We can find a balance, so in the spirit of honesty..

[JHan]

Last edited Mon Nov 28, 2016, 06:31 PM - Edit history (3)

..here goes.


an analysis of all the thingzz..

Hillary Herself:

I worried about a Hillary run. Not because I didn't believe she would be a competent, or even great President, but because I knew many people don't *get* her and that she is subversive.Subversive in the sense that she is not your typical charismatic politician. One of the supposedly damaging wikileaks wall street excerpts is her saying she doesn't like promising more than she can deliver - she damned near endeared me to her for life with that - it is rare for a politician to admit that, but throughout her life, Hillary has been a straight shooter, and overtime hides this, learning that there is a price to pay for being blunt, especially if you're a woman. Still she needed to be in I don't give a fuck mode this election, and drop it. Trump got away with it, why not her? Instead she came across as too scripted, too predictable. And this is not who she truly is - I give the DNC and the Clinton Camp a solid "F" for manufacturing her image to the teeth. To Hillary's credit she admitted she was out of touch, and her campaign needed to focus on "Optics". Optics is all fluff but it matters and in August it mattered. Right after the convention, the very last thing Hillary should have contemplated was conventionality. Sure , August is the month when presidential candidates have their fund raisers - but cloistering with private donors with no invitation to the press - this was pure tone-deafness. She needed to ride the wave from the high of the DNC convention and rally hard without waiting for Trump to fuck up.So the overall perception of her was that she was a creature of the donor class, someone who didn't *get* it even though her policies screamed how well she DID get it.

... Hillary's scandals a.k.a a bunch of bullshit.

As much as I admire Hillary's attitude of "fuck it they're gonna attack me anyway" - not everyone appreciates that in a politician. She doesn't handle scandal well, she is not teflon. Benghazi was a Witch Hunt, the Email crap was some overwrought nonsense with as much intrigue as a dead horse, which republicans and their circus monkeys in the media beat to a pulp. Hillary needed to own up to it early on, her first explanations were torturous. She just needed to say "Look I messed up, my bad" - instead, like white water, it became a long drawn year long obsession which needed to be nipped in the bud.

Bernie Himself:

Yes Bernie is part of this tragedy. As I said elsewhere today:

Bernie supporters need to own up to him dividing the party.

There are ways to do things, and ways not to do things - he chose the latter.

If Bernie really wanted to sway Democrats he needed to pay his dues and show loyalty to the party - any organization would demand this including the libertarians and green party.

He needed to join the Dems in 2012, instead of threatening to primary Obama - work on making his case among the rank and file Dems. Ally himself with other progressive groups, work on establishing coalitions. Put a laser focus on recapturing the house, and hone a group of 30 progressives to capture districts held by moderate Republicans or even take the risk and aim for more right leaning districts. He also needed to out-manoeuvre his critics by showing he's serious through sound policy proposals - which would require he make more refined and detailed arguments instead of going on and on about "The billionaire class" The best way to shut down your critics is show you understand their views and predicaments better than they even do, and counter their claims. There were other things he could have done - and of course HRC needed to take all that advice as well.

But Bernie did none of this. He decided he and his cause were more important than the party - this is just a failure of politics on his part. His establishment arguments were slogans, his economic arguments and analogies made no sense didn't add up, especially for someone like me who hungers for detail from politicians. And after the dust was settled, Trump had a smorgasbord of criticisms to aim at HRC and the Dems, courtesy Sanders himself. I am not saying he is a bad man, I'm saying he did not approach this strategically, and unwittingly made it more difficult for Democrats who historically find it tough to recapture the Presidency in an incumbent year.

HOWEVER, I am thankful to Bernie for sparkling life into the party, we now have a grassroots movement we can capitalize on, we just need to be armed to the teeth with better ideas and better solutions and better ARGUMENTS than the republicans are offering. He also made me realise that I shouldn't feel the right has a monopoly on stupid, nutjob conspiracy theorists - I'm looking at you CounterPunch and JPR (or whatever they're called).

The DNC.

It was unnecessary for the DNC to play favorites. Yes, in light of all I just said about Bernie coming in like a wrecking ball, HRC was a strong candidate, a woman who gave her life to the Dems for 30 years of her life so why play favorites - it was bound to look bad , especially to my fellow millennials, who all loved the SEEMING sincerity and honesty of Sanders. It was just unnecessary politricking.

