Wednesday, June 08, 2016

Hillary Clinton, the Millennial Generation, and the Bernie Revolution

Well she finally did it. After years of battling to return the White House where she once lived.

After years of highs and lows, and scandals real and imagined.

Hillary Clinton is now the Democratic Party's presidential candidate.

And it was a historic moment. 

Hillary Clinton flung herself into the general-election campaign with an embrace of her role in history as the first woman ever to win the presidential nomination of a major American political party.

And an emotional one. For the election of the first female president would send a  powerful message to the millions of young women and girls in that country.

“To every little girl who dreams big: Yes, you can be anything you want — even president...”

And it's certainly one I would celebrate.

But sadly, last night's primaries also marked the end of Bernie Sanders' White House dreams...

And although Sanders vowed to continue his struggle for a political revolution all the way to the Democratic convention, many of his young supporters were bitterly disappointed.

They booed whenever Clinton's name was mentioned or started chanting "Bernie or Bust."

Some of them are threatening to not vote, or support an independent candidate, or write in Sanders' name on their ballots, or even vote for Donald Trump.

Who used his victory speech last night to reach out to them. 

“For all of those Bernie Sanders voters who will be left out in the cold by a rigged system of superdelegates, we welcome you with open arms,” Trump said in remarks on Tuesday at Trump National Golf Club Westchester in New York.

So the big question is, can Clinton win over Sanders' followers? 

“As she claimed ownership of the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday evening, Hillary Clinton knew she had to appeal to supporters of Bernie Sanders, the insurgent progressive whose campaign attracted millions of young voters. 

“Sen. Sanders, his campaign and the vigorous debate that we’ve had about how to raise income, reduce inequality and increase upward mobility have been very good for the Democratic Party and for America,” she said, waving a giant olive branch at her still-unreconciled rival.

Because she will need the support of all those millions of millennials to inject some energy and enthusiasm into her campaign if she is going to defeat Trump. 

And it won't be easy because many of them simply don't trust her.

For obvious reasons...

And I know I have this recurring nightmare...

Or this even scarier one...

But the good news is I'm sure most of the millennials will end up voting for Hillary. As I would if I was an American. 

For they are a progressive generation, most of them despise misogynists and bigots like Trump. They know he must be stopped, and they will fight hard to defeat him.

So last night although many of them were bitterly disappointed, and hurting. For it does hurt when youthful idealism hits a brick wall. As I'm sure you all remember.

Rather than vent their anger, many of them used the occasion to just say thank you Bernie.

Which is of course the best news of all. For they are the future.

They want a political revolution.

They will force Hillary Clinton further to the left than she ever imagined.

So as Bernie said last night, the struggle will continue...

Please click here to recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers.


  1. Clinton versus Trump.
    Frightening choice. Clinton looks like a not-terribly-competent (possibly good policy wonk in some cases?), warmongering neo-liberal politician and Trump, well, blowhard, lying, narcissist is being kind. And these are the best choices the most powerful country in the world can offer to lead it?

    I suspect that a good number of millennials and a lot of democrats who dislike Hilary will hold their noses and vote for her, faut de mieux. The alternative is probably even worse.

    1. hi jrkrideau...It certainly isn't a great choice, and one has to wonder how it came to this. But yes, Hillary Clinton is still a better choice than Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders has pushed her a bit to the left, so it's better than it might have been...

  2. You would think that most of these young Bernie believers would eventually come over to Hillary's camp, given the choice between Trump or Clinton, but I would hazard to guess that just as many will pass on voting in this election, simply because to them, a vote for Hillary, is still selling out on their principles. It's sad that in this instance, a person needs to vote for the lesser of two evils and not based on their belief of the need to change a rotten system. Democracy has been corrupted by capitalism. I'm still hoping that the semi-sane republicans come up with another, more palatable candidate to run as an independent against Trump in November, leaving the door open for Bernie to run as independent against Clinton. Imagine a four way race, with the Right votes split, as well as the Lefts. I could see Bernie pulling it off if it was a four way race. I have to admit, it was a breath of fresh air, to see a candidate actually come out and say the things about the 1%ers that needs to be addressed. Hillary seemed to mimic Bernie's ideals as the primary progressed, but as with most politicians, I have little faith that she will stick to these principles once Bernie is eliminated from the race and we'll be back to the same corrupt system. I also believe Hillary is a hawk and that she will engrain America into more wars of conquest, and eventually, bankruptcy.

