Thanks to Hillary we have the most progressive Democratic platform proposal ever.

[KitSileya]

It is obvious that Hillary Clinton cares about marginalized people, and includes their concerns in the platform proposal. She focuses on the Hyde amendment, for example. Her solutions on issues aren't just ban this or ban that, but actually takes the thousands and thousands of people working in those industries into consideration. Sometimes it seems like certain segments of the political spectrum thinks that the only ones working in the fracking industry, the banking industry, on Wall street are the CEOs, not hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who'd be out of a job if things were banned immediately as some want. She got progressive ideas on mass incarceration, immigration, LGBT rights and reproductive rights into the platform proposal.

Isn't it awesome?

[RobertEarl]

1. Thanks to Bernie

He has really helped Hillary evolve.

Now she should ask him to be VP.

[Squinch]

2. Codswallop. And he'd be a terrible VP.

[mcar]

13. I see your codswallop

And raise you a piffle.

[Squinch]

61. .

[NastyRiffraff]

128. Good one!

[KitSileya]

5. The Hyde amendment, immigration reform, mass incarceration,

LGBT rights, gun reform, and on and on and on were all hers. From Bernie? adamantly $15 minimum wage instead of a proposal that can actually be passed, and Wall Street as the big bad wolf.

He would be a terrible VP for Hillary. She needs someone who supports her wholeheartedly, like Biden does Obama. It's not like there'll be less discrimination facing her than what Obama faced.

[RobertEarl]

6. No

You have it all wrong. It's Bernie's fault.

And he would make the best VP ever.

[synergie]

83. Indeed Bernie is all wrong, and it's his own fault, he would indeed make the worst VP evah!

Mostly because he still can't accept that he isn't the nominee and isn't going to be.

[Sheepshank]

125. Why would Hillary choose someone who won't support or endorse her over someone like Warren

Who's jumped in with both feet, fired up the conversation and in no uncertain terms has touted Hillary as the best thing for the nation?

[Hekate]

165. +10000

[MaggieD]

12. Agreed - Bernie would be a horrible choice for VP

Thankfully his chances of being asked are exactly zero.

[AgingAmerican]

64. Unless you wanted someone to deliver votes

In which case Bernie is the best possible choice.

[MaggieD]

68. Not necessary

There won't be but a handful of Bernie or busters come Election Day. Not enough to change the outcome. Best that she choose someone who is qualified and who could be a good partner to her administration.

[AgingAmerican]

69. You make zero case for your proclaimation

Apparently the whole thing flies right over your head.

[MaggieD]

72. No, I just don't want to waste my time arguing with you

I think it's self evident that Warren has done whatever Bernie could have. There is no longer any need to cater to the Bernie or busters. They are too few and just aren't going to make much difference.

[LanternWaste]

127. Unlike the objective, peer-reviewed sources you yourself cited in making your allegation, yes?

"you make zero case for your proclaimation (sic)..."

Unlike the objective, peer-reviewed sources you yourself cited in making your allegation, yes? (I like holding others to a higher standard than I hold myself to as well-- it's simple and ethically convenient)

[AgingAmerican]

130. The 'case' being that he "would be a horrible choice for vp"

No case made. Just a declaration.

[synergie]

85. Given that he lost the nomination because of his failure to do such a thing, he's pretty much

a terrible choice and no one except him, Jane, Jeff Weaver, and possibly Nina think otherwise.

[KMOD]

25. Bernie Sanders does not fit Hillary's criteria she

wants in her VP pick.

She has some wonderful candidates to choose from, and I'm sure there are some who aren't even on our radar that are being considered as well.

[leveymg]

54. Eisenhower's tax and antitrust policies were more progressive than Clinton's

You apparently have more adulation than perspective.

[KitSileya]

91. Interesting that my examples weren't economical.

Yours were both about economics. Mine were about bodily autonomy, safety, and discrimination. I think it is fantastic that Clinton is focusing on women's right to choose, gun reform, discrimination etc. You can't cheer about a $15 minimum wage when you can't get a job because you couldn't abort that accidental pregnancy, and now you have no child care, or if you were shot by the police for walking down the sidewalk while being black.

[Ken Burch]

115. If Bernie was nominee, all of those things would STILL be in the platform. He supported all of them

as a presidential candidate.

(Question...if it is unrealistic to try and pass single-payer, how is Hyde Amendment repeal-an idea virtually all Sanders supporters would gladly go along with-any LESS unrealistic? There are a lot of "pro-choice" congressmembers and senators who would never vote to repeal Hyde).

$15 actually ended up in the platform, btw.

As to Bernie being on the ticket...I don't think he even wants to be on the ticket.

Why would you decide to post a thread trash-talking Bernie NOW? The primaries are over, your candidate got the nom, and Bernie has said he will vote for. You are hurting HRC's chances in the fall by doing this. Please self-delete your OP. It helps no one.

[lapucelle]

17. Clinton was there long before Sanders showed up in the party, and she's never bowed to the NRA.

If you don't believe me, look up the platform Clinton ran on in 2008.

Of course, there will always be a cadre that refuses to believe that a woman can do anything without some man pulling the strings. How unfortunate.

[RobertEarl]

21. Clinton is doing fine

I do NOT discriminate on her because she is a woman, as you seem to be doing,

She's doing fine by changing some of her politics in the direction which will make a better difference in our future.

True, long way to go, but as long as Bernie has her ear, I think she'll make even more progress.

[lapucelle]

45. I'm not sure what "discriminate on"

actually means, but I'm pretty sure I'm not doing it to Secretary Clinton.

And I doubt very much that Sanders has her ear. He's burned all his bridges.

[synergie]

86. She's doing fine because she has the more credible policy positions and millions see that

and know her history, which is how they know she didn't change much, or has Bernie affected her in many ways, Bernie doesn't have her ear, she's pretty good about making progress on her own, he's just all about the shouting, not about making much progress.

Perhaps now that HE is being tugged to the progressive and liberal side on several issues, he might actually be inspired to be interested in issues that progressives are demanding attention on, like Hyde, TRAP laws, Guns, etc. etc.

[larkrake]

108. not

[synergie]

153. Your erudite argument does not counter the facts.

[MaggieD]

22. +1

[randome]

28. It takes an extraordinary person to know when to compromise and when to hold fast.

That goes to Clinton. Sanders, for all his good qualities, doesn't seem to understand that. Both Sanders and Clinton are responsible for the Democratic Party platform.

[pnwmom]

32. If you go back to her first speeches well before he declared his candidacy,

you will see that you are wrong. Before he entered the race she was already running as a progressive, not a centrist.