That said, the collusion between SOME in the media and DNC operatives is nothing new - and will continue between members of ALL parties. Nothing with change after this. Politics folks.

EDIT: Frazzled and I engaged on this favoritism argument- check reply #7. I note Eichenwald's piece but maintain perception is reality - even if perception is based on falsehoods ( for the most part)

The Hillary Platform


I have few complaints. She needed to run more jobs ads but overall, few complaints from me. Hillary had a diverse team, a ridiculously inclusive platform. Her utilitarian speech at the DNC convention was her trying to satisfy everyone - what more do you want people? Blood?

Dumbass Media .

that's all I have to say , WaPo you tried your best though.

EDIT: No wait I will say more - Grading the Orange Idiot on a curve, dragging Hillary down to his level because you want a horse race, covering his rallies to the exclusion of other candidates giving policy speeches ( CANDIDATES WHO BOTHERED TO BE COHERENT) , refusing to understand or expend intellectual energy into understanding why the fuck "Goddamn" emails were a thing - I'm looking at you Joe Scarborough for subjecting me to your idiocy all year- I tried to avoid you, but wherever I happened to be on a morning, some establishment would have you and Mica on TV with your nonsense analysis, proving beyond a doubt that there is a divine reason I avoid Cable News Media. And overall failing at being the Fourth Estate, the guardians, the ones to tell us what is bullshit and what is not, and instead opting to react to Trump's foolishness thereby normalizing him instead of dissecting his shit.

Thanks MEDIA for BEING YOU.

*ASSORTED FUCKERIES*

- Russian Fuckeries - How is this not a thing? Why aren't Americans fucking enraged?
- Assange and his fuckery. Where Julian turned Wiki into a Trump super-pac. Wikileaks basically became the NY Post.
- FBI fuckery. Really Comey? REALLY? REALLY???
- Sexist Bullshit

How she pulled off a pop vote in spite of all these assorted fuckeries is miraculous.


VOTERS:

I reserve my greatest anger and frustration with voters.

Yes, sometimes the "people" get the government they deserve.

Dear Voter:

you need to give a fuck about policy, you need to understand the economy, you need to read, and you need to question your own assumptions about the world by subjecting those assumptions to debate and exposing yourself to different views and perspectives.

you need to question and challenge what politicians tell you, even if they seem "nice" and "sincere", and the moment they offer milk and honey IS THE MOMENT YOU GET SUSPICIOUS.

you need to vote strategically. No one survives in politics with clean hands - there is always a story of collusion or a stench of favoritism - the point is STRATEGY. Republican voters understand this, largely because core Republican demographics are staunchly fundamentalist. They understood this year that the Supreme Court was important, that undoing Obama's awful (in their eyes) executive orders was important ( for them) - and some who voted Trump were so focused on God and Guns, they forgot their healthcare coverage could end up being on the line. Meanwhile progressives were caught up in purity politics - we always end up doing this - and many of my peers were consumed with ideas of perfection in a candidate -

---The perfect candidate is a pink tailed UNICORN found at the edge of a rainbow - they don't exist and if they do , they're in a parallel universe. Not even Obama was perfect.

And when Trump's populist economic ideas take root and we suffer the effects, voters need to look themselves in the mirror and blame themselves for their apathy , their complacency and their shortsightedness.

Politicians cannot do everything for you. No one can save you but yourself.

[mike_c]

1. I don't accept the notion that Sanders "split the party...."

Senator Sanders was well on his way to uniting the party, as evidenced by the huge crowds of democratic party voters he attracted even while the DNC was colluding with the Clinton machine to derail his candidacy. It was Senator Clinton herself who split the party, aided by Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. The notion that it was somehow "her turn" to be president, and the DNC's insistence on pushing that narrative in the face of Senator Sander's success and appeal to voters split the party. I suspect that split will persist for years.

[JHan]

2. You're welcomed to not accepting it..

but it happened. And there's blame to go around for that - I maintain there's a way to do things and a way not to do things. It wasn't just the DNC establishment that were put off - *I* was put off as well.

And at the time I was *not* a HRC supporter.

[LisaL]

18. He lost the primary. He got over it. Some of his voters didn't.

[mike_c]

19. to be fair, the corrupt DNC chairperson had her thumb on the scale....