    1. hi GreazedLitenen...I'm very sorry that Bernie Sanders didn't win the nomination, but he has planted the seeds of a political revolution. Those seeds will grow, and in the 2023 election the millennials will be an even more powerful force and the Democratic establishment will have to come up with a more progressive candidate who hopefully will effect real change. I would be hesitant to have the Democrats split the vote, unless I could be sure that the Republicans split the vote to the same degree. For we simply cannot allow a bigot/fascist like Trump to be elected. The important thing now is to keep building a progressive movement. Because life is like a river, and it is flowing in the right direction...

  3. It is extremely disturbing that the DNC used fraudulent means to ensure HRC won the nomination. They have demonstrated that they are not much better than the Republicans.
    Sure, she's obviously preferable to Trump, but there was a really palpable chance for true change with Sanders - the kind of change the world desperately needs...

    1. Anonymous3:50 PM

      Agreed. Big money doesn't really care if Hillary or Trump get in. One thing is certain, they are fearful of Sanders.
      Big money controls both the DNC and the RNC, but they don't control Sanders. Clearly People want and need Sanders, but the establishment doesn't.

    2. hi Liberta...I too am very disappointed by the final result, but let's remember that thanks to Bernie Sanders a powerful movement was created, and if it continues to grow over the next few years, this election will be the last one where the establishment gets to dictate what happens. The left is the future and we will get there sooner or later...

  4. Clinton is the very worst example of a revolving-door bribe-taking politician. It's absolutely foolish to consider this is a breakthrough for women in America. It will set women in America further behind as Hillary is paid to represent Wall Street interests while making spending cuts related to women's interests.

    Hillary didn't even smash the bribe-taking glass ceiling on her own. All her political credentials stem from her being a First Lady.

    I hope Trump wins. That way a real role model for women, Elizabeth Warren, can run on a FDR New Deal revival for 2020. The 2016 presidential election is a wash. Both candidates have rightfully earned the disgust of the American people.

    Better that Trump destroys the economy producing a Democratic revolution than Hillary destroying the economy on Wall Street bribes producing a Republican revolution.

    1. hi Ron...I too would have hoped that Elizabeth Warren might have been the first female President. But I don't believe that Trump should be allowed to win. For if he does he could do enormous damage, lead us into war, and turn the United States into even more of a nightmare than it already is. Be patient, celebrate the fact that Sanders has created a movement that can only become more powerful, and let's take it from there...

  5. sad day for democracy, Hillary will make GWB look progressive

    1. hi let's not exaggerate. If her warlike impulses can be contained Hillary will be much better than GWB....

  6. No. Screw that condescending ThankYouBernie BS.

    Clinton is a much worse and more dangerous person than Trump (which given horrible Trump is, that's saying a lot).

    Her influence on the DNC is quite clear, what with all the issues in discrepancies with the primary voter results and the exit polls in a large number of states (#exitpollgate), massive voter rolls in the primaries being stripped of Sanders supporters, and taking positions that are counter to progressive views (supporting fracking).

    She had a demonstrated history of making really bad decisions and never learning from them (e.g. voting to invade Iraq, calling for no-fly zones in Syria, and urging a war with Iran). She also has a history of taking money from corporate interests and then in-turn doing their bidding (e.g. being against a bankruptcy bill supported by the credit card industry as First Lady, then turning around supporting it as a Senator AFTER receiving lots of contributions from financial institutions for her Senate campaign).

    She's not progressive, and she's never been A progressive.

    And she's never demonstrated a molecule of compassion or concern for anyone but herself (Look up "We came. We saw. He died!")

