Sanders walks back pledge to vote for Hillary Clinton about an hour after saying he would

[Cali_Democrat]

Source: Raw Story

Only hours after telling the hosts of Morning Joe that he would be voting for Hillary Clinton in the November election, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders gave a less definitive answer on CNN to the same question, adding the caveat “in all likelihood.”

Speaking with CNN host Chris Cuomo, Sanders was pressed about not directly endorsing Clinton before being asked about his vote.

“Simply stated, when the day comes in November and Sanders has to cast his vote, to whom does it go, Cuomo asked Sanders.

“In all likelihood, Hillary Clinton,” Sanders replied.

Cuomo asked, “When you say all likelihood, what percentage of error –?” before Sanders cut him off saying, “I don’t want to parse words right now.”

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/sanders-walks-back-pledge-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-about-an-hour-after-saying-he-would/

[CrowCityDem]

1. It would be nice if he could give a straight answer these days.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

45. His answer is his answer. You may not like it - and I have no doubt he'll likely vote for Hillary - but at least he's bein honest.

[wallyworld2]

66. I wish they'd give it a rest.

I wish they'd ask him about the policies he wants in the Democratic platform or something more encouraging.

It's more about the race and still not about the content, not about what Democrats as a whole have to offer

[zonkers]

78. Ha. This crew wants a lemmings blood oath.

It eludes them that life is gray not black and white. If Bernard is so irrelevant why are they so rabid about his total capitulation?

[appalachiablue]

83. +1

[swhisper1]

89. they want him to kiss her feet but dont know he has never been a conformist

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

94. That's what makes Bernie such a special breed of politician.

[zonkers]

96. Well stated. I find him more intriguing and relevant

than ever.

[dlwickham]

111. as opposed to those who want her to kiss his feet?

[swhisper1]

114. I dont want her to kiss his feet, she won, where did you get that?

[zonkers]

123. crickets.

[swhisper1]

151. yeah, I noticed, just blind hate I guess

[dlwickham]

149. there are plenty of people out there that want her to bow down even though she won

have you missed all "what Hillary has to do to get my vote" threads?

and why hasn't Bernie officially conceded? he lost!

[swhisper1]

152. he is fighting for important things now

getting down ticket elected, I dont see anyone else doing that

[dlwickham]

154. you haven't been paying attention then

Hillary has raised millions for the state parties

[swhisper1]

156. that has gone straight back into her campaign. You are not paying attention

[dlwickham]

157. it's going to state parties and the DNC

her campaign has taken some of the money but it's going to benefit ALL Democrats not just the few like Bernie is doing

[Bohemianwriter]

137. At least he won't demand a cushy job...

That will only benefit himself.

If Hillary and her camp does not want a progressive plattform or his support, then she should say so. Hillary is not entitled to Bernie's unconditional support if she gets the nomination in July. Neither is Hillary obliged to give Bernie her unconditional support if he gets the nomination in July. If there are fundamental disagreements policy wise, it would going against ones own principles to support a candidate whose agenda is vastly different than yours.


The super delegates have not cast their votes yet.
Besides, they are still counting votes in Caifornia as far as I know.


Example of irony:

Bernie Sanders wants a progressive plattform come July.

Hillary got a job as SoS (that only benefitted her after 2008)

Yet here we hear all over MSM how selfish Bernie Sanders is. If Hiary was to concede, I wonder what she will ask for in return for her support.

Apparently having a progressive plattform that benefits future generations and working families in general is not as important as getting that big money from large donors.
Tell me if I'm wrong

[dlwickham]

150. you have proof that Hillary demanded the Secretary of State job in exchange for her supporting Obama

[chwaliszewski]

163. If Bohemian did, would you believe it?

[swhisper1]

153. You are correct Bohemian

[SouthernDemLinda]

142. fake-happy-talk

The media corporate whore is just a major distraction from real news, it's all about fake-happy-talk, and asking stupid questions. Not unlike the trolls hired to promote a candidate on the web.

