalong was cool

and check out the neat photo booth stuff with Timberlake:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising.html

[BainsBane]

286. And why spew at me?

Do you think I ran her campaign? I'm no more responsible for that than you are, so knock it off.

[BeyondGeography]

293. Lol; knock what off? You were responding to me

[BainsBane]

305. In this instance

Not in the dozen of others in which you lambasting me for voting for Hillary Clinton.

[ehrnst]

155. Warren enthusiastically supported HRC, as I remember. (nt)

[BeyondGeography]

169. Warren would have been a better candidate than Bernie, IMO

Perhaps she'll run in 2020 when we'll hopefully have a much better field to choose from than was the case last year.

[ehrnst]

195. So why did she endorse Hillary? Since you brought up the fact that she was

from the left.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

560. I do hope Elizabeth runs... she would be a force to reckon with.

And she would take the Fuhrer-in-Chief apart, issue by issue, with such ease - being comfortable in her own progressive skin - it would be so much fun to watch!!

[Amimnoch]

260. It was an incumbent party, but not incumbent candidate year.

The very fact that all of the other viable candidates out there actively decided not to engage in a contentious primary should have been a clue. What? Did everyone think that all of the other viable potential primary candidates just felt like sitting it out?? It was smart politics NOT to have a contentious primary for us in 2016, and the field of potential Democratic Party candidates both knew and respected it.

Not since FDR has the Democratic Party held the office for more than the 2 consecutive terms, and the Republican Party has broken that mold only 1 time (with Bush Sr. in 1988).

The only reasons that 2016 was even a potential year was the strength of the Democratic Party President leaving office, combined with the Republicans fielding such a horrendous candidate.

I can see your point, but respectfully would have rather had the "sad primary" and have a Democratic Party POTUS right about now.

[BeyondGeography]

267. The thought that Bernie opened lines of attack that Trump never would have pursued is laughable

In fact, not that it was his main goal, but he gave her a chance to better prepare for the main event. Not his fault that she didn't make the most of the opportunity.

[BainsBane]

324. In another excerpt

She talks about how Obama held her back from criticizing Bernie so as not to alienate his base. That turned out to be a mistake, but she was thinking about the good of the party.

[BeyondGeography]

355. Alternatively, it was bad advice but she took it

She said she felt like she was in a straitjacket. If that was her gut feeling she should have gone her own way and spoken her mind. But, unfortunately, tentativeness has always been one of her issues. As a result, the costs of Bernie's programs were never properly vetted so some of his voters who may have otherwise been salvageable ended up voting their illusions. Who knows. That was bad advice from Obama IMO but no law said she had to take it.

[BainsBane]

359. Absolutely

and I agree that being overly tentative has been a problem for her. Though it's also possible that if she had spoken her mind as she might have liked all these years, she would have never gotten the nomination. The fact is women don't have the same luxury men do, and it has nothing to do with ideology. Look how much more poorly Liz Warren polls that Bernie. Her numbers are lower than Clinton's and about half of what Hillary's were before she ran for president.

[BeyondGeography]

368. Undeniably true

Would that we lived in a more grown-up country. But be yourself and leave your best game on the field. If the cost is defeat maybe your time is best spent elsewhere. At least you're on firmer ground as a person whatever the result. I watched all of the convention closely on CSPAN where you could actually hear real people whose lives she had touched and if you didn't come away admiring and respecting HRC you might not be a Democrat. But she just wasn't able to translate all of her good works and intelligence into as many votes as she needed. It's nothing short of tragic, but she does bear primary responsibility for that. It doesn't say good things about America but she needed to be a better candidate. This was winnable.

[Amimnoch]

343. Well hello there strawman.

Never made that claim at all. Perhaps you might reflect on why your thoughts went instantly to that defense?

Stating that engaging in a contentious primary in an incumbent party, but not incumbent candidate year is not the same as claiming that Bernie opened lines of attack that Trump never would have.

I'll respectively decline taking that bait.

[QC]

418. Surely you don't believe that such a shy and retiring man as Donald Trump

would dream of impugning the honor of a lady unless someone put him up to it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

21. "We agreed on so much"... yes, because Hillary adopted many of Bernie's progressive positions...

which helped her become a better candidate. I hope Hillary also acknowledges this in her book.

[geek tragedy]

22. Hope in one hand ... nt

[AtheistCrusader]

121. Yes, Bernie pulled her, and the Party to the Left during the primary. This can only be viewed as a

good thing.

The primary is for US, not a spectacle for the Republicans. It should never be a coronation. Always sharpen the platform and the candidate through that process.

I don't feel bad about the primary, with one exception; the rift between the two camps during the primary, and it came from BOTH sides, and from the DNC itself with the clear favoritism. I don't know that it actually cost us the General, but either they should have let it be a horse race, fair and square, or not allow Bernie to run up front because he wasn't a Democrat(TM).

Again, I don't think the Primary cost us the General, but if it did, the bad blood stems from that disparity. It wasn't fair to either candidate and we did it to ourselves.

[Plucketeer]

179. "I don't think the Primary cost us the General"

How CAN you think that? We had Mr. Popularity - drawing huge throngs of enthusiastic potential votes - standing in the elements with the promise of getting nothing more than a glimmer of hope - hope hung up on raw honesty and genuineness. And then we had thousand-dollar dinner plate get-togethers. The tab for which, made sure you were recognized and remembered. Can we honestly assume that attending one of these dinners was as casual as getting a cup of coffee at a small-town diner? Heh - one could feed a whole flock of homeless folks for the price of a plate of some fancy chicken & pilaf - a silly observation of course - cause none of the invited guests gave a hoot about folks calling a cardboard box, "home".

In one astounding sentence, the author proclaims that Bernie participated for the purpose of DISRUPTING the Democratic party. THAT was his sole aim? That tidbit alone, would keep me from reading her book. Yeah yeah, she "won". The only trouble is, the idiot in the White House got there by sounding more like Bernie (even though the orange hyena was LYING through his sphincter) after Bernie was side-stepped.

"for the purpose of disrupting the Democratic party."

[AtheistCrusader]

201. I think it's a valid view from the author's perspective.

That perspective is heavily filtered.


For example, actually aligning with and supporting Unions/Labor in this country, would be disruptive to the Democratic Party. But the Party doesn't see it that way.

Bernie wanted to improve that, and searching in google or bing for "union leaders warn democrats" reveals a decade-long rift between major union leadership, and the DNC.

A re-alignment from corporate interests to Unions would be disruptive to the party. An interesting problem to solve.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

302. I wont read it based on excerpts Ive seen playin the blame game;doesnt help lookin fwd 2 the future.

[Steven Maurer]

349. We had "Mr. Pandering", not "Mr. Popularity"

Pandering always draws crowds of people, those who actually believe the unrealistic or flat out laughable, promises. It loses more broadly, as Sanders did.

If you want to go making a party in which you have to be poor to be a member, you will never win, because Americans don't want to be poor.


And yes, Sanders clearly was attempting to break apart the Democratic coalition. You think all that screaming angry hatred directed at "establishment Democrats" was an attempt to unite?

[Plucketeer]

379. "unrealistic or flat out laughable"?

Oh - you mean Medicare for all - yeah, SO MANY countries wanna set up money-grubbing insurance bottlenecks to "improve" their health care systems. Or was it the $15 an hour fantasy - no thanks, $7.50 is plenty for us! And there was that deceptive ploy of a national infrastructure plan. Of course, this would put the hurt on car repair shops. Can't have that! Wait a minute - I know what's unrealistic - it was that foolish notion that we needed to divorce ourselves from combustible fuels to save us from broiling on our only planet! An' you know those damned Redunclicans - with their family values bent, they can't tolerate our divorce from anything. Wouldn't wanna twist their nipples by eliminating all those mechanized coal mining jobs or the fracking that's making Oklahoma sink.

"You think all that screaming angry hatred directed at "establishment Democrats" was an attempt to unite?"

Nope. It was an attempt to bring them to their senses. BTW, I remember some screaming, but it wasn't angry - it was unbridled enthusiasm. I set in the sun for over an hour as temps teased the triple digit mark to see Bernie in my little California, red-as-hell town. At least 4,000 were there with us. I might have gone to see other candidates, but knowing this is a blue state in total, they couldn't be bothered.

[Steven Maurer]

421. His budgetary numbers didn't even REMOTELY add up

And you know it too. Come on, quit the bullshit.

Medicare for all is feasible - even preferable - as policy, but politically unachievable. When the public thinks of government service, they generally imagine it to be some sort of DMV type experience.

In Colorado, where Hillary won, Single Payer went down 6 to 1. That is an absolutely insane level of flaming out.

And you think Sanders would have won by tying his wagon to the issue nationally?

[HughBeaumont]

484. Hate to break this to you . . .

. . . but people cannot pay five to six-digit cancer bills via bake sales and fundraisers and it's nothing short of barbaric to expect them to. Student debt is crippling America. Automation promises to replace great swaths of physical labor. Our climate problems are displacing thousands upon thousands from their livelihoods. America is WOEFULLY unprepared to deal with these problems, all because we refuse to even slightly inconvenience rich people.

"Politically unachievable" better be enacted, lest we want a broke to bankrupt population. Anyone who thinks "Capitalism As Is" and this "Blessed Holy Church of the Free Market" are going to solve the problems they create . . . THAT'S the delusional one who's swimming in bullshit, NOT us.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/12/fact-argue-experts-sanders-medicare-all-numbers-do-add

[Steven Maurer]

551. You seem to be misinformed

Six digit cancer bills are no longer an issue to anyone covered under the ACA. It can be five digit. Around 10K, which is still too high, but that's a different matter.

Further, I completely agree that Single Payer should be the end goal.

Where we disagree is not that. It's whether the means to get to that end goal is to push views that cause us to lose elections over and over and over again (until some mythical time comes that the public really becomes not only fed up but also decides that the thing they were wrong all that time), or try to make incremental progress - showing people that moving in the right direction actually works.

[HughBeaumont]

552. Steve . . . last year I contributed to three gofundmes for giant medical bills.

One of them was for a child with heart issues. Another was a 26 year old diagnosed with Stage 3 Breast Cancer.

All of these people HAVE insurance, all of their insurances are NOT covering all of their costs. Chemo for a BC patient is extremely expensive. A classmate of mine, diagnosed with a rare brain tumor, has OOP medical bills totaling over $200,000.

A five minute google search puts the kibosh on this assertion.

To say that giant medical bills and medical bankruptcies are a thing of the past is being deluded at best and cruel at worst. "Qualify" does NOT mean "can afford". Capitalist mercantile CullCare is barbarism.

[Steven Maurer]

563. HDHPs are nearly as cancerous as cancer

...which is where all this is coming from. To quote one of your own links:

High-deductible health plans and soaring drug prices are to blame, he says, and a sea change happened when a new generation of drug therapies got FDA approval for treatment in the late 1990s.

And deductibles aren't always easy (quoting another of your own links):

Even if you're well-insured like Goldman, the cost of treatment can empty a family's bank account. Goldman has insurance through her husband's job, but she has to pay the first $6,000 of her medical bills each year, which makes balancing the budget in January and February especially difficult.

But again, that's in the five figure range, not the six figure range.

And medical bankruptcies have dropped in half since the ACA. The number is still too high, because not everyone can afford even four figure bills, but it is still vastly better.

[QC]

432. But it's just so tiresome when the unwashed masses

start demanding things like decent employment and the occasional trip to the doctor.

Cecil, another martini please, but not so much vermouth this time. Remember, just a whisper of vermouth. A whisper.

[Demsrule86]

440. None of the above as much as we agree with it ever had a snowball's chance in hell to pass.

So none of it mattered in the scheme of things...those who got all worked up over the perfect took their eyes off the ball ( the good) and helped elect Donald Trump.

[Plucketeer]

541. Aw geez

Me and that stupid power of positive thinking thing! And let's not even TALK about the jobs that would be created - the money-siphoning health insurers that would be denied their fix - and livable wages - now how dumb an idea is that?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

275. Precisely! Well said!

[ehrnst]

200. And vice verca, recently. I hope that eventually gets acknowledged. (nt)

[Ninsianna]

351. Yes, and so many years before him. It's sad that so many had no idea

what her actual positions were, even now. It's too bad that proper credit is never given, like when Bernie took her positions, he never credited her.

They agreed on so much because she was a progressive, even when he was voting with the NRA in decidedly non progressive ways.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

23. I'm with her. K&R.

[azmom]

25. Nonetheless, her "honesty" will cause damage.

Making it harder to unify progressives for the 2018 election.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. Yup, this is the wrong book at the wrong time... no doubt!

[Jakes Progress]

37. Right Book. Right answers.

Some may want to reflect and understand, but we can't win by harumping and "feeling" our way.

