We need ALL of us...we need the voters who backed BOTH primary candidates.

[Ken Burch]

How does what was said in that book do anything whatsoever to help us achieve unity and victory? How does it help at all?

[oasis]

1. "If we allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, we'll lose again"

I'm sure that quote is somewhere in "that book". If it ain't it ought to be.

[Ken Burch]

2. That is a horrible quote.

It's code for "no one has any right to expect the party to stand for anything".

It's about silencing debate and barring new ideas.

And nobody was demanding perfection...just a clear set of convictions, supported without hesitation or apology.

We never need to campaign as though we can't win the argument, that we can only win by default.

[oasis]

9. That's not "code", it's how you choose to interpret the message.

I'm willing to trust the leadership of the Democratic Party to get us where we need to be.

[Ken Burch]

11. We can't just leave the grassroots with no say.

Left on its own, the leadership will always water our message down to nothing, will always obsess about winning "the center" even though the center, the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" demographic that supposedly wants us to make sure working-class people are left to rot in the post-1981 economic transition, no longer exists.

[oasis]

16. "Viable" solutions to the needs of poor and working class

Americans have been a top agenda item of the Democratic Party for as long as I can remember. Deal making and compromise are always going to be part of the way forward.

[Expecting Rain]

70. The DEMOCRATIC grassroots preferred HRC and that's why she was the DEMOCRATIC nominee.

The rest of your post is baseless nonsense and DEMOCRAT bashing.

[Ken Burch]

76. The grassroots were not saying there should be no change.

n/t.

[Expecting Rain]

78. Yes we in DEMOCRATIC grassroots wanted change, like having a super-smart woman on the Oval Office

...for the first time in our nation's history.

Breaking the glass ceiling on the presidency would have been a significant change. We in the grassroots were ready for this sort of change, especially with a good DEMOCRAT with the values, experience, intellect, and temperament of HRC.

[Ken Burch]

91. I campaigned for HRC in the fall as did the vast majority of Sanders supporters

And support for Bernie was not about not wanting a woman as president. It was about wanting a president that recognized that corporate control of the economy is damaging to most working people-of all races, colors, genders, orientations, and identities.

The fact that virtually every Sanders supporter started as an Elizabeth Warren supporter proves it wasn't about sexism.

I hate the result in the fall as much as you did.

So did Bernie.

But what matters now is unity for the future.

[Expecting Rain]

94. You just can't resist the insults and slurs aimed at DEMOCRATS that are almost...

always embedded into your calls for faux-unity.

As if the HRC was about supporting corporate control over the downtrodden. This is populist demagoguery at its worst.

You simply can't make these sorts of charges out of one side of your mouth and have pleas for unity taken seriously when they come out the other side. It isn't credible.

[Ken Burch]

103. No insults and no slurs, and I'm as much of a DEMOCRAT as you are.

We HAD to have a contested primary in '16. We had to have a candidate that shared Occupy values.

Otherwise...where were we?

We had no remaining popularity as a party with the voters going into that year. The '14 Congressional results showed we were in a death spiral.

That's just where things stood in the polls.

It's not as though HRC would have been a sure thing in the fall if only she'd faced no primary opposition.

[Expecting Rain]

108. Don't try to play us, Ken

you just suggested that HRC supports "corporate control of the economy [that] is damaging to most working people of all races, colors, genders, orientations, and identities."

Then you pretend to desire unity. It doesn't play.

This sort of garbage isn't a path forward. And you know it.

[Ken Burch]

118. I didn't say she supported it. I said she largely left it unchallenged.

Would you take issue with the idea that accepted the basic idea that corporations largely have the right to set the terms of political and economic debate in this country?

She was progressive on decent things and would have been better than Trump.

But it was never realistic to expect people with Occupy values to support her in the primaries. The best that could be done would be to bring them in later by incorporating those values in the platform, and the only way to do that was for someone to run against her.

Why wouldn't it have been just as feminist to support Liz Warren as it was to back HRC?

[Expecting Rain]

121. A distinction without a difference.

You are dog-whistling and trying to hide behind "plausible deniability."

The Occupy moment was a failure. Why take it as some sort of model?

Elizabeth Warren didn't run. It was my great hope she'd be the VP selection. I was disappointed. But I remember some pretty choice word lobbed towards Elizabeth Warren from certain quarters.

[Ken Burch]

127. She was attacked by Trump, not by Sanders people.

The Occupy movement was a marker of massive public discontent with the status quo. We had to have someone in the race who responded to it by acknowledging that it was mainly right.

And something had to be there to connect with the huge number of young people who wanted a challenged to the existing order. We couldn't just pretend everyone was content with the way things were economically.

[Expecting Rain]

133. The answer to economic challenges will never be found in cheap theatrics...

quixotic and immature actions, or populist demagogery.

Those are failed approaches that turn-off far more people than they attract and accomplish nothing (save, arguably, the election of Donald Trump).

[Ken Burch]

136. They can't be found in tiny changes.

There needs to be some transformational spirit to our politics...we need to make it clear at every moment that we are fighting for the many, not the few, and that we naturally stand with those below rather than those above.

There's no hope in politely asking corporations to treat workers and consumers and the environment nicely.

Real change can't be brought about blandly or from above.

[Expecting Rain]

141. IMO this is just more empty demogogery Ken, of the sort that's...

Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)

typical of nativist-populists.

Occupy accomplished nothing. Most would agree it helped set back progress and was therefore definitionally "regressive."

There is nothing "bland" about having real plans and initiating real progress. Getting things done is real progress.

Occupy accomplished nothing.

[shanny]

162. Us?

[mcar]

100. Just not "that woman"

Heard it all over then place here and elsewhere. Now it's being said about Kamala Harris.

[Ken Burch]

107. Just not the least progressive person we could have nominated.

And I am glad to hear that Senator Harris is now backing single-payer. Good for her. I had nothing to do with any of the anti-Harris hate groups-didn't know they existed and wouldn't have wanted them to exist.

[mcar]

109. Who are you talking about?

Hillary was one of the most progressive candidates we've had in a long time. She is a true, bona fide liberal.

This is what some mean when they denounce purity, or letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. She was a true Democrat. To say she was the "least progressive" is just false.

[Ken Burch]

112. And I supported her in the fall

But there had to be a candidate to her left for us to have any chance to connect with voters with Occupy values, with the young.

It couldn't have been progressive to nominate her with no primary opponent, or for Bernie to give up on everything forever by not running.

The Comey thing would have stopped her no matter what.

[mcar]

116. Comey, Russia, the media, sexism

Yes to all of that.

[lapucelle]

122. Did you mention "sexism"?

Oh, I see you did. Mention it again!

[Ken Burch]

123. She didn't lose any progressive votes due to sexism.

Why should progressives have HAD to support HRC in the primaries just to prove they weren't sexist?

Why isn't they fact that all of them would have backed Elizabeth Warren if she'd run proof that it wasn't about gender?

[mcar]

129. Considering the rhetoric of some *not all*

Bernie supporters, I strongly disagree with this statement.

After all, an entire website was formed post primary for the express purpose of calling HRC a c*#t. That seems just a wee bit sexist.

[Ken Burch]

134. I condemn any website that would do that.

The overwhelming majority of Bernie supporters never did or said anything like that, though.

[mcar]

137. Thanks but I already said that

You said

She didn't lose any progressive votes due to sexism.

I offered proof that your statement is incorrect.

You changed the parameters.

[Ken Burch]

140. I agree that what those people are doing is stupid and wrong.

They would never have voted for her no matter what, so she didn't "lose" them.

Screw that tiny group of idiots.

[mcar]

143. Well there we are in agreement

Screw em!

[George II]

115. Did you really say that Clinton was the "least progressive person we could have nominated"? Really?

[Ken Burch]

131. I didn't say she wasn't progressive on anything.

Her whole presentation was always as the "moderate" candidate-that's what "moderate" means.

[George II]

146. You didn't say "moderate" (what's wrong with that anyway?), you said "least progressive".

[Ken Burch]

148. Same thing.

Other than Webb, there were no candidates to her right in the primary.

She was still significantly progressive, but it's not like she was the most progressive person we could nominate or even that could be electable.

[George II]

149. "Significantly progressive" isn't "moderate". So, if you had five true progressives in a room....

....and one was slightly less progressive than the other four, you'd call him/her "moderate"?

[Ken Burch]

150. If there message was "I'm the only one who's not 'too liberal' to win".

She's not going to run again, so why are you belaboring the point?

[Expecting Rain]

158. Uh...HRC is a liberal (and a great one). When one moves away from liberalism...

and embraces a radical leftist ideology one becomes less liberal, not more liberal. You seem confused on the point.

