How come many of the same people who said we needed Sanders in the race

[pnwmom]

to move Hillary to the left, are now upset that she appears to be moving left?

Isn't that what they said was supposed to happen?

[reformist2]

1. By magically transforming overnight, she has utterly destroyed her credibility, possibly irrevocably

[pnwmom]

2. It hasn't been overnight. She's always had a liberal record.

If you're talking about the TPP, she waited to stake a position on it till it was closer to being a final document.

[DebJ]

26. And what about the Keystone Pipeline? I could never, ever understand her not coming out immediately

against it. It took her YEARS. That one REALLY baffles me. At least the TPP was a somewhat more recent talking point.

Those two things almost back to back look to me to be trying to deflate what would have happened in the debate, period.

[Hortensis]

89. She was working on far bigger issues. Take a look at a

pipeline map some time. It would be just one of many. And that many fewer dangerous train cars of explosive substances would be moving through our cities.

I was always against the Keystone. There's virtually nothing in it for the American people. It's Canadian oil. Let the Canadians run it to THEIR borders.

But when it comes to making deals and setting priorities, it's much smaller than many other things we could have been fighting for. Which is exactly what she indicated when she finally supported it SO it could be taken off the agenda of people who didn't realize far bigger issues need to be addressed.

Like the problem of fresh water depletion: HUGE, HUGE, HUGE!!!!

[DebJ]

90. It was going to run right through Native American Sovereign territory.

There is NOTHING for the US to gain in this pipeline, NOTHING.

Doesn't take more than an hour to read up on it and figure that out.

[PatrickforO]

40. Yeah, but the thing about the TPP is that Clinton

claimed she was instrumental in the initial development of it in an October 2011 speech to the New York Economic Club. Here's the link: http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2011/10/175552.htm

This is my problem with Clinton. To me she resembles a wind sock more than a genuine candidate. Sure, we all know that presidents have to make some compromises to get stuff done, but Clinton has been SO poll- and focus group driven that I'm not sure what she stands for.

Sure, she talks the talk, but walking the walk? Not so much.

This is why I'm supporting Sanders. Sure, he's forced Clinton more to the left, but the fact someone even had to do that makes me have some really serious doubts about whether Clinton would even care about my interests as an American once in office. I'd rather vote for the real deal instead of someone who says one thing and will almost certainly do another.

[hifiguy]

81. Can't add a word.

[Agony]

48. No. she has always had a neo-liberal record.

"waited to stake a position on it till it was closer to being a final document."

Her inside track to the negotiations are informing her exquisite leadership skills. Got It!

Cheers!

[cascadiance]

52. So, supporting expanding H-1b *indentured servant* "guest worker" program is "liberal"?

NOOO!!!! And for those who say it is it is a DAMN INSULT in a personal way to many of us in IT, etc. who have been unemployed numerous times (and am now currently) having to work more contract jobs now because of that PIECE OF SHIT legislation that hurts both American workers and those who come here to work under its crappy rules instead of being able to really immigrate here. Since that program is NOT about immigration, H-1B expansion had no business being pushed in to that immigration bill in the last senate session where it didn't pass. But corporatist Republicans and neo-liberal DINOs like Chuck Schumer insisted on putting it in, which is why so many of us wouldn't do a damn thing to help immigration bill to pass then, even if we supported like hell the rest of that divisive bill.

If Hillary Clinton continues to support that like she did very vocally in 2007, I'm sorry she doesn't have my vote as being the "liberal" option. Bernie has strongly rejected both H-1B and H-2B programs the way they should be along with the TPP. And Hillary Clinton doesn't have any convenient excuse like she's been trying to manufacture when trying to shift gears on TPP.

[AgingAmerican]

68. She has morphed into a Democratic Socialist

Just in time for the debates!!

[cantbeserious]

84. Liberal Hardly - HRC Started Life As A Republican

eom

[tularetom]

3. I've not yet been able to discern any "move to the left"

If you are referring to her so called opposition to the TPP, that was pretty watery soup. And I wouldn't expect it to last beyond the nomination. She'll flip flop again when her media gurus and focus group advisors tell her to.