A clear-eyed vision of what went wrong is necessary, or we can just keep electing republicans.

[azmom]

54. I've only read the excerpt so I can't comment

on the book itself. For the sake of history I will read the book, but only when it's free online. As you said, we need a clear-eyed vision of what went wrong, and I have a feeling that this book will not provide us with that.

[Jakes Progress]

106. That feeling is why the excerpt in the OP is so right.

I will pay full retail for the book.

I paid for Al Franken's book. I would pay for Bernie's book too. Insight costs.

[azmom]

119. You're a fool if you pay retail for anything.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[cwydro]

142. Really?

Gosh.

[Jakes Progress]

402. I know.

Right?

[Jakes Progress]

400. Those are the sentiments

of someone who produces nothing that anyone wants, - of someone who doesn't know anything about labor and capital and how people make a living.

That is a really foolish thing to say. And we all notice that it does not address the heart of the conversation in the thread. You found the premise of your retort to be indefensible so you attack the person who pointed out how propaganda and hearsay seem to be the basis for your political leanings. I hope someone buys Hillary's book for you. It would help.

(By the way, it is agains the rules at DU to call other DU'ers names. I'll let it slide because you seem to be confused about things.)

Thank goodness that's all you have to say.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

261. Hardly an impartial source... could do more harm than good.

[BannonsLiver]

244. No, the wrong time would be anytime next year or in 2020

Nobody will remember this book by then.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

265. I strongly disagree, but hope you're right.

[Demit]

303. It's well before campaign season 2018. The book won't be an issue next year.

I don't even see it as an issue now. If Bernie Sanders were out there firing up the crowds in a great show of unifying the Democratic Party I could see this book hitting a wrong note. But he's not and it doesn't.

[Demsrule86]

57. I am concerned about Democrats...I can't worry about those who can't be bothered to join

the Democratic Party.

[azmom]

60. I'm working on making my State blue, so I need to be

Concerned with each and every voter.

[ehrnst]

202. Voters don't need to identify as blue to vote blue.

Independent voters usually pick one party for most of their ballots.

They will pick a candidate based on the candidate's positions, charisma, etc.

[Demsrule86]

217. Take my word for it...twisting yourself into knots to please some dissatisfied voters...many

whom are never satisfied will not help in that effort. You will need moderate candidates to win back red states.

[ehrnst]

207. Yes, I never expected to be wooed by a party. I expect the candidate to make the case.

I do support the Democratic platform, and because of that, always choose a Dem candidate when voting.

Certainly I have the choice as to whether to donate to a party or a candidate, and in light of recent developments, I have chosen to send my $$ elsewhere - EMILY's list and Onward Together, so I know that progressive candidates will be supported by those $$ at all levels.

[Demsrule86]

215. If you don't support the Democratic party in your donations,you force them to seek money elsewhere.

So don't complain if they must use corporate money...and I give to both. I want Democrats to win period...I send extra to those candidates I really like. The Democratic party is the only way to get progressive policy enacted.

[LovingA2andMI]

101. Most Definitely...

Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:24 PM - Edit history (1)

It Will. When That Passage Was Read, It Reminded Us Why Despite Our Deep Angst We Filled In The Oval And Voted In The General Election For Hillary Clinton. Because We Did Not Want Trump, However, It Was NOT Because We Were "Happy Happy, Joy, Joy" The Candidate At The Top of the Democrat Ticket.

Maybe Choking On A Bitter Pill Is Exactly What Hillary Clinton Should Have Done With Bernie Sanders and Offered Him The V.P. Slot --- As The Chances That Donald Trump Would Be In The Oval Right Now -- Is Likely NONE.

Oh well, there always a book to bring up Election 2016's Bitter Pill Feelings Back To The Surface Like They Never Left....

[ehrnst]

208. I don't think he would have accepted a VP slot.

He has far more power as a Senator. I do believe he would like to have been asked so he could say no.

[NurseJackie]

224. You're not the only one who believes this. I've heard...

... others speculating similar things, and their reasons are sound.

[sprinkleeninow]

288. We voted for Hillary, primary and general. Dems all the way.

Was Bernie even asked if he wanted the veep slot?

Ur correct, I think. If he was offered, he may not have accepted opting to keep his senatorial seat.

Don't shout me down now! Tim Caine's a decent fellow, but I wasn't full onboard with that pick. I dunno. Just my intuitive?

[Demit]

308. I wonder what his fans' reaction would've been if he'd accepted.

Somehow I suspect a lot of outrage that he sold out to the establishment, or some such.

[EllieBC]

306. If a "progressive" can't be bothered to vote for D on the ticket

in 2018, then they are progressive as Sarandon or Stein. That means they don't give a damn who they throw under the wheels of the Purity Chariot.

[liquid diamond]

319. We are not going to kiss up to you.

The enemy is clear. Do the right thing and stop complaining about democrats being "mean" to you.

[quickesst]

27. a fact and opinion

Fact: What Hillary wrote was100% true.
Opinion: Bernie's support for her in the general election was lukewarm at best.

[cwydro]

29. Spot on Hillary.

I look forward to the book.

[videohead5]

31. Bernie Needs

To become a Democrat.I don't understand why he has not already done it?

[Me.]

120. Because He's Not

Never been

[ehrnst]

197. But understands the cred a major party brings to a candidate.

He's very practical that way.

[Me.]

229. Once Berned

Twice shy...hopefully

[videohead5]

314. But he wants

To influence the party.he already has.he needs to become a Democrat if he wants any say so in the party.

[Me.]

325. But He Doesn't Seem To Understand That

[cwydro]

32. K and r. nt

[SunSeeker]

34. K & R

[BainsBane]

35. Seems more than fair to me

[JHan]

38. A defense of the Democratic Party - a novel thing to see these days.

[tiredtoo]

39. And the division continues

Unless we can get over the past and look to working together for the future, our future is doomed to repeating the past.
Think about it my friends, think about it.

[NurseJackie]

43. Honesty is part of healing. Are you opposed to honesty?

[tiredtoo]

46. Honestly we had a primary contest for our presidential candidate last election

We also had a primary prior to Obama's presidency. And we will have another in a few years. Let us get over it and look forward. "Stronger together".

[NurseJackie]

51. Everyone else gets their say... why do you want to deny Hillary her opportunity?

Let us get over it and look forward. "Stronger together".

I understand why some people would want to do so, but what purpose does it serve to ignore the mistakes of the past?

[tiredtoo]

93. ok have it your way

Let us all anoint the "chosen one". And continue in our downward spiral.

[NurseJackie]

98. Huh? "Chosen one" ?? What does that even mean?

And continue in our downward spiral.

How can honesty result in a downward spiral?

[Plucketeer]

128. "Chosen one"

It's a buzz-phrase for DNC strategy towards aspiring primary candidates.

[NurseJackie]

132. Still not much help. Please explain.

[Plucketeer]

180. Sorry

I can't help you.

[NurseJackie]

184. Well, thanks anyway for trying.

[tiredtoo]

149. Not sure if you are really being honest here or not.

Last election Hillary was the "chosen one". The Democratic party has been losing elections nationwide for the past 20-30 years.(the downward spiral. The party seems to have lost touch with the people who originally supported them, middle class working folks.
Not sure what you mean by honesty. Politicians of all walks lie, an unfortunate necessity of the job.

[Expecting Rain]

251. Yeah, chosen by 3 million (or so) DEMOCRATIC voters.

And was one of the finest presidential candidates ever.

Downward spiral my ass.

You are that this is a forum designed to support DEMOCRATS?

[tiredtoo]

276. spin, spin, spin

Nothing to do with my point. downward spiral? look at the number of Democrats that have lost seats at state and national levels for the past 20-30 years. If you don't think this is a downward spiral, you are confused.
I do support Democrats, ALL Democrats.

[Expecting Rain]

279. Nah man, "spin" is suggesting HRC was chosen by people other than the voters...

and that charge is like a blood-libel on the DEMOCRATIC Party.

[tiredtoo]

283. And you think she was not chosen by people other than voters? NT

[Expecting Rain]

289. No, I think she was the choice of most DEMOCRATS, but the only ones who mattered...

were those who voted.

What sort of charge are you attempting to advance here?

[mcar]

365. Who was she chosen by if not voters?

[tiredtoo]

381. i have already answered this

She was chosen by the DNC and the Super delegates.
Let it be known, I supported Hillary with every muscle in my aged body once the primary was over.
I am not nor have i ever been anti Hillary, if you exclude my support for Bernie. But I did support Obama in the previous primary. Another fact you may be interested in. In the 2008 election somewheres near 12 percent of Hillary supporters voted for McCain.
This door swings both ways.

[ehrnst]

212. Please do explain what you mean by "chosen one." Don't cut and run. (nt)

[tiredtoo]

278. Do I really have to explain this to you?

The "establishment" members of the party decided it was Hillary's time. They, along with the Super Delegates, chose her.

[liquid diamond]

335. Wrong.

The voters elected her.

[tiredtoo]

336. Whatever EOM

[George II]

459. What? On what do you base that? Since you brought it up here, so not to be accused of....

...."refighting the primaries", Clinton won a majority of elected/pledged delegates even without the Superdelegates.

Are you implying there was collusion among the voters of the 50 states and territories?

[tiredtoo]

491. Nope

[cab67]

69. We've had primaries,

but Sanders continued his campaign beyond the point at which it was mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination. And some of his supporters struck me as being similar to Ron Paul supporters on the other side - their candidate or none.

[KTM]

52. Thats a two way street.

If we're only allowed to look one way on it, its worthless.

[mcar]

68. I recall the many, many "honest" criticisms of HRC after the GE

People seemed to think they were A OK. Wonder why HRC offering some critiques of her own is so unwelcome?

[NurseJackie]

74. I see the same things you're seeing.

[JHan]

112. ++++++ We know why -

1) hypocrisy
2) selective outrage
3) hero worship of a certain individual
4 ) cognitive dissonance....

[Egnever]

348. Honesty is not allowed here when it comes to certain candidates

Pretending this is honesty is silly.

[Demsrule86]

49. We are already repeating the past with groups like Our revolution and Move on (no money for either)

primarying sitting Democrats. And our revolution will endorse GOP and independent types.

[NurseJackie]

55. We have to acknowledge and admit mistakes in order to deal with them...

... and avoid repeating them.

Hillary knows what she's doing. Even if she's holding up a mirror that makes some people uncomfortable, it's something that she understands needs to be done.

I trust Hillary.

[Demsrule86]

226. I trust her and admire her...I wish she was president today. She would be a good one.

[sprinkleeninow]

298. Agree wholeheartedly! n/t

[R B Garr]

122. There is even one group trying to recall an elected Democrat

and it's only because they failed to submit numbers for their single payer bill and he had to reject it. They are not in his district, so all they will accomplish is another childish public fight that sullies Democrats. Yet everyone is concerned about alienating them, while they do plenty of alienating themselves.

[Demsrule86]

225. This is ridiculous...and makes me sick.

[Demsrule86]

59. So we have to allow Stein, Turn and their ilk to trash the party in order to get votes?

No thanks. I for one am glad to see someone defending this great party.

[NurseJackie]

115. So am I!! WHY IS IT that when Hillary...

... is expressing her observations/opinions on the race, it's characterized as "divisive and harmful" for the party and for Democrats' 2018 prospects; but, when "other people" choose to engage in high-profile smearing and denigrating of Democrats and the party itself, that behavior is not considered to be "divisive and harmful"?

It's a double-standard, isn't it?

[Madam45for2923]

123. Yep, HRC truths are divisive, others putting down the DEMOCRATIC party, is a' ok!

NurseJackie
115. So am I!! Why is it that when Hillary...

... is expressing her observations/opinions on the race, it's characterized as "divisive and harmful" for the party and for Democrats' 2018 prospects; but, when "other people" choose to engage in high-profile smearing and denigrating of Democrats and the party itself, that behavior is not considered to be "divisive and harmful"?

It's a double-standard, isn't it?

[mcar]

125. She is apparently not allowed the courtesy of opinion

Lots of other losing pols pen books and *gasp* promote them.

Remember, she's a woman and she lost so she has to go away forever.

[Demsrule86]

231. Yes it it is. bashing democrats damages the party and convinces some not to vote Democratic.

It is extremely self-defeating and leads to GOP victories. Historically, nothing good comes from this 'hold their feet to the fire' bullshit. In fact, these folks cost us victories quite often. I am out of patience with them.

[SunSeeker]

437. Yep. nt

[ehrnst]

232. Those who **forget** the past are doomed to repeat it.

She had a front row to this election. How do we learn the lessons of that election if we don't listen to her?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

468. Then tell Saint Bernie to give the party-bashing a rest, too

and quit hanging with Seth Rich conspiracy nuts like Jimmy Dore at the phony "People's Summit"

[Adrahil]

41. She's right, ya know.

And lots of folks need to come to terms with that. But some won't. We see them right here on this forum.

