Whoever gets nominated should pick a running mate who was neutral or backed the runner-up.

[Ken Burch]

It would be wrong to fill both places on the ticket from the same side. Unity means partnership.

[RandySF]

1. I agree

O'Malley would be a great choice.

[Peacetrain]

33. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Could not agree more

[Hortensis]

77. We ARE on the same side!!!

Bernie's ideas aren't new, they're old liberal ideas. Hillary's ideas aren't new, they're old liberal ideas. They are very similar, Bernie just promised to go farther, faster along the same ideological track.

[Garrett78]

2. I think the main considerations will be as follows:

-diversity, age, geography, charisma, what skeletons may lurk in the closet

And both the POTUS and VPOTUS nominees need to be on the same page, as it would be problematic if their stump speeches contradicted one another.

Julian Castro has been talked about as a possibility, but he says he hasn't been vetted by the Clinton campaign and that he won't be chosen. Anyway, he could be a good choice because he's relatively young, he's Latino, he's from Texas, etc.

Sherrod Brown is from a key swing state, but he's 63 and white and may not jibe with Clinton.

I'll be very curious to see who her campaign chooses, but a relatively young person of color (ideally from a swing state) would be my guess. And probably a male.

[Tortmaster]

11. I like Secretary Castro for the job. He has all of the skills ...

... necessary, is a wicked debater, and when you get him, you also get his bulldog attack twin brother. Now those are some pretty awesome Castro Brothers! I think Castro would bring an immense amount of energy to the ticket.

[Garrett78]

17. It's certainly still possible he'll be the choice, but he clearly doesn't think he will be.

I'm hoping Clinton doesn't make a play for the white male vote by picking someone such as Mark Warner. Systemic racism needs to be front and center, and the base needs to be energized.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511906129

[JRLeft]

18. It makes sense adding a young Third Way democrat to run with and older Third Way democrat.

[Tortmaster]

20. I know. It does make sense.

Republicans are very afraid of a Castro pick. Secretary Clinton has said that Texas is in play this year, and the best and quickest way to put the hammer down in that state? Secretary Julian Castro and Member of Congress Joaquin Castro.

By the way, Pre-K for 22,000 four-year olds in San Antonio, a path to college for San Antonio rising seniors, setting up non-profit-only pools to sell distressed mortgages at HUD, hundreds of millions earmarked by HUD to assist the Homeless, and Immigration Reform with a full path to Citizenship is so Third Way, some people might think you have no idea what you're talking about.

[JRLeft]

21. His record as HUD Secretary should scare the entire country.

[Tortmaster]

22. Should scare Republicans.

I've actually looked at it. I'm guessing you have not.

[Ken Burch]

39. There was next to nothing progressive in it.

I don't think he even tried to push for any significant public housing construction.

[Exilednight]

73. she has about as much chance as winning Texas as Trump's does of

Winning the Democratic nomination in 2020.

It's not in play. We have one of the most stringent voter ID laws in the country, along with very small blocks of Democratic strongholds.

She would need another 1.2 million votes that just don't exist. All the metropolitan counties already lean Democratic (Bexar, Harris, Dallas) and their surroundings suburbs are way too conservative. It's insane how many people I run into on a daily basis who want Trump to build a wall.

[2cannan]

24. Castro is just more of the same.

Tell Housing Secretary Julian Castro: Stop selling our neighborhoods to Wall Street
http://act.credoaction.com/sign/castro_dasp_housing

It’s almost unbelievable: Instead of strengthening communities, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), led by Secretary Julian Castro, is actually helping Wall Street profit off of the housing crisis.

In the years since the financial crisis, HUD has been slowly selling off the millions of distressed mortgages it insures, most of them belonging to Americans struggling to pay the bills. But because HUD auctions them off to the highest bidder, more than 98 percent have been snatched up by hedge funds and banks who promptly foreclose, flip the properties, or convert them to rental properties and jack up the rent.1

In other words, Wall Street created the foreclosure crisis, and now it is profiting off the mess it made by snatching up foreclosed homes at bargain rates – with a huge helping hand from HUD.

[Tortmaster]

32. What you are posting are lies.

About a year before that bullshit attack hoax came out Secretary Castro had already set up Non-Profit only pools for buying distressed mortgages. He put out internet materials, and he put out a webinar helping Non-Profits learn how to purchase distressed mortgages.