[Scootaloo]

4. Who are all these people you're referring to?

[pnwmom]

7. The ones accusing her of flipflopping, for example. n/t

[Scootaloo]

9. No. Who was thinking we needed Sanders to pull Clinton left?

Name some names, pwnmom.

[pnwmom]

10. Right. And get hidden. No, thanks. n/t

[Fearless]

16. You don't get hidden for mentioning DUers positions, just attacking them

[Scootaloo]

18. You ought to support your claims somehow

Were there journalists you had in mind? Op-ed writers or pundits, who wanted Sanders to pull clinton left, but are now upset that Clinton is making that play?

'Cause i can tell you, Sanders supporters want Sanders to be president. The only people who thought of him as some sort of fig leaf gimmick for Clinton are Clinton supporters.

[PatrickforO]

41. Well, I thought that. Elevating the dialog is a really good thing, and

Sanders is out there telling the truth. However, I'm only one guy and pretty small potatoes at that. I have seen some articles about this 'pulling Hillary left' meme. Here's a link to a recent one: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-shrewd-move-may-push-clinton-left.

I am supporting Bernie all the way, but if he loses, we still gain because Bernie has brought the real issues - things the great swollen corporate owned propaganda organs never talk about - to light. People are talking about wealth inequality. About minimum wage. About strengthening Social Security (thanks Elizabeth, too!!), single payer health care, infrastructure jobs programs, fixing the corporate tax code to tax that $2 trillion in untaxed profits offshore, free tuition at state colleges and universities - things that would make the lives of people like us a lot better.

Or maybe I shouldn't so presume...these things Bernie wants would definitely make MY life and my family's lives a lot better. I can't speak for everyone else, but in my state, which has full employment and a booming economy, 48% of the people are still at or just above poverty. That's bullshit in a country this rich. We need some good, healthy wealth redistribution.

[arcane1]

5. I don't think anyone is "upset" about it. n/t

[cyberswede]

17. Me neither. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. We need Sanders in the race because we need him to be President.

I don't doubt you saw posts like that, but I haven't seen them, and I don't believe this is a prevalent view.

[oasis]

8. I'm so glad Bernie's doing such a terrific job getting

a much needed message out to a receptive American public.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

11. She's "moving left" for appearances only... it's politically expedient.

No one is upset. We know Clintonian bullshit when we see it. And based on her untrustworthy numbers, so do those beyond DU's borders.

[Fumesucker]

12. Hillary doesn't blink without polling how often she should do so

I don't think it's Bernie pushing Hillary to the left, I think it's her internal polling.

[artislife]

13. Do you believe that she woke up the other day

and everything became crystal clear, what she had worked so hard for was not what she wanted all along. Interesting the timing of her newly clear vision comes just before a debate and probably too late to stop it.

That is the problem.


She seems more calculating than usual.

[Scootaloo]

19. Well, she did it in 2008. We voted for Obama anyway

[sabrina 1]

14. I don't know anyone who wanted Sanders in the race to 'move Hillary to the Left'. There were

suggestions by a few that he might do that. No Sanders supporter gave that notion a shred of credibility..

Why on earth would you vote for the one who needed someone else to 'move them to the Left' when you could vote for the person who was already on the Left?

You can't 'move someone to the Left' if they are so far from that position their entire political career. People knew that if that were to happen, it would be only for the purpose of the campaign. No one would trust someone who did that.

Where did you get the idea that this was a reason people were supporting Sanders?

[pnwmom]

20. When Bernie was only considering running, many were claiming that he'd move her to the left.

This was when the race looked like a walk-in for Hillary.

She "needed" a primary opponent to help make her stronger, they said. He would show her that she needed to move left.

So now she has, just like they predicted.

Some people are never satisfied.

[Scootaloo]

24. "Many people," "They," "Some people"

[zalinda]

29. Actually it was DC insiders

who were saying that. They were saying that Bernie couldn't possibly win, but that he could pull Hillary to the left.