    And no, holding my nose to vote for the lesser of two evils - we've seen that play out many times in American society - that never works.

    And let's not forget - the US Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the current Obama State Department release a report that concluded she broke a number of rules and laws by setting up a private email server for herself while being Secretary of State and conducting State Department business - not only was that a severe lapse in judgement and a violation of many laws and exposing confidential information to hackers, but it will be used as a legitimate political weapon against her by Trump and the right wing from here till the election if she's not indicted.

    America has a candidate that candidate that works for the people and a true progressive - Bernie Sanders.

    1. Anonymous11:37 PM

      You are absolutely correct. Her son-in-law works for Goldman Sachs. She was once a card carrying Republican member in college. She is NOT a Democrat. She's closer to a Reagan -type Republican. She voted against raising the minimum wage to $15/hour, yet campaigns on the need to reduce inequality in the US while wearing a $12,000 Armani blazer. No one should trust this woman. I weep for my American cousins, they are facing a terrible choice. The only way out is if the Democrats do the right thing and support Sanders at the convention.
      This is what happens when politicians place their parties ahead of the interests of country. That's what happened in Canada under the Harper regime. Thank goodness the millennial came out to vote to set this country straight.

    2. hi CV Sog...I don't consider the thank you Bernie messages to be condescending. I think younger Americans wanted to say how grateful they are for the movement Bernie created. She's not as progressive as I would like, and definitely not as progressive as Bernie. But we've come a long way in just a year, and there is no reason we can't make that movement even stronger, keep a check on Hillary, and win the 2023 election...


    Geoff Garin
    The contrast between Hillary's speech and Trump's speech tonight should deepen the panic in the Republican Party. He's not in her league.

    1. I agree, with you on the difference between the substance of Hillary's platform and Trumps, as the speeches proved, but sadly, I don't think it matters. The Repugnicans will vote for Trump in record numbers, not matter how many lies he tells, and the progressive Democrat voters, who are tired of their parties addiction to super pacs and lobbyists, will not vote in record numbers, leaving the door open for the thief to walk in and steal the election.

  8. Bernie has a lot in common with Trump. Both are misoginists who can't abide the though of a woman in charge. Neither has much time for anyone not lily white. Both deal in magical thinking . Both are lying about the superdelegates.

    1. Bernie is a mysognist? Okay that's a first. Is that because he ran against Hillary? Do you have any proof to back that statement because if it's as ridiculous as your claim that he doesn't have any time for anyone who's not lily white, I call bullshit. Have you seen the pictures of him marching with MLK? He seems to be the only candidate who has taken a strong stand against the American model of prisons for profit, which is mostly geared to encarcerate people of colour.
      Magic thinking? So I guess according to you, we should sit back and just let Wall Street, Corporations, and the 1%ers rape and pillage our finacial futures because..... Yeah, maybe you can explain your reasoning behind this claim as well?
      And you end you paragraph with another unsubstantiated claim. How is Bernie lying about the super delegates?
      I look forward to your reply, although I won't hold my breath.

    2. Anonymous11:43 PM

      Being a woman has nothing to do with it. If you want a real woman of good character then it is Elizabeth Warren. This is not a case of any woman will do. Hillary is simply a bad choice. It's OK to say a person is a bad choice without being a misogynist. If I point to a Canadian politician like Kelly leitch and say she is a horrible person for wanting to deny medical care to refugee children with diabetes does that make me a misogynist? I don't think so. Did you read Simon's article about Rempel? Does that make him a misogynist? Seriously, I think you need help, because in your reality no one can criticize a woman.

    3. hi rumleyfips...Bernie is not a misogynist and he ran a very noble campaign. As I said in my post, I think there are some positive aspects to Clinton's win, the main one being that it does inspire young women and girls. And the unelected super delegates are a problem because they should have been more evenly divided between Clinton and Sanders. The other problem is that the Democrats are not appealing enough to the large class of independents that fuelled both Sanders and Trump's campaigns. But as I said in my post beggars can't be choosers, and the main thing is to defeat Trump...

