Hillary Willing to Work with Sanders on Shaping Democratic Platform

[NeverAgain]

It's so annoying to see people move the goalposts to make their guy look better. Seriously, he lost. Nearly 3.2 million votes down, but he energized the party so he won? Apparently not enough for them to actually get out and vote. Unless they all did, and yet he still lost, which is even more sad. Get real.

Agreed. Hillary trying to satisfy and understand the needs of all in the Democratic party is frankly disgusting. Those 9 Million and 2/3rd's of caucuses are all not needed in Hillary's great plan, actually anyone that likes Bernie should be banned from voting. Hillary only needs true Democrats like Mark Warner and Evan Bayh to win.

[NeverAgain]

It's so annoying to see people move the goalposts to make their guy look better. Seriously, he lost. Nearly 3.2 million votes down, but he energized the party so he won? Apparently not enough for them to actually get out and vote. Unless they all did, and yet he still lost, which is even more sad. Get real.

Agreed. Hillary trying to satisfy and understand the needs of all in the Democratic party is frankly disgusting. Those 9 Million and 2/3rd's of caucuses are all not needed in Hillary's great plan, actually anyone that likes Bernie should be banned from voting. Hillary only needs true Democrats like Mark Warner and Evan Bayh to win.

Come on, really, that's not right. She isn't ignoring them at all. Her plans on issues important to them are simply less generous and less gigantic versions of Bernie's. Just because she didn't promise free everything doesn't mean she didn't set out proposals to address the issues they care about. She did it in a way that she thought was more responsible and feasible (whether or not it is is debatable, but that is what her campaign thinks)

Personally, while I believe Sanders should get input in this primary because of how many people clearly want his vision, he lost, so Sanders and his supporters should not expect to get everything they want, or even things on the same level as his own proposals. That's not how it works and not how it ever has worked.

What I said (in a sarcastic tone) was in agreement with Hillary. I was stupified by Holmes' reaction by insinuating that because Hillary won, she should not consult with him on the issues for a united Democratic party. My point obviously did not come across, that Hillary is in the right here and I am glad to support her because of this. Anyone that thinks that because someone wins an election (especially a primary) they shouldn't factor in the usual half or so of people that were against them, is frankly ignorant. If anything, my post was a slam of Holmes, not of Hillary.

Were you as concerned with the nearly 18 million who voted for Hillary in 2008?

No, because I didn't support her...? Plus, in retrospect, her plans on health care, education, and other platforms were essentially adopted by Obama in the GE. They came together united on the front. So no, they got much of what Hillary was proposing at the time.

[NeverAgain]

Hillary has not been running a progressive campaign. She has been running a campaign of emotions almost devoid of specific policy substance not similar to the status quo. Sure, she'll allow progressive planks, but she wouldn't actually try to work to get those progressive measures passed.

Liars' larguage: "I certainly look forward...", "I really welcome his ideas..."

...and she even admitted it's more important to her to beat Trump than to purvey progressive values. She said it twice.

So what would she do in office? Sit around for four years, just hangin'?

[NeverAgain]

What I said (in a sarcastic tone) was in agreement with Hillary. I was stupified by Holmes' reaction by insinuating that because Hillary won, she should not consult with him on the issues for a united Democratic party. My point obviously did not come across, that Hillary is in the right here and I am glad to support her because of this. Anyone that thinks that because someone wins an election (especially a primary) they shouldn't factor in the usual half or so of people that were against them, is frankly ignorant. If anything, my post was a slam of Holmes, not of Hillary.

Oh, lol. My apologies! I had obviously seen the sarcasm but I thought it was the other way around.

No problem!

[NeverAgain]

So what would she do in office? Sit around for four years, just hangin'?

Precisely that, and making sure her donors get what they want. And the occasional effort to pass an anti-discrimination bill.

Ya see I just don't understand that. What has she done that would make you think that? Listen, I am not an avid Hillary fan, but I just don't see what in her history compels people to think this about her. I could understand the argument of "swaying" legislation towards big pharma and the healthcare industry (as was done with ACA), but I just don't see this. Would you mind enlightening me?