"The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity - much less dissent." - Gore Vidal

[chwaliszewski]

162. +2

[CrowCityDem]

91. He's not. He gave one answer on MSNBC, another on CNN an hour later.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

93. Were Bernie's answers really all that different?

[CrowCityDem]

116. Yes and probably are two different things.

[swhisper1]

98. Give it a rest Crow, we know you love hillary- it isn't a fault you know, you can love who you wish

but to imply Bernie is insincere, is against DU rules

[Bohemianwriter]

136. That can be said about more than one candidate...

Last edited Sat Jun 25, 2016, 05:56 PM - Edit history (1)

But I don't think it applies to Bernie this one.

I would be happy if Hillary started giving straight answers soon.

About how Wall Street is not happy about Elisabeth Warren, and whether she is for or against TPP with a pledge.


Will DNC adopt a progressive plattform (regardless of the outcome in July), or will DNC adopt a corporate friendly plattform as in the 90's?

[SouthernDemLinda]

144. Are you sure you want to go there?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/15/hillary-clinton-gave-the-exact-right-answer-to-explain-her-
The washington Post

Why it’s tough for Hillary Clinton to explain away her flip-flops

By Chris Cillizza October 15, 2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton was ready when CNN's Anderson Cooper questioned at the start of Tuesday night's presidential debate the many changes in positions she has had since she began running for president. "Will you say anything to get elected?" he asked. She responded this way: "Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings — including those of us who run for office — I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world."

That's absolutely the right answer for a politician to give. I've been guided by consistent values and principles but I am also open to new information and, when presented with it, I reassess certain positions on certain issues. I've always wondered why more politicians don't give that answer when confronted with obvious changes in their positions rather than insist they have had the same views on every issue forever. Everyone has evolved in some, way, shape or form on an issue in light of new information and, if someone hadn't, would we really want to elect a person like that president?

That said, I'm not sure Clinton's explanation for her flip-flops will convince her doubters (or even some of her allies). Here's why. 1) In each of her "evolutions" on issues, Clinton has moved from a less popular position within the Democratic base to a more popular one. She went from opposing same-sex marriage to supporting it. (President Obama made the same move.) She went from calling the Trans-Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals in 2012 to opposing it in 2015. In each case, Clinton's decision to change positions seemed to have an obvious political motivation — to shore up her liberal flank as she faces a more serious-than-expected challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Could it be a coincidence that the new information Clinton has acquired in each of these cases led her to take the position shared by the liberal wing of her party? Sure. But as the old saying goes, there are no coincidences in politics. 2) The key to Clinton selling her policy switches hinges on the idea that she is absorbing new information that forces a reevaluation. But it's not entirely clear what exactly the "new" information would be on, say, same-sex marriage — other than polling that showed the public growing more and more comfortable with the idea. And, on her TPP flip-flop, here's how Clinton explained the "new information" that changed her mind:

[swhisper1]

155. we will see if she has changed

[Night Watchman]

2. Way to Not Parse Words, Bernie!

I'm very quickly losing patience with this guy.

[JudyM]

12. Relax. Does it matter that much to you?

[Night Watchman]

16. Check the Thread

I'm not the only one with non-approval of Bernie's behavior.

[swhisper1]

33. and they are all getting silenced

[Arazi]

38. How do you know the removed posts were all disapproving?

Can you see them still?

[msongs]

92. they are being removed.

[Arazi]

95. That's not proof of anything

[swhisper1]

99. yes it is, give it up, I don't want you to embarrass yourself

[Arazi]

100. Lol! That's rich coming from you

[cstanleytech]

121. Chill a bit, there isnt any reason to be insulting.

@swhisper1 actually there are posts from both Pro-Hillary and Pro-Bernie supporters being removed probably because its after the 20th.

[Night Watchman]

46. Vladimir Vladimirovich?

Is that you?

[JudyM]

22. No I'm sure all Hillary's supporters are "losing patience" with him. He can do what he wants after

the way Hillary and DWS treated him, as far as many of his supporters are concerned. Why shouldn't Bernie play it as he wants -- he at least is not breaking rules as today's reported lawsuit alleges that DWS did. Double standard here is patently obvious. I support his doing what he feels is right, despite however many people you feel are lined up here on your side. Hillary has it wrapped up, after all. People claiming they are "losing patience" with him is a haughty, denigrating comment against an exceptional democratic candidate who did a lot to revive our party.