  9. Anonymous3:48 PM

    If Trump becomes president, it'll be the fault of the Democrats for not choosing Sanders as their leader.
    I still wouldn't vote for Hillary even if it means Hitler would get in. The fact of the matter is Sanders has a much better chance of beating Trump than Hillary.
    The rigged Democratic party is to blame for promoting Hillary over Sanders. Hillary represents more economic slavery by Wall Street over Americans, and more income inequality. She has no interests in improving the lives of average Americans.
    Hillary has a very good chance of losing against Trump. This is something the Democratic party machine doesn't seem to acknowledge. They will pay a heavy price if at the convention they back her instead of Sanders.

    1. I totally agree, they want to keep the status quo, even to the detriment of their own election probabilities, and if you don't believe that, just look at the lob sided right leaning Congress Obama has had to deal with. The repugnicans don't care, power at any cost, to the point where that are actually about to put Hitler on their ticket, and even with all the racism and bigotry flying out of that enormously "Yuge" mouth of his, they don't care. I believe the left won't sell their souls to remain in power, and that's why I'm afraid the Democrats are handing the presidency to Trump, and we're doomed if that happens.

    2. hi anon 3:48...I too believe that Sanders is better suited to beat Trump, as many polls showed. But we have to deal with reality, Clinton is the candidate whether we like it or not, and a fascist like Trump must be defeated...

  10. W.O.W.

    Just FUCKING WOW!!!

    Sorry for the profanity Simon, but some of your posters here really have their heads up their fucking ASSES! Hillary Clinton is worse than GWB? Is worse than Trump?!?!?! Are you fucking serious???

    Hillary Rodham Clinton was from her college days onward a clear fighting LIBERAL, you know what is these days co-opted by the term Progressive? She went and worked to set up law clinics for poor people and of colour in the segregationist South, went undercover to expose illegal racial profiling at a time where she ran the risk if exposed of serious physical harm and even death as a race traitor, but this, no this counts for nothing. She has a decades long history of actually being one of the best American politicians on gay rights and recognition of gays/bi/trans/etc as equally being people and trusting them, for Fuck's sake her campaign manager is the first openly gay man to run the presidential campaign of a major party nominee!!!

    One of the main reasons she was targeted for GOP demonization and destruction from 1992 onward was that they FEARED her as a radical feminist liberal who could actually get things done, and was supported by her talented politician husband who trusted her with real power/authority. Despite kneecapping her as First Lady on health care she STILL managed to get health care for children in place before then running to become a Senator on her own.

    This woman has done a LOT to prove her liberal credentials just by withstanding the GOP smear and attack machine for literally decades, yet that is only on top of what she had done prior which is why they went after her so much, because she was clearly the greatest liberal female threat to GOP male power structures out there!

    So it really fucking pisses me off when I see bullshit like I'm seeing in this thread about how she is some sort of evil option as bad or worse as anything the GOP ever coughed up! She isn't, and any SERIOUS political observer of American politics who is not blinded by some sort of ideological or other biases should be able to see this truth, if they can be bothered to put the effort in! I know all this because I first started paying attention to the Clintons before he ran for President after a speech he gave to the Dem convention some years earlier, like a later Senator names Obama did which got him national prominence too. So I've watched the way HRC has been systematically demonized, smeared, distorted, and trashed, primarily from the right, but also sadly and especially in this current year, from the supposed progressive left too. You can disagree with how she operates, what she feels is the best foreign policy, but to treat her the way so many in this thread just did, well that is going WAAAAAY too far, and deserves to be called out for the fucking shit it really is!

    Sorry Simon, but I'm not going to just sit by and watch this. She may not be the perfect liberal vessel to break the glass ceiling, but she is by any reasonable rational means of measurement more than a true enough liberal in her actual factual history (as opposed to all the smears and distortions that surround her, and BTW, the server thing is almost certainly a product of being on such destructive and consistent attack for so long, it may have been a bad call, but a clearly understandable one and not some sign of gross incompetence or criminality) and does not serve the utter bullshit I saw here today, especially not right after her historic win last night.