You also seem confused what it means to be a progressive. It means those who help positively move society forward.

Those who just posture, but don't act in ways that actually move us forward (or whose actions move us backwards) are not progressives.

HRC is both a great liberal and a progressive, and one with a record of accomplishments.

[HughBeaumont]

184. Define "radical leftist ideology".

Oh . . . . THIS ought to be good.

[Expecting Rain]

154. HRC was the "least progressive" person the DEMOCRATIC Party...

..could have nominated???!!!

What horseshit Ken!

And just one more post that shows clearly that your calls for "unity" are completely phony.

Do you think your attacks on the DEMOCRATIC Party are flying under the radar?

Not cool man.

[NurseJackie]

163. You're right about that!

Every... single... thing... you wrote is absolutely correct!

[Ken Burch]

172. I'm not attacking the party

Critique is not attack.

She presented herself as the "moderate" candidate.

[Expecting Rain]

174. When compared with populists on the right and on the left...

A liberal progressive like HRC is a moderate.

It all relative.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

153. True, was a big Elizabeth supporter... then threw my support to Bernie when she didn't run...

... then to Hillary when she won the primary. I don't see how a candidate's gender plays into this at all.

[mcar]

96. The Democratic party base is AA, POC and women

We are the grassroots, we are the voters. We are who Hillary spoke to.

[guillaumeb]

33. Some feel that "the leadership of the Democratic Party"

is responsible, at least in part, for the GOP takeover at the state and national level.

Is the Party composed of the leaders, or of all the voters?

[oasis]

48. Obama and Dems were in the driver's seat in 2008.

Soon thereafter, voter complacency set in. Let's not let voters of the hook, they also have some soul searching to do.

[Ken Burch]

53. It's not as simple as putting it down to voter complacency.

We have no right to simply EXPECT people to show up. There always has to be an effort to communicate and reach out to them. In 2009 and 2010, the people running our elections machinery simply didn't make that effort.

To get turnout, we have to keep faith.

Where there are compromises, we have to make it clear that they are temporary and that we will immediately work for more.

And our leaders need to listen to what the grassroots activists are telling them about the public mood.

We can't have a long-term progressive politics based on everyone in the party just leaving it to the leadership.

[guillaumeb]

55. Yes, voters should vote in every election.

But politicians can also combat that complacency with plans that energize voters. And as unionization levels drop, the GOP has made more inroads into working class voters.

In my view, the war waged by corporate capitalists against unions that Reagan reignited was ignored by Presidents Clinton and Obama.

This de-unionization has been accompanied by general wage stagnation and a growing sense that government does not care about workers.

[oasis]

67. I'm retired but have maintained my membership

with my local union branch. Our national leadership was always in contact with certain members of congress (mostly Democrats). We hold national conventions every other year in major cities around the U.S. with well known Democrats as guest speakers. Tipper Gore and congressman Neil Abercrombie spoke at one I attended.

Union membership nationally has been declining since the 1980's. As jobs go, so does membership.

My union is as strong as ever.

[Eliot Rosewater]

90. Pretty simple, actually.

After over 200 years of white men NOT getting healthcare done, a black guy did more than the previous 43 combined accomplished and he did it almost day one.

But it wasnt enough, was it more than ALL previous had done? Yep, but, not enough I guess.

So they whined and stayed home and gave us the 2010 election.

[mcar]

102. Nothing Obama did was good enough

The naysayers started in on him on Inauguration Day - and they were purported Dems. Nothing he did or said mattered.

Here on DU, we Obama supporters were mocked and ridiculed. And the best president of my lifetime was called a piece of shit.

And those who did that will never reflect that they, perhaps, have played some part in Dem woes since. No, they always insist they have to be "reached out" too.

[ATL Ebony]

139. That. Thanks for emphasizing a voter's responsibility -- learn the issues and VOTE!

[mcar]

142. It's really that easy

[ATL Ebony]

147. I know, it really is that simple vs finding issues to spotlight then use a bully pit to force

your will on the rest of the party. The Democratic grassroots is an awesome machine, which we knew, and although we can always improve we don't need to be redefined.

[guillaumeb]

60. Welcome to DU.

And your observations are good ones.

In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel once said that working people will vote for Democrats because they have nowhere else to go. If 2016 taught anything, it is that working class voters DO have another place to go. It might be a bad place to be, and in the case of Trump (or any Republican politician for that matter) it will have significant negative results, but nothing obligates any voter to vote at all, much less vote for any particular candidate.

[shanny]

161. Why?

Looking past tRump and Hillary what do you see?

[oasis]

166. By 2020, those who looked in the mirror after biting off their noses

for spite, will be eager to undergo rhinoplasty so they can enthusiastically support the next Democratic nominee.

That's what I see.

[lunamagica]

47. But you want to silence her. You don't want debate, you want everyone to take your position

Are you implaying Hilary does not have a clear set of convictions, supported without hesitation or apology?

She was by far the most honest candidate running. She disclosed decades of tax returns. She didn't say everything the electorate wanted to hear. Never promised ponies and rainbows, but had a great platform.

[Ken Burch]

89. I don't want to silence her. And I do want debate.

But a debate about who as an individual was to blame for 2016 is not worth having.

The only reason to have THAT debate is to argue that the party should be a Bernie-free zone, to argue that Sanders supporters should only be welcome in the party as individual penitents who have given up working for any of their principles.

We should be focusing, instead of that, on BUILDING support. The only place on the spectrum where we can build support is from voters to our left-no significant number of peope currently to our right are ever going to switch to us.

The compromise I back is Bernie's language on economic issues, Hillary's on social issues-coupled with an acknowledgment that there is no actual disagreement or rivalry between social justice and economic justice supporters-they all basically agree on everything.

Can't you just accept that it's time for the Sanders/Clinton division to end and that we should all just work together?

[sheshe2]

173. Then there is Nina Turner sowing division.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nina-turner-our-revolution-president-from-democrat_us_595a4413e4b0c85b96c66373

“How will Our Revolution relate to the DNC, the DCCC, the DSCC, that kind of establishment that so many activists and politicians, including you, have frequently criticized?” Her response was “I don’t think it is our job nor our obligation to fit in. It’s their job to fit in with us.” That mirrors how Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has handled his entire political career. It is also why he has few real accomplishments to his name after over forty years in office.

So ‘Our Revolution’ isn’t about supporting progressives or helping people learn how the system works so they can move forward progressive change. Rather it is about catering to groups of local activists, often self-indulgent, to the point of taking action that actually hurts the causes they believe in. To bring about change one has to understand the system; understanding how Congress works. Like it or not when it comes to Congress there are only two parties, Democrat and Republican. If you don’t work to support one of them you are helping the other. We saw that in the last Presidential election and we saw it in 2000 when we ended up with George W. Bush.

There were a number of other surprising statements from Turner in the same Meyerson interview. They include who ‘Our Revolution’ would consider endorsing. She said “And for me, I’ve also heard the senator (referring to Sanders) say this lately too: Let’s put the political affiliation to the side. If there is a Republican or a Libertarian or Green Party person that believes in Medicare for all, then that’s our kind of person. If there’s somebody that believes that Citizens United needs to be overturned, that we need the 28th amendment to the Constitution that declares that money, corporate money, is not speech and that corporations should not have more speech than Mrs. Johnson down the street and Mr. Gonzalez around the corner, then that’s our kind of people.”

This isn't helping us. This hurting us and in the end we will lose once again. She is sowing division.

[haveahart]

83. No, that is the message. Hillary's book is her story and it is full of facts and honest perspective

And she is absolutely correct about the Bernie Bros and Bernie. AND the proof was in the outcome.
And if you visit Twitter you will find the trashing of Hillary is still taking place. Her book helps her and it helps many to remember that we are "stronger together." Bernie is not a Democrat. He says he is not a Democrat. So why can we not quote him?

The most difficult the thing to do is to admit one's role in putting Trump in office. It upsets me that I didn't work harder to defeat him.

[Weekend Warrior]

3. Which book?

The one Sanders recently cashed out on? Not sure why you would be wanting to take shots at that. He found his fame and is profiting from it. Let him go.

[Ken Burch]

4. You know the one I'm talking about.

n/t.

[Weekend Warrior]

5. I promise that I know the one you are talking about.

Some can't help but to make it clear who they think should and should not share their thoughts.

Thank you for making my point.

[Ken Burch]

7. My point is that no one should be dividing us.

Assigning blame to one side in the primaries for the result does nothing but damage. Our tone to each other should only be positive now.

