clinton vs. sanders your vote? — Page 134

I've been firmly in Clinton's camp as one can be, and even after Monday's interview with Maddow -- that appalling moment when Clinton was required to defend her campaign's success, not her failure -- still believe Sanders should play this out to the end. He asked for those $27 from many, and owes them a full run. I get that. He will probably wisely pivot and press his platform vision, and stop trying to shame people who are Clinton supporters. Millbank in the WaPo today said he will do just that, because he's "not a fool." Should he spend the next 6 weeks denigrating Clinton or those who've voted for her, he will only create a bitter legacy. He's not a saint, he has an ego, which means he'd like to continue his mission into 2017, and be remembered for it. His supporters? Not so clear. The snark on FB the last two days is off the charts ugly. Unprecedented.

I don't get the feeling that Sanders wants anything other than Sanders. He's not for a movement, he's for himself. He's shown little interest in furthering anything other than himself at this point. Hillary is the opposite. She is working toward her own movement of progress, not just on her own campaign. That's how you get things done.

It's not surprising that Bernie appeals to young white privileged millennials who consider themselves edgy and trendy when they are far from it. It's the age of "I'm in it for me."

If the current goal is to unite the party, I'm not sure denigrating Sanders and his supporters is the appropriate tack.

Some of my friends are definitely in AP Bernie Math.

Updated On: 4/28/16 at 03:13 AM

"We got to the end in June [2008], and I did not put down conditions. I didn’t say, ‘You know what, if Senator Obama does X, Y and Z, maybe I’ll support him. I said, ‘I am supporting Senator Obama, because no matter what our differences might be, they pale in comparison to the differences between us and the Republicans.’ That’s what I did."

--Hillary Clinton, yesterday

I loved how she corrected Maddow, when she started to say, "If you're ahead in the votes [by the time of California]...." and Hillary was, like, "I am ahead, Rachel! I'm way ahead in votes!" LOL! But seriously, I'm so sick of the media still trying to make it a horse race and giving people false hope.

Yes, that's true, but the media has also been treating this as a horse race for far too long. That hasn't been the case since Super Tuesday (March 1), when she won big and pulled far ahead, and pulled ahead even farther two weeks later (March 15), After that, Sanders had, like, 8 consecutive wins, which helped him to whittle her lead of 300+ pledged delegates down to 200+, but with her recent wins in NY and this past Tuesday, she managed to erase any gains he had made in those three weeks, and now her lead is back up to 300+. It's obvious that the media (especially MSNBC) has been trying to make it a contest, possibly for ratings and hits, because the race has been over for almost two months.

Promising news indeed. I think they're onto something. If all goes according to plan, the GOP will lose control of the Senate via the upcoming election. Then the 2018 midterm elections become the perfect target to consolidate the lead by wresting the House away from the GOP as well. At first blush, this appears to be the genesis of another viable 3rd party after my own Libertarian Party. I'm not a huge fan of the 2 major parties but will continue to support the Dems because the GOP is morally bankrupt.

Updated On: 4/28/16 at 03:26 PM

Anyone else see the irony of a Sanders supporters have a PAC to advance their interests after all of the attacks on Clinton for having one?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with what they are doing, but it does make some of the attacks against Clilnton ring pretty hollow.

"Who the hell does Barney think he is to set conditions? He's not the nominee. He's not going to be President. He doesn't get to set conditions."

Why be so combative? The best coming together of our party involves a common platform, not one that the ideals of income inequality are not addressed. Not one that allows Wall Street free reign, don't you think you have to make some of the issues Bernie has galvanized into the platform, dosen't it make sense?

PACs are okay if I do them but not if you do.

It's okay for the gun manufacturers to have free reign but not for Wall Street.

It's okay for me to say Hillary gives Wall Street free reign but it's not okay for you to say that Bernie gives the gun manufacturers free reign.

Anything Bernie does is pure. Anything Hillary does is corrupt.

Got all that? Okay, maybe I'll support you.

Updated On: 4/29/16 at 11:46 PM

While the idea of this PAC is promising, I'd hate for it to become the left's equivalent of the Tea Party, only supporting candidates who can pass some ideological purity test.