Hillary Willing to Work with Sanders on Shaping Democratic Platform

[The Other Castro]

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.

There are donors interested in getting major progressive legislative reforms passed, you know. Hillary Clinton seems like a person that wants to build an impressive legacy, and that would obviously be helped by being remembered as a good president. I don't doubt that she will work to pass a lot of the goals she's set out during this campaign, especially with a possible Democratic Senate and maybe even the House.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The platform is meaningless. What Hillary says her policies and what they actually are are two different things. Example, the Iraq surge, she was publicly opposed and privately in favor.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/

Jfern, I swear to god, you're like the human personification of r/sandersforpresident. You find a way to incorporate an attack on Clinton into every topic imaginable.

I know, I really worked a reply about Hillary into a topic about Hillary. It's amazing how off topic I was.

[This account no longer in use.]

The platform is meaningless. What Hillary says her policies and what they actually are are two different things. Example, the Iraq surge, she was publicly opposed and privately in favor.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/

Jfern, I swear to god, you're like the human personification of r/sandersforpresident. You find a way to incorporate an attack on Clinton into every topic imaginable.

I know, I really worked a reply about Hillary into a topic about Hillary. It's amazing how off topic I was.

Fair enough, but Hillary was trying to get closer to your preferred candidate's positions. It's time to face the fact that Clinton is the presumptive nominee. If you really want a liberal in the White House that badly, try to accept Clinton's appeals to the left rather than deflect them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The platform is meaningless. What Hillary says her policies and what they actually are are two different things. Example, the Iraq surge, she was publicly opposed and privately in favor.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/

Jfern, I swear to god, you're like the human personification of r/sandersforpresident. You find a way to incorporate an attack on Clinton into every topic imaginable.

I know, I really worked a reply about Hillary into a topic about Hillary. It's amazing how off topic I was.

Fair enough, but Hillary was trying to get closer to your preferred candidate's positions. It's time to face the fact that Clinton is the presumptive nominee. If you really want a liberal in the White House that badly, try to accept Clinton's appeals to the left rather than deflect them.

A few days ago she was asked how she'd reach out to Bernie supporters. She responded that she got more votes and that her Wall Street plan is better. I don't think she's really interested in reaching out.

[IceSpear]

The platform is meaningless. What Hillary says her policies and what they actually are are two different things. Example, the Iraq surge, she was publicly opposed and privately in favor.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/

Jfern, I swear to god, you're like the human personification of r/sandersforpresident. You find a way to incorporate an attack on Clinton into every topic imaginable.

Actually, jfern wouldn't fit in there, he'd be kicked out for being too much of a Hillary hack. They still think he's going to win California by 70 points because "nobody I know supports Hillary" or "everyone I see on Twitter supports Bernie." And if somehow this doesn't happen, they think he will run as an independent and win 270+ EVs. They also think the Hillary campaign stole Arizona, New York, and most recently, Maryland. lol

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The platform is meaningless. What Hillary says her policies and what they actually are are two different things. Example, the Iraq surge, she was publicly opposed and privately in favor.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/

Jfern, I swear to god, you're like the human personification of r/sandersforpresident. You find a way to incorporate an attack on Clinton into every topic imaginable.

Actually, jfern wouldn't fit in there, he'd be kicked out for being too much of a Hillary hack. They still think he's going to win California by 70 points because "nobody I know supports Hillary" or "everyone I see on Twitter supports Bernie." And if somehow this doesn't happen, they think he will run as an independent and win 270+ EVs. They also think the Hillary campaign stole Arizona, New York, and most recently, Maryland. lol

I'd hope most people realize none of that's happening. The FBI is really the only hope, and it's a longshot.

[This account no longer in use.]

The platform is meaningless. What Hillary says her policies and what they actually are are two different things. Example, the Iraq surge, she was publicly opposed and privately in favor.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/

Jfern, I swear to god, you're like the human personification of r/sandersforpresident. You find a way to incorporate an attack on Clinton into every topic imaginable.

Actually, jfern wouldn't fit in there, he'd be kicked out for being too much of a Hillary hack. They still think he's going to win California by 70 points because "nobody I know supports Hillary" or "everyone I see on Twitter supports Bernie." And if somehow this doesn't happen, they think he will run as an independent and win 270+ EVs. They also think the Hillary campaign stole Arizona, New York, and most recently, Maryland. lol

No, those are the extremists. Jfern is quite literally the human form of r/sandersforpresident, he'd fit in perfectly there.