    You know me Simon, I stay away from use of profanity almost every single time, so please, Please recognize just how offended and infuriated I am with what I read here. You (generic you being used here) don't have to love her, but you do need to respect her and her history, and she deserves so much better than this fucking assholery from those that claim to care about liberal/progressive values!

    1. hi Scotian...I understand your outrage. But I've seen the same phenomenon before. The left does have a knack for fighting itself, and as I said in my post, Clinton is the only one who can beat Trump now, and we can't let our divisions lead us to disaster...

    2. Apart from everything else, read this report -

      This is why I will never trust Hillary Clinton. She broke the law and put a lot of lives in jeopardy.

  11. Simon:

    Part of the problem though Simon is that we fundamentally disagree about her liberalism, and Sanders actual "progressiveness", and the "movement" he "created". A lot of what I saw was not so much about being progressive as it was anti-Hillary when it comes to the independents he was pulling in (I will freely acknowledge that the Dems he was attracting to his cause in the primary were more about that than simply being anti-Hillary, but even there there was clearly some), and there was a lot of anger and rage fueling his campaign, especially the longer it ran on. His so called issue attacks on Clinton presupposed corruption on her behalf, last time I looked Simon that is a character attack.

    The speech transcripts in particular are offensive, because you know as well as I do that she was paid what she was paid for is the speech product and her being who she was, not for unknown future considerations, that is the way it is with public speakers of her level and calibre, we went through the same thing with Justin after all. That this was ZERO proof of corruption, indeed, she and Bill took the route less corruption laden, the usual type of political corruption by those that have held high office is they become K Street lobbyists, not public speakers. If she had gone that route, THEN I would agree a case for concern would and should be made regarding possible corruption.

    Then there is the argument that Sanders pulled her left, like she didn't and wouldn't ever want to be there on her own. The problem I have with this is that I would submit based on her life history that she is more comfortable being a liberal, but the political environment for most of her political life did not permit it, keep in mind just how powerful the rise and dominance of the religious right made the GOP for several decades, from the 80s through to, well, now, if she and her husband had not adapted to the extent they had the result would have almost certainly be MORE hard core rightwing policies and politicians dominating, not some some sort of liberal/progressive salvation if only they hadn't surrendered.

    Part of what pisses me off when the Clintons are discussed is that the context in which they had to operate somehow never seems to be taken into consideration, and the way the separation of powers structured the American government, and the way the Congress flipped GOP in 1994, in no small part BECAUSE of the liberal policies Clinton tried to do in those first two years, and not just the health care issue either. He, and she did what they could to walk a very difficult tightrope, and for that they are condemned as traitors and sellouts and "triangulators" and even neocons so vile they are no better than GOPers themselves. Well excuse me if I find that not only ignorant but offensive.

    Sanders did I would agree help show there is now a much wider political environment for her to move to the left, especially on the economic issues, and that IS important, I quite agree, but that is not the same thing as saying she has to be dragged there against her will and beliefs, which is what most people who use this argument clearly are doing. I think she is cautious, but then after what he career history has been as the premiere target of the worst bile and hatred of the right wing of America for a quarter century, the source of creating many right wing media sources no less, how could she not have become so? Moreso, would she not be foolish and unfit to hold power were she to be so unmindful of this reality she is up against? This is the same machine after all that has opposed President Obama from his coming to power, and effectively brought governing to a near standstill for over a half decade now.

    To be continued...

  12. Continuation:

    It is the lack of this understanding that enrages me so much Simon, you are far less serious a case with this, in your case I think you have an overly charitable view of Sanders, and your view of Clinton is somewhat contaminated by the massive misinformation campaign that has surrounded her. I mean the only reason I feel as well protected from the worst of it is that I came to know her and her husband before it started, and then watched this campaign take shape and thus I was able to keep the reality separate from the fictions. I was also paying close attention to the tools being created and used to do this damage with, because I saw how powerful they were and how dangerous they could and would be, and feared their import, some of which we saw Harper import and use in creation of the Harperium down the road.