Senator Clinton was the establishment insider who curried the most favor with super delegates, who are also party establishment insiders. In a straight up primary without insider corruption, Sanders would have won, and I have no doubt that he would have CRUSHED Trump. The democratic party subverted its own primaries to anoint Clinton because it was somehow "her turn." Plainly and simply, they ran the wrong candidate for the times. American voters desperately wanted a populist, not an establishment insider. Sanders would have won an easy victory. "Some of his voters" were never going to accept an establishment insider. Dems should have considered that bit of electoral calculus before the convention.

[JHan]

22. Why didn't Sanders move like Obama in 2008? Oh right, Obama prepared himself..

How did Obama curry favor with those same delegates?

And we do not know what would have been if Sanders ran, that's an exercise in sophistry. Sanders was un-vetted, and Hillary used none of the opp research on him.

[mike_c]

24. yeah well, one thing we do know with certainty...

...is that Sanders was not the candidate who lost the GE. Lots of us foretold precisely this outcome: a Clinton candidacy means a Trump presidency. So sure, there is some uncertainty about whether he would have won, although I personally believe he would have won handily. But one thing there is no uncertainty about is that Senator Clinton was demonstrably a poor choice to run against a republican populist in the GE.

[sfwriter]

29. Bingo!

The difference between Clinton and Sanders to lead was night and day. Sanders was just saying what an awful LOT of people wanted to hear.

[emulatorloo]

28. I recommend you take a look at Kurt Eichenwald's post mortem in Newsweek

The article is well-researched and doesn't take very long to read.

We all want to see the party refocus, get back to its roots and become strong and relevant again.

IMHO our best path to making that happen is to start off fact based rather than myth bound.

THE MYTHS DEMOCRATS SWALLOWED THAT COST THEM THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
BY KURT EICHENWALD ON 11/14/16

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

1. The Myth of the All-Powerful Democratic National Committee

2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump

[mike_c]

30. I've read it...

...and if Eichenwald is to be believed then the best one can say is that NEITHER Senator Sanders nor Senator Clinton should have been the party's nominee, Sanders because Eichenwald believes he could not defeat Mr. Trump and Clinton because, well, she proved demonstrably that she could not beat Mr. Trump, at least not decisively. Eichenwald is so disaffected with American voters who supported Senator Sanders that he feverishly works to obscure the truth that Senator Clinton was the wrong candidate at the wrong time by wailing about Bernie-bros and conspiracy theories.

Sure, no one can say for certain that Senator Sanders would have defeated Trump, although I do believe he would have done so handily. But what we can say with absolute certainty is that Senator Clinton was the wrong candidate during an election when Americans desperately wanted to elect a populist, not an establishment insider.

Frankly, I also dispute some of the arguments Eichenwald offers, like his suggestion that the DNC played little role in the anointing of Clinton because it was somehow "her turn" to be president. I think that's rubbish. Note too that Senator Clinton immediately rewarded Wasserman-Schultz when she stepped down from the chair of the DNC amidst a scandal about its favoritism toward the Clinton campaign. Wasserman-Schultz is the biggest villain in this whole affair, IMO.

[emulatorloo]

33. No, he's disaffected with BoB's. As you know most Bernie primary supporters aren't BoB's

and did indeed vote for HRC.

He specifically addresses Bernie or Busters and third party voters, not Sanders primary voters/supporters.

I can't fault him for being disaffected with BoB's, as I am sure you are as well at least on some level. Bernie primary supporter here, and I am disaffected w BoB's.

[jmg257]

3. I think you really underestimate just how many/much people disliked Hillary, and it wasn't all from

Benghazi or email, though obviously those didn't help. The last minute Comey thing served well to pile onto what many already thought.

Many of those opposed would likely take issue with identifying her as "a straight shooter", so there was enough dislike that so many people would prefer trump.

Ugh!!

[JHan]

8. Agreed, also sexism.

Hillary faced a deluge of sexist shit this year. As a young woman I'm still hurt over it - yes hurt.

[JHan]

10. I didn't like Comey's stunts back in July or whenever and I didn't appreciate two weeks before..

The election.

He persisted in interjecting himself. I didn't need to know his personal views of how Hillary handled sending her emails from the wrong server - and why wasn't this faux scandal framed in the context of the awful set up at our Government departments where communication is concerned? State Officials regularly look like idiots when using their devices - Hillary opted for convenience. and pragmatism.

And the APA needs to add HillaryHate to their list of psychotic disorders.

