I always knew that Hillary had it in her

[BainsBane]

93. Kagan didn't endorse her

He said he hated Trump so much he would even vote for Clinton over her. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511344327#post3
That's not an endorsement. Given that blatantly false claim in your OP, there is no reason to assume anything else is accurate. That you don't care is what is sad, but it is unfortunately par for the course.

You've misstated Clinton's policy positions and show a personal animus that has nothing to do with issues.

What vote did corporations buy from her? Did she vote for immunity for gun manufacturers? Did she vote for and continue to defend billions, what is now up to a trillion, for Lockheed-Martin for the F-35? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/bernie-sanders-loves-this-1-trillion-war-machine.html http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion (Talk about defense corporations). Or are you merely afraid that she might enact the sort of policy reflected in those votes that Sanders cast?

Oh, and Superpacs. Don't forget that Clinton "has a superpac" and Bernie "decided not to do one." Only that turns out not to be true at all. http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/

That and your notion of what the Democratic Party has been in the past is sheer fantasy. When was this period of great Democratic restraint in foreign policy? When did they stand up for the people so much more than today? During Jim Crow?

No concern for accuracy, no attempt to provide evidence for your claims. Just pure spite for a candidate supported by 2.6 million more votes than your guy. Apparently the Democratic Party you long for doesn't worry about trivialities like the outcome of elections. It understands that a self-entitled few are simply more important than everyone else and that they and they alone are fit to pick the president in violation of the popular will.

One person, one vote. Deal with it.