She is gonna fuck us all. Congrats to sll you Hillary supporters if she wins the nom. You took the whole country down backing someone who is soooo lacking in American morals and values.
Thank yourselves for president Trump

"Someone who is sooo lacking in "American morals and values". Don't walk, run over to Free Republic and post this shit there. They'll love it.

No one likes Hillary. No one is going the extra mile for more of the same. THey won't come. Don't hold your breath. I hope you don't have those same values-none, just like Hillary. Thanks for keeping me posted about what Cruz says. He's about as well liked as Hillary.

... You might be experiencing it that way, but my guess is after Bernie loses and his supporters have time to reflect, they'll realize that the Clinton campaign held a lot of its potential fire. They could have attacked Bernie as harshly as his campaign as attacked her (calling her a liar, racist, homophobe, necon, comparing her to Nixon and Bush, talking about her cackling and smirk, claiming she talks too much, suggesting she's corporate, a corporate shill, claiming she's responsible for the rise of ISIS, stating she unqualified, claiming that she was complicit in her husband's sexual transgressions, taking the Republican line on Benghazi, etc.). At any rate, I'm sure she won't waste her time going after the young hero worshipers who believe Bernie or bust.

...would simply drive his supporters to donate more money and be more deeply committed to his cause. So keep talking it up! Bring it on.

... and attacks on Hillary have driven people like me to switch my support. I supported Bernie up until just a couple weeks ago. (He got my vote.)

...that the "attacks" on Hillary are merely statements of fact. Not the personal ones, but the ones having to do with her actions.

... but you will come to see that your perception has been influenced by your sources. An objective reading of Hillary's record would show you that there's a reason so many PoC and gays back her. Minorities aren't stupid. They know what they are doing.

Let me give you an example: Bernie's big claim to fame on gay rights is that he voted against DOMA. (Nevermind the fact that he voted against DOMA because he believed marriage should be left up to the states, a position Ted Cruz holds today.) The fact is that Bernie's vote against DOMA did not net gays one single right. It had ZERO impact. But, the reason Bernie brings it up is that in all his years in Congress he was never a leader in gay rights in any way. He never introduced one piece of legislation. But, the fact is that the Clintons were leaders -- Bill granted asylum to oppressed gays, barred discrimination in federal contracts, increased funding for AIDS, appointed 150 gays to government jobs, spoke of gay rights in a State of the Union address. Sure, he supported DOMA, which Republicans pushed through 5 weeks before the national elections, shrewdly forcing many moderate Democrats in swing districts to back it, and when he tried to allow gays in the military was forced by the Democrats to accept Don't Ask/Don't Tell, but in the end Bill Clinton actually did accomplish things for gays. Hillary's record during those years is good too, with emails showing that she lobbied her husband on gay rights (including helping to defeat a ban on gay adoption), was the first first lady to march in a gay pride parade, advocated for domestic partner benefits in 2000, granted SoS gay and transgendered employees equal benefits and treatment, and spoke forcefully about gay rights in international forums.

So my guess is that you like many Bernie supporters think his vote against DOMA is just awesome, when really it reflected well on him, but did nothing for the gay community. But, I do think once people get past their perception distortions they will see that both Bernie and Hillary are actually quite good.

"marriage should be between a man and a woman" that's not an attack that's fact

another fact Bernie was not in position to grant asylum to Gays in the manner Clinton did nor does it even begin to make up for the horror he unleashed on poor woman and children in this country

You can pull crap out of the past all you want (Warren was a Republican, you know, and Biden said nothing about gay rights until 2012) but the fact is Democrats have moved the country forward and Clinton stands for equality. It must bug the hell out of you to recognize that.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-voting-history

Sanders and his supporters seem to consider political consistency as the main measure of a politician's character. "You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive," Bernie subtweeted Clinton last month. But Sanders has been in the House or Senate for more than 25 years, and during all that time, any politician's voting record is bound to have some inconsistencies. Sanders is no exception. At times he's voted in favor of bills on national security, criminal justice, and immigration that he says he now opposes, attacking Clinton for casting the same votes that he did.

Except Sanders failed to "stand tall" against the popular fight in 1994. He sided with the majority of Democrats when he was a member of the House and voted for the crime bill that Bill Clinton signed into law. When Sanders tried last week to explain his support for the 1994 bill, he cited the bill's ban on assault weapons as part of his reason—except the initial House version that he voted for didn't include the assault weapons ban, a provision added by the Senate.

impress either

Facts are facts. Not perceived to ones liking. They are facts.

that I was a Hillary supporter until just a couple of weeks ago and that she got my vote too. But would it be true?

