Obama: Time to Unite Behind Hillary.

[kstewart33]

New York Times:

In unusually candid remarks, President Obama privately told a group of Democratic donors last Friday that Senator Bernie Sanders is nearing the point where his campaign against Hillary Clinton will come to an end, and that the party must soon come together to back her.

Mr. Obama chose his words carefully, and did not explicitly call on Mr. Sanders to depart the race, according to those in the room. Still, those in attendance said in interviews that they took his comments as a signal to Mr. Sanders that perpetuating his campaign, which is now an uphill climb, could only help the Republicans recapture the White House.

Those in attendance described an urgency in Mr. Obama’s tone as he suggested that Democrats needed to come together to prevent an opening for the Republicans, whose leading candidate is Donald J. Trump, to exploit.

But, while he stressed that he was not endorsing either candidate, and that both would make good presidents, Mr. Obama went on to lavish praise on Mrs. Clinton, describing her as smart, tough and experienced, and said that she would continue the work of his administration. Mr. Sanders has very publicly criticized Mr. Obama on certain policies and has called for a “political revolution.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/obama-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html?_r=2

[peacebird]

1. Not so fast, Sparky. Half the country hasn't had a chance to weigh in yet.

[kstewart33]

2. I completely agree.

I'm just a bit surprised that he's made the turn so quickly.

[mariawr]

18. BIG thumb on the scale. nt

[gcomeau]

3. Sorry Obama, never gonna happen.

But you still have time to endorse Sanders and save this.

[NurseJackie]

17. Ha! Good one! (I adore your sense of humor!)

[gcomeau]

21. Yes, the idea he would do that is funny.

Which is in turn, sad.


Which will lead, if Clinton is nominated, to me spending a few months doing everything in my power to convince people to vote Green Party to get them above 5% national viability and create a viable threat from the left that will be the only thing at that point which could credibly stop the Democratic Party's slide to the right and total disregard of the progressive/liberal principles of the left.


L.... O.... L....

[NurseJackie]

24. Looks like you'll be very busy! :-P (LOL)

[gcomeau]

25. I guarantee I will be. -eom

[NurseJackie]

28. Without a doubt.

[NurseJackie]

52. Bzzzzt!

[Teamster Jeff]

4. Let's focus on Trump

and not the banks, corrupt corporations, shitty trade scams, 1%ers and all that stuff.

Yeah right

[azretired]

5. "Donors" is a Hillary term

The President wasn't speaking to Bernie's people. Bernie's "donors" are not going to be so honored as to have a meeting with President Obama. I don't know precisely who he was speaking to, but most likely it was some of the wealthy democratic donors who gave him hundreds of millions when he ran and is now doing the same for Hillary. President Carter has called this "legalized bribery." And I believe he has it right.

[Arazi]

8. +10000 and precisely what Bernie is fighting against eom

[vintx]

6. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511515488

[tokenlib]

7. Presumption and arrogance...the party "always" falls in line...

Let's face it. They think we have nowhere else to go. They think they can shift into "General Election" mode and marginalize the dissenters and that we will in the end straggle in and fall into line. They want to end this primary before the status quo gets any more threatened. Like we can't let the process run out and let everyone have a say and a fair vote (without being told it's all over when it isn't) and deal with it all in June.

Bu falling into line behind the lesser of evils every single time..we have enabled this on the part of the DNC/New Dem status quo.

Time to send another donation to Bernie. Time to remind Hillary that we are still here and still can make the case against her..

[Autumn]

11. I don't think that will work this time. They younger people and Independents have

no vested interest in the democratic party, that fall in line bullshit won't work on them.

[Armstead]

9. Surprise surprise Sargent Carter

I like and respect President Obama, but there;s a part of him that is unfortunately attached to the New Democrat Centrists

[DanTex]

10. I couldn't agree more. At the very least he needs to tone down the attacks on Hillary, who is now

the presumptive nominee. The stakes in November are too high to play around.

