New Clinton book blasts Sanders for lasting damage in 2016 race

[SecularMotion]

Source: CNN

(CNN) — Hillary Clinton casts Bernie Sanders as an unrealistic over-promiser in her new book, according to excerpts posted by a group of Clinton supporters.

She said that his attacks against her during the primary caused “lasting damage” and paved the way for “(Donald) Trump’s ‘Crooked Hillary’ campaign.”

Clinton, in a book that will be released September 12 entitled “What Happened,” said Sanders “had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character” because the two Democrats “agreed on so much.”

“President Obama urged me to grit my teeth and lay off Bernie as much as I could. I felt like I was in a straitjacket.” – HRC pic.twitter.com/AAaKCq9DAR

— Hillary Warned Us (@HillaryWarnedUs) September 4, 2017

Read more: http://wtnh.com/2017/09/05/new-clinton-book-blasts-sanders-for-lasting-damage-in-2016-race/

[HopeAgain]

1. Which attacks specifically?

Did he not say the emails were a non-issue? I know he attacked her closeness to wall street, but I would think that is fair game. Primaries are not usually a love fest.

Not taking a side, just asking.

[George II]

3. Read the article and the book, please.

[HopeAgain]

9. I read the article and I'm not that interested in the book.

all I saw was "innuendo" and something about Bernie Bros.

[moda253]

44. So you are going to make arguments about something

So you are going to make arguments about something you care not to actually read about.

That's great.

[Lunabell]

66. I agree

But don't fight about the last primary.

[maddiemom]

71. I voted for him in the primary, but he LOST, period.

Anyone who thinks that the Repuglicans wouldn't have had a field day with him in the general election is NOT thinking. He's a SOCIALIST! And nobody knew then that Trump was going to love Putin so much. Sorry, although I loved the fair shake his actual politics were given (my Mom's family are Scandinavian, and I grew up with VERY liberal politics), I'd felt very comfortable with Hillary. She's a cool customer and VERY experienced. Trump is a shyster, obvious to anyone who's paid attention. Slimy as I feel Ted Cruz is, I'd prefer him to Trump (and he seems to be salivating now). I've been active in politics since I was a "Kennedy Girl" in 1960, too young to vote but recruiting for his local appearance. Running local phone banks in a college town during Obama's last election, I found that college students were getting false voting information from an apparently organized Republican group. We were more careful in 2016, but there were still a lot of little Republican sabotages going on. There used to be some "good" Republicans out there. If they still exist, they need to stand up.

[brush]

10. A certain someone attacked the Democratic Party establishment constantly then refused to concede...

graciously.

You do not attack your own party.

But he only was a Democrat temporarily so he could use the party's national apparatus for name recognition he could never have gotten from being an independent from a small state.

And tellingly, he is no longer a Democrat.

[comradebillyboy]

14. Ouch, that burns! nt

[calimary]

156. Burn or not, it happens to be true.

And while he spent his campaign throwing mud at her and taking her to task for things she never said about him (too lazy to read an entire story where she said he hadn't done his homework, just took it from the headline some writer screwed up - wrongly claiming she'd said he was unfit), she never threw mud at him.

I won't forget.

[comradebillyboy]

163. I don't disagree at all

which is why I though you rightfully burned (or Berned if you prefer) him. My comment was meant to be supportive of brush.

[calimary]

171. I think we're both correct. As is brush.

Just sayin' what we see.

[DK504]

35. We all knew that was a ploy for the election .... sadly.

He's an Independent, and always has been and good for him. I love that he has stayed true, but it's the Bernie Bros that decimated HRC, Bernie did fall in line with HRC and he did a great job for, just wish his voters had stayed with Democrats.

[Eliot Rosewater]

76. +1111111111111111111

[onetexan]

94. well said

that's been my beef with Bernie all along. He was a Dem only when it served him. The rainbow in the sky he was painting for mostly naive young people sure was pretty - free college, healthcare for all, blah blah - but would cost trillions, as many MSM outlets have debunked. And what up with the Democratic Socialist nonsense? The man isn't quite as loathsome as many of the GOP but certainly no less hypocritic than they are. When i saw him on tv a few months ago sitting next to Tom Perez plugging their "Come Together and Fight Back" tour, and claiming he wasn't a Democrat, i wanted to throw my slipper at the tv. I can tune out idiot 45 but i can't take it that this fake Democrat now claimed he wasn't part of the party. The DNC oughtta send the old man a note telling him adios, and stating in no uncertain terms he's no longer welcome to run as a Dem. Ever.

[brush]

100. Yes. Never again. The divisiveness of his campaign still lingers.

[calimary]

158. Yep.

[Lonestarblue]

12. Bernie refused to concede in a no-win situation.

I may be blsted for this, but Bernie refused to stop campaigning and to acknowledge that he could not win the Democratic nomination. He continued attacks on Clinton long past the time when he should have been out of the race. And, no, Bernie did not lose because of the DNC preference for Clinton. He lost because he could not appeal to a wide enough range of people. His favorability among people of color was especially low. Clinton won the delegates needed for nomination without even counting the superdelegates. I think there is still this myth that Bernie would have won if only the DNC had been impartial. I don't believe that, and I sincerely believe that he damaged Clinton by refusing to stop his attacks and waiting until the last minute to support her. By that time, his rabid supporters were determined to be anti-Hillary at all costs--and that attitude helped get us a Trump presidency.

[comradebillyboy]

15. 100% correct!

[brush]

19. YES!

[Me.]

27. And When He Did Support Her He Did So With Little Or No Grace

[Egnever]

47. He was just following Clintons lead

Odd she would complain about that.

[QC]

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

when asked why he was staying in. I thought that was nice.

