Great NYT article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Yet because Mrs. Clinton has had little success articulating her basic governing approach, the case for her has instead come to seem almost entirely instrumental — that she has the best chance of being elected or would be better at haggling with Republicans for incremental gains. In the context of widespread amnesia about what has made America prosper, pragmatism has come to be seen as lacking a clear compass rather than (in the original meaning of the word) focusing on what has actually proved to work in the real world.

This is a problem, and not just for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. Our nation badly needs a dialogue that reminds Americans why a capable government is essential and how much we are paying for its erosion. Mrs. Clinton understands this, but she may have neither the opportunity nor the inclination to say it.

Interesting.

This article is vague and doesn't convince me in any way to be in the Hillary camp. It basically says to me to be for Hillary because she'll stick with staus quo.

Big problem for Hillary, though, is that she's made some statements that are much more divisive and radical than what Bernie has said. For instance, in the past few debates she's staunchly declared that gun manufacturers should be able to be sued. Talk about a lightening rod stance. That's like saying if someone is stabbed or harmed by a knife, they should be able to sue the knife manufacturers. She's not talking about a malfunction in the product, either.

That kind of rhetoric is about as anti capitalism as you can get and she doesn't even see it. And it's this sort of thing that gives the right ammunition against her. It's also not logical nor practical.

I was struck by a quote in the NY Times article:
"We are trapped in a vicious cycle: Disillusionment encourages dysfunction, and dysfunction empowers those who spread further disillusionment and dysfunction."

Spoken like a true propagandist. This Rolling Stone's piece articulates why you can't trust the NY Times or why you can't let the illusionist determine if you are disillusioned.
(link...)

I'm still not convinced that she's a good candidate for the presidency. I'll vote for her, if she gets the nomination, but it will be a vote against the Republicans and not a vote for Clinton.

Wouldn't that make Sanders the Ralph Nadar of 2016?

(link...)

one more reminder why I *don't* support HRC

as much as I hate characterizing all policy issues as necessarily existing on a single "left-right" dimension -- i'll go ahead and say that this rhetoric delivered to AIPAC puts HRC not only to "the right" of Obama on this issue -- also to the "right" of Trump and in many ways in line with the GOP mainstream (minus the dominion-theology / evangelical fireworks)

Nader claimed less than 3% of the general election vote in 2000. Anderson claimed less than 7% of the general election vote in 1980. Neither candidate ever enjoyed the level of support Sanders is now enjoying.

That's all I know definitively on the topic...

I do not believe Sanders will run as an independent, so the pledge drive is a vain, pointless idea. If they want to go left wing in the general just for show they should vote for Jill Stein.

Even though I'm a big Bernie supporter. And I think he would be opposed, as well. That would be a huge mistake.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I will vote for her, but I'm very glad Bernie is sticking it out as long as he can. Hillary worries me a lot, but I could never vote for any of these Republicans, they are horrifying.

In 2000, Gore would likely have had a clean win over Bush if Nadar hadn't been in the race. If Sanders supports a write-in campaign he will in effect be saying he's willing to throw the election to the Republicans. I would hope that should he lose the nomination through the primary process he will understand the importance of doing the right thing and throwing his weight behind Clinton.

So far, Clinton has 2.5 million more votes than Sanders. It isn't like she's stealing the election. And as far as press coverage goes, one analysis I read said more than half the coverage of Clinton has been negative. He might not have gotten as much air time, but frankly, I think the press has treated Sanders with kid gloves.

sanders will back clinton if he loses the primary, no need to speculate about an independent run, the only question in my mind is : what is HRC going to do to pull disparate elements of the sanders camp into her tent in the general?

its not just about the few people on the "left" who might vote green party (such as myself: voting green without concern for spoiling the election for the republicans from inside a solid red state)

one shouldn't underestimate the number of current sanders supporters that are coming not from the "left" but from the "center": independents, various quasi-libertarians and anti-establishmentarians... a total mish-mash, really.

HRC has little way to appeal to the popular zeitgeist animating this cycle... outside of presenting herself as "the only thing standing between us and the barbarism of trump" -- which, i think, will be sufficient for her in the end.

