I just hope she doesn't drag too many actual good down ticket Democrats with her.

Exactly right. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. The difference between she and Bernie: she set out her conditions behjind closed doors privately because they were self-centered, Bernie has simply reiterated what the average person says and wants -- and he's done it openly for everyone to see and judge. Can't criticize that except those who would say "it hurts the party." Note that they say hurt when in actuality it's change.

yes, you are directly saying he broke the law (it is illegal to promise jobs for support). You are calling our first black President a criminal. Shame on you.

Not that I hold that against him but it seems hypocritical that he's against legalization of marijuana.
As far as SOS goes, DDD don't worry I'm sure it was all on a nod and a wink basis.

and not appearing to be all in for Obama would destroy any chance any time in the future. (As it was she stayed away from the Senate for over a month after she conceded she lost - something that has been kind of wiped from memory)

I suspect that it was after Obama won that she was given the Secretary of State position likely to remove her as a potential other source of power in the Democratic party -- and to align her interests with his through reelection in 2012. I would not be surprised if that also included a tacit acceptance of her as the next nominee.

The final votes were cast on June 3. She returned to the Senate on June 24.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/clinton.senate/index.html?eref=rss_latest

If you want to get more technical, she released word that she would be suspending her campaign on June 4 and she formally suspended her campaign on June 7.

She then missed two votes on June 25th -- one on preventing foreclosures and one on FISA -- both big deal bills.

Link for foreclosures: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00157

link for FISA: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00158


The point is that she needed time to deal with having lost and took it. I would imagine it was utterly devastating.

I agree that the poster was correct that she did return earlier than a month. I was going by memory of watching various bills being voted on and some speeches on CSPAN -- and remembering that there were people here concerned because she was not there.

The point is that she did not turn on a dime from seeking the President to returning to her role as Senator from NY. Not to mention, that was when there were no more contests. The same patience should be given Sanders -- when there are still more contests -- even if all reasonable estimates since NY have been that it went from a long shot to nearly impossible. (It is still mathematically possible for Sanders to win -- he theoretically could win every remaining state by 85% -- though that is completely unlikely. )

It was premature that people were demanding that he essentially endorse HRC while he is still fighting to win states. It is true that it is not as close as 2008, but it is far earlier than it was when HRC conceded in 2008. Why not let the last states vote.

Remember that every night when HRC votes, she gets good coverage - cheered by supporters, happy with victory. Why is it not better to have a small number of those days.

They do keep tabs on this stuff and arrange their schedules accordingly.

When not running for office, most aim for near 100% voting records.

It's what she does.

She accepted after he persisted in his efforts to bring her on board.

Hillary said that what weighed on her was that she thought about how she would have felt if the roles had been reversed and she had won the presidency. That convinced her to answer the president's call to service.

and I'm sure you got the SoS job based on your mastery of diplomacy

n/t

She is winning. Why should she adopt the positions of the loser?

Boo-ring.

distaste it leaves in voters mouths.

she needs more than just the Democrats that support her in the primary. She'll get many of Sanders supporters who are true to "the Party," but not the Millennials or the Independents that support Sanders or the long time Democrats who feel that the Party has been compromised so much that it doesn't speak for them any more.

Superdelegates? Popular vote? No - that would be Hillary winning all those. And that's not going to change with the Acela primaries today. Yes, she's winning and you claiming otherwise just makes you look like either a sore loser or completely out of touch.

we all know the what she wants is Sanders donor lists and for that she needs to pay something, give on something. Obama did not need Clinton's donor list, so there is that. We are not talking about going over and saying everyone vote for Hilary, no this is a money transaction.

One of Bernie supporters plainly and simply said she wasn't winning. I pointed out that as far as the nomination numbers go - yes, she is. I have no idea what your referring to at all. Who said she didn't need Sander's supporters in the general? Why do Bernie supporters continually feel the need to shove words into people's mouths?

too bad I can't just move a post.

Perhaps to ensure that a whole lot of people actually WANT to go out and vote for her?
But with that self-entitled "inevitable" its my turn attitude... good luck is all I can say when her base is the 1%, half the Dems don't like her, the Indys don't like her and the republicans hate her.

The transcripts will be release. She's toast.

other than "no we can't" and "cut it out".

How could I forget that position.

that they want to go out and vote for her. She has nearly 3 million more votes than him.

I guess you still think that Berniemath works.

the votes she has will not to be enough to beat Trump. If she gets the nomination which I still sincerely hope she does not, she, and all of her supporters are going to need Bernie people to win the general. So perhaps some civility and compromise would be in order.