[NJCher]

39. here, here

Cher

[Arazi]

41. +10000 eom

[Night Watchman]

50. Well, I just Thank God

that Sanders supporters have always been kind and respectful when addressing Hillary voters like me.

[ClickClack]

57. You're welcome! ;^) (eom)

[demwing]

80. I'm sure that Hillary supporters have been fair and civil

In all likelihood...

[swhisper1]

101. turn about is fair play, but we firebrands have moved on to more important things like downticket

races, and ya know, it is really fun!!!

[Panich52]

158. Glad you ran across friendly BSers; —>

Those I debated w/, esp once it was clear Bernie was losing, we're often very belligerent. I hope that after convention, sanity prevails and we can get serious about dumping that satrap Trump.

[840high]

63. .that^

[appalachiablue]

85. Very well said, thank you.

[whistler162]

159. SoS Clinton supporters lost patience with him

.0001 milli-seconds after he announced he was running.

[JudyM]

165. LOL, so true.

[roody]

77. Then stop hanging on his every word.

[truthisfreedom]

3. Well that was weird. Did he get some strange news

From California or somewhere?

[swhisper1]

5. nah

[pnwmom]

9. Hillary is still ahead by more than 400K votes in California,

even though the total of all votes left to count -- including Republican, American Independent, and non-affiliated, Green, etc. -- is less than 700,000.

Bernie could win 100% of remaining Dem votes and still lose California.

But he didn't even need California to win the majority of delegates. New Jersey put him over the top.

[Geronimoe]

48. Exit polling was just released

indicating they were tie in CA and some how Hillary ended up with 15% advantage.

[SunSeeker]

82. Exit polls are unreliable. Why do you choose to believe them over the actual vote? nt

[Bohemianwriter]

139. The ones that were counted...

Shall we ignore the ones that has not been counted?

If Exit polls are so unreliable, why even have them?

14 million votes in California.

How many has been counted so far?

2.9 million? 3.9 million?

And where are the 100 000 purged votes in Brooklyn?

(It's a coincidence that so many votes would be discarded right in the precinct of one candidate's HQ)

They just voted to get Britain out of EU a few days ago.

They have already counted all the votes. Every single one of them. With paper trail, and representatives for both parties present.

Why is that such a difficulty in a country that labels itself the beacon of freedom and the "Greatest country on earth"?

As a European and cosmopolitan, I am baffled.

[SunSeeker]

146. As a "European and a cosmopolitan," you should be baffled by the Brexit vote.

England and Wales just cut off their nose to spite their face.

California allows mail-in ballots, which a significant portion of Californians used, many of which dribbled in days after June 7. The ballots are counted by a skeletal crew in each county, unlike the armies of counters you saw on television counting the Brexit vote. They have a month to certify the primary vote result. I imagine the counties see no point in paying people overtime to count votes faster when one candidate is so clearly ahead.

I am not sure what Brooklyn vote conspiracy theory you are on about, but I suggest you familiarize yourself with the new Terms of Service of this site.

[SouthernDemLinda]

147. Really?

The NY Democratic Primary Quiz Election Fraud: Response to Joshua Holland ?
Democratic Primaries 4/26: Exit Poll anomalies (continued)

Richard Charnin
April 27, 2016 (updated May 26)

There were three exit polls yesterday in CT, MD, PA. Sanders exit poll share declined from the poll to the vote in two of the three elections. As usual, the exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote.

The difference between Clinton’s adjusted exit poll and recorded share were:
CT .01%; MD 0.10%; PA -.17%

In 21 of 23 primaries, Sander’s exit poll share exceeded his recorded share.
The probability of this being due to chance:
P = 1 in 30,000 = binomdist(2,23,0.5,true)

In 9 of 23 primaries, Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share by more than the margin of error. The probability of this being due to chance:
P = 1 in 441 million = =1-BINOMDIST( 8,23, 0.025, true)

The pollsters ALWAYS force the unadjusted exit polls to match the recorded vote. Where are the unadjusted exit polls?