[Egnever]

74. Right?

[jrthin]

52. He also berated and derided Obamacare and tied Hillary so

strongly to it, that Hillary was stuck in a box. She tried to explain that Obamacare was a good start but needed fixing. His followers were having none of this.

[karynnj]

84. What about Bill Clinton saying negative things about the ACA in Michigan, should we hold him to the

same standard?

What he said was WORSE than anything Sanders, who designed the successful community health clinic feature of ACA, did.

Here is Bill -- and yes, he had to backtract later, but he can't unsay this!

Speaking at a Democratic rally in Flint, Michigan, the former president ripped into the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for flooding the health care insurance market and causing premiums to rise for middle-class Americans who do not qualify for subsidies.
"So you've got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It's the craziest thing in the world," Clinton said.

Not to mention, when he backtracked, he doubled down:

"But there is a group of people -- mostly small business owners and employees -- who make just a little too much money to qualify for Medicaid expansion or for the tax incentives who can't get affordable health insurance premiums in a lot of places. And the reason is they're not in big pools," Clinton said. "So they have no bargaining power."

In fact, small businesses were helped by ACA. Before ACA, all it took was for them to have one employee or themselves incure high costs and their premium - based just on them - skyrocketed .... because they now ARE in bigger pools then just themselves.

[lunamagica]

78. I'm not going to blast you. You are 100% correct

[jmowreader]

115. Good post

Now pay particular attention to the next point: Bernie Sanders' strength was caucuses. In them, his supporters were able to bully Clinton voters into standing down. But in primaries, where you draw the curtain and vote your conscience...Hillary reigned supreme.

[brush]

125. And caucuses are for people who have the leisure time to spend 4 hrs during the day...

which most working people, many people of color, parents with small children or students don't.

In large metro areas they're geared for a certain demographic segment who have that kind of time.

Caucuses are archaic and IMO should be done away with as most people want to be able to vote in 15 minutes before work, during lunch hour or after work, be done with it and get on with their lives.

[Nonhlanhla]

123. THIS. nt

[brush]

124. YES!

[BuddhaGirl]

131. Truth!

[NastyRiffraff]

140. You won't get a blast from me

What you said is true. Before this election cycle, I was, at worst, neutral about Bernie Sanders. Now, I heartily dislike him for what he did. I'll never forget his horrible attitude at the Democratic convention, when he slumped angrily in his seat and failed to even try to restrain his crazy, disruptive supporters.

[pnwmom]

18. He frequently suggested she was "corrupt" while innoculating himself by saying

he wasn't attacking her.

The emails were the only issue he didn't attack her on.

[DK504]

152. He ranted about her $250K

speeches, which thousands give every week. He wouldn't give up on that. Her husband gave the same speeches, his cabinet gave those speeches, W. did the same, EVERY damn administration had done the exact same thing. But Bernie, I love him, he hammered her on the speeches and made it sound like she was dirty for making a living, a lucrative living after the State Dept.

It allowed the misogyny to run rampant and it grew like a virus without any restraints.

[NurseJackie]

2. Hillary makes some valid points. She's right to bring them out into the open.

She deserves to be heard. How can we learn from what happened if she's not allowed to talk about it?

[Hamlette]

6. lol

[rockfordfile]

7. BS

The Democratic Party isn't either anti-war or pro-war. It depends on the situation. Certainly pro-war during WW2. Sometimes I'm pro-war. Sometimes I'm anti-war. It's called reality.

[LanternWaste]

8. I especially like how you supported your allegation with objective evidence

I especially like how you supported your allegation with objective evidence, illustrating causation as well as correlation, and addressed the actual points in the article itself... otherwise, yours would simply be another tired bumper-sticker containing all the depth of simply another tired bumper-sticker.

Oh, wait...

[L. Coyote]

5. Bernie's failure was not continuing his campaign against Republicans so as to overthrow Congress

such that Hillary would have a better situation in DC. When you command a movement with momentum, you don't allow it to simply deflate and collapse into a bunch of non-voters. You arm them with a new target and attract twice as many activists. Bernie needed to say, "We haven't lost this struggle, we have only just begun," and then target the vulnerable districts and the important Senate races with the goal of delivering a Dem majority in both Houses. Instead, it was apparently really all about Bernie and not about a real movement. Politics is no place for fragile egos.

[murielm99]

11. Instead, his followers

are primarying Democrats. Go figure.

[L. Coyote]

13. Still being emotionally manipulated by the Russsians and Republicans.

That was Bernie's big mistake, not channeling all the emotion he had fomented.

[George II]

23. Nina Turner has already said publicly in an interview with The Nation000

....that she and Senator Sanders will be endorsing non-Democrats.

A couple of excerpts:

CM: 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?

NT: I don’t think it is our job nor our obligation to fit in. It’s their job to fit in with us. But the overwhelming majority of registered voters in this country

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CM: Will the group be endorsing non-Democrats?

NT: You know what, yes. We are open to it. And for me, I’ve also heard the senator say this lately too.....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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The complete interview is here:

https://www.thenation.com/article/nina-turner-it-is-not-our-job-to-fit-into-the-democratic-establishment/

[delisen]

26. Bernie Sanders used the party for his own ends.

I am glad Clinton is telling it like it is.

[democratisphere]

127. So, so, so true.

[LisaM]

28. The fact that Bernie did not dissaociate himself from Nina Turner is telling.

In my opinion, she's a trainwreck.

[Me.]

31. "Its their job to fit in with us"

Dream On Nina

[karynnj]

86. SOME, not all .. not even most and not backed by Bernie

[R B Garr]

119. And trying to recall them, as well.

They are trying to recall an elected Democrat, Rendon, in Los Angeles.