[gcomeau]

23. The stakes in November...

...are whether this nation simply gives up on having a liberal political party at all. So yes they are indeed high.

Which is why I'm walking away if Clinton is the nominee to spend the rest of the election swinging progressive voters to the Green Party as much as possible. A message must be sent that the shit she has pulled is unacceptable.

[DanTex]

26. Voting Green does nothing but help Trump win.

A Green vote is equivalent to half a vote for Trump. Sounds like you're OK with a Trump presidency. Not me.

[gcomeau]

33. No, it does quite a bit.

The Democratic Party establishment has made it ABSOLUTELY CRYSTAL CLEAR that it couldn't give less of a shit about liberal values this primary. They have not just not taken them seriously they have actively assaulted them. Election after election the party moves right right right right right and every time we're told we have to vote for them because good grief look how bad the Republican alternative is.



And as long as we fall for it what do we get? More right. More right. More right. The modern democratic party may be ok on social issues but economically they're essentially Ronald fucking Reagan Republicans and showing every sign of getting worse.


If the party doesn't show it can turn left on it's own and nominate Sanders then there is only one alternative choice available to force them left. Create a viable threat from the left they have to respond to instead of taking liberal and progressive votes for granted because they're being held hostage with the threat of the GOP and there being no other alternatives.



So fuck them. If Clinton's the nominee I'm doing everything in my power to swing support to the Greens from every Sanders supporter I can reach. Don't like it, STOP SUPPORTING THE FUCKING RIGHT and give us a reason to support the party.


And no amount of fear mongering by waving the GOP at us is changing squat. Because the alternative you're offering is just to stand by and continue watching the Democratic party turn into the same damn thing, just slower, while every time the goalposts shift rightward you convince the country that that is the new normal and halfway between the two parties is the new "moderate". 4-8 years of Trump would be horrible, but the continued corruption of the Democratic party is just as bad in the long term.


Time to take a stand.

[DanTex]

42. Silly Hyperbole. Comparing the Democratic Party to Reagan. Please.

In order for a Green Vote to do anything except for help the GOP, we would first need a major change to the constitution that essentially replaced the government as it stands with a parliamentary multi-party system. With the winner-take all rules, third parties can be nothing more than spoilers. I don't like it any more than you, but that's the way it is.

As for the fantasy that throwing the election to Trump will push the Dems to the left, two things. First, that's already been tried, in 2000. It had no discernable effect on the Democratic party -- if anything, it created disgust among most Dems of Naderites who helped place Bush in office.

Second, even if it does have some minor effect of pulling Dems left in the future, it will be grossly outweighed by all the damage that comes from 4-8 years of Republican rule. Just one example, if the GOP wins, then Citizens United stays on the books for a generation. Just that one thing alone is enough to more than balance out any move to the left from Dems that you are hoping to get, because it ensures that the money-flooded system sticks around indefinitely. But Citizens United is far from the only bad thing that will happen if the GOP wins.


The reason that we don't have more liberals elected is not because the Democratic party. It's because the national electorate just isn't that liberal. I mean, about half of Americans think creationism should be taught in schools. And Bernie didn't lose the primary because of dirty tricks, he lost because, even among the Democratic primary electorate, which is much more liberal than the general electorate, he just didn't have enough appeal.

[gcomeau]

45. No it's not hyperbolic actually.

And the fact that you think it is demonstrates how you could be ok supporting Clinton over Sanders. Completely brainwashed. Halfway between the two parties is always the moderate center no matter where the parties move or where that halfway point falls... so you always think anyone labelled Democrat is liberal even when that is far from the case.

Which is exactly what this country needs to be saved from.

[DanTex]

49. Policy-wise, it's absurd.

Big supply-side tax cuts -- he dropped the top rate to below 30%. He was a union buster. Anyway you want to look at it, there's simply no comparison.

I'm supporting Clinton over Sanders because I think she has the best chance of beating the GOP. I don't see much practical difference between them: both want to raise taxes on the rich, protect unions, higher minimum wage, pro-choice, clean energy, infrastructure spending, etc. And with the GOP in congress, wherever Bernie is to her left won't matter much. On the other hand, the difference between the Dems and the GOP is enormous.