[SunSeeker]

161. Sanders lost. By a lot.

If Hillary could fix the vote as you suggest, she would have won in 2008.

Spare me the conspiracy theories. It serves no purpose other than to help Trump. And it is a violation of DU Terms of Service.

[TwilightZone]

102. There were no state-wide exit polls.

Not to mention that you would have a difficult time exit polling mail-in ballots, no?

[pnwmom]

109. There was no exit polling done in CA. And it would have been pointless

because 2/3 of the voting was done by mail before election day.

As it is, the race has tightened. It's a little over 9% now, which fits with some of the pre-election polls.

[OldHippieChick]

4. WTF?

C'mon Bernie. I'm rapidly losing respect.

[bravenak]

6. Oh Good Grief!

[niyad]

8. colour me soooooo not surprised. . .

[eastwestdem]

11. For gods sake...how hard is this choice? We have two polar opposite candidates, who could possibly

be on the fence?

[oberliner]

34. There are other candidates running besides HRC and Trump

Perhaps he is considering one of them? Like Jill Stein, maybe?

[eastwestdem]

51. He's a seasoned politician. He knows that voting for a third party candidate is the same as wasting

your vote.

I know, I know...it sends a message, yadda, yadda...but no one really pays attention to that.

[Orrex]

13. Because, this way, he gets to make the story about him

Funny how that works, no?

[brer cat]

14. Ding, ding.

We have a winner.

[Grassy Knoll]

68. 2 for 1 KFC Coupon

[840high]

64. He's making it what he

wants for America. You should listen.

[Arazi]

79. Gotta keep bashing Bernie eh?

[Orrex]

126. I'm frankly disappointed in him

Last edited Sat Jun 25, 2016, 08:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Either he did this on purpose to get himself him back in the spotlight, or he did it without considering the inevitable impact, in which case shame on him for failing to understand the media at this late stage of his campaign. Maybe it's sincere, in which case shame on him for being unprepared for an obvious and predictable question.

Before anyone accuses me of a false dichotomy, I'd like to hear the other explanations.

Either way, I'm not bashing. I'm disappointed.

[Surya Gayatri]

132. My personal thanks to you, Orrex, for expressing verbatim and better than

I could, exactly how I perceive these media excursions of still-candidate Sanders.

I dare not initiate posts giving similar impressions of his actions, for fear of the alert squad.

Just today, I've had a post hidden for stating the fact that, although Sanders did say he would vote for Clinton, other traditional political courtesies have not yet been extended.

That statement was alerted on and hidden for the offense of "re-fighting the primary".

So, you can understand my reticence. Thanks for giving me a voice.

[Orrex]

135. Glad to do it!

[liberal N proud]

84. And there it is!

[still_one]

87. It sure seems that way.

[Grassy Knoll]

105. It Looks Like The Witch From Jackpine Castle Has Released His Flock

[BlueMTexpat]

133. It does seem that way.

But I for one don't give a fig! Go Hillary!

[tecelote]

15. Keep demonizing Bernie Sanders.

It will really help Hillary in November. Seriously, what could go wrong?

[Sand Rat Expat]

17. Methinks he's holding out for the Indictment Fairy. nt

[SouthernDemLinda]

148. Nixon was running for reelection the whole time watergate was just breaking and no news paper would

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/graham.htm

The Watergate Watershed: A Turning Point for a Nation and a Newspaper

By Katharine Graham
Tuesday, January 28, 1997; Page D01

This article was excerpted from the 1997 book "Personal History" by Katharine Graham, chairman of the executive committee and former publisher of The Washington Post.

On Saturday morning, June 17, 1972, Howard Simons, The Post's managing editor, called to say, "You won't believe what happened last night." He was right. First he told me of a car that crashed into a house where two people had been making love on a sofa and went right out the other side. To top that, he related the fantastic story that five men wearing surgical gloves had been caught breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate office building.