I can't link it now -- phone typing. But this is beyond stupid and outrageous.

[onetexan]

16. Bernie is a hypocrit

ran as a Dems candidate, yet once elections were over so quick to proclaim that he's not & also quick to bash the DNC. Debbie W-Schulz should never have let him run on a Dem ticket. He sure burned her.

[George II]

24. See my post #23 above.

[onetexan]

90. even if Debbie did, Bernie's still a hypocrit

how can you claim you're not a Democrat after you've ran as one. If that isn't hypocritic i don't know what is.

[melman]

17. Another thread on this

That's terrific.

[George II]

20. Yes it is. America the beautiful, where ALL are entitle to speak freely.

[melman]

108. All except people who have anything but the most gushing praise for this book

[KPN]

138. YUP

[Ccarmona]

22. Blame Whomever She Wants

The facts are she lost. It's on her.

[delisen]

30. Actually the party lost and America lost.

[StevieM]

36. Well she did have the race won--decisively--before Comey intervened on behalf of the GOP. (eom)

[KPN]

139. But she lost ...

what should have been a slam dunk.

[StevieM]

141. A couple problems with that critique.

First, if Sanders or O'Malley had been targeted by the FBI, and been portrayed as criminals, they probably would not have done too well either. No Republican heading the FBI would probably have meant no FBI investigation to begin with, and definitely meant no July press conference or October Surprise. And without the fraud committed in July and August she would have won in a landslide, even if everything had stayed the same.

Second, part of Trump's disastrous campaign was ushered in by HRC's successes. She destroyed him in all three debates and made him look very unstable. A different candidate might not have done that.

[LiberalLovinLug]

25. It does her no good to keep on whining

She would have made a very good President. And what I'd like to see from her are statements, even in twitter form, countering Trump's racist statements. As if she really had been elected, as she should have been. Obama has done this to a small degree himself. It would reveal to many how a REAL President should behave and speak, and what they could have had.

Whether or not Bernie's platform was considered too ambitious by some, she and her Democratic establishment staff were clueless about a big part of how to win Presidential elections. Its not about crossing your t's and dotting your i's or checking if everything adds up on your calculator. Its about creating a vision for the future. Its about pushing the conversation towards greater goals that seem too far fetched. Trump understood this, and Bernie did, and Obama did as well with his Hope and Change meme. He also beat Hillary by sounding more progressive, having a greater vision than she did. You'd think she'd have learned from that.

Trump did it on the right by saying he'd deport all the illegal immigrants and build a Wall to appeal to his base racists, appoint a fundie SCOTUS judge as well as a born again VP to work towards banning all abortion to appeal to his base of evangelical cultists, and promised fantasy good paying manufacturing and coal mining jobs again, and tear up NAFTA to angry dispossessed workers.

Bernie ran on ambitious progressive goals like a $15 minimum wage, free college tuition, and single payer health care. And getting big money out of politics.

Obama ran a spirited campaign where it was, if not said outright, implied that he would shift towards a more progressive platform. Saying he'd not accept super pac money, or saying he'd live or die being a one term President on the Public Option. Or that he'd reverse Bush's tax cuts. Or close Gitmo right away. All of these things were reversed.

In each of these cases one can project if or when these things will happen in all practicality. But that should not be the issue in a Presidential election. Its about firing up the base. Its about bold new ideas and pushing the conversation towards lofty goals, even if in private you suspect you will not be able to enact all of those promises in your first term.

And yes yes I know that she DID win, by 3 million votes. But she did not get the votes in the right places for that to make a difference. She did not win by a big enough margin to make moot all the Trump/GOP/Russian shenagigans. Which was still there for the taking.

Stop blaming Sanders for yourself not understanding how the game works. He was in a primary contention with her. What does she expect? Those that criticize Sanders for daring to criticize her in a competition is laughable. She went after him, calling him "an unrealistic overpromiser" and more. It was his right, his duty as a candidate with many supporters, to also be critical of her during the primaries, (during which he steered clear of the low hanging fruit like 'her damned emails'). Some seemed so shocked by this its amazing. And then be gracious in loss and concede and encourage his supporters to vote for her, as he also did.

[LisaM]

33. So you don't think voter disenfranchisement, suppression, disruption at the polls, and hacking

made a difference? We are talking razor thin margins here. In every state she lost narrowly, thousands upon thousands more voters were tossed off the rolls than the margin of Trumps' victory.

I don't get why we aren't allowed to talk about that. What about the scant number of voting machines in Detroit, and Snyder's refusal to do anything about it? What about Wisconsin's illegal gerrymandering and the 100,000+ voters they knocked off the rolls, not to mention their stringent ID requirements?

If we don't address these things, nothing will change except that maybe next time our candidate will get 5,000,000 more votes and still not get elected.

[LiberalLovinLug]

37. Of course those things made a difference

I addressed that. I still think Democrats should have, and could have, won against someone like Trump.

And besides, that is not who SHE was blaming in this article. I was only addressing and reacting to who SHE herself was blaming. That was not what this article was about.

[StevieM]

38. I don't know why you think HRC would not have reversed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy had she won

in 2008. She said she would. All the Democrats said they would. And the restored top tax rate was originally established by her husband.

Also, I seem to remember that Hillary was the one who first proposed a public option on health care.

I think HRC ran a good enough campaign to overcome most of the GOP shenanigans. But the FBI intervened on Trump's behalf one too many times, and too late in the race for her to bounce back.

[The Polack MSgt]

40. I think you left out at least one group from the shenanigans brigade you list.

How could you have left out - The 9-16% of Sanders supporters who voted for Trump?

In WI, MI and PA, the number of people who voted Sanders in the primaries and Trump in the General was greater than Trump's margin of victory.

