Jane Sanders: We're Going To Hold Clinton Accountable After Endorsing Her
Source: Talking Points Memo
Jane Sanders told Rolling Stone on Wednesday that she and her husband, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), were going to hold Hillary Clinton accountable on promises she's made after endorsing her at the Democratic National Convention.
Sanders said that her husband's supporters shouldn't get over his campaign, rather that Clinton should work to gain their trust.
"We understand that we earned their support and their trust. Now Hillary Clinton has to earn their support and their trust," Sanders told Rolling Stone. "And we will hold (the Clinton campaign) accountable because we are endorsing her. We are that much more committed to making sure (she follows through on her promises), instead of saying, 'Oh, it's politics as usual, people change.'"
Sanders said that they knew her husband wasn't going to win the presidency after the on June 7 primaries in California, New Jersey and a number of other states. "But we had to do as much as we possibly could on the issues to honor all of the work that so many people have done, and that we did," she told the magazine.
-snip-
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jane-sanders-clinton-endorsement-holding-her-accountable
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)Let's not hold Hillary accountable. She can do no wrong. So, what's the point?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)You don't endorse someone as part of a deal to get them to sign on to your agenda and then PUBLICLY state you don't trust her to support the agenda. Which of course gets picked up by the Trumpers to attack Hillary by stating that even those who endorse her know she's crooked and can't be trusted. I was livid when I read it! Jane violated their agreement.
Response to sunnystarr (Reply #263)
Post removed
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Brickbat
(19,339 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....are those tax returns you PROMISED more than once to release on April 29? HMMMMMM????
Red Knight
(704 posts)Talk about overreacting! What is she supposed to say? Hillary won but we don't care if the TPP passes? Now go out and cheer her. You can't see it but she's trying to HELP her by saying that! It's another way to coax Bernie supporters on board.
Vote for her. It's okay. We will hold her to her promises.
You guys are NOT helping.
Remember, the primary is over. You need them. They don't need you.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)pkdu
(3,977 posts)growing and expanding?
Think on laddie.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)I still think that's fair, given that she's released her taxes.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
merrily
(45,251 posts)IOW, she has no intention of ever releasing them.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Just the summary. It's not the same thing.
I'm not bashing Sanders over this, but attacks on Clinton for lack of transparency are absolutely absurd given that she's been the most transparent candidate in the race.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
merrily
(45,251 posts)Transparency on tax returns does not = transparency on all relevant matters.
Personally, I don't want her to release the transcripts at this point.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...and absolutely, if Trump does, she should gather the transcripts at release them.
There's nothing in them, by the way. There's a video of her making a presentation with Goldman Sachs at a Clinton Foundation dinner, celebrating how they arranged microlending services to help lift tens of thousands of women out of poverty.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
merrily
(45,251 posts)If they press her and it's a matter of looking untrustworthy or producing them, then she should produce them. If she has them.
There's nothing in them, by the way.
You have absolutely no way of knowing that.
There's a video of her making a presentation with Goldman Sachs at a Clinton Foundation dinner, celebrating how they arranged microlending services to help lift tens of thousands of women out of poverty.
Making a speech with the head of Goldman Sachs at a charitable organization's dinner has nothing to do with the speeches she made at Goldman Sachs for Goldman Sachs.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...among other things, it will show that he's barely a millionaire. The man operates on pure bluster and has gone bankrupt multiple times. It would also show Russian connections as well, almost certainly.
Insofar as Hillary's speeches are concerned, like all lecture circuit speeches, these aren't made in some secret back room where she's cackling saying "How can we make poor people suffer more today, my flying monkeys?" They're essentially made in public, before hundreds, if not thousands, of mid level employees, many of whom are not right wing Republicans, and are almost certainly filled with pretty standard exhortations. If there were anything remotely untoward in them, we'd already know about it. There are these things called smart phones, and many of them can record (as Romney learned).
The point of bringing in a headlined event like this is that it's a benefit to the employees that makes them want to stay with the company. People with masters degrees in economics (at least) aren't a dime a dozen, which means that companies want to keep their employees happy.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
OwlinAZ
(410 posts)What do Trumps taxed have to do with Clinton's talks with Goldman Sacs?
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)And the answer to your question is that it prevents the creation of a double standard - where one candidate is expected to be completely transparent, and the other one isn't, and this is just accepted by the media and the haters.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
JoFerret
(10,704 posts)The work ahead is clear. The infantile behavior we saw at the convention was sickening in its delusional narcissism. Booing John Lewis? Blocking subways so people had to walk blocks in the heat? Disrupting speakers with disrespect? Burning flags?
Looked like a bunch of spoiled brats who had their say but did not get their way. If at this point they are not on board to work to defeat Trump and not going to vote in November what is the point of them?
Bernie got his time in the sunshine and he and the crew got more than fulsome recognition.
Such a shame to see that the foul behavior of his supporters carried on well beyond the sell-by date. The primary is over. Sanders lost after a very good fight. The sick behavior of those "dudebros" was despicable. And anyone who was subject to it has tales to tell of their bullying and arrogance. It was often sexist, always ignorant and sometimes racist. Sanders failed to disavow them during the primary and his failure to lead was notable. Riding a wave of anarchist anger is one thing. Taking no responsibility is another.
The issues matter and can continue to be debated and argued for. But the acting-out behavior needs to stop
Bernie unleashed some pretty foul brownshirt types in the course of this election. And then he lost them. They are are not Democrats and should stop pretending they are.
So - we don't need them. Because they have already made up their alleged minds. And if some of them actively support and vote for Trump - I would not be surprised.
demosincebirth
(12,540 posts)their own ingrained hatred of HRC. who masquerade as Democrats.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)...will not be ignored, and will be addressed by more than just a few conciliatory words that will be ignored after November. What's wrong with that? "She just won't fucking give up" is uncalled for. Isn't there some DU rule about not continuing to fight the primary? You could at least be civil about your disagreements.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)this whole thread is re-fighting the primary.
Pathetic really.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)...without refighting the primary and without foul mouthed insults.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)The Sanders people should be able to say anything they want and the Hillary people better shut up and take or by gawd there will be tears.