[George Eliot]

47. Clinton disagrees with you. Nothing wrong in centrism but words have meaning.

Columbus, Ohio (CNN)Hillary Clinton confessed Thursday to something liberals have long suspected: being a moderate Democrat.
"You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center," Clinton told the audience at a Women for Hillary event in Ohio. "I plead guilty."
The line is new for Clinton, who spent a large portion of her early campaign casting herself as a liberal fighter who has been progressive for her entire life. To many on the left, those lines never really rang true.

snip

Before Clinton came on stage, Dana Ellis, a digital marketing strategist from the Columbus area, said that while Sanders has captured "the really progressive liberal arm of the party," Clinton's "more centrist Democrats understand that in order to win the White House you have to have a broader appeal."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/hillary-clinton-democrat-progressive/

[pnwmom]

52. Her actual policies place her to the left, not in the center.

But that label won't help her get elected in the general.

[BlueCaliDem]

136. Exactly. And she knows the American people well. eom

[George Eliot]

168. So why unfavorables so high?

[BlueCaliDem]

169. 30 years and tens of millions of dollars of lying Republican propaganda, perhaps?

Because her so-called "high unfavorables" don't show in the enthusiasm PoC and Democrats have for her, nor in the votes she's won. I guess I don't put as much stock in commercial and easily manipulated polls and pollsters as you do.

[Beausoir]

70. Nope. The junior senator lost in a landslide and

he holds no sway over my Democratic party.

[synergie]

82. Bernie doesn't know or care about Hyde or a great many other things, he's done

nothing to help anyone "evolve", he just demands credit for moving Hillary to where she has already been for decades on many points. She has helped HIM evolve on the gun issue, but he's got a whole lot further to go, which is why he will not be asked to be VP or for much of anything else, he's not so great with actually living up to his promises.

[lunamagica]

90. NO. How could she pick someone who wont even endorse her? Do you know what the role of

the VP candidate is? The VP is a cheerleader for the POTUS candidate. he VP needs to be an enthusiastic supporter of said candidate.

Did you see Sen. Warren with Hillary today? That's how a VP acts. Do you see Sanders in that role? Again, he wont even endorse her.

There's no way he should be, or will be the VP on Hillary's ticket.

[Lucinda]

95. Nonsense. She has held the same positions long before Bernie stepped into the race. n/t

[larkrake]

107. Thanks to Bernie is right, but no VP

[Betty Karlson]

121. The DNC should let him write the entire platform - he's one of the few capable of keeping the party

a) together
b) in power
c) ready for the future (generations)

Not sure if he should be VP. Like Warren, his influence in the senate might be bigger than his influence in the East Wing.

Senate majority leader would be nice though.

[synergie]

161. Um, the voters rejected him, why should he get to write the platform, when the voters

made it pretty clear that they didn't agree with him?

He's kind of been the one that's been threatening the party openly and keeping the party

a) divided
b) in danger of losing power
c) alienated from future generations who are now angry, confused and distrustful of the party as a whole.

I doubt his influence in the Senate will be anything more than it has ever been, he doesn't wish to be a leader, or to work with anyone to actually do the things he claims he wants, and frankly that's what's so concerning about him and his future. It would be great if he could at this late date figure out what he needed to do to be an effective Senator, and learn how to achieve the things he's been talking about.

He's not a leader, he keeps saying so himself, and he's not going to get any plum leadership roles in a party he's so new to and which he's not staying in. (He's filed for his next run as an I and not a D as he proclaimed he'd be.)

Senate Majority Leader is not a reward, it's an actual job that requires a skill set that Bernie himself has never claimed to possess. He would be terrible at working with people and getting them to actually get stuff done.

[LexVegas]

124. Sore, sore, sore.

[Cal33]

132. I think Bernie would be wasted as a V-P. He can do far more for America in the Senate.

[greiner3]

162. wait for it

[pnwmom]

171. He hasn't shown an ability to work with her that would be essential for any VP.

It's hard to imagine a less likely possibility.

[awake]

3. Bernie may have help as well

Just saying

We have a lot of great people in this party and unlike the GOP we do not count on just one person to make all of the calls.

[stonecutter357]

4. K&R!

[Android3.14]

7. Despite the support for the TPP, fracking and Israeli occupation

I'm glad Bernie was able to bring us a pittance.

[ciaobaby]

8. It could have been awesome

If only they had approved the fracking ban language and come out against TPP.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/06/26/transcanada-files-nafta-suit-demanding-more-15-billion-keystone-xl-rejection

More of this and worse with TPP.

[peace13]

9. Failing to ban fracking is a crime against the planet and all that dwell on it.

No matter what party one is!

[ciaobaby]

10. So very true !

[riderinthestorm]

84. +10000 nt

[Kurovski]

133. Yes.

And promoting fracking across the world as Sec of State was...appalling.

[MaggieD]

11. Agreed!

She has spent her entire life fighting these exact battles. It's a bit annoying to listen to folks try to give someone else credit for what she has spent her life advocating and working on.

I think it's because she is a woman, but whatever the reason it strikes me as condescending and patronizing. Perhaps when she is president we can finally stop hearing other people being credited with her platform and ideas.

[lapucelle]

18. Apparently it's too difficult for some to actually look up Clinton's 2008 platform

before they automatically credit her ideas to a man.

And besides, Clinton couldn't have thought up all that hard stuff on her own. She's a girl, silly.

[MaggieD]

20. IKR?

Drives me crazy.

[joshcryer]

14. Clinton has followed the polls.

Not controversial.

[Hiraeth]

15. Oh my god. She is the best!!

[zappaman]

29. Yawn.

OMG is your keyboard broke?


oh my god. aren't they fabulous!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2220931

Oh my god. They hugged!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2221151

oh my god YES. She is is my hero.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2220231

oh my god. I see the light. I love her!! She is fabulous!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2219987

oh my god YES. She is is my hero. K&R
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2219923

never fear. Hillary is here!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7958749

oh my god. isn't it fabulous!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2219893

oh my god. just like HRC and DWS !! aren't they fabulous!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2219835

[Hiraeth]

43. Oh my god. I am ecstatic!!

[zappaman]

56. Oh my god! you're sooooo clever!

[one_voice]

102. uh-huh...

[Hiraeth]

103. feel better now?

[SidDithers]

60. Bit different than the posts prior to the change in TOS, eh?...

Posting privileges before principles.

Sid

[Hiraeth]

101. .

[Squinch]

62. Well... that's pretty creepy...

[Hiraeth]

100. close tabs.

he be keeping.

[Squinch]

138. No, I mean all those posts ridiculing Hillary supporters.

[Hiraeth]

140. you see what you see and I see what I see.

[Squinch]

141. Whatever that's supposed to mean.

[Hiraeth]

142. feel the love.

[Squinch]

143. Feel the ignore.

[Hiraeth]

144. love love love

[JudyM]

106. Yep.

[Hiraeth]

145. love you too

[JudyM]

149. Warm fuzzies.

Backatcha.