And yes yes I know that she DID win, by 3 million votes. But she did not get the votes in the right places for that to make a difference. She did not win by a big enough margin to make moot all the Trump/GOP/Russian shenagigans. Which was still there for the taking.

We need to note that BOBers were a vital piece of the Trump Coalition.

[LiberalLovinLug]

43. But then you have to ask yourself WHY?

I'll take your word on that number for the sake of argument.

But I would also contend that many of those who claimed to be Sanders supporters were never in a million years ever going to vote for Clinton anyways. Mostly independents that were sick of establishment politics from BOTH parties.

But even looking at the way smaller sub percent of someone who, if Bernie had never run, would have voted for Hillary, but now bizarrely, just because they heard Bernie speak, (including him concede and implore them to vote Democrat), voted for Trump instead, it still begs the question WHY would they? And that blaming your primary challenger for your general election loss because his promises sounded better than yours just seems counter productive at this stage.

[The Polack MSgt]

73. When your primary challenger keeps attacking

Weeks after being eliminated, all the while badmouthing the party?

Accusing that same party of malfeasance - working in bad faith?

Paving the way for all the "It's a rigged system" fuckery that followed?

If the sum total of your campaign turns out to be recruiting folks to vote against your supposed allies, bet your ass I assign blame

[LiberalLovinLug]

99. When you lose to Donald fucking Trump

and you have been losing everywhere in the country for 10 years...

speaking publicly that the Democratic party needs to change IS NOT BADMOUTHING them, its trying to help.

[The Polack MSgt]

104. The people who agree with us 90% won't change the last 10%

So we attack them.

Republicans paint our candidate in a negative light for decades, so we believe the GOP and attack the Democratic Party members who voted for this "Tainted" politician.

25% of the folks who supported Bernie abandoned the Democratic Party in the GE. Half of them voted for Fascism.

That isn't badmouthing... That's sabotage.

[LiberalLovinLug]

111. You're all over the place

I thought you were talking about Bernie being the one with the bad mouth. Now you are shifting that to voters, who you call "we"? So are you including yourself in the attackers? Or were you speaking vicariously through the eyes of your perceived sabotagers? Confusing. And you seem to be still wearing your primaries hat. Yes, Sanders and his supporters were criticizing Hillary during the primaries. And Hillary and her supporters were doing the same towards Bernie. That is what happens in a competition like that. It was not one side exclusively "attacking" the other.

Hillary was tainted. Through relentless fake news stories and RW hate media for decades. That was an inconvenient truth. She did not deserve that, nor did Bill. But it worked to a large degree. And by simply saying that one believed that this was yet another reason why Sanders had a better chance than Hillary is not "attacking" her either.

I could question that 25% figure. But moving on, by saying that they "abandoned" the Democratic party, implies that they were once full fledged supporters before. I would dispute that. He had broad appeal, and by the polls, was winning the independent vote from Trump. So back to my point that these voters would NEVER have voted for Hillary anyways, so with that segment there was no abandonment going on. Some of the disillusioned stayed home, some voted for the Green Party. And I suppose that there were some that would be ignorant enough to flip entirely from a democratic socialist to the exact opposite of that, but they are a tiny minority that were inconsequential.

Not only is it pointless to harp on this paltry group of idiots, but doing it in here, its downright disingenuous and petty and a transparently misguided excuse to unfairly bash fellow DUers in order to feel "good", demonizing those who also voted for Hillary, but committed the thought crime of regarding her as their second choice,.

And lastly, if you actually believe that 25% of people that were Democrats, "abandoned" the party because they preferred Bernie winning the primary, then you are basically saying that you believe Bernie would have won the election had he been the nominee. I agree.

[brush]

130. Not acknowledging repug cheating as the reasons for that and laying it all at Hillary's...

feet is disingenuous at best.

And who the hell could've anticipated an FBI director to come out 2 weeks before the election with that letter that violate the Hatch Act and tilted the election to trump. Comey cheated for his party and our
party needs to, and has since Bush and the repugs stole 2000, a permanent, well-funded DNC committee that hires sharp attorneys to take repug cheaters to court, private investigators to help get the ooods on the cheaters, publicists and social media experts to expose the cheating and spread the word on the anti-cheating campaign, media liaisons to do the same, volunteers — a robust organization that is parallel and just as important as the GOTV campaign because as hard as we work to get out new voters the repugs work just as hard to cheat and suppress our voters so we can't afford to just do what we've always done.

We've got to add a new, anti-cheating component to our party's arsenal as we know the repug will not stop trying to cheat. The more we blunt them the more votes we stop them from suppressing.

So just blasting Hillary and saying it's all her fault for losing to trump, get outta here.

And I didn't even mention Putin and the Russians and the attacks from alleged allies.

So no, attacking the party is not helping the party. That helped us get trump.

[LiberalLovinLug]

133. Saying that Hillary was unfairly tainted with fake scandals is not "blasting" her.

It was reality. She was a flawed candidate, some her fault, most not. Mostly it was RW media attacking her for 2 decades.


And once again, you use the same word 'attacking' to describe a post election loss party critique, a devastating loss. Its one thing to criticize your own, or adopted, party before, or during the campaign. Its quite another to do so after such a colosal failure. I mean when is there a better time for that?

Republicans say its not a good time to discuss gun control after yet another mass shooting
They say its not a good time to discuss climate change after unheard of extreme weather
They are wrong. And that attitude is wrong. Now is the time to do a big of soul searching and critique for the Democratic party, if there ever was a time. We will come out stronger.

[brush]

137. A certain someone is still calling the party a complete failure, allegedly an ally...

who was allowed to run as a Dem. If that's not attacking I don't know what is.