Sorry but even though I stayed neutral in the primary I became gradually disgusted by the bullying and vicious tactics od the Bernie supporters. It still goes on and it is tiresome and tedious.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)a specific post and response (the OP, and the response that prompted my comment). Even feeling the way you do, do you really think the OP was truly a provoking "Sanders people should be able to say anything they want" comment and that it would justify that kind of vulgar response? I would say not (even if we were not in an environment where we're trying to heal and not keep fighting the primary, which we are, which makes it that much more inappropriate). There was no Hillary hate or even disrespect in the OP. There was plenty of disrespect and hate in the reply.
Response to George II (Reply #3)
Post removed
merrily
(45,251 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)adigal
(7,581 posts)I certainly will be paying attention if Hillary wins, and making my voice heard if she backtracks on her promises. I think we didn't hold Obama to his promises enough so we still have many of the major problems we had 8 years ago: poverty, shrinking middle class, crappy environmental protections, guns.
Are you content with the state of our country? I'm not.
George II
(67,782 posts)....bashed for not doing what he promised. People were relentless, and totally unaware of how things work - a President doesn't do everything right away.
It got so bad that I had to leave this place for more than a year.
This is the kind of post that makes me wonder if we need a LAW that civics/government courses will be required in our schools. Nothing at all would ever have been done if no one negotiated and no one gave a little. We would have had no civil rights bills, no forward movement at all if the elected one refused to do anything at all except what HE thought needed to happen. This is the very reason Bernie didn't win, in spite of caucuses instead of real voting. He appeared to be the kind of person who would rather sit in one place than move just a little bit. And moving just a little bit toward the goal has often been what we have to do to move at all. As we have seen with those elected to the House and Senate recently (because some deemed the election not important enough to bother) , moving not at all means we make NO progress. Our country's government only works if people are able to negotiate toward progress. Hillary can do that. Bernie is not interested.
Join the supporters of Progress. Be With Her.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)longer required as a high school graduation requirement floors me. When I was a kid, we had to pass both Civics and US Government in order to be eligible to graduate.
Sand Rat Expat
(290 posts)But yeah, it wasn't a required course in order to get the diploma. I always thought that was just absurd. Then again, high schools are churning out graduates who have no idea how government works, have no idea how to balance a checkbook, have no idea how to get a loan or buy a car, have no clue how to behave at a job interview...
We teach them stuff that 90% of them won't use, while completely ignoring vital skills necessary to survive as an adult. And then we wonder why our fellow citizens have no clue what's going on or what to do about it.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....is not right.
My advance guess is that nothing Clinton does will be good enough for her.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)AllyCat
(16,189 posts)For King and Queen of the senate. So they should be accountable. Right on it.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)made. That's simple enough, for those who keep their promises.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)lapfog_1
(29,205 posts)As President Hillary could veto any legislation, like the TPP, with the stroke of a pen and use of a stamp.
To override the veto, they would have to get 66 Senators to vote in favor of passage. If Hillary can't keep 34 Dem senators in line, then she doesn't really deserve to the the leader of the Democratic party.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)all originated in, and were pushed through by the Executive Branch. And some Executive Orders arguably should have been legislation, such as the Emancipation Proclamation.
FreeStateDemocrat
(2,654 posts)pass into law their proposals. You didn't need a super majority then either and that is the reality that President Clinton will have to deal with. To get anything done calls for electing Democratic majorities because the pukes will do everything possible to cripple her administration. That's the facts!
merrily
(45,251 posts)First, my post was replying to posts implying all a President can do is bully and veto or not veto, as if they cannot have anything else to do with a bill. So, my post pointed out a number of profound bills that started in the White House. That is a separate issue from why and how FDR and LBJ got legislation thru. But, since you went there...
I know fans of New Democrats on DU love to make it like all FDR and LBJ had to do was snap their fingers, because that makes them seem no better than other Presidents at getting legislation passed. However, they often had enormous problems within their own party. The majority in Congress with a (D) after its name did not automatically translate to getting a majority of votes easily. While the party had a majority, the bills did not necessarily have one initially. The majority was the result of the South being included and the northern Democrats and Southern Democrats often clashed, with the South digging in on race and others digging in on $$.
Also, Roosevelt was not merely passing legislation, he was changing the interpretation of the Constitution that had stood since 1789, when it was first ratified. He was passing legislation that many, including within his own party, considered seriously unconstitutional--wholly outside the power of the federal government. Before Roosevelt, the Commerce Clause had not been construed expansively, which was the reason the SCOTUS kept striking down New Deal legislation. So, FDR was not only fighting Republicans and people within his own party on $$ and overreach; he was also fighting the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, his health sucked, the country was circling in the toilet and Hitler was running amok. Nonetheless, he got tons of unprecedented legislation written and passed very quickly and cowed the Court, two huge accomplishments. How fast and effectively he moved in the first 100 days of his administration is the reason every President since has been looked at after 100 days.
The huge majority Johnson had depended on the South, which was virulently opposed the Civil Rights Act, tag teaming a filibuster for days and days. Getting that bill passed took A LOT on Johnson's part--negotiating, arm twisting, flattering, invoking JFK while the nation was still in shock and grief, etc. If it was such a cake walk, he sure wasted a hell of a lot of time and energy--and so had JFK before him, who had started negotiation the bill before he was shot. That took a coalition, too, of Republicans and Northern Democrats and, IIRC, Everett Dirksen, who Johnson promised would go down in history because of the Civil Rights bill (LOL!). See, among many other sources, http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/civil_rights/cloture_finalpassage.htm
FDR and LBJ were phenoms and, as stated above, that is not merely my opinion, but that of historians.
However, you are right that cloture was not 60 votes then. It usually took more votes than 60 then, especially on important legislation,when most Senators would be present unless on a death bed.
A similar procedure was adopted in 1917 by the Senate of the United States. This was invoked for the first time on November 15, 1919,[23] during the 66th Congress, to end filibuster on the Treaty of Versailles.[24]
The Senate's cloture rule originally[25] required a supermajority of two-thirds of all senators "present and voting" to be considered filibuster-proof.[26][27] For example, if all 100 Senators voted on a cloture motion, 67 of those votes would have to be for cloture for it to pass; however if some Senators were absent and only 80 Senators voted on a cloture motion, only 54 would have to vote in favor.[28] However, it proved very difficult to achieve this; the Senate tried eleven times between 1927 and 1962 to invoke cloture but failed each time. Filibuster was particularly heavily used by Democratic Senators from Southern states to block civil rights legislation.[29]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture
Of course, Democrats had an opportunity to get rid of cloture, but they chose not to. Wonder why?