[Squinch]

146. Passive aggressive inanity seems to have supplanted impotent rage. I guess it's an improvement.

[zappaman]

148. Lol!

[JudyM]

150. Calling it inanity is generous of you. Active disengagement would be preferable but

once open, the faucet can't seem to be shut off.

[SammyWinstonJack]

172. HA!

[HumanityExperiment]

16. Your 'thanking' the incorrect DEM...

Thanks goes to Bernie

[MaggieD]

19. For what?

[HumanityExperiment]

23. the current DEM platform wouldn't be as progressive if it weren't for Bernie and his influence

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/27/heres-what-bernie-sanders-has-won-in-the-democratic-platform-so-far/

you're welcome!

[MaggieD]

24. The party platform resembles the issues Hillary has fought for her entire career

And does not reflect the more extreme ideas that Bernie advocated. Which is the way it should be since she won (and by quite a large margin).

[HumanityExperiment]

37. You're avoiding the actual historical facts by posting that...

$15 min wage

Glass-Steagall

are examples where facts actually prove your premise wrong

[ismnotwasm]

39. Damn she kicked butt in that debate!

Thank you for the memory!

[HumanityExperiment]

44. and yet my point still stands about the platform and HRC's history on not suppthose platoform issues

n/t

[ismnotwasm]

50. I'm sorry?

I didn't get that out of your post at all. Hillary has a very well defined platform of her own. The two candidates were never that far apart to begin with in practical terms, the platform was managed quite well between to two camps.

But it's ok.

[HumanityExperiment]

63. it's not ok... the platform battle and paying attention to the facts matters...

they are far apart on the issues that matter to liberal/progressive ideology, again FACTS

feel free to debate the facts, talking points aren't facts...

[MaggieD]

67. The facts are it's her platform

And it's pretty clear primary voters preferred hers over Bernie's. It's just that simple.

[HumanityExperiment]

71. you're mistaken, yet again... it's the DEM platform

it's just that simple, the fight for liberal/progressive ideology within the context of the platform continues through till convention

[MaggieD]

73. You go with that

Whatever gets you through. No worries.

[HumanityExperiment]

74. Facts...

they get me through and to the truth....

[MaggieD]

78. I didn't see any facts in your post

I just see opinions. Your opinion that the loser of the primary is writing the platform. Okey dokey.

[HumanityExperiment]

87. ahhh...

"We lost some very important fights," Sanders told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union." "We're going to take that fight to Orlando, where the entire committee meets in two weeks. And if we don't succeed there, then we'll certainly take it to the floor of the Democratic convention."...

"Sanders' victories in the platform include a $15-an-hour minimum wage,
efforts to curb "Wall Street greed" and hiking taxes on multi-millionaires.

But it does not line up with Sanders' positions on trade, a carbon tax and a Medicare-for-all single-payer health insurance system. "We have made some good gains," Sanders said. "We have more to do."

Sanders has said he'll support presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and do everything he can to defeat Republican Donald Trump in November. But, pressed about polls that show nearly half of his voters not currently supporting Clinton, Sanders said she'll need to embrace progressive policy positions to win over those supporters."

"In a statement, Sanders said he was "disappointed and dismayed" that representatives of Hillary Clinton and DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schulz rejected the proposal on trade put forth by Sanders appointee Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), despite the fact that the presumed nominee has herself come out against the 12-nation deal."

"Inexplicable" was how Sanders described the move, adding: "It is hard for me to understand why Secretary Clinton’s delegates won’t stand behind Secretary Clinton’s positions in the party’s platform."

[leftofcool]

105. Fact are, the platform has been written. Hillary will run on it and that is that.

[HumanityExperiment]

119. ..until and through convention...

and then 'that is that'...

[larkrake]

110. No way, it is the party platform, far from hers

[lapucelle]

53. You're missing nuance if you don't understand Clinton's position on the minimum wage,

and I'm not sure why you're bringing up Glass Steagall. Hillary wasn't in office when the repeal passed with a veto-proof majority.

And before you conflate Hillary with Bill, let me remind you that they're two different people.

And before you start trashing Bill for signing the repeal, let me remind you that it passed with a veto-proof majority and that Bill got concessions that benefited the working class in exchange for that signature.

And before you start insisting that a principled person would never do such a thing, let me remind you that that's exactly what Sanders did in exchange for his yes vote on the ACA.

[George Eliot]

65. and after all that we got home foreclosures, less wealth, fewer jobs. Thanks.

And then we bailed out the banks.

[HumanityExperiment]

66. 'before you start'...

sorry, but this 'started' with history being made with each 'nuance' vote and position slide to the right...

gramm leach bliley act

commodities futures modernization act of 2000

these policies enacted are the foundation of the cause of '08 crash

you reference 'principle', I refer to political WILL on those principles, Bernie believes in political will, empowering people to rise up and demand reform/change and stand strong for progressive ideology...

I 'insist' that any DEM candidate fight and don't concede because they lack the political will to do the correct thing in the name of liberal/progressive ideology

the STANDARD of leadership to to LEAD in the face of opposition and NOT for political expediency

I'm not trashing, I'm demanding a standard be held to... we as DEMs should ALL demand that our political leaders step up and hold to liberal/progressive ideals

[MaggieD]

76. Bernie voted for the CFMA

Just thought you should know.

[HumanityExperiment]

80. Well let's dig into that 'vote' shall we? Facts matter do they not?

"The present-day tussle between Clinton and Sanders centers on the bill that came out of Born’s fight and LTCM’s collapse, crafted by anti-regulation lawmakers and administration officials.
But in its first incarnation – the measure Sanders voted for in the House, and which only four members of that body opposed – the CFMA was milder. Introduced by then-Rep. Richard Ewing (R-IL) in May of 2000, the bill prevented the CFTC from creating rules for the derivative market but left room for regulators to go after fraudulent uses of derivatives. That was too much wiggle room for potential future regulation of the derivatives market for Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX), who blocked Ewing’s measure from moving through the Senate. Gramm introduced his own more aggressive measure.
Before the two could be reconciled, Congress adjourned for the election season. The infamous recount battle between then-Gov. George W. Bush and then-Vice President Al Gore captured the media’s attention for weeks. With the nation distracted, Gramm, Ewing, and a group of White House advisers hammered out a compromise that favored Gramm’s absolutist prohibitions on regulating Wall Street gambling. He also inserted a provision later known as the “Enron loophole” that prevented regulators from scrutinizing the energy futures contracts that fraudulent Texas investment house relied upon for its swindles.
Then, Gramm attached the new CFMA – unread by almost all of his colleagues, and significantly changed since they had last considered a measure with that title – to an appropriations bill to keep the government funded. Congress approved the spending bill a few days after Gramm slid the new language into it.
Sanders voted in favor of passing Ewing’s original CFMA in October of 2000 and for the appropriations package that included Gramm’s end-around rewrite of it in December of that year. It’s that second vote that helped slam the door on regulations for derivatives. Again, such regulation wouldn’t have prevented the housing bubble, but it could at very least have put a canary in the mine on the elaborate system of interlocking wagers that investors placed on and around that bubble.
But the legislative sleight of hand perpetrated between Sanders’ two votes makes it harder to accuse the Vermont socialist of betraying his core ideals on financial regulation here. Gramm, Ewing, and several Clinton advisers worked together to alter the deal significantly and quietly.
After the 2008 crisis exposed just how wrongheaded the Gramm-Clinton posse of deregulators had been about derivatives, a few key participants in that process have changed their minds. Gary Gensler, a veteran of both Goldman Sachs and the Clinton and Obama administrations, now says that Brooksley Born was right about derivatives all along. Both Greenspan and Levitt – two key Clinton advisers who were vehement about trusting the derivatives market to regulate itself at the time – have each conceded the decision was a mistake.
None of that necessarily makes this an unfair attack from Clinton, however. Sanders, after all, has criticized the former Secretary of State, Senator, and First Lady for a variety of decisions throughout her career in which she went along with a broad consensus among Democrats that later proved disastrously incorrect. The argument is that Clinton’s present-day positions are invalidated by past episodes of poor judgment."