Especially in the face of all that we know about the repug cheating during the election, a literal sea change-level of cheating never seen before—repug vote suppression, Comey, Putin/Russians, Bernie Bros, vote tampering.

[LiberalLovinLug]

145. Sure "they" are

[brush]

146. Sure they are, what? Are you in denial about repug cheating?

[LiberalLovinLug]

147. " then I don't know what is"

Your words.
I'll just leave it there.

[brush]

148. He did say that recently, that the Dem party is a complete failure.

Guess you missed that thread.

So yeah, that's attacking the party.

[LiberalLovinLug]

162. Do you mean this?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/bernie-sanders-lambasts-absolute-failure-of-democratic-partys-strategy

But the Vermont senator said that establishment Democrats were standing in the way of further progress.

“The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic party is an absolute failure,” Sanders said.

“The Democratic party needs fundamental change. What it needs is to open up its doors to working people, and young people, and older people who are prepared to fight for social and economic justice.

“The Democratic party must understand what side it is on. And that cannot be the side of Wall Street, or the fossil fuel industry, or the drug companies.”


Big difference in attacking the party, and attacking the strategy of the party. And after the unprecedented losses of not just the Presidency but State and local elections all across the country in the last 10/15 years...do you disagree?

[brush]

164. Get real. Like attacking the party and the strategy of the party are different things

Why not attack the repugs and their cheating and Russian connections?

And he's not a Dem anyway so why always the bashing?

Guess he's looking to 2020 to temporarily join us again.

[LiberalLovinLug]

166. You honestly cannot see the difference? Then its pointless to talk further with you.

And the Russian interference is a completely other but very real problem.

[brush]

167. If you think they're different, I agree there's no reason to talk.

And btw, there's no chance Dems will allow him to run as a Dem again.

[brush]

126. Now you're talking. I love it when posters get right down to the real sh_t, no biting the tongue.

[meadowlander]

41. +1

[delisen]

46. Actually the Russians won.

Some factors in the election of 2016.

Foreign interference, foreign money, foreign propaganda. These will be around for 2018 and 2020. I expect us to remain initially unprepared especially since many still choose denial over confrontation re the fact that our elections are no longer "ours."

The severe weakening of the state Democratic Parties after successfully passed the ACA in 2009 and the swift reaction was the rise of the Tea Party. From 2010 forward Democrats lost over 1000 seats. 2010 was the worst of these loss years because it was a reapportionment year. So many broken voting machines, so many Democrats purged from voting roles. So many states turning red from 2010 onward.

In many states the Democratic Party in 2016 was a shadow of what it was in 2008. If you build a party instead of building up individuals there is no need to run candidate Spark Plug.

I'm not sure the base of the party is who you think it is.

I might fault Clinton for earning the wrath of the Russian dictator--standing up for human rights does tend to do that. Maybe as Secretary of State she should have been a little more diplomatic.

Bad candidates: We blame Gore, Kerry, Clinton. Maybe actually we have a party needing to adjust to the 21st century and the return of 20th century fascism.

Germany has been able to face reality without resorting to the candidate Spark plug model. Maybe we can too.

[LiberalLovinLug]

49. Fair enough

[KTM]

68. +1000

Fantastic post.

[bettyellen]

92. She has countered Trumps racism on Twitter and in other formats....

It's just so weird people accuse her of not saying or doing things she's said and done. The fucking media - and too many voters- were often unwilling to give her any credit.
It's disturbing.

[Gothmog]

29. I am looking forward to reading this book

[Willie Pep]

32. Clinton has the right to write anything she wants.

But this does make her look like something of a sore loser and a person who seeks to blame others for her loss, even when that same person (Sanders) rallied his supporters to vote for Clinton in the general election and most Sanders supporters voted for Clinton in the general election.

Politicians have to expect tough primaries. Look at how vicious the Republican primaries are.

[LisaM]

34. Bernie could have behaved the way Hillary did in 2008.

And, in 2008, the DNC was anything but impartial, refusing to count Michigan and Florida's votes (which went to Hillary) because they moved their primaries up. I had friends who were in an absolute tizzy thinking that those two states shouldn't be counted. I don't even discuss it with some of them because it still smarts.

[geek tragedy]

42. Here's how Hillary behaved during the 2008 primary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/04/clinton-mccain-has-more-e_n_89758.html

I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”

[LisaM]

48. That was how she campaigned before she conceded. She was a tough campaigner.

It broke my heart when she conceded. I still can't talk to some people about it; I still feel resentment.

But once she withdrew, no one could have worked harder for Obama than she and Bill did. She threw her heart into it, even when Obama didn't choose her as VP, which I really wish he had.

She also made an enormously powerful speech at the convention in 2008, even Keith Olbermann, who could barely hide his disdain for her during the campaign, said she hit it out of the park (I dislike that analogy, but that's what he said). She did not sit in the stands and glower and pout with a red face. Her supporters did not stand behind the MSNBC pundits waving Hillary signs and shouting them down. She took her bumps, jumped back up, and went to work.

[geek tragedy]

50. She's bashing Sanders for doing what she did when losing a heated primary.

Here's another example of the "do what I say, not what I did" department.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/08/clinton-obama-not-winning_n_100763.html

Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

That was very late in the process of the primary.

And let's not even get into the scorched earth stuff re: Florida and Michigan.

[lunamagica]

81. Also, Hillary supporters didn't boo Obama when he gave his speech

[lunamagica]

82. One of the reasons his supporters acted with such disrespect during the convention was

because Sanders did not concede. They thought acting that way would give him the nomination. I saw them saying that. And there was this woman, crying hysterically because "WHY ARE THEY DEVOTING SO MUCH TIME TO HILLARY? THIS CONVENTION IS ABOUT BERNIE!!!"