    This is not to say she is unblemished, perfect, whatever. Of course she isn't, she has made decisions I thought were bad calls as a political figure, I really think the private server was just asking for the trouble it got her (even if I do believe I get why she did so), and she does have issues as a political figure. The problem I have though is that by comparison to other political figures at her level she is held to standards far different and more stringent than not just other female politicians, not just other male politicians generically, but even her husband. If I saw the critiques of her being more in line with these standards, I would be far less angry and inclined to defend her as I have, because I would not see the need, but Simon, I have to tell you truly, I really see what I'm talking about, and because most people only started to get to know her once the smear campaign had started that is the basis most start with. That old expression about where there is that much smoke there must be fire I've heard time and again, except everyone fails to remember how powerful the smoke machines that have been aimed at her and Bill have been from the outset. She back in the 90s first named her enemy, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, which we now know is real and now referred to as the Vast Right Wing media/Noise Machine.

    Sanders on the other hand has led a sheltered and protected political life prior to running for the Dem nomination, and in truth he faced the EASIEST run I've ever seen of any primary candidate of seriousness in any primary I've watched in 4 decades on both Dem and GOP sides. The GOP left him alone, indeed aided him in primary states with tens of millions of ads attacking Hillary, and Hillary's campaign truly handled him with kid gloves. I've watched with shock and disbelief as Sanders supporters and his campaign complained of vast malicious attacks from team Clinton. Simon, I am someone that has paid close attention to political campaigns, including primaries in the US since I was a single digit aged person, as well as watching the Clintons campaign since they were still in Arkansas, and I tell you truly I've never seen a less confrontational and hard hitting campaign from either of them in any of their prior campaigns than Sanders faced.

    Sanders is not properly vetted, his taxes are still hidden, Jane's history with a now failed college that appears to have failed financially because of decisions she took while running it, his early personal history prior to being mayor, these are all unexplored areas that you KNOW a GOP oppo research team not only would have easily dug into but plastered across. It wasn't just the socialist label that made him such a weak candidate to face Trump, it was this side of things, and his, lets be honest here, own thin skin to confrontation and challenge. His supporters and those that paid attention to the primaries may have had some definition of him, but the much wider electorate for the General? Not so much , and this oppo research would have been used for that, as it always is.

    To be continued....

  13. Continuation:

    Remember also his complete lack of awareness of the importance of intersectionality. Everything is subordinate to income inequality in his mind, little things like women's rights/issues, race relations, they are secondary to that, whatever those that actually are directly impacted by such actually feel, which is why he lost this primary in no small part I would say, because he failed to acknowledge this reality instead imposing the same things he has been saying since the time of my birth, which given this week I turn 49, well...says a lot right there.

    Bernie Sanders had a couple of important good messages at the outset. Income inequality is a real and growing problem that must be dealt with before it gets dealt with in a more direct and bloody fashion, as these things have in human history throughout time immemorial. He is also right about the massive overarching and overreaching role of money in the American political system especially after the Citizens United decision equated money with speech and gave it the same 1st Amendment protections (although this idea that HRC is not equally offended by this given that the CU case was about a smear campaign against her and how it was funded, remember the original full name of the group is Citizens United Not Timid, what acronym does that get you, that she would not want this dealt with too is clearly moronic). That said, as a messenger he was fatally flawed in several ways, most of which were NOT exploited by HRC and would have been were he the nominee the GOP was to face, which is why he never got any real super-delegate support, especially from those that had actually worked with him in Congress.

    Sanders is a 60s protestor who never really left the time of his youth, he was not a good candidate for the Presidency of America in the 21st Century, no matter how serious some of his messages were. There is a lot more to being a President than speechifying, and there is where he time and again shows his limitations. He was clearly a Congresscritter of limited achievements in both House and Senate (this amendment king thing is seriously overstated and when examined does not hold up anywhere near as well as his supporters like to believe), and he was also far too inflexible of mindset for an American President, and his refusal to do the research and learning work on issues outside his core issues that he has been focused on for decades on economics was a major weakness and problem too.