[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.

[Adam Griffin]

As far as who "won" goes, you know...it's actually possible for everyone to "win" based on their own criteria.

Sanders didn't enter the race expecting to be able to win the nomination. This should be very obvious - not only from his past comments, but also from tragic missteps in the form of taking certain attacks/strategy off the table until it was too late for them to derail Clinton. He entered to push Clinton to the left and to hopefully have influence on the Democratic Party platform and message. By that measurement - his measurement - he not only "won", but probably exceeded even his own expectations.

Clinton entered the race to win the Democratic nomination. This also is very obvious. By that measurement - her measurement - she "won" in the way she wanted to as well.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As far as who "won" goes, you know...it's actually possible for everyone to "win" based on their own criteria.

Sanders didn't enter the race expecting to be able to win the nomination. This should be very obvious - not only from his past comments, but also from tragic missteps in the form of taking certain attacks/strategy off the table until it was too late for them to derail Clinton. He entered to push Clinton to the left and to hopefully have influence on the Democratic Party platform and message. By that measurement - his measurement - he not only "won", but probably exceeded even his own expectations.

Clinton entered the race to win the Democratic nomination. This also is very obvious. By that measurement - her measurement - she won in the way she wanted to as well.

Bernie was't running to pressure Hillary to the left. Everyone knows that wouldn't last. Bernie was running to win. He just likes a issue based campaign rather than a negative one. Obviously he could have hammered the top secret emails, Saudi arms being used to killed Shia civilians after they gave money to the Clinton Foundation, voting against a diplomatic solution in Iraq

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As far as who "won" goes, you know...it's actually possible for everyone to "win" based on their own criteria.

Sanders didn't enter the race expecting to be able to win the nomination. This should be very obvious - not only from his past comments, but also from tragic missteps in the form of taking certain attacks/strategy off the table until it was too late for them to derail Clinton. He entered to push Clinton to the left and to hopefully have influence on the Democratic Party platform and message. By that measurement - his measurement - he not only "won", but probably exceeded even his own expectations.

Clinton entered the race to win the Democratic nomination. This also is very obvious. By that measurement - her measurement - she won in the way she wanted to as well.

Bernie was't running to pressure Hillary to the left. Everyone knows that wouldn't last. Bernie was running to win. He just likes a issue based campaign rather than a negative one. Obviously there's a lot of low hanging fruit he could have attacked her with and probably should have. Trump won't hold back on that, and may even attack her from the left on the Iraq war and TPP.

[This account no longer in use.]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

As far as who "won" goes, you know...it's actually possible for everyone to "win" based on their own criteria.

Sanders didn't enter the race expecting to be able to win the nomination. This should be very obvious - not only from his past comments, but also from tragic missteps in the form of taking certain attacks/strategy off the table until it was too late for them to derail Clinton. He entered to push Clinton to the left and to hopefully have influence on the Democratic Party platform and message. By that measurement - his measurement - he not only "won", but probably exceeded even his own expectations.

Clinton entered the race to win the Democratic nomination. This also is very obvious. By that measurement - her measurement - she won in the way she wanted to as well.

Bernie was't running to pressure Hillary to the left. Everyone knows that wouldn't last. Bernie was running to win. He just likes a issue based campaign rather than a negative one. Obviously he could have hammered the top secret emails, Saudi arms being used to killed Shia civilians after they gave money to the Clinton Foundation, voting against a diplomatic solution in Iraq

No - if he was running to win, then he wouldn't have taken the emails and corruption claims off the table until polling showed he had a shot. Those are issues, as he and his campaign have said as of late. They didn't want to damage the inevitable nominee in the beginning. When winning became viable, they acted just like any other campaign.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

In 2014, Bernie said that he was thinking of running for President, but only if he could win. He was definitely not interested in being another Dennis Kucinch.

[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

[Adam Griffin]

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.

In 2014, Bernie said that he was thinking of running for President, but only if he could win. He was definitely not interested in being another Dennis Kucinch.

Nobody jumps into the race and proclaims publicly, "I'm in it to lose it!".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

In 2014, Bernie said that he was thinking of running for President, but only if he could win. He was definitely not interested in being another Dennis Kucinch.