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/02/05/3746742/clinton-sanders-derivatives-regulation/

[MaggieD]

81. He has creative excuses for all his hypocritical votes

Heard them all before. Not going to relitigate the primary. But YOU were the one lecturing about facts a few posts up so I thought I would help you with one.

Fact - Bernie voted for the CFMA.

Have a nice evening.

[HumanityExperiment]

94. ...one...

if 'one' is all you have against a landfill of them on the other side well... them's the facts....

Have a day!

[MissB]

166. "Other side"

We are on the same side. We support the nominee. That isn't Bernie Sanders.

[HumanityExperiment]

167. DEM party and the ideology it began under

that's what we fight for... most DEMs choose to forget this or even try to bury it for individual nominees

[lapucelle]

126. By your reasoning, Sanders should have fought harder and held out for single payer in 2009

rather than vote yes on the ACA.

2009 was the best shot we ever had and probably will ever have at single payer, and Sanders caved. He promised his constituents that he would never vote for the ACA, and then voted for it two days later.

Yes, I know that this is somehow different because it was Sanders who chose expedience over leadership. There always seems to be some convoluted exception when the senator from Vermont is involved.

[HumanityExperiment]

155. ...fought harder...

He did fight, but then again paying attention to the factual details matters... so here they are:

"Sanders, an independent and socialist, said his approach is the only one "which eliminates the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, administrative costs, bureaucracy and profiteering that is engendered by the private insurance companies." His remarks drew handshakes and even a hug or two from Democrats who had filed into the Senate to hear him.
Sanders acknowledged the proposal lacked the votes to pass, and he chose to withdraw it after Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., exercised his prerogative and required Senate clerks to begin reading the 767-page proposal aloud to a nearly empty chamber. After three hours, they were 139 pages into it.
The political theater came as the White House and Senate Democrats sought an agreement with Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., to become the 60th supporter of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul — the number needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.
The Nebraska lawmaker told reporters he was reviewing a proposal to toughen abortion restrictions in the legislation, one of the changes he is seeking. Nelson said the compromise negotiated by anti-abortion Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., involves attempt to separate private and public funds, an approach that in the past failed to sway the Nebraska moderate and Catholic bishops.
Asked whether the new language was satisfactory, Nelson said, "I don't know at this point in time. Constituency groups haven't responded back yet."
Nelson emerged as the lone known holdout among 60 Democrats and independents earlier in the week after Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., forced supporters of the bill to remove a proposed Medicare expansion."


I find it odd that folks here on DU are positioning themselves against a liberal / progressive leader in congress, if you want to disparage the man at least have the decency to use that actual facts when you post your 'points'

You have to ask yourself why other DEMs didn't 'fight harder' to join Bernie in his proposal for single payer when he introduced it

[mountain grammy]

163. Wow, two good posts.. +1 times 2

[leftofcool]

30. Not really!

[HumanityExperiment]

35. absolutely for real...

you're welcome!

[KMOD]

26. K & R

It's very awesome, and very exciting.

[Herman4747]

27. Quite funny. Moreover...

how specifically do you convince voters to believe in the sincerity of any platform Hillary comes up with?

[KMOD]

34. Democratic Primary voters were convinced.

That's why they chose her. The platform reflects everything she has campaigned on.

[Herman4747]

41. Tellingly, though, Independents outnumber Democrats...

...we shall have to see how credible they find your beloved Hillary.

[KMOD]

51. When even sane Republicans are jumping ship,

I'm confident that Independents will vote wisely as well.

[DemonGoddess]

55. So, because Independants who

refuse to join any party, are according to you the majority, they should get a say in the party's platform without belonging TO the party????

That's just not how it works.

[TwilightZone]

77. Not anymore.

Dems have been the largest voting bloc in the country since December.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/party-identification

Gallup is only one poll, and compared to most of the others, it appears to be an outlier. Looking at all of the polls, Dems are the largest voting bloc by a significant margin.

[larkrake]

116. false, since the primaries began, Indies joined up for Bernie and are flocking back to indy

they have no fear of change and are not herd animals (yes, humans are animals).

[Herman4747]

123. One should be looking at NOT ALL POLLS...

but all recent polls.

In which case it may appear roughly equal in counts of poll results; however, the polls with 10,000 or more participants (unlike those with merely 1,000 participants) do indicate that Independents outnumber Democrats.

EVEN MORE IMPORTANT: THOSE WHO CLASSIFY THEMSELVES AS UNDECIDED ARE *ESSENTIALLY INDEPENDENT* THEMSELVES.

Results below are listed 1st with Democrats, 2nd with Republicans, and 3rd Independents on the line, and 4th Undecided just below number of participants:
ABC/Post

Jun 20 – Jun 23

1,001 Adults
36 24 33 7

Ipsos/Reuters

Jun 18 – Jun 22

1,585 Adults
40 23 27 8

NBC/SurveyMonkey

Jun 13 – Jun 19

16,135 Registered Voters
34 28 36 2

Ipsos/Reuters

Jun 11 – Jun 15

1,602 Adults
36 26 29 10

CNBC

Jun 11 – Jun 13

801 Registered Voters
40 38 16 3

NBC/SurveyMonkey

Jun 6 – Jun 12

10,604 Adults
35 28 36 1

Ipsos/Reuters

Jun 4 – Jun 8

1,716 Adults
36 27 25 11

Gallup

Jun 1 – Jun 5

Adults
30 27 41 -

NBC/SurveyMonkey

May 30 – Jun 5

10,520 Adults
35 29 36 1

Ipsos/Reuters

May 28 – Jun 1

1,332 Adults
40 27 24 11

[larkrake]

113. Indy's don't settle, they go 3rd party and do their homework. Best concentrate working to get

progressives. Indy's were disenfranchised and they are Indies for a reason. She can get some republicans, unless the DNC replaces Trump, then she might win a squeaker. If it were just Hillary and Donald, she would walk away with it.