[Weekend Warrior]

8. That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works.

You are all too well aware of that. It's what makes this amusing.

This was you going into the primary.

"Bill would have won without throwing the poor under the bus in '96, and he did nothing in his second term that was significantly different than what Dole would have done(even on LGBTQ issues). And HRC defends this knifing of the poor TO THIS DAY." Ken Burch

Now it's about how we have to come together?

[Ken Burch]

12. I'm not a former Democratic nominee. I wrote that years later, maybe decades later.

And did so at a time when it was not in any sense a threat to party unity.

There's no significant number of people in this party who still think he HAD to sign that horrible, reactionary piece of legislation, that he couldn't be re-elected without signing it(or that you could ever sign anything that horrible and do anything progressive afterwards).

And all I've done since November is propose ways we could improve and work together.

We can't win without including former Sanders supporters as an equal part of this party, and there's nothing that group stands for that is in significant disagreement with you.

They are as pro-choice as you are. They are as anti-racist and anti-bigotry. Those are simply view all young people on the Left hold.

[Weekend Warrior]

14. "I'm not a former Democratic nominee."

Didn't know. Didn't ask. But thanks for the info. My point there was clear and on the money.

"We can't win without including former Sanders supporters as an equal part of this party"

Couldn't disagree more. In fact, I don't even see how it makes any sense. Absolute statements fail absolutely in most instances, as is the case here.

[Ken Burch]

21. It's simply math. We can't get those peoples' votes by forcing them to abandon all group identity

treat what they care about with dismissive contempt, and reduce our argument to them to nothing but "you HAVE to support the ticket". 1968, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004 and 2016 proved that that doesn't WORK. Why stay the course if the course doesn't lead anywhere?

Whatever anyone feels about Bernie as an individual(some days I'm not crazy about the way he communicates myself), what his supporters want HAS to be taken seriously, because almost all of it has mass popular support in the country as a whole.

Bernie shouldn't run again...he'd be too old in '20...but what do we have to gain by rejecting his economic ideas, or the idea that working-class voters need to be valued, or the idea that grassroots activists should have a real say in what this country does?

Why not embrace the good parts of that, combine them with the greater emphasis on antioppression politics in the Clinton campaign message(in practice, the candidates were both equally anti-racist, anti-bigotry, anti-oppression and pro-choice)and create a unity message with someone new?

What is it about that idea that scares so many of you?

No one in the Democratic base has anything to lose from it.

[Weekend Warrior]

25. I truly can't make sense of this.

I hold most of those who voted for Sanders in the last primary in much higher respect than you. You really make them out to be pathetic. You should not do that as they don't deserve it.

[Ken Burch]

124. We can't ask for their support if our party ends up blaming 2016 on Bernie.

And a party that did that wouldn't support anything they wanted.

You can't chew people out and THEN expect their vote.

[Me.]

35. No Way What Nina & The Others Want Need To Be Taken To Account

if she's serious about voting for Cons. She says BS might too.

[MineralMan]

6. There are many books. Which one do you mean?

Why should I guess? Just post the title and then I won't have to.

[Expecting Rain]

72. So why be coy about the fact that you are (once again) trashing Hillary Clinton?

[Willie Pep]

10. I assume this is about Clinton's book where she said that Bernie's attacks probably hurt her.

There were certainly some online Bernie Bro types who spread the "Crooked Hillary" message. But most Bernie primary voters also supported Clinton in the general election and Sanders did stump for Clinton in the GE as well. If Bernie had refused to support Clinton in the GE or even worse told his supporters to stay home or vote for a third party candidate, I could understand the continued anger at Sanders. But at this point it looks like sour grapes and deflection from mistakes the Clinton campaign might have made during the GE, like taking the Midwest for granted.

[Ken Burch]

13. Yes

At a time we need to be finding common ground, when we need to reach out to each other in a positive way, when nothing good can come of settling scores or personally attacking people, what possible justification can there be for an exclusively negative and toxic thing like this being published?

It hurts the party.

[NurseJackie]

19. Ignoring reality "hurts the party".

Silencing Hillary "hurts the party".

She has something to say and she deserves to be heard.

It's disrespectful to her to do otherwise.

Respect Hillary.

#RespectHillary
#ShowSomeRespect

[Ken Burch]

22. Hillary can't BE silenced. It's just that she has no reason to attack Bernie.

And I've been nothing but respectful to Hillary.

She has no good reason to say anything that could drive people away.

Why can't you see that this is the time to be reaching and pulling together?

A time to find common ground?

November was ten months ago.

What matters is the future.

[Weekend Warrior]

26. "And I've been nothing but respectful to Hillary. "

Do you want to put a time-frame on that comment?

Next you will say you have been nothing but respectful to Kamala Harris as well.

[Ken Burch]

69. I made one comment about Kamala two years ago.

That was the last thing I had posted on her prior to those thread where you went after me.

I had nothing to do with the anti-Kamala groups you mention let alone having started them.

Those people are crazy and I denounced them.

and I'm glad she came out for single-payer.

It's enough that I endorsed Hillary before Philly.

And I campaigned for her in the fall.

[NurseJackie]

29. LET HER SPEAK!! She's not attacking anyone.

Hillary can't BE silenced.

They why persist in discouraging people from reading her words, listening to what she says and talking about it? Why? What good purpose does that serve?

Show some respect. She deserves that from us.

It's just that she has no reason to attack Bernie.

Oh, stop it! She's not attacking Bernie.

#LetHerSpeak

#Respect
#ShowSomeRespect
#RespectHillary
#HillaryDeservesRespect

[lunamagica]

57. "November was ten months ago". Tell that to the DREAMers

[Ken Burch]

71. I agree that an injustice is being done to the DREAMers.

But how can blaming people over the last election help them?

Bernie didn't want Trump to win, for God's sakes-we all KNOW that.

And how does blaming Bernie for a result that wasn't his fault, in a time when we need Bernie's voters to work with us and demonizing him could drive us away, going to help the DREAMers?

Why not focus on the fights ahead?

Why not put the priority on unity and common ground?

[lunamagica]

80. Because it sounds like you are telling people "get over it". You know what? They can't. Futire? they

don't have a future.

[Ken Burch]

82. I would never tell DREAMers to "get over it"

All that I'm saying is that our party has to focus now on unity and winning the fights for the future.

It's not Bernie's fault that Trump won.

[mcar]

135. Amen, luna

Dreamers. Harvey victims. Charlottesville. I'm in Irma's path.

Tell that to all of us.

[lapucelle]

104. The book in question is a personal memoir.

When Sanders wrote his memoir, he said unflattering things about his opponent, and the book was scheduled for release the day after the election, so the timing was especially unfortunate in the light of the result. No one called for that book to be burned. He had the privilege of being entitled to a personal perspective.

Let's follow the same standard for both books.

[Ken Burch]

110. We need unity and dialog to win.

It can't lead to anything positive or progressive for anyone to perpetuate the Sanders/Clinton division, or to do anything that drives Sanders people away.

Bernie made mistakes. Hillary made mistakes. We all know that. What matters now is the future. We have no future if the party becomes a Sanders-free zone-that just traps us at 49% for the rest of eternity. There's no one who would switch to us but only if we keep making shows of telling the left to go to hell.

[lapucelle]

117. It seemed to me that the OP

was harsh criticism of a Democrat under the guise of a call for unity.

"How does what was said in that book do anything whatsoever to help us achieve unity?"

How does that statement help to heal wounds?

An OP calling for unity could have been framed this way just as easily,

"Attacks on the writer of a personal memoir in which personal perspective is shared should stop. They are entitled and divisive."

[Ken Burch]

120. I posted that because I'm scared that that passage will keep us divided and drive Sanders people off

There was no attack on the writer as a person.

[lapucelle]

126. "How does what was said in that book

do anything whatsoever to help us achieve unity and victory?"

What was said in that book BY WHOM?

The reference may be oblique, but it is obvious as well. And the implications are quite clear.

[Ken Burch]

128. The implications are that blaming Bernie for the defeat when it wasn't his fault

can cost our next nominee votes.

We have no chance of winning the votes of Sanders people if we as a party demonize Bernie and reject everything his campaign called for.

We can't get them by just saying "shut up and do what you're damn well told".

THOSE are the implications.

[lapucelle]

144. She doesn't blame him.

She acknowledged that narratives that were driven during the primary and were later exploited by Trump were a factor.

[Me.]

36. Yeah, Let's Talk About Nina

and her slams against Dems

[mythology]

88. Except what she's saying isn't objectively true

Sanders didn't cause her to lose the general election. The polling evidence shows she was ahead by enough to win the Electoral College right up until the second Comey announcement about emails. If she hadn't used a private email server, there would be no announcement for Comey to make.

