The overly prolific commenters on DU trying to shove Hillary inevitability down our throats are going to have a meltdown over this. Hillary is horrible. Of rather have Liz regardless that she used to be a Republican. Hillary was President If The College Republicans.

I have reservations with Hillary too.

If it came down to her or a GOPer like Christie/Ryan/other... I'd begrudgingly vote for her.

Get BUSY!!!!

Third Way inevitable Hillary places THIRD right behind Sanders.

This THIRD place finish despite having been in the public eye for years and years as both First Lady *and* Secretary of State...while he is routinely ignored or dismissed/discounted by the MSM.

And this is just the *beginning* of public familiarity with the policies of Warren and Sanders.

Go away, Third Way Hillary.

Hillary is not a progressive at all. She will not be winning the '16 nomination because she's the same old, same old - nothing new and exciting about her. She has lips firmly planted on the corporatists ass, and her support will not endear any progressives.

I myself don't have the stomach for it. After being part of Draft Gore (larger than Ready for Warren by a mile), the Dean campaign, and basically fighting for the underdog, I can't and won't do it.

The 2016 election will be easily a $2 billion, more likely $6 billion campaign (thanks to Oligarchy United). It's going to be rough.

The problem with people promoting Sanders and/or Warren is that they don't even understand or acknowledge the fact that elections aren't won on Election Day. Then, when their chosen savior loses, they give up, toss up their hands & say "They cheated! The game is rigged! The winner is no better than a Republican!", instead of buckling down and getting ready for the next campaign & the one after that.

In my experience, by the way, the left wing of the party is a hell of a lot more involved, knowledgeable, and active in politics than the self-described "moderates", DLC/Third Way, Reagan Democrat types, who can't even be bothered to show up on election day half the time.

The people that went back to the land in the '60s & '70s - and are still doing it are some of the hardest working people I've ever met.

and cast aspersions on people whom I generally respect.

although I think it was you, not hippies, that was being cast upon.

They seem to hate the electoral process, which seems strange for self-proclaimed progressives.

they made that pretty clear with Nader.

They do more damage to the cause then Republicans ever could in their wildest dreams.

And getting behind someone who isn't even running - and has publicly said she supports someone else on top of it - is a sure way to lose. America can't afford to have the Dems lose.

Nobody is defeating anybody, they are freely choosing the candidate they want to support.

Clinging to someone who moves the center further to the right is criminal. Why do you think we have crazy Tea Partiers in power now? Because of that...it's that simple. We have cultural divides in this country so people want to differentiate themselves from the opposition so when we keep acting like normal republicans then the real republicans have to go off the cliff to the right to separate themselves. Get a clue.

Purges, litmus tests & pogroms. That's one way to make sure nothing ever gets done & let the RW win by default.

For supporting someone other than Hillary????

That is so much hyperbole, it needs to be called supermegabole.

Wow. Words have meaning, and I don't think you know what that word means.

We all know the money and power and media influence the Repubs have at their fingertips. We even see all their surrogates all over the web advocating for them and sometimes posing as someone they are not. It all gets exacerbated when we lose out way and move further right to please these jerks. All it does is push the center further to the right. If your suggesting Democrats should abandon their core principles and ignore what they stand for out of fear of alienating those scared of bogey-man litmus tests then you really are kidding yourself. We already list the Senate because if that ridiculous position.

I do think Karl is close with people like the Clintons....more than people are willing to accept.

as he would for ANY Democrat.

And here you are following in his footsteps.

It's all theater to divide us. He likes Hillary as she represents Wall St and is a Democrat In Name Only.

And casting any center-left Dem as a DINO oligarch is a central plot point.

If the Democrats are divided, who do you think wins? How do you think the minority party has been able to maintain power for the last 45 yrs?

I've grown up. You should do the same. The game is rigged. Extreme measures and not playing footsie with power brokers needs to be taken. For some of us this is real life.

A phony liberal.

Yep, that's exactly what she is.

May i remind you the same exact shit happened in 2008?

(That's you BTW.)

The people explicitly calling for purges & litmus tests are supporters of Warren & Sanders who want to get rid of the Clinton supporters.

