If you watch the video clip, he has the opportunity to rule it out, and he does not. He does say that he thinks it is a hypothetical that will not happen, but he stops short of saying he'd refuse if it did.

The article also says "Sanders said he would talk about it with her after the convention" but that's not what he said, and in fact, is absurd on its face, since the VP is announced at the convention, so waiting until after would make it too late.

(the consulting fees, speaking fees, and cash paid to the Clinton Foundation).

that Truly need to be Investigated. Like "Nixon 2" we go into an election with Very Flawed Candidates.

Imagine him at lunch with Bibi. Or Maduro, (on going regime change target of Hillary's) trying to convince the Venezuelan to step aside for the elites and kill unions. I just don't see it. Bernie has too much integrity to be that lap dog.

This is "Trade Off's" that Harm ALL of US....

She is a Globalist/NeoCon...Hawkish on Foreign Policy and Free Trader ...what how the TPP/TTIP...fare under Hillary Administration. RAMMED THROUGH....!

No No No

I mean, what issues, specifically? C'mon, sell me on it.

If you mean him giving breaks to bankers foreclosing on mortgages - STILL - ya, ok.

... on every 10,000 of the tenants of the left... that expectation is not rational

"You will enjoy a moral purity and never get anything of what you want... that will bring on dispair"... Obama while at Morehouse just a couple of minutes ago.

"I will take better every time"

God help us if you are doing any kind of public outreach of any sort.

Observing and remarking on failure is not an ad hominum attack.

He asked, you failed to provide a substantive answer (and frankly, I was hoping you would outline castro's policy positions), and instead you trot out really weak stuff that would only convince the already hardcore, which is worthless. This is a failure and remarking on it does not constitute a personal attack as it is not -you- that is the issue but your methods.

The informal fallacy of ad hominem strictly applies to attacking personal traits as opposed to the arguments themselves, or otherwise attacking someone based on their associations. Remarking on failure or poor conduct is not applicable to the fallacy.

FWIW, my educational background is in philosophy.

... an ad hom.

I'm not going to argue against reality

And it was a failure, look at the exchange. This is not an ad hominem attack no matter how much you want it to be the case, because in order for that to be the case and be logically consistent all criticisms regarding poor conduct and failure would then also be considered ad hominem attacks regardless of context. This, of course, would be an absurd standard and render the specific categories that the informal fallacy deals with so broad as to be useless or otherwise make it synonymous with simple criticism.

And really, if you want to trot out informal fallacies to score points your argument of simply pointing to Obama without engaging your interlocutor on specific issues is the informal fallacy of an appeal to belief.

They asked for policy examples.

Frankly, you engaged in the fallacy of appeal to belief.

And then I came in and called you on your failure to sufficiently engage with your interlocutor without an appeal to belief while engaging in sanctimonious moralizing, a death blow to any actual intellectual exchange and damaging to further discussion and the future good will of any third parties observing the dialogue.

That is the context we are dealing with and you are absolutely incorrect, sorry. Next time please engage your interlocutor instead of doing what you did today, for everyone's sake.

I'm not understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that this is just an issue that can be swept under the rug and will not affect Sanders' supporters from rallying to Clinton? I think she is smarter than that. She can't do it, despite all the other favorable Castro may have.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/liberal-activists-launch-campaign-against-hud-secretary-julian-castro-1460497427

A coalition of liberal activist groups launched a campaign Tuesday against Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, questioning his fitness for higher office because they see him as favoring Wall Street firms in HUD’s sales of underwater mortgages.

Mr. Castro, a former mayor of San Antonio, has been widely mentioned as a possible vice presidential pick should Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination—a fact that played prominently in the coalition’s criticism.

“This Wall Street giveaway is either a massive oversight by Secretary Castro or a sign he genuinely believes enriching Wall Street is the key to helping struggling homeowners,” said Kurt Walters of Root Strikers, a nonprofit group that is part of Demand Progress, a grass-roots group. “With Americans searching for leaders they can trust to take on Wall Street, this program is a clear red flag from an official aspiring to become vice president.”

You claimed he's more progressive, so how about a side by side comparison of some actual positions on actual issues?

He's not "more progressive" by any objective yardstick, and I suspect on some level you realize that.

You can say that the only yardstick to define progressivism is guns, fine. Then I'll say it's being committed to ending the drug war and telling the federal government to reconcile federal and state law by descheduling marijuana, and to stop putting pot smokers in prison.

Beyond that, though, "progressivism" is pretty widely held to encompass a whole host of stuff, like a livable minimum wage, environmental protection, commitment against foreign military adventurism, respect for privacy and 1st and 4th amendment issues, etc.



Also, it's ludicrous to say that Sanders is somehow "weak" on guns. The Minute Hillary got in front of audiences in Eastern PA, she immediately began echoing the exact same "respect the second Amendment" stuff you imagine you can slam Sanders for.

... that's the thinking of the privileged.

... we could go on, the point being both of them are going to progress the nation and have their gives and take

Your give is not going to be mine and vise versa...

It's only the privileged who think they can define the level of progressiveness from the person.

That's what's wrong with purity test when it comes to these issues, NO ONE PASSES THEM

NO ONE

I dont know what you mean by bringing up "privilege"; the only privilege I see being asserted here is the privilege to toss off a meaningless assertion and then not have to back it up with actual data.

You came up with one issue, guns, and I still dont see any concrete policy evidence that Castro is preferable on even that to Sanders.

Beyond guns, again, where is Castro on the issue of ending the drug war and descheduling cannabis federally? Where is he on the issue of a livable minimum wage? A single payer health care plan or the meaningful public option we were promised? Foreign military adventurism? The Patriot Act? Privacy, surveillance and the 4th amendment? Fracking? "Abstinence Only" education?