That is what cost her the election.

Much like the vast majority of Clinton supporters in 2008 voted for Obama, the vast majority of Sanders supporters voted for Clinton in 2016. Evidence from political science research generally concludes a higher percentage of Sanders supporters voted for Clinton in 2016 than Clinton supporters voted for Obama in 2008.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/

It's not disrespectful to point out that somebody is wrong and Clinton is wrong about this.

[lapucelle]

97. "...reach out to each other in a positive way..."

The post you are responding "yes" to didn't strike me as "reaching out in a positive way". If that is an example of of "finding common ground", you're bound to run into resistance.

The only way the OP could have been more divisive is if the words "that book" were replaced with the words "the book by that woman."

[lunamagica]

52. He never conceded. And his "support" was lukewarn at best

Last edited Wed Sep 6, 2017, 01:37 AM - Edit history (1)

[NurseJackie]

81. Correct.

[shanny]

165. A purity test, and enthusiasm meter.

Bernie campaigned for Hillary but guess what? His supporters found him less inspiring when he was supporting her. That's his fault, I'm sure.

[JI7]

15. Sanders should release his tax returns

[Blue_Adept]

17. Man, do we need the primaries forum back more than ever before

Cause people are gonna keep posting about it in varying aspects and angles in GD. And goddamn does it need to be OUT of this forum. It makes me wish we had stronger moderation in addition to user moderation, because I'm not going to keep hitting alert on this stuff with how pervasive it is and how jurors let it stand.

[Ken Burch]

24. I was arguing here that the primaries should NOT be brought back up.

If its refighting the primaries to say harsh things about Hillary and her supporters(on a personal level it should be-debate about policy and tactics in the fall should be legitimate), then it is refighting the primaries to attack the runner-up and his supporters.

She should have saved that passage for at least another eight or twelve years. There's no reason for her to pick at it right now.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

155. Your point is forward looking and I agree attacking Bernie serves no purpose other than to divide...

... it's time to move on!

[NurseJackie]

18. LOL! How does ignoring reality "help at all?"

How does what was said in that book do anything whatsoever to help us achieve unity and victory?

Why should anyone be afraid to listen to what Hillary has to say?

Why are you trying to silence her? She deserves to have her voice heard too. What good purpose does it do to tell us to ignore Hillary and pretend like her book doesn't exist? Why should anyone pretend that it doesn't matter?

For anyone to pretend it doesn't exist or that it doesn't matter is a false reality.

How does it help at all?

Exactly!

[Ken Burch]

28. Do you WANT us to win in '18 and '20?

We need unity for that. We need common ground for that.

It's nothing but damaging for Hillary to want to divide us.

And the result in November would have been exactly the same if Bernie had withdrawn on Super Tuesday or hadn't run at all.

Hillary can't be silenced. She can't be oppressed.

There's no value in her lashing out at Bernie and his supporters.

It can't make us a stronger party for Bernie to be driven totally away, because his supporters would just leave us forever and we'd never win again. We don't have enough votes in '18 and '20 without them-and it's not possible to get them to vote just be screaming "Trump's horrible, you HAVE to vote Dem".

[NurseJackie]

30. LET HER SPEAK!!

It's nothing but damaging for Hillary to want to divide us.

Show some respect! That's not what she's doing. How do you know what she "wants" or what's in her mind? Are you a mind-reader? #ShowSomeRespect

There's no value in her lashing out at Bernie and his supporters.

She's not doing that. #LetHerSpeak

It can't make us a stronger party for Bernie to be driven totally away

LOL! Nobody is doing that.

And the result in November would have been exactly the same if Bernie had withdrawn on Super Tuesday or hadn't run at all.

Link?

[Ken Burch]

38. She can't be STOPPED from speaking.

All I'm doing is responding to what she says.

The problem is, nothing positive can come from what she said her.

We can't unify later if she does this now.

We can only win on unity and partnership-not by the party insiders telling everybody else to just shut up and let THEM run thing.

The insiders don't want us to be significantly different than the GOP.

They want to reduce us to "socially liberal, fiscally conservative, always prowar".

[NurseJackie]

42. So why keep trying to silence her?

All I'm doing is responding to what she says.

By trying to silence her and by trying to silence the discussion about what she has to say.

The problem is, nothing positive can come from what she said her.

That's a very pessimistic attitude. I think it's very helpful to get everything out in the open. Why would anyone object to honesty?

Doesn't Hillary deserve to be able to tell her story? It's a story I want to hear. I'm very interested in it.

It serves no good purpose for anyone to try an deny me being able to hear (read) Hillary's perspective.

We can't unify later if she does this now.

Democrats ARE unified. DEMOCRATS are unified!

[NurseJackie]

64. Democrats are unified. I chose my words carefully and deliberately.

[lapucelle]

111. I'm active in my local DNC and a member

of the woman's caucus.

We're unified. We're united. And we're working hard RIGHT NOW to GOTV for local Democratic candidates and important referenda on the ballot this November.

[NurseJackie]

114. I know! That's what I'm seeing too. In the REAL WORLD...

... Democrats are united. On "internet argument forums" like this one it's a different story, but its just not REALITY. It's a passtime and it's naive to believe that our argument-forum represents the real world.

[icymist]

95. I believe I see where you are confused

In 2016 people left the Democratic party to vote a third party or, even for the Dorito Bandito himself. I recall at the time that they were doing this as a protest because, in reality, they detest Democrats and what the party stands for unless they can dictate it. As far as I am concerned I would show them the door, warning that it not hit them on the ass on the way out. Bargaining to try and get the dividers back into this party isn't going to work with me this time.

[NurseJackie]

130. Thank you! Thank you very much! (And some try to describe them as "the base"!!)

Can you believe such silliness?

In reality, "the base" are the MOST LOYAL and MOST DEPENDABLE voters and supporters and donors to the Democratic Party.

[George II]

196. Funny how Clinton is expected to toe the line in the name of unity, but others aren't.

[Hortensis]

20. I'd hoped Warren would run, and that was me until I learned more about both of them.

I really wanted a candidate who'd fight to not just halt but reverse the flow of our national wealth and power to the very wealthy. Elizabeth didn't run, and it soon became clear to me that my choice had to be competent, liberal Hillary with her extremely broad, well developed, achievable plan that would build on what Obama had already achieved to rein in their power and raise their taxes.

Even if I'd been initially excited by Warren's aggressive economic passion united with proven competence in that regard, I felt fortunate that I did nevertheless have a genuinely good candidate to vote for.

[Break time]

23. Not at all

But it makes someone a lot of money

[seaglass]

27. Are you denying Hillary's right to provide her perspective on What Happened to her

during the election of 2015/6? Why shouldn't she be honest.

When Sanders, Schumer, Biden and the entire media had their say? When all of DU got to post-mortem the election? I have no idea why she does not have the same right as everyone else. Too bad if she FINALLY points a finger at Bernie? Is he perfect? Is he untouchable?

I agree we need Bernie primary supporters who voted for Hillary in the GE. They are welcome aboard. The remaining Bernie primary supporters consist of unreliable fauxgressive supposed allies who were not smart enough to understand that there were two choices in 2016. Why count on them to not be stupid again? I say go after those who didn't vote, new voters who aren't dumb and focus on getting rid of gerrymandering, voter suppression and foreign influence.

[NurseJackie]

31. That is EXACTLY what's happening here!

#LetHerSpeak

[Ken Burch]

34. Nobody's oppressing her.

And there's nothing she said in that passage that she hadn't said before.

#WeNeedUnity
#WeNeedPartnership

[NurseJackie]

40. LET HER SPEAK!! (Now! Not "eight to twelve years from now".)

And there's nothing she said in that passage that she hadn't said before.

Just another variation of "she should keep silent". Or, it's actually a not-so-subtle suggestion that what she has to say isn't worth anything.

If this is something that she actually has said before (as you claim) it's new to me. I'd not hear Hillary give that perspective before. Surely I'm not the only one.

So... why would you want to deny others from hearing (reading) Hillary's take on things. Doesn't she deserve to be heard. It's her story. LET HER SPEAK!

#LetHerSpeak
#ShowSomeRespect

[Ken Burch]

46. Why do you keep saying "Let Her Speak!"?. She DID speak. I'm responding.

Does what she said have to be left unchallenged for her to have had her say?

Why is it necessary for her to say negative things when we need unity? When we need the people who worked for and voted for BOTH of them?

It wasn't Bernie's fault.

And it wouldn't have been prevented if Hillary had been nominated without opposition.