I don't think any Bernie supporter would have said that. They want Bernie to win, not make Hillary appear like she is a better candidate than she is.

Z

[pnwmom]

30. No, DC insiders felt that she was in a similar position to an incumbent,

in terms of name recognition and a national organization.

In that situation, any primary opponent would weaken her.

That's what the DC insiders were saying -- they weren't welcoming a Sanders candidacy, or any other primary opponent.

[zalinda]

39. They didn't take Sanders running seriously.

The TV pundits talked about Sanders entering the race with the dems who appeared on their shows. Absolutely no one thought that Bernie had a chance in hell, but that he could pull the party leftward.

There was talk on DU about those shows, but at that time, I'm not even sure that Bernie had entered the race. Elizabeth Warren was still on every one's lips. Once committed to Bernie, they wanted him to win, not pull the party to the left.

Z

[pangaia]

57. Bernie is REAL . Hillary is NOT.. Simple..

[stone space]

61. I did.

I don't know anyone who wanted Sanders in the race to 'move Hillary to the Left'.

Of course, that's not the only reason why I support Bernie, but I've always supported candidates that I felt might pull the debate within the Democratic Party to the left.

Any mainstream candidate who is willing to utter the S-Word in public has automatically captured my heart from the very start.

For much the same reason, I hope that Hillary pulls Bernie to the left when it comes to guns, especially special legal protections and privileges afforded to arms manufacturers. Let the 1% manufacture weapons without receiving special protections when the products that they manufacture harm the 99%. If they get shut down, then they get shut down. My heart will weep for them as much as my heart weeps for Big Tobacco and Lawn Darts Manufacturers, neither of which had access to such special legal protections.

Indeed, one perfectly legitimate reason for supporting Bernie might be that President Sanders will likely have a chance to have a long chat with Pope Francis. I hope that they talk about guns and gays. They might both come away from that conversation having learned something of importance.

Growth and evolution on issues are good things, not bad things, when that evolution is in the right (or should I say left?) direction.

Whether on the part of ones own chosen candidate, or opposing candidates.

[Fearless]

15. She isn't moving to the left, she's pandering to the left.

And we're not dumb enough to believe her.

After the election, if elected, what is to stop her from pandering back to the right to "compromise" with a Republican Congress?

Not a damn thing.

Bernie doesn't pander. He means what he says. He actually holds moral positions on issues and doesn't change them when the wind blows a different direction.

That I can respect.

[840high]

38. ...^ that

[restorefreedom]

54. ^^^^this^^^^. nt

[davidpdx]

63. +3

[azmom]

85. +1000000

[Ino]

21. I'm not upset. I think it's Hillaryous! (nt)

[betsuni]

22. Calling changing support for trade deals depending on what's in the final deal "flip-flopping"

and "lying" is really burning my bacon. Doesn't anyone remember John Kerry? Al Gore being called a liar because he was misquoted about the Internet. So a politician isn't allowed to change positions? Do people not understand the job of a politician? It is not religion with commandments carved into a large rock. Sanders will be called a liar if he becomes the nominee. This is so stupid.

[pnwmom]

27. You're right. The purists will feel betrayed by a President Sanders because

in order to accomplish anything in office, he'll have to engage in political compromise.

It's one thing being the Senator of the tiny state of Vermont. It's another being President of a large diverse country.

[Ed Suspicious]

32. Wrong. We accept compromise so long as it starts with our side winning and we don't give away the

farm before we get to the table. You don't seem to understand the expectations of Bernie supporters.

[pnwmom]

46. "We accept compromise as long as it starts with our side winning"

That doesn't sound like compromising to me.

Compromising means give and take. Both sides win some and lose some.

It doesn't start with "our side winning."

[Fumesucker]

49. That's how you come to a compromise, both sides start with a complete win and work toward center

I figured someone would jump on that since it wasn't very well phrased, you don't walk into a negotiation having already conceded half the other side's stipulations unless they do the same for you..

When have Republicans conceded anything at all before negotiations began?