Moreover, Non-Profits can bid on any of the mortgage lots.

Secretary Castro also forced distressed mortgage purchasers to wait at least a year before foreclosing, and they were forced to jump through a bunch of HUD hoops to foreclose.

There have already been two Non-Profit only sales of mortgages. Secretary Castro got all of this done after about a year of assuming the position. Check this link where I document all of the assertions I made here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/05/11/1521680/-Dear-Markos-I-Believe-You-Are-Wrong-About-Secretary-Julian-Castro-Let-Me-Explain

What you have provided are lies to form a bullshit Rovian-style attack. I wish that Democrats, before they attacked other Democrats, did their fucking homework. It's all there on the HUD website.

An unfortunate side-effect of the Sanders campaign has been the rise of Conspiracy Theory and merit-less and bullshit attacks on exemplary Democrats.

[Hortensis]

78. Castro is a liberal sacrificed on a hard rock.

With Congress in Republican hands, how was Castro supposed to what he is blamed for not doing? Congress legislates and controls the pursestrings, and Congress is controlled by conservatives.

Activists should be angry that "government" allowed profiteers to maneuver gullible people into dangerous waters, and for allowing the housing "bubble" at all, but Hispanic activists are screwing themselves out of a good man to make their current point that somehow foreclosed homes should be somehow made available to their previous owners again. Somehow. Like giving them to interested nonprofits who'd make it all right--except that there are effectively none.

AND on the dime of an America of which roughly the conservative half are not just against it but jumping up and down screaming "no!!!" That half includes a lot of Hispanics, btw.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. Brown is a Senator from a state with a Republican governor

That's not an outright disqualification, but I'd much rather have someone who wasn't.

[Garrett78]

72. I'd rather it not be Brown, but I think him being from Ohio is a plus.

If Clinton wins either Ohio or Florida, there's virtually no chance she won't reach 270. Republican governor or not, I think Brown would help Clinton take Ohio.

But an old white guy is not who I'd like to see on the ticket.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

75. But holding the senate also matters. N.T.

[NanceGreggs]

3. We're all supposed to be ...

... on the "same side".

Unity means being on the same side, and not continuing the idea that there are still "sides" that have to be negotiated with.

[Ken Burch]

5. The way to win is to treat this as a partnership, a blending, a sharing.

I don't approve of any situations where the winning side in a situation like this says "we won, you lost, now you just have to fall in line&quot I don't even approve of that when candidates I support do it after winning a nomination(most of them don't, as far as i can see).

I'm not calling on anyone to beg and scrape...just to recognize that the best of the ideas both campaigns stand for have strong support and should be fused together after Philly.

No reason what I'm saying here should make you feel distrust.

[NanceGreggs]

6. I would like you to think something ...

... over very carefully, Ken.

Let’s imagine BS and HRC in each other’s position right now. Bernie has the majority of delegates and votes, and is heading into the Convention as the clear winner. In our hypothetical scenario, he also has as many SDs as Hillary does right now.

What do you think the reaction would be if HRC supporters started claiming that “their side” should be represented on Bernie’s ticket? What do you think the reaction would be if HRC supporters were saying that Bernie owes it to “their side” to include Hillary’s ideas going forward for the sake of “unity”?

Let’s not pretend that had Bernie won the nomination, his supporters would be gracious in their win, or would even consider the notion that HRC supporters deserved anything.

That’s not the way it should be. But that is the way it is.

[Ken Burch]

14. I'd support and fight for the idea of someone from the HRC side as running mate in that scenario.

Especially if it was a woman of color.

I suspect I wouldn't be alone in that on my side.

We would be working on the assumption that we need the votes of HRC supporters to win, and reach out to you and those like you. I'd be one of those pushing hardest for that approach.

(Obama did just that with HRC after 2008, in fact. That's why, in my view, every DNC chair since Obama was elected has been a person with ties to the Clintons and why HRC became SoS.

I know how it's usually done in this party. I also know that, most of the time, the way it IS done doesn't work for us.

It's time to switch from the way it is to the way it should be.