[cwydro]

45. Yep.

Exactly.

[JHan]

206. ++++ There are no lies in the passage above

It happened last year and the attempts at revisionism are transparent. What Hillary states in that passage is what others have alluded to and discussed even on these forums to much protestation from some. The divisions she spoke about were evident in the DNC chair race, and a couple other races...and evident in the way the Democratic Party continues to be attacked. The memes have not changed.

[ehrnst]

233. Yep. (nt)

[Roy Rolling]

44. One fundamental flaw

She believed "Bernie Bros" were legitimate. They were deplorables, many were Russian bots, and almost all were there to divide Democrats.

Even she was fooled, because they divided democrats along gender lines, even when there were no conflicts.

[Madam45for2923]

50. She is a super resilient person. Realistic but likes to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Roy Rolling (2,300 posts)
44. One fundamental flaw

She believed "Bernie Bros" were legitimate. They were deplorables, many were Russian bots, and almost all were there to divide Democrats.

Even she was fooled, because they divided democrats along gender lines, even when there were no conflicts.

[Demsrule86]

47. Hillary is right...I love you Hillary!

I think moving forward is that only Democrats run in our primaries as Democrats.

[riversedge]

58. Thanks for posting.

[Madam45for2923]

62. I am proud to be a Democrat and I always knew HRC was too. Still with HER!

[BainsBane]

99. +1

[Eliot Rosewater]

395. In one day her foundation does more to help humankind than any 500 random Americans

Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 05:30 PM - Edit history (1)

combined do in ten years.

And my comment has ZIP to do with elections, primaries, etc.

Simply about the human being, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[Madam45for2923]

408. Thank you Eliot Rosewater! Awesome comment and the truth!

Yes!

Eliot Rosewater
395. In one day her foundation does more to help humankind than any 500 random Americans

combined do in a ten years.

And my comment has ZIP to do with elections, primaries, etc.

Simply about the human being, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[Bleacher Creature]

63. Sigh, yet another reminder of what could have been.

I've been trying to voice my issues with the Bernie phenomenon for the last 18 months. Hillary captured in perfectly in a single page.

She really would have been a great President.

[stopbush]

64. Hillary is pointing out a simple truth: that just because someone identifies a real problem

we shouldn't assume that same person has the solution to the problem.

This is the conundrum with Sanders. He's right that we need single payer, but his solution for how we get there was short on specifics and what was there didn't add up. Yes, the Democratic Party needs to change in some respects, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

It's like observing that fewer people go to church these days, and to say it's a problem that needs addressing But perhaps the solution isn't finding a way to get people to go to church. It's to find ways to continue the trend in the same direction.

[tavernier]

65. I cheered for both candidates in the beginning

and thought the rivalry was healthy, focusing on different points of view, priorities, problem solving and suggested solutions. I would have gone 100 percent with whomever ended up as our flag bearer. My enthusiasm for Bernie ended when he and followers insisted on continuing the rivalry, even though they knew that it would be destructive to Hillary and to the party. I don't believe Bernie is the reason that we lost, but I do think that he/they contributed to the loss.

[janterry]

127. I don't think he's the reason we lost, either.

I can't quite put my finger on it - but I know that when I voted for HRC I wasn't all that enthused. I don't believe (or care all that much) about the mud that was slung her way from the right. I ignored most of it - for many years.

What didn't get me onboard was that whole 'authenticity' thing.

I find that so strange. She has been fighting for issues that I believe in - for most of her life. I'm a feminist. I want a woman to win. I admire much of what she has done. But there was a disconnect (for me) there: her voice didn't seem authentic. Sanders seems authentic.

I'm not saying this to argue with anyone here (I'm just one little voice . I'm just telling you what I felt in my gut. And, I'm saying - with as much openness as I can - that it was just a feeling. I do not see her as a liar and I don't much care about her emails. It was just how she related to me (again, just talking about little old me).

Trump, as much as he is an ass - is an authentic one. (His lies are so transparent that people see them a mile before he opens his mouth). Perhaps that's why I've heard the same from his supporters - something about him being authentic.

That's weird because I see Sanders as mostly truthful and Trump as mostly a liar.

IDK. I wish she had won. I voted for her and I think she would have done a fine job. But perhaps it's like Al Gore (who would have been so much better than Bush Jr. He, too, won the popular vote, but didn't have quite enough support.

He didn't strike that right 'authentic' chord.

There are other reasons, too. And even more that we can't evaluate until years from now, when history will give us perspective. But at the time, that was just how I related to her. (FWIW)

[tavernier]

339. No argument either

except perhaps with trumps authenticity. He is as authentic as a Rolex watch purchased at a flea market, but I think most of his followers don't care if he is genuine, only that he keeps mouthing what they want to hear, drunk on the snake oil he is selling.

[PatrickforO]

70. I have a good friend in her sixties who was once very active in

local and statewide Democratic politics.

She still votes Democratic, and like all of us voted for Clinton. I don't know how she voted in the primary.

One thing she does say, though, is the Democratic party 'eats its children.'

By that, she seems to mean that the party 'machine' often ignores the base. She points out numerous instances at the local level over decades when the egos of powerful local Democrats prevented them from getting behind the candidates who had the popular support.

During 2016, when we all began arguing about which was more important, social or economic justice, it seemed to me to be a reflection of that. I don't really want to refight the primary because it caused a lot of pain to good people on both sides.

The irony is we won, but the electoral college, which was put in place to prevent an unqualified demagogue from entering power, betrayed our nation and voted Trump in, in spite of the fact Clinton had 2.9 million more votes.

National Popular Vote, people. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ Let's get rid of the electoral college, shall we?

And to the people who say, 'well, winning the popular vote doesn't mean anything when both candidates campaigned around electoral votes," I say bullshit. Clinton got more votes. Clinton should be in the White House.

A last word: Social justice is damned important. But Independent voters outnumber either Dem or Repub, and they care about kitchen table issues. That's our problem. We can't control ourselves because we are made up of so many different groups who legitimately want different things, our campaign message turns off the independents and they vote for shitheaps like Trump.

So what do most people worry about:
1. Getting laid off.
2. Losing health care, and what a weight off your back if you kept it even if you lost your job (Medicare for all - polls at 54% favorable).
3. Social Security (especially when you get 45 or older and you've paid in full boat for years and years).
4. Child care costs.
5. Quality of schools.
6. And, like the thermostat setting, you don't notice until it's off - good roads, clean air and clean water.

We have to convince people to vote for our candidates, and to do this, these issues are what we need to focus on in general elections.

We also need to be focusing right now with single minded intensity on the treasonous acts committed by God knows how many Republicans that put the orange shit bag in the White House. Because it isn't OK that Russians hacked into voter rolls in at least 38 states. We should be screaming about that. I mean screaming. I write both US Senators and my US representative weekly about Trump and his utter lack of qualifications.

We should also be screaming about the fifth column effort by Charles Koch, the Mercers and other billionaire radical libertarian freaks to take away our democracy, because we're being attacked on a thousand fronts, and we need to lift the rock and expose the radical libertarian/fascist maggots squirming underneath.

Lastly, we need to have our state legislators and governors on speed dial and fight voter suppression measures whenever and wherever they rise. We need to be screaming about that.

And we are. I know.

I just don't see how the sentiments being expressed in this post, including perhaps the ones I've just expressed, are helping to bring us together. Because we are not together. We are too fragmented to be effective in fighting this Koch/ALEC/Cato Institute madness. I'm afraid we'll lose what little we have left of democracy if we don't get our shit together.

[maddiemom]

102. Very well put!

[ismnotwasm]

103. The thing is

Who is going to run the political narrative of Democrats? The nominally Democratic or the dedicated Democrat? I think we made a number of mistakes, obviously we did, and the base of Bernie Sanders is a rich resource, as are non-voters. I understand that.

The other question is who, exactly is the Democratic Party base? Who are we reaching out to? Who are we tossing under the bus for political expediency? That amazing statistic, that 94% of African American women who voted, voted for Hillary Clinton--and NOT, in many cases out of love for her--isn't analyzed enough as a resource.

In other words, just who are we bringing together?

I live in Seattle--a Bernie town if there ever was one. I've watched political friends do things from repeat bullshit--and I mean bullshit, not open to debate by anyone who cares about facts-- about Hillary, to in more that one case, but one in particular, actually leave the Democratic Party over this election. I stopped talking politics with these people. I'm done.

So while I will enjoy this book, these excerpts and the resulting kerfluffle (not here though, not again), I will look also for a quite a bit more in the book, Hillary being who she is.

If you want hope, I offer Pramila Jayapal. She is my representative and was endorsed by Bernie. She replaced my adored Jim McDermott. She is a woman of color and an immigrant and very, very smart. I watched her on a Facebook live-cast last night at a small dinner with a few Dreamers, asking questions, listening, offering insights, gathering information. I watched her and thought--this is the future of the Democratic Party. This is what I can get behind.

[azmom]

140. I sure am in need hope because I get a feeling of dread

reading these types of threads.

As a woman of color and an immigrant, I could certainly get behind someone like Pramila Jayapal. I I will get more info on her. Thank you for sharing.

[ismnotwasm]

157. She's pretty awesome

You will like her I'm sure.

[JHan]

159. Thanks for this ismnotwasm +++++

[JI7]

221. The base went heavily for clinton.

[ismnotwasm]

300. Yes it did

So if we are to expand our base, it goes back to the question of who we reach our to? I hope the idea of "reaching out" to Trump voters has been laid to rest--I don't care who voted for Obama--that bird has flown far, far away. Bernie or busters don't WANT to be reached out to, they have their own ideas and they are welcome to them.

So we have left the politically ambivalent, the disinfranchised, the underserved and the underrepresented. While I agree we can reach out to say, unions--we already have unions, even if some individual members, usually male and white--voted for Trump. I do think "Trump Regret" is a thing, and people will justify not voting or voting for him by attempting to further demonize Hillary Clinton. The question is should we allow this to happen without pushing back? Well first of all, even if I thought that was a good idea, there are millions who don't. We will push back, and we will defend her.


There is a type of smug political pundit, AND voter, who implies a lot of "I told you so"--when addressing Hillary's electability and Trumps election, implies Bernie would have been a better candidate against Trump, implies, in fact that anybody would have been better, uses Hillary's history and words as a foil for this..attitude..That this attitude is based on institutional sexism when analysed without emotion i.e. While career male politicians up to and including Bernie Sanders skate though historical political decisions , Hillary was subject to intense and unprecedented scrutiny and criticism. This is part of what we MUST address.

The DACA debacle is one that could have been predicted by anyone paying attention. So could have the Muslim ban or militarizing police. Not one white person should be surprised at this. We post distressed OP's about our spouses and brother-in-laws and parents who are bigots or support Trump. We know. We KNOW. They ARE us.

So this brings me to my final point; our base is changing and our base is comprised, not of just "blue collar" men, and the educated, but more importantly the people of color and women. While this reflects a changing society, it's what we have to work with. And PoC especially, will NOT be satisfied with platitudes and/or be taken for granted each election cycle. They are some of the Democratic party's best activists, and many in congress are our best hope.

In Seattle right now, the sky is hazy with ash. The sun is a round orange ball. A dark day. But I have as much hope as I can, because I believe in our party.

[Raster]

315. The sun will come out tomorrow...

[ismnotwasm]

320. Haha!

More like this

[Raster]

323. Love that too!

[shanny]

72. This won't help anything.

[MrsCoffee]

134. lol

[shanny]

258. erudite

[leftstreet]

73. Weird. Obama 'impugned' her character a lot more in 2008

That primary was harsh

I don't see a comparison with Sanders at all

[Demsrule86]

88. That is untrue. We can't discuss that here...but I would suggest reading about the convention.

[leftstreet]

90. Why not?

She says in the excerpt he 'impugned' her character

The Obama/Clinton primary was brutal compared to Sanders/Clinton

[MrsCoffee]

166. Whataboutism.

That year's contest had some rough moments, but nothing as damaging as 2016. Yeah he said "You're likable enough, Hillary" during a debate. He also repeatedly slammed her vote for the Iraq war. But the race was closed in early June when Clinton dropped out as Obama led by less than 200 delegates. She didn't then throw half-hearted support behind Obama. She offered a full throated endorsement and campaigned hard for him. Because she understands the importance of electing Democrats. At roughly the same point in time, Clinton lead Sanders by 771 delegates, including superdelegates (and by almost 300 pledged delegates), yet he refused to get out of the way. He kept bashing the party and our nominee. His supporters started harassing people and things started turning violent prompting fears of a 1968 repeat. While mildly condemning that behavior, he tried to justify their anger saying the Democrats weren't being fair or transparent. When he did drop out, his support was tepid at best.