    His foreign policy was non-existent, his credential was supposedly his excellent judgement in one vote regarding the Iraq War authorization, yet the reality of the presence of American power of all types in the world means that foreign policy is something of far greater breadth and depth than simply about when to use and not use military force, and he never demonstrated the least awareness of this, let alone the willingness to do the hard work of learning and adapting, not ever through this primary, and that was a major red flag in itself.

    Sanders had a remarkable run, but a lot of it was not fueled because he was the progressive saviour, it was, unfortunately fueled by anti-Hillary Clinton sentiment, some of it because she was a woman, some of it because she was a Clinton. Perhaps not the majority of it, but clearly a major minority faction of it was Simon, and I really want to believe you are perceptive enough to see this, and able to acknowledge it too. Sanders was always a majorly flawed candidate, the fact that the GOP literally not just left him untouched but actively aided him in itself should tell you something about the vulnerabilities they perceived, and the fact he held up so poorly to the honestly light level confrontations from Hillary Clinton and her campaign shows he simply was the wrong messenger for this message and definitely the wrong person to be the Dem nominee, period.

    To be concluded...

  14. Conclusion:

    Clinton on the other hand, despite her issues and flaws, has also shown the ability to stand in the breath of the dragon for extended periods and hold her own, her numbers may not be as good as Sanders, but hers clearly are her floor, whereas his has never been even searched for, which is why the polling argument about who is better against Trump is clearly nonsensical to serious political observers of the American scene. Sanders has never been seriously tested in as hostile and hypercritical environment as a Presidential election, nothing even close to it, whereas she has been mutiple times, and that must be factored in too as to who is the better suited candidate against Trump.

    She is also someone that can control her temper far better than Sanders, and is clearly the better foil against Donald Trump, as she showed last week. Her being an established serious person is also a selling point against the wildness of Trump, whereas Sanders own lacks here would have put them on an even platform, and that would NOT have worked to the Dems advantage against Trump in the General. On so many fronts Simon I can show why Sanders was the weaker and more flawed candidate against Trump, and Clinton the stronger. I can also point out time and again that HRC is not history/progressive's greatest monster despite how she is clearly seen by so many. She has a strong liberal core in her history in her actions, and in that *I* trust. So on so many grounds she is clearly the right person at the right time in the right place.

    One last little point. I keep hearing about how Sanders brought so many new people into the party/process, that he is leading a movement , a revolution, yet when it came to actual voting, those voters actually failed to show in anywhere near the numbers he was claiming he had behind him. That for me is an important point that need sto also be kept in mind, it is one thing to have big rallies, HRC did in 2008, and it misled her to some extent, and she ran a much closer race than Sanders has in 2016. It is well known that rally size and voter turn-outs are not at all related, and can in fact be very misleading, as it clearly was with Sanders. HRC's voters may not have been as vocal and noisy, but they actually showed up where it mattered most, at the polls.

    She won by a major degree, majority of pledged delegates, as well as overall majority, AND over 3 and a half million more votes than Sanders too in the popular vote counts. This is not a result you can rig without it becoming obvious and prosecutable in my opinion Siomon, this is simply the truth/reality of what is. She won because she was clearly the more electable candidate, and it is also important to note that she consistently carried roughly 2/3rds of democrats in all the exit polls done throughout the primary, what kept Sanders in contention as much as he was were those independents, and there is real grounds to believe a good chunk of those were a combination of anti-Hillary motivated folks and GOP ratfuckers, not actual progressives. So there is that as well to consider.

    I'm sorry I did a multi-parter on this here on you Simon, but I really think this is an important perspective that some of your readers here really need to be hit with. I'm not annoyed with you, I'm annoyed with them, and this is what prompted this. I would ask you to consider how serious you know I take politics and being a fair and fact based analyst of such when you read this, even if you do not agree, I'm sure you realize this isn't me spinning anything, this is my honest read based on my literally decades long history of observing in detail and understanding of politics, not just in our federal system but also in our American neighbours. Thanks for putting up with me when I do this, your forbearance has always been greatly appreciated by me in this.