[AgingAmerican]

74. Obama did all the compromising

The Republicans didn't compromise and got 95% of what they wanted. Obama gave up things the GOP had sought for decades but didn't try because it would have been political suicide. In return he got a couple temporary bandaids.

Republicans did not compromise for Obama, and believing they ever will is naive.

[pnwmom]

75. Obama moved things forward. The Republicans hate Obamacare and they hated

the economic stimulus -- which was a compromise. Neither one was a "temporary bandaid."

Obamacare was actually a compromise between Obama and Joe Lieberman, the independent in CT who provided the key 60th vote to overcome the filibuster.

[AgingAmerican]

76. Yeah, we got lots of right wing crap

The 'stimulus' was a temporary band-aid. So is Obamacare, remember they promised to 'fix' it once it passed? When will it be 'fixed' as promised? Also it passed with zero GOP votes because, you know, they compromised so much?

Mostly we got right wing austerity and sequestration and nothing in return. The country has turned hard right under Obama.

One sided compromise with the non-compromising GOP under Obama has been a travesty for this country.

[pnwmom]

77. It passed with the key vote of an Independent, as I said.

Why do you think Sanders will accomplish any more than Obama, unless there are huge changes in Congress? It's been Congress standing in the way of progress and Congress that will block Sanders the same as it did Obama, unless we have majorities large enough to control both houses.

Obama accomplished a lot. Despite strong and unrelenting opposition, his policies pulled us out of the largest recession since the Great Depression, and he brought healthcare insurance to eighteen million people who didn't have it. Maybe it doesn't matter to aging Americans who already had Medicare, but it does to millions newly on Medicaid and individual insurance plans.

[AgingAmerican]

78. The GOP does not compromise

And they never will. Anyone who makes 'deals' with them will get burned, every time, just like Obama did.

[pnwmom]

80. And anyone who makes no deals will accomplish nothing, unless we have

control both Houses.

[Armstead]

23. I want him to be president and take the country to the left...or...

if that's not possible to at least push the Democrats and the axis of the overall political culture more to the left.

But honestly by opening it up, not just having established candidate take temporary positions for political expediency

[Autumn]

25. I don't know anyone who wanted Bernie in the race to move Hillary to the left.

Do you really think that a person who has to follow another person to the left is a president that will lead and stand for us on the left? I wanted Bernie in the race because he is a progressive and his values are mine. Neither Bernie nor I followed someone else to get where we are. Key word in your post appears.

[brewens]

28. When at the start, we weren't sure he would get such huge support and be a serious contender,

we could hope for at least that. But now that Bernie is kicking ass, we'd much prefer him to someone that as you say, "appears" to be moving left. Better to have the real deal than someone that's likely to blow us off once she's in power.

[ucrdem]

31. Yes, that was the excuse for letting Bernie get away with not declaring as a Dem.

I knew it was bull. The thing is that a non-Democrat has a huge advantage in a Dem debate because he has no stake in the success of the party or its candidates. He can say any damn thing he wants with impunity whereas Clinton has to think beyond the easy applause lines. I know this from experience as I've been in Bernie's position (some years ago) and it frankly provides an unfair but irresistible opportunity to make fools of the others. I didn't but I doubt if Bernie will be as considerate.

[Ed Suspicious]

33. Bernie has been nothing if not gracious in this campaign. He has not sought to make any other

Democratic candidate look foolish.

[ucrdem]

34. My perceptions were a little different.

He launched the same week as Clinton Cash and in every interview I saw was asked about a) the propriety of the Clinton foundation donations, to which he replied they stunk, in so many words, and b) about TPP, to which he replied that Obama was an out-of-touch elitist pandering to the upper crust he hoped to join on retirement from office, in so many words.

And as sure as the sun rises he'll say the same and probably worse during the debates.

[cascadiance]

56. I think Bernie being independent when the party is corrupted by neo-liberal leadership is proper...

... as it shows him being principled on his vision of wanting to not answer to a party that has moved away from the progressive principles of earlier times under FDR where this party then took ON the "economic royalists" instead of being their servants like it is today.