I hope Hillary goes on to speak about this every opportunity she gets and I hope the Democrats are never stupid enough to give money to some outside spoiler who whines about party establishment except when it has benefited said outsider for the past 25 years.

Enough is enough.

[Demsrule86]

239. It would be re-fighting the primary were I to refute this using examples from the 2016 primary.

I suggest you consider when a candidate should concede and then read about the convention for starters. Or you can PM me.

[leftstreet]

243. Oh. Well we certainly don't want to re-fight the primary n/t

[Demsrule86]

263. I signed TOS agreeing not to do so.

[LovingA2andMI]

290. As Her and Bill Did Barack.....

Remember The Whole Candidate Barack Obama was trying to do another Jesse Jackson Presidential run during the South Carolina Primary.

Hillary is no Angel and many Generation X African-Americans NEVER forgot the Race Baiting of Barack Obama that was done during the South Carolina Primary. She would be wise to REMEMBER THAT HISTORY before going there on Bernie Sanders Election 2016 Candidacy.

[Lil Missy]

352. Not True.

[QC]

438. 2016 was Rainbow Brite's Happy Meadow compared to 2008.

It amazing how much selective memory we're seeing here.

[Demsrule86]

442. No it wasn't...Pres. Obama never attacked the Democratic Party and that is the difference...nor

did he attack Hillary.

[QC]

444. Bernie never said that John McCain was more qualified to be president than HRC.

That crossed a line most candidates shy away from.

And then there's the bit about Bobby Kennedy being murdered after the California primary.

Oh, and "hard-working white people."

And so on.

Let's not engage in myth-making here. 2008 was ugly. That's politics.

[Demsrule86]

446. you should look that up...check some archives of morning shows. I won't fight the last primary.

Attacking the Democratic Party has been very very bad for progressives.

[QC]

448. That's not the last primary. That's 2008.

And I would argue that dismissing the concerns of half the party by comparing them to a bratty child's demand for an impractical present hasn't worked too well for the party.

[stonecutter357]

76. K&R

[Expecting Rain]

83. Sing it sister!

HRC telling it like it is.

[jalan48]

91. I'm sure it's difficult for the Clinton's to be out of the political limelight after decades as

major players. Time marches on.

[BainsBane]

97. Oh, right. Is that why Bernie wrote two books?

Has done two book tours and continues in campaign mode?

[jalan48]

100. Bernie's still a Senator.

[livetohike]

105. And Hillary is a former First Lady, Senator and Sec.of State.

She has much more to say and I hope she keeps writing.

[jalan48]

151. I agree. Jimmy Carter is a great example of what a politician can become after leaving the limelight

[Hortensis]

210. As Hillary will. Don't forget the Clinton Foundation's great works around the planet.

She's going to be very busy, even if she's not an ex-president.

This has become a powerful Democratic statesman pattern of "retirement." While Republicans mainly head off to golf courses, Democrats begin other forms of public service, pursuing new goals. Obama's hard at work already, just currently quietly to not intrude on the current presidency inappropriately.

[jalan48]

430. I totally agree. Hillary will go down as one of the great women in American history.

When the first woman is elected President, and it will happen in the near future, Hillary will reappear on the public stage to receive the acclaim she deserves.

[Demsrule86]

385. I like Jimmy Carter, but I think Bill Clinton has done amazing things with the foundation...it has

saved the lives of countless aids sufferers in Africa...he has done God's work.

[BainsBane]

311. There are 100 senators

Few appear on television and none nearly as often as Sanders.

To criticize Hillary for seeking the limelight is the epitome of a double-standard.

[jalan48]

428. Bernie is well liked-people want to see him. It's OK.

I'm not criticizing Hillary for seeking the limelight. Rather, I'm just pointing out that after decades of being in the limelight both the Clinton's are now relegated to the back bench. It must be a difficult adjustment period for them.

[BainsBane]

431. I think what you mean to say

Is she should be relegated to obscurity.

I don't know how well liked Bernie is. He had a 54% approval rating in a recent poll that surveyed voters most likely to think positively of him, independents under 30. He must be good for corporate media ratings though, since they keep inviting him back.

I have a suspicion Hillary's book may sell better. I'm certainly glad she wrote it. She expresses how many of us feel. I think a lot of that stuff has gone uncriticized far too long.

[jalan48]

433. No, that's not what I said or meant.

What I said is that Hillary and Bill have been in the political limelight for decades at a level experienced by very few. That is no longer the case. I think she will continue to work in the public/private sector however and that's a good thing.

[Me.]

126. Like Being On Late Night Shows

as he is tonight

[BainsBane]

309. and appearing on cable news

a few times a week.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

469. and charges $30 a head at speaking events

by making each person buy his book (even cases where groups include members of the same family) as admission, as he did when he appeared in the poorest part of WV earlier this year.

[still_one]

117. What I find sad is those who say "Hillary should just go away". It's fine for every media

outlet, commentators, and politicians to spew their diatribes against Hillary, either in books, columns, or through the airwaves, but "god help us" (sarcasm), if Hillary voices her views.

It represents a form of the sexism that was "accepted common place" last year.

The so-called "experts" on the facade that passes for news, were more concerned about Hillary's tone of voice than the policies she was proposing, speaks volumes about just how ingrained sexism is in our society.

[AtheistCrusader]

130. Dunno. The 'Right' didn't let Romney peek his head out of his hole till late in the primary.

And when he did (against tRump) most of the Right(TM) screamed at him to shut the fuck up.

And he did shut up.

[still_one]

173. My comment wasn't about the primaries. It was about how the media and other critics are given free

reign to voice their criticism toward Hillary, but "god help us", if she should try to respond to those critics.

That was the typical double standard, sexist, bullshit that she had to put up all through 2016 through today.

There was no problem when other books or commentators spewed their diatribes against Hillary, but they get all hot and flustered when Hillary expresses her view on what happened.  They are a bunch of hypocritical assholes.

Since you brought it up, I don't recall the media referring to Romney as "shrill", or other characterizations about
his personal demeanor, but they sure didn't hold back on being negative regarding Hillary's personal demeanor.

[AtheistCrusader]

194. Romney was widely belittled by the 'media' for losing.

For the '47%' comment, etc. Unmasked him as the out-of-touch rich asshole he is.

I don't recall any mainstream media actually using the term 'shrill' against Hillary, but our definitions of 'mainstream' might diverge. I do acknowledge, there tends to be sexist spin on how disagreement or any sort of negative comment by any candidate is filtered through the media.

I tend to tune out news sources that add adjectives to how any comment by any candidate is delivered, since video is so readily available I can go see the tone/delivery myself without a narrative.

[still_one]

266. Why do you keep bringing Romney into this dialog. This is about the rampant sexism that was evident

against Hillary. I certainly hope you are not denying the sexism that has followed Hillary around since she entered the public life.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/hillary-clinton-slightly-shrill-tone-james-naughtie-says-on-today-programme_uk_5799be72e4b0796a0b6160b9

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/15/hillary-clinton-press-sexism-media-interviews

[AtheistCrusader]

307. it certainly exists. But there's more than one type of criticism going.

"It represents a form of the sexism that was "accepted common place" last year."

Not all of the 'go away' message is in any way sexism. A lot of the characterization in SOME media is sexist. But some of the 'go away' is just people who don't want to hear about this anymore. Not necessarily left or right, not necessarily sexist.

I use Romney as an example because he is not female, and similarly experienced the 'go away' message. In contrast, McCain didn't at the state level because McCain was still in office, but Romney's 'go away' was pretty much universal nationwide. Hillary is/has experiencing some of that.

[lunamagica]

107. Right on, Hillary! Thank you for telling it like it is

[murielm99]

108. Thank you Hillary.

So many of us have been trying to say that here. We get slammed for it, swarmed, stalked and alerted. There are plenty of them doing this IRL, too. The new grassroots organizations, which should be a good thing, will have to watch how they proceed. Many of them are being overwhelmed by diehard Berniebros who shout down anyone who does not agree and who only want to help. Too many of them are right here in this thread, and they cannot justify anything they say about Hillary.

God Bless you, Hillary.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. +1

[Madam45for2923]

146. -1

[Madam45for2923]

135. Hahaha more speeches spiel. You forgot 'em emails. Right progressives? LOL!

Yay TPP TPP! I really missed convos on the TPP! My absolute favorite.

Don't worry, HRC is not that liked, so don't worry about her lil book!

(sarcasm)



karynnj
113. Bernie Sanders ran on issues as much as any candidate ever has - including Hillary Clinton

As to impugning her character, he avoided completely the email question - actually refusing to use it. He DID speak of the paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and her connections to Wall Street. She countered by pointing out that she was the Senator for NY and Wall Street is there. Part of HRC's problem here was that she was not willing to explain or defend a position at the heart of that issue - TPP. Instead, she flipped 180 degrees and put herself against TPP, which in reality was her biggest accomplishment as Secretary of State.

In the debate she tried to create a new strawman. Bernie Sanders never accused her of quid pro quo - ie changing a position because of a contribution. The fact is HRC was well liked by Wall Street for her positions. The fact is that there was a difference between her positions on the economy and the leftmost social democrat she was against. Part of the problem was that HRC moved considerably towards Sanders' positions - especially on income inequality and Wall Street. The surprising thing in 2015 to me was that she shifted her own positions rather than to argue that Sanders was too extreme. (Leading me to think that internal polling had shown that that "outsider" position was very strong.)

A primary is always more prone to being personal rather than on big differences on issues. This is because there is significant homogeneity in each party. In fact, there was MORE difference on issues in 2016 than there was in 2008. Think back to the debates in 2008 and cite an issue where there were BIG differences. (Consider all were for expanding universal health care insurance and the biggest argument was on whether there should be a mandate or a high buy in for someone who did not originally opt to get insurance. ) The difference is usually who has what characteristics and what experience. Every Senator attacks every governor for having no foreign policy experience and every Governor attacks every legislator as not having any executive experience.

So, were there personal attacks in 2008? Bob Kerrey, advocate for HR speaking of madrases, Clinton's ad that said she and McCain were ready on day one to take that 3 am call. Elizabeth Edwards dishonestly speaking of how she and HRC had different values as she was staying home taking care of her two young kids -- ignoring that she, like Clinton, had worked when her first two were young.

Let's look at HRC's claim there. Let's say Bernie would not have run. Would there - independent of Bernie - have been claims that HRC was historically pro business/pro Wall Street? Would the fact that she given private paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and other places not been an issue. Trump was saying the same thing against Wall Street in the primaries -- and going far beyond Bernie making promises that he knew could not be kept.

As to unifying the progressives. There are many many definitions of "progressive". Where it is very easy to list what an economic liberal or a social values liberal believes in, there are not clear cut definitions of what a progressive is. Years ago, mystified by the rankings of Senators' progressiveness, I looked at the difference in votes that made one higher than the other. (I was curious why Sherrod Brown, to me the epitome of a progressive Senator) was so much lower than Feingold. The reason was that many votes that counted were more a measure of libertarianism. (Thus, you get points for voting against outlawing guns in luggage on public transportation. Also, a few votes on environmental issues were - in my opinion - backward.)I liked both Feingold and Brown, but I far preferred the Brown votes where they differed. In reality, it did not mean that the list was wrong, it meant that by that definition - I was not all that progressive and that progressive is NOT a synonym for liberal, which I clearly am.

Long digression, but the point is that the "progressives" and "populists" who voted for Trump are likely people who NEVER had a positive opinion of HRC ... or Obama .. and certainly not of the whole Kennedy/Kerry wing. Many progressives were more libertarian than liberal. Both of these terms cross standard party lines. In 2016, the one thing that both left and right progressive agreed on was considering trade policies to be evil. In the primaries, for people for whom this was a key issue, this was a Bernie issue. I think Bernie Sanders was the best ambassador HRC had to convince some skeptical "progressives" to vote for Clinton.

On this issue, Clinton needs to consider the harm she did to herself by holding those unnecessary paid speeches (yes it was her right to do and to charge the going rate, but she should have anticipated the political cost.) She also needs to look at what flipping her opinion on TPP - rather than using the standard nuance that tweaks might have to be made. One of the few harmful things to come from Podesta's email was the text of one of the speeches - speaking positively about TPP. Now, the speech was in 2013/2014 when she openly was saying the same thing. However, Trump spoke of her saying one thing in private and another in public. Fighting that would have emphasized that she changed her position (which really really should some day be defended as a prudent thing to do!)

[Gore1FL]

114. If the two (and only those two) ran again for the nomination (and I hope neither does),

Sanders would still get my vote.

[Madam45for2923]

144. Am still with HER!

[Trust Buster]

118. I agree with Hillary 100%. If she posted this on DU herself...she would have been hidden...LOL

[JHan]

147. Lol she would get flagged for review in seconds lol

[cwydro]

304. So right!

Smh.