BTW, my post mentioned ACA as well, for modern legislation. That started in the White House, too, and I personally have been told at least 100 times on DU, and read it here many more times, that Obama did not have the votes he needed to do as he wished with that bill. But, it was historic legislation; it did start in the WH and he did get it passed.
FreeStateDemocrat
(2,654 posts)persuasive president but it still boils down to the fact that a republican Congress will do everything possible to destroy a Clinton administration. Roosevelt was a great President and Lyndon Johnson was a great congressional manipulator but both enjoyed the benefits of a large Democratic controlled Congresses to start with, as well as, something that does not exist anymore, moderate republicans. The reality of today's political landscape with the deep divisiveness between parties makes it insurmountable to pass progressive programs in a republican controlled Congress, period. She will try but the push-back from the pukes will require compromise and watering down to get anything done.
merrily
(45,251 posts)then some, except....
"Congressional manipulator" my ass. It's called being an effective President.
merrily
(45,251 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)legislation? FDR had nothing to do with The New Deal. C'mon, there are many other examples.
Any President worth their salt is responsible for getting stuff done, even though they aren't in the Senate or the House.
Quit making excuses for her already. She can stay true to her platform and her promises or not. It is clear as a bell. And I assure you there will be many here to remind her if she goes South on her commitments to what she says we mutually stand for.
In the meantime, I am enthused about the convention. I am enthused about where we are, who we are, and what we say we stand for, and what we stand for.
it's up to Hillary to keep that consistent enough to keep her base.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The Hastert rule will make Hillary's job much harder if there is still a GOP majority in the House.
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/10/return-hastert-rule-and-what-it-means-rest
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)to elect a Congress that she can work with. She can't wave a magic wand and force them to do her bidding. And she can't wish upon a star or cast a spell.
All she can do is the hard work of negotiating with legislators, which will involve compromise, at best, and failures, at worst.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Many people pretend the practical realities of a bureaucracy and party opposition as merely "an excuse," regardless of how inaccurate such an unsupported premise may be. Bias tends to do work well with such a mechanism to enable it...
merrily
(45,251 posts)In fact, the Brookings Institute made that a case study in working across the aisle.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Is doing so a statistical standard or an simply aberration?
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)Once we eliminated pork we made it close to impossible to strike a deal. With pork a congressman could tell his constituents that because he compromised he was able to bring projects to his state.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)That's why "it took LBJ to get it done." However, LBJ did use the memory of JFK as part of his arm twisting. So, in a way, although dead, JFK was still working on getting that bill passed.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Some other examples. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1535147
I always heard we had three co-equal branches with different functions, but according to DU, the President is too weak to be held accountable for anything but the Easter egg roll--maybe not even that. After all, that's what White House staff is for.. If the President is that weak,we should probably re-structure the entire government. And stop worrying who gets nominated or elected at the tune of a few billion bucks.
It's also kind of amusing: The Presidency is strong enough for a Republican President to kill America and every bit of decency in it, but not strong enough for a Democratic President to keep his or her campaign promises. Cool, then stop promising stuff for which you refuse to be accountable. You can't have it every which way.
SirBrockington
(259 posts)Beartracks
(12,816 posts)That was an excuse people around here gave for claiming Bernie's goals were unrealistic and pie-in-the-sky.
==================
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)And Bernie himself says she won't be able to get the proposals through Congress unless people vote for down ticket Democrats.
Only Congress can pass laws. Presidents can only propose legislation, and veto bills Congress puts on their desks. This is basic high school civics.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)always try to get negotiate and compromise, as they always have.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)I'd say, if you have power - use it. If you don't have power - use that.
But if you don't know how or like to use power, please don't volunteer to be my President.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)If you have power - use it. If you don't have power - use that.
But if you don't know how to use power or like to use it, please don't volunteer to be my President.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)without a majority in at least one House. Otherwise, except for a limited set of executive actions, all she'll be able to do is veto bills they send to her.
SirBrockington
(259 posts)Im going to hold them accountable for running up her negatives
MelSC
(256 posts)And the Bernie or Busters
newthinking
(3,982 posts)where exactly does that get everyone? It is a losing tactic.
How about everyone work (if we survive) to forward a candidate with more broad support next cycle (If Clinton were not to win).
MelSC
(256 posts)Sanders was way too left for me. Hillary is a perfect fit.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)how?
merrily
(45,251 posts)And hatred of Trump Pence coat tails.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)Glad to hear this.
I love the current Democratic platform and I want to see it succeed. I am glad someone, at least, plans to do whatever is possible to make sure it happens.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)Go away.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)I hope never to hear from any of that lot ever again.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)Maven
(10,533 posts)lapucelle
(18,275 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)lapucelle
(18,275 posts)What does this have to do with the primaries? The OP is about Jane Sanders, and so is my comment.
Like I said, you are not entitled to define me and what I doing.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)lapucelle
(18,275 posts)that the primaries are over and that it's time to move forward, work hard, and elect Hillary.
Bernie and Jane are to be commended for showing the party and the nominee such strong support at the convention, especially during Clinton's acceptance speech last night.
lapucelle
(18,275 posts)It was great to see Bernie and Jane showing solid support for the nominee throughout the convention.
LisaM
(27,813 posts)who were left high and dry after their school folded. Oh, and for claiming she was going to give a video tour of their house, and the tour just consisted of looking at Sanders family pictures and photos.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)Accountability works both ways, Jane.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)Good point!
madaboutharry
(40,212 posts)her at Burlington College claim she was one of those micro-managing, authoritarian, my way or the highway supervisors who made people miserable. It is who she is.
BuddhaGirl
(3,608 posts)She seems quite a control freak, IMO
tavernier
(12,392 posts)like the limelight. Wherever, whatever he does, she seems to need to creep into the picture.