As in, you people like to parrot what you think are cutesy things like Berniemath, how would you like it if I were to go around saying stupid made up words like Shillaryite?

if Trump gets the nomination. Exit polls say that 75% of Bernie supporters will vote for Clinton is she gets the nomination.

In 2008, 50% of Clinton supporters said they would vote for McCain rather than Obama. Obama won, and that did not prove out.

Hillary will have more than enough votes to beat Trump, no matter what you whiners do on election day.

I am tired of hearing that we need you. Abusers often say that to their victims. Many times, the victim gets help, stands up to the abuser, or leaves. I am tired of abusive behavior from bernie fans, here and elsewhere. I am standing up and telling you that we don't want or need you. Most of you were never going to vote for ANY Democrat in the first place.

Go back to school and learn some basic math. We will see who is cutsie after the primaries and the general are over.

support Hillary if she adopted some of his views on issues.

He said Hillary was responsible for winning over his supporters.

As much as I like Bernie, he doesn't tell me who I have to support. That's my decision. He knows that and he presented that fact honestly ... Hillary seems to think we own her our support because she's 'winning' ... Hell, Charlie Sheen played that game better than Hillary.

of the moment depending on her audience. Then there are all those losing positions she has already adopted staring with her IWR vote despite all the reasons it was unjustifiable and remains unspinnable:

Reason 1: Iraq did not attack the US; fifteen of the nineteen hijackers as well as Osama bin Laden were Saudis while the other four were from the UAE, Egypt, Yemen. They learned to fly here in the States (Florida, Arizona), not Iraq

Reason 2: Iraq had been under horrific UN sanctions since the first Bush war on Iraq in 1991; so how could it have morphed into an imminent threat to the US in 2002 when IWR was being peddled

Reason 3: W's administration introduced IWR and demanded a vote on it right before the 2002 midterm elections. Wise men and women questioned the timing and the rush, but not those who voted aye... they had their eyes on being POTUS and cast calculating votes that reeked of political and moral cowardice.

Reason 4: Anyone who was paying attention knew about PNAC and therefore knew how the Bush cabal and Carlyle group had their eyes on carving up Iraq's oil fields. Clinton sure knew because the signers of PNAC policy papers wrote Bill seeking pre-emptive action while he was POTUS.

Reason 5: the Bush cabal STOLE the White House in 2000 because they had their PNAC plans. Then, they ignored all the warnings/chatter leading up to 9/11 including the August 6th PDB. They allege they were blindsided and could not have foreseen such an attack. But that flies in the face of the fact that the airspace had to be closed around the G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy in July 2001 precisely because of terrorists' threats to fly planes into buildings! So therefore, why would any sentient 'leader' of the opposition party trust or "have good faith" in ANYTHING proposed by W

Reason 6: Anyone who knew history, knew that Reagan sold WMDs to Saddam/Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war (recall the photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand). So when Cheney took to the airwaves in 2002 talking about WMDs and said he knew where they were and how they'd been used against the Kurds, he was telling the truth... about 1988. He was using his dirty past to foment a new war for oil

Reason 7: the Bush cabal withdrew the weapons inspectors because they were not finding anything. Scott Ritter (who was smeared) and his fellow inspectors' findings would not/did not conform to the desired Bush narrative, so Colin Bowel sold his soul and did his 'tube' presentation to the UN

Reason 8: Citing the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, Robert Byrd gave an eloquent and passionate speech about lies that lead to war, about the waste of war, about the unintended consequences of war... and he challenged the rush to war. Bob Graham (who actually read the documents available to Congress) and Ted Kennedy spoke as well. Why didn't HRC listen to them rather than Bush or Cheney? No, she gave Bush bipartisan cover with her aye vote, and so she has blood on her hands, too!

Clearly the rationale for IWR was all a LIE, and if millions of citizens could see all this THEN, why not Clinton?! She voted aye, ran for POTUS in 2008 and lost in large measure because of that vote. Votes have consequences and there is no apology large enough to cover a cowardly, finger-in-the-wind vote that has caused so much death, debt, destruction and destabilization (ISIS)!

As NY Senator she also voted for the Patriot Acts 1 & 2 and the Bankruptcy Bill, such winning positions among the people.

What winners her SOS regime changes were. The one in Honduras led many men, women and children -- some alone and as young as 5 -- to flee the disaster that nation subsequently became. Same with Libya and Syria. HRC, the consummate pro-MIC corporatist, never saw a war she didn't like. Also at State, she was the arms dealer extraordinaire selling weapons all over the Middle East, especially to Saudi Arabia (again, home of bin laden and most of the 9/11 hijackers) while the Saudis and other recipients donated to that slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation.