I notice that you completely ignored my point about how a Green Party vote is useless unless we transition to a proportional allocation parliamentary system. Like I said, with the winner-take all system we have now, a third-party vote is wasted. The best you can hope for is to throw the election to the GOP, and then have Dems look at the vote totals and conclude that, as in 2000, losing votes to the Green Party was part of the reason.

Of course, like I also said, that didn't push the Dems left much if at all. In fact, arguably the anti-Nader backlash pushed them in the other direction. But regardless, whatever small effect it had on the Dems, it wasn't nearly enough to make up for the damage that W did. And if the GOP wins this year, it will be the same.

If you want to move the Dems to the left, you need to convince more Dems to vote for people like Bernie. And saying obviously false things like that Clinton resembles Reagan on economic issues isn't going to do it.

[gcomeau]

50. No, it's reality.

I said practically Reagan, not exactly.


Yeah he dropped it below 30%. It's barely above that now. And at any mention of raising it? OH GOD NO! FLEE ANY MENTION OF SUCH HERESY!


The Democrats aren't busting unions... but they're already busted. Union membership is hovering around the lowest levels in history, there's not much left to bust. They ask for their votes but try looking at how much support they actually give them when it's time to pass legislation that benefits their members or strengthens unions. Watch how hard they work to get union membership BACK UP. See what you find. Go ahead.


Financial regulation? They mouth platitudes about how important it is but we're nominating the candidate who is most likely to do squat about it while she enjoys her millions and millions of dollars in payouts from Wall St.


Etc...


And I didn't ignore your point, you didn't understand mine. I have no expectation the Greens will reach a level where they get into Congress. The goal would be to get them to a level where the Democratic establishment has to take their appeal to left leaning voters seriously and MOVE FUCKING LEFT TO SECURE THOSE VOTERS.


Because they're sure as fuck not moving left for any other reason are they.

If you want to move the Dems to the left, you need to convince more Dems to vote for people like Bernie.

I can't fucking believe you just said that. YOU'VE SPENT THE ENTIRE PRIMARY FIGHTING IT. So if that's what it takes to get the party to move left you just admitted you fought to move it right. Congratulations.

[DanTex]

60. The top tax rate is 39.6%. On what planet is that "barely above 30%"?

No wonder nobody takes the Green party seriously -- apparently to qualify you have to believe that 39.6 is "barely above 30".

Speaking of raising taxes on the wealthy, you know who wants to do that? Hillary Clinton!
http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000638-an-analysis-of-hillary-clintons-tax-proposals.pdf

You're right, unions have been busted (by the very GOP that you want to help into office). If only there were some legislation on the table to protect union rights. Wait, there is one. And guess who's in favor of it...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Seriously, could you possibly be more misinformed? You're wrong about every single point you're trying to make. You're right about nothing.

The goal would be to get them to a level where the Democratic establishment has to take their appeal to left leaning voters seriously and MOVE FUCKING LEFT TO SECURE THOSE VOTERS.

They already tried that in 2000. It didn't work, it actually backfired. A lot of Dems came out of it pissed off at Nader and the Green party, and, worse, it brought us 8 years of W.

If you want to move the Dems to the left, you need to convince more Dems to vote for people like Bernie.

I can't fucking believe you just said that. YOU'VE SPENT THE ENTIRE PRIMARY FIGHTING IT. So if that's what it takes to get the party to move left you just admitted you fought to move it right. Congratulations.

Who cares what I've done? You don't expect everyone to just agree with you, do you? I'm for Hillary because I don't think Sanders would do well against the GOP. I'd be in favor to more Bernie-like candidates running for Senate in blue states, but the GE is too big a risk for me. But that's just me. If the left of the party can make an effective case to the electorate, then it doesn't matter what I think. But throwing the election to the GOP, or threatening to, is not going to raise the popularity of the left among the general Democratic primary electorate.