[Sheepshank]

129. of the 39% (as of 2015) Indies, at least 30% of those lean right

http://ivn.us/2015/04/08/media-gets-independent-voters-wrong-pollsters/
In the electorate there are a solid 34% who identify as Dem. So realistically, the Indies that may "consider" themselves liberal or progressive, do NOT outnumber the Dem registered voters. Your statement is presuming that all Indies would vote Dem. You and I both know that is incorrect and misleading.

math.

lets take 100 voters

39 voters are Indie. There is a probability that 21 of those will vote Dem
32 Dems will vote Dem.

32/100 Dems voting Dem is greater that 21/100 Indies voting Dem.

[larkrake]

170. disagree. The 34% guess{high} are repugs that cannot tolerate Trump in the first place.They wont go

Hillary. They will vote green, or even Johnson The few who were going Hillary are repelled by the loretta/bill thing, as are the bernie folk.

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

31. Pro TPP, pro fracking, anti livable wage = not very progressive.

[KMOD]

36. Not pro TPP in it's current state.

She has said it would need more environmental and safety net support for American workers in order for her to agree with it.

Not pro fracking, but understands that a national ban won't happen overnight. She supports more regulation and State and local bans on fracking. We're still at the point we were are picking our poison, with coal or fracking.

Hillary Clinton fully supports minimum wage increase. It was passed here in New York state. However, it is realized that 15 dollars and hour is different in Manhattan than $15 dollars an hour is in the rural counties. The city will be the first to up the wage increase, while the rural areas will have a longer time frame in which to do so. That's just common sense.

[larkrake]

117. very nuanced. Minimum should start at 15 and go up to 25 in places where the cost of living is high

like San Francisco- 15 is not a living wage there

Neither coal or fracking has legs. Natural gas is the leader now. Transitioning jobs in coal country is needed, but fracking takes no time to stop, absolutely no reason to delay cutting fracking at all

[KMOD]

118. Natural gas is retrieved by fracking.

[AntiBank]

139. about half of US oil and half of US natural gas is extracted via fracking

http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2015/04/01/how-much-u-s-oil-and-gas-comes-from-fracking/

[brer cat]

33. Excellent post, KitSileya!

K&R

[ismnotwasm]

38. She's been fighting all her life for progressive values.

I m so glad the country heard her message!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Thanks to Bernie.

[synergie]

88. You guys sure do love to credit Bernie for things he had nothing to do with.

When did Bernie mention tagging the minimum wage to inflation? Express that he had a clue that Hyde existed and affected women?

Thanks to Hillary, Bernie is making the correct noises on guns and other progressive issues finally.

[Squinch]

152. Didn't he give birth to John Lewis? I think I heard that he did...

[KMOD]

154. ..

[Squinch]

156. .

[synergie]

159. There seems to be some interesting notions of time travel going around in

certain circles.

[mcar]

160. Thread win!

[postatomic]

42. Kudos to Hillary

I have to also throw a bone to ALL Democrats. I'm really starting to feel that we'll see some amazing things happen when Hillary takes up residence at the White House.

[Maru Kitteh]

89. Indeed! nt

[UtahLib]

48. Yes KitSileya, that is AWESOME and so is Hillary!

[andym]

49. the 1972 platform was very progressive --see the economic justice and national healthcare parts

Here is small selection of it:
note that it is very long-
George McGovern was to the left of nearly every Democrat today and it shows in the Democratic Party platform:

Be surprised!
I'm not sure this year's platform is really as progressive. Go to the link below and read the whole platform. It's amazing.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29605

Jobs, Income and Dignity

Full employment—a guaranteed job for all—is the primary economic objective of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is committed to a job for every American who seeks work. Only through full employment can we reduce the burden on working people. We are determined to make economic security a matter of right. This means a job with decent pay and good working conditions for everyone willing and able to work and an adequate income for those unable to work. It means abolition of the present welfare system.

To assure jobs and economic security for all, the next Democratic Administration should support:

A full employment economy, making full use of fiscal and monetary policy to stimulate employment;

Tax reform directed toward equitable distribution of income and wealth and fair sharing of the cost of government;

Full enforcement of all equal employment opportunity laws, including federal contract compliance and federally-regulated industries and giving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adequate staff and resources and power to issue cease and desist orders promptly;

Vastly increased efforts to open education at all levels and in all fields to minorities, women and other under-represented groups;

An effective nation-wide job placement system to entrance worker mobility;

Opposition to arbitrarily high standards for entry to jobs;

Overhaul of current manpower programs to assure training-without sex, race or language discrimination for jobs that really exist with continuous skill improvement and the chance for advancement;

Economic development programs to ensure the growth of communities and industry in lagging parts of the nation and the economy;

Use of federal depository funds to reward banks and other financial institutions which invest in socially productive endeavors;

Improved adjustment assistance and job creation for workers and employers hurt by foreign competition, reconversion of defense-oriented companies, rapid technological change and environmental protection activities;

Closing tax loopholes that encourage the export of American jobs by American-controlled multi-national corporations;

Assurance that the needs of society are considered when a decision to close or move an industrial plant is to be made and that income loss to workers and revenue loss to communities does not occur when plants are closed;

Assurance that, whatever else is done in the income security area, the social security system provides a decent income for the elderly, the blind and the disabled and their dependents, with escalators so that benefits keep pace with rising prices and living standards;

Reform of social security and government employment security programs to remove all forms of discrimination by sex; and adequate federal income assistance for those who do not benefit sufficiently from the above measures.

The last is not least, but it is last for good reason. The present welfare system has failed because it has been required to make up for too many other failures. Millions of Americans are forced into public assistance because public policy too often creates no other choice.

The heart of a program of economic security based on earned income must be creating jobs and training people to fill them. Millions of jobs—real jobs, not make-work-need to be provided. Public service employment must be greatly expanded in order to make the government the employer of last resort and guarantee a job for all. Large sections of our cities resemble bombed-out Europe after World War II. Children in Appalachia cannot go to school when the dirt road is a sea of mud. Homes, schools and clinics, roads and mass transit systems need to be built.

Cleaning up our air and water will take skills and people in large numbers. In the school, the police department, the welfare agency or the recreation program, there are new careers to be developed to help ensure that social services reach the people for whom they are intended.

It may cost more, at least initially, to create decent jobs than to perpetuate the hand-out system of present welfare. But the return—in new public facilities and services, in the dignity of bringing a paycheck home and in the taxes that will come back in—far outweigh the cost of the investment.

