...maybe next time he won't be running against a presumptive winner and will be heard!

That's one way to read that, sure...

But neither was my first choice.. not that it makes any difference since I am in Iowa.. and my voice ended long ago.. I just walked out of caucus and refused to stay and caucus when we did not reach viability for O'Malley.. I had to take a few weeks off to heal..

But the better person for what is most important to me.. fell that night.. If our environment is compromised .. water shortages etc.. all other issues fall by the wayside.. and he was the voice. with actual plans and not just saying something to get the cheers..

The best person is no longer in the race..

With his intelligence, compassion, depth of knowledge and consistently progressive thought process, and his strong work ethic; he will be a power broker.

I think the position of head of the DNC shouldn't be minimized. I believe he can lead the party down a great path if that opportunity would become available to him.

Or Secretary of Labor.

I truly think he is the perfect person for the job and it is extremely important.

Though for all of those except DNC we have to win the White House.

But I absolutely don't think we've seen the last of him.

First and foremost I think he is the best person for the Presidency.

All of the spots we are mentioning he would be great for. He is a person with great depth.

our Democratic Party and our democracy from the control of the Wealthy. People are literally dying from the gross wealth imbalance in this country. We have the highest infant mortality rate of all modern nations. 16,000,000 American children live in total poverty and another 16,000,000 living in low income homes. 2.5 million children live on the streets. Just how high do these numbers have to get to waken those that are voting for the "tough" candidate and not a candidate that will work to save these children.

Sen Sanders isn't the savior but he represents a movement against the foot on our necks by the Rich and Powerful.

Voting from Clinton is voting for a continuation of the widening wealth gap and growing poverty levels.

As someone who paid closer attention, do you think this was accurate?

And for the record, I am stunned at how the Hillary Machine has basically deprived us of an entire generation of leadership. I truly believe that two factors that gave Bernie the courage to fight her were his age (no fears of future retribution) and the fact the DNC doesn't "own him" (because he self funded his campaigns as an Independent).

That's just my impression of him (and I have been lucky enough to meet him in person). I think that's why he hasn't endorsed, too.

I too wanted to see him in this race, but it didn't happen. He had the best plans for fixing things that I have seen in a long time. I hope that some of his ideas are put into place by whoever does win the nomination.

I do think that we have some great Democrats out there who will step up and run in the future. I will vote for the nominee, whoever that is because we can not afford to have any republican in the WH, let alone Trump or Cruz.

Ralph Reed was definitely right about that

As you say the national consensus seems to be 50/50 between the remaining choices. I honestly didn't have any idea that half of the voters who call themselves Dems are so excited about voting for a candidate (and having a president) with Mrs. Clinton's voting record and seeming ideology. IMO if the party would reject capital punishment and horrible trade deals and war after war after war after war and social security cuts and profit prisons and the war on drugs and mandatory expensive for-profit health insurance, and adopt Medicare and SS expansion on a national basis, our numbers would grow very quickly.

I have voted straight ticket since 1978, and can't do it any more. It's not just Hillary's duplicity and conservative outlook - it's the fact that so many Dems are willing to vote for it, and seem to have no interest in changing it.

I think if a Democrat wins in November, we'll see him in the administration in some capacity....he's too valuable an asset to lay waste. Depending on what happens, I think he'll be back in either 2020 or 2026, so long as he stays clean.

I liked him a lot and I think we would have been served well if he was the nominee. Unfortunately I think he got into the race too late and Sanders stole his thunder as the alternate candidate.

I'm behind Hillary now. Sure she's flawed but I genuinely do like her and think she'll keep us more or less on the pace that President Obama has set. I like Sanders too, but I fear he'd be crucified as a "dirty socialist" in the general, and even if he somehow gets elected he'll face stiff opposition to his policies by just about everyone in Congress (not that he should, mind you.) I do find some of his supporters rather irksome and self-righteous, however, but I won't hold it against him.

I'm sure this wasn't his last dance, though...

be seeing the Governor again, though!

I truly hope (and believe) we haven't seen the last of him.

He endorsed Rep. Chris Van Hollen for the Senate race in Maryland.

I do agree about having a deeper bench, and not just in presidential elections. I hope that one day he becomes the head of the DNC or has a place in the cabinet.

Thaks for this, Recursion.

scared almost all potential competitors off even before the primary formally began.

about including the Bernie supporters for a change? Wouldn't that be more satisfying than trolling for Republican votes by acting more like Ronald Reagan?

Seriously!

Why do we have such a hard time making it comfortable for Populist or Progressive or Leftist leaning people who helped build and maintain Democratic majorities for so many years to be a part of this Party and to work hard for it?

O'Malley was a good candidate. He kind of got swamped with the presumptiveness of clinton and the noise the MSM made around Trump. I do blame the MSM for part of our chaos this year. In the beginning it was Trump Trump Trump. The MSM could not get enough of him. Then they segued over to clinton and now the combo still keeps much awareness of others out of sight. I do not watch anymore. Thank goodness for the internet. And thank goodness for alternative media via the internet.

One was the obvious, that he catch fire, roll up wins, and have a majority of the delegates.

Another possibility was that he make a creditable showing, say 20% of the delegates, while Clinton and Sanders fought each other closely enough that they roughly spit the remainder. With neither having a majority, O'Malley might have been the compromise choice. Clinton people didn't want to nominate an elderly socialist for fear he'd be clobbered in November. Sanders people didn't want to nominate someone as conservative as Clinton. O'Malley was younger, a lifelong Democrat, much closer to Sanders than to Clinton ideologically, and thus not subject to the major objections of either camp.

Anyway, that's how my wistful thoughts go. I still think he'd have a better chance in November than would either of our two leaders.