Now, if Bernie can become president and help move the party leadership and members back to those of FDR's time, I can almost predict that that might be the time that he considers becoming a Democrat, and the symbolism of that happening then would be an even bigger rebirth in spirit for the Democratic Party then which might have it be locked in to power for many years like it was back in FDR's time. And it would be doing so serving the interest of the 99% of the American people to and not the 1%.

If he becomes a Democrat now, it will be looked on as nothing more as some way that party leadership is forcing yet another hoop for him and others to jump through to deal with their neo-liberal corporatist leadership that will be given more of an endorsement that it shouldn't have to have the support of a vast majority of the American people that it SHOULD have if it were the party it used to be.

[ibegurpard]

35. Who was saying that?

I wanted Bernie in the race because I think he can actually appeal to the electorate at large and will fight for real progressive policy.

[whatchamacallit]

36. Not sure where that bullshit meme started, but

no actual Sanders supporter had that as a goal. Why would Sanders supporters care about dragging Hillary left if they expect Sanders to be the nominee?

[cpompilo]

37. Sorry, but I don't want another war.

[jfern]

43. I never said we needed to have her move to the left

Because I really doubt she will genuinely move to the left in the primary and then stay that way after she's elected. We need to elect someone who isn't a freaking chameleon.

[djean111]

44. I don't think it was DU Bernie supporters who thought Hillary would ACTUALLY move

to the left. Lots of pundits were saying that. What I remember is people saying that only Hillary's rhetoric would move to the left. Bernie said he would not run unless he thought there was a chance he could win. A lot of people thought he would be gone by now, having influenced Hillary's campaigning to the left, a bit. But he is still here, and so are his supporters.

she appears to be moving left

There is not a lot of trust that she would stay that course if she were to be elected.
Also Bernie's supporters are not just temporarily supporting Bernie until Hillary sounds like she is moving left - like Hillary's supporters, we are all in for our candidate. There was never going to be any "oh, if Hillary has started sounding like Bernie, we will support her now" movement. I mean, that's good that she is saying those things, and all that, but no reason to switch candidates. She is who she is. All the focus groups in the world cannot change that.

Personally, I don't see why there is any angst about this. Bernie's supporters have been told that we are just a marginal little group, etc. Why worry about what we think? Seriously, why the angst? It is almost like the issues were never supposed to be relevant to the primary.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

45. "Yeah what Bernie said" is not a move to the left it is lip service nothing more

and many know it.

[Vinca]

47. I'm glad she's moving to the left, but is this a "Romney" move?

Once nominated will she abandon us and go back to center right in order to court votes? I know where Bernie will be if he's the nominee, but I'm no so sure where Hillary might be a year from November.

[Motown_Johnny]

50. Her conversion is not believable.

She hasn't moved, she just claims that she has.


It is insulting.

[Jester Messiah]

51. So wait, whispering sweet nothings that she'll bail on after the primary counts as movement?

Huh... who knew?

[HereSince1628]

53. It would work smoother if she hadn't disavowed the left just weeks ago

She's got directional uncertainty problems at influential levels in her campaign.

Those things look all the more obvious when compared to the overall consistency of other candidate's messaging.

I suppose that could suggest her big spending on internal polling is producing results that are ambivalent.

[restorefreedom]

55. because sanders is in to win

I know it is hard to imagine, because some feel that everyone else exists to serve the inevitable one. That's the problem with the the 1%. There are only two kinds of entities.... them and their tools who only exist to serve them. Bernie in not in this to be a tool he getting it to be the president.

[Scuba]

58. No, that's not what we said was supposed to happen.

Dragging Hillary's campaign rhetoric to the left does not mean that her policies have actually changed.

[tk2kewl]

59. There's a diffference between moving left...

and talking out of the left side of ones mouth

[Chan790]

60. Because a lot of those people never expected Sanders to be viable.

Me, I never cared if she moved left or not; she could run unopposed and I'd still never vote for her.