Nobody jumps into the race and proclaims publicly, "I'm in it to lose it!".

Actually he said "People should not underestimate me" when he announced.

[This account no longer in use.]

Never mind. This is the very definition of hopeless. I'm out.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

In 2014, Bernie said that he was thinking of running for President, but only if he could win. He was definitely not interested in being another Dennis Kucinch.

Nobody jumps into the race and proclaims publicly, "I'm in it to lose it!".

Actually he said "People should not underestimate me" when he announced.

Oh, wow: a candidate made an overly-optimistic statement regarding their chances for winning the nomination? Well then! It must be an absolutely true statement regarding belief of winning the nomination, and not indicative of anything else or misleading at all!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

In 2014, Bernie said that he was thinking of running for President, but only if he could win. He was definitely not interested in being another Dennis Kucinch.

Nobody jumps into the race and proclaims publicly, "I'm in it to lose it!".

Actually he said "People should not underestimate me" when he announced.

Oh, wow: a candidate made an overly-optimistic statement regarding their chances for winning the nomination? Well then! It must be an absolutely true statement regarding belief of winning the nomination, and not indicative of anything else or misleading at all!

Come on, you don't have any evidence for the idea that he wasn't running to win. His campaign said that he needed $40 million to compete in Iowa. Just because you didn't think he had a chance doesn't mean he wasn't seriously trying to win.

[IceSpear]

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. Daily Kos and other parts of the liberal blogosphere have the same double standard as well.

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.

[The Other Castro]

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.

In 2014, Bernie said that he was thinking of running for President, but only if he could win. He was definitely not interested in being another Dennis Kucinch.

Nobody jumps into the race and proclaims publicly, "I'm in it to lose it!".

Actually he said "People should not underestimate me" when he announced.

Oh, wow: a candidate made an overly-optimistic statement regarding their chances for winning the nomination? Well then! It must be an absolutely true statement regarding belief of winning the nomination, and not indicative of anything else or misleading at all!

Come on, you don't have any evidence for the idea that he wasn't running to win. His campaign said that he needed $40 million to compete in Iowa. Just because you didn't think he had a chance doesn't mean he wasn't seriously trying to win.

If he really thought he actually had a chance of winning then, he was either prophetic or ignorant, and I didn't see him carrying around a crystal ball.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

In 2014, Bernie said that he was thinking of running for President, but only if he could win. He was definitely not interested in being another Dennis Kucinch.

Nobody jumps into the race and proclaims publicly, "I'm in it to lose it!".

Actually he said "People should not underestimate me" when he announced.

Oh, wow: a candidate made an overly-optimistic statement regarding their chances for winning the nomination? Well then! It must be an absolutely true statement regarding belief of winning the nomination, and not indicative of anything else or misleading at all!

Come on, you don't have any evidence for the idea that he wasn't running to win. His campaign said that he needed $40 million to compete in Iowa. Just because you didn't think he had a chance doesn't mean he wasn't seriously trying to win.

If he really thought he actually had a chance of winning then, he was either prophetic or ignorant, and I didn't see him carrying around a crystal ball.

Why do you need to be either? I knew that Hillary was much more vulnerable than people though.

[The Other Castro]

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.

In 2014, Bernie said that he was thinking of running for President, but only if he could win. He was definitely not interested in being another Dennis Kucinch.

Nobody jumps into the race and proclaims publicly, "I'm in it to lose it!".

Actually he said "People should not underestimate me" when he announced.

Oh, wow: a candidate made an overly-optimistic statement regarding their chances for winning the nomination? Well then! It must be an absolutely true statement regarding belief of winning the nomination, and not indicative of anything else or misleading at all!

Come on, you don't have any evidence for the idea that he wasn't running to win. His campaign said that he needed $40 million to compete in Iowa. Just because you didn't think he had a chance doesn't mean he wasn't seriously trying to win.

If he really thought he actually had a chance of winning then, he was either prophetic or ignorant, and I didn't see him carrying around a crystal ball.

Why do you need to be either? I knew that Hillary was much more vulnerable than people though.

Maybe if Biden or Warren had run, but nobody in their right mind would have thought that an unknown 73 year old Democratic Socialist serving as an Independent could stand a chance.

[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.