Yup. That's how much they knew about government and the Electoral College

[PoliticAverse]

128. "Sanders did not concede" - of course he did. He even held a press conference with Hillary Clinton

before the convention at which he enthusiastically endorsed her.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/index.html

[LisaM]

132. "Enthusiastically"?

Are you freaking KIDDING me? His resentment, then and now, was palpable.

[PoliticAverse]

134. Yeah, just look at that resentment...

You indicated, here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1860350
that you "still feel resentment" concerning her 2008 campaign. I think you may be projecting.

[LisaM]

135. This is nuts.

Anyone who thinks Bernie Sanders enthusiastically supported Hillary is living in an alternate reality. This picture above is pretty much the apex of his so-called support.

As the GE was progressing, he was busy writing a book about how he thought the primary process (of a party he didn't belong to) was rigged against him.

[PoliticAverse]

136. "This is nuts." - indeed. n/t

[lunamagica]

149. (sigh) again, he did NOT concede

I AM STILL OFFICIALLY A CANDIDATE. WE ARE GOING TO PHILLY. I DID NOT AND WILL NOT CONCEDE. I AM NOT SUSPENDING MY CAMPAIGN.

http://justicegazette.org/endorsed-but-did-not-concede.html

This is why so many of his supporters acted the way they did, causing mayhem by waving signs saying "Just go to jail Hillary!" "this ridiculous election is rigged" behind MSNBC pundits, booing her during her speech (do you really think that didn't hurt her? Where was the "unity"?), anyway, they were hopeful they could bully Hillary out of her deserved and fairly won election and get Sanders the nomination. You know why they thought that? Because Sanders did NOT concede

Now, let me show you what a concession is like:

"Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won, the extraordinary race he has run and and I throw my full support behind him — and I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me," she said.
She said she and Obama have faced each other in 22 debates and she has had a "front-row seat to his candidacy" and has seen "his determination, his grace and his grit."
With daughter Chelsea and husband — former U.S. president Bill Clinton — along with her mother, Dorothy Rodham, watching, the New York senator formally ended her bid for the country's highest political office after a 16-month contest to win over party delegates.

The official announcement came less than a week after the Illinois senator secured enough delegates — totalling 2,118 — to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination." (thanks to lunasun for posting this)

[PoliticAverse]

150. "The Justice Gazette" - really? Please try to source your claims from a legitimate news organization

Here's what Sanders said on July 12:

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

You can watch the entire 29+ minutes of their joint press appearance here:

[lunamagica]

153. Where did he concede?

[PoliticAverse]

154. Their joint appearance was in New Hampshire. n/t

[lunamagica]

155. TIME -Bernie Sanders Does Not Concede Democratic Nomination to Hillary Clinton

2016 Election
Bernie Sanders Does Not Concede Democratic Nomination to Hillary Clinton
Sam Frizell
Jun 16, 2016

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders promised in a video address on Thursday night to continue his political revolution, declining to concede the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton despite losing a majority of votes to his rival.

[PoliticAverse]

159. "June 16" - almost a month before the "July 12" concession I posted. n/t

[lunamagica]

160. NBC - Bernie Sanders Offers No Concession in Address to Supporters

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bernie-sanders-offers-no-concession-address-supporters-n594091
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But what Sanders did not say was anything conciliatory about Clinton.

He used the present tense to note that he and Clinton “have strong disagreements on some very important issues.” He did add that “our views are quite close on others.”

And while he said he wanted to work with Clinton, he suggested it would be on his terms.

“I also look forward to working with Secretary Clinton to transform the Democratic Party so that it becomes a party of working people and young people, and not just wealthy campaign contributors,” Sanders said.

He encouraged supporters to run for elected office and set up a page to collect their information.

He also criticized the Democratic Party for not working harder in parts of the country that don’t typically vote Democratic, calling loses in state legislatures under President Obama “unacceptable.” "
-----------------------------------------------------------
And some call this enthusiastically supporting Clinton...unbelievable

[PoliticAverse]

161. "June 17" almost a month before his July 12th concession and appearance with Clinton. n/t

[Nevernose]

142. 25% of her supporters went to McCain

As opposed to ten percent of Bernie's. We probably lost more DUers to the PUMA movement in 2008 than we did to the Jackalope Radicals in 2016.

[Motownman78]

170. Nope

Obama won Dems in the GE 2008 89 to 10 percent. HRC won Dems in the GE 2016 89 to 9 percent. No difference in those numbers. If 25% of HRC supporters voted McCain, PBO should have only gotten around 80% of the Dem vote in 2008.

More importantly, the fact is either the Puma movement hurt PBO as bad as the BoBs hurt HRC or your "25%" is pulled from your backside.

[Motownman78]

54. And she conceded 3 days after Obama got enough delegates

where BS took it to the convention.

[LisaM]

55. I know; I don't understand the comparisions.

It was also a far closer contest.

[geek tragedy]

65. Clinton was much more negative in 2008.

Back then, it was "how dare you try to silence her."

Now, it's "how awful that Bernie Sanders ran like he wanted to win."

[LisaM]

70. You really think they behaved the same way at the conventions?

I guess we just saw different things.

I also saw Hillary continue to work hard for other Democrats in the ensuing years, case in point, she went and worked against Rick Snyder in Michigan, plus she's been out to Washington numerous times on behalf of candidates. She's devoted much of her adult life to the Democratic party. I don't understand how she gets reviled on this, a Democratic message board.

[geek tragedy]

80. There was nothing wrong with how Sanders behaved at the convention.

Sanders led the Senate efforts to kill Trumpcare by stripping out its non-reconciliation compliant provisions. Unglamorous stuff involving numbers and arcane rules.