The next Democratic Administration must end the present welfare system and replace it with an income security program which places cash assistance in an appropriate context with all of the measures outlined above, adding up to an earned income approach to ensure each family an income substantially more than the poverty level ensuring standards of decency and health, as officially defined in the area. Federal income assistance will supplement the income of working poor people and assure an adequate income for those unable to work. With full employment and simpler, fair administration, total costs will go down, and with federal financing the burden on local and state budgets will be eased. The program will protect current benefit goals during the transitional period.

The system of income protection which replaces welfare must he a part of the full employment policy which assures every American a job at a fair wage under conditions which make use of his ability and provide an opportunity for advancement. H.R. 1, and its various amendments, is not humane and does not meet the social and economic objectives that we believe in, and it should be defeated. It perpetuates the coercion of forced work requirements.

Skepticism and cynicism are widespread in America. The people are skeptical of platforms filled with political platitudes—of promises made by opportunistic politicians.

The people are cynical about the idea that a rosy future is just around the corner.

And is it any wonder that the people are skeptical and cynical of the whole political process?

Our traditions, our history, our Constitution, our lives, all say that America belongs to its people.

But the people no longer believe it.

They feel that the government is run for the privileged few rather than for the many-and they are right.

No political party, no President, no government can by itself restore a lost sense of faith. No Administration can provide solutions to all our problems. What we can do is to recognize the doubts of Americans, to speak to those doubts, and to act to begin turning those doubts into hopes.

As Democrats, we know that we share responsibility for that loss of confidence. But we also know, as Democrats that at decisive moments of choice in our past, our party has offered leadership that has tapped the best within our country.

Our party-standing by its ideals of domestic progress and enlightened internationalism--has served America well. We have nominated or elected men of the high calibre of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Adlai E. Stevenson, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson—and in the last election Hubert Humphrey and Edmund S. Muskie. In that proud tradition we are now prepared to move forward.

We know that our nation cannot tolerate any longer a government that shows no regard for the people's basic needs and no respect for our right to the truth from those who lead us. What do the people want? They want three things:

They want a personal life that makes us all feel that life is worth living;

They want a social environment whose institutions promote the good of all; and

They want a physical environment whose resources are used for the good of all.

They want an opportunity to achieve their aspirations and their dreams for themselves and their children.

We believe in the rights of citizens to achieve to the limit of their talents and energies. We are determined to remove barriers that limit citizens because they are black, brown, young or women; because they never had the chance to gain an education; because there was no possibility of being anything but what they were.

We believe in hard work as a fair measure of our own willingness to achieve. We are determined that millions should not stand idle while work demands to be done. We are determined that the dole should not become a permanent way of life for any. And we are determined that government no longer tax the product of hard work more rigorously than it taxes inherited wealth, or money that is gained simply by having money in the first place.

We believe that the law must apply equally to all, and that it must be an instrument of justice. We are determined that the citizen must be protected in his home and on his streets. We are determined also that the ordinary citizen should not be imprisoned for a crime before we know whether he is guilty or not while those with the right friends and the right connections can break the law without ever facing the consequences of their actions.

We believe that war is a waste of human life. We are determined to end forthwith a war which has cost 50,000 American lives, $150 billion of our resources, that has divided us from each other, drained our national will and inflicted incalculable damage to countless people. We will end that war by a simple plan that need not be kept secret: The immediate total withdrawal of all Americans from Southeast Asia.

We believe in the right of an individual to speak, think, read, write, worship, and live free of official intrusion. We are determined that our government must no longer tap the phones of law-abiding citizens nor spy on those who have broken no law. We are determined that never again shall government seek to censor the newspapers and television. We are determined that the government shall no longer mock the supreme law of the land, while it stands helpless in the face of crime which makes our neighborhoods and communities less and less safe.

Perhaps most fundamentally, we believe that government is the servant, not the master, of the people. We are determined that government should not mean a force so huge, so impersonal, that the complaint of an ordinary citizen goes unheard.

That is not the kind of government America was created to build. Our ancestors did not fight a revolution and sacrifice their lives against tyrants from abroad to leave us a government that does not know how to listen to its own people.

The Democratic Party is proud of its past; but we are honest enough to admit that we are part of the past and share in its mistakes. We want in 1972 to begin the long and difficult task of reviewing existing programs, revising them to make them work and finding new techniques to serve the public need. We want to speak for, and with, the citizens of our country. Our pledge is to be truthful to the people and to ourselves, to tell you when we succeed, but also when we fail or when we are not sure. In 1976, when this nation celebrates its 200th anniversary, we want to tell you simply that we have done our best to give the government to those who formed it—the people of America.

Every election is a choice: In 1972, Americans must decide whether they want their country back again.

Jobs, Income and Dignity

Full employment—a guaranteed job for all—is the primary economic objective of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is committed to a job for every American who seeks work. Only through full employment can we reduce the burden on working people. We are determined to make economic security a matter of right. This means a job with decent pay and good working conditions for everyone willing and able to work and an adequate income for those unable to work. It means abolition of the present welfare system.

To assure jobs and economic security for all, the next Democratic Administration should support:

A full employment economy, making full use of fiscal and monetary policy to stimulate employment;

Tax reform directed toward equitable distribution of income and wealth and fair sharing of the cost of government;

Full enforcement of all equal employment opportunity laws, including federal contract compliance and federally-regulated industries and giving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adequate staff and resources and power to issue cease and desist orders promptly;

Vastly increased efforts to open education at all levels and in all fields to minorities, women and other under-represented groups;

An effective nation-wide job placement system to entrance worker mobility;

Opposition to arbitrarily high standards for entry to jobs;

Overhaul of current manpower programs to assure training-without sex, race or language discrimination for jobs that really exist with continuous skill improvement and the chance for advancement;

Economic development programs to ensure the growth of communities and industry in lagging parts of the nation and the economy;

Use of federal depository funds to reward banks and other financial institutions which invest in socially productive endeavors;

Improved adjustment assistance and job creation for workers and employers hurt by foreign competition, reconversion of defense-oriented companies, rapid technological change and environmental protection activities;

Closing tax loopholes that encourage the export of American jobs by American-controlled multi-national corporations;

Assurance that the needs of society are considered when a decision to close or move an industrial plant is to be made and that income loss to workers and revenue loss to communities does not occur when plants are closed;

Assurance that, whatever else is done in the income security area, the social security system provides a decent income for the elderly, the blind and the disabled and their dependents, with escalators so that benefits keep pace with rising prices and living standards;

Reform of social security and government employment security programs to remove all forms of discrimination by sex; and adequate federal income assistance for those who do not benefit sufficiently from the above measures.

The last is not least, but it is last for good reason. The present welfare system has failed because it has been required to make up for too many other failures. Millions of Americans are forced into public assistance because public policy too often creates no other choice.

The heart of a program of economic security based on earned income must be creating jobs and training people to fill them. Millions of jobs—real jobs, not make-work-need to be provided. Public service employment must be greatly expanded in order to make the government the employer of last resort and guarantee a job for all. Large sections of our cities resemble bombed-out Europe after World War II. Children in Appalachia cannot go to school when the dirt road is a sea of mud. Homes, schools and clinics, roads and mass transit systems need to be built.