OwlinAZ
(410 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,182 posts)You're an Independent and were late to the Democratic Party
And we're going to hold YOU responsible if your shenanigans result
in Donald J. Trump being elected.
phylny
(8,380 posts)I was a big Bernie supporter - I've been listening to him for years on Thom Hartmann, I donated to his campaign, and voted for him in the primary. Now, I'm for Hillary. Bernie did us a great service as a party, but he was only a Democrat for a short period of time.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 29, 2016, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)
If clinton can't retain(or gain) enough votes to beat donald trump then that's on her.
bucolic_frolic
(43,182 posts)with a socialist and a usurper at the helm who does not have control
and long term management experience with party infrastructure
It was always going to crash and burn with Bernie
Somewhere along the line the fine movement he began and built
became convinced it could attain power and win, and he bought
into that somewhat
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 29, 2016, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)
Sorry I don't buy that. Even now you can find posts that demand that Sanders support and campaign with Clinton. I'm sure if Clinton had lost to Sanders she would have supported the Democratic nominee, right?
became convinced it could attain power and win, and he bought
into that somewhat
Perhaps it was the constant assurances from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the upper ranks of the DNC leadership that they were running a fair and clean election?
OwlinAZ
(410 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)What's up with the FEC..some accountability on that matter would be appreciated also.
That's an awful hard pat on the back she's giving herself.
Lack of ethics need to be accounted for too.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)has show them since the Nixon days.
Come to think of it, only two candidates in recent times have refused to release them. Sanders and Trump
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Response to lunamagica (Reply #169)
Post removed
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Tuesday, when Bernie did what they wanted, OH BERNIE is the best YEA BERNIE! WE LOVE YA BERNIE.
Then today.. when the Sanders promise to do what is right and what EVERY politician and every voter should do...OH BERNIE and JANE suck..
I never for a moment trusted the praise Bernie was getting the other day. I almost had to laugh.. It was so transparent...
And now we see how obvious the hypocrisy was...
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)She needs to account for her own business of driving Burlington College over the cliff while walking away with $200, 000 for herself.
Jane Sanders has zero influence on the decisions of the President of the USA.
She should speak to her own lack of accountability & leave Bernie to handle his Senate dealings.
Step back Jane. You are not a member of the Senate.
Get your own house in order. Burlington College closed its doors because of her influence.
Thanks
Nm
adigal
(7,581 posts)I see the excuses coming already. No wonder they take our votes for granted.
We need to hold EVERY politician accountable. Period.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I was not intending here to speak only of holding Hillary's 'feet to the fire,' by any means.
But the whole political system is such a joke that when someone comes along and actually is totally up front about what is going on, he/she is seen as - call it what you will...weird, the fringe, radical, ego-driven.
Response to Scuba (Reply #23)
Post removed
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)And I have supported her for over a year.
And the Sanders's realize (as do most of their supporters) that they have more leverage to hold Hillary Clinton accountable, by being part of the coalition that elected her.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)wysi
(1,512 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)Response to floriduck (Reply #24)
Post removed
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)greatauntoftriplets
(175,742 posts)President Obama was bashed here starting January 20, 2009. I know that you know this, but OMG.
Koinos
(2,792 posts)All endorsers and voters want their elected officials to be accountable. I certainly do.
Now let's see Jane and Bernie keep their side of the bargain and campaign actively for Hillary. I hope they do not intend to make this general election a "spectator sport."
Let's all talk about "accountability" (that includes you, Jane) after we do everything to defeat Trump and get Hillary elected.
IMHO, Hillary will surpass all pessimists' expectations and will turn out to be one of our great presidents, even better than Bill and Barack. And that is saying a lot.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Does HRC want to do more joint-appearance with Sanders? If not, there won't be any.
Does HRC want her campaign to fund a Sanders speaking tour? If not, then he won't have the money to do a speaking tour for her.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)Shouldn't we all hold her accountable after she wins? I mean, we should hold everyone we elect accountable. Obama, Bill Clinton, Gore had he won, certainly Bernie had he won- everyone. Vote Democratic and then yes, absolutely hold their feet to the fire.
I get why Jane's comments will piss people off, but I really don't think she's being petulant. This is not the same as the IDIOT protesters in the convention hall and outside. I was a proud supporter of Bernie, and now I'm a proud supporter of Hillary. I intend to contribute financially and through volunteering. So will my wife. I expect Hillary will win, and when she does I don't expect her to be perfect, nor will I expect her to give me "everything I want." BUT... I do expect her to remain true to her campaign pledges at least in spirit. I think we all should, yes?
LisaM
(27,813 posts)Every politician should be held accountable for trying to achieve their campaign goals (I don't like the word "promise" - too easy to claim that someone has broken a promise, even if they've tried to keep it). It's the way Jane's implying that they control the narrative.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)wysi
(1,512 posts)... consists of a two of clubs, a three of hearts, a five of spades, a joker, and the card with the instructions written on it.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)All of Bernie's support has to be worth at least, say, a pair of jacks.
wysi
(1,512 posts)... that would be great!
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)you from Wisconsin?
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Isn't it a rule of thumb that our politicians are held accountable through elections?
This is a time to unite behind our nominee, Hillary Clinton. Jane Sanders' comments do nothing to unite us, and she's not saying anything that we don't already know. She's being disunifying, implying that Hillary can't be trusted, and that she (Hillary) is now on notice that Jane and the scold squad will be watching her every move.
Bad timing and a useless message.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Not just the convention either. Personally given the prominent speaking slots given to some of what I consider the worst Democrats I have little hope of Clinton keeping faith with the left or Sanders or any Democrat that isn't a "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" neocon.
GreenPartyVoter
(72,378 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)...but, it'd be nice if they'd wake up and realize that a percentage of their supporters are dyed in the wool republicans trying to make the democratic candidate look bad.
Who knows what that percentage is, but those people could care less what the Sanders or Clintons do, as long as it disrupts the democratic party's message.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)I believe that percentage to be very low and, unfortunately, very vocal.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)I don't know, but it seems like the kind of thing that would normally help the republicans so from a strategic standpoint it makes sense.
I wish someone would look into it.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Just because someone disagrees that Clinton is the bestest candidate evah!!! doesn't mean that they're republicans.
Who knows what the percentage of voters are that will feel like clamping a clothespin on their nose to vote for our latest neocon. I'm sure most of Sanders supporters in swing states will end up voting for Clinton despite the DNC doing their best to disenfranchise them.
adigal
(7,581 posts)I need to stay away from here until November. I'm getting angrier and angrier. That a suggestion to hold the nominee accountable is being ripped to shreds is stunning. Where has our critical thinking gone? Our sense of being for country above party? Every candidate should be held accountable, otherwise we are no more than a bunch of cheerleaders. How is that even controversial here????????
