 |
| Click here to play video. |
However back then Hillary did the right thing and not only bowed out, but personally nominated Obama on the convention floor.
THAT is how Democrats end a contentious and hard fought primary.
However this year Sanders is showing no signs of being quite so magnanimous.
Even though there is no path still available for him to win.
Steve Kornacki brought this up with Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver yesterday:
Weaver talked up how superdelegates should be flocking to them like they did to President Obama in 2008. Kornacki pointed out it was because Obama was winning.
He brought up the fact that Donald Trump has publicly indicated he’ll use Sanders’ attacks against Hillary Clinton and just straight-up asked him if he’s “keeping the Democratic party from uniting.”
Weaver insisted “we’re helping the Democratic party” because they’re appealing the groups the party needs to do a better job of reaching out to.
No, they're not helping. Not even a little.
And as Kornacki pointed out they are keeping the wounds open and providing extra ammunition for the Donald Trump in the general.
Michelle Goldberg at Slate also points out the glaring flaw in Bernie Sanders' argument that he is more electable:
I have no idea if Sanders is serious about this superdelegate plan. It might just be a rationale for him to keep fighting until the end of the primaries, garnering delegates that he could leverage to push Clinton and the party leftward at the convention. But if he is serious, then what he is proposing is a presumption based on a falsehood.
The presumption is that there is anything progressive about a plan that asks powerful figures to cast aside an electoral majority built on the choices of women and people of color. The falsehood is that Sanders’ superior electability is, as he asserted on Sunday, “extremely clear.”
It is true, as Sanders pointed out, that polls show him doing better than Clinton against Republicans in November. But it is also true that Clinton has not hit Sanders with a single negative ad. Not one. Initially, her campaign didn’t take him seriously. Later, it couldn’t figure out a way to go after him where he’s weakest—on the flakier parts of his far-left past—without alienating his supporters. A source close to the Clinton campaign tells me that because Sanders has high favorability numbers with Democrats, Clinton would have damaged herself by attacking him, especially since she didn’t have to in order to win. The source points to the New York primary as confirmation of this view, arguing that Sanders hurt himself by going negative on his opponent.
Goldberg then goes on to lay out the steaming piles of opposition research that is just waiting to be flung at Bernie Sanders like chimpanzee excrement at the San Diego Zoo.
It is pretty clear that for a lot of folks the bloom is off the Bernie Sanders' flower and many are now becoming frustrated that he is refusing to read the signs on the wall.
Even over on Reddit, which has been an internet oasis for pro-Bernie folks, there is now a subreddit called "Enough Sanders Spam." And its popularity is rising daily.
Now there are a few folks visiting here who seem to think I am a paid shill for Hillary, but trust me I have not earned a single penny. (There were also claims back in 2008 and 2009 that I was a paid Obama operative. Also false.)
Instead I am a pragmatist, and somebody who wants this country to continue on the progressive path that President Obama worked so tirelessly to put us on.
There is much work still to do, and so many things tragically left undone. But the way to accomplish what needs to be accomplished, like single payer health care, a higher minimum wage, and a complete transition to renewable fuel sources, is to keep our eyes focused on what is achievable and to constantly move forward.
This I think is what Hillary will do as President.
No we do not get the revolution that the young people seem so hungry for, but we do get the progress that will improve their lives immeasurably.
Source http://ift.tt/24nikXA