[cstanleytech]

19. WTH? This isnt rocket science, either you are going to vote for her if she is the candidate or not.

[swhisper1]

29. and it is no-one's business

[brush]

44. He made it everyone's business when he first said he would then walked it back.

WTH is up with that? Stop being coy and make up your mind already.

[cstanleytech]

62. Exactly. I honestly would have zero problem if he had said he was still thinking about it when first

asked or even if he had simple said "No." because thats fine as well with me since I dont expect every democrat to vote for her but the wafffing over it thats annoying.

[kacekwl]

70. What difference does it make to you ?

Your candidate is the nominee . Are you worried about his vote or his supporters ?

[brush]

74. Your word should be your bond with Trump looming in the background.

[cstanleytech]

55. That might have worked if the discussion was about him refusing to answer but the topic

isnt about his refusal but about his waffling.

[swhisper1]

88. again, he is entitled to waffle or refuse or evade. It is a personal decision

[cstanleytech]

115. Yes it is but it does cause some people like myself to wonder over his indecisiveness

which btw we are allowed to do if we want regardless of your personal opinion.

[swhisper1]

117. of coarse, if you want to beat a dead horse, go right ahead

[cstanleytech]

118. And have PETA after my scalp? Pass.

[swhisper1]

119. ...

[Eric J in MN]

35. That isn't what Cuomo asked.

Cuomo did NOT say, "If Clinton is the nominee, will you vote for her?"

Cuomo said, "when the day comes in November and Sanders has to cast his vote, to whom does it go?"

There is a tiny chance that she won't be the nominee, hence Sanders said, "In all likelihood, Hillary Clinton."

[840high]

72. Shhh - you're interrupting

all their outrage. Facts don't matter.

[ozone_man]

125. That's my interpretation.

Simple probability and logic.

[awoke_in_2003]

131. I agree

it saddens me that he is doing this.

[sangfroid]

20. Wow.

Hillary fans are losing respect for Bernie? That's just horrible.

[Matthew28]

21. ---

Hillary is going to be the nominee and if you wish to beat Trump. Well, shouldn't we all get behind her? Bernie is attempting to hurt our only chance at keeping that monster out of power.

[sangfroid]

26. That's nice.

nt

[840high]

73. Are you saying she's not

a strong candidate?

[Bohunk68]

122. +1000

[JudyM]

24. I'm shocked, just shocked.

[swhisper1]

30. Oh Jeez, I'm going to faint!

[NJCher]

43. yeah, I know

Really upset my day.




Cher

[sangfroid]

76. Indeed!

I've spent the whole day clutching my pearls!

[Beacool]

23. I just had a post removed.

So, I'll just bide my time.

This too shall pass.......

[RazBerryBeret]

25. makes sense

it's a long way till November, I think he said it pretty plainly.
who know what can happen in 5-6 months.
you can't actually say you are 100% sure you will vote for Hillary in November; what if you're in a tragic car accident? a mass shooting? In the hospital? stuck in another country? What if she is?

I think we, democrats, have bigger things to worry about than one man's words. serious.

[appalachiablue]

90. +1 Use Brain, it's good way to live!

[Bohemianwriter]

138. Being denied access to the polls...

is perhaps the most likely explanation.

When will the issue of voter suppression be disgussed?

[Eric J in MN]

31. If calling Sanders 'a nasty old man' is allowed under DU General Election Rules

...then I'll keep that in mind when I want to criticize Hillary Clinton.

According to that endorsement theory, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chaffee didn't get Senate endorsements because they're nasty old men, and Martin O'Malley wasn't endorsed by his fellow governors because he's a nasty old man.

[NJCher]

47. wow

nasty old man

Ageist much?


Cher

[Eric J in MN]

28. If this smear article against Sanders is allowed under DU General Election Rules

...then I'll bear that in mind the next time I'd like to post a negative article about Hillary Clinton.

[riversedge]

52. Sanders said what he said. Not a smear.

[Eric J in MN]

60. The writer twists a positive statement

..."In all likelihood (I'll vote for) Hillary Clinton" into a negative, as the breaking of a non-existent pledge.