As you've pointed out, the right-wing had been attacking her for decades.

You all knew that. You knew there was nothing any of us could do to undo the effects of those decades of attacks. It's not as though the VRWC would simply have vanished if only every single one of us, in January of '16, had said "we have to nominate HRC and we have to give her unquestioning support no matter what".

[NurseJackie]

56. I say "Let Her Speak" because someone keeps questioning whether it's "necessary" for her to speak.

Show some respect and let her have her say. She deserves that much. I don't understand this rush to silence her or to be so dismissive about listening to (reading) what she has to say. It's disrespectful to be that way.

She deserves to be heard. She deserves respect.

Why is it necessary for her to say negative things when we need unity? When we need the people who worked for and voted for BOTH of them?

Not as many people are "offended" by what Hillary has to say as you may imagine. I'm not buying this false reality you're trying to create.

#LetHerSpeak
#ShowSomeRespect

[Ken Burch]

32. I can't deny Hillary the right to do anything, nor would I.

What I'm saying is that, while she has the technical right to say whatever she wants, it's not a HELPFUL thing for her to have put that page in. If she had to say that bit, she could have added it to a later edition published eight to twelve years from now.

My point is that, if we don't start unifying now, if we don't have parity of esteem between Clinton and Sanders ideas and Clinton and Sanders people, how can we win? How does blaming Bernie for the loss get us to a better place for 2018 and 2020?

Secretary Clinton should have taken the high road. She should have used this book to bring us together. Instead, from the page I read, she still acts as if there was no reason for Bernie's candidacy even to have happened, that his ideas don't have strong, sometimes massive public support, that that campaign never deserved to be taken seriously or acknowledged as having any popular legitimacy.

I campaigned hard for HRC in the fall and was as devastated by the result as anyone else But we can't win any future elections if, ten months after the vote, our last nominee is still score settling and still essentially refusing to acknowledge that her fall campaign made any significant mistakes-that not having her set foot in Wisconsin or in much of the Upper Midwest in the fall might possibly have had an effect.

I agree with your ideas for the future, btw. But we still need to have some changes in policy and attitude(mainly in challenging corporate control over politics, addressing working-class economic despair, and admitting that there's no good reason for any continuing U.S. military intervention in the Arab/Muslim world) and there still needs to be an effort to actually reach out to Sanders people as PARTNERS in the party, to make it clear to them that this will be a place open to people who want to work for economic justice and social democratic ideas, as long as those people accept the social justice component and treat those who center it with respect).

[NurseJackie]

37. Oh, please! Stop Slamming Hillary!

Secretary Clinton should have taken the high road.

Show some respect!

Second-guessing what she should or shouldn't have done, is the same as trying to silence her. It's just another way of saying that her words, thoughts, ideas and her perspective has no value.

Stop it!

Secretary Clinton should have taken the high road.

Just another way of saying that she "took the low road". BULLSHIT! This is HER STORY and she deserves to be able to tell it!

If she had to say that bit, she could have added it to a later edition published eight to twelve years from now.

LOL! EIGHT TO TWELVE YEARS FROM NOW??? LOL! LOL! Yeah, right... you're not trying to silence her at all!

Please! Show some respect!

Let her speak!

#ShowSomeRespect
#LetHerSpeak

[Ken Burch]

41. She's not a victim, for Goddess' sake.

What is the point of her saying this? What is the point of her writing something that clearly seems to say "I won't LET the war between my supporters and Bernie's supporters end"?

What lesson is there to be learned from this?

I can give you a cite for why Bernie's candidacy didn't harm Hillary. Before he entered the race, the last poll taken showed her with a three point lead over any Republican. She ended up with a three point lead in the popular vote. There were no votes above that three point lead she'd have won in the fall if only Bernie hadn't run.

We HAD to have a candidate in the primaries who shared the values of Occupy, of the anti-globalization(in the progressive sense, not the bogus Trump sense)movement. We had to have something that, after decades in which the party insiders controlled everything and there was no real debate, let open discussion and the voices from below back in.

It should have been Elizabeth Warren. But once she stayed out, it had to be SOMEBODY. We don't win when our nominee is established months before the convention, when there's no real debate.

[NurseJackie]

43. Stop insulting Hillary. Please. (Show some respect. Let her speak.)

What is the point of her saying this?

She has a story to tell. What more do you need?

What lesson is there to be learned from this?

We'll never know if we silence her... or if we ignore her and denigrate her and insult her as some her are want to do.

[Ken Burch]

50. It's not as though she can only say what she wants if no one responds.

All I did was to say that I thought what she'd already said in the book was damaging.

How is THAT silencing her or disrespect?

[NurseJackie]

59. Show some respect, please. She deserves that much!

50. It's not as though she can only say what she wants if no one responds.

So, you're saying that she can write all the words she wants, as long as nobody reads them or talks about them?

It's not like she's being literally silenced, right? You just want everyone to ignore her and tell her to go sit in the corner alone and talk to herself? Right? (That's what it sounds like. That's what it amounts to. And that's disrespectful.)

All I did was to say that I thought what she'd already said in the book was damaging.

If only she'd wait for eight or twelve years before telling her story, right? (Your idea, not mine.)

How is THAT silencing her or disrespect?

You tell me. You're a smart fellow... I'm sure you can figure it out yourself.

#LetHerSpeak
#ShowALittleRespect

[Ken Burch]

66. I didn't stop her from saying anything or stop anyone from reading anything.

Is the only way for me to prove to you I respect her to post nothing in response?

[NurseJackie]

73. Well...

Is the only way for me to prove to you I respect her to post nothing in response?

If the only thing you're going to do is disrespect her, then, my answer is yes.

66. I didn't stop her from saying anything or stop anyone from reading anything.

No, you literally couldn't do that. But just because you can't LITERALLY shut her up doesn't detract from the negativity and insults you're hurling in her direction.

Just because you can't LITERALLY stop people from discussing her book doesn't change the fact that you're being disrespectful of those who DO want to discuss her book and to those of us who DO want to hear her story.

When someone indicates they wish Hillary had waited EIGHT OR TWELVE YEARS .... that's a pretty good clue to me that what they really want is for Hillary to shut up. They're saying that Hillary's words and perspective have no value. They're saying that Hillary's words are worthless and unimportant. (And yes, those are all attacks on Hillary.)

Frame it however you want to... but your own unguarded words have revealed exactly how you feel. All I'm saying is that it's insulting and it serves no good purpose. It's divisive.

All I can say is that she deserves to be heard, and it's not going to kill you if you just man-up and show the lady some respect.

#LetHerSpeak
#ShowSomeRespect

[Ken Burch]

75. And she has already been heard. People have heard the excerpts and they will buy the book anyway.

Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 07:29 PM - Edit history (1)

All I did is respond.

I hope you aren't saying a person can't respect someone and disagree with them at the same time. I spoke with nothing but respect about HRC there.

It's not divisive simply to question something a former presidential candidate says.

What's divisive is blaming the strong runner-up in the primaries for something he didn't cause. It's not as though the Comey thing and what the Russians did wouldn't have happened, and the twenty-five years of right-wing attacks wouldn't have had any affect if only Hillary had been nominated without opposition.

And I haven't been disrespectful to anyone who WANTED to discuss the book. I haven't said anything ABOUT anyone who wanted to discuss it.

I just want us to unify and win in '18 and '20.

[NurseJackie]

77. To my knowledge, the book hasn't been released yet...

... other than advanced copies to reviewers and media-types. Perhaps some final draft as a Trade Paperback for booksellers and other retail outlets.

75. And she has already been heard. People have bought the book and heard the excerpts

September 12th is the release date... so, no... she has NOT "already been heard".

And "already been heard"... good grief! Seriously? Did you REALLY just say that? That's so disrespectful. Can't you hear how that sounds? You're saying it's "nothing new"... and "we've heard it all before"... with hints of how she's "being repetitive"... with a subtext of "sit-down-and-shut-up-woman!"

I hope you aren't saying a person can't respect someone and disagree with them at the same time. I spoke with nothing but respect about HRC there.

LOL! Yeah, right! Saying that she should have waited "EIGHT OR TWELVE YEARS" before telling her story is sooooo very respectful. GMAB!

All I'm saying is that your actual words and how you describe them later don't match up. There's really NOTHING at all that's "respectful" about these attempts to silence Hillary or to sidetrack the discussion or to portray her words as being worthless and unimportant.

It's not divisive simply to question something a former presidential candidate says.

That's not what you were doing. Anyone can scroll up/down/sideways and read your words. It's right there for anyone to see!