Imagine what Warren & Sanders would have to say about that?

Therefore not purging her. Just dont need her drama and her baggage the size of Texas. Thanks, but no thanks. Therefore Hillary is not a viable candidate for the Democratic Party. Its called a process of elimination not purging.

Nice try.

And tell the purgies to fuck off.

because Americans are actually PISSED off at the idea of a "dynasty" and "same old shit".

Third Way Democrats are not true Democrats at all. They are Republicans in disguise, and they need to be thrown out.

Who's the real DINO here? You - a supporter of Stalinist purges who believes the very people who've been successful in getting Democrats elected "need to be thrown out" of the party? Or me? I have repeatedly stated the I will support the Democratic Party nominee for President in 2016. I doubt you can say the same.

You talk a lot about purges, without really considering what or who is being purged. Is a purge necessarily bad if those that are being purged are pro-war corporatists? Is it automatically a bad thing to expel, say, fascists from your ranks simply because expelling them may be described as purging them? I get that "purge" is a buzzword among the establishment crowd, but I'm not buying the argument that being a "big tent party" at any cost is always, unquestionably and without caveat a good thing.

Hell, it may even be helpful to judge ourselves on who doesn't consider themselves welcome in our party. If the bankers, weapons manufacturers, torturers, war makers, etc. begin to feel that they have a foe in the Democratic Party, it may signal to us that we're finally doing something right.

They believe they can't successfully articulate their positions. They believe they can't win in an open debate. They believe they can't gather enough votes, either in the party or nationally. They believe their arguments are too weak & their support is too thin, so they need to summarily remove the competition.

Bernie Sanders doesn't believe that. Elizabeth Warren doesn't believe that. I don't believe that.

So, who's the DINO here?

You failed completely to address the point I was attempting to make. Is a "big tent party" something you're striving for even if it means the inclusion of warmongering oligarchs?

In response to your reply: I'm not sure what you mean when you say that progressives "can't gather enough votes", and are therefore cleansing the party of those they're supposedly afraid of. Do you realize that any so-called purge would happen via the ballot box? Without a primary, this scary purge you speak of wouldn't even be possible. So, the idea that we're incapable of getting out the vote and so, by getting out the vote in a primary we're purging the party, doesn't make very much sense.

Ironically, it seems to be the Ready for Hillary crowd who largely scoff at the of competition for the nomination.

Liberals want actual progress, recognize that there are processes & procedures required to get there, understand that wishing dictatorial powers on one person is fantasy, but that it takes hard work by many dedicated individuals to achieve these ends, and while sometimes may be disappointed, are not disheartened in the quest to improve their lives & the lives of others.

OTOH, "liberals" only say they want progress, refuse to accept that simply wishing for something won't make it so, pout like spoiled children when they don't get their way, and - just like the fascists you accuse moderates of being, are likely to stab good Democrats in the back, and - just like fascists, have an authoritarian streak that demands purity, calling for purges and litmus tests, and - just like fascists, are happy to see the Democratic Party defeated.

You don't seem to understand OR CARE that I DIDN'T PULL THE IDEA OF PURGES OUT OF MY ASS - IT CAME DIRECTLY FROM THESE SUPPOSED "LIBERALS" THAT YOU'RE DEFENDING!!

So, again - who's the real DINO here?

Again, I am not doubting that a purge/litmus test mentality exists. It does. The question I'm raising, which you seem not to want to address, is whether or not purges and litmus tests are automatically and inherently bad. Surely there are some principles, whether or not they regard economics or war and peace, where a line should be drawn. Or do you think it is possible to be both the party of Wall Street fat cats and the working poor? Doesn't it sound like a better idea to be the party that pledges to put an end to perpetual bombing campaigns than it does to be the party whose slogan is "Eh the Other Guys Are (Slightly) Worse"?

And quit asking who is and isn't a DINO. I never called you a DINO.

And you seem further to be an anti-Democratic Party line that been originated & promoted by RW Republicans. To wit: It's fucking obvious that purges & litmus tests are automatically and inherently bad. THEY'RE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC AND AUTHORITARIAN BY THEIR VERY NATURE!! If you weren't a DINO you'd understand that.