Any negative article I might feel like posting about Hillary Clinton will be more substantive than this anti-Sanders article.

[riversedge]

71. An hour earlier on Morning Joe-Sanders did say YES (to question-will you vote for Hillary).

[Eric J in MN]

81. The question was phrased differently and the answer was phrased differently. NT

NT

[riversedge]

103. His second response was hedged, while his 1st response was a definative YES.

[Eric J in MN]

108. Because the first time he was simply asked if he's voting for HRC.

The second time, Cuomo asked him to picture that day in November and so he thought about the tiny chance that HRC won't be on the ballot.

[riversedge]

112. LOL. Now you are a mind-reader. Bye...

I sense nothing I can say would even come close to satisfying you. Enough. Have a good night.


....“Simply stated, when the day comes in November and Sanders has to cast his vote, to whom does it go, Cuomo asked Sanders.

“In all likelihood, Hillary Clinton,” Sanders replied.

[pnwmom]

113. "In all likelihood" does not mean "Yes, I will." It's the difference

between probable and certain. And this time he chose to do phrase it as only a probability.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

130. I agree with your take Eric... this Bernie bashing should not be allowed.

[TwilightZone]

56. Kind of difficult for it to be a smear when it's based on his own statements.

[Eric J in MN]

65. This article about Obama from a right-wing website quotes Obama.

"Obama Disappointed In British Voters, Hailed Egyptians For Electing Terrorist Sympathizer."

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/24/obama-disappointed-in-british-voters-hailed-egyptians-for-electing-terrorist-sympathizer/#ixzz4CXhziJMO

Note re DU Rules: I'm posting the link as an example of a rotten article, not as a valid article.

[pnwmom]

110. This wasn't a smear. He did leave some wiggle-room in this statement

that he hadn't left in his earlier statement.

[beastie boy]

32. In all ilkelihood he will not be voting for Trump.

He is absolutely, positively, not likely to vote for Trump.

That's reassuring...

[Renew Deal]

36. Weird

[sulphurdunn]

37. All right, this is a pointless, petty thread, just piling on.

If someone posted something like this about Clinton, (and that would be easy enough to do) her supporters would be running around with their hair on fire and their heads exploding, demanding censorship under the new posting rules. It's like they've created a very uncouth double standard that lets Clinton supporters punch without getting punched back. And, I thought civility was supposed to apply to everyone. Silly me.

[hsergott]

40. 72inMi

I think that when 60's hippies (my generation) don't grow up, they forget the story isn't about them...and Bernie hasn't remembered that that generation was the first of the ME generations and the time is past....it's now about US! Did Bernie really join the Democratic Party? I agree with many of his ideas...but sometimes compromise is the way things get done...except if you can compromise and strong arm like LBJ. We don't need a Eugene McCarthy election - that didn't work out so well. Independents can hem and haw about their candidate choice, but a true Democrat gets behind the candidate plain and simple and hopes for good compromises that help everyone.

[Lordquinton]

42. Much ado about nothing

We will all be likely voting for Hillary. If she drops out for whatever reason none of us will. 90% of this thread should be juried under the new rules.

[Eric J in MN]

53. Bingo. NT

NT

[ColesCountyDem]

58. Yes, it should be! n/t

[Curmudgeoness]

106. You are so right. Starting with the OP. nt

[Nye Bevan]

49. Lots of "independents" don't finally make up their minds until much closer to the election (nt)

[riversedge]

54. Stange. just strange.

[Hiraeth]

61. lol

[PoliticalMalcontent]

67. Nothing to see here.

He'll vote for her as there really is no other alternative. Once he says 'I'm voting for her 100%' then nearly all incentive for her to play up whatever liberal planks she may be pushing vanishes.

I don't believe you'll see Sanders help Trump. We are far farrrrr away from the general election. He might as well try to use his shrinking leverage/platform while it still exists.

It's not like Sanders is some sort of beacon who can signal everyone to support 3rd party candidates to spoil Clinton's run to the Whitehouse. He's already made it abundantly clear that Trump cannot be President at any cost. I'd expect that line of reasoning to hold moving forward.

