If nominated, HRC has an obligation to STAY clearly to the left of Bill.

[Ken Burch]

It would be intolerable if she went all the way back to the '96 platform, or even close to it.

There simply can't be any good reason for there to ever again be another race between a reactionary and a bland centrist. That is no longer a meaningful difference, and just being pro-choice would not be distinction enough.

[libdem4life]

1. She has no obligation except those of her donors.

But I don't see her, even with Republican money, getting an invite to live in the White House as President. She is too flawed and lacks Bill's charisma.

And to those that want Bernie folk to get in lockstep, I'd counter that the barrage of anti-Trump Republican fawning now adding to other baggage, is counter-productive...it's now the internet generation. That wasn't a factor back in the early 90s. So triangulation was easier. Now, one has video and social media. I don't think she can make that social/political leap. And Trump has an uncanny mastery of not only the message, but the bared teeth of a fearless attacker. And they both are shapeshifters as to their "message".

The two least-liked/favorability candidates in history. Go figure.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Kinda like trying to obligate a crocodile to become a butterfly.

Ain't gonna happen.

[silvershadow]

3. +1.

[pdsimdars]

4. Gimmie a break. . . you're just fantasizing. She will govern on the RIGHT. And blame

whoever she needs to. Like Obama did.

[Baobab]

5. Much of it is out of her hands due to trade deals

Example:


https://www.princeton.edu/~pcglobal/conferences/wtoreform/Betts_Nicolaides_memo.pdf

[Joob]

6. people?

people < donors
but sure, let's say it's all in good will especially that Republican money

[anigbrowl]

7. What you want is not an obligation

Really, some folks in here seem more concerned with defeating the Third Way in the Democratic party than they are with beating the Republicans. Anything not sufficiently left of center is dismissed as being equivalent to a far-right position.

It's bullshit, I'm a centrist because hard-left economic prescriptions tend not to work any better than hard-right ones. I grew up in the European democratic socialist country and while I would like the US to become more like EU countries in many respects it's not an automatic win for everyone by any means - socialist policies often result in negative economic outcomes of their own that can be just as bad as capitalistic ones. There is no single economic ideology that yields a demonstrably superior outcome in every circumstance.

One reason the far left keeps finding itself marginalized is its self-absorbed pomposity. HRC has an 'obligation' to hold a particular position! 'It would be intolerable' for her to do otherwise! 'There simply can't be any good reason' for anything else! Has it not occurred to you that if you want to persuade people you need to come up with actual reasons for why you have drawn those conclusions? If you no longer see a meaningful difference between a reactionary like Trump and a bland centrist like Hillary, then that does not speak well for your judgment.

[JackRiddler]

8. As if. Good night!

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Clinton doesn't have obligations. She has destiny.

We're the ones who have an obligation to deliver it.

If you don't agree with that, there's always Sanders.