Lobo27
(753 posts)Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)I'm not sure why people on this thread feel differently.
jmowreader
(50,560 posts)Raster
(20,998 posts)Jane's comment is about this election. Burlington College has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or this election. Nothing. And this line of hand-on-the-hip bullshit does nothing positive for the Clinton campaign. It only makes the Hillary supports sound trite and petty. Rise above, people. Move on and rise above.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Nothing.
You just changed the subject.
Hillary or Bill or anybody n this position SHOULD BE held accountable for at least honestly TRYING to do what they said they would do.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)I would have voted for Bernie in a heartbeat, but that ship has sailed.
philly_bob
(2,419 posts)TPP is accepted.
Unnecessary extension of war, e.g., bomb Iran.
etc.
Neither of those things is going to happen. Jane can relax.
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)What else is your crystal ball telling you?
wysi
(1,512 posts)You know, the one who violated the Logan Act this week?
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)none of the worries of former Bernie supporters will come to fruition. How can you be so sure?
patricia92243
(12,597 posts)OwlinAZ
(410 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)You've accorded yourself some type of status of being better than...the Sanders campaign made plenty of mistakes starting with hacking into places you never had any business being but you were never held accountable for anything including the awful things you husband said about our next president. In fact whenever caught out you all played the victim card and skated. You want to hold someone accountable? Hold your husband to that standard and see he does as he promised.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Why does all the responsibility fall on Dem shoulders? Oh right, corporate press.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)How does one make those who do not believe in trains responsible for them running on time?
The people that support, fund, and vote for them have no such agenda and so the sad reality is their officials and candidates are held to account for when they on rare occasions break down and actually do the job they are not supposed to believe in. See the reactions to the folks that in times of trouble acted minimally responsibly like Specter voting for the stimulus or Chris Christie taking disaster aid and displaying just a little humanity. Similar goes for Charlie Crist.
Meanwhile, the rest of the nation that doesn't consist of delusional political nihilists is forced by the definition of circumstances to place their expectations on the folks actually claiming to do the job.
I get your complaint but as far as I can calculate the place it has to be addressed is to TeaPubLieKLAN primary voters and it better be good because it has to be convincing enough to change their basic philosophy.
The rest of us are pretty limited in available tools to further hold them accountable we can't refuse beyond zero to vote for them, same goes with funding then, we do vote for, support, and fund their opposition. We reject their failed policies, delusional world view, and ideology.
There are neither carrots nor sticks available to do anything else with them, they have already been cut off so fully that nothing can be done to further hurt them within the confines of our system.
Of course it would probably be monumental if the media actually did their duty and acted as the referee on the field and consistently made politicians to account to the facts then that chunk of swing voters would know that we have a party dedicated to destroying the government rather than a difference in opinions in how to govern and consequently cease swinging which in turn would negate or force a change from TeaPubLieKLAN voters but as a nation we have generated an environment that actually dictates that is not their duty because their actual legal duty is to make money for their shareholders.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Response to NurseJackie (Reply #40)
David__77 This message was self-deleted by its author.
emulatorloo
(44,131 posts)0rganism
(23,957 posts)is there a Democrat who doesn't want President Clinton to uphold the Democratic platform? if it weren't for the timing, this wouldn't qualify as news.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Off the top of my head: Terry McAuliffe, Andrew Cuomo, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Leon Panneta. When Clinton announces her cabinet I'm sure we'll see more.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Are we not supposed to make sure our politicians keep their promises?
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)You're going to be back in VT organizing you're files.
think
(11,641 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)or anything remotely similar & is expected of all presidential candidates?
think
(11,641 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)which Bernie isn't and neither is Jane.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Post removed
theaocp
(4,241 posts)What the flying fuck?
UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)Just because he didn't win the nomination doesn't mean their revolution ends. It is the beginning. You do need to hold Hillary's feet to the fire. Thats what the citizens should do with their political leaders and unfortunately we don't do it enough so I have no problem with what she said.
David__77
(23,421 posts)I agree that this is basically a matter of keeping political aware and active. And bringing in many tens of thousands of Democratic activists intent on providing direction and support to elected officials is, I think, a positive development.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)We aren't supposed to kneel to our leaders as this isn't a dictatorship.
We should be holding ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE.
That's not rocket science folks. We're not supposed to lick the boots of our leaders. Man you guys get weird sometimes.
Had Bernie won, I'd be holding him accountable. Since it's Hillary's turn I'm going to do just the same. That doesn't make me a traitor or an enemy. It makes me an American citizen that expects to get what he votes for.
Lars39
(26,109 posts)Skittles
(153,169 posts)ONLY HILLARY
retrowire
(10,345 posts)My family and I aren't too fond of Obama's use of drone strikes for one.
And there's a bone to pick with almost any politician out there for most people.
Don't feel so persecuted, it only feels that way because of the primary season. All politicians get held accountable.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)way more than a repuke but as much as Hillary, no way
adigal
(7,581 posts)and the lack of any work on a number of issues.
As someone said up above, we are NOT a dictatorship. We don't kneel to our officials or lick their boots. Our public officials work for We, the People. We shouldn't worship them, but rather, hold them all accountable.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)awwww he was so trashed he spent TWO YEARS playing footsies with them - no way in HELL would Hillary have wasted that time, because she KNOWS what they really are
*DONE HERE*
NNadir
(33,525 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)That's definitely NOT the rule for Trump! Why the double standard?
Rustyeye77
(2,736 posts)It sounds like a threat.
msongs
(67,420 posts)she will not. that's how life goes.
johnp3907
(3,732 posts)theaocp
(4,241 posts)the timing could be better. Perhaps. She might be trying to calm any more shenans at the convention by alluding to the idea of continuing the revolution alongside candidate support. There are ways of protesting and reforming that are more productive than others.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)And this should be hopefully only the first of many reminders as well if need be. Sanders had the support of 46% of all Democrats by the end of the campaign. She speaks for them - for us. This childish snot-nosed attitude in here is revolting. This kind of sore winner arrogant elitism I'd expect more from the other camp.
