Bernie would know that the President doesn't pass laws.

You'd certainly think so!

so he can issue an executive law allowing paid family and medical leave in federal agencies.
But he can't issue an executive order requiring companies or states to provide paid family and medical leave

thats the limit on executive orders.

BTW, don't federal agencies already have paid family and medical leave?

And they can use the bully pulpit and a host of other things.

if it were so, why wouldn't President Obama have been able to get more of his agenda accomplished?

You must support Hillary, you just repeated her slogan...

because its the Constitution which sets up the separation of powers.

But you keep blaming Clinton: I'm sure it makes you feel better.

Then get back to us....

No doubt LBJ used wile to get it accomplished but it was not executive orders.
I don't deny the existence of a bully pulpit.
But Congress was actually somewhat more functional 50 years ago.

Yes he did.

you might have noticed Obama's tried the same thing
So how's it working in this century?

https://vimeo.com/148092658

but the majority of american people were for it.
I can't explain why the majority of people were for it...but there is no doubt that they were

What I really found was incredible was that people in little towns were afraid.
The terrorists were looking for big targets not tiny towns...but the tiny towns were willing to give up our freedoms.

I can't fault the politicians for following the will of the people.
The problem is that people are too easy to lead through fear and anger and false flattery.

Its one of the reasons I'm so perturbed by the infighting here on DU.
Infighting just supports the PTB.

But as I've said before I'm far left

considering that her server sat out there for months unsecured and unencrypted.



There is poor judgment, as many Darwin award winners discovered, and then there is warehousing state secrets unencrypted on the internet level of poor judgment.

Bernie is being as generous as he possibly can.

almost a week after Obama had amassed enough delegates and superdelegates to win the nomination (June 1).

That's exactly why I voted for him, too.

is vexed because she can't pivot to the right as long as Bernie is in the running. Nobody with two brain cells to rub together believes she isn't going to go right if she's the nominee.

But, it will be her case to make. The loser doesn't get to decide the winner's platform. Hillary didn't do it to Obama in 2008 and she sure as hell is not going to bow down to Sanders. He seems to be trying to blackmail the DNC and Hillary to adopt his platform or else he won't support her.

His actual words were:

And yes, it is her case to make, just as it is the right of every voter to accept or reject her case.

He's not trying to "decide the winner's platform."

He was asked if he would support Clinton as the nominee.

And what he responded with, quite simply, is his assertion that as long as certain elements are present in (or missing from) her platform, his support...today, on April 25, 2016...is not set in stone.

I see that as being entirely reasonable. Because if I don't see evidence that her priorities aren't in some form of alignment with mine, she's not getting my support, either.

I don't expect her to receive my list of demands and promise to meet every one of them. That's ridiculous. But as of right now, her overall track record and alliances are not what I'm looking for in a candidate. And whatever you may think of Sanders (and it is your right to think whatever you want to think, I have zero interest in trying to sway you), I believe he feels a responsibility to his supporters, and unless he sees something he can believe in, he's not going to encourage them to support her, either.

This is not about being a "team player"...there's too much at stake.

I agree with Sanders.

She's going to have to earn my vote.

Or not.

But he stopped short of saying he would enthusiastically support Hillary Clinton if she's the Democratic nominee.

"That is totally dependent on what the Clinton platform is and how she responds to the needs of millions of Americans who are sick and tired of establishment politics and establishment economics,"

Hillary did not try to twist Obama's arm in exchange for her support.

in a veiled threat that anything can happen in the Primary.

And didn't concede that he had secured the nomination for a week or two.

And People United Means Action.

This probably isn't the road you want to go down.

At this point, I don't "enthusiastically support" her either.

I don't think she'd have to "twist Bernie's arm" either.

What she said on June 7, 2008 was:

So, three things with that.

1). This happened on June 7 (as others have pointed out), not April 25th.

2). It's support, granted...but "enthusiastic" support for Barack Obama, specifically? I'm not seeing it.

3). "I, I, me, me, me, my, me, me, me." It really is more about Hillary and less about Barack. And I'm not trying to be a smartass here, I really can't see the "enthusiasm." Saying "the Democratic Party is a family, and now it's time to restore the ties that bind us together" is about the Democratic Party, not about Barack Obama.

However you define Sanders "enthusiastically supporting" Clinton...if and when he's called upon to do so...I feel pretty confident he will match or exceed the "enthusiasm" Shown on June 7, 2008.

We probably aren't going to agree on this, and that is OK. I respect your viewpoint as much as I respect my own.

Do you mean like the loyalty oaths that your camp has doggedly demanded for months?

That sort of thing?

compared to any of the other candidates.

We elected her. And be pacified that she is a Democrat.

Ok.

She is not owed anyone's support and Bernie couldn't deliver it even if he wanted to.