Spot on.

[JI7]

124. She should have gone after Sanders on not releasing his taxes

And many other things.

In the end it is her fault since she made the decision . In the future other candidates will not make the same mistake.

[Madam45for2923]

150. Wondering if it will be mentioned in the book?

[ehrnst]

506. She made the decision not to attack Sanders, which led to many people thinking

that there was nothing to attack him on.

Either way, she was going to end up with the short end of the stick.

[jrthin]

129. She's been right about so many things. Calling out the deplorables,

which she was berated for, is just one truth which comes to mind.

[R B Garr]

131. Quote: "His attacks caused lasting damage"

That is a very kind understatement.

[cilla4progress]

137. He did not get in to

“disrupt the Dem party."

[Mountain Mule]

138. We need to look forward - not back

We must be UNITED to rid ourselves of this very antithesis of democracy that now "governs" our land.
Divisiveness will only get us more of the same. Please god - NO! And that's all I'll say on the subject.

[Greybnk48]

143. Does anyone know how many pages of her book are dedicated

to discussing her relationship and reaction to Senator Sanders during the campaign?

I just got a CNN news alert on my phone and all it mentions about Secretary Clinton's book is her criticism of Sanders. If that's all it's about I'll save my money, but that's the impression I'm getting here and elsewhere. (add a pinch of sarcasm)

For the record: I'm a 68 year old female "Bernie Bro" who shifted my donations and support, including my vote, to Hillary after the primaries. I personally am really fucking sick of hearing this bullshit about Bernie, especially given what's REALLY going on in this country right now.

[LovingA2andMI]

297. Right On Point!

Thank You For Making This Point:

I personally am really fucking sick of hearing this bullshit about Bernie, especially given what's REALLY going on in this country right now.

[Kosey]

145. We needed Bernie in the election

I've been a democrat for 40 plus years. I was proud to support Bernie in the primary. I voted for Hillary in the general.

Let's get history straight...

When the DLC came along, and under the Clinton whitehouse in the '90's, Glass Steagall was eliminated, NAFTA was enacted (what Trump talked about during the election), welfare reform which thrust thousands of women and children into poverty especially in the South. We lost the House after 40 plus years of leadership. We have been losing elections nationally and state-wide since the '90's. Obama was a unique candidate, charismatic and young. He was an exception and probably the only candidate who could win in 2008.

The Democratic party I grew up under, Johnson had the war on poverty and brought us Medicare and Medicaid. Roosevelt Social Security.

The party became the party of Wall Street under the corporatist/centrist democrats and THAT's why so many left the party. The party moved to the right leaving the republicans no alternative but to move further to the right. The birth of the Tea Party is just an ugly statement on the racism and white supremacy which exists in our country and arose when we elected President Obama.

If Bernie had not been in the race, we would have had many more months of republicans beating up on our very weak candidate. The party chose her. That was apparent from the very beginning. Bernie brought her to the left. Unfortunately, people did not trust her...Her statement "I'll release my speeches when everyone else does" is case in point. She was the only candidate giving speeches.

That said, I think she would have been a good president. But please stop beating on Bernie. There is an argument to be made if he was not in the race, she could have lost by an even bigger margin as the democrats would have been silent as the republicans beat up on here for many more months during primary season. Bernie brought necessary debate to the election. Frankly, he brought us closer to core Roosevelt/Johnson principles.

Democrats MUST embrace single payer healthcare and increasing social security. Those candidates who do will be embraced by voters who left the party. And think about this: 47 percent of eligible voters did not vote. They left the parties a long time ago.

People have a right to support the candidate of their choice. Senator Sanders has caucused with the democratic party the entire time he has been in Washington. The democratic party has been very happy to have him do so.

[Madam45for2923]

158. Weak candidate? Is there a memo or something going around?

Kosey
145. We needed Bernie in the election
View profile
I've been a democrat for 40 plus years. I was proud to support Bernie in the primary. I voted for Hillary in the general.

Let's get history straight...

When the DLC came along, and under the Clinton whitehouse in the '90's, Glass Steagall was eliminated, NAFTA was enacted (what Trump talked about during the election), welfare reform which thrust thousands of women and children into poverty especially in the South. We lost the House after 40 plus years of leadership. We have been losing elections nationally and state-wide since the '90's. Obama was a unique candidate, charismatic and young. He was an exception and probably the only candidate who could win in 2008.

The Democratic party I grew up under, Johnson had the war on poverty and brought us Medicare and Medicaid. Roosevelt Social Security.

The party became the party of Wall Street under the corporatist/centrist democrats and THAT's why so many left the party. The party moved to the right leaving the republicans no alternative but to move further to the right. The birth of the Tea Party is just an ugly statement on the racism and white supremacy which exists in our country and arose when we elected President Obama.

If Bernie had not been in the race, we would have had many more months of republicans beating up on our very weak candidate. The party chose her. That was apparent from the very beginning. Bernie brought her to the left. Unfortunately, people did not trust her...Her statement "I'll release my speeches when everyone else does" is case in point. She was the only candidate giving speeches.

That said, I think she would have been a good president. But please stop beating on Bernie. There is an argument to be made if he was not in the race, she could have lost by an even bigger margin as the democrats would have been silent as the republicans beat up on here for many more months during primary season. Bernie brought necessary debate to the election. Frankly, he brought us closer to core Roosevelt/Johnson principles.

Democrats MUST embrace single payer healthcare and increasing social security. Those candidates who do will be embraced by voters who left the party. And think about this: 47 percent of eligible voters did not vote. They left the parties a long time ago.

People have a right to support the candidate of their choice. Senator Sanders has caucused with the democratic party the entire time he has been in Washington. The democratic party has been very happy to have him do so.

[Greybnk48]

162. +1000%

Welcome.

[kcr]

178. Wrong. Bernie as the one true savior of the corrupt Dem party is the myth that needs to die

For one thing, your assessment of the faults of the Democratic party is entirely too simplistic. If only we could lay all the blame on one entity and fix the point where it all went wrong at one point in history. It's just so easy! Then all we need is one magic bullet to come along and fix everything for us. Our guru to save us all. It sure feels good to think it could be that easy, doesn't it? But it's wrong and dangerous.

[Hortensis]

271. +1. Willful ignorance is always wrong, and this time it was dreadfully dangerous.

[Demsrule86]

387. Exactly right, while Sen. Sanders votes with the Democrats, I submit there is little evidence he

likes the Democratic Party. It is symbiosis...time for Democrats to decide the future of the party.

[leftstreet]

181. +1

[Hortensis]

262. Lots of keystrokes, but seems rather short on understanding very recent history.

We need help understanding what we witnessed from experts. It's always what it is, not what we want it to be. Fortunately, books are already being written, and more will be as more truths about what happened came out.

From the autumn 2016 through election day in 2016, Bernie was completely up front about his belief that the Democratic Party needed to be completely remade in his vision during this election. Attack and get rid of the party leadership with presumed hope to slot in his choices of completely inexperienced Bernie followers. Do the same to as many of our congressmen and senators as possible, with hope to replace any who could be ousted with mostly completely unknown and underfunded Bernie followers.

This was as the Democratic Party faced the most vital and existential election in our lifetimes -- against the Republican Party.

To put it mildly, that struck me as something like watching a hurricane approach and deciding that's just the right time to take the existing roof off the house in preparation for a new one. You'd only do that if you wanted the house destroyed.

There ARE reasons why a politician might want the Democratic house destroyed.

So now I am particularly interested in historians', and political psychologists', enlargement on Hillary's flat statement, “He didn’t get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party.” That seems like an of-course to me. I spent a year watching as he claimed to be boarding up windows against the Republican storm even as he worked at tearing our roof off -- and reading about political personality types in an attempt to make sense of it.

We need to know a lot more about this history, to understand it, the how, what, where, when, and especially the why. So we can learn from the past. Hope to find some good answers in Hillary's book, only one of many I will be reading.

[Demsrule86]

270. I don't give a damn about the primary...pointless and divisive.

You have to wonder though...what if there had been no primary?

[Hortensis]

272. My answer: If there had been no primary, Hillary would have won.

As it was, America chose her to be our president.

The losses in those three states were so incredibly thin that with change in almost any factor she would have won. And no primary -- with no primary-long series of lies from within that she was corrupt and stealing the election -- would have made a huge change.

Btw, wonder what filing all those phony lawsuits in state after state cost? Except possibly the future of our nation, of course.

[Demsrule86]

277. I agree with you but don't want to refight the primary hahah.

I hate hides.

[Catch2.2]

148. Nope

If Hilary thinks Bernie is "Fundamentally Wrong" about the Democratic Party, then maybe the party needs to change. People don't want a Corporatist Democratic Party. Most people think the Democratic party should be going in the direction that Bernie Sanders is pushing.
Let's not forget, Bernie Sanders has the highest approval rating of any current Senator, Democrat or Republican. If Hilary is all about the Democratic Party, maybe she should refrain from attacking Bernie Sanders in her book, which does nothing more than divide the party. Its time for the Democratic party to progress.

[Madam45for2923]

161. Corporatist? Got to say I really have missed this endearing word!

Don't worry about HRC's lil book. Remember she is not that well liked, LOL! (sarcasm)


Catch2.2
148. Nope

If Hilary thinks Bernie is "Fundamentally Wrong" about the Democratic Party, then maybe the party needs to change. People don't want a Corporatist Democratic Party. Most people think the Democratic party should be going in the direction that Bernie Sanders is pushing.
Let's not forget, Bernie Sanders has the highest approval rating of any current Senator, Democrat or Republican. If Hilary is all about the Democratic Party, maybe she should refrain from attacking Bernie Sanders in her book, which does nothing more than divide the party. Its time for the Democratic party to progress.

[Greybnk48]

164. Agree. n/t

[JCinNYC]

268. Corp Dem

Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH
Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem, Corp Dem --- BRAAHHH


Polly want a cracker?

[NurseJackie]

269. Ha!! :-D

[The Polack MSgt]

404. Senator Sanders is fundamentally not a Democrat. He recruited...

Thousands who wound up voting for Trump.

He has been since -February of 17, the first attack I could find post 45- been attacking the foundation of the Democratic party he rejects, using phrases like "ldentity Politics" , "Establishment" or "Corporate Democrats"

All while happily cashing that sweet Establishment paycheck he's been collecting for 3+ decades.

Color me unmoved

[ehrnst]

153. "Throwing shade" will get more clicks than "talks about his

arguments against her and the Democratic Party."

[Madam45for2923]

165. Yeah because HRC is incapable of brilliantly talking about issues/arguments.

ehrnst
153. "Throwing shade" will get more clicks than "talks about his

arguments against her and the Democratic Party."

[boston bean]

154. And once again, she is right. This is exactly how I feel.

[underpants]

160. ---

[FairWinds]

167. The flogging of progressives on DU has become a daily event . .

It would be nice if the establishment Dems spent half as much
time figuring out what THEY need to fix.

[Greybnk48]

174. Yep. n/t

[Madam45for2923]

183. But flogging of DEMS and the DEM party is ok? Establishment DEMs?

FairWinds
167. The flogging of progressives on DU has become a daily event . .

It would be nice if the establishment Dems spent half as much
time figuring out what THEY need to fix.

[Arazi]

191. Agreed 100%

[GulfCoast66]

264. Just what we corporatist do

[LovingA2andMI]

301. Yep....

[uponit7771]

394. Matters what one calls a progressive, assholes who hate Clinton for stating facts aren't progressive

[mjvpi]

171. Ok some one please explain the rules

At least once a week DU has a Bernie Bashing. The last time that I contributed my perspective it was taken down because we aren't suppose to continue the primary battle. As with the last thread that I contributed to, the one is definitely doing that. So is it OK to do as long as you are attacking Senator Saunders, but not ok to do if you point out flaws in the HRC campaign and the behavior of the DNC?

I'm seriously asking this question. The is no point to this thread other than to dredge up the primary battle.

From what I've read, 98% of Bernie voters voted HRC as did I. He brought millions of young people into the the Demacratic Party. They all registered as Demacrats.

I'm 60, for 40 years I have seen the Demacrats as the idea party not the fall in line party. What the hell is a "real Demacrat"?

[FairWinds]

177. Totally agree with this post . .

Re-fighting the primary is off limits

except when its not.

[Greybnk48]

182. It is tiresome mjvpi

and only serves to divide us. What's the answer to mjvpi's question? Open season forever on Senator Sanders, but Hillary is off limits?

Yeah, yeah, Bernie's an independent not a Dem, but he's ALWAYS caucused with us Dems. Hillary used to be a Republican and campaigned for crazy Barry Goldwater. What about that? At this point another "so what."