Then there's the winning Clinton legacy (the two for one, the 8 years of reflected experience derived from Bill). She helped found the DLC and fully supported: NAFTA, the Telecommunications Bill of 1996, Welfare Reform (not), and overturning Glass-Steagall. She and Bill kept Alan Greenspan at the Fed, placed the then Mr. Goldman Sucks himself Robert Reuben as head of Treasury and hired as financial advisor that abominable Wall Streeter Larry Summers (who as University president lost a $1.8 billion from Harvard's endowment!). This Clinton triumvirate wrecked the economy for main street, but saved Wall Street, especially Goldman-Sachs which has subsequently paid her handsomely. And as DUer tularetom once said: "They didn't pay her that kind of money because of her oratorical skills, her charismatic personality or her insight into current events. She has none of the first two and very little of the third."

I guess her support for: TPP, Keystone XL Pipeline, for profit Prisons, Monsanto poisoning the earth with glyphosphate, fracking... are all winners too. What a legacy of winning policies!

HRC is winning because of name recognition (Bill's coattails), crooked DNC-DWS machinations, big media support, coin tosses, Brock ops, voter disenfranchisement (by any means), and voter ignorance of the above, only partial list of her awful record.

93% of the time. She had nearly 3 million more votes than him.

Most of your post is unsupported by facts, it is only smear. Too bad, so sad.

only explanation. She can't release the transcripts so she has no choice. She went all-in. I wish her well.

She disgusts me. NO WAY will I vote Third way ever.

a few things about human nature.

for the campaign. Any debate between her and Rump should be interesting, to see which one dislocates their shoulder first while patting themselves on the back.

Ask not what Hillary can do for you; ask what you can do for Hillary.

about President Obama - even counting how many times he says it during speeches. How interesting you use the EXACT same argument about Hillary.

Just the asshole freepers which is why I find it interesting that Bernie supporters use the exact same argument. I'm very much looking forward to the day the nominee is picked and we don't have to put up with this stupid shit anymore.

So sick of this shit and will be glad when Hillary is the nominee. The problem is I suspect the sour grapes will continue.

She better hope nobody makes a comparison between how she is treating Bernie and his supporters this year and how Obama treated her and her supporters in 2008.

But I keep forgetting, it's all about her.

She just came out and advised all Sanders supporters she doesn't give a flying fuck what they think or what they stand for. She expects them to fall in line because she writes a D after her name, in very light pencil.

The GE may as well be held in the middle of the bridge she has set on fire.

She apparently seems confident that she can lock up the GE without Sanders's supporters.

Like I've been saying all along, the loser does not dictate terms to the winner. it makes no sense for her to adopt Bernie's platform or pieces of it now, his vision lost.

take her chances, but with her record she simply cannot afford to.

because none of the Bernie supporters seem able to answer a simple question - how did the REPUBLICAN woman who screwed up the NY purge know - six months ago - just which entire buildings and blocks would be voting for Bernie in Brooklyn? Hillary took every single borough in NYC by a wide margin. The FACTS show that Hillary was hurt by the purge, not Bernie. Now your turn - answer the simple question and show one iota of evidence the purge hurt Bernie because I have the numbers that prove it hurt Hillary.

Clintons and their high drama, take no prisoners approach to politics is just too Bonnie and Clyde for me...and that's assuming I set aside the fact they are again under Justice investigation and lying to boot. Plus they are Corporatists. Third Way. DLC. Not FDR. Not Union. Hell, not even Labor.

She hasn't just not earned my vote, she's lost it.

If the delegates do not seat the proper nominee, I cannot vote for a nominee or will have to look at what all my options even are. At this point, the party risks embarassing me to the point I leave. That's not a threat. That's not anything but my feelings. My politics. My own pride is worth more than hers is to her apparently.

I have no evidence so I'll just spout bullshit.

to not hold my feelings for Bernie supporters against the candidate.

I hate to break this to you but your opinion of me is completely meaningless. You throw out charges with ZERO evidence and expect to be taken seriously. Not by me. Not even a little.

in this very thread. I asked for evidence that Bernie was hurt by the purge (I have plenty that it was Hillary that was hurt) and I'll quote your answer - "I literally don't even want to further discuss it". This was less than an hour ago. Memory problems?

I asked for a charge I threw out that you dispute. Do you have one or not? Your non-answer/pivot won't work with me.

