This primary season is a dynamic work in progress, and so those busters
who are not yet convinced that Hillary's really going to oppose the TPP,
or Citizens United, etc. will still need to be won over -- which is precisely
the point the caller was making.

Every buster is a unique individual with their own set of conditions and issues
that they need reassurances from Hillary about, and in such a situation, broad-brush
insults and accusations are very counterproductive.

Says we will all unite, and then the usual bullshit about how "we" need to make sure Hillary keeps her word, blah blah blah.
Says she signed the pledge, but they all know it doesn't mean they won't vote for Hillary.

Stopped listening, I can Full ignore that stuff right here at DU.

What would surprise me is if she is an actual Bernie-or-Buster-er. She was basically saying it meant nothing, and Hillary would listen to them and change some things. What utter bullshit.

would be like the Right thinking Don will keep his word and not return to his Moderate roots Yeah right. he's a big supporter of Planned Parenthood and he still is , just says not the abortion part of it. not to fund that side. good thats already how PP operates but most bonehead replublicans want PP shut down faster than Acorn and that ain't gonna happen. Maybe with Ted Cruz but not Plump (not sure where one got Frump I dont' get it. ) he's Plump (so am I . ) But gotta have a laugh about it. If Bill Clinton kept his word on anything in the 90's I didn't know about it. I just defended him because he was our president at the time.

We are going to win as many votes for Bernie as we possibly can. Had New Yorkers worked like we are going to, who knows where Bernie might be today?

The Bernie people I worked with today are unlikely to vote for Hillary.

And Hillary is as bad a candidate as she ever was. Her Town Hall comment about adopting some of Bernie's platform proved how lacking in grace and how unwilling to reach out to Bernie supporters she is.

I just think that a lot of Bernie supporters, especially the first-time voters, are not going to switch to Hillary. It isn't going to be that easy.

I'm still trying to find something Her Royal Highness could do that would cause me to vote for her...

republican, for one thing

That's one of the items on my list of why I'd vote for her if it comes to that in November.

Are counter to what needs to be done, like pushing fracking and promoting regime change in Libya in part to open up business opportunities to the country's oil reserves.

Basically, I just don't believe anything she says.

Deal.

really fucking republican, and i can't call it stupider than that

Owned by corporate America, a candidate 67% of the country thinks is a liar, a candidate independents won't support in the general. Independents number more than any party by the way. You people are going to be lucky if she's not indicted, and you're calling others stupid. Perhaps you should look in the mirror. #Blocked

themselves independents or republicans. and anyone who by not voting helps elect republicans because they didn't get their perfect candidate is usually stupid or lazy or naive. a lot of highly principled people work their asses off and give for their causes and don't vote for particular candidates so be it but if they're going to encourage other people not to vote dem also after the primary then they're the same as rove trolls.

seems to me most libertarians and some independents are just republicans who want to smoke pot and get laid. or they're too ashamed to admit they're republicans. or can always find some lazy ass racist or religious or purist excuse to not vote democratic

clinton is not as environmentally friendly as bernie or aggressive on global warming but to suggest her admin would be the same as a republicans just isn't living in the real world.

and how many times have you voted for a politician? 95% of those would be liars. so fucking what. that's human and that's political. and that's the political situation we're in until we fix it. and it sure won't get fixed with somefucking republican picking the next 3 justices.

i can't believe all the purist parading around with their high principles who make compromises all day long. and they all do it while typing on computers partly made by slave labor. or while eating meat and non organic, beer out of bottles, etc.

and you want to complain about money in politics?

at a cheap $1000/hr x 15hrs/day x 1200 stations, rw talk radio is worth 4.68 BIL$/ year or 390MIL$ /month FREE for coordinated global warming denial, pro republican wall st think tank propaganda, deregulation, hate, and swiftboating

that's what's out there running up the LIAR and BENGHAZI bullshit, and calling bernie an 81 year old crazy student molesting commie, and the left nor dems do nothing about it

in November, and because a very high percentage of voters if you include the caucuses voted for Bernie because they prefer his platform.

I don't trust her to keep a promise in any case.

of voters in the caucuses and they do include them in the totals.

It always works that way. But it doesn't mean she has to adopt his whole platform. She'll probably move on some of his proposals, but she shouldn't do anything that would harm her in the General.

And you know that you would have been outraged if HE had won and then switched to HER platform.

provided if it is not empty platitudes.

Anyway... no I never said he would have to adopt her entire platform. Has she talked about having a litmus test as the overturning of citizens united for SCOTUS nominees though? Just that and I'd be happy.

I know she said it in a debate or Town Hall. This is what she says on hillaryclinton.com

Overturn Citizens United. Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who value the right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections. She’ll push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United in order to restore the role of everyday voters in elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/

Hillary Clinton’s litmus test for Supreme Court nominees: a pledge to overturn Citizens United

Clinton's emphatic opposition to the ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums on independent political activity, garnered the strongest applause of the afternoon from the more than 200 party financiers gathered in Brooklyn for a closed-door briefing from the Democratic candidate and her senior aides, according to some of those present.

"She got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" the decision, said one attendee, who, like others, requested anonymity to describe the private session.

If the make-up of the court does not change by 2017, four of the justices will be 78 years of age or older by the time the next president is inaugurated.

Clinton’s pledge to use opposition to Citizens United as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees echoes the stance taken by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is challenging her for the Democratic nomination.

She is fine with Obama's pick. Many people think based on his history he is even more pro citizens than the other justices. She says she will not over turn him. Actions speak louder than words, and her actions indicate her words are meaningless.

She doesn't oppose Obama appointing him because Garland's the best he could do with the current Congress.