[gcomeau]

61. On the planet where we know it used to be triple 30%.

And we did just freaking fine.


As for the rest, keep pointing at plans that always seem to coincidentally go nowhere all you want.

Who cares what I've done? You don't expect everyone to just agree with you, do you?

And there it is. "Yes I'm opposing progress but that doesn't matter! I just don't agree with you and that's ok!"

Aligning yourself against progressive policies and doing everything you can to defeat them goes beyond minor disagreements within the fold. I've tolerated all manner of differences over policy and strategy just fine over the years when those disagreements were over means to the same outcome.

Pulling in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION is a whole other matter.

You want to think there's a better way towards universal Single Payer health insurance coverage. I want to hear it. You want to side with the candidate who trashes the very principle of Single Payer coverage in front of the entire nation to undermine the possibility of it EVER being achieved? You're siding with the opposition.

You want to talk about different paths forward on strengthening the nations social safety net? ALL EARS. You want to side with the candidate who adopts the GOP frame that those programs are just giving people "free stuff" in tones of open mockery in front of the entire country and validating the GOP propaganda line they have used for decades to undermine almost all liberal programs? You're siding with the opposition.

Etc.

[DanTex]

62. Really, you want to go back to 90? So much for Bernie Sanders, then, he's not even close.

The fact of the matter is 39.6 is much higher than 30, and like I said, Hillary wants to raise it more. The comparison to Reagan is pure nonsense.

And you're right, a lot of progressive policies don't go anywhere. Including proposals Bernie makes. You know why? Because of the GOP, the very party that you want to help put into power by voting Green. If you actually care about things like employee free choice or raising top tax rates, voting Green is totally counterproductive.

And there it is. "Yes I'm opposing progress but that doesn't matter! I just don't agree with you and that's ok!"

Whoa there. I'm not opposing progress, I'm supporting progress. Obama was progress, and Hillary will be further progress. The only way we move backwards is with a GOP president, which is what you are helping bring about with your Green Vote.

As I've pointed out in the last post, every single progressive policy you brought up, Hillary Clinton is in favor of. Sure, Bernie goes farther in the progressive direction on some (and not as far on others), but there's a tradeoff between electability and liberalness, and in by judgement, at the presidential level, given that H and B are pretty close to each other, it's not worth the risk. I imagine you have a different opinion. That's why we have a vote.

I'm glad you brought up healthcare. The first thing you need to realize is that most other first-world nations do not in fact have a pure single-payer system, and some, like Holland or Germany, have systems that resemble Obamacare. This idea that single payer is the only way is not supported by facts.

Second thing, Obamacare is definitely flawed and doesn't go far enough, but this is due to the GOP (the party that you want to assist into office by voting Green). If everything Obama wanted got through, there would be, for starters, a public option, and Medicare expansion in all states, so the coverage rate would have been much greater. Single payer would be great too, but politically it's not feasible, and no amount of Green voting is going to change that. But it makes no sense at all to dismiss the enormous accomplishment that Obamacare was simply because it's not single payer. It really is the biggest piece of safety net legislation in a generation. When "progressives" have nothing but horrible things to say about it, it hurts their credibility.

[flaval]

56. I agree with you.

I have voted Democrat for 40 years. They just get further and further right. I am in Florida and all the Dems the DNC back are DINOS. I held my nose and voted before I will not do it again.
I was shopping yesterday and spoke with a couple of people in the store, one person had voted for Rubio and said she did not know what she was going to do if Trump won. I told her to vote green and if they got 5% it would make them viable. A young guy passing by said they only needed 3 %, he voted for Bernie, I told him I did also. I assume he is voting green. Another lady I spoke with she said she voted Bernie. she was talking about writing in Bernie. I told her I would probably vote green. She felt the exact way I did, she was a Boomer also.
I will not vote Clinton. I do not understand people who say there is little difference between Bernie and Clinton, there is a huge difference. She is a Reagan Republican. TPP is a major issue with me and I believe she will back it. I do not trust her. Another major issue is the banks and reinstating Glass Steagall. Look at Wasserman Shultz trying to disable Dodd Frank to let the payday loan sharks keep going. And with Dodd Frank the tax payers won't bail them out but if you have money in their banks they can take it with the bail ins like the Greek banks did.