The best thing your candidate can do(if she is nominated), to improve her chances in the fall, is to make sure that the Sanders supporters(especially the young, whose support we desperately need to solidify behind this party in order to make a long-term progressive realignment happen)leave Philly feeling like their efforts have been validated, that their ideals and their concerns are going to be a major part of the mix in this party for years to come.

I'm talking about the idealists here, not the "bros&quot most of whom are clearly right-wing infiltrators). I don't like the bros any more than you do. I'm talking about the millions of people who have been brought into politics for the first time(or back into it after years of disillusionment). Reaching out to the best of these people doesn't mean HRC giving up anything that you like about here. it simply means creating a fall campaign and a long-term agenda that includes the best of what we ALL stand for-one that brings together the victims of hate AND the victims of greed in a campaign and movement fighting for justice for all.

Is that such a terrible idea?

[NanceGreggs]

34. As I said to you in a recent exchange ...

... these young, idealistic new voters that Bernie allegedly attracted to the Party were strictly for his own benefit. He wanted them to vote for HIM, not be drawn to the Party. He has told them that the Democratic Party is corrupt, that he has been treated unfairly by them, that primary contests were “rigged” in HRC’s favour, that “The Establishment” Dems were doing everything in their power to ensure he didn’t win.

He set up a self-fulfilling prophecy: If I win, I will save the Party and fulfill your dreams. If I lose, it will be because the Party PTB saw to it that I wouldn’t. He told them that HRC was “unqualified” to be POTUS; he told them that she was the “lesser of two evils” if it came down to her and Trump in the GE.

Those “young idealists” have already been schooled by Bernie to believe that only HE has their interests at heart, that only HE can deliver what their idealism calls for. And now that he’s lost, his prophecy is fulfilled: The corrupt Democratic party chose to shut out the good guy who’s on their side, and instead ensured – through nefarious means – that the evil Establishment candidate would prevail.

Bernie has spent his entire campaign preaching to his “young idealists” about how corrupt and manipulative the Democrats are, how they have done everything possible to keep HIM – the self-described ONE truly honest candidate – from winning the nomination.

How do we keep these people engaged? Well, the first step is undoing the damage Bernie has done – if that’s even possible now. Thanks to Bernie’s self-serving rhetoric, a lot of them will never see the Democratic Party as anything other than the evil cabal that Bernie told them it was, and the fact of his losing is the “proof” that a good man like him will never be accepted by the Party.

[Ken Burch]

38. Bernie didn't do any real damage.

It's the way politics has been "done" in this country since 1980(maybe since 1968)that has done that.

Bernie didn't create any feelings that didn't already exist in the wider body politic.

It's not as if, had Bernie only stayed out of this race, or got out after Super Tuesday, all the people who have rallied to his standard would have fought for any of the things they have fought for.

It's not as if none of them would have questioned the status quo.

It's not as if none of them would have believed change was possible.

It's not as if there was any way HRC, on the platform she was running on prior to Bernie's entrance(a platform that was much more conservative and much less popular than the one she supports now) could ever have won over the kind of people who were inspired by Occupy and who want this party and this country to be different.

Bernie didn't cause any of that.

Simple reality caused all of that. It happened because it couldn't have not happened.

HRC knew all along that her militarism(you can't call her foreign policy views anything else but that if you are intellectually honest-she still buys into "American exceptionalism", a worldview that can't be anything but conservatism)and her ties to corporate power would make her a tough sell among a lot of progressives. There was and is a massive demand for a candidate who is not a hawk and is not connected to Wall Street. Are you really saying that Bernie should simply have treated the conservative parts of HRC as if they didn't matter? It's not as though her eagerness to use force and her easygoing attitude towards concentration of wealth are considered her strong suits by the electorate. Even a lot of her supporters are uncomfortable with those traits.

HRC had eight years to work out a way to present herself and the aspects of herself that were going to be problematic with most progressives, and simply chose, for most of that time, not to deal with that. Bernie can hardly be blamed for that.

I'll grant you that your candidate is ahead and is more likely, at this point, to be nominated than Bernie.

And as I've repeatedly said, I'll campaign hard for her in the fall and work to persuade others who backed Bernie to support her.

What I'm saying in this exchange is...make it easy for me and others like me to do that work.

Encourage HRC to do that, too.

She should reach back to the era when SHE was an idealist. When SHE marched against war, racism, and poverty. When she called for real change. And she should welcome the passion of a new generation in carrying on those fights.