The political revolution that Bernie and Jane began to help create a fairer inclusive society will carry on. So sorry if that inconveniences some here.
hereforthevoting
(241 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Historic NY
(37,451 posts)David__77
(23,421 posts)Is something wrong with her taxes that informs her discussion of her support for Clinton?
David__77
(23,421 posts)Plenty of people, I imagine, will give their support to Clinton in such an authentic fashion.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)Hillary doesn't need Sanders to prop her up. His support is welcome, but not his family's concern trolling.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)I read what she said as reassurance to Bernie's supporters who are reluctant to support Hillary that they can support her while still holding her accountable. I don't see why so many Clinton supporters are infuriated by that. I myself made that same argument to a couple potential BOB's I met in Philly. They were skeptical of whether Hillary would actually stick to any of the progressive proposals in the platform, and I said that if she doesn't, we could hold her accountable and even support a primary challenger in 2020. But if we don't elect her none of the platform will be enacted and we will be ruled by a wannabe fascist dictator.
I really don't see what was offensive about what Jane Sanders said.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)faculty, and staff of Burlington College.
jalan48
(13,870 posts)LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Jane Sanders is talking about holding Hillary accountable for her own actions, not the actions of her rank and file supporters.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)SirBrockington
(259 posts)Even McCain stopped the hysteria before it got that out of control, even McCain.
It was 50/50 as recently as halfway through his speech Monday that Sanders was or wasn't going to actually pull a Cruz.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)He had ALREADY ENDORSED before Monday. Why would anyone think he would pull a Ted Cruz when he had already endorsed her?
Plus, he was specifically asked if he would do anything like that and he said no.
Maybe he should have prepared his delegates better, but I think he and his campaign staff were caught off guard by some of their behavior. Remember, they booed at him too.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)I won't speak for all Sanders supporters, but for me, I don't believe Clinton will be anything other than what I've seen with my own eyes: a big-business-friendly neocon who likes destructive trade deals and moar war. The revelations about the DNC just added some fuel to the fire.
I like Sanders, but he doesn't have the power over me that you seem to think he does.
Given all of that, if it seems like Texas is in play I'll plug my nose and vote for the lesser/saner of two evils. It's still a vote and that's all Clinton cares for.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)Even before Nevada, many people observed that the Senator had let things get out of hand, and that he needed to say something to rope them in.
The public calls to disrupt the convention have been going on for more than a month, and he said nothing; they started planning a "fart-in" for crying out loud, and he said nothing. He owns this.
Edited to add: The people did not get whipped up without Sanders' input; that was the intent all along. Many of us constantly asked how he planned to enact his policies, and hos supporters repeatedly threw out this quote:
"There's a million young people out there who don't want to be in debt for half their life for the crime of going to college. If you want to antagonize those million people and lose your job, Mitch, if you don't want to lose your job, you better start listening to what we have to say." That's the point. That's how change takes place. "
Like it or not, he formed the notion of disruption, fed it, and then ignored it as it became a monster.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)The reasons I dislike the fact that Hillary Clinton will most likely be the President didn't have anything whatsoever to do with Bernie Sanders. A very loose analogy would be how the republicans felt about willard romney.
She and the DNC paraded out speakers at the convention who very much want more (30 years) war, and more trade deals, and more business friendly Democrats. It undermines (to me, admittedly) her half-assed unity efforts. Then when she put Debbie Wasserman-Schultz onto the 50 State Strategy as honorary chair, that said to me: "You're either with us or against us. If you don't like it, fuck off."
So for me anyways it has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders.
To further identify my position, no I am not saying vote for trump . This might be my time to take the second part of the message above though and "fuck off" from a party whose leadership is interested in more war, trade deals that undermine workers rights and environmental laws, as well as limiting access unless you can pony up the kind of cash that major corporations can and making the Democratic Party(which I've belonged to since I could vote) into a business friendly, center-right, moderate republican party.
Are you aware that was a satirical Dave Barry op-ed, or are you just hoping no one else is?
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/dave-barry/article91579192.html
Many of us ask how Clinton will enact her policies since what was true for Sanders is true for Clinton. How will her policies pass a republican House and Senate? No doubt it's that Clinton charm... like when Bill "ended welfare as we know it" fuck it, why not? Poor people don't vote anyways.)
Like it or not there are legitimate reasons to doubt Clinton's commitment to anything that wasn't invented here(as in her plans and what the DNC agreed to before the primary started) Many of the people who will vote for Clinton will just be holding their nose and blocking trump... whatever it takes to win right?
SirBrockington
(259 posts)Then this "earns our trust" stuff as if they've just met the past few months. The primary
didn't get ugly until Bernie won Michigan and began to think he might have a chance at winning.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)For the promised change that never appeared. Let's turn over a new leaf and request Hillary live up to her promises. I know politicians often make promises based on public opinion, and then when in office, go back to business as usual. This needs to change. Now's a good time.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)couldn't accomplish everything? Republican and some cowardly Democrats obstructed him every step of the way.
Why don't you turn to the real enemy - the Republicans - and hold THEM accountable? Why do people like you always fucking blame the president FIRST and not turn to the Republicans?
LEARN HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS!!
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)If he really wanted change, that was a good time to start. Sadly, the change never happened, and he appointed a weak AG (Holder) who prosecuted not a single Wall Street banker in the crime of our time. I won't rail on him, just saying that going forward, we need to hold politicians accountable to their promises. Obama is still at war, still 0℅ interest rates indicating an economy on life support. We can do better.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)Obamas Top 50 Accomplishments
[link:http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/marchapril-2012/the-incomplete-greatness-of-barack-obama-2/|March/April 2012
The Incomplete Greatness of Barack Obama
Hes gotten more done in three years than any president in decades. Too bad the American public still thinks he hasnt accomplished anything.]
If you don't think there has been change in this country in the last seven + years, you are either living in a bubble or you are delusional. Stop believing everything you hear or read in the media. They have been trying to frame Obama as a failure almost since he got into office. It is a LIE.
adigal
(7,581 posts)I give him credit for the ACA, but the insurance companies give him even more credit. War? We are still using drones. Economy? Yes, I give him much credit, but he didn't use the bully pulpit to help the 1/4 of American kids in poverty. Why aren't we screaming about that every day? Why isn't he? He nibbled around the edges of things, but he certainly wasn't a great President, as many here claim. He was ok. Didn't have scandals. But likes to be liked too much, I think, to be effective.
