2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow Sanders, Warren or I *feel* about Hillary is irrelevent
But i do think that they believe as I do that Hillary lives in a Washington/Wall St world where she see nothing wrong with taking large sums of money for herself, her campaign and her foundation from the same entities that are significantly damaging our democracy, economy, society, and environment.
That she does not believe there is anything wrong with this, and that she believes it does not have any impact on her judgement, simply illustrates the boundaries of the playing field on which Hillary operates.
So yes, I believe Bernie and Liz agree with me on this assessment.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)Bernie supporters and Bernie isn't going to be that ...........well..........
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)the OP is not about endorsements
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Sanders will probably endorse. Political reality more-or-less requires it.
But you might have noticed we have not responded to hundreds of endorsements already. One more isn't going to change much.
We are not supporting Sanders because of Sanders. We are supporting Sanders because of policy. An endorsement does not change policy.
Svafa
(594 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)Senators who encouraged Hillary to run. So her opinion may be less reflective of your own than you believe.
She will - without hesitation - endorse whichever candidate wins the majority of pledged delegates. If that candidate is Hillary, Elizabeth will support her wholeheartedly, as will Bernie himself. If the shoe somehow happens to be on the other foot, Hillary already demonstrated in 2008 that she herself will wholeheartedly support - and campaign for - that candidate. Hillary is, first and foremost, a team player.
It is a crying shame that some still here don't "get" that.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)this thread is in response to another that suggested Bernie supporters are basing their opinions of Hillary on emotion. While some may, I try to remain grounded in the facts I have been presented by the candidates, and in the case of Senator Warren her public statements.
i base the opinion expressed in the OP on what Sanders, Clinton and Warren have said publicly. so if you would like to offer some substantive commentary from Senator Warren where she does not agree with the things I said, please do. She has said essentially the same, but without pinning it directly on Hillary.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It's been just 3 years since Hillary stopped calling out LGBT as 'the other' and as not approved by her God. That is not team building, that's not being a team player unless of course you define the team as being anti gay Christians. Is that the message, that we are not on the team and never were?
Can you cite any other 'teams' where the team leader says 'those of you who are not approved by my religion can't have equal play'? List as many as you can think of. Please.
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)under Bill Clinton's administration there were meaningful efforts to incorporate gays into the federal government.
Yes, it is true that in recent years Hillary has indeed come out strongly for full LGBT rights as opposed to earlier. But it is also an example of how an incremental approach - rather than a destructive sledgehammer - can become the mainstream POV.
Please think about it objectively rather than with selective bias.
revbones
(3,660 posts)I keep reading that, but yet to have found any proof other than one comment in an interview that was tepid at best.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)She may be correct...but at least she has had to try harder because of one.
I would hope that the best of Sanders' campaign will become a model for others. It had better, while change is still possible.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)beyond the campaign the boundaries of her playing field are restricted in a way that renders the 99% spectators?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)She's Establishment, certainly, and generally aligned with her biggest donors agains the 99%...but she's also a beacon of hope to the 51%.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)to corporate interests through global trade deals. ISDS is eliminating the ability of the people to have any meaningful way to work within the established systems to push back.
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)We don't care what you think about our candidate, Hillary Clinton. No disrespect intended.