[jmg257]

13. Agreed...he chose to inject himself is a great way to put it.

[heaven05]

4. I agree on everything

our ass whipping spelled out concisely.

[frazzled]

5. In what way did the DNC favor Hillary?

Kurt Eichenwald debunked that myth quite effectively in his post-election Newsweek piece.

The Myth of the All-Powerful Democratic National Committee

Easily the most ridiculous argument this year was that the DNC was some sort of monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against the will of “the people.” This was immensely popular with the Bernie-or-Busters, those who declared themselves unwilling to vote for Clinton under any circumstances because the Democratic primary had been rigged (and how many of these people laughed when Trump started moaning about election rigging?). ...

Start with this: The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very little power. It is composed of the chair and vice chair of the Democratic parties of each state, along with over 200 members elected by Democrats. What it does is fundraise, organize the Democratic National Convention and put together the party platform. It handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the party’s nominee is selected. ...

The first big criticism this year was that the DNC had sponsored “only” six debates between Clinton and Bernie Sanders in some sort of conspiracy to impede the Vermont senator. This rage was built on ignorance: The DNC at first announced it would sponsor six debates in 2016, just as it had in 2008 and 2004. ... Still, in the face of rage by Sanders supporters, the number of DNC-sponsored debates went up to nine—more than have been held in almost 30 years. Plans for a 10th one, scheduled for May 24, were abandoned after it became mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the nomination.

Notice that these were only DNC-sponsored debates. There were also 13 forums, sponsored by other organizations. So that’s 22 debates and forums, of which 14 were only for two candidates, Clinton and Sanders. Compare that with 2008: there were 17 debates and forums with between six and eight candidates; only six with two candidates, less than half the number in 2016.

Next, the infamous hack of DNC emails that “proved” the organization had its thumb on the scale for Clinton. Perhaps nothing has been more frustrating for people in the politics business to address, because the conspiracy is based on ignorance. Almost every email that set off the “rigged” accusations was from May 2016. (One was in late April; I’ll address that below.) Even in the most ridiculous of dream worlds, Sanders could not have possibly won the nomination after May 3—at that point, he needed 984 more pledged delegates, but there were only 933 available in the remaining contests. ...

Sanders voters proclaimed that superdelegates, elected officials and party regulars who controlled thousands of votes, could flip their support and instead vote for the candidate with the fewest votes. In other words, they wanted the party to overthrow the will of the majority of voters.

More at: http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

Bernie Sanders was treated with kid gloves and all the respect due any candidate, and rules were not changed with respect to any recent Democratic primaries. Do you believe the RNC favored Donald Trump among its 16 candidates?

[JHan]

7. I agree with him on the basic facts but there was the appearance of favoritism..

Again , optics. I hate that word and what it represents but it was a thing this year.

And it doesn't excuse the whining from many in the Sander's camp which was totally uncalled for - fact is he remained competitive because of caucuses but there's more than enough blame to go around - (the blame not necessarily evenly weighted)

I hope I'm making sense..

[frazzled]

9. Can you explain what you mean by "appearance"

I have to admit, I don't understand it at all, given the facts. There were allegations by the Sanders camp of favoritism, which as we have seen, don't bear out. If allegations are tantamount to appearances, then we are truly living in the counterfactual era.

What specific things constituted an "appearance" of favoritism?

[JHan]

12. I mostly gathered it from people's perception of it .. whether true or not..

Remember perception is reality...

And then the wikileaks dump: which was all just politics but confirmed that suspicion in people's minds.

the Debate Question ( not unusual ....)
and all the other things.

This whole year Optics ruled

[frazzled]

14. Yet all those things you mention have been debunked as provably false

The Wikileaks dumped contained only emails (save one from late April) that occurred after Bernie Sanders had absolutely no electoral path to the nomination. Nothing was said while he was legitimately running.

The debates were as many--nay, more--than there were in 2008.

So people's perceptions were based on falsehoods promulgated by the Sanders camp about unfair behavior. And you're saying that the perceptions about that are attributable to the DNC? No, you should have included the allegation in your paragraph about the damage from the Sanders candidacy. And yes, it had a huge effect. Clinton would indubitably have won had all the "can't vote for either candidate" or "voted for a third party" voted for Clinton.

False perceptions are still false, and should not be used as reasons to denigrate the falsely accused.