Try to be a little more analytical.

All of her campaigns have been divisive and hateful. It's true that her advisor David Brock is slightly unhinged and has a record of hateful actions. And her other advisors are belligerent, too.

Maybe they think they can pick up enough votes from socially liberal or (indifferent) Republican neocons. Wasn't that supposedly the entire raison d'être for the Democratic Leadership Council and Third Way? That conservadems were voting for Republican Presidents and the way to get them voting for Democratic Presidents was supposedly for Democrats, esp. Democratic Presidential candidates, to go right?

They're still chasing after 1996's "soccer moms" and 2004's "values voters". They have no clue how to appeal to Millennials at all.

There have been glimpses of this aspect of her personality all along. She relishes victory, revenge, and mocking her opponents.

Remember this one? "We came, we saw, he's dead! -laughter is heard on tape-"

Don't bother to get upset, just remember. Not too far down the road there is going to be some significant buyer's remorse,

When it's expressed don't rub it in.

giving him terrible advice. Please stop projecting your issues onto us.

It's not accomplishing what you think it will.

because they will have their horse in both sides of the race.

I see this argument with athletes who get into trouble. He's really a good guy but he was hanging around with a bad crowd. More often than not, he is a bad guy who is hanging around with other bad guys.

The way people get into Hillary's inner circle is by repeatedly demonstrating blind loyalty to her. They do what she wants, not the other way around. Her advisors didn't tell her to go cash in for $3 million in corporate speeches in 2013.

When the Democrats were routed in the 1994 midterm elections (after the HillaryCare debacle), Hillary is the one who brought Dick Morris into the White House to move Bill Clinton to the right to improve his chances of getting reelected in 1996. Then came the Welfare Reform Bill, the Crime Bill, the Telecommunications Act and deregulation of Wall Street.

Hillary is clueless about what goes on in the real world and about the people who live in it. She has been living in a bubble behind Secret Service protection for 24 years.

I find it very hard to believe anyone can successfully con her. Now do I think she can be bought, co-opted, persuaded or otherwise influenced in a negative way? Absolutely. She doesn't have the integrity, or if she does, she has not sufficiently demonstrated it. Even after all these years.

There is an explanation, she believes she has all the answers and knows what's best for the people. She is hard core policy driven, to the point of having tunnel vision, completely missing the rest of the picture. Therefore, politics as a blood sport, win at any cost, by any means necessary, "this ain't bean bag," lying-cheating-stealing is A-OK in her book.

That's what I think. And it's why she really is more of the same.

doing to the Dem Party what Trump's doing to the other party: superdelegates aren't used to being arm-twisted like this and DWS is willing to dump another few senators and Reps if that's what it takes to keep that faction's control over

since Clinton's advisors will blame the left for losing in November then she won't even realize that they're wrecking the party with their Samson-like behavior, and think the left's the ones acting like Samson! when Rahm and DWS lost 11 Governors, 13 Senators, 69 Reps, and 913 state seats they blamed lazy indeps and lefties refusing to vote, and not the fact that they ran insipid and Republicrat candidates; they purged or sabotaged Cegelis, Lamont, McKinney, Halter, Romanoff, Sestak, Grayson, Kucinich, John Russell, Buono, Lutrin, Rev. Manuel Sykes, Weiland, and Wendy Davis because they'd rather lose with a conservadem than win with a liberal not beholden to them (viz. Lincoln, Coakley, Mahoney, Alex Sink, Mary Burke, and Grimes)

and this longterm trend is good for them: being left with 26% or 21% of the electorate leaves the party elite with only those voters that they can do literally ANYTHING to; they can get even bigger checks "because we have to win this one," pretend they're not adopting GOP policies ("if we're DINOs, why are they hurling so much vitriol?&quot , and keep blaming the left/voters and justify further minimizing the people's role in politics

Blasio and Clooney are already admitting that they only endorsed her because she'd do everything she could to destroy them within the party otherwise

more dangerously, Clinton's advisors have repeatedly lured her into wars--Lanny Davis and Honduras, Sidney Blumenthal and Libya

money men used him as their front man. Who would they rather have Trump? Cruz? Or Hillary?