[geek tragedy]

62. Yes, after her MI/FL bylaws committee hail mary flopped nt

[PoliticAverse]

129. Sorry but that's not true. Sanders endorsed Clinton before the convention and they appeared

together at a joint press event:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/index.html

[progressoid]

56. Yeah,

there's a lot of selective memory going around DU.

[lapucelle]

122. I was at the DNC RBC meeting in Washington in late May 2008

where it was determined whether and how Michigan and Florida delegates would be allowed to vote at the Denver convention.

Someone upthread stated that BS simply followed Hillary's lead by not conceding until after the last primary. It is not particularly helpful when the newly expert misconstrue events to fit a narrative.

[Vinca]

39. Oh, great. Let's keep the split in the Democratic Party cemented in place.

How bad can 8 years of Trump be?

[Catch2.2]

45. Um....

Hilary did not lose because of Bernie Sanders. She did the same thing to Barack Obama that she causes Sen. Sanders of doing. This once again keeps the party divided. I don't understand the hate for Bernie Sanders from Hilary supporters. Lets not forget the DNC & Hilary conspired against him. Maybe the Democratic party should embrace him. After all, he does have the highest approval rating of ANY current Senator, republican or Democrat.

[liquid diamond]

97. No we won't.

He is no democrat. Read this thread closely, and you'll see why sanders is so hated. Report away. We will not be silenced. You can't shut all of us up.

[WoonTars]

51. So this should be helpful in healing the wounds...

....an early xmas present for the republican party...how considerate...

[Lotusflower70]

53. Ugh

I don't know how it helps to rehash it almost a year later but here we are.

[elmac]

57. coulda woulda shoulda

well, lots of blame to go around. I personally will not blame any of our allies, only the fascists that are in control in most states and the fed gov. This kind of infighting only helps the fascists.

[LittleBlue]

59. In the book, does she take any responsibility for what happened in 2016? nt

[karynnj]

89. I hope that she does -- and that is not knowable now because we have only a few selected pieces

I assume that she picked the pieces she did - speaking of Trump and Bernie - to show that this would not be a dry, diplomatic book to generaate interest. Yet, it is 151 pages (from someone's post) I hope that there will be observations that are written more to help design better ways to run in the future.

I think anyone who is the candidate will have a unique view on how they experienced the various parts of the campaign. On one hand, they are out there as much as 12 hours a day. They HAVE to be very dependent on the team around them to pick up problems and issues when they first develop. I would bet that the candidate does NOT see what everyone else sees because they likely have absolutely no time to watch the media coverage. It would be interesting to ask candidates, whether they won or lost, what tools, assistance, anything{?) would have helped them while running.

Similarly, it would be good to get the various people in the inner circle to try to honestly assess any bad moments -- and figure out whether there would have been a better reaction that could have helped. It would be good if some of this was passed between past candidates and future ones.

[melman]

109. .

[UpInArms]

60. How helpful this book is ...

Seems that this only is set to provide more discord and disgust ... and ...

Does not appear to be unifying in any way

[garybeck]

61. I stand with Bernie.

I voted for HRC in the general election but I would have rather voted for Bernie

Bernie pushed her to change her position in many ways, all in ways I preferred.

If her book is all about blaming everyone else I wouldn't touch it with a pole. She is as much to blame as anyone else.

[katmondoo]

64. I agree

[billpolonsky]

67. Quack quack quack

"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...

[liquid diamond]

98. There was no coronation.

Hillary handed sanders his ass by 4 million more votes. We are democrats, so we nominated a democrat. The only reason why he stayed in the race so long despite facing impossible odds of a comeback is because he and his followers thought Hillary would be indicted over some email bullshit. sanders was finished after Super Tuesday.

[LiberalLovinLug]

101. The reason he stayed in the race

was not anything to do with the 'email bullshit'. He stayed on because he was legally by party rules allowed to until the convention. But most importantly, he stayed on in order to push his alternative more progressive platform, which he believed, as did millions of others, was important for the future of the country to hear. And because of his stubbornness, Hillary was forced to adopt some of his platform in the end. He accomplished something good by staying.

[R B Garr]

120. His wife did admit they stayed for the email results.

You can Google it. He was eliminated early on.

[SunSeeker]

69. Sadly, the people who really need to read this book won't. nt

[Blue_Tires]

75. Whole lot of salty folks today...

[Lordquinton]

110. You think so?

I just see one.

[Blue_Tires]

112. and I can take a peek at twitter and count thousands...

[Lordquinton]

114. Only one

Published a book.

[Blue_Tires]

116. Two if you count Bernie

[Lordquinton]

117. They are both salty

That Clinton lost to trump.

[BlueMTexpat]

79. There seem to be quite

a few here bashing Hillary for telling it like it was.

If they voted for her in the GE, fine.

If they didn't, they have no foot to stand on and do NOT belong here on DU ever again.

[wolfie001]

83. Oh goody!

"Let the games begin!!!!"

[MuseRider]

85. I'm sure he is

sweating bullets over this.

It is over, they both lost. Let's move on before the buzz saw of the R's chews us up.

[vi5]

87. "She can handle anything that's thrown at her!!!"

Except James Comey.
But other than that anything that's thrown at her.
Oh, and Russians releasing DNC e-mails. That too. So just other than Comey and Russians releasing DNC e-mails.
Oh wait and also and the most inept and outwardly evil Republican opponent in modern history.
So just Comey, Russian hacking, and a horrible and inept opponent.
Oh and voter suppression efforts that had been widely known about for years and that everyone saw coming from 100 miles away. So really she can handle anything that's thrown at her.
Just not Comey, Russian hacking, a horrible political opponent and obvious and clearly telegraphed voter suppression efforts. But other than that.......ANYTHING. Absolutely ANYTHING.