[JHan]

15. I agree ...no arguments from me.

Falsehoods ruled supreme ( I'll edit my post, I should mention that)

[Qutzupalotl]

11. Donna Brazile fed at least one debate question on Flint to Hillary.

That was monumentally stupid and unnecessary. The Republicans used it against us when it came to light, and they were right to do so. I'd have used it against them if the situation were reversed.

[guillaumeb]

6. Recommended. Very well written, and I agree with much of your analysis.

But much is not all. And I feel that your analysis of Sanders was a bit off.

Sanders, in my view, represents the farthest left current of the Democratic Party. He represents millions of what I consider to be natural Democratic voters who felt ignored in a DLC version of the Democratic Party.

And that left wing current of natural Democratic voters must either be ignored or their concerns must be addressed. It was the DLC type Democrats who engineered the ACA, saying that single payer was not an option. One can argue the motivation of such Democrats, but the fact is that it was Democrats who decided that the single payer option was off the table. The fact is that the ACA, for all the GOP lies about a government takeover, represents an affirmation that healthcare must be provided via for-profit insurance companies.

All in all, an excellent post JHan.

Guillaume

[JHan]

17. thanks :)

[suston96]

16. Very thoughtful and well written........

Thanks for the effort.

[JCanete]

20. Dude, his economics didn't add up for you. And I'm pretty sure Sanders

understands the realities of the entrenchment of the democratic establishment better than you explain here. People who think you can change things from within by somehow getting the very insiders to turn against the mechanisms that put them there is either naive or disingenuous. The appeal had to be made to the members of the party at large.

There is not a move Sanders could have made if it generated enough noise to be heard that you would have actually been happy with. You don't agree with his diagnosis or his solutions, so anything that reached people's ears would have been either selling fantasy in your mind or undermining a united democratic party.

People who criticize Sanders from running within the primary system as a "faux dem" are really buying their own bullshit or just pedaling it, because there are only two alternatives to that. Don't run at all. Lets have our coronation all fucking ready! Or run as a third party candidate. Can you imagine the vitriol had he done the latter?

[JHan]

21. I'm not a dude.

" the realities of the entrenchment of the democratic establishment better than you explain here. People who think you can change things from within by somehow getting the very insiders to turn against the mechanisms that put them there is either naive or disingenuous. The appeal had to be made to the members of the party at large. "

No he doesn't. His recent proposal to implement some sort of law to prevent businesses from setting up part of their business abroad is him not understanding the economy. Thinking protectionism should be a thing in 2016 is him not understanding the economy. and I can go on and on.

"There is not a move Sanders could have made if it generated enough noise to be heard that you would have actually been happy with. You don't agree with his diagnosis or his solutions, so anything that reached people's ears would have been either selling fantasy in your mind or undermining a united democratic party. " -

Why question my motives? Address my concerns - deal with the points. It doesn't matter if I am a HRC supporter or a Sander's skeptic or vice versa - riddle me this: Was Sander's approach optimal and politically sound? The result clearly shows it was not.

"There is not a move Sanders could have made if it generated enough noise to be heard that you would have actually been happy with. You don't agree with his diagnosis or his solutions, so anything that reached people's ears would have been either selling fantasy in your mind or undermining a united democratic party. "

- A Democrat is someone who has dedicated their lives to the Democratic party, how on earth are you surprised there would be those skeptical of Sander's intent?

[JCanete]

23. Sorry about the "dude" thing. I'm not questioning your motives, I'm saying that I think that

there's a good chance that anyway Sanders could have actually had an impact on party direction would have been worthy of criticism, because given your own perspective on these issues, no influence he could have had would have actually been good for the party's direction.

From my perspective, your prescription is the most ideal to you, because ultimately it would have meant we would never have even heard about this old dude, and he would have largely gone unheeded in the Senate and Washington because we are talking about trying to influence insiders who actually work with lobbyists in order to keep their seats. Do you actually see that working out?

And because you don't see the issues Sanders is focusing on as important, you take his part as a net negative. The most damning thing to Clinton is that she was the one running but you want to give Sanders credit for her loss. And what I mean by that is far less that she was vulnerable to the criticisms that Sanders levied, and far more that she was already a damaged liability. People don't usually get the nod from the establishment when they have been so bloodied, even if the damage was unfairly incurred as most of it was by Clinton. We retire people for far less. Insisting on running with all that baggage was truly the height of hubris.