[Demit]

331. She campaigned for Goldwater when she was sixteen years old.

By the time she got to college she was a Democrat. Good grief.

[Madam45for2923]

187. You misspelled Democrats.

Are you bothered by people bashing Feinstein, Pelosi, Booker, Harris, etc?

mjvpi
171. Ok some one please explain the rules

At least once a week DU has a Bernie Bashing. The last time that I contributed my perspective it was taken down because we aren't suppose to continue the primary battle. As with the last thread that I contributed to, the one is definitely doing that. So is it OK to do as long as you are attacking Senator Saunders, but not ok to do if you point out flaws in the HRC campaign and the behavior of the DNC?

I'm seriously asking this question. The is no point to this thread other than to dredge up the primary battle.

From what I've read, 98% of Bernie voters voted HRC as did I. He brought millions of young people into the the Demacratic Party. They all registered as Demacrats.

I'm 60, for 40 years I have seen the Demacrats as the idea party not the fall in line party. What the hell is a "real Demacrat"?

[mcar]

205. At least 2-3 times a week DU has a

Pelosi, Harris, Booker, Feinstein, etc bashing. Not to mention the daily Dems are bad themes that run rampant here.

Bit of a double standard to complain about one person getting criticized.

[AngryAmish]

353. Exactly

[LovingA2andMI]

312. It's Actually BEYOND TIRING....

How many months past The 2016 Democratic Primaries are we? One year plus 3 months.

However, some PUMA's (that name was dropped in this thread on purpose) cannot get over Bernie Sanders ran as a Democrat in the Democratic Primary as an Independent who Caucuses with Democrats in the Senate.

Almost as if these same Democrats would be "Happy Happy Joy Joy" if Bernie Sanders Caucus with the Republicans in the Senate instead as an Independent. If Bernie did (which he would not) the Affordable Care Act TODAY would no longer be the LAW OF THE LAND.

However, it's like biting the nose to chew off the whole face moment in time.

Hillary was not the candidate in 2008. That is why Barack Obama rightfully beat her -- point, blank, period -- and he was a Democrat.

Hillary did not become a better candidate during the 2016 primaries. This is why Bernie Sanders as an Independent was able to challenge her until the end of the Primary.

Hillary became a better candidate after the primaries in the General Election in 2016. HOWEVER, Hillary could not get over her Ego to offer the guy who gave her a "run for her money" in the primary Bernie Sanders -- the V.P. Slot.

Hell -- Bernie likely WOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED THE SLOT. However, what could it have done for her to offer it to him?

END THE DISAFFECTED MILLENIALS vote that was against HER in the 2016 General Election. It's called an opportunity to secure the Oval by throwing out an Olive Branch to HEAL the rifts in the Democratic Party.

Instead, she picked Tim Kaine. Enough Millenials either not voted at all, voted for Trump (which was downright awful), voted for Jill Stein (wasted their vote) or voted for Gary Johnson.

The end result --- is TRUMP IN THE OVAL.

Hope Hillary makes (DEEP SARCASM) plenty of $$ off her book. Meanwhile, this does NOTHING to help Democrats take back the House in 2018, less known the Senate -- POINT, BLANK, PERIOD!!

[Lordquinton]

376. You said a lot

[Greybnk48]

380. On point. n/t

[snort]

445. Yes

[LarryNM]

449. Bernie Bashing and Excuses for It have always been Acceptable at DU eom

[LovingA2andMI]

464. Pretty Much...

Sums It Up......

[BainsBane]

564. You think Hillary's book should be banned from DU?

It is interesting that you note Bernie is "bashed" once a week. Hillary, the party, and most importantly Democratic voters are bashed several times a day. Is your contention that all criticism of Bernie be prohibited but the rest continue as usual so the site can focus on what really matters, Bernie?

After months of continual recriminations against Hillary, "identity politics" voters, and the overwhelming majority of Democrats, one page of mild criticism of Sanders and suddenly there is concern about "refighting the primaries." No concern about the posts insisting the DNC "stole" the primary from Bernie. No concern about the continual repetition of Kremlin propaganda. No concern about the constant insults of corporatist, establishment, and third way, including toward the poorest and most marginalized voters. No objection to proclamations that the Democratic Party's brand is worse that Trump, a Nazi-sympathizing narcissist. No objections to proclamations that Democrats were more corrupt than the GOP. In fact, anyone who objected to those criticisms was told they were not just thin-skinned but "divisive".

If we did not acknowledge our inherent inferiority, we were the problem. Only by undermining civil rights, rolling back reproductive rights, and replacing every woman and person of color from party leadership, to be replaced by " fresh faced" men, one of whom just sided with the GOP on lower corporate taxes. Only by acknowledging that the failure to court the white male Trump voter, whose average incomes begin at $100k year, the upper .03% of global income, could we become a party worth holding office. We lost the "working class," defend as white men earning 6 figures, while the tens of millions low to median wage workers, nearly all women and people of color, just didn't count. Voter disenfranchisement didn't matter. It was an "excuse." What mattered was a few thousand white men earning 2-4x the median income, and failure to cater to them made the party unfit. We had to accept all of that, without objection. We were told to "bend the knee" to wealthy Stein/Trump voters like the Chapo Trap House crew, give them power they can't achieve though consent of the governed. And now, one page in which Hillary offers some criticisms and even compliments toward Sanders and suddenly criticizing "Democrats" and suddenly refighting the primary is a problem.

That double standard, that determination that those who have spent the last several months continually attacking Clinton, the party, and its voters should not face even a word of criticism says EVERYTHING about the values at work.

[Paladin]

172. As usual, Hillary speaks for me.

I will never forget just how ugly this site got during the course of the 2016 election. And I will never forgive the ugly behavior of some of the Bernie forces, here. It was an honest pleasure to put them on Ignore status.

[librechik]

176. can't find anything to disagree with there.

elements in a great tragedy.

[SHRED]

186. Yeah this will help heal

[Madam45for2923]

190. Heal what? You big UNITER YOU!!!

SHRED
186. Yeah this will help heal

[SHRED]

209. I beg your pardon?

Just after Hillary won the primary a fellow poster here gave me a good lecture about why continuing to criticise Hillary was wrong.
I realized my lack of foresight thanks to them and stopped soon after the primaries. Then I supported her realizing this. I sent donations and encouraged others of the need to vote for her.

[Madam45for2923]

220. I see! Sounds good.

[NurseJackie]

211. :-D

[SweetieD]

192. I am not sure what the rules are in here regarding the primaries.But I will just say that I disagree

with a lot of things in that passage.

[LonePirate]

193. After all of the bullshit and lies flung her way, Hillary deserves to respond however she wants.

[missingthebigdog]

222. Two sides?

Kentonio, you said:

"196. Sounds incredibly fucking petty to be completely honest.
Way to go driving yet another wedge between the two sides of the party Hillary. Typical Clinton behavior, every perceived insult has to be brooded on and retaliated against. "

The problem is that people still believe there are "two sides of the party." You either are a Democrat or you aren't. Hillary is, and is apparently proud of that fact.

[NastyRiffraff]

227. I'm glad she's speaking out

Sanders did the Democratic Party great harm, which of course may have been his aim. Not to mention the country.

[beachjustice]

228. but the entire point of a campaign is to establish oneself as the most favorable alternative

I get that people need to rally behind a single candidate once the primaries are over and it's time for the general election. I totally agree there. But the point of the primaries are meant to be the time when we disagree.

I'm not certain what the actions of some bernie bros have to do with Bernie Sanders himself. As far as we know he's not the type of person to encourage his supporters to harass her supporters online with sexism during the primaries.

[liquid diamond]

230. Damn. Lots of heads will be exploding here.

Preach it Hillary. I can't wait to read her new book.

[BannonsLiver]

236. Good for her.

[WhiteTara]

237. Thank you Hillary! nt

[Kahuna7]

249. She's not wrong. nt

[andym]

254. Let's see what Bernie's response will be, if any..

Nobody likes losing. Neither Bernie in the primaries nor Hillary in the general election liked losing. Their reactions to the losses and inevitable criticism tell a lot about the person and the critics.

[BainsBane]

329. We've already seen Bernie's response to losing

and I'm sure we'll hear his thoughts on the book.

[NurseJackie]

374. No doubt about that.

[chervilant]

280. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I wish Hillary (and many herein) would spend time and energy on unity and progress. Continuing to rehash history (and repeat the disproved "bernie bro" meme, which was and is a sophomoric red herring) is derisive and divisive.

When we continue to whinge about the past, we remain mired in "what if." If this continues, I have little hope that we can rescue our government from the corporate megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our politics, AND our global economy. (THERE is our true "enemy." )

[Willie Pep]

295. Republicans have harsh primaries and they still come out like clockwork for the Republican who wins.

If Sanders really hurt Clinton's campaign that speaks poorly of Democrats who are willing to let relatively small differences cause them to sit out elections or vote for a third party or even Republicans.

Thankfully I don't think Sanders hurt Clinton that much. Most of his supporters came out and voted for Clinton in the general election and those that didn't were likely diehard far-left types who were probably not going to vote for Clinton anyway.

Over 20 years of right-wing smears and a "both sides are the same" media hurt Clinton a lot more than anything Sanders said.

[chwaliszewski]

310. This!

I've felt the same way about this whole thing. I voted Bernie in the primary, Hillary in the GE. I feel like most Bernie supporters did the same thing. These statements by Clinton aren't helping anything except perhaps her own healing. We need to focus on 2018, not relive 2016.

[TexasBushwhacker]

318. He didn't hurt her that much because she still won by 3 Million votes

Did she expect to not have challengers in the primaries? Does she understand that the debates with him and other challengers gave her precious exposure, while the MSM was All Trump All the Time?

[BainsBane]

332. The vast majority of them did, of course

but the margins were tiny in key states in the election, only two votes per precinct in Michigan, for example.

The fact we still hear Bernie's 2016 supporters repeating grievances and attacks from the primary is evidence for the impact on the election, particularly when they site is as justification for voting for Trump, Stein, or someone else.

Of course it's not the only or even primary factor, but it played a role.

[Demsrule86]

389. Ah but those are Republicans voters who vote for the candidate with the 'R' next to his/her name...

the ones that say...I didn't like Trump but the courts...perhaps if we did the same, we might win...instead we have an endless quest for love...we must love the candidate and be inspired...yada yada...personally I am inspired by the though of not putting evil people like Gorsuch on the courts.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

435. Agreed, Bernie was loathe to criticize Hillary; minor compared to the "damage" she did to Obama

in the 2012 primary race. And yet we recovered and, at least temporarily, came together.

[Madam45for2923]

338. Whose sore-loserism? Barely? Progressivism the meme?

Glad you are worried about: " building resistance to Trump/Pence "


appal_jack
317. Worthless sore-loserism.

It's time that the Democratic Party recognize that Hillary Clinton failed to clinch the 2008 nomination from a junior-Senator black guy with the middle name Hussein. Then in 2016, she gained the Party ticket only barely (despite the full Party machinery chugging along for her from the very outset). THEN, with nomination in-hand and more campaign funds than ever, she manages to lose the Electoral College to a know-nothing real estate tycoon, boorish empty suit. This is not the track record of a born leader.

If she wants to write self-rationalizing books, sure, that's her right. But she is doing the Democratic Party no favors. At a time when the progressive movement should be focused on building resistance to Trump/Pence (and the Democratic Party ought to be among the leadership of this movement), much of America will be reminded with every excerpt and interview why they voted against Clinton in 2016.

Thanks, Clinton: you're a real asset here!
Photo by Phil Hawksworth source http://www.flickr.com/photos/philhawksworth/5036995211/
What would we do without you?

-app

[JCanete]

328. That is not surprisingly, her opinion. This assumption that she had these disaffected voters locked

up if only nobody had come along to point out to them how disaffected they were, is nonsense.

They were tonally entirely different on what was wrong with your system, and how to push for legislation. Incremental steps are unthreatening to the GOP to the point where they stand to lose nothing by voting against them because there is no drumbeat for something scarier, which a compromise might stave off, and it is uninspiring to the public with its wonkish "don't piss anybody off too much" approach that isn't selling any dream.

It really doesn't matter whether she has changed her views to match the needs of financial contributors or whether those contributors are there because THEY like her. If they like her, the question is WHY do they like her? Why are they putting so much money into her campaign? There doesn't have to be corruption on her end...there just has to be the fact that the money will help to propel your campaign if you are either advantageous to that money's interests, or less threatening to that money's interests than an alternative. The money don't mean nothing and anybody trying to make that case, give me a fucking break.

And in a system that IS actually broken, IS actually far too influenced by and beholden to big money, Clinton was not the one out there challenging anything about the system. She became, fairly or unfairly, the defender/apologist of it as a result. That's still on her for not being more savvy about the climate and for coming across as a triangulating politician for the last decade or more.