I'm not saying she should do anything here that would do her any harm or make her look weak.

I'm saying be creative, listen to what is being said, be in tune with what is really happening, and embrace the best of it.

And before you say it again, yes, I know that when you and I started out, we had to spend a lot of time being looked down on by our elders and being told to shut up and know our place. That doesn't mean people our age have to do that to the new generation. That wasn't tradition. It was a cycle of abuse. We should never have been subjected to it. And we should be better than those who did that to us and break that cycle.

We can win and win big in November...the way to do that is to bring everybody in that we CAN bring in. Not to settle scores and place blame.

Power to the positive.

[NanceGreggs]

40. The way it's been done?

”It's the way politics has been "done" in this country since 1980 (maybe since 1968) that has done that.”

Not true, Ken. The “way it’s been done” in a Democratic primary is that candidates differentiate themselves from each other – not from the Party. They talk about what changes they’d like to see within the Party, and how they plan to initiate and fulfill those changes. They DO NOT talk about how the Party they’re allegedly running for is evil, corrupt, and “out to get them” because they’re the only honest guy in the room.

What has happened in this primary has been despicable. Bernie has demeaned the Party at every opportunity, has questioned the integrity of its members, and has promoted the idea that the Democrats have “rigged” this primary process from day one.

I have NEVER seen a Democratic candidate in ANY previous primary continually whine about long-standing rules and procedures if they are not to HIS specific advantage, while constantly berating the party he is supposedly running for.

“She should reach back to the era when SHE was an idealist. When SHE marched against war, racism, and poverty. When she called for real change. And she should welcome the passion of a new generation in carrying on those fights.”

There is no “reaching back” necessary. Hillary still IS that person. But Bernie supporters have promoted the idea from the beginning that she’s not. Apparently, the voters have made up their minds as to who she is – the constant barrage of bullshit from the Bernie corner notwithstanding.

The Bernie supporters have done their best to insist that Hillary is against anything and everything that BS is for. In actual fact, they are quite closely aligned on many major issues.

All of that being said, in the end, HRC presented her case to the electorate, as did Bernie. The voters chose HER to represent them as their candidate in the GE.

It’s that simple. As we turn to the GE, the voters will come to know that Hillary is not against single-payer, is not against making college tuition affordable, is not against the hundreds of things that she has been said to be against by the Bernie contingent.

She IS the nominee. And the fact that BS supporters keep trying to diminish that victory by insisting “it’s not over!” speaks to desperation, and very often an agenda that has little to do with the Democratic Party being united.

[Ken Burch]

41. She is ahead.

That is diminished, however, by the fact that she is ahead, at least in part, because her surrogates have spent months falsely accusing Bernie of not caring about institutional bigotry(or, at the very least, claiming that he sees that as less important than fighting for economic justice-when in truth Bernie has always been equally committed to working against corporate dominance AND against hatred.)

If you want to talk about damage done, with all due respect, you need to condemn that endless series of lies about Bernie's antiracist, antisexist, antihomophobia commitment spread by many of your candidates surrogates-and the insistent, yet totally unjustified claims made by many of those same surrogates that the economic justice and social justice causes are somehow totally separated and we can't defeat bigotry unless we put the cause of economic justice totally and permanently to the side). It would have been one thing to simply say that HRC has the longer relationship with the AA leadership(this is true), but there was NO justification for claiming that Bernie didn't care just as much as she did about fighting and defeating all forms of institutional oppression. Bernie is owed an apology for that(he won't ask for one, but he does deserve it). That line of attack, a line kept up to this very day, was uncalled for.

[NanceGreggs]

66. And so we come full circle, Ken …

… as we invariably do.

It always comes back to poor Bernie and how mean everyone has been to him.

If you think apologies are in order, where is Bernie’s apology for constantly demeaning the Democratic Party – ya know, the one he is allegedly running for? Where is his apology for calling Hillary “unqualified” to be POTUS? Where is his apology for calling HRC the “lesser of two evils” when compared to Trump?

Where is his apology for promoting the idea at every opportunity that the Democrats are “cheating”, and working backroom deals to ensure that he is not the nominee?