The thing I like most about Hillay is that she is under no delusions about working with the Republicans. I think that if she truly wants to be, she will be far more effective at beating them.
wallyworld2
(375 posts)Senator Sanders is no Senator McCain who was more about sour grapes than accomplishing some progressive legislation like what Senator Sanders will do.
There is no down side for Democrats holding President Clinton to her party platform.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)undermine in any way
GeoWilliam750
(2,522 posts)Hillary will need Bernie's supporters to win, and so much of what I hear from her supporters on this site is "Kiss my ass and piss off, you losers. But remember to vote for Hillary, you losers, or we will end up with Donald Trump."
Sometimes I wonder whether there are a bunch of right wing trolls on the website trying to stir up fights.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)knew exactly what he/she are doing and so do Jane. She couldn't wait until after today to get snarky with Hillary. Her tone is so fucking condescending and bitter. It's a turn off and it does nothing to heal the sour feelings from the primaries. Her bitter, snarky attitude does nothing to unify this party...
Oh wait...they're not a member of the Democratic Party! Figures!
GeoWilliam750
(2,522 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)country still.
Vote how you want.
SirBrockington
(259 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)What can we do to make you want to become an enthusiastic Hillary supporter? Please, tell us.
GeoWilliam750
(2,522 posts)Whilst I am not sure that I will ever truly be enthusiastic, I can probably get to the point of pulling a lever for her, but the constant torrent of vitriol against anything Bernie is really very alienating. Much of it appears to be against the new terms of service, as well.
Politics is all about affirmation and domination. "Us or them". A number of posters on this site seem to expect abject submission from Bernie supporters, and their meek acquiescence to insults, taunts, belittling. Personally, I would think that informed, reasoned, and enthusiastic cooperation from Bernie supporters would be very much more in the interest of the party.
People who are insulted repeatedly do not generally wish to cooperate, but instead to do the opposite of what the insulter wants - even if it is apparently contrary to their own interest. I remember watching some of the Bernie supporters being outraged and insulting to the poster, Bravenak, when the BLM protestors took over the stage at a Bernie event early in the primary battle. At the time, Bravenak stated that she was sympathetic to Bernie in many ways, but that it might be good for Bernie supporters to understand what BLM means to the AA community, as well as how popular Hillary is in the AA community and why. Instead of listening and learning from Bravenak - who had some interesting points of view - they heaped abuse upon abuse on her, and lost what chance they had to obtain valuable insight and informed cooperation. Instead of earning her cooperation, they permanently alienated her, and turned her into quite a proliferous antagonist.
Affirmation and domination. "Us and them". Treating people as family with whom we have some small - and reconcilable - differences, will go much further than, "Sit down, shut up and vote for my candidate, you LOSER, what you think and want means NOTHING."
This is why I wonder whether many of the posters here are either trolls or puppets. I find it difficult to understand this level abuse to other people in the party.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)help to unify this party without resorting to backhanded, condescending remarks!
You do what you want and vote how you will!
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Either we are going to unify or we aren't
adigal
(7,581 posts)It's like "F off, Bernie supporters, we don't need you, but if Trump wins, it's your fault."
The level of cognitive dissonance is making my head spin.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)A lot of posters here are coming off exactly like you put it. The only thing worse than a bad loser is a bad winner.
OwlinAZ
(410 posts)Wednesdays
(17,380 posts)The ignore button is our friend.
enid602
(8,620 posts)I did not vote for her husbaand, but welcome her participation and imput. I'd feel less comfortable if major parts of the party decided to boycott the convention. The repub convention was just sad.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Post removed
Skittles
(153,169 posts)when has Hillary NOT been held accountable?
AZ Mike
(468 posts)The idea of holding a candidate to their word on the campaign trail is something that should be universally welcomed.
Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)... is a prime responsibility for every voter that extends beyond election day.
No exceptions.
Mike Nelson
(9,959 posts)...Jane's basic point. However, the language has a bitter and confrontational tone. She should be saying something like, "We're looking forward to working with President Clinton ... to move forward progressive ideas." Of course, the folks at Rolling Stone might be putting a negative spin on this... if not, I'd say she's almost daring Hillary to do battle. Not good..
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)nauseating.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)That is what I have said to a couple people who said they would not heed Bernie's call to support Hillary. I pointed out that I am sure he will hold her accountable after the election and the best thing we can do is elect her and then hold her accountable.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Is not that they expect Clinton to make good on everything she has said. That's impossible.
But that if she doesn't at least TRY they are going to complain in public.
For instance: There will be major bitching from them if Hillary turns around and passes TPP with a few minor changes.
Or if she gets us in another quagmire like the Iraq war she voted for.
But really I think Clinton will take steps to make sure she is representing the real dems.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)In other words, come the inauguration, people are going to remind Clinton they helped her, this is so not news/
oswaldactedalone
(3,491 posts)Bernie. Had no idea how petty his wife is and am disgusted with the behavior of these spoiled shits at the convention.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)OwlinAZ
(410 posts)oswaldactedalone
(3,491 posts)I'm 60. Wanna fidaboudit?
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)If anything, I saw it as an appeal to Bernie's supporters who are reluctant to vote for Hillary and some of whom are even angry at Bernie for endorsing her, by reassuring those supporters that just because Bernie supports her doesn't mean we can't hold her accountable. That is the argument I have tried to make to several BOB's this week. I don't see why so many Clinton people are offended by this interview.
Note that she also acknowledged that the vote wasn't close enough that the DNC shenanigans could have made a difference. I should think you would be happy about that, at least.
OwlinAZ
(410 posts)oswaldactedalone
(3,491 posts)I could come up with a snarky insult but won't. Please vote for Democrats.
kacekwl
(7,017 posts)are going to hold their noses and vote for Hillary not just because he lost the primary but because of the shifts in her positions and support for issues that are important to them . Trust and verify I believe is what Jane is saying. If Hillary was sincere in her campaign then all will be good. And by the way some of the comments above are shameful really.
Philly-Union-Man
(79 posts)Seriously, we all wanted to hold President Obama accountable and we were disappointed in his inability to uphold some of them. That's the point isn't it?