[workinclasszero]

62. Bernie isn't viable nationally

[DianeK]

65. oh wait..

you have to click your heels 3 times as you say that

[frylock]

88. Which states are a win for Clinton and a loss for Sanders in the GE?

[uponit7771]

92. All the ones Kerry lost in 04 including Ohio... please research who didn't vote for Kerry in 04

... and why

[workinclasszero]

95. All the southern states /nt

[frylock]

96. Clinton wins all the southern states?

[workinclasszero]

97. Easy peasy

After Super Tuesday Bernie will endorse Hillary for President

[frylock]

98. Yeah, I think we've been through this..

see you on 3/2/2016.

[DianeK]

64. I have taken to calling Mrs. Clinton..

Madam Butterfly because of her constant evolution on issues

[hifiguy]

82. There are more patches on that campaign

than on Windows Explorer. And they're about as effective.

[LWolf]

66. I don't think there were many.

There were a few, and I think they said that because they bought into the conventional wisdom that said Sanders is "unelectable." Now that he's blowing that conventional wisdom out of the water, maybe they have gained hope that he could actually win, and don't want any appearance of change on HRC's part to get in the way. I don't really know, since I haven't kept a score card of those who wanted him to move HRC to the left.

I wanted Sanders in the race because I wanted someone to vote for, to campaign for, to support, and to elect. I have been watching HRC since I heard her say that she was no Tammy Wynette standing by her man while she appeared on national television to stand by her man. I am well aware that if she is "moving left," it's not authentic, but for campaign purposes. That's what she does.

That's what she does. That's not coming from a (completely) judgmental place. That's what a hell of a lot of Democrats seem to do. They latch on to a politician to support, and suddenly their own convictions as voters change to make sure that the politician of their choice, during campaign season and while in office, gets their full support regardless of what that politician does. During campaign season, the politician shifts to please voters. While in office, many voters shift to support the politician, regardless of what position he or she takes.

Interestingly enough, I didn't see this until I found DU back in '02. DU taught me a great deal about partisan politics.

If there are people questioning HRC's suddent lurch to the left, and I believe you when you say there are (I've been buried in a long work week and haven't been keeping up), it's because they simply don't trust her. That's the result of decades of watching her.

[Luminous Animal]

67. Really. Every Sanders supporter that I know said we needed Sanders in the race to win

the Presidency. Not one of us wanted him to run for Hillary's benefit.

[workinclasszero]

70. Because they lied? /nt

[TheKentuckian]

71. Mostly Clinton supporters and neutral folks talking that stuff.

I have had no interest in pulling Clinton to the left because she is likely to pull on back as soon as the pressure was removed.

[kenfrequed]

72. No.

I wanted Bernie in the race because I want Bernie as president.

I would be sympathetic towards Hillary if this wasn't a cynical move to blunt any forward momentum Bernie could get from the debates by knocking key questions off the debate table. This isn't going to work because it only reinforces the inauthentic thing.

All that has to happen is that one of the other candidates looking to score points comes out at her swinging about her changing positions and she will start bleeding support.

Of course they will have answers plotted out for this.

[AgingAmerican]

73. She too easily abandons her positions

When it's politically expedient. Logic follows that she will simply switch back once elected.

[MuseRider]

79. We needed Sanders because

we need him to be President. Hillary has shifted left? LOL. I really really wish I believed that but after all these years I have seen her shift and shift back according to what she needed to get what she wanted.

A Hillary that was really a lefty would be a wonderful thing. She is left until she gets the nomination. I would LOVE to eat those words, seriously I would LOVE to eat them. I would spend far too much time eating them then having to say it again then eating them again, well you get the picture.

[hifiguy]

83. What a chickenshit hide that was on Aging American.

[hrmjustin]

86. Respectfully disagree.

Not my alert but i agree with the hide.

[edgineered]

91. Some who were already squirming from the multiple lacerations

saw the post more like a salt shaker. The pain must have been traumatic!

[senz]

87. The authenticity factor? Sincerity, convictions...that sort of thing...

[uponit7771]

93. Sanders should work on those things since he's "evolved" during this campaign also....

... none of the candidates can throw a stone

NOT

ONE

[Warren DeMontague]

94. Not me.

I consider it a positive development.