Where is Bernie’s apology for whining about the primary rules that HE KNEW were in place, and wouldn’t be changed to accommodate HIM no matter how much he whinged?

Where is Bernie’s apology for the vile things his “supporters” have posted on the FB pages/websites of people like John Lewis, Al Franken, Howard Dean, Gabby Giffords, etc. because they endorsed HRC instead of BS? Apologize? He hasn’t even acknowledged such activity, despite it being written about by journalists and bloggers. One word from Dear Leader, e.g. “This is not the kind of activity I want my campaign to be associated with”, would have gone a long way – but he didn’t even have the backbone to say anything at all.

“If you want to talk about damage done, with all due respect, you need to condemn that endless series of lies about Bernie …”

Yeah, Ken, because there have been absolutely NO lies told about Hillary, right?

As always, it comes down to how mistreated poor Bernie has been – “mistreated” by having to follow primary rules that had been in place long before he ever thought about running, “mistreated” by being expected to NOT continually demean the party that allowed him to run on their ticket, “mistreated” by being expected to raise funds for down-ticket Democrats as he’d agreed to do.

Above all, where is Bernie’s apology to the voters for attempting to have the super-delegates ignore THEIR VOTES and hand him – the clear loser – the nomination?

Poor, poor Bernie. He’s just a victim of endless persecution at the hands of those mean people who see through his flim-flam tactics, his blatant hypocrisy, his empty campaign promises, and his self-serving attempts to convince those “young idealists” he’s allegedly brought to the Party that the Party is full of “corrupt whores” who have conspired against him to “cheat” him out of the nomination that he thinks he deserves – and whether the voters think he deserves it or not is of no concern to him whatsoever.

It’s over – and has been since early March. Bernie can rant and rave about how no one is “allowed” to call HRC the nominee UNTIL HE SAYS SO all he wants. By Tuesday evening, the country and the world will declare Hillary the nominee – and whether Bernie likes that or not is of no consequence to anyone anywhere.

But, hey – he’s already made a fool of himself anyway, so why not go all-in and continue playing the sore-loser jerk from now until November. At this point, it’s not like he has any dignity left to lose.

[Ken Burch]

67. Nance, I am trying to work for unity here. My proposals are about bringing the party together.

It's not possible to get unity by simply demanding that Bernie and his supporters back HRC without getting anything (in terms of the policies and principles they have campaigned for) adopted in exchange for that support. We wouldn't be demanding that of you and those of you who support HRC.

And you can't insist on trying to crush the Sanders campaign and then regain the right to ask its participants to back your candidate. We wouldn't be doing that to your side if the numbers were reversed.

Yes, Bernie has critiqued the party. But so what? Why is that unforgiveable?

Are you really saying that there are no legitimate problems in the Democratic Party? That the system for nominating candidates we have isn't gamed to make sure that the most conservative, establishmentarian candidate we could end up with always gets the nom(even though history shows that going with the least-progressive choice is never the path to anything good)?

Why SHOULD we have had a DNC chair who utterly failed in her obligation to be neutral in the primary process(and who has been a total failure in every other aspect of her job)?

Why SHOULD we have hundreds of superdelegates put in place solely to stop a popular movement for change?

Are you really saying that all of that is ok?

HRC hasn't been lied about.

The areas in which she is conservative have all been accurately described.

Her foreign policy is militarist.

She has never sounded like someone who would only use force in extreme situations when all else has failed.

Instead, she has sounded, over and over again(in an era when war can never have any progressive or humane or in any way positive results). She still sounds as if victory in a war is something people should actually celebrate(rather than simply breathe a sigh of relief that the killing is over for the moment). She gives every impression of still believing in the essentially imperialist notion of "American exceptionalism&quot in other words, it's always ok when WE do it).

She has clearly aligned herself with the rich on economic policy. That's what supporting trade globalization on corporate terms means. That's all it CAN mean.

She has sounded dismissive of activism on every issue other than feminism and, to a much smaller degree, LGBTQ rights. Those two causes are important, and any decent person supports them, but they are also the causes the rich regard as least threatening to their power and privileges. You don't get the feeling that she cares about people fighting outsourcing or those trying to organize unions or fight for the $15 an hour wage. And she comes across as someone who basically thinks antiwar activists should all be arrested.