Oh and apparently an elderly socialist Senator from a small northeastern state being mildly critical of her.


But other than that. ANYTHING!!!!

[QC]

93. +1

[MuseRider]

106. Well said. n/t

[zipplewrath]

168. The underlying problem

I like your response. This is an underlying problem we have in the democratic party overall. It's sort of a cognitive dissonance of sorts. You see all of these self conflicting statements over the last election. My other favorite is "we don't need the far left, they're the reason we lost". I've suggested repeatedly that in all of the pearl clutching over the last election, it really should be observed far more in the context of the virtual collapse of the party over the last 30 years. We've watched our party lose at the state and local level extensively. We've watched the dissolution of the "solid south". We've observed the conservative control of the Supreme Court. And none of this has anything to do with the Russians or Comey. Yes some of it has to do with gerrymandering, as well as voter suppression efforts. But to a great degree those efforts have become possible because of the loss of control of state legislatures. We are in the worst shape we've been since reconstruction and we need to own up to that.

And yet we have a significant portion of the party that again goes into this "there's nothing wrong, we just need to do more of what we've been doing" mantra. We've been doing things wrong for a long time and we need to figure out what they are. Some of it may be things we'll never compromise on, and we have to accept that. But study after study suggests that our core ideas are very popular, and we are the bigger party in many ways. We shouldn't be "losing" nearly this much.

[moonseller66]

88. I'm confused

If Hillary was practically a shoe-in until Comey's revelation even with Bernie saying things then the tide turned because of Comey, what does she say about him? Does she then place more blame on Bernie regardless of his previous statements for an election she had wrapped up until Comey? It would seem Bernie's comments weren't going to sink her at the last minute, yet Comey's did and she blames Bernie.

As I said, I'm confused.
Maybe there's something in the book that has been overlooked about Comey?

[displacedtexan]

91. I can't wait to read this book!

History will not be kind to those who lied about Secretary Clinton.

[YOHABLO]

95. I'm so sick of this. This is just prolonging the divisiveness. Let's move on.

[Purveyor]

96. I can't come up with one reason why this is helpful at this point in time. That said,

with all the other "important and life changing' issues currently on the radar, Hillary's book means diddley squat to most...

[applegrove]

102. Bernie refused to take the low road and go after Hillary's emails. I'll say that.

Still it is a discussion we need to have.

[longship]

105. Heaven help us!! nt

[onecaliberal]

107. We need to STOP the fucking circular firing squad and understand we are up again Nazis

Who would love for us to be wiped out altogether. Dems and those who vote with us are NOT the god damn enemy. Stop fighting the primary and start fighting the fascist regime occupying the White House.

[FigTree]

113. That's what happens when you try to force 4 or 5 parties into 2. nt

[George Eliot]

118. Her book is her opinion, Folks. We all can disagree without being wrong.

Quit taking the bait and move on for the fight now is for the future.

[Nevernose]

143. Wow. She blames OBAMA, too?

For making her "be nice" to Bernie and for letting the Russians do their thing...

Jesus Lord Almighty, Mrs. Clinton: this is not a good look.

[moda253]

144. HRC apparently wouldn't be allowed to post here

And would be torn down by members here if she did.

WTF happened here? A lifelong Democrat is calling to attention a real situation that needs to be addressed. And we are crucufying her for it.

Unreal.

[LonePirate]

151. Of all the things in her book, it's interesting that this topic generates the most discussion here.

I wonder why that is.



Seriously, I highly recommend everyone here at DU should read the book. It is well written and extremely insightful into numerous matters.

[WoonTars]

157. She has a new book coming out? I hadn't heard that...

....like a million fucking times on DU already...

[left-of-center2012]

165. Time to move on

Let's stop the circular firing squad
and focus on beating the GOP in 2018 and 2020.

[Juliusseizure]

169. This Reminds Me of Her 60 minutes Interview

and other complaints.

A few pts:

* Primaries are and should be extremely competitive idealogical blood sport. If anyone understands uber competitive, its the Clintons, and its a necessary trait to win elections.

*HC, with due respect, is being hypocritical. She, w/Bill's help, often went for Obama's jugular in 2008, labeled him inexperienced, unqualified, and dishonest in misleading people with empty promises.

[link:https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2008/jan/22/hillaryclinton.uselections2008|

Despite her greater qualifications, I was an early Obama supporter, greatly inspired by his 2004(?) speech, was drawn to his energy, likeability, his anti-Iraq stance, etc.

* HC public airing of her bitterness/resentment may make her feel good, but just exposes divisions in the party. Someone please tell her THERE'S A RACIST, FASCIST PIG IN THE WH WITH HIS FINGER ON NUKES. Focus on that.

*While I understand Sander's bashing the democratic establishment did not help HC, and he moved her further to the left than she wanted, there's NO evidence to suggest it was a factor in her loss. Such voting was contrary to BS's position. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to eat my words. Anyway, who cares. Move on, and scrutinize it if needed for any lessons to learn moving forward.

*HC has certain character traits, exposed here, that turn me off. Like an occasional sarcastic, negativity and self-centeredness going back to her '92 60 minutes interview - "I'm no Tammy Wynette just standing by my man" (paraphrasing) when asked about Clinton's adultery.

I get it, but...why bash Tammy Wynette's love song? Ok, that's minor. I understand the bitterness there, and Bill must have done A LOT of fucking around to deserve it - we all know now - but why air it publicly with him sitting right next to you, the same person running for the white house, i.e., his dream job he is sacrificing his life for, on the most watched TV program in the country? Is there any point to airing it publicly beyond personal satisfaction stemming from a negative place?