That's...revealing.

and then cynically and relentlessly appropriating the anti-oppression agenda (a agenda ALL Democrats and progressives support and that all major Democratic candidates were always equally committed to supporting), to unjustly demonize a particular candidate and that particular candidate's supporters as weak on anti-oppression issues(even to the point, early on, of saying repeatedly that that one candidate and his supporters didn't care about police killings of POC).

(and no, that's not about "hurt feelings"...it's about false accusations and lies).

It's valid to expect ALL Democratic candidates to be passionately anti-oppression.

It's baiting to imply that one was weaker on that than all the others.

And it's demagogery to imply that a person could fight for "social justice" or "economic justice", but not for BOTH

We ALL support the fight against institutional oppression. It's the OTHER party that doesn't.

Whatever you say.

There are only certain people I've ever heard use that term seriously.

But that's all it really means.

The fight against institutional bigotry and social oppression is as serious as a heart attack.

We all support it in this party.

If white progressives need to do more, call on us to do more.

But don't imply that one candidate and his supporters didn't care about that when that isn't true.

And stop already with the absurd and essentially ultraconservative argument that talking about economic justice somehow means not caring about social justice. The two sets of causes are distinct, but they are still related, and neither needs to be put aside.

And either candidate will strongly urge their supporters to do just that

Do we support a platform or a party name?

The party needs to give us candidates who actually support progressive ideas.

health care and the like to stand on your laurels.

You won't find someone more pro-woman or pro-LGBT rights, but a candidate can't be against EVERYTHING else that you stand for (slight hyperbole) and then get to just get your vote by default.

Joe, I really think that in this election, that the Democratic "lesser of two evils" will be so far less evil that the phrase is almost impossible to apply.

If Cruz got the nomination, you'd have W's lack of wits and inversely proportional certainty, mixed with Scalia's viewpoints and lack of integrity, and the religiosity of the Westboro Baptist Church, all rolled into one country-destroying pile.

If Trump got the nomination, you'd have W's lack of curiosity and inversely proportional certainty, mixed with Ronald Reagan's attention span, Vladimir Putin's ego, and the competence of Herbert Hoover, all rolled into one country-destroying pile.

If Rubio got the nomination, the Koch brothers and Pat Robertson would have to thumb wrestle to see who would be his handpuppet on a day to day basis. One awful country-destroying, progress-killing handpuppet.

Take it from an undecided Democrat. As yet I have no personal investment in either candidate. But I can tell you that I'd vote for either Democratic candidate over any Republican nominee faster than anything I've ever done in my life.

Sadly, that doesn't seem to just include Republicans any more.

to urge Hillary to denounce her campaign's smear tactics -- and to urge voters to withhold their support for her until she does so.

because it has never happened before when she was whistling through the south the last time.

that you'd rather have a President Trump, a President Cruz, or a President Rubio than a President Clinton.

Seems pretty ill-advised to me.

I live in California so whether I vote for Clinton or not doesn't mean a thing.

However, what I will say is that she doesn't stand a chance against Trump or Rubio in the general election, because while IF I lived in a swing state I would hold my nose and vote for her.. there are millions of people who will choose to just not bother (like the difference between 2008 and 2012 for Obama.. 10 million voters not showing up).

The ONLY candidate she has a prayer of beating is Cruz because the GOP doesn't like him and the vote will be depressed on both sides.

Do you HONESTLY believe she can beat Trump in a general election? Do you have any idea what game he is playing?

He stood in front of a GOP debate and BLAMED 9/11 ON bush and STILL won the next primary. I would never vote for him.. but he understands how to get people excited about him because he just says what he wants to say.

her brand of "i'll look into that" and "i'll think about it" won't stand up to that.. ever. He will eviscerate her in a debate because he's got 20 years of conflicting statements to hit her with and like Janice in account doesn't give a fuck.

The ONLY chance the democratic party has is with a candidate like Bernie who can give people something to VOTE FOR.

He's the problem in a nut shell for you.

Trump doesn't make people angry enough for people to turn out to vote AGAINST him, so just having Trump as the nominee isn't going to help the democratic turnout. Sorry, it just isn't.

Clinton as the nominee will likely get ENOUGH GOP people angry enough to turn out just to vote AGAINST her.. add that to Trumps army of fools.. and he wins the swing states easily.

The ONLY chance she has is Cruz b/c people in the GOP hate him just enough that they sit on their hands the way a large number of democrats would for Clinton.