And, ever since the Nineties, when she started calling people on welfare "deadbeats", it hasn't sounded as if she cared about the poor at all.

I get it that you don't like Bernie as a person, that you think he should never have run...but try to put the person and the personal aside for a moment and think about this:

Are there any proposals Bernie has made that you'd actually oppose having in the platform? Any of his actual ideas that you'd deeply disagree with?

That is what I'm talking about here...blending the spirit of both campaigns in the interest of victory.

That's what I mean by a partnership.

[NanceGreggs]

68. I appreciate that you want to talk about unity …

… but you can’t promote unity while, at the same time, saying something as ludicrous as “HRC hasn't been lied about.” You still want to hold Bernie out as the much-maligned perfect candidate – despite his consistent bashing of the party he is allegedly running for.

“Yes, Bernie has critiqued the party. But so what? Why is that unforgiveable?”

Do you honestly believe that alleging that the Democratic party has been “cheating” and cutting backroom deals to ensure Bernie’s loss of the nomination is a “critique”? Do you think that calling Democrats “corporate whores” is a “critique”? A “critique” of the Party would be, “I think as Democrats, we can do better.” It is NOT: “Democrats are corrupt and shouldn’t be trusted.”

“Why SHOULD we have hundreds of superdelegates put in place solely to stop a popular movement for change?”

Why should Bernie, the clear loser, be appealing to those super-delegates to ignore the voters and hand him the nomination? That’s a question you keep avoiding. If the SDs are such a terrible idea, why is Bernie attempting to use them to his own advantage? Why is he even thinking about overturning the will of the people when his entire campaign has been premised on “the People” having the final say?

“Are there any proposals Bernie has made that you'd actually oppose having in the platform? Any of his actual ideas that you'd deeply disagree with?”

Bernie’s “proposals” are campaign promises that he KNOWS he can never deliver. It’s easy to say let’s have free college educations for those who want it, let’s have single-payer healthcare, let’s have all kind of things he KNOWS will never be approved and implemented by congress. Talk is cheap – especially on the campaign trail. Bernie is just chock-full of “proposals” – as any candidate can be. But holding out such proposals as do-able is a lie, and unless BS is truly stupid, he KNOWS it’s a lie.

You say you want unity – and then you launch into a diatribe about how terrible HRC is, while ignoring what a hypocrite Bernie has been, how he has demeaned the Party at every turn, how he has repeatedly told those “new voters” he’s allegedly brought in that the Democratic Party is a corrupt cabal intent on making sure “good and honest people like Bernie” are never elected.

“That is what I'm talking about here...blending the spirit of both campaigns in the interest of victory.”

Sorry, but no. I do not want the “spirit” of Bernie’s hypocrisy, his self-serving whining, his constant attacks on my Party, or his empty campaign rhetoric being “blended” into Hillary’s campaign as she goes into the GE.

[Ken Burch]

69. I've never said Bernie was perfect. If I had been running his campaign, I'd have run it differently

It's just that I don't accept the argument that he's personally responsible for any and all problems the party may be having at this point.

You seem to want the guy to recant for ever running...and that's not a reasonable request.

BTW, Bernie hasn't "demeaned" the party...he has simply critiqued the way it's run. There's little he has said that millions of long-time Democrats would disagree with in terms of how the party is run.

[NanceGreggs]

70. Right, Ken.

Telling voters that the Democratic Party is full of "corrupt whores" who have conspired to keep an honest guy like Bernie from winning the nomination was merely a "critique".

[Ken Burch]

71. That wasn't Bernie using those words. He repudiated the guy who did...imemediately.

The point that wealthy donors have too much of a say and that the nominating process is set up to block most progressive insurgents from having any real chance(as was done to Jesse Jackson and Dennis Kucinich)is valid. And it genuinely hurts us as a party.

It created the conditions that put Bush in office.

We need to learn from that.

It's time to stop punishing the left wing of the party for 1972. That wasn't all our fault, and the party wouldn't have done better that year if an establishment candidate had been imposed over the insurgent.

[JRLeft]

19. She should pick a corporatist like herself.

[demwing]

4. Nope. Good does not become better through association with bad

We learned this from finger painting as kids. Blue, once mixed with even the tiniest tint of red, never becomes more blue, it is only diminished.