[tiredtoo]

337. In the United States of America

We currently have a one party political system. The corporate party. This party has two branches, the far right and the not so far right. Both branches are further right than Republican President Dwight Eisenhower.

[white_wolf]

346. I hope somewhere in her book she actually takes responsibly for her loss.

She won the nomination. I proudly voted for her after Sanders lost. Sanders campaigned for her. She ignored several key states and lost because of it. That loss is on her. Not Sanders. It was Clinton's responsibility to earn votes just like she did in the primaries.

[HughBeaumont]

370. +1,000

I am SO sick of this narrative.

It is NOT the fault of progressives (many, MANY of whom voted for her) that she lost this election to Orange Lincoln Rockwell.

It is not Bernie Sanders' fault that she lost this election to Orange Julius Caesar.

While there were mitigating factors that played a role in Trump's win (Russia, Comey, the complicit media, etc), progressives and progressive voters were NOT to blame. The campaign team abandoned the Rust Belt, was more comfortable getting her in front of big-donor fundraisers than large crowds, did nothing but sell Hillary as "not a batshit fascist" instead of giving Americans a reason to vote FOR her in ads, and went with a strategy of trying to convert two moderate Republicans while losing one "blue collar Democrat".

This is just more ridiculous bullshit to avoid looking in a mirror.

Stop blaming progressives for your crappy campaigning. It should have NEVER been this close against a fascist Cheeto.

These people are going to be some waiting you-know-whats if they expect progressives to be the ones to . . . "bend the knee".

[LovingA2andMI]

382. Orange Lincoln Rockwell.....

Can we borrow that? It's Golden!

[HughBeaumont]

483. In the immortal words of Robbie Dupree - Steal Away!

[LovingA2andMI]

523. Thank You....

[Hekate]

406. Strangely enough, Hillary WON. She got 3,000,000 more votes than Trump. About 66,000,000....

What a loser.

[white_wolf]

410. No, she lost by the only standards that matter.

Look, I think the Electoral College needs to be abolished. The first election I was old enough to be aware of was Bush v. Gore and that was enough to convince me that the EC needs to go. But, the EC is what we have. It's what we've had since the country was founded and Clinton knew that going on. She knew the popular vote does NOT matter.

[Hekate]

411. "The only standards that matter." Oh please.

[white_wolf]

412. She isn't president. That orange piece of shit is. That IS what matters.

Talk of the popular vote and moral victories are meaningless next to the reality that Trump is sitting in the Oval Office right now. Clinton SHOULD be president, but she isn't and that's the reality that matters.

[Vinca]

350. Well, good for her. She'll sell a ton of books.

Sadly, she is reinforcing the split in the party. If we don't unify, we don't win elections. We saw what happened today with the GOP and their nutball leader in charge. The dreamers, who Trump professes to love, face deportation to countries they don't even remember being in. Some of those countries are very dangerous places to be. Not all dreamers will survive.

[LovingA2andMI]

383. Yea....

Sell a bunch of books. That was probably the point....

Meanwhile the Dreamers today are wondering when the Racist Trump Deploration Force will come.

And folks are still fighting the Democratic Primary from LAST YEAR..

[billpolonsky]

358. That election was the Democratic Party's to lose

"She took aim at Sanders for “impugning” her character during the primary, which she believed ultimately helped Donald Trump win in the election. "

Hillary is now a private citizen and like all Americans has the freedom to believe anything she wants.

The Democratic Party wanted a coronation and they lost.

Trump is a liar and the world knows it, but he took Bill Clinton's sentiment "I feel your pain" and ran with it, and won with it.

Bernie Sanders is a sitting United States Senator and is actively working to make your country more progressive.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-poll-trump-favorability-a7913306.html

Bashing Bernie Sanders after the fact for running a tough primary campaign ( and winning 46 percent) is non productive.
Also he ALWAYS said he would support Clinton if she won the primary.

Anyways.... quack quack quack.

Best of luck America
we're rooting for you...

[LovingA2andMI]

384. This....

Right On Point....

[Hekate]

409. Strangely enough, Hillary WON. She got 3,000,000 more votes than Trump. It took the combined forces

...of Russian hacks, Trumpian and Republican treason, gerrymandering, and assorted New Jim Crow voter suppression efforts to bring her down.

Yet she still won the majority of the votes.

Thank you so much for your opinion, but you might want to keep your facts straight while watching us from afar.

[bucolic_frolic]

378. I don't disagree with her on this

I cringed when I heard the attacks at the time. It was a line that should not have been crossed.

[SpicyBoi]

386. Done with Hillary

I'm done with her. I gave her a chance after I voted for Bernie in the primary, but no longer.

We can't keep talking about this person or that person being divisive and then clap like seals when she blames Bernie, Comey, Russia, etc. for her loss. She did not come to Michigan or Wisconsin so she could pretend she was strong in Arizona. Get her off the page.

[Demsrule86]

390. Well she is right... all the above played a roll in the 2016 general election loss.

[seaglass]

397. Boohoo. Had people in MI and WI never heard of Hillary? Do they seriously not vote for

someone because they don't visit their state? Fucking dumb answer.

[Hekate]

405. I'm agonized because she never visited my county. How could she take us so for granted?

[BainsBane]

416. She did visit those states

She visited MI right before the election. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/05/hillary-clinton-michigan/93356788/

That's a media lie repeated with great glee.

[seaglass]

420. Thanks for the correction! n/t

[Hekate]

403. Toodle-oo.

Enjoy your stay.

[BainsBane]

415. This is the Democratic Party, not the Bernie Party

You all have defended every single criticism he has made of Hillary and the Democratic party. People have been insulted as snowflakes and weak if they object in anyway. We've be told we have to take criticism, that we have to understand the Democratic brand is worse than Trump, that it's more corrupt, according to Nina Turner. Yet now some mild criticism of Bernie and you're outraged, after we've been told for months that we have no right to even voice disagreement with Bernie's statements, many of which have been proven false by subsequent events. Unity in you analysis means paying absolute deference to Bernie, not uniting around the party or any issues. That isn't unity. It's submission. You are more than free to spend your life devoted to one politicians career, but don't for a section try to pass off that kind of blatant double standard as "unity."

Hillary has accepted responsibility for her loss. That's also been released in the excerpts. She has expressed sadness over letting down voters. What she did not do is accept responsibility for Bernie's loss. And guess what, nor have Bernie or any of his supporters. We have seen no acknowledgment that he was anything other than perfection itself, despite losing by 4 million votes.
The CONSTANT double standards say EVERYTHING. You're just going to have to come to terms with the fact that you aren't the only people in America who matter and that other citizens have a right to express their own views. We are not inferior to you, and our rights are not worth less than yours.

And guess what? Hillary's not running for office against so she doesn't need your approval. Nor is she asking it. What she's doing is telling the truth, and that is exactly what you object to.

So by all means, be over her. Millions of Democrats were over this bullshit months ago.

[HughBeaumont]

485. This also isn't the "Moderates ONLY" party.

That's kind of the vibe I'm getting from these raging, refusing to look in a mirror centrists that seem to want us to go away.

[SpicyBoi]

521. Hillary isn't even a centrist

She just waits until popular opinion changes before she moves to a more progressive opinion.

She's not a centrist, she's an opportunist.

[BainsBane]

533. "Centrists"

As in failing to recognize the inherent superiority of Bernie and his supporters? Or do you mean centrism as is in support for equal rights and addressing poverty? Failure to promote gun proliferation and the profits of gun corporations? What we need are more progressives to vote against closing Gitmo, against immigration reform and for the Minutemen. We need to ensure trillions flow to Lockheed-Martin. "Centrists" like me oppose all of that, and we even oppose voter disenfranchisement through replacing primaries with caucuses.

Not looking in the mirror s exactly what the outrage to this book is about.

[HughBeaumont]

547. No, "Centrists" as in the ones who constantly say our issues are "politically unachievable".

Oh, and "too costly".

"Centrists", as in the reason we got W.

"Centrists", as in the reason America doesn't at least have multi-payer health care. Whether by tanking the public option or flat-out refusing to vote for an ACA that would have HAD a public option; all so they wouldn't ruffle the feathers of their Big Pharma/Big Insurance handlers even one bit. As a father of a kid who has a pre-existing condition, don't even for one SECOND think I'm EVER going to forgive or forget what these assholes did in that regard.

"Centrists", as in those who voted for the IWR, sending thousands of soldiers, children, wives and sovereign citizens to their deaths . . . . with the flimsy excuse of "we didn't know Bewsh lied" . . . all so companies LIKE Lockheed/Martin can get a piece of that war-machine pie.

"Centrists", as in those who expect ME to "bend the knee" when the population responded overwhelmingly in favor of populist issues over wedge issues.

"Centrists" who accuse people like me of tanking Hillary . . . even though I VOTED for Hillary . . . you tell me how THAT makes any sense.

What we need are more progressives, PERIOD, in the House and Senate.

[BainsBane]

553. Oh, so it has absolutely nothing to do with policy

but process, tactics, and the failure of Democratic politicians to make empty promises to get votes.

Here's another "centrist" who said Single Payer wasn't possible in 2009:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reminded the progressive media gathered on Capitol Hill today that single-payer health care reform was dead before it started in the Senate.

"It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that's it," he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday. . .

Sanders said it was still possible for single-payer to come to the U.S. eventually -- but he said the road will not begin in Washington. If a state like California or Vermont ever instituted a single-payer system on its own, Sanders said, it would eventually lead to national adoption of universal coverage.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance

It wasn't possible under a Democratic president and congress, but it suddenly became possible with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell controlling legislation. That truly is a fascinating evolution.

And if "progressives" are so concerned about single payer, why do we see Democrats who support it systematically targeted? Why do we see so few threads or discussion of issues but many about Bernie's greatness? Why does every effort to discuss or generate support for single payer result in insults against those who support it or who need to support it to pass, almost as though the goal is to ensure the party doesn't galvanize around it?

I think much of the rest of your post gets at what really matters most: You and others who object to the fact that the party dares to focus on anyone besides them.

"Centrists", as in those who expect ME to "bend the knee" when the population responded overwhelmingly in favor of populist issues over wedge issues.

"Centrists" who accuse people like me of tanking Hillary . . . even though I VOTED for Hillary . . . you tell me how THAT makes any sense.

Wedge issue meaning equal rights, black lives, immigration, LGBT rights, and anything other than the increased comfort of the white male middle to upper-middle class. That may be many things, but it is not to the left of centrists. Quite the opposite. Your claims about overwhelming support for white, because that is what you are talking about, populism over "wedge issues" is also not born out by election results, but I take your point. When you say "the population," you aren't talking about the majority of the country whose lives amount to "wedge issues." You're talking about the 38% of the population who truly matters.

I don't recall ever accusing you or anyone who voted for Hillary of tanking the election. I did see one poster refer to "grudging" support for Clinton, a point with which I voiced disagreement. I've seen lots of accusations toward Trump/Stein/third party/write-in voters, followed by outrage that anyone dare criticize them. I've seen people insisting we must "unify" around Jill Stein and that any criticism of her or their other favorite multi-millionaires who oppose the Democratic Party amounts to a "circular firing squad."

I understand it must be frustrating to realize there are people on earth who don't prioritize your feelings over "wedge issues" like the lives of DACA youth or the victims of hate crimes. The true horror of the Tiki Torch mob was not the beatings and deaths of protesters against racism. It was not the victims of hate crimes or the country's descent into fascism. The true victims were those who weren't in Charlottesville, don't protest or even express concern about racism because they decided that the term alt-left was an assault on them.

I do find the 20/20 outrage to the war fascinating. "Centrists" like me protested the war, yet few joined us. Those sparsely attended protests pale in comparison to the legions who now claim superiority over a position on the war they didn't express or act on at the time. If a fraction of the people who condemn the war now would have done something at the time, the US might not have entered Iraq in the first place. Only they didn't care enough to bother. Instead, they use it as a cudgel in highly selective ways, seemingly against Clinton but not Kerry, Biden, or any man who voted for the war. And it's a convenient trope to use to excuse votes for every other military authorization and defense bill.

Interesting to see you express no objection to massive defense spending, including boondoggles like the F-35 that even John McCain opposes; elevating corporate profits over citizen rights; genocidal gun proliferation; keeping Gitmo open; the Minutemen; and voter disenfranchisement. I guess my belief that all people are created equal is just too "centrist." If only I acknowledged the inherent superiority of propertied white men, who make 0.3% of global incomes, then American could be truly great again.

I personally would like to see some movement from the right to the center rather than turning the clock back a half century or more. But my failure to recognize the superiority of the "Party of FDR," of Wall Street financiers born into the aristocracy who presided over Jim Crow and rampant lynchings, or the party of American empire when governments were overthrown on a continual basis to pay for the comfort of the white bourgeoisie, means I'm a "centrist."