[NurseJackie]

39. It's a punitive and retaliatory response ...

... some people have the mistaken belief that the only way to "make people understand" is to do everything in their (limited, very limited) power to make things worse. It's flawed reasoning that's based on anger and a healthy dose of vanity. It can be accurately compared to someone wanting to burn down their own house because their spouse neglected to fix a leaky faucet... an absurd over-reaction based on anger and revenge... it's a temper tantrum. You'd think that people who are old enough to vote would be able to handle disappointment (and reality) in a more mature, reasonable and rational manner.

Fortunately, individuals like that exist in FAR FEWER numbers in the real world. Which helps to explain why protest-parties continue to remain on the fringe of the political spectrum. (They're at the fringes FOR A REASON.)

But, have patience, DanTex. In due time, when the "primary rules" are no longer in effect, and when rational people have had time to get over their anger, there will be no room for the kind of advocacy we're seeing in this thread. People who post such things (such as pledging to no support our nominee, or working to subvert our nominee, or overtly helping the GOP nominee) will be shown the door.

That day can't come soon enough for me!

[gcomeau]

40. There will be no need to show me the door

If Clinton is the nominee I'll have walked out it within 5 seconds. Going to be busy elsewhere.

[DanTex]

43. A lot of it seems to be personal animosity against Hillary. People just don't want to see her

have the personal satisfaction of becoming president. Nevermind the consequences for the country as a whole.

[skepticscott]

63. Christmas

came early for you, it seems...

[tokenlib]

41. Yup it's time to stop enabling the New Dem/Third Way oligarchy allies...

Every time we have a threat..the Supreme Court, saving Social Security, saving the safety net...

And we fall in line and support the nominee, and they get in office and kiss the corporate and Wall Street rings, have revolving door cabinet members who shuffle in and out from padding their nests in the private sector and Wall Street.. Then they show less concern than we did for our precious priorities..lest it cost the affluent a few more dollars.

Yeah the stakes are too high. Time to raise the attacks on the presumptuous nominee..before it's too late...

[Myrina]

12. Bzzzzt, wrong again. Thanks for playing, Mr. Obama.

Why did I vote for you? Twice? Hmmm.

[ladjf]

34. I feared that when Obama said early on that Ron Reagan was his hero,

we might be in for some disappointments.

[Art_from_Ark]

66. That was a real turn-off for me

As was his claim that he would be a "moderate '80s Republican", even though the programs he attrabuted to those Republicans were actually Democratic programs. '80s Republicans, moderate or otherwise, were voo-doo economists. If they stepped out of line, they were "taken to the woodshed", like Budget Director David Stockman was.

[Lizzie Poppet]

13. No, it's most certainly NOT time.

That'll happen, for party loyalty types anyway, when she officially gets the nomination, and not before.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

14. No can do, O.

Sorry, but I agree with much of Sander's criticism of you and the Democratic Party.

[hollowdweller]

15. I can support Hillary but I think Sanders should stay in till the end in case the email thing

Brings her down.

I really dug Edwards and I was totally surprised that he would try to go the distance with something like he had going on with the mistress.

So I think a backup needs to be there for Hillary.

[dmosh42]

16. From one "free trader" to another!

[AJH032]

19. I really hope Bernie stays in until the convention, regardless of the delegate count

Look, I really like both of our candidates, and I'll gladly support either one in the general. But can you imagine if Bernie dropped out? As if Trump didn't get enough media coverage as it is, 100% of the news would be dominated by the GOP race. How does this help the eventual Dem nominee? I think it's best for both HRC and Bernie that they both stay in the race all the way to the convention, so that the media has to pay it at least some attention.