[Skwmom]

7. I still think Biden is who she will pick. She needs the African American vote to be as high as

it can to offset the losses elsewhere and they are really all one big happy family (Clinton - Obama - Biden) because they have the same concept of governing.

Of course the email comment asking if his diplomacy was like GWB and beach volleyball was rather surprising...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3423809/Joe-Biden-s-diplomacy-described-Disney-ride-dips-spins-latest-Clinton-email-release.

[larkrake]

12. Biden wont work with Hill, they are conflicting opposites

you need a partner with strengths where she is weak, not that she will listen to anyone but Bill.

[msongs]

8. losing means your say is considered but not necessarily given value. your idea is crummy IMO nt

[StevieM]

9. I am hoping for Representative Xavier Becerra of California to be Hillary's running mate. (eom)

[Tortmaster]

10. That would leave Secretary Clinton with a choice between ...

... six Democrats, 52 million Republicans and Jill Stein. I don't like your proposal.

On second thought, since Republicans have blown wind in Senator Sanders' sails during this entire campaign, they aren't really neutral.

[Skwmom]

13. Republicans have attacked Bernie while really holding back on Clinton.

[Tortmaster]

15. Snark?

If not, I have four names and an acronym for you: Benghazi, Rove, Fox News, American Crossroads and the NRA.

[Juicy_Bellows]

25. Keeping the powder dry in their biggest, yet unseen, guns.

The nefarious RNC leaders were ready to go in 08 but saved their best material since she didn't get the nod. Once she gets the nomination, the Kracken will be released.

[Lord Magus]

42. Do you really think the Republicans HAVE anything that they haven't already used to hit Hillary?

They've been obsessively smearing her for 25 years already.

[Juicy_Bellows]

43. YES.

Think about it - they had some shit you must admit in 2008. They didn't reveal it because she didn't get the nomination. One thing a classic chess player or a political wonk will do is hold their ace until it is time. These aren't stupid people, they know how to win.

[Lord Magus]

44. The reality is that they've been hitting her with everything they've got for decades now.

The Republicans did not want Hillary to be the nominee this year. That's why they've been going after her so relentlessly. They were trying to knock her out before she could actually face Trump. They've got nothing beyond smears, false innuendo and rehashes of the old phony scandals.

[Juicy_Bellows]

45. I agree but one must admit that the leaders of the opposition are not dumb.

These people are masterminds of political chicanery. Think about it, if you had the holy grail of dirt would you use it prematurely? Hell no, you hold that ace and you wait. Bookmark this, the ace has yet to be played.

[Lord Magus]

46. That assumes they HAVE an ace.

I see no reason to make that assumption.

[Juicy_Bellows]

48. Bookmark it sir - they have more than one.

I guarantee it.

[Lord Magus]

49. And what possible basis do you have for that position? -nt-

[Juicy_Bellows]

50. Well, consider this.

First of all, these people are brilliant. Evil, but brilliant. They know what they are doing and they plat the long con. If I were them I would keep an ace up the sleeve, wouldn't you?

[Lord Magus]

52. Again, that assumes there is any such ace TO keep up their sleeve.

Seeing as they've kept up the same tired smears and phony scandals as always, it strikes me as more likely there just isn't anything more to hit Hillary with.

[Juicy_Bellows]

53. You must admit that Hillary has never received the nomination yet.

That is why it was not revealed - there was not a reason. If you have ever played chess you know that you keep your best shit until you must use it. Again, these people are not dumb.

[Lord Magus]

54. Yes, and?

There is no reason to believe they have anything to reveal. There is no reason to believe anyone has anything to reveal. Is it really so impossible in your eyes that maybe there just isn't any hidden scandal that could be used to attack Hillary?

[Juicy_Bellows]

55. Well we shall see, I never underestimate my enemies and you'd be a damn fool to do so.

Bookmark this post - I'll eat my hat if I am wrong. We will see serious accusations if she gets the nomination.

[Lord Magus]

56. It's not about "underestimating", it's about the fact that they can't have dirt on somebody just by

wanting to have it. The dirt has to actually exist first. Sure, they could just make something up out of whole cloth (wouldn't be the first time) but that hardly counts as an "ace" in the sleeve.