I'm not worried about Sanders running as an independent, and I'm aware of his statement (cited above) as to why he chose to run as a Democrat (and I have some feelings about that which I won't discuss here). I'm concerned about his supporters promoting a write-in campaign that will threaten Clinton's chances and hand the election to the Republicans.

What will it take for Sanders' supporters to vote for Clinton should she win the nomination? I believe most will because they'll understand what the alternative is. However, it will still take Sanders to get out there - just as he's doing now - and convince them that they should, and at this point I'm not convinced he would do that. I hope I'm wrong, though.

Vote blue no matter who!

(as seen on Twitter)

No one, absolutely no one asked what Obama would do to bring Clinton voters into the fold in 2008. In fact the demands were for Clinton and her supporters to go all out for Obama. Even Gloria Johnson was quoted in national media concerning Bill Clinton and her expectation that Bill Clinton must give a "full throated endorsement" of Obama. Now, 8 years later and the clinton camp is supposed to bend over backwards to placate angry sanders supporters??? Of course thats how it will probably happen, because there's never a recognition of a 2-way street when it comes to Hillary running for president but the hypocrisy and double standard by some of you cant be overlooked.

Sanders only joined the Democratic Party so he could exploit its resources and money for his run for the presidency. I give him credit for being honest about it, but where is the ideological purity?

As far as appeasing Sanders' supporters, we're watching the implosion of the Republican Party in part because they welcomed into their fold far right wing evangelicals and Tea Party supporters. It's a great show, but there's a lesson to be learned here. I believe the majority of Democrats - whether Sanders supporters or Clinton supporters - will support the Democratic nominee and be glad to have a Democratic president. There's a minority contingent of Sanders supporters, however, who have endorsed thirty years of poisonous right wing spin about Clinton and who take every opportunity to accuse her of fraud, dishonesty, war mongering, etc. etc. I'm not sure we want to put out a welcome mat for these folks. And Sanders, who justifiably brags he has never run a negative campaign, does little to repudiate them.

For all the people on here bitching about Sanders running in the Democratic primary: Would you prefer he had run third party in the general? I didn't think so.

He ran as a Democrat because he believes in basic Democratic principles. There is no conflict of interests or "exploitation" going on. He has always caucused with Democrats in Congress. The rules allow it. The rules allow him to run as a Democrat, and his Democratic supporters have the same agenda he does: To move the party away from center right, which is where the the executive and legislative Democrats have moved it over the past 25 years.

Sanders and his supporters have successfully sounded an alarm in the party: You neoliberals who think it's cute when Hillary hugs Kissinger have lost something that was essential to the soul of the party, and we want to put it right again, even after Hillary's acceptance speech at the Convention.

Remember the PUMAs.

I don't think it's about ideological purity, and I'm not even a Democrat.

I think both major parties are corrupt, hide-bound and rife with hypocrisy. Republicans far moreso than Democrats.

But Sanders has chosen to play in the Dems arena, and the super delegate system certainly isn't something that was sprung on him. All this feigned horrification is tiresome. Y'all ain't going nowhere that allows Donald Trump to get elected.

I don't understand why Bernie supporter's in Tennessee would hold their nose and vote for Clinton. This is a Republican state, no contest. A vote for Clinton here will not slow the Republicans. Might as well take a deep breath, smell the roses and vote for Bernie. At least you'll sleep better.

And for the record, not all Hillary supporters are "Democratic Authoritarians" (and proclaim, for instance, that the party or inclusion should exclude those critical of Clinton) but at least one 'views regular seems to follow this logic when confronting Clinton criticism:

-Hillary Clinton is good.
-The Republican Party hates Hillary Clinton. Therefore the Republican Party is bad.
-The Republican Party is right-wing. Therefore it is bad to be right-wing.
-Hillary Clinton is good, therefore anyone who opposes her is bad.
-It is bad to be right-wing. Therefore, anyone who opposes Clinton is right-wing.
-Therefore, all criticism of Hillary Clinton is right-wing criticism.

This form of reasoning has no future, but we'll leave a light on for you. Sleep well.

here is an interview with Dubya administration official Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell), alot of interesting commentary from him on 2016: Trumpism, Clinton, Sanders, etc. this is part two of interview, part one addresses his time in the administration & the run-up to the Iraq war.

(link...)

Insightful video. Bernie dominates Landslide Saturday. Feels good.