[hrmjustin]

20. Thank you Mr. President!

[nc4bo]

22. He doesn't listen much to the left so going to have return the favor.nt

Last edited Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:02 PM - Edit history (1)

[MineralMan]

27. Endorsing without ENDORSING, it seems

I think everyone knows that he favors Hillary Clinton in 2016. It sounds like he's starting to make that even more clear. Good news for Clinton, to be sure.

[whatchamacallit]

29. I know I'm supposed to give a shit

but...

[Waiting For Everyman]

30. That is really inappropriate.

Obama seems to think he knows what will happen. Is he into fortune telling now? Does he have a crystal ball? Maybe he's an astrologer? Is he channeling Nancy Reagan?

Sounds like that was said in reply to the Deep Pockets' asking how much longer they will have to fund Hillary in the Primary. I'll bet they're getting sick writing those big, fat checks.

Too bad Deep Pockets, there are months more to go!

[polichick]

31. Big Dem donors might care what he thinks about this - I sure don't.

[ladjf]

32. I predicted that Obama would nominate a conservative judge

and I predicted that he was going to make the jump to Clinton halfway through the primary.

[Smarmie Doofus]

35. Well , actually, no. He's wrong.

The "time to unite" behind her..... IF that time ever comes.... is after she becomes the nominee.

[sadoldgirl]

36. It was clear from the beginning that he would

not stay neutral. He has interfered in our Senatorial
primary in my state, he is doing it now in Florida, and
now for HRC.

All I can hope for is that he will realize at some point
that his actions may divide the party even more, if not
driving voters totally against it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Obama has a right to his opinion.

So do I.

[Vinca]

38. I imagine he felt the same way about Hillary in 2008.

Sorry, but the campaign has a few miles to go and we'd just as soon see it to its conclusion.

[dinkytron]

44. Just keep the hits coming, Hillary fans.

[Miles Archer]

46. Oh hell no

[Tarc]

47. Obama channeling our own Skinner on this

We're not going to tell one of our own implicitly to hang em up, but it is a subtle acknowledgement of the reality on the ground, and to begin focusing on Trump and the GOP.

[Alfresco]

48. It's Happening! :-)

[Miles Archer]

55. Right now, it's more like the sound of one hand clapping.

Yes, I read Skinner's post. His website, his rules, which include the right to not "rally around" Clinton until she gets the nomination.

Yes, I read Obama's remarks. Same deal.

[restorefreedom]

53. guess we know where you stand on that quaint little custom of voting

i mean, half the country still to vote and you want us to fall in line?

really starting to look forward to jan 2017

[aikoaiko]

54. I hope Bernie campaigns all the way to the convention.

People with no interest in economic justice have been trying to give him bad advice since the beginning.

[Broward]

57. Don't worry Mr. President, Hillary will be touting your TPP in due time.

Just be patient. The decimation of what's left of the middle class will continue.

[CrispyQ]

58. I'm sick of this shit from dem leadership.

This kind of behavior isn't making it any easier to vote for HRC if she gets the nom. They already have an enthusiasm problem on the left & now they basically tell us to get in line before almost half the country has voted.


“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.” ~Zappa

The kind of BS we've seen in this election is the democratic party taking the scenery down.

[Samantha]

59. Translation: Clinton will support the TPP (a legacy issue for Obama) and Sanders will oppose it

President Obama is legacy oriented now, and that is understandable. He just doesn't feel the BERN.

Sam

[me b zola]

64. Me b zola to President Obama

I enthusiastically voted for you in 2008. Your lack of leadership lead me to vote for Jill Stein in 2012. Bite me.

ETA: Remember how during the gulf BP oil crisis you had fish sniffers to determine if seafood from the gulf was safe to eat? Yeah... I sniffed around Hillary and determined that she is not safe to vote for.

[Bluenorthwest]

65. If he wants to say that he needs to step up and not play gossip and proxy gambits.

If he's not saying that, it's not proper to treat the President as one's own Charlie McCarthy.