Cleaning up our air and water will take skills and people in large numbers. In the school, the police department, the welfare agency or the recreation program, there are new careers to be developed to help ensure that social services reach the people for whom they are intended.

It may cost more, at least initially, to create decent jobs than to perpetuate the hand-out system of present welfare. But the return—in new public facilities and services, in the dignity of bringing a paycheck home and in the taxes that will come back in—far outweigh the cost of the investment.

The next Democratic Administration must end the present welfare system and replace it with an income security program which places cash assistance in an appropriate context with all of the measures outlined above, adding up to an earned income approach to ensure each family an income substantially more than the poverty level ensuring standards of decency and health, as officially defined in the area. Federal income assistance will supplement the income of working poor people and assure an adequate income for those unable to work. With full employment and simpler, fair administration, total costs will go down, and with federal financing the burden on local and state budgets will be eased. The program will protect current benefit goals during the transitional period.

The system of income protection which replaces welfare must he a part of the full employment policy which assures every American a job at a fair wage under conditions which make use of his ability and provide an opportunity for advancement. H.R. 1, and its various amendments, is not humane and does not meet the social and economic objectives that we believe in, and it should be defeated. It perpetuates the coercion of forced work requirements.

Economic Management
The first priority of a Democratic Administration must be eliminating the unfair, bureaucratic Nixon wage and price controls.

When price rises threaten to or do get out of control—as they are now—strong, fair action must be taken to protect family income and savings. The theme of that action should be swift, tough measures to break the wage-price spiral and restore the economy. In that kind of economic emergency, America's working people will support a truly fair stabilization program which affects profits, investment earnings, executive salaries and prices, as well as wages. The Nixon controls do not meet that standard. They have forced the American worker, who suffers most from inflation, to pay the price of trying to end it.

In addition to stabilizing the economy, we propose:

To develop automatic instruments protecting the livelihood of Americans who depend on fixed incomes, such as savings bonds with purchasing power guarantees and cost-of-living escalators in government social security and income support payments;

To create a system of "recession insurance" for states and localities to replace lost local revenues with federal funds in economic downturns, thereby avoiding reduction in public employment or public services;

To establish longer-term budget and fiscal planning; and

To create new mechanisms to stop unwarranted price increases in concentrated industries.

Toward Economic Justice

The Democratic Party deplores the increasing concentration of economic power in fewer and fewer hands. Five per cent of the American people control 90 per cent of our productive national wealth. Less than one per cent of all manufacturers have 88 per cent of the profits. Less than two per cent of the population now owns approximately 80 per cent of the nation's personally-held corporate stock, 90 per cent of the personally-held corporate bonds and nearly 100 per cent of the personally-held municipal bonds. The rest of the population—including all working men and women—pay too much for essential products and services because of national policy and market distortions.

The Democratic Administration should pledge itself to combat factors which tend to concentrate wealth and stimulate higher prices.

To this end, the federal government should:

Develop programs to spread economic growth among the workers, farmers and businessmen;

Help make parts of the economy more efficient such as medical care—where wasteful and inefficient practices now increase prices;

Step up anti-trust action to help competition, with particular regard to laws and enforcement curbing conglomerate mergers which swallow up efficient small business and feed the power of corporate giants;

Strengthen the anti-trust laws so that the divestiture remedy will be used vigorously to break up large conglomerates found to violate the antitrust laws;

Abolish the oil import quota that raises prices for consumers;

Deconcentrate shared monopolies such as auto, steel and tire industries which administer prices, create unemployment through restricted output and stifle technological innovation;

Assure the right of the citizen to recover costs and attorneys fees in all successful suits including class actions involving Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, or rights secured by federal statutes;

Adjust rate-making and regulatory activities, with particular attention to regulations which increase prices for food, transportation and other necessities;

Remove artificial constraints in the job market by better job manpower training and strictly enforcing equal employment opportunity;

Stiffen the civil and criminal statutes to make corporate officers responsible for their actions; and

Establish a temporary national economic commission to study federal chartering of large multi-national and international corporations, concentrated ownership and control in the nation's economy.



Health Care

Good health is the least this society should promise its citizens. The state of health services in this country indicates the failure of government to respond to this fundamental need. Costs skyrocket while the availability of services for all but the rich steadily declines.

We endorse the principle that good health is a right of all Americans.

America has a responsibility to offer to every American family the best in health care whenever they need it, regardless of income or where they live or any other factor.

To achieve this goal the next Democratic Administration should:

Establish a system of universal National Health Insurance which covers all Americans with a comprehensive set of benefits including preventive medicine, mental and emotional disorders, and complete protection against catastrophic costs, and in which the rule of free choice for both provider and consumer is protected. The program should be federally-financed and federally-administered. Every American must know he can afford the cost of health care whether given in a hospital or a doctor's office;

Incorporate in the National Health Insurance System incentives and controls to curb inflation in health care costs and to assure efficient delivery of all services;

Continue and evaluate Health Maintenance Organizations;

Set up incentives to bring health service personnel back to inner-cities and rural areas;

Continue to expand community health centers and availability of early screening diagnosis and treatment;

Provide federal funds to train added health manpower including doctors, nurses, technicians and para-medical workers;

Secure greater consumer participation and control over health care institutions;

Expand federal support for medical research including research in heart disease, hypertension, stroke, cancer, sickle cell anemia, occupational and childhood diseases which threaten millions and in preventive health care;

Eventual replacement of all federal programs of health care by a comprehensive National Health Insurance System;

Take legal and other action to curb soaring prices for vital drugs using anti trust laws as applicable and amending patent laws to end price-raising abuses, and require generic-name labeling of equal-effective drugs; and

Expand federal research and support for drug abuse treatment and education, especially development of non-addictive treatment methods.

[840high]

57. Good memories. +10

[Chathamization]

79. Excellent point. N/T

[Roland99]

58. Except the DNC is rejecting anti-fracking, TPP

And other anti-corporatist proposals

Go figure

[George Eliot]

59. Credit where credit due. Note "immigration" paragraph.

These wins were compared to the 2012 platform in which these items appeared but with few specifics and much lackluster. Read the article to understand why these are considered wins this year. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/27/heres-what-bernie-sanders-has-won-in-the-democratic-platform-so-far/

Here’s what Bernie Sanders has won in the Democratic platform (so far)
By David Weigel June 27 at 12:05 Pm

snip
Two days later, the Democratic National Committee has yet to release the actual draft language. It has released summaries that suggest this platform has advanced from the bland language of 2012, when the goal of the little-watched drafting committee was to make no noise.

snip
Minimum wage. ...the new platform "already included language declaring that Americans should earn at least $15 an hour," but with a commitment that fell short of what Sanders wanted. It also calls for an end to "sub-minimum wage for tipped workers"; tipped workers were not mentioned in the 2012 platform.