#LetHerSpeak
#ShowSomeRespect

[Ken Burch]

87. I stand corrected on the book release date.

The book is certain to be a huge bestseller no matter what I might say here.

The excerpts are all over the place.

And no, simply saying that it would have been better for the party for someone to wait a few years before publishing what she wrote is not silencing nor oppression nor disrespect.

I respect her as a person. I respectfully disagree that writing things that will divide us when we need to focus solely on unity is helpful.

I'm nobody's oppressor and you've never had any reason for implying that I am or for any of the other treatment you've meted out to people whose only crime is being somewhat to your left.

I'm not a Green, and you know that.

I'm not on JPR, and you know that.

I'm just a honorable, honest progressive Dem.

[NurseJackie]

98. Changing the subject and deflecting.

The book is certain to be a huge bestseller no matter what I might say here.

Yes, indeed it will be a bestseller. In spite of the best efforts that some here are making to "neg" her book, and deny that it has any value, they're NOT going to make Hillary's book a failure.

The excerpts are all over the place.

Yes they are. Excerpts. An excerpt is just that. It's NOT the entire book. Yet in previous posts, you're acting as if everything in her book is already known... repetitive... worthless... unimportant... old news... yesterday's newspaper... suitable for the birdcage.

And no, simply saying that it would have been better for the party for someone to wait a few years before publishing what she wrote is not silencing nor oppression nor disrespect.

Yes it is. Of course it is! And... it's disrespectful. It's the same as saying that you wish she'd "keep her big mouth shut" and that she has nothing of value to say.

I respect her as a person. I respectfully disagree that writing things that will divide us when we need to focus solely on unity is helpful.

I doubt it and the sky is not falling. Buck up and let the lady speak her piece.

I have to let you know that when you say things that show how you're questioning her intelligence and attributing negative motives (for which you have no proof and no justification) that doesn't suggest to me at all that you "respect her as a person". Quite the opposite, in fact. And, you know what? That makes me sad. It's very disappointing.

I'm nobody's oppressor and you've never had any reason for implying that I am or for any of the other treatment you've meted out to people whose only crime is being somewhat to your left.

So? New subject, huh? What does that have do do with the price of tea in China? I've never accused you of being "an oppressor".

I have no idea with this "treatment" is you're referring to. I never suggested that it was a "crime" to be further left than I am. Why would you even suggest such a thing? That's misleading and deceptive. That's disrespectful to ME.

I'm not a Green, and you know that.

So? Another new subject, huh? What does that have do do with the price of tea in China? I've never accused you of being "a Green" (and you know that!)

I'm not on JPR, and you know that.

So? (New subject? LOL!) What does that have do do with the price of tea in China? I've never accused you of being "on JPR" (and you know that!)

I'm just a honorable, honest progressive Dem.

Okay, if you say so. That's nice. Whatever. I never really thought about it one way or the other.

[Ken Burch]

101. I mentioned the Green and JPR things because you've repeatedly implied

that my party loyalty is in question and my motives are somehow suspect.

Thanks for admitting I'm loyal and trustworthy.

[NurseJackie]

106. No I haven't.

101. I mentioned the Green and JPR things because you've repeatedly implied

No I haven't.

that my party loyalty is in question and my motives are somehow suspect.

No I haven't.

Thanks for admitting I'm loyal and trustworthy.

I admitted no such thing. Please don't put words into my mouth. That's a disrespectful thing to do.

Here's what I actually said: "Okay, if you say so. That's nice. Whatever. I never really thought about it one way or the other."

That's not me "admitting" or "agreeing" to anything. It's just me letting you know that it doesn't matter to me and that I have no opinion one way or the other. Please don't read more into it than what my words actually said. It serves no good purpose. No good can come of that.

[underthematrix]

39. I voted for Clinton but I'm neither a Clinton or Sanders' supporter

I AM A DEMOCRAT and will ONLY vote for DEMOCRATS

[seaglass]

54. Ken, have you ever said that Bernie should take the high road?

I am glad that Hillary was honest about her perspective and that she articulated what many of her supporters believe to be the truth about how Sanders candidacy impacted her campaign. Seems it wouldn't have been a very honest book if she left Sanders out or portrayed his campaign against her as sunshine and unicorns.

She has acknowledged mistakes, you haven't read the entire book and neither have I.

People who won't vote for a candidate because s/he doesn't visit their state are idiots.

[Ken Burch]

85. I have called on Bernie to take the high road.

He sometimes communicates very badly.

And I don't support the idea of him running again in '20, so I'm not sure how much responsibility I have about what he says.

It sounds as if she still thinks she'd have won solidly if only no one had challenged her in the primaries. There's simply no reason to think that. And she didn't live by that herself in the primaries-there was no valid reason for her to stay in to the bitter end that year, and she knew she could be hurting the chances of Barack Obama, the person we all knew would be the nominee at the beginning of May, by staying in and by fighting for full representation for the illegitimate delegations that violated party rules by holding their contests before New Hampshire.

[NurseJackie]

113. Yes... those voters are "idiots" exactly as you stated.

People who won't vote for a candidate because s/he doesn't visit their state are idiots.

Yes... those voters are "idiots" exactly as you stated. By the same token, I'm suspicious of---and I question the motivation of---anyone who repeatedly places an inordinate amount of emphasis on such superficial things... particularly as a backhanded way to denigrate the intelligence of candidates.

It's the equivalent of "OMG OMG the arrow points right".

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

157. OF COURSE Hillary has the right 2 express her views; no reasonable person cud possibly dispute that.

The real question is whether it's a GOOD IDEA to express certain of those views that could potentially damage Democrats chances of winning the presidency in the future. On that point, I believe reasonable people on both sides can have an honest difference of opinion.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

44. I'm not convinced Team Clinton or presumed successors actually believe that

I think attacking the character of primary opponents and their supporters is likely to be the norm going forward, that is going to make uniting behind the ultimate nominee increasingly difficult. It is hard to get people who were targeted with disingenuous allegations of deplorablism to united with those who viciously attacked their character.

That really frightens me.

My thoughts about Bernie Sanders are well known, but making it uncomfortable for his supporters who had been dubbed sexist and inexplicably enough racist to return to the fold was the most damaging self-inflicted wound I can remember in any modern campaign.

[Ken Burch]

68. Thanks for that. You've made one of the most sensible posts in this thread.

My point in all of this is that we NEED the people who worked for and voted for Bernie, that we can't win if they are anathemized.

What she wrote there sounds like an effort to anathemize, to drive a whole bloc of people away.

What political party ever prospers by making supporters or potential supporters unwelcome?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

156. You got it exactly right... and the irony is Hillary blames Bernie for dividing Democrats.

[GaryCnf]

79. Yep

[lunamagica]

45. And how does your OP help? does it help at all

Last edited Wed Sep 6, 2017, 11:51 PM - Edit history (2)

Do you really think that "that book" is going to make feelings arise that weren't already there? The anger and pain and fear are as strong as ever and for me at least, those feelings get stronger as time goes by.

I know that for some the only acceptable in "that book" would have been "oh, I made such a big mistake in running. I know that someone else should have been the nominee and he would have trounced trump.. He would have been the BEST president ever. I'm sorry...I'm so sorry I ran... I'm so sorry I exist...Please forgive me".

I am so happy she has written an honest account of her experience. I can't wait to read it

I'm flabbergasted that there are people who want her to muzzle her up because they don't like what she says, when at the same time they applaud, cheer and defend other people who constantly disparage Democrats. How does that anything whatsoever to help us achieve unity and victory? How does it help at all?

[Ken Burch]

65. It won't make the feelings arise...they are there...but why encourage them?

(As to feelings that are already there, there are just as many on the Sanders side of the thing-especially deep and fully justified resentment among Sanders supporters at being collectively accused, over and over again, of misogyny, white supremacism and even homophobia simply because they supported Bernie in the primaries rather than Hillary. 99% of Bernie supporters weren't 'bros, and didn't even KNOW any 'bros-why collectively demonize them for the words of a few? And why act as though they all shared the shortcomings Clinton supporters ascribed to Bernie? Most of them were forty to fifty years younger, in a generation were ALL progressives were and are committed opponents of social oppression?

That is a feeling that is just as bitter on the Sanders side as anything Clinton supporters have. They have just as much reason to feel it as Clinton supporters have to feel what they feel. To unify and win, BOTH sides need to move on, don't you think?)

Look, I concede the point that Secretary Clinton has the right to write or say whatever the hell she wants.

By the same token, everyone else has the right to respond TO what she says.

And to ask why she felt it necessary to publish those particular words.

Why didn't she, instead of writing THOSE words, talk about the need to find common ground between Sanders and Clinton people, to treat each other with mutual respect, and to work together towards the future for victory?