That's okay. I understand that labels are the center of a political ethos built around power and privilege for the right sort of people. The ever shifting standards have to be concealed somehow, even if those doing it manage to convince no one but themselves. But then, no one else matters.

If you want more representatives that prioritize your interests, work to get them elected. No one owes you their labor, certainly not the marginalized who comprise the great majority of Democratic volunteers and voters. You want to campaign against "wedge issues," their rights and their lives, you're going to have to do the work yourself.

[SpicyBoi]

516. Do you think Hillary is over it?

Then why the book written negatively about all the people that tried to help her in the General?

Maybe you should re-read your comment from a Bernie supporters perspective - you DO make our rights seem worth less. Have you ever thought that maybe you have double standards as well? Or is Hillary so perfect that no double standards exist amongst her supporters.

She deserves no respect from me whatsoever. She's a loser. And I voted for a loser.

[BainsBane]

417. She went to Michigan on election week

as did Obama. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/05/hillary-clinton-michigan/93356788/

People repeating whatever they hear on TV or Twitter is exactly how Trump became President.

[johnp3907]

462. Done with you.

Welcome to ignore.

[SpicyBoi]

522. You could've just ignored me without announcing it

That makes me think that you need attention and would like other people to ignore me.

[QC]

555. I think you're supposed to be wounded to the very core of your being

or something.

[SpicyBoi]

556. Yes, they were quite full of themselves

[Lazy Daisy]

388. Oh brother

[Hekate]

401. Let me be the 400th post of what will always be a hot topic

[democrank]

407. Many replies here remind me of old memos from (DLCer) Al From.

Save the Democratic Party by banning the left wing....and anyone else who refuses to toe the line. It's like stepping into a way-back machine.

We can either move on together or wait around for the inevitable grassroots leader, who will automatically have millions of supporters, millions in small donations, millions of connections on social media. From my vantage point, the grassroots folks weren't looking for a guru, they were looking for someone who spoke their language. It's as true today as it was in 2016.

Let's set aside bitterness and unite. We should do it for our country.

[crosinski]

429. '... who will automatically have millions of supporters, millions in small donations...'

'We can either move on together or wait around for the inevitable grassroots leader, who will automatically have millions of supporters, millions in small donations, millions of connections on social media.'

But, wait, wasn't that Obama? And don't you remember the cesspool of Obama hate this place turned into after he was elected? And how the very same all repuglican congress that we have now was elected into office in the second year of his first term. And how we here aided and abetted that very same juggernaut that got that bunch of assholes elected because we weren't united behind and working for democratic candidates in an off year ... because we weren't 'inspired' enough.

I think we are in fact fair-weather Democrats here at DU, and I think we proved that in a really GRAND way with Hillary in 2016 too.

[BainsBane]

425. After months of being told that any objection to criticism of the Democratic party, its voters,

or Hillary was weak and thin-skinned, now we see outrage over quite mild criticism. We see "unity invoked," not to encourage coming together around the party or issues, but as a pretext for insisting that no one must ever dare to voice a single word of criticism toward one man. Well I don't happen to believe that one man is superior to the Democratic party, its presidential candidate, or that the rest of the human race, and I that determination to uphold a hierarchical nature of human worth runs against everything I value. "All men are created equal" is supposed to be the founding principle of America, not Bernie is created more equal.

[clu]

436. CNN book report

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/cilizza-krieg-convo/index.html

"I also agree that, on balance, Sanders' proposals weren't too far from Clinton's. The debate over higher ed is a great example. Clinton wanted debt-free college. Sanders went a bit further, suggesting a tuition-free approach. They eventually hashed out a compromise plan. This is why so many progressives, in the days before the election, were confident of having a seat at the table in a Clinton administration.

But again, the fundamental issue here -- as you note -- is that Clinton didn't then, nor does she now, seem to accept the legitimacy of the Sanders wing's underlying argument. Which is, (overly) simply stated, that the country has -- over the last 30 or 40 years and with the Democratic Party's acquiescence -- been moving away from public control of public goods. For example: Those "market-based solutions" that seem to do more for the market than those looking for solutions.

This was always tough and clearly annoying to Clinton. She's been in the arena; Sanders was a mayor in Vermont, then a back-bencher in Congress. But -- and look to the UK and Jeremy Corbyn for further evidence here -- that is not enough of an argument for many voters. In fact, lots of Sanders supporters will tell you that his unwillingness to play ball and make compromises they view as having damaged the working class is not a bug, but a feature piece of his appeal.

Here's a question: Where are you on the "his attacks caused lasting damage" argument? A lot of Sanders people will say that, if anything, he pulled punches. "

[Jim Lane]

454. Dunno about the whole book, but this excerpt is horseshit.

Of course, the way the juries apply the ToS -- "Don't bash Democratic public figures. ... This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders)" -- an OP like this bashing Bernie is permitted, but a reply that refuted Hillary's bashing would be hidden.

Although I'm normally willing to stand behind the assertions I make, anyone asking me to elaborate on my subject line is cordially reminded that I'm not allowed to do so on DU.

[Lotusflower70]

455. Ok then

Whatever works.

[jimlup]

457. Wow!

nothing like picking scabs.

Anything I say will likely get this post hidden. But I ask why the first post isn't also hidden? Is there a wee tad of a double standard? Gee, no there couldn't be.


Yes, this post will likely get hidden which will prove positive exactly what I just said.

[zentrum]

458. Too bad this is getting all revived

The thing is, Bernie's approval rating is 80% among Democratic voters. 57-58% nationwide. He's the most popular active politician we have. More popular than HRC at the moment.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-country-poll-says/

Not sure I get the point of casting shade on someone who is fighting for single payer, and for DACA. I find this revival really disappointing, on many levels and not party strengthening. The Democratic party is more important than Hillary and she seems to be willing to factionalize it for her own purposes. We can't afford that. For what? Face saving?

[BainsBane]

470. It's revived every single day

By Bernie supporters, and several times since the election by Bernie himself, including complaining about superdelegates right after Trump was elected. What you don't like is hearing another side. If Bernie is as "popular" as you claim, then he should be handle some mild criticism, which doesn't approach what he regularly says about the Dem party, it's voters, and Hillary. Those attacks harden divisions, but we were told we were thin-skinned if we objected. More that that, we were told daring to disagree with his criticisms of the party or Hillary meant that we were being divisive. Bernie literally said that the Democratic "brand" was worse than Trump, a Nazi -sympathizing narcissist. And now after insisting we had to to uncritically accept such condemnations, we are now told that even the mildest criticism of Bernie is divisive. Criticizing Bernie is divisive; objecting to Bernie's criticisms is divisive, whereas attacking Hillary and her supporters is justified, even necessary. Obviously those claims of unity have nothing to do with the good of the party. Those glaring double standard say EVERYTHING.

The point is Hillary's perspective. The point is that she had a major role in history, and her point of view matters. The point is that those of us who voted for her want to hear her experiences of the campaign. The point is that other people on planet earth besides Bernie and his most fervent supporters matter. The point is that Hillary nor anyone else has any responsibility to serve Bernie's political ambitions and that what she writes doesn't have to please you.

BTW, the latest poll by that outfit had his approval rating at 54, and that was with a sample that greatly overepresenting independents under 30. Hillary's was in the 70s before her 2016 campaign, and that was nationwide. Additionally the latest Harris poll surveyed 12 public figures, only 6 of which currently hold office. The previous one polled even fewer. There are more than 6 politicians in the country. The headline's claims are deliberately false, intended to generate clicks. All of this has been discussed repeatedly and the information is available on the poll itself, which those who continue to repeat the claims know full well.

[zentrum]

471. Well, I read on many

...sources that his approval rating is 80% among registered Dems. Higher than hers at the moment. I'm moving on and focusing on the Dems who can actually currently help the country---Kamala, Elizabeth and yes, Bernie. Adam Schiff. Al Franken. The future.

[BainsBane]

475. Look at the poll you linked to

You can accesss it from a link of the article. Look at that and the more recent one. Look at the sampling, questions asked, and who is sampled compared to turnout in elections. Look at the size of the sample they used to come up with those numbers for minority groups. Just because you read a headline doesn't make it true. Besides, 80% isn't a very high intraparty approval rating. That's what Trump's currently has among Republicans.

Hillary isn't running for office again. She isn't asking you to focus on her. She written a book for people who are interested in it. And if, as you claim, you arent focused on her, there is no reason for you to pronounce what she should be allowed to say. She's dealt with that kind of crap for decades. Now she is free to say what is on her mind, and I want to hear it.

How do you figure someone even older than Hillary is the "future" of the party? If the party has an average life expectancy of only 3.5 more years, were in a hell of a lot of trouble.

[Progressive2020]

460. Moving On

Hillary certainly has a right to do a post-mortem of the 2016 Election in a book. Simply as a matter of history regardless of other reasons.

That said, I think that, as a community, we do need to move on though. It is time to work on healing divisions and trying to figure out how to win in 2018 and 2020.

I am not suggesting that this is easy. It is necessary if we are to defeat Trump and the Repubs in Congress, not to mention fighting back in the States to take over Governorships, Legislatures, Local Offices, etc.

So, clearly there remains some bad blood between some Sanders Folks and some Hillary Folks. Both sides deserve their say, and I begrudge neither Sander's nor Clinton's right to state their positions and write books, go on book tours, etc.

My point is that we need to get beyond 2016 and focus on 2018 and 2020. Obvious, yes, but sometimes the most important points are right in front of us and need to be re-stated.

So, what can we do to heal rifts and unite for Progressive and Democratic victory in 2018 and 2020? That is the most important question in my mind.

[DallasNE]

461. Why Would She Write That?

What possible purpose does this serve?

Background: I voted for Hillary on November 8th and also spent 3 days working for her campaign when it looked possible that she could lose.

2008 was hers to lose. She lost.
2016 was hers to lose. She lost.

In a debate Obama put his finger on it when he said "Hillary is likeable enough". That side of Hillary failed to inspire and in a turnout election it did her in. Bernie wasn't the reason Hillary lost. Hillary was the reason Hillary lost (with an assist from Comey), tough as it its to take. Yes, I was disappointed some of Bernie's supporters couldn't hold their nose and vote for her when Trump was the opponent. But why was the election even close. This page gives us a strong clue.

[zentrum]

472. I agree with you.

Everything you say is spot on.

But good luck on DU.

[thesquanderer]

465. re: "challenged Bernie...to name a single time I changed a position"

Sanders handled her with kid gloves. At the time, there was plenty of discussion here about the time Warren accused Clinton of changing a position once she became senator, on the 2001 bankruptcy bill. And I know the situation was more complicated than it might have appeared... but it would have been a good debate point, if someone were going for the jugular.

I'm sure Clinton was aware of Warren's comments, and I bet Sanders was as well. The fact that he didn't bring it up at that point was likely either (a) Sanders being a poorly prepared candidate who missed an opportunity or (b) Sanders not wanting to inflict too much damage on Hillary. But it was not what Hillary implies here, which is (c) evidence that no such attack on her from Bernie was possible.

For those who didn't see it or don't remember, here's the clip...

[Pauldg47]

466. Im not reading it.

[notinkansas]

476. uh, NO

Bernie's message was spot on!! And this is coming from someone who voted for you. Out of necessity. Evolve.

[chervilant]

477. Does anyone else find it interesting

Last edited Thu Sep 7, 2017, 09:27 AM - Edit history (1)

that Hillary Clinton chose to write about her failed campaign (tossing in disproved memes like "Bernie Bros" ), instead of writing about any of the key issues causing distress for most US citizens--like no single payer health care (which the majority supports and NEEDS), the militarization of our police forces, the environment (particularly Climate Change, which is the most pressing EXTINCTION LEVEL issue our species faces), the assault on reproductive rights, or any number of other critical issues (radical income inequity, Fukushima, Public Education, etc.) that face our nation and our species.

No... instead, Mrs. Clinton has chosen to write a rather egocentric perspective of a failed and flawed campaign, at the outset of which 64% of voters polled associated her with the word liar...

So the icing on this rather petulant cake is that this focus on "what happened" continues to divide us among ourselves, rather than advocating for and achieving unification (because, as I've been saying for quite some time now, we HAVE to have each others' backs!).

I sincerely doubt I'll find time to read her take on a most distressing and disgusting General Election.

[seaglass]

482. Yeah because there was nothing historic about the 2016 campaign. Duh. n/t

[Gothmog]

478. I am looking forward to reading this book

[Nitram]

492. I wonder how many of the nastiest "Bernie Bros" were actually Russian provocateurs.

[dalton99a]

493. +1

[ehrnst]

545. They didn't need to be for it to spread like mold. (nt)