"Purity test"? You claimed that Castro is more progressive than Sanders. More. Again, a word, a word which actually means something.

It's a bogus claim, the reasonable thing to do is acknowledge "okay, he's not"

I mean you can call him whatever you want, but most people who hear that assertion are going to spot it as flat-out fucking goofy.

... of those issues that Sanders is less progressive about as low on the todoom poll.

I thought we were talking about Obama and not Castro...

I'll look up Castros positions but that still doesn't change how the establishment in the DNC has this so pure mentality towards all other progressives who aren't crying about Sanders every utterance

So, take 'er easy.

You haven't detailed a single one.

Instead you're just stringing together a few choice words into semi-formed sentences as if they mean something.

Julian Castro is NOT "more progressive" than Bernie Sanders. He's not. Sorry. End of story.

We are talking THIS century

... immunity against some legal proceedings Clinton wouldn't...

You cannot name a single area where they disagree THIS century.

Hillary has flip flopped all over the place on gun issues. Before attacking Sanders on guns, Clinton was 'Annie Oakley' according to Obama.

Back then, Clinton defended the rights of hunters, opposed sweeping federal legislation (citing the differences between New York and Montana, for example) and expressed the antithesis of today's rhetoric on gun control.

Hillary Clinton's political attacks on Bernie Sanders ignore her previous pro-gun rhetoric and political attacks on Barack Obama.

Is not progressive. It is very right wing.

Like, specific positions on issues. C'mon, make the sale.

translate: Anyone who wants to burn a banker is wall street
???
And does burning bankers come first, or wall street? Chicken/egg?

Whoa, you should delete this

If you don't like people pointing out what your words really mean, then stick to music or something. I'm a musician. It's a hell of a lot easier. But if you want to use words then expect that people will read them according to the rules that most people agree to.

You have a point, but it gets erased. Take a breath and say it again, repeat it to yourself, and ask, does this make sense? I am so guilty of hitting send before taking my own advise. I'd like to find one person who hasn't done the same on time or another. Peace.

I decide to see if I was being unfair to him... I was not. He would destroy this economy...'breaking up the banks could be done relatively quickly'...yeah and the economy tanks and we lose every election for a generation. After watching the interview, I am thankful for the wisdom of Hillary primary voters. I actually voted for Bernie in Ohio (so that does not include me)...I knew he could not win Ohio and thought to move the discourse to the left. I was a fool. He should never be president. He is right about the issues, but his solutions would not work and would destroy the economy. People who live by dreams can not be trusted to make real world decisions.

Unless you are a bank CEO, in which case your pay will go down.

with his political antithesis.

He has to be asked, it's not like he can just tell her that he's her VP. They hate each other, anyway, so it's not likely to happens.

That's why you took the effort to comment

I think this is where the Berniecrats and HC supporters can agree--it's just trying to bring eyeballs, and as usual, try to run the electoral process. It worked for Trump, but it ain't going to work for Dems.

They have always been the "War Channel" to me when Blitzer was enthralled in Poppy Bush's Administration over the Bombs we Reigned over Iraq while he was carefully "secured" in a Hotel for Journalists to Watch and Salivate over the POWER of Bush I and the American People would just Love the FireWorks of the Bombs!

CNN....The War Channel and other Skullduggery they "Claim" to Report on...while Embedded!

to get buried in that dead-end black hole.

We will need him in the Senate to work to stop her failures in judgment - Warren too!

It's a position where you can keep someone quiet. If Clinton manages to pull this off, the only reason to accept a VP position is if you're pretty sure the she will not be in the position (one way or another) for too long. Indictment? Health?

The VP is obligated (like SoS) to do the bidding of the President. A Senator on the other hand can actually fight Presidential bullshit Publicly.

Bernie isn't this stupid.

I hope that Hillary would choose someone qualified enough to be "1-heartbeat-away" ... and still young enough in eight years time to take the reins and continue forward at the end of Hillary's two terms.

to be "1-heartbeat-away," as you so charmingly put it.

hope you enjoyed that

the bridge has been burnt

She'd never ask him.

He doesn't bring anything to the table.

His 15 minutes are almost up and then
it's back to being a senator that nobody pays any attention to.

but he brings very real liabilities as well.

The process will play itself out. I don't believe she will pick him, but we'll see. The VP running mate often plays the role of "attack dog" and SBS could fill that role rather well I think. But again, I think she will look elsewhere.

Either way, if they can work it out, I expect he will have a significant role going forward. Too much is at stake for him not to, and he knows this.

leave the door open to running as an independent in November. jmho.

He won't.

but if it happens I can live with it.

Whatcha Got? He's the longest standing Progressive Candidate we Dems have Ever Had....
He is Doing GREAT... Not a Wash Out...he's sticking to his Principles and In It to the Convention and Afterwards.

We on the Left of the Dems are Very Proud of Bernie Sanders! "Against all Odds" ...he has Moved us Forward with both Hillary and Trump "Talking His Talk" to have a CHANCE of being Elected.

It has been fun to watch both Hillary and "The Donald" scramble to take Bernie's Message and Use it as Their Own!

She must have been vetting Bernie.

Even then she thought this was locked up.

imho.

and yet he's still willing to serve as her VP?

How very principled of him.

Yeah, that's the way it'll work.

This is just my opinion but somebody must have gotten the word that the "Bernie or Bust" movement has some serious legs. And know that both Clinton and the DNC Dems (if not the party itself) are dead in November WITHOUT Sanders supporters and this is one of (many) of those ways to pull them in. Ii don't think it's gonna work but....

He would make a terrible vice-president. At this point, he has poisoned the Senate well and may have to retire.

HE will be needed in the senate more than ever if Clinton pulls this off to counter her chicken-hawk neocon nature.