Why lash out when nothing good can come from lashing out? Why not look forward?

I've never wanted HRC to apologize for running-and nothing I've posted since Philly has been, at any level, about saying we should have nominated Bernie. And I proved I accepted her as nominee by endorsing her ON DU a week before Philly-which was the earliest I could do so.

My point, in my OPs since November, was simply that her campaign should have taken the Sanders phenomenon and what it stood for seriously from the start, should never have taken an "oh grow up-we can't actually DO those things" attitude towards it, and should have run a fall campaign that treated the Sanders wing as a full and equal partner in the party-and I also said, during the primary, that Bernie, if nominated, should have treated the Clinton wing with the same level of respect, adopting Clinton language on social oppression and choice as the fall platform language.

I'd have had ads run in states where Bernie did well praising young Sanders people for their efforts and their success at mobilizing such a strong campaign and made it clear they'd have a real say in a HRC administration.

And I've have set up(I still think we need this)dialog groups of Clinton and Sanders supporters to learn how to talk to each other with respect.

My fear about her intentions in writing this is that she wants to anathemize not only Bernie but his supporters and all that they fight for-other than on the level of powerless, disconnected irrelevant individuals who would never get their say on anything. It also sounds like she wants to make sure the next platform we run on has no influence from any Sanders or Sanders-like ideas, going back to the tried-and-always-failed method of giving nothing to progressives and then just demanding their support.

We can't win if we do that and I can't see any reason to even try it.

[NurseJackie]

86. That's SO disrespectful!

My fear about her intentions in writing this is that she wants to anathemize not only Bernie but his supporters and all that they fight for-other than on the level of powerless, disconnected irrelevant individuals who would never get their say on anything. It also sounds like she wants to make sure the next platform we run on has no influence from any Sanders or Sanders-like ideas, going back to the tried-and-always-failed method of giving nothing to progressives and then just demanding their support.

Spreading rumors and falsehoods about her intentions is so wrong. That's such an absurd notion and it needs to stop. What's with all this "victimhood"??

Why would you ascribe all the HORRIBLE attributes to Hillary. What purpose does it serve to speculate about Hillary having such nefarious and evil motivations? Such disrespect!

Why didn't she, instead of writing THOSE words, talk about the need to find common ground between Sanders and Clinton people, to treat each other with mutual respect, and to work together towards the future for victory?

Because she has a story to tell. What's with all this "instead of" nonsense? Why are you trying to silence her? Why are you trying to characterize what she DOES have to say as being worthless or of little value? That's disrespectful, too.

And to ask why she felt it necessary to publish those particular words.

Because she wanted to tell her story. Why do you object to that? Why are you second-guessing her and sniping from the sidelines? That's not very respectful.

#LetHerSpeak
#ShowSomeRespect

[lunamagica]

92. Such a long and verbose reply, Ken. Yet not a word relating to the questions I asked you

Again, how does this OP help to achieve unity? You are bashing and assigning nefarious motives for Hillary writing her book. You dismissively call it "that book" All this after reading ONE excerpt. Yet peole you admire can say anything they want, and you defend it, even when what they say divides the party.


You don't even seem to understand what the book is about. The title is "what happened" It's her memories and account of LAST YEAR"S election. This book is not about the future. it about WHAT HAPPENED in '16.

As for feeling being encouragement... believe me, I don'y need any encouragement. I know very well what I think and what I believe. And people like me welcome this book -actually, I'd say that I need it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

And you know what? It doesn't matter if the Democratic Party nominates the most perfect, the "purest" candidate, as long as the shenanigans that derailed Hillary -and Gore- continue to happen, we wont win

[Ken Burch]

99. My OP is about encouraging a positive path forward.

It's about getting us to move, as we have to move now, from attacks to dialog, common ground, and unity.

Bernie himself is a grown man, he can take care of himself, but what chance do we have if his voters see our party demonizing him and take that to mean that THEY aren't welcome here, that what they care about isn't welcome as part of the conversation here?

Besides, if you open that up, there are just as many reasons Sanders supporters have to be bitter-they were collectively accused of, at best, indifference to social oppression and at worst were all but accused of collective sexism and racism. Can you not see that treating them like that, and acting like the campaign they were in wasn't real and shouldn't have happened, might possibly have driven some of them away from us and away from voting for all?

What both groups from '16 need to be doing is moving past that...letting that go...working towards dialog and unity. They are essentially equal in size, they largely agree with the grassroots people on the other side on most things, and we can't win without both being fully embraced by this party.

[lunamagica]

159. I have a great idea. Why don't you send all your posts on the thread and send it

to your favorite politician? Perhaps then he will lead by example, because if anyone is dividing the party, it's him

[Maven]

49. How do Bernie's constant attacks on the Democratic Party help unity and victory? nt

[NurseJackie]

62. Well, that's "different".

And when I say "different" what I actually mean is "double-standard". (Maddening, isn't it?)

[skylucy]

145. NurseJackie....

Just wanted to say that I agree with everything you have posted. .....You rock! And so does Hillary!

[NurseJackie]

151. Thank you!

[leftstreet]

51. Does she talk about Russians/election tampering in the book?

Has anyone read advance copies?

[haveahart]

84. She damn sure talked about it during the campaign. But guess who was not listening? Guess who was

applauding Wikileaks all the while?

[clu]

171. respectfully

IIRC Reality Winner had not yet leaked the NSA data about the extent of foreign spying/hacking against electoral targets. Pre-primary win, the only hacking thing I can recall is Podesta and leaked emails - please correct me if I'm wrong.

BTW is there any credibility to RW claims about Clinton foundation corruption in Haiti? I don't blame Hillary for that, obviously she wouldn't manage every aspect of the foundation, but I'm just asking.

[haveahart]

175. Fyi

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

[LongTomH]

63. A very rational thing to say.......and it took a lot of courage to say it on DU!

[Egnever]

74. Yup

Sad we have sunk to that point.

[George II]

93. Wonder if what helps is that we can learn from our mistakes?

Are you implying that Hillary Clinton should not say what's on her mind?

[Ken Burch]

125. This bit isn't about her mistakes.

It's about her blaming someone who's blameless.

Bernie didn't cause the Comey thing, and the Comey thing would have had the exact same effect if Bernie had withdrawn on Super Tuesday or hadn't run at all.

[elleng]

105. Thank you. Yes we DO need all the voters, primary and otherwise,

who supported all the candidates.

From what I've seen (at a distance,) what was said in the book does not say anything (or much) to achieve unity and victory.

[m-lekktor]

119. I'll always vote for the DEM, I don't care if Hillary Clinton badmouths my Berniebro ass .

I feel sorry for her.

[Ken Burch]

132. I respect your attitude.

It's the pro-unity approach I'm trying to get us all to move towards.

[LostOne4Ever]

138. You are right we need both sets of voters to win.

And you are right that her book doesn't help.

But, neither does criticizing the book.

There won't be unity until we all move on, but there are peeps on both sides who just won't let go. Every time either candidate is brought up someone had to start attacking them.

We need to MOVE ON and just learn to ignore those who won't. We got to put our values above our egos. I am not saying to stop defending the politicians we love but to Let those who love Bernie love Bernie and those who love Hillary love Hillary.

Until we do that the beatings will continue.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

152. Yes, please get the message to Hillary.

[shanny]

160. yup, we do.

and a bunch of independents as well.

[NanceGreggs]

164. Oh, the OHenry-esque irony of it all!

”How does what was said in that book do anything whatsoever to help us achieve unity and victory?”

More to the point: How does Bernie’s continued whinging about the Democratic Party do anything whatsoever to achieve unity and victory?

The irony is BS supporters who claim that “unity and victory” was well-served by casting HRC as a not-to-be-trusted corporate whore in the pocket of Wall Street. And then there was the irony of championing “Mr. Transparent” – who still hasn’t coughed-up his tax returns despite promises to do so.

The irony is BS supporters who heard Bernie say he would appeal to super-delegates to overturn the will of the people by ignoring primary votes and putting their support behind him instead of the people’s obvious choice and thought THAT was acceptable.

The ULTIMATE IRONY is the fact that Bernie supporters railed against “being told what to do” by the DNC, HRC, DWS et al – while completely accepting the idea that a self-proclaimed non-Democrat should be telling the Party that he refuses to be part of how it should be conducting itself.

“Do as I say, not as I do” is a phrase that Democrats have traditionally rejected when coming from hypocritical Republicans – and yet many Bernie supporters are more than happy to accept a self-proclaimed non-Democrat telling them what to do within a party he refuses to be a member of, but nonetheless wants to dictate to.