[Juicy_Bellows]

58. They have it. Trust me, they have it.

Why do you underestimate the opposition? If I were running their campaign I'd hold on to the dirtiest shit for when it's needed. These people are not fools.

[Lord Magus]

59. AGAIN you have no reason to believe it's even there to BE had.

The reason they've not brought out anything new to attack her with is that there's nothing new to attack her with. You're overestimating the opposition by assuming they must have dirt on Hillary that doesn't actually exist.

[Juicy_Bellows]

60. Well sir, we shall disagree.

However, if I were part of the RNC you can bet your sweet ass I would keep my powder dry. You act like every thing against her has been aired already - that is foolish.

Again, these people are maniacal - they obsess upon this stuff, they have unseen dirt, mark my words.

[Demsrule86]

16. Hillary will be nominated

And her running mate is her choice...it won't be Bernie.

[Ken Burch]

29. Wasn't even talking about Bernie. I don't think he'd actually WANT the job for himself. n/t.

[Tarc]

23. For fuck's sake, no, a thousand times no. The VP job is not a fucking consolation prize

for the faction that lost the primary. The nominee picks the person who

a) is capable, competent, and trustworthy enough to be the president in case of emergency
b) balances the ticket, e.g. an area expertise and/or geographical influence
c) will be a solid and reliable supporters of the presidential nominee's agenda.

[NurseJackie]

28. This. Exactly. (I'm sick of all the "what-about-meeee" demands and threats.)

[rjsquirrel]

26. You mean Clinton should pick a Bernie supporter?

Because that's who is winning and losing.

I know, Susan Sarandon for VP. She makes Sarah Palin look like Disraeli.

[Ken Burch]

27. Or the other way around if Bernie ends up winning.

In either case, it shouldn't be all from one faction.

[pdsimdars]

30. Maybe she'll choose Jeb. I mean. . . . she should pick someone with her values.

[LWolf]

31. I don't think so.

It would not be a good thing for Bernie to appoint a neo-liberal. I don't think he would do so. I hope not.

I don't want unity with neo-liberals.

[Renew Deal]

36. Is Sherrod Brown a neo-liberal.

[LWolf]

61. I don't know enough about him to say.

I know he's in Ohio? I know he has a reputation as a liberal. That's really all I know at this point.

I'd prefer Sanders pick a woman to be VP.

[Renew Deal]

35. The Sanders camp needs to get over their ego

[asuhornets]

37. Backed the runner-up? No one backed Sanders except one Senator....nt

[Eric J in MN]

51. Nine US Reps support Bernie Sanders.

Keith Ellison, MN
Tulsi Gabbard, HI
Alan Grayson, FL
Raúl Grijalva, AZ
Marcy Kaptur, OH
Dan Lipinski, IL
Collin Peterson, MN
Peter Welch, VT
Rick Nolan, MN

[asuhornets]

62. You believe Clinton should pick one of those you mentioned?

[Eric J in MN]

63. My first choice for VP is Elizabeth Warren

...but I'd also like Keith Ellison, whom I mentioned in that post above.

[Lil Missy]

57. No she shouldn't. She should pick her VP without regard to what the runner-up wants.

People continue to make the mistake of thinking the loser can dictate terms.

[Eric J in MN]

64. It's not a question of what Bernie Sanders wants

...but of what his millions of supporters need to become enthusiastic towards the ticket.

[Lil Missy]

65. Ok. You make a good point. n/t

[HubertHeaver]

74. She needs a Dan Quayle type.

Dan himself could well be available.

[lakeguy]

76. would be a smart move because even though BS will likely come in second,

he got a lot of support. in order to get those votes, putting someone in the VP spot that brings those votes in would help. but i'm not sure that's how the HRC camp thinks. they need to keep getting that corporate support and money, so i'd guess the pick will have to please those campaign funders.

[djean111]

79. Any liberal person Hillary would pick would just be relegated to dinners and funerals.

I believe that the Democratic Party is intent on getting rid of liberals and Progressives.
And I would not vote for Hillary no matter who her VP pick was.

[NCTraveler]

80. That's not how it works and isn't how it should work. Nt

[pdsimdars]

81. Bull! I want Bernie to choose Elizabeth or someone else who is known to be a true PROGRESSIVE

we can count on. Not just one who talks progressive in public but lobbies and votes for conservative principles. Those days need to go.