Think big picture, guys.

[David__77]

69. I've got no problem with this.

...

[sangfroid]

75. Goodness!

Jonathon Capehart is on Hardball explaining why Sanders is not a real Democrat because anyone running against the presumptive candidate can't be a Democrat.

Any apologies for the photo kerfuffle? Not so much...

[Eric J in MN]

86. In 2008, I defended Hillary Clinton when she was being criticized on DU for using a conditional.

STEVE KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.

HILLARY CLINTON: Right. Right.

STEVE KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying? Right.

HILLARY CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/03/11/hillary-clinton-60-minutes-and-the-muslim-quest/142844

HRC's use of the phrase "as far as I know" was controversial on DU at the time.

I voted for Obama in the MN Caucus. But I didn't think that phrase of HRC was a big deal and wrote that at DU at the time.

Using a conditional in speech is being more precise. In 2008, HRC didn't know 100% that nobody accusing Obama of being a Muslim had a valid basis. Today, Sanders doesn't know 100% that Clinton will be on the ballot in November.

[Kelvin Mace]

104. Some people can't take "yes" for an answer.

[w4rma]

107. It might have something to do with the Clintonites on the Platform committee shooting down the $15

minimum wage and refusing to denounce the TPP.

[swhisper1]

120. Ya Think???

[Fla Dem]

160. Stop spreading misinformation. $15 wage is in the platform draft. An amendment was what was

voted down. Get your facts right please. There's enough divisiveness without creating false propaganda.

Ellison offered additional amendments designed to strengthen the document’s commitment to a $15 minimum wage and employment guidelines for federal contractors — issues championed by Sanders on the campaign trail. Both were rebuffed by Paul Booth of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, who was named to the committee by Clinton.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/unity-efforts-hit-snag-at-final-meeting-over-democratic-platform/2016/06/24/2919fd06-3a3d-11e6-a254-2b336e293a3c_story.html

June 24, 2016, 09:38 pm
Dems adopt $15 minimum wage in platform draft
By Evelyn Rupert

Democrats' platform drafting committee took a first step toward giving Bernie Sanders a major concession, voting to adopt language in support of a $15 minimum wage.

The committee, which will continue drafting the party's guiding document Saturday, also aligned itself with Sanders's support for progressive ideas such as abolishing the death penalty and expanding Social Security, the Associated Press reported. The minimum wage language adopted echoes a common refrain by Sanders, who has called the current federal minimum of $7.25 a "starvation wage."

The platform also tackles financial reform, calling for "an updated and modernized version of Glass-Steagall."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/284888-dems-adopt-15-minimum-wage-in-draft-platform

[LiberalLovinLug]

124. Good for him, I was getting worried there for a second

He probably got wind of the rejection of his proposal for a 15 an hour wage by the platform committee. His endorsement is not nor should it be, a slam dunk. Its up to Hillary and the leadership to acknowledge almost 50% of Democrats wishes, and start behaving responsibly and fairly. So sorry about the inconvenience that they have to earn Bernie's vote, and his supporters.

[Mike Nelson]

128. Well...

...I take "in all likelihood" as a yes for Hillary. He's also explicitly said yes. Cuomo looking for parsed words. People do the same thing to Hillary all the time... "as far as I know" she said Obama was born in the USA. After seeing the whole interview, that was a "yes" and Hillary was not a "birther." They love to stir up dirt... they should look at the Trump dirt - it doesn't need stirring! It just sits there.

[Eric J in MN]

134. Exactly. The only difference between answering 'yes'

...and answering 'as far as I know' or 'in all likelihood' is that phrasing something with less than 100% certainty is more precise.

[Reter]

129. Unless he means there's a chance she'll get indicted and drop out

So in all likelihood, he's was speaking his feelings.

[SansACause]

141. FFS

I'm glad he's not the nominee.

[yurbud]

143. that's walking back? He's staying in the race formally for leverage until at least the election

He most likely will vote for Hillary, but if he flat out endorsed her now, his leverage would drop to zero.