Those who refused to vote for Hillary, who voted third party, who wrote-in Bernie on their GE ballots – and encouraged others to do so – are no different than those who voted for Trump. So let’s stop this ludicrous pretence that they didn’t contribute to the Idiot being elected. Every vote NOT for Hillary was one less vote Trump had to overcome in order to be where he is right now.

But don’t take it from me. Take it from the “yeah, I didn’t vote for Hillary because I really wanted Bernie” crowd. They got what they wanted – HRC lost the election. And I am really not interested in “having them on our side” when they’ve already made it clear whose side they’re really on.

[William769]

168. Damn! I've missed you.

[NanceGreggs]

169. Right back at ya!!!

[oasis]

170. 100% that.

[ban1941]

180. Many Democrats, Independents and some Republicans didn't

Vote for Clinton because they really had a personal antipathy towards her. Some of the things she and Bill were involved in when they were in Arkansas left a lot of people very unhappy. Also, she was seen as a continuation of a typical DC politician, business as usual. I am a registered Democrat and for the first time I did not vote. My Republican family in California would have gritted their teeth and voted for Bernie because they realized that Trump was not in any way competent to be the President. However, they disliked Hillary more than they worried about Trump. I would have voted for Bernie too. The country wanted a change. Hillary wasn't it.

[tammywammy]

183. You didn't vote. You should be fucking embarrassed. N/t

[dalton99a]

186. +1

[Jim Lane]

167. Forget it, Ken. They want a ventfest. You won't talk them down off it.

If Trump gets us into a nuclear war, some people will be squatting in the rubble and blaming Bernie Sanders and those evil BernieBros.

[cilla4progress]

176. Right

on

[TDale313]

177. You're right, but too many will not want to hear it.

They'd rather Bernie Bash and hippie punch and pretend there is nothing to learn from the 40% + of those who voted in the primaries who responded incredibly positively to Bernie's message. Most of us voted for Clinton in the general. This continued attack is not helpful. The establishment is not going to be able to beat those concerned with the direction of the party into submission. I voted for Hillary in the General, I'm glad I did, but I am fucking sick and tired of the delusional belief that it's somehow Bernie and his supporters fault that Trump won. There's plenty of blame to go around, but yes, some of it is the fact that she was not an ideal candidate. Many of us who supported Bernie in the primaries did so precisely because of that fact. We knew she stood a frightening chance of losing to Trump.

[WIProgressive88]

179. This is 100% accurate.

Hillary may have gotten a raw deal on many fronts; biased media coverage, Russian meddling, Comey, etc., but the vitriol shown towards the left is just sour grapes from a flawed candidate and her base looking to blame anyone but themselves.

[alarimer]

187. I fully expect the Democrats to lose big in 2018 and for Trump to be reelected.

Because I see nothing being done on ether front to learn from mistakes. They need Bernie's message. It resonates with people. Further, I like Sen. Harris' framing of health care as a RIGHT (from one tweet that I saw). My opinion on her has risen considerably because of this. So without candidates that capture that essence, or with candidates that are more of the same (Jon Ossoff, like him or not, always sounded to me like someone speaking in focus-grouped talking points), we end up where we are.

A large part of the problem is not Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Bernie Sanders. I've said repeatedly that I think the Democratic Party's inability to connect with voters is due to the gatekeepers, the money people, deciding who is allowed to run and what messages they are allowed to broadcast. The party overall has tied its fortunes to Silicon Valley types, who might be socially liberal as individuals (mostly, though there are exceptions), but they are conservatives when it comes to business, which is why the tech industry is so abusive to workers. The same is true for all corporate money. So the Democrats institute corporate-friendly policies which really do nothing for really people, like the various "job retraining" schemes out there, which do no good for people, but do provide a nice dividend for corporations.

We need a candidate with FIRE. And they all need to start placing blame where it belongs: on Republican complicity with Trump.

[WIProgressive88]

178. Hillary is not interested in uniting the party, and neither are most of her supporters on this

board. They are far more interested in pounding the left into submission to ensure that powers stays within their faction of the party. That is what all of this is about.

[ban1941]

182. The sniping has got to stop!

If we don't get a unified approach and work very hard to win seats in the 2018 election, the Democratic Party and the country are lost.

[Gothmog]

181. I am really looking forward to reading this book

[liquid diamond]

185. Vote for the democratic candidates in 2018 and 2020

regardless of the disputes we have between us. Problem solved. Subtle blackmail sure as hell isn't going to unite us.

[Ken Burch]

188. I wasn't doing any blackmail

It's just that we have no right to simply EXPECT that all progressives would vote for all Democratic candidates.

It's the arrogance in that expectation that gets us.

We had a good platform this fall...we should have made the campaign about nothing BUT that platform and about how the Sanders movement made it better, rather than so many people saying that Bernie's campaign was a failure and a waste of time.

We ended up demanding votes when we could have actually won them on the merits, had our campaign only been run that way.

[NurseJackie]

189. LOL

It's the arrogance in that expectation that gets us.

Funny.

We had a good platform this fall...we should have made the campaign about nothing BUT that platform and about how the Sanders movement made it better, rather than so many people saying that Bernie's campaign was a failure and a waste of time.

Nobody was doing that. By that point, the General Election had started and people had moved on... well... most of us had. (Talk about "arrogance in that expectation", huh? Sheesh!)

[Expecting Rain]

190. You do not own the term progressive.

And those who helped Trump (not a charge against you) are "regressives."

They simply do not have title to a term that means supporting positive change and moving forward.

That you think HRC's campaign should have been all about how great Bernie Sanders was, makes me laugh out loud.

[Ken Burch]

191. I don't think it should have been about exalting Bernie.

In the fall, it should have been about a combination of what Hillary always spoke on and spoke well on, coupled with a real effort to connect with Sanders SUPPORTERS, most of whom were new to politics and whose "brand loyalty" hadn't been established yet.

What would have been so terrible about running ads that praised them(not the tiny minority called "bros" that most Sanders people despised, but the decent, idealistic majority who'd gone into the thing sincerely trying to change life for the better-that acknowledged, frequently, that they'd made a difference for the better in the platform and that this would be a party where what they were working for was welcome. In other words, that while the candidate they had backed hadn't been nominated, what they'd done was positive and had mattered. I'd also have had HRC, in her acceptance speech, declare that the supporters of BOTH primary candidates were strongly antiracist, pro-feminist, pro-choice and anti-police violence-that whatever the differences people saw between candidates on that, the supporters of both were on the decent side on that.

I think a campaign like that, a campaign that wouldn't have slighted HRC or her original supporters in the slightest, would have produced a much higher turnout out for OUR ticket and significantly dropped Stein's support, and what is the harm of being welcoming to people whose votes you need?

If Bernie had been nominated, I'd have argued(and did make the argument among Sanders supporters while the nomination was in play)that he extend the same partnership and respect to HRC supporters.

And I say that as a person who spent a lot of time, when not campaigning door-to-door for Hillary in the fall, begging bitter-end Sanders people to vote for our ticket both because I felt the ticket and the platform deserved. I WANTED HRC to be elected, and wanted it as much as you did once the nomination was in.

It's not the fault of people who actively campaigned for Bernie that November happened, or of any one group or any one thing. A "Perfect Storm" occurred.

[Expecting Rain]

194. I think a lot us us tuned into the Convention and saw delegates (presumably not fringe Bernie Bros)

behaving badly. After the party had adopted nearly every position point requested (is that the right word?) by Sen. Sanders.

We saw groups demonstrating in Philadelphia that never showed up in Cleveland.

Unlike you, I think populism is a very bad political ideology that has lead to disaster on each occasion populist movements have come to power. So I'm happy to embrace idealism, but not populism and demagoguery.

I wish all the Sanders supports saw that HRC was strongly anti-racist, pro-feminist, pro-choice and anti-police violence (among other things). And I appreciate that many did.

But the attacks on HRC as a neoliberal corporatist plutocrat drew blood. The things HRC has written about in tempered tones are spot on IMO.

To me, much of this seems like blaming the victim for not being nicer to people who were assaulting her. That's the truth from my perspective.

[NurseJackie]

192. Thank you! You're correct. It *IS* laughable.

That you think HRC's campaign should have been all about how great Bernie Sanders was, makes me laugh out loud.

You're correct. It IS laughable. It's absolutely absurd to think that the WINNING candidate would adopt the rejected ideas of the losing candidate.

[MaeScott]

193. We will need everybody to defeat Pubbie voter suppression.

[jalan48]

195. I agree we need both. The "We've got this" approach does not work.