Earned income tax credit....The draft language for 2016 apparently includes language "expanding the EITC to low wage workers who don’t have children and to workers age 21 and older," courtesy of Ellison.

Breaking up banks. The 2012 platform treated the 2008 financial crisis as an afterthought, ... something dealt with by an effective president. ...The new platform, according to the DNC, suggests "an updated and modernized version of Glass-Steagall and breaking up too big to fail financial institutions that pose a systemic risk to the stability of our economy" and notes that Clinton's allies (who made up a majority of committee members) suggested this.

Social Security. ...they adopted language that would raise the cap — a long-held goal of progressives — and start "taxing some of the income of people above $250,000." The summary language describes this as "expanding" Social Security, though it falls short of what many Sanders voters want.

Immigration. The new platform calls for the closing of private detention centers, a Sanders goal not mentioned in any way four years ago.

Criminal justice reform. ...It calls for "ending the era of mass incarceration, shutting down private prisons, ending racial profiling, reforming the grand jury process, investing in re-entry programs, banning the box to help give people a second chance and prioritizing treatment over incarceration for individuals suffering addiction," according to the summary.

Those are all wins for Sanders — but Sanders, crucially, has been describing the platform as too compromised, as he negotiates for more. The only part of his reaction to the platform that made news was his criticism.

[DesertRat]

75. Yes it is! K&R!

[SoLeftIAmRight]

93. i think that may wrong in two ways

...

[KitSileya]

96. Then explain in what ways you think that may be wrong.

Otherwise, it sounds more like passive-aggressiveness to me.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

98. several threads suggest looking at the 72 platform

I would look at the 56 republican platform

not sure hillary would have pushed for this platform without the popularity of Warren's left push

[Ken Burch]

111. What is passive aggressive is to use a thread praising the platform

to attack the runner-up for the nomination.

Why would you even start an ugly thread like this?

[KMOD]

151. The runner-up was not even mentioned in the OP

I'm not sure why you see it as some sort of attack.

[Ken Burch]

164. I think he originaly was, and in any case the wording there was an attack on the arguments

the Sanders campaign made in the primaries and an attempt to flamebait Sanders supporters, neither of which makes any sense. It also once again implied, and again with no justiication, that ONLY HRC cares about issues involving women, LGBTQ people, and POC(despite Bernie not always communicating his views well, the truth is both candidates were equally committed to fighting for the needs of those groups).

I could have understood the poster praising her candidate for adding some good things, but there was no need for the snark at the same time. BOTH campaigns are playing a strong role here and I praise HRC for being willing to work that way. It's a pleasant surprise.

[Logical]

97. Disappointed in her lack of knowledge about marijuana legalization. Nt

[democrattotheend]

99. I think Bernie deserves some of the credit too

He has pushed both the debate and some of the elements of the platform to be more progressive.

In theory, I don't disagree with you about needing time to transition to things like single payer. However, I think that if you start out shooting for single payer, maybe you at least get a public option.

I am not saying Obama should have done that, because if he had we might have ended up with nothing at all (I go back and forth on this). But now that we have the ACA in place I say start seriously pushing single payer and suddenly the Republican appetite to repeal or prevent tweaks to the ACA might dissipate.

[George Eliot]

104. Actually, a lot.

[Betty Karlson]

122. He deserves more influence over the platform.

And maybe the leadership of the senate majority?

[Ken Burch]

109. It's equally thanks to both sides.

You have no good reason to still be attacking Bernie and his supporters like this.

Why use the occasion of the drafting of a better-than expected platform to spread division.

You SHOULD be trying to reach out and work unity.

[choie]

112. I'm...sorry

It is Bernie who should be thanked. He's the reason the DNC was forced to have the "most progressive platform."

[Eric J in MN]

114. Protecting the water supply

...is more important than protecting fracking jobs.

Letting fracking poison water is privatizing profit and socializing cost. Fracking should be banned.

[Jamaal510]

120. K&R

[NastyRiffraff]

131. Big K&R!

Exactly right; she addresses a wide range of issues, not just Wall Street and banking. Issues that are important to working people.

[upaloopa]

134. Hillary sees the big picture and she always has

She does her homework then come up with a solution.

[Uponthegears]

137. Kudos to andym #49

For a number of months now, we have been debating whether our nominee is a progressive or whether she is the candidate running on a platform which gives us the best chance of taking control of not just the White House, but also possibly even both chambers of Congress.

(Before turning to the answer to that question, let me first say that whether one prefers "progressivism" or "Democratic control," your values are, at least for this poster, beyond question. Aspirations and principles are doubtless noble things, but they are just "things" if you don't have the power to enact them.)

The responses to this OP have settled this debate. Not a single poster has argued that "liberal-ness" of the 2016 Democratic Platform is on the same continent, much less the same ballpark, as the 1972 Democratic Platform. In addition, not a single poster has argued that any item in the 1972 Democratic Platform does not reflect what should be a policy of the Democratic Party. Instead, poster after poster has pointed to the Electoral College drubbing received by Senator McGovern and argued that liberalism is the path to defeat.

(Aside: If GOPers had taken that same attitude following the Electoral College drubbing administered to Barry Goldwater in 1964, we would have never seen the 20 years of Reagan/Bush oppression through which we all suffered, and their 2016 candidate would have been closer to Colin Powell than Attila the Hun. But the fact is that the transformation of the Republican Party into a lynch mob while still maintaining political power took time and we don't have time.)

I can accept the argument that Hillary Clinton is a dynamic candidate espousing a platform (which is not in any way, shape or form hostile to liberal values, even if it does not espouse liberal values) that will almost certainly lead the Democratic Party to perhaps a historically-large victory. That is reason enough for me to work and vote to see to it that is exactly what happens.

Our platform does not move even such issues as mass incarceration, reproductive rights, and/or LGBT rights forward. Even in those areas, it does no more than confirm our support for what we have already achieved through the courts and/or through the courageous leadership of Barrack Obama. I have no problem with that, I applaud it in fact, but can we at least stop calling the 2016 Democratic Platform "progressive" for doing no more than seeking to prevent us from regressing?

[Orsino]

147. Thanks to her being willing to make room for something more progressive.

Let's not kid ourselves about whose members of the committee contributed what, or that it could have happened without Sanders' welcome challenge to the status quo.

But I will credit Clinton to the extent that she makes those more progressive proposals her own. We'll all be better off for such an effort.

[KitSileya]

158. No, I'm not.

I'm saying that Clinton, who is very progressive on intersectional issues, made sure to get them into the platform. That makes it pretty historical - she actually cares and listens to marginalized people, and champions their (our) issues.

[Katashi_itto]

173. Lol

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

174. Uh-huh. Fracking is soooo progressive.