Jane wasn't saying to hold her accountable for whatever in the wikileaks but for the platform promises.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)And I agree with you 100%.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)I think Bernie took so long endorsing because Jane is so bitter
WIProgressive88
(314 posts)Of course Hillary needs to be held accountable! All politicians do! Especially the good ones like Hillary, President Obama, and yes, Bernie Sanders, because we know they have it in them to do the right thing...sometimes they just need a little nudge. THIS is what the Bernie or Busters should be focusing on instead of booing and whining.
OwlinAZ
(410 posts)mercuryblues
(14,532 posts)let me tell you how this works.
You need to give Hillary Clinton the tools she needs to accomplish things. Such as making sure Dems get elected to the senate. Not just DWS opponent. Making sure you do not try to kneecap her at every turn.
'cause guess what. Anything less is unacceptable. We are holding YOU accountable. If you need a clue on what to do, just look at what she did to help get Obama elected.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Not much. President Obama didn't have such a horrible history that he needed her help.
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)with every politician.
JesterCS
(1,827 posts)Some of you guys / girls are acting just like them
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)from the Dons camp. The piling on on Bernies partner for daring to suggest we must hold politicians accountable. Especially one that you have just hammered out a platform with.
There can be no other explanation. I believe real DUers wouldn't stoop this low
unitedwethrive
(1,997 posts)colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)An early key will be who she assembles as her financial team. Let us hope it is not more in and out of Goldman types.
And really, shouldn't all elected officials be held accountable? I don't see anything controversial about what Jane said.
apnu
(8,758 posts)Its on the people's shoulders to keep elected officials honest and accountable.
Go for it Jane, Hillary will listen.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)And speaking of holding people responsible, have you found those tax returns yet?
RandySF
(58,911 posts)The Burlington College issue may not yet be resolved.
JoFerret
(10,704 posts)The convention pandered enough to your bloated ego.. You couldn't manage your Brownshirts at the convention. And don't take responsibility for the crap you set in motion. Now pipe down with the nonsense get to work defeating Trump And if you can't do that just do the pipe down bit. Enough of you already. There's work to be done.
onenote
(42,714 posts)I voted for Bernie in Virginia, but I knew it was over and he wasn't winning the nomination long before that. And if Jane didn't she shouldn't be advising anyone on political matters.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)To hold our politicians accountable.
Unfortunately, Bernie did not anticipate the number of loons he was going to attract and they showed their asses at the convention, weakening his position in the party. You can read multiple post here by disgusted sopporters of his. He will still have influence, but less than had he been more of a team player.
Jane, not so much.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)judesedit
(4,439 posts)True Dough
(17,305 posts)GOP supporters are no doubt rubbing their hands with glee over the fracture among the Dems, just like their party is split with Drumpf at the helm.
The name calling and insults in this thread give me a bad feeling as we move forward. Hopefully the hard feelings can be buried as we get closer to November. Otherwise the consequences are going to be severe with Don the Con in the White House.
Wednesdays
(17,380 posts)nt
True Dough
(17,305 posts)Your idea of putting me on notice that I qualify for the witch-hunt list?
QC
(26,371 posts)Sadly, that's what passes for discussion around here these days.
True Dough
(17,305 posts)I don't have a lot of posts around here but the vast majority of them are critical of Trump, or poking fun at him. I absolutely detest the man.
But if anyone dares to point out that there may be some flaws in the Dems' game, even if it's constructive criticism, then it's bound to elicit some accusations of being a traitor, at least around here. I try to consider the source, but I'm just getting a feel for some of the many personalities that frequent this forum. "Wednesdays" starts off with a -1. Hopefully he/she proves to be more open minded in the future.
Anyway, cheers QC (quality control?).
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)And I would do the same if Bernie were the nominee.
OnDoutside
(19,962 posts)to get control of the Senate and Congress asap.
Raster
(20,998 posts)democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Just because he is supporting her now does not mean he won't or shouldn't hold her accountable from the left as a senator once she is elected, or even during the campaign if she strays away from the promises on policy that she made to secure his endorsement.
Mellomugwump
(93 posts)But I don't believe that Hillary doesn't want the same things that Bernie does, but she knows that a dem can't get elected if they go all out on a progressive platform, and then we get nothing. The country is made up of lefties, righties and in betweens, you can't just appeal to the lefties.
I don't for a minute believe that both Hillary and Obame weren't ever for gay marriage. They started with civil unions because they knew they needed to take baby steps and let people get used to it a little at a time. Once Obama got elected the second time, he went all in because he could. He was re-elected and they had four years for everybody to get used to the final step before the Dems had to run again.
I align more with Bernie's publicly stated ideas, but you can't convince me that he could have won the general election. I don't care what the polls said.
And I'm mad that I wasn't allowed to enjoy all of the great moments this week because of the disruptions and embarrassing displays. Heckling a civil rights hero? Really? That man has faced more adversity than any of those people ever will.
I lost all respect.
Mellomugwump
(93 posts)Would Elijah Cummings and John Lewis be endorsing a lying, manipulative, corporate shill if that's what she truly was, and don't we think that they can tell the difference?
athena
(4,187 posts)My feelings almost exactly. My views are also more in line with Bernie's, but I've been a Hillary supporter since close to the beginning. Not only because she's more electable, but also because she is so much better than the lies we've all been fed. One just has to read a couple of articles about her, or listen to Bill Clinton's DNC speech, to realize that she's a good person who really cares and wants to make the world a better place.
Despite the disruptions and the infighting, I believe that Bernie's candidacy has in the end made Hillary stronger. This is what my brilliant husband had predicted, but I hadn't agreed. Now, though, I have to admit that Hillary would not have been able to go so far left without Bernie's candidacy and all the support Bernie received. (I do happen to believe that many* of Bernie's supporters were against Hillary due to misogyny, but despite their hatred, their efforts only made Hillary stronger.)
* "many"; not "all", and possibly not even "most".
Response to athena (Reply #267)
Mellomugwump This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)All she's saying is they will stand up for what the Sanders campaign fought for-the vast majority of which is wildly popular.
HRC was nominated...but in many respects Bernie won the argument.
And we're in a stronger place because he did.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)else!"
yurbud
(39,405 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)They don't really have any leverage anymore.
bluedye33139
(1,474 posts)Something tells me that HRC would come away without a sceatch.