I reject that Sanders had a net negative impact. I reject that he lost us this election, but I have never been so hopeful about the possibility of politicians running for office and getting popular financial support while actually telling the truth about our system. I have never been so hopeful about the potential direction of the democratic party as I am now either. Was I destroyed election night? Fuck yes I was. Devastated. But I think we can do better than 3rd way politics and actually win elections with them.

As to your criticisms about Sanders' actual economics plans, I find the discussion a good one, and maybe in its own thread, would be worth digging into again.

[JHan]

27. Oh I think it's worth discussing though..

I think we should have discussed all these things whole year -----

Unfortunately this was not a policy driven election cycle - and this pained me in the worst way. We're in 2016, we're on the brink literally - we can't afford to fuck up. And messages and ideas were just floated about this year and not challenged.

I'll give you an example of how myopic the criticism of the DNC was ----

Take the Debate Questions. The issue there for me wasn't that Donna Brazile got some questions. Although to be honest, my eyes rolled back so hard in my head when there was such a fuss about it I saw my brain. Because this happens all the time. We don't hear about it though. And the faux outrage from CNN was pretty rich. Political Operatives and Media have a mutually beneficial relationship. A you-scratch-my-back-i-scratch-yours deal. I organize an interview with my candidate, you give me something in return. The media delights in this because their correspondents get dibs on leaks and interviews. And a question about water pollution during the debates in flint? If that was the best Donna could do?..

So the issue there isn't Donna, but how to reform our debate formats. Get them out of the control of news corporations because the debates are a waste of time. The Commander's Forum this year? A waste of time. The debates have always been more about performance than substance. And we then confuse performance with competence. And we suffer the consequences and become more disenchanted with the political process when he need to engage in it with persistence and fortitude. We forget we have power.

Everyone was focused on Donna herself instead of the power structure involved, the system of debates where candidates have too much say in what gets asked, and other conditions. Why don't other groups handle these debates - where the feet of presidential hopefuls are really held to the fire!

[JCanete]

35. Brazile's granted, minor bias towards a candidate hardly turned the primaries. It is simply

indicative of an establishment mindset that didn't actually want or appreciate a spirited debate on issues, especially issues to do with corporate influence and campaign finance.

Of course the corporate media sucks horribly, but as vague and tepid as Clinton was on running on issues during the primary, you think the DNC establishment doesn't like it that way too? There are things our politicians should be asked but almost never are, because both parties live in glass houses, and those houses are owned by the people asking the questions.

[radius777]

25. Sanders is an alt-left whiner.

If he couldn't beat the wimpy Dem party and milquetoast Debbie Wasserman Schultz, how was he going to beat the GOP/KGB/Trump/Stone/Comey slime machine? And Hillary would've won easily with all of that aside from Comey, which shifted the race at the last moment.

All political parties, large and small, have an establishment that favors itself. No challenger should ever expect complete fairness, this is how life works, you need to knock out the champion/establishment to win.

The past two Dem presidents (Bill, Obama) both were outsiders who overcame their party establishment to win the nom and the presidency.

Sanders had no appeal to the the (actual) base of the modern (Clinton/Obama) Dem party, who are PoC, women, immigrants, registered Dems, moderates, metro/diverse areas, etc - all of which Hillary won in droves all over the country.

Sanders was effectively eliminated on March 15th, and only hung around due to the caucuses in homogenous states, that are highly dominated by alt-left activist types, not rank-and-file Democrats.

His failure to concede then, and instead ramp up damaging attacks on Hillary, weakened her (especially with millennials) and gave ammo to Trump, that he would use in the general election.

[Red Oak]

26. JHan - thank you for the honest introspection

You and I would disagree over some of the points, but the larger picture is that we need to start the dialogue to understand what happened, and you had the courage to do that.

Well done!

Thank you.

[JHan]

31. Thanks Red Oak :)

[JHan]

32. Those were my reservations as well (though whiner is a bit cruel ;) )

[ms liberty]

34. You said...

"He needed to join the Dems in 2012, instead of threatening to primary Obama..."
Yea, that never happened; Bernie never threatened to primary Obama. He took a question on The Thom Hartmann Show from a caller who was unhappy with Obama's policies and wanted to know what he and others could do to bring about change. In his answer he named several ways individuals and/or democrats could do that, one of which was that someone could primary Obama. He did not offer himself up as a potential candidate.
I've been following Bernie in the House and Senate since the 90's, and the Bernie I have observed from then up to the present has little resemblance to your description.