Your CHARGE was that Hillary did some kind of "robbery" of Bernie vote. I asked for evidence that Bernie was hurt by the purge and you've got NOTHING, ZIP, NADA, BUPKIS. Do you use a different definition of dispute than the rest of the English speaking world? That's not a pivot - that's a direct argument. And I'll keep this up all day if you like but you don't get to say I haven't disputed you when it's there for EVERYONE to see.

The question was: Name one charge I threw out that you dispute. Do you have one? I will read your post after we answer the question. I will only do one subject at a time so we don't get lost or pivot off-topic.

Your CHARGE was that there was some kind of robbery. Hillary cleaned up in every single borough but your CHARGE is that without the purge, Bernie would have won Brooklyn. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? When I asked for the evidence to back up your CHARGE, you said you didn't want to talk about it. I'll do this all day because it's kind of fun watching you flail about.

posts right here on DU. And I'm not just talking about NY. It was The Great Coast-to-Coast Train Robbery, with irregularities at every virtually every stop. If you take the time to read some of them and digest, you will find the answers within (and I HIGHLY suggest anyone reading this post do just that!). The information is out there for those who seek. Perhaps you aren't seeing the posts because you have them all hidden (your loss). I shouldn't have to repeat stuff that has been discussed ad nauseum. I can't go on with you due to the Hillary/Brock trolls infiltrating DU, but I wish you well. I think the trolls were hired right after Debbie-gate sprung a leak.

NO evidence AND NO links. Imagine my surprise.

and do some reading.

If they're EVERYWHERE, you shouldn't have a problem finding one to post. And don't forget the one I've been asking about since 5AM - the one that proves that what happened in Brooklyn hurt Bernie.

If you had just admitted that over an hour ago, I wouldn't have had to continually embarrass you all over this thread. YOU made the charge, were asked to back it up and have been flailing ever since. It's almost hard to watch. Almost.

You're just vomiting out ridiculous charges with zero proof. The "proper" nominee will be the one with the lead in pledged delegates, superdelegates and the popular vote - not the person whose supporters whine the most. Go ahead and leave and make yourself irrelevant. Nobody is going to beg you.

So she wants to insult Sanders and marginalize those who voted for him?

That is tone deaf, and indicates why she will not be able to handle the negotiations necessary to conduct business with the GOP or anyone else outside of her little box.

All she had to say is "We are still in a primary campaign. I am confident I can earn their support."

Added with:

"I will certainly reach out to Senator Sanders at the end to determine how we can best work together to advance the goals we share our mutual goal of keeping a Republican out of the White House."

To reflect why it sounds reasonable for a man that lost demanding the woman that won adopt his policy to get his endorsement.

But went to work for him.

That's why she has so much support. Sometimes you have to do that.

You have to ask yourself " how can I do the most good for the most people, given the current state of affairs."

Always take the long view, and keep the greater goal in mind.

It is the ONLY issue.

and his supporters reached such a state of panicked desperation that they now see their salvation in the superdelegates. The same suyperdelegates that they derided and ridiculed for months as undemocratic...this was back when they were certain that Sanders would win the majority of pledged delegates.

Now that he is virtually certain not to win the majority of pledged delegates, the Sanders camp wants the supers to bail him out.

A day which will live in infamy, indeed.

I think she sees Trump or Cruz as her opponent and thinks she has a sure win, so she doesn't even need us Sanders supporters to vote for her. Just further evidence that for her, the objective is to become President and any other issues or concerns are sidelined.

The bottom line is she endorsed/nominated him at the convention, helped unify the party and got out of the nominee's way. She has continued to support him since. That's not a small reason why she's winning now, and it didn't hurt Barack Obama's chances either in 2008.

By the same token, Bernie can say pretty much whatever he wants until he endorses (because that's what Hillary did). If he helps unify the party and win in Nov., he'll be seen by most Democrats as a good guy, too.

why do it public when you can get guarantees in private

Dollars and cents conditions. She got the Obama campaign to pay off a giant chunk of her debt. She wasn't holding out for any noble policy agreement, it was $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

And there were minimal ideological differences between Obama and Hillary in 2008 compared to the gap between Hillary and Bernie. Obama and Hillary were and are both Third Way Democrats.

retire millions of dollars of HRC campaign debt by raising funds to pay it off?

If so, I'm guessing that point at least came up when the two talked.

She has the upper hand going into the convention, and would like us to believe it's the only hand.

Or does the runner-up just automatically get the big chair at State?

expect me to just blindly follow her

Lying. Again.

"I am winning,” Clinton said during the town hall moderated by Rachel Maddow. “And I’m winning because of what I stand for and what I’ve done and what my ideas are.”

That says it all right there.

it was a request.

And everyone knows that.