But if Hillary's the person filling the opening she will make her own decision, not Obama's.

Obama could choose anyone, it is his choice to make, but he is doing some weird cat and mouse game or he really just likes this judge. He should have picked a non-white woman first of all, secondly he should have picked someone more liberal even if a centrist. The best we get out of this deal is a judge we may regret until he retires. But Hillary said she would stick with his choice, Bernie will not. Many believe Garland is a friend of Citizens United.

Bernie said he would ask him to withdraw, and she acted like Bernie was crazy and bad for doing that. She said she would support him. So try and spin it as you will, but she did say it.

Hillary's term as President.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-merrick-garland-supreme-court-220875

Hillary's Supreme Court two-step

She chides Senate's refusal to act on nominee, but won't say if she'd appoint him herself.

SNIP

The question of whether Clinton would reappoint Garland is deceptively important, because it may be that the White House is hoping the Senate thinks it’s smarter to confirm an Obama pick with a moderate reputation than risk having Clinton nominate a much younger and more liberal appointee next year.

That is the same as voting on him, it is that simple. As for the republicans, they wanted Garland, they said so before...I have no clue why they are dumb enough to not take this deal because it is a win for them and a loss for democrats. She can chide them all she wants, but we did open our dumb mouth back in the day a few times about blocking last term picks...even if we did not do it.

to interfere with that.

But she's making no promises about what SHE will do when SHE is President.

She will support Garland. She is basically appointing him, it is going to happen on the next person's watch...and she is supporting his pick now as well. If you really care about the nominees you would have the guts to say something like many other democrats have. She is fine with him and that speaks volumes. She is so fine with him she is vocally supporting him and not even saying a negative thing about him...talk is cheap, and she is not even willing to spend that little on fighting citizens united. Also I am amazed you are fine with a white male that supports citizen's united and is conservative? How do you not have an issue with this? The court is split right now, and we are getting far better results on our cases than we could get if we get some conservative on the panel. How can you be ok with this?

That doesn't mean Garland will be hers.

She could reject him, or join the many Democrats that reject him...but she opens her arms wide to embrace him like the cash from the Hillary Victory Funds.

Or are you saying that you were lying?

P.S. I would not eat crow, they are very intelligent birds, perhaps you should learn about them and their complex social system before you go talking about killing them just to make a point.

vote to overturn Citizens v. United.

She has NOT ever said that when she is President she will appoint Judge Garland. That is your fantasy.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/

Hillary will:

Overturn Citizens United. Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who value the right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections. She’ll push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United in order to restore the role of everyday voters in elections.

End secret, unaccountable money in politics. Hillary will push for legislation to require outside groups to publicly disclose significant political spending. And until Congress acts, she'll sign an executive order requiring federal government contractors to do the same. Hillary will also promote an SEC rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose political spending to shareholders.

Amplify the voices of everyday Americans. Hillary will establish a small-donor matching system for presidential and congressional elections to incentivize small donors to participate in elections, and encourage candidates to spend more time engaging a representative cross-section of voters.

She flat out said it in her townhall in NY. She threw shade at Bernie for Bernie for "contradicting the President". She is impling he made the right choice and she is not going to contradict him.

not about what Hillary Clinton herself would do when she's elected President.

That she is afraid to say what she wants, or doesn't want to be called out on it?

when she is President, other than the fact that she supports the President in making his own choice.

She supports Obama appointing him. It is that simple. If she really cared she would say something, but instead she plays word games to help he followers drink her lies easier.

But hey on a plus side if her saying she supports Obama's choice of another white guy that is for citizens does not bother you then you should be fine with Trump's choices too. I for one think that the best thing that has happened in ages is the 4/4 split, but you seem fine with the fact that we are going to lose that again for a 5/4 split so Hillary can replace a liberal judge with another liberal, leaving it 5/4 again.

You are smart enough to know that HER voters aren't enough to win the GE. Not even close. So... common sense here.

and run on HER platform?

You know you would be. You'd be calling her a sore loser.

You know that independents get to vote in the GE, right? You can't win the GE without independents and they overwhelmingly support Sanders.....

Not gonna happen.

She may try to get along with repugs for a day or two, be presidential, but, unlike Obama, she has had a long history with confronting repug thugs. She is prepared to give them the political ass kicking they deserve and she will do it.

But many of Hillary's policy positions - on "defense", on financial regulation, on fracking, and other areas are already on the right end of the spectrum. My fear is that she will not just negotiate to those positions, but lead us to them.

It's as many pundits have observed. To take the country even further to the right, it takes a Democratic president. A Republican would be opposed by Democrats, but a Democrat would make her party fall in line.

Even if she was Bernie or Bust, what the f@ck does she think she is gaining by saying, I am Bernie or Bust, but I will vote for Hillary? She is the worst negotiator ever. But honestly, not sure if I even believe her, many joined it because they felt that the DNC has already stolen the election, so they are only voting DNC if it is Bernie. Tom took until a couple weeks ago to realize that Bernie or Bust was filled with independents that tried to vote for Bernie, but were treated like frauds, not allowed to vote, and then told in the general you have to vote for Hillary. Arg this caller is annoying.

all the people who are such purists about money in politics while ignoring this fact for 30 years:

at a cheap $1000/hr x 15hrs/day x 1200 stations, rw talk radio is worth 4.68 BIL$/ year or 390MIL$ /month FREE for coordinated global warming denial, pro republican wall st think tank propaganda, deregulation, hate, and swiftboating

and how many are living in states where their state funded universities support rw radio, like these 90 unis supporting 270 limbaugh stations, and do nothing about it and let a few republican blowhards attack their candidates and yell over and negate their activism and donations?