[NeverAgain]

Anyone that thinks that because someone wins an election (especially a primary) they shouldn't factor in the usual half or so of people that were against them, is frankly ignorant.

Were you as concerned with the nearly 18 million who voted for Hillary in 2008?

No, because I didn't support her...?

Surely you recognize the cognitive dissonance here?

To the extent that the media cared about Hillary and her supporters in 08, it was usually phrased as "How can Obama get all those dumb racists to support him in the general?" But this time from their tone you'd think they want Bernie to handwrite the platform and make Hillary sign her name at the bottom in her own blood. I recall a lot of "Hillary Clinton is entitled to nothing" sentiment despite her having a much stronger showing than Bernie did, but now suddenly it matters?

Of course, I do agree with her decision and admire her for treating him with far more respect than she was treated with. That's just the kind of person she is. But the media and "Democratic establishment's" double standard needed to be called out.

...? K. She's opening the door to progressive reforms. You asked me if I was as concerned for the 18 million in 2008, no, #1 as I was 8 at the time #2 as I preferred Obama. I don't see what your point is other than "Hillary Good". She's right to do this, it's also the politically smart thing to do. In the end, Obama adopted some of her policies and picked her as SoS, it's not like the "Democratic Establishment" nor Obama really abandoned her.

She's doing the same thing to Bernie and from Holmes' post sounds, a whole lot like a "Bernie is entitled to nothing" sentiment to me.

[NeverAgain]

For the last time, Sanders was not running to win, unless you legitimately assumed he jumped into the race polling at 1% expecting to be able to win from the very beginning.

I may be naive, but I did. I was watching C-Span at his announcement so I guess I am the #OnePahcent

[NeverAgain]

Anyone that thinks that because someone wins an election (especially a primary) they shouldn't factor in the usual half or so of people that were against them, is frankly ignorant.

Were you as concerned with the nearly 18 million who voted for Hillary in 2008?

No, because I didn't support her...?

Surely you recognize the cognitive dissonance here?

To the extent that the media cared about Hillary and her supporters in 08, it was usually phrased as "How can Obama get all those dumb racists to support him in the general?" But this time from their tone you'd think they want Bernie to handwrite the platform and make Hillary sign her name at the bottom in her own blood. I recall a lot of "Hillary Clinton is entitled to nothing" sentiment despite her having a much stronger showing than Bernie did, but now suddenly it matters?

Of course, I do agree with her decision and admire her for treating him with far more respect than she was treated with. That's just the kind of person she is. But the media and "Democratic establishment's" double standard needed to be called out.

...? K. She's opening the door to progressive reforms. You asked me if I was as concerned for the 18 million in 2008, no, #1 as I was 8 at the time #2 as I preferred Obama. I don't see what your point is other than "Hillary Good". She's right to do this, it's also the politically smart thing to do. In the end, Obama adopted some of her policies and picked her as SoS, it's not like the "Democratic Establishment" nor Obama really abandoned her.

She's doing the same thing to Bernie and from Holmes' post sounds, a whole lot like a "Bernie is entitled to nothing" sentiment to me.

My point is simple. By your own logic, you should've cared about Hillary and her 18 million voters even if you supported Obama, just as you now want Hillary and her supporters to care about Bernie and his millions of voters even though they didn't support him. It's just logical consistency. Fair point that you were only 8 though, but it was more of a general point rather than applying to you specifically. I'm sure there's lots of people who wanted Hillary to just go away and sit down/shut up in 2008 that are now thinking Bernie should have a major influence despite the extreme hypocrisy, the media being the biggest offender here.

As I said in my post, I do agree with her decision and think the people who supported Bernie should have a seat at the table.

You said "care as much", did/do I care about fairness towards both Hillary 08 and Bernie, of course. I never said that he should control her platform